The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-13 00:00:00

PETITIONS•

public meeting at which
By Mr. ROEBUCK, from the working men of Sheffield,
atgya;hnesti‘tihaeyocrloassii.cghaoifrpmuabnlioc-fhtohueseps on Sunday, and signed
it was agreed to. An HON. MEMBER, in favour of the
modification of the fire insurance duty; Mr. HADFIELD,
from the Law Society of Liverpool, in favour of the
Judgments Amendment Bill ; Mr. BAZLBY, from Man_
chester, to the same effect.

STATUTE LABOUR R ADS AND BRIDGES
(SCOTLAND) BILL.
Sir J. OGILVY moved the second reading of this bill,
the principles of which he said were in accordance with the
views and suggestions of public bodies in Scotland.
Mr. HOPE JOHNSTONE supported the bill, and cha-
racterised it as a very valuable one.
Mr. BLAcKuonx and Sir A. AGNEW assented to the
general principles of the bill, and suggested various amend-
ments of the details. - .

Sir J. FE ItGUSON, as one of the Royal Commissioners
on the roads of Scotland, assented to the necessity of the
bill.

-----
Sir E. COLEBROOKE supported the bill, and trusted
his hon. blend with whom this bill originated would listen
to no compromise of any kind.
After a few words from Mr. DALOLISH and Sir a
NloyrGomEaY, the bill was read a second time.— (Commit.
tee on Friday.)
STATUTE LABOUR ROADS AND BRIDGES
(SCOT i AND) TRANSFER BILL.
Sir J O(iILVY proposed the second reading. He said
it was based upon the recommendation of the Royal Corn-
mission.—Agreed to.—(Committee on Friday.)
JUDGMENTS, &c., LAW AMENDMENT BILL.M
were actually under £lOO,
Mr. HADFIELD moved the second reading. He said
the profession throughout the c,untry were unanimously in
"'cover more than £3,000. The house
favour of the bill. It would not have a retrospective effect,
and w, old not apply to Ireland. Three-fifths of all the re-
gistered
a einthet of opinion between Lord
and in the
continue to protect an interest of this,
kind. A t the present time a buyer must search to see it
any judgment had been
aaneletterhreisdthaegairpirsetntnhte vendor,s , evenb
couldathoughnaottthej urededitagdrsa:nn:osnatabeltyr n was
cited causes where judgments
.had
might
tn
occur
rreadt wanityhitnimaen.
people might have their
sharp practice on the part of attorneys
dealing
pc
Ih
andatuo
uur
purchases
otaahifsaneet
innocent,
sioem.vc
iatpstcni,or:trutt,
t:aedlnfr
aebtsiy
S. Leopards and the Maser of. the Rolls with respect to
searching. the former contenoing that such a proceeding
was imperative up to within an hour of the completion of a
proposed purchase, whilst the latter held that it was not.
The present law was obsolete so far as benefit to the public
was concerned, and ought to be, therefore, abrogated.
Mr.HUMBERSTONE supported the secone reading, as
the present law was exceedingly vexatious and most in-
jurious to both the buyers and sellers of land, The law
was pregnant with absurdities. For instance if a person
put up a picture for sale for £l,OOO, the buyer was actually
liable to lose his purchase money if he paid without
searching to ascertain if there were any judgment against
him.
proposed law,
and said he should support the law because
the present, and the
it was based upon just and rational principles, and would
correct the absurd and anomalous state of the present law.
Mr. MALINS explitined
rthe. past,
cent." men, who trafficked on the needs and ncoeB
" 60 per.
to extremity. •
cities of persons driven to raise money on any
" money jobbers" and
tl.trsmersv.ed the interests only of the
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL admitted that the sub-
ject
was of great importance, and fully appreciated the ex
cellent motives which induced his hon. and learned friend
(Mr. Hadfield) to bring this measure forward ; but ho
objected to the bill because it would institute a retrograde
l movement by affeetwg the reemtly-Eettiod laws with re'

spect to debtor and creditor. The bill went no further than
this : it would relieve people of the payment of 2s. or 38.
for searching to see whether persons with whom they were
dealing had any judgment entered up against them, a course
which it was obvious strict prudence dictated. This was,
strictly speaking, the sole purpose of the bill, which was a
mere bagatelle in comparison with the question of the bona
fides of persons having property and offering it for sale.
(Hear, hear.) He approved the bill, because it would
materially tend to nullify the statute law which had worked
well and usefully.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading 23
Against it 43
Majority against the second reading-20
POISONED GRAIN PROHIBITION BILL
(IRELAND).

Mr. PAULL moved' that the order for the second read•
ing be discharged, in order to introduce an amended bill.
Leave was accordingly given to introduce a new bill, and
it was read a first time.
JUDGMENTS LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND)

BILL.
Committee postponed until to-morrow.
ACCIDENTS COMPENSATION BILL.
Sir J. FE i 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, therefore, 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,
a hear.)
Railway companies did not ask to be ret'm in
eevedofctrhe re-
sponsibilities that properly attached to t
the public, but they de ired to have their liability defined,ryinr
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 companiesaw m
s clearly lyde-
fined, but in regard to law
passengers the
un-
certain, and exposed the railway companies to the mot;
extraordinary and most unjuet 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 rate's'
who were injured were most unequally compensated. The
present law, too, opened the door to frauds to an enormous
amount on the companies, and there were several cases on
record of money having been obtained from railway compa-
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 undid)
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 tne hand, and prejudice on the other, was this. He
proposed to limit the preferring of claims to one year, e
principle laid down in the Merchant Shipping Act of last
year, and that the exsct 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 tow
there was a Railway Passengers Insurane Company, which
assured risks of this nature, but it was not at present the
interest of the companies to promote the issue of its incur-
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. LONGFIELD stigmatised this as one of the most
monstrous and indecent measures ever introduced into the
Legislature. 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, £4OO ; second, £3OO ; third, £2OO
In the time of Athelane, the value of a churl's
life was set down at £l3 Gs:, and that of
the monarch at £1,500; and at one time in
Ireland an eric, or price was set on the head of persons who
lost 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. BENTNCK seconded :the motion. He attributed
many railway accidents to overspeed, generated by exces-
sive competition. Snch was the opinion of a select coin-
mitee which sat for six months in 1858, and over which he
had the honour to preside.
Mr. THOM PSON supported the bill. There had never
been any attempt to assess the value of the loss of domestic I
ties in connection with railway accidents, but only the
money value of the persons life by his family. This bill
proposed to affix a reasonable amount of compensaticn for
railway accidents, which would be quickly and cheerfully
paid by the companies without the expense and risk of
litigation. Railways had heavy burdens cast upon them,
and paid heavy rates of an exhorbitant character. Out of
55,160,000 people carried an the North-Eastern Rail-
way, with which he was connected, during the last eight
years only 181, or nearly 19, had been injured, and these
not of a serious kind, or I per annum, or one in two years
killed. This testified that railways were far safer than any
o her means of communication that had ever been devised.
Juries had acted so vindictively towards railways that
several of them had really been improvished and their
dividends depreciated.
The SOLIC ITO R-GENERAL considered the principles
of the bill were such that they could not possibly be carried
i-to effect. Railway companies were not absolutely respon-
sible for the safety of their passengers, unlike carriers of
goods, who had their value declared, and charged special
rates, except their own negligence caused accident or deatb.
It the passenger himself wa- alone to blame then they
would not be liable. What this bill asked was for passen-
gers to insure companies against their own wrong, which
was utterly opposed to the principles of insurance, which
was a voluntary contract for a reasonable and legitimate
purpose. (Hear, hear.) He set up these objections to the
bill without at all denying that the subject might not de-
s-irve co s deration, and that cif possible, an equitable mi de
of procedure might be adopted in cases of compensation.
( H ear, hear.)
Mr, DUTTON cited cases of anamolous 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. CLAY defended the bill. He was the chairman
of the "Railway Passengers Assurance Company," and
could recite to the hon. and learned member out of the
house many cases that would make him laugh, and others
at which he would shudder, including one where there
was great reason to believe that murder had been com-
mitted in osder to obtain competition.
Mr. BOV ILL said he had had a good deal of experience
in the courts, in connection with compensation cases, and
knew that frauds were practised on insurance companies
and e ther bodies, as well as upon railways. (H ear, hear,)
This bill would simply take trom the shoulde s of the com-
panies nearly all the responsibilities that attached to them,
and cast it upon the public. (Hear.) He woul I suggest a
remedy. Let the company issue tickets at a reduced rate
where the passengers were unprotected by insurance, and a
higher rate where the company agreed to bear all the risk
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 t hem and a rigid rule could
be drawn for general adoption. He could not understand
why railways should be exempted from the consequences
of their own earlessness, 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 subject might be ref erred to a select
committee. (Divide, divide.)
Atter a few words from Mr. PAULL,
Sir J. FERGUSSON replied.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading •• 7O
Against it 9O
Majority against the second reading
The bill was consequently lost.
CHURCH RATES REDEMPTION BILL.
Mr. ALCOCK moved that the second reading of the bill
be fixed for the 10th of June.
On a division the motion was rejected, the numbers
being
For the motion
Against
Majority against the motion
The other orders having been disposed of, the house ad-
journed at 5 minutes to 6 o'clock.