The Express.
London, England, 1850-06-27 00:00:00

COPYROLD INFEUNCHISEMENT

evvll;;;Waoti. ;fainaOf this
bill, expressed a hope that at lest it would meet with a full
sad fair diietssion on its merits, so as to prepare him to
meet the wishes of the house by alterations in committee.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER opposed the bit as en unnaceseary
and unjust 'outlaws.* with the rights of the lords of the
manor, and moved that it be read a second time that day six
months.
Mr. G. HRATEICOTE thought it would he advantageous
to put as sad to all conyhold *inures, but objected to the
bill es onweided, and wholly iseffectual for its purpose.
Mr. S. ADAIR suggested that the hill might be reed
pvo,lo►ma. to 4 referred to a select committee.
Ste G. GREY amid there seemed to he a general opiates
fa favour of a compulsory eefranchiwatent, and, bang sr.
rived at au agreement upon it. principle, the better course
was sorest! the bill a sewed time (not pro forma), and refer
it to a soiree committee. . .

- .....
Mr. MULLINGS oppwed the bill, as well
Sir O STRICKLAND, who pronAinced it • &lesion ; it
was not for the enfranchisement of ei•py holds, for it retained
the tenure, but simply to commute rents under that tenure
to a rent•eharge.
Alter SOIM remarks by Colonel SIBTEIORT and Mr. }TWI-
LIT, the Peoond reading was affirmed, on a division, by 103
against 81.
The bill was then read a second time and ordered to be
committed on the 19:h of July.

ACCIDENTS ON RAILWAYS BILL.
Mr. NEWDEGATE moved the second reading of this
bill. He commenotel by referring to an at idiot which some
time since had taken place on the Milland Counties Rail.
way. An offer of ISO! had beta made tit the injured man,
which was refused, and the am was brought before the
Warwick assume, on which oessettet Mr. Intake Mauls
begged to know whether the railway company were serious
in their opposition to the demand made,. and said that if
they refused it they ought to post a notice at their
Amines to the effect that if any amid/nut
occurred at their line no medical assistance
would be provided. The company then applied to the supe-
rior courts, where the unsatisfactory state of the law as re-
garded railway accidents was made known. A case had ',c-
entred on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, in which
an accident occurred to a Miss Heywerth. A medical man

was went for and he found the ladjinsensible. He attended
her for some time, and then proceeded to recover coupon's-
ties for his services in the Canty Court of Manchester, and
the company were ordered to pay the expenses. Another
secident warred on the same railway, by means of which •
Mr. Whitten lost his life, and in that ease the court at
Wakefield held that the company were- not liable, but that
their officers were. A dread'ul accident occurred again oath*
Yorkshire and Lancashire Railway, by which • stoker was
thrown of the line of rails, and had his leg cut off The
company were called upon in that case of extremity to send
kw medical assistance, but they refused, and, leaving the
amputated l; g up n the road, they sent the man on to the
dispensary at Bolton, and he die I. Now, the question was,
should the law allow railway conspenies to tr.at unfottu.
nate passengers is that meaner? (Hear.) The kill which
be proposed did not seek to make the cesareans liable in all
test/ for the expense of medical attendance, but it paid; d
that they shculd in the first instance be liable
to send for a medical man when an accident occurred, and
It gave them power to obtain the amount &forwards from
the permit injured, if be was rich, and the injury was occa-
sioned by bee own eareleunme, or from the parish, if he was a
pauper. He contended that this was just, and that disci-
pline on railways was analegoes to discipline en board tai
grant ships, which were compelled en carry surgeons. He
was at • loss to know how it emid promote the interest of
nilwsy a empties if they increased the insecurity of the
public in ease of eccideets occuring ; and if it were said that
railway accident, were rare, then might it with fairness be
alleged that the retponsibtlity imposed by this measure
would be small. He believed the bill, if pined, would be
an act of mercy to the poor, and that it would impart sails-
faetion to the country.
Mr. ELLIS protested against the iajustice of confining
this obligedion to railway companies, and moved to defer ;he
seemed reeding of the bill for six mantra.
Mr. ADDERLEY supported the bi.l, which cast no lit-
bility upon railway companies, except in cases of their own
. . .

Colossi SIBTHORP also rapnerted the biil, and reratted
that it did so: Ito further, and compel railway companies to
=skeane), compensation to petals who sulfaed through
their n•ilret_

Mr. LABO UCII ERE could not recommend the house to
Ism to the hill, which was extremely objectionable in
principle. Its effect wee to alter the general law of prin-
cipal and went; to compel railway companies in all casts
to coil in medical 'moistest*, they being resporsihle in the
first justices for the exstenee. At "resent the companies
were ultimately liable for medical assistance in accidents
&thins from the fault of their Navas's, and there wets no
menial eireuestanern which would Justify as application to
Wm ofu particular rule. . . . .

Mr. SPGONER contended that there were special cir-
cumstances, and denied that the object of the bill w I to 'Per
the general liability of railway companiis ; it merely pro-
sided that there should be no di lay in the first instance in
aesdir R for wedieal away...nee.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said his objection was
that the till did alter the law. and in one caw only, and no-
thing wan an b4Ol as exceptional legislation.
Mr. RICARDO likewise °poised the bi.l.
The honee then divided, when there splAtared
For the second reading
Against it
The bill was tn. reason lost.