The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-14 00:00:00

JUDGMENTS LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND:

BILL.
Committee postponed until to-morrow.
ACCIDENTS COMPENSATION BILL.

Sir J. FE it GUSON said, in moving the second reading
of this bill, that it was introduced with the consent and
approval of the railway companies in the kingdom. (Hear,
near.) He trusted, iherefore, that the house would give
the measure an impartial consideration. It was much to
be regretted that many people out of doors looked upon
railways as enemies of the public, whereas they constituted
the greatest benefactors of the present age. (Hear, hear.)
hallway companies did not ask to be relieved of the re-
sponsibilities that properly attached to them in carrying
the public, but they de ired to have their liability defined,
which he had endeavoured to do by this measure. Referring
to the law with respect to carrying goods, he contended
that the responsibility of railway companies was clearly de-
fined, but in regard to passengers the law was un-
certain, and exposed the railway companies to the most
extraordinary and most unjust claims. Lord Campbell's
Act mended the law, but its principles were carried to a far
greater extent than the noble and learned lord could possibly
ever have anticipated. Passengers paying the same rates
who were injured were most unequally compensated. The
present law, too, opened. the door to frauds to an normous
amount on the companies, and there were several cases on
record of money having been obtained from railway ootnpa•
nies for injuries which never occurred. Companies were im-
pressed with the belief that th-re was an organised body of
medical practitioners and lawyers who got up the majority of
cases against railways, and made a good living out of them,
for they piled up masses of medical evidence, and unduly
enlisted juries on behalf of their clients. Many cases, which
merely deserved nominal damages, were thus magnified to
unusual proportions, and the companies were amerced in
enormous and really penal damages. The hon. baronet
referred to a number of cases in support of his argument.
The remedy he proposed to protect railways from fraud on
the •ne hand, and prejudice on the other, was this. He
proposed to limit the preferring of claims to one year, a
principle laid down in the Merchant Shipping Act of last,
year, and that the exact amount of compensation should be
apportioned to each class of travellers, leaving them to
insure their lives with the companies for such larger
amount es they might thing proper. It might be said that.
there was a Railway Passengers Insurance Company, which
assured risks of this nature, but it was not at present the
interest of the companies to promote the issue of its maul:-
ranee tickets, because the amounts paid did not lessen their
liability. He did not submit this as an arbitrary bill, be •
cause he should be ready to amend it. in committee.
Mr. LONOFIELD stigmatised this as one ot the most
itiorp-trous and indecent measures ever introduced into the
L« gislature. Men were to be appraised like cattle—like
the beasts that perished—and this was the rate at which
human life was valued by railway people in their market—
first-class passengers, £lOO ; second, £3OO ; third, £2OO.
In the time of Athelie one, the value of a churl's
life was set down at £l3 65., and that of
the monarch at £',500; and at one time in
Ireland an eric, or price was set on the head of persons who
1. st their lives accidentally or otherwise. He deprecated
setting up a tariff of human life after this nature—so much
for an eye, so much for tetanus, and a maximum sum for
complete annihilation of the lives of A B or C, according
to the class be or she might have travelled.
(Hear, hear.) The bill would place dividends in
direct competition with human life, and he
did not apprehend that the public would be
carried more safely than at the present moment; indeed,
the railway interest promoting this bill—and this day so
fully represented in the house—had not dared to set up
that argument in favour of the bill, which the proposer had
supported by imputing perjury to juries and pettifogging
tricks to lawyers and medical men. (Hear, hear.)
The records of railway accidents testified that many
of them were caused by the negligence of underpaid and
overworked railway servants. (Hear, hear.) He begged
to move as an amendment that the bill be read a second
time this day six months.
Mr. BENTINCK seconded the motion. He attributed
many railway accidents to overspeed, generated by exces •
sive competition. Snch was the opinion of a select com-
mittee which sat for six months in 1858. and over which he
had the honour to preside.
There had never
Mr. THOM ['SON supported the bill.
been any attempt to assess the value of theThpe
lobs of
ut only the
ties in connection with railway accidents,
fly
This bill
money value of the person's life by
hisf
compensation for
domestic
proposed to affix a reasonable amountuiockly
and cheerfully
railway accidents, which would beq
the expense and risk of
paid by the companies withoutvy
burdene cast upon them,
litigation. Railways had
rnir
.oesdt hnena exorbitantth e
North-Eastern
ocrhthar-Eacatestre.rnOlutta of
and paid rates of
carried 55,160,000
years only 181, or nearly 19, had been injure.d, and these
that railways
been
nesriedfear saferred.
Rail-
way, with wilsegehew- als connected, during the last eight
not of
_ a serious kind, or I per annum, or one in two years
hie
aoctfettd,ilsoed
vcommunicationooi oti
vtehi
ya
impoverishedt ht
oawd
aervdesr
rbaeisi
wn
aaye:
tshe(aii
killed.
tblyeapnr principles
necs theirpipo ne s.
permeolhastedd.really
dividends
Juriesvvhieedrr
en nmi
dohesfaa had she
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
noott absolutely
possibly be carried
ofttoheeffbeieltl. were such
ot(hotiotp
eys
were
Passengers unlike cerri• ra of
goods, who had theit value
,tiee tied, Bible tor the safety of their
and charged special
,ii.ence caused accident er death.
/ites, except their own es
li the passenger
to thea.g'nst:
to insure companies What this. bill asked was for assen-
gerswould not, be liable. , tee alone to bietne then they
principlest he their ownos
insurance,
whichw c
h
was a voluntary
NV utterly opposed
contract for a reasonable and legitimate
bil l purpose. (Ilear, hear.) He set up these. objections to the
ofproo,d
without at all denyingd thatf the subject might not de-
serveoconsideration,re ol i
ht abi‘.3 that, possible,. an equitable mode
adopted in cases of compensation.
(:sear, hear.)
Mr. DUTTON cited cares of anomalous verdicts of com-
pensation awarded by juries in which he held the com-
panies were entirely blameless. (Divide, divide.) He
suggested that the subject be referred to a committee up
stairs.

Mr. J. •• LAY defended the bill. Ho was the chairman
.4- the ." Railway l'a:sengers Assurance Company," and
could recite to ih, bon. and learnt d mom!. r out of the
house many chse, that would make him laugh, and otbro'
at which be would shudder, including one where then'
was great reason to believe that murder hod ber,u eutn-
trotted in order to obtain competition.
Mr. BOV ILL said be had had a good deal of experience
in the courts, in conmoriou with compensation oases, and
knew that frauds were practised On insurance comps
nie

.9 I, a_o
This wovid ,117,747t..4,""tr;c:ri- rall;ayk. et, ,
panies nearly all the rcsponatiMt.te.tiouicie, „ 2
of the cow
and cast it 11))0T1 (iit_rtrPli_.tittehed to iht-tn,
I_, to wow, ernedy. Let the conip.iny issue tlcis, „ tf_est a
where the passengers were unprotected by
higher rate where the company agreed to bear all tbo ~az
of compensation in the event of accidents. It would not be
well to relieve railways of any of the proper responsibilities
which at present attached to them, and a rigid rule could
be drawn for general adoption. He could not un iersttind
why railway& should be exempted from the consequences
of their own carelessness, and every little stage coach or om-
nibus proprietor continued liable.
Mr. AYRTON recommended the proposer of the bill to withdraw it, so that the sul.ject might be referred to a select
committee. (Divide, divide )
Atter a few words from Mr PALL
Sir J. FERGUSSON replied. ,
The house then divided, win n then appeared—
For the second reading
Against it ... 70
90
Majority against the, second reading —2O
The bill was cons. quently lost.
CHUR.(7H RATES REDEMPTION BILL.
Mr. ALCO..K tooyed that the second readiog, of the bill
be fixed for the 10.11 of Juno.

On a division the motion was rejected, the numbers
being—
For the motion
Against 39
Majority ftga,nst the motion
The other orders having been disposed of', the house ad-
journed at 5 minutes to 6 o'clock.