The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 27, 185 a

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

RAILWAY AND CANAL BILLS.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-JULY 26.

( From the Votes anti Proceedings of the House of
Oaramon4.)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

The fifth report of Mr. Cardwell's committee, appointed
to consider the principle of amalgamation as applied to
railway or railway and canal bilis, has just been issued.
It states that it appears to the committee to have been
established is evidence that competition fails to afford
the public the same security in respect of railway accom-
modation which it gives in the transactions of, ordinary
trade. The report reviews at considerable length the
evidence given before the committee on various subjects
relating to the management and working of the railway
system, and concludes by stating the general views of
the committee thereon. For the purpose of carrying
into effect these views the committee recommend. :

Clause (whereas it would tend to a more speedy and
effective administration of Indian Affairs in England,
and would materially diminish the expenditure of such
administration, if the business of the two departments
of the Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India,
and the Court of Directors of the East India Company,
were transacted in one and the same building, it shall
be lawful for the said Board of Commissioners to pro-
vide, and the said board shall, within two years from
the 30th clay of April, 1854, provide, in some suitable
situation, sufficient offices for the transaction of the
business of the two departments as aforesaid ; and the
said board is hereby empowered to sell the buildings and
premises now occupied by the Court of Directors in
Leadenhall-street, in the city of London, and to apply,
the proceeds thereof to defray any expenses which may
be incurred in providing convenient offices, in one
building, for the use of the said Board of Commissioners
and the said Court of Directors)—brought up,
_and read
the first time. Motion made, and question put, "that
the said clause be now read a second time." The Com-
mittee divided :—Ayes 61, Noes 74.

" 1. That the mode in which railway bills are now dealt
with in the House of Commons should be.revised with the
view of securing, by the institution of a committee of a
character more permanent than has heretofore been the
practice, a comprehensive review of all schemes submitted
to Parliament in every session. That to this committee
the railway department of the Government should afford
all the advice cud assistance which the committee may
desire.

" 2. That, for the investigation of contested bills, the
committee should divide the whole country into districts;
should decide questions of principle, and make arrange-
ments for the decision of questions in which more than
one district might be interested ; and should so direct the
investigation of schemes within the several districts as to
secure for the public, within each of them, the utmosttad-
vantage which might be derived from a judicious combina-
tion of new lines with there which already exist ; they
should also make provision for facilitating the passing of
unopposed bills.
" 3. That .no scheme should be investigated without
security being taken that, in the event of its passing into a
law, the works will be actually made.
" 4. That the practice of locus stands should be adapted
to the necessity which exists for trying in a direct manner,
and with a comprehensive regard to the general advantage,
the public issue involved in any scheme ; and that provi-
sion should be made for the payment of costs in cases where
the proceedings of any party shall appear to have been illu-
sory, vexatious, or unwarranted.

MINORITY—AYES 61.
Anderson, Sir James (lederLeh, Viscount Scobell, Captsin
Beaumont, W. B. Gower, F. L. Seymer, 11. D.
Bell, James Greene, J. Sheridan. B. B.
Bigg., William Gregson, Samuel Smith, J.
Blackett, J. F. B. Hey worth, Lawrence Smith, It. V
Brotherton. Joseph Hindlcy, Charles Spooner, R.
Brown, William Jottific, Sir W. O.H. Stanley, Lord
Bruce, H. A. Laslett, W. S-irling, W.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Liddell, H. G. Thornely, Thomas
Cheetham, John Liddtll, T. Tyler, Sir George
Clay, Sir W. Maddock, Sir 11. Vansittart, G. It.
Duncan, G. 31 a4ulre, J. F. Wilmsley, Sir J.
&ludas, F. Massey, W. N. Walter, John
Dunlop, A. Ai iall, Edward Wilkinson, W. A.
Ewart, William Milligan, R. - Wildams, William
Feilden, Id. J. Morris, I). Wise, A.
Fergus, J. O'Brien, I'. IVolehouse, E.
Ferguson. Joseph Pellatt, A
• Fitzgerald, Sir J. Peto, S. - TELLERS.
Forster, Charles • Phillimore, J.
Fuller, Augustus E. Phinn, T. , Bright, John
Gardner, Richard I'rice, W. P. . Smith, John Benj.
MAJORITY—NOES, 74.

5. That working arrangements between different com-
panies, for the regulation of traffic and the division of pro-
fits should be sanctioned under proper conditions and for
lithited periods ; but that amalgamation of companies
should not be sanctioned, except in minor or special cases,
where it clearly appears to the standing committee that
the true and only object of such amalgamation is improved
economy of management, and consequent advantage to the
public.
" 6. That running powers should generally be discouraged
on the score of danger, and conceded only in cases where
the public object of free transit from one system to another
cannot practically be insured by other means.
" 7. That every railway company should be compelled to
afford to the public, in respect both of goods and of passen-
gers, the fall advantage of convenient interchange from one
system to another : to afford to every class of traffic, in-
cluding postal communication, just facilities and to ob-
serve all statutory provisions, especially those requiring
equal charges under the same circumstances ; and that
where complaint arises that any company has violated any
of these obligations, provision ahonld ha made for the hear-
ing and decision of such complaint in open court, with
power to make use of the interference of the railway de-
partment, for the purpose of ascertaining by what specific
and detailed arrangements such complaint may be effectu-
ally redressed.
" 8. That where any dispute arises between two or more
railway or canal companies, and the companies agree to
refer it to the Board of Trade, that board should be em-
powered, if it think fit, with a view to the public interest,
to entertain the reference, and its decision should be valid
and binding on the companies.
" Since the general principle of increasing the stringency
of the criminal law in England, so as to render liable to
prosecution persons guilty of culpable negligence tending to
the risk of human life, even in the cases in which no fatal
consequences ensue, is under consideration in a select com-
mittee of the House of Peers, to which bill, embodying such
a provision, has been referred, your committee having
already stated that their views upon this subject, now re-
commend that for the better management of railways it
will be desirable,—
" 9. That every board of directors should be required to
register with the Railway Department some one person, to
whom should be delegated the chief authority over all the
external discipline of the company and its servants ; also,
for every part of the line, some person should be registered
as resident engineer; and for every portion of the locomo-
tive stock, some person as locomotive engineer.
" 10. That the general regulations of each company, from
time to time in force, should be transmitted to the Rail-
way Department, and that the inspectors of that depart-
ment should have pewer at all times to examine the books
in which the arrival and departure of the trains from the
several stations are registered, and the books in which the
particulars of the moving stock of the company are re-
corded ; also, in cases of inquiry into the causes of accident,
to examine the servants of the company.
" 11. That provision should be made for enforcing the
means of constant communication between all the servants,
to whom the safety of the passengers in any train is in-
trusted."

Bailey, Sir J. Herbert, Sidney Palmerston, Viscount
Baines, M. T. Hervey, Lord Alfred Patten, W.
Baldock, E. 11. Hogg, Sir James W. Peer Frederick
Berkeley, Admiral Horst' ill, T. B. Percy, J.
Blair, Colonel Keniall, Nicholas lticartio, 0.
Boyle, Hon. Colonel Keogh, William Russell, F. C.
Bruce, Lord E. Kirk, William Sailleir, J.
Butler, Charles S. Langton, H. G. Sawle, C. B. G.
Cardwell, Hon. E. Lockhart, k. E. Scully, F.
Clive, Robert Lockhart, W. Smith, M. Tucker
Dent, J. Lowe, Robert Strutt, E.
Bering, Sir Edward Macgregor. James Sutt ‘n, J. H. M.
Divett, E. Mangles, R. D. Tancred, Henry Wm.
East, Sir J. Marjotibanks, D. Vance. J.
Egerton, Edward Mastennan, John 'Villiers, Hon. C.
Esmonde.. John Maule, Colonel Wellesley, Lord C.
Ferr,uson, Sir Robert .Mills, Thomas 'Wickham. 11. W
Fox, It. M 31ilnes, it. M. Willoughby, Sir 11.
Gladstone, Captain Al ichell, W. Wood, Sir C.
Goddard, A. L. ' 31olesirortil, Sir W. Wrightson, W.
Gordon, Admiral Monck, Yisconi4 Young, Sir John
Graham, Sir James Monsell, W.
Gre ,ves, E. Moody, 'I TELLERS
Greene, T. O'Connell, D. Ilayter, W. G.
Elastic, Archibald o,borne, Ralph Bailey, Sir J.
Headlam, T. E. Owen, i.,ir J.

Another Clause (And whereas, by an act passed in the
third and fourth year of his Majesty King William IV.,
intituled, "An Act for effecting an arrangement with
the East India Company, and for the better Government
of his Majesty's Indian Territories till the 30th day of
April, 185 i," it is enacted, that the President of the
Board of. Commissioners for the Affairs of India, but no
other commissioner, as such, and the secretaries and
other officers, shall be :paid by the said Company such
fixed salaries as his Majesty shall, by any warrant or
warrants under his sign manual, countersigned by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being, direct :
Be it enacted, That such fixed salary shall in no case be
less than the salary which shall be paid to one of her
Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State ; and that only
one of the said Secretaries to the Board shall be capable
of being elected or sitting and voting in Parliament—
brought up, and read the first time :—Motion made, and
Question put, " That the said Clause be now read a
second time :"—The Committee divided ; Ayes 116,
Noes 29.

AMERICAN SLA VERY

IM PE L PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.)

COURTS OF COMMON LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM, in rising to move the second
reading of this bill, said it had been prepared by men of
consummate learning, great knowledge of the practice
of the law, particularly in Ireland, and of very great
skill in the preparation of such bills. The measure be-
fore the house had been submitted to the heads of the
courts of law in Ireland, from whom it had met with a
general approval. It was brought into the other House
of Parliament at the beginning of the present session,
and it was only within the last 10 days that it was ulti-
mately adopted by that house. It was now a quarter
of a century since he (Lord Brougham), in the other.
IHouse of Parliament, brought forward a statement of
the various defects and abuses in the legal, awl more
especially in the juridical system of this country, and it
was with unminglcd satisfaction that he now found that
hardly one of the principles and propositions which he
then laid down bad been neglected or overlooked by the
learned persons who prepared the bill, while by far the
greater number bad been sanctioned by their approval.
When he looked to the state of the law in Ireland, the
constitution of its courts, and the vast improvements
made there, so that in many respects the courts in Ire-
land were half a century in advance of those in this
country, it was impossible he should do otherwise than
regard with satisfaction, mingled with admiration, the
course of legislation in the sister country. The measure
before their lordships consisted of two branches—one
of which was the application to Ireland of all the late
improvements in the administration of justice and pro-
cedure adopted in this country. More than 140 clauses
of the bill were directed to that object ; the re-
mainder were not to apply the law of this country to
Ireland, but to improve that law in some most essential
and valuable respects. There was hardly out of the
improvements introduced into this bill that had not re-
ceived the sanction of the Learned Common Law Com-
missioners, as testified by their reports, and particularly,
by their second and most valuable report. In some re-
spects the bill went beyond that report, but in most re-
spects he entirely agreed with the authors of this bill,
and thought they had made a great improvement upon
the reports of the English commissioners. The bill
might not satisfy some by not going far enough, and
might alarm others by going too far. But he remem-
bered what his late hon. and learned friend Sir W.
Follett said to no rash reformer or speculative dealer in
innovations. That individual said, in respect to some
proposal for improvement—" If you do this you will not
be allowed to stop here, and you will have to go fur-
ther." Sir W. Follett's reply was, " The question is,
is this a right thing to be done in itself ; if so, do it,
and then wait until some attempt is made to go further
than is right, and then resist that." The first thing to
be regarded in a measure of this kind was to throw open
the courts of law as wide as possible to suits thnt ought
to be brought there, and to close them as much as pos-
sible against all cases that ought not to be brought.
With respect to those suits which were brought, it
was desirable so to contrive it that there should be
as little litigation, and that the decision should be as
speedy as possible. The operation of the bill now
before their lordships would be to diminish unjust
litigation, and to reduce the expense of suits. It
was proposed that in all plaints both plaintiff and de-
fendant should swear that, to the best of their know-
ledge and belief, their statements in the written sum-
mons and defence were true. To this he saw no objec-
tion whatever, and there were many precedents for such
a course in the practice both of the courts of law and
equity. One great point to be attained was the encour-
agement of compromises, for every facility ought to be
given for settling a suit after it had been brought into
court. The law as it at present stood allowed the pay-
ment of money into court in certain cases, and in certan
cases only. The absurdities which formerly existed in
this respect has been done away with, and since 1828
money was allowed to be paid into court, generally
speaking, in all cases of contract and quasi contract.—
There, however, it stopped short, at that very point
where it was most essential for the purpose of prevent-
ins, oppressive, unjust, and frivolous litigation. In cases
of tert no payment of money was allowed, and therefore
however willing and anxious both parties might be to
settle their disputes out of court, the law imposed this
restriction upon them—that the money should not be
paid into court. This bill removed that objection, and
rightly and justly allowed the payment of money into
court in all cases whatever. Among other means of
cheekil-, unjust litigation, and of giving relief to parties
without the necessity of driving them to go to law, an
improvement in the law of arbitration had also always
appeared to him to be most unnecessary. Last session,
-aud in the beginning of this, in a measure which had
beet-n:o6re their lordships for extendingthe jurisdiction
of County Courts, it had been so arranged as to make
County Court judges official arbitrators; and he hoped to
bring in a bill on this subject either during the present or
early in the next session, amendingthe whole law of arbi-
tration, which at present was in a most unsatisfactory con-
dition. The principle of English law was, that a party
could not recover unless there was an appearance of his
adversary. This principle was all right, but nothing
could be more absurd than the manner in which our law,
until very lately, carried it into . execution. You could
only at law compel the appearance of a defendant by
proceeding to outlaw him—a clumsy form of proceeding
entailing considerable delay. Upon the outlawry you
might seize'and carry into the Exchequer the proceeds
of his personal property, and to a certain degree you
might affect his real estate. By this proceeding the
plaintiff gained little or nothing, and great injustice was
likely to result as against the defendant, who might be
absent in America; or in the Greek Islands, or any where
else, and might have no means of becoming acquainted
, with.what was going on. The law on this point had
been very much improved of late, but it was still im-
perfect ; and the bill now before their lordships greatly
improved the present practice, taking advantage of the
analogous proceedings in equity and in the civil bill
courts, which had been found to work in a perfectly sa-
tisfactory manner, availing itself of well-devised plans
for serving process so as to avoid hardship to the plaintiff
and prevent injustice to the defendant. Upon one part
of this measure be had some doubts, being rather in-
clined to agree with the Common Law Commissioners
in thinking that this bill was wrong in joining the
summons and the plea, the writ and the declara-
tion. He doubted as to the propriety of making
the declaration and the plea one, because it put both
parties to the expense of a declaration ; whereas, in
many cases the mere issue of the writ might compel the
performance of what was desired, and so the expense
of proceeding further might be avoided. That, how-
ever, was a matter for the consideration of the com-
mittee, and he confessed he had not a very confident
opinion on the subject. The principle of the bill was to
bring • about natural procedure, and to reject as far as
poSsible and to abridge technical procedure. It effected
the abolition of all forms of action which ought to have
been done away with long ago. Ha knew that the com-
missioners, in their first report, were entirely of that opi-
nion, and had given their reasons for abolishing all forms
of action, and for going from the technical to the natural
form of procedure ; but, unhappily, after the Common
Law Procedure Bill of last year had been framed, objec-
tions were made elsewhere—not, he was afraid, by the
house in which the bill was originated, but in this house
—and the commissioners yielded to those objections, and
brills of action were continued. It was perfectly absurd

to continue those forms, for they told but little-of what
was wanted to be known, and the chicanery and the
subtlety which arose from them was as bad as the obscu-
rity in which they were enveloped. This bill, therefore,
abolished all forms of action. The next improvement
was, that choses in action, which were not assignable at
common law, were all made assignable by this bill. The
assignment of a bond was only good in equity, but the bill
would enable a person to assign such instruments without
driving the assignee into the Court of Chancery for his
remedy. But in connection with this change it was to be
considered that there was a most skilfully devised registry
for -registering all such assignments of such documents.
That was a great improvement. How many years did their
lordships think it was since it was first proposed in this
country? Well might they be blamed for their slowness .
legal reform. It was just two centuries ago since this
course was proposed by a committee ofthe House of Com-
mons, on which were men illustrious for their great
deeds, and men illustrious for their virtues only. On
that committee were the Lord General Cromwell, chair-
man, member for Cambridge, and Sir Matthew Hale,
afterwards the Chief Justice of England. They were
the authors of 14 propositions for the amendment of the
law, and it proved the truth of the remark of Lord
Bacon, "That hardly ever a good proposal for amending
the law was made, though late, than sooner or later it
would not bear good fruit," that every one of those pro-
positions had been carried except that now before the
house. That was a matter of comfort and consolation
for those engaged in the reform of the law, and enabled
them oaten to bear up against defeat and disappointment,
knowing well that eventually their objects would be car-
ried out. He submitted that, on the whole, there could
be no difficulty in extending to Ireland those parts of the
bill which were in the act of last session with certai n
changes and improvements to adapt it to that country ;
but in the absence of his noble and learned friend the
Lord Chief Justice, and .of Lord Truro, he would not
now ask their lordships to do more than assent to the
second reading of the bill. (Hear, hear.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR was sure the house would
feel with him that this bill was only an additional obliga-
tion which they and the country owed to the exertions of
the noble and learned lords in the cause of legal reform.
(Hear.) He entirely concurred with him in thinking this
bill effected an immense improvement in the judicial eye-
; tem of Ireland, and in many respects, indeed, in that of
both countries, and that their object ought to be—and so
long as he occupied his present post it should be—to
render simple and cheap the administration of justice, to
render it accessible to all, and to open the doors of the
temple of the law wide and free to all who desired to
enter. Their lordships were aware that a commission
of very learned persons was issued two years ago to in-
quire into the administration of the common law, who
embodied in an elaborate report the result of their
inquiries, and a bill embodying their suggestions was
passed last year. It had been found to work admirably
well, and he attributed that success to the immense
labour bestowed on it—first, by the commissioners,
next, by the judges, and, finally, by a committee of their
lordships' house. So carefully considered had it been,
this singular result was shown, that though the bill con-
tained upwards of 300 clauses, not 30 questions had
arisen in the construction of them in the courts of law
since it came into force. Now, he had no hesitation in
saying it was their bounden duty to give Ireland the
benefit of those improvements which had been matured
here without delay, and, so far as any exertions of his
could lead to such a result, it should be done in the pre-