The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-06 00:00:00

THE RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC
REGULATION BILL.

Mr. T. EGERTON moved the following amendments :
—Clause 2, liue 5, after " advantage," insert " with re-
spect to rates or charges, or in any other respect. Line 5,
after "in favour of," insert " themselves or." Line 23,
after " may be," insert " by the arrangement of the
trains run by them upon such railways, and the regula-
tions of the hours of arriving and starting of such trains
at the points of junction of such railways, or the points
where transit is intended to be made from such lines of
railway or canal to the other." The hon. member said
that, in respect to one of his amendments, he wished to
guard as much as possible against the evil arising from the
exercise of undue influence by railway companies ; and, in
respect to his last amendment, his object was to guard
against the sudden stoppage of the public traffic.
Mr. CARDWELL said that the clause was most care-
fully drawn with a view of providing against such evils as
the hon. member apprehended.
Mr. ATHERTON opposed the amendments. He thought
that by mentioning one kind of obstruction, they would
be giving ground for a legal argument that other kinds
of obstruction ere not declared to be offences under
the act. As the clause was drawn it would be much more
comprehensive than if the amendments of the hon. gentle-
man were assented to.

The amendments were then negatived, and the clause
was then agreed to.

On clans; 3 being pwposed,
Captain LAFFAN— said that although an injunction
might be obtained against a railway company for an act of
oppression towards another, such company might adopt
another mode of annoyance which would require another
injunction to put a stop to. And even then the company
might adopt several other modes of oppression, which it
would be difficult to stop, save by repeated injunctions.
He, therefore, proposed the insertion of words, by which
the past as well as the future misdeeds of a railway com-
pany would be liable to a penalty every day such acts of
oppression were carried on.

Mr. CARD WELL said he hoped that the clause, as it
stood, would be found effective in preventing the repetition
of such oppression without the amendment of the hon.
and gallant gentleman, more especially as he (Mr. Card-
well) would propose to insert " 2001." as the penalty for
this offence. He did not think that they ought to adopt
a new plan by establishing daily penalties for past mis-
deeds. With regard to a remedy for damage, nothing in
this bill would take away from any individual the right
of appeal to a court of common law.
Mr. ATHERTON said, as he read the bill it was no
part of the general scope of it to punish for past misdeeds.
The complaining party would, however, still have his right
to appeal to the ordinary legal tribunals of the country.
Mr. HENLEY thought there was a great deal of force
in what the hon. and learned gentleman had said. Every-
body knew that when there is a disposition to annoy a
variety of annoyances might be adopted. If they merely
made the penalty prospective they would never succeed
effectually in putting a stop to such inconvenincies as had
been alluded to.
Mr. G. BUTT said he thought that the working of this
clause would be attended with enormous expense and diffi-
culty.

The remaining clauses, with certain verbal amendments,
were then agreed to.

No additisOnal clauses were added, and the house resumed.
To be recommitted on Monday next.
The Exchequer Bills (16,024,1001.) Bill went through
committee.