The Sun.
London, England, 1840-07-24 00:00:00

THE SUN% LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY g 4,

Lord
not to do away
--SEYMOUR said the object of the clause was
away with the responsibility of Three-
tors,Goveret but there were cases in which an inspection by a
A case ent officer might be of great use to the public.
e had been brought before the Committee,
n which a very dangerous arrangement had been made,
on the Greenwich and Croydon line, by which the sta-
tic)" Of the two Companies were placed so that the
Whole traffic was dangerous.—(Hear, hear.) There
were other cases in which one line crossed another
upon a level, and collisions from that circumstance had
taken place on many of the Northern lines. The clause
merely gave the Board of Trade the power to send
4°`" an inspector to see that the Act of Parliament
had been complied with. He was willing to treat the
first clause as the principle of the Bill, and if it was
rejected, he would withdraw the Bill.
Mr. HAWES did not admit that there was anything
of a monopoly in these railway!, and that was the only
argument that had been urged in favour of the superin-
tendence which the Bill provided. He would ask what
evil had arisen from the power which the railway com-
panies at present possessed ? Had the public petitioned
the House against these powers? He thought no
grounds had been stated for bringing in a Bill of so inqui-
sitorial a character, more especially when the second
leading of the Bill had taken place at two o'clock in the
"inning, no opportunity being afforded for discussion.
The Noble Lord had referred to inconvenience and
mischief which would result from railways crossing
turnpike roads upon a level, but the present Bill would
not remedy that evil. Many of these railways were
.now in existence, and the Bill did not authorise the Go-
vernment inspectors to go so far as to say, " you must
go over or under this road—we will not allow you to
cross it upon the level." In fact, whatever practical
evil or danger might result from the system would con-
tinue to exist. It appeared that the Committee had
recommended a general superintendence of the ac-
counts, financial returns of the companies, and they
bad not objected to that.; but where a Bill was put
a,,, into the heads of Hon. Members, by which the in-
eee; spectors were not only empowered to inspect the books
i,eee e_.and accounts, but to prescribe the very form in which
1',41e ethos, were to be kept—when it was found that they
ilia not only power to institute prosecutions, but that
they could make out their case by a reference to the
I,?neks of the companies themselves, he must say that
tt Was a most objectionable and tyrannical Bill. The
Noble 'ird had said that the principle of the Bill
Iv!t3 involvei! in the first clause, and if that were so lie
hnuld certainly' vote against the Bill by voting against
"),rst clause.
5,,,,!4r. SHELL said there appeared to him to be
e mistake as to the principle of the Bill being in-
t'ived in the first clause. It appeared to him that the
1111ses of the Bill dial not exceed to any extent the
,4
"echmmendations of the Committee, which went to the
Providing a system of by-laws, and a control vested in
the hands of competent authority. By the 37th chaise
Copies of the bye-laws of the company were to be
submitted to the Board of Trade, who vet re empowered
to disallow them. Again the lath clause authorised the
Punishment of the com an '• servants who misconducted
themselves. It wasp generally ildmitted that that
Vgehrt not to be 1 ft to the company itself.—(Hear.)
acalayutsheatwtalsi e also a provision for the punishment of per-
sons obstructing railways. It was absurd, therefore, to
Mendee principle of the Bill depended upon the first
could do
r hWadithallrue,sipeoc,tittoaptpheeanreotice to which the Hon.
benefit to the pub • , dto him that the notice
no barn and might be productive of great
and he would remind the Com-
mittee that the Go -rnment had no power whetever to
prevent the opening of the railway.
the Thee.innitei
ATTitOR, N EY-GEN ERAL would suggest that
was proceeding in a most. irregular
ta.lth ner, and that tem proper course would be to discuss
clauses one by one, instead of discussing the prin-
ciple of the
Mr. RICE observed that it was only in very da.-
grant eases that the interference of the Government
in-
spectors could take place, and he should support the
clause.
Mr. EW ART complained that the House had had
no opportunity of discussing the principle of the Bill, in
consequence of the hurried manner in which it had
been passed through its various stages. He did not see
• , , why a different syste m should he adopted towards Rail-
wotayompanies. from that adopted as reggeded Canal
Companies, Gas COmpanies, Water Works, ae env
h
public Companies. He should vote against the
clause.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
Committee divided, when there appeared—
Fer the clause B4
Against i'
Msjority
On our return to the gallery we found
Capt. BOLDERO protest* against the Bill as ob-
noxious in its nature and tyranwical in its principle. It
might be said that these railroad': were monopolies, but so
were canals, and other joint eeeek companies, and yet it
was never thought proper to apply such restrictions to
them. There was no power which the Government tc-
quired for the purposes of taxation that they did not
already possess. It was said this Bill was framed in
consequence of the Second and Third Reports of the
Railway Committee, bnt those Reports touched very
delicately the powers of the Government. There was
no recommendation that they should have this inquisi-
torial power.--(Hear.) He was much of opinion that
at the present moment it was doubtful policy to tax
railways at all. Look at the circumstance : about 90
Railway Bills had received the Royal Assent ; out of
these about eleven were at a premium, and the pre-
miuni of many of these was so nominal that he ques-
tioned if a profit would be realised by a sale of shares.
There were only about five railways at a very high
premium, and he could see no reason why they had
arrived at pramium. Reilw, ys, in his opinion, were at
present but in their infancy—( Hear, hear)—and who
could say but in a few years locomotive engines might
not be in general use? Therefore, if they crippled the
energies of railway proprietors at present, they would
do an injustice to them and to the public. Why should
railways be taxed and cot steam nasigation ? He be-
ll 'ed the Noble Lord below him (Lord G. Somerset)
bed an amendment to propose, which, unless the Go-
vernment acceded to, he should feel it his duty to
divide the Committee against the clause.—( Hear.)
Lord SEYMOUR said the Railway Companies
having a monopoly, and with the sauction of the
House, the object of the clause was to enable the Board
of Trade to call for all accounts to show what charges
were imposed on the public. He would readily agree
to any clause that would give that information.—(Hear,
hear.) He thought the public should know how the
items of charge were composed. He also wished to
have statistical details, to show to the publie the ad-
vantages afforded them ; but he had no desire to give
the inquisitorial powers spoken of.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUME was glad the Noble Lord had stated
what his object was, for he had feared, from the word-
ing of the clause, that it would interfere with the com-
panies in the management of almost all their affairs.
But perhaps the Noble Lord had not attended to the
7th section of the Standing Orders of the House,
which he submitted gave him the greater part of the
powers he sought, and which, with a little alteration,
would render almost unnecessary the present clause.
Lord G. SOMERSET cooled not agree to the total
omission of the clause. He was for asking for all
possible information that waield be of use to the public,
but he did not wish to give any power to ask of a
Railway Company more than a private individual how
they managed their private ad'airs.—(Hear, hear.) He
thought the powers in the Bill as now drawn were
amply sufficient. He had consulted many gentlemen
connected with railways on the Bill generally, and parti-
cularly on this clause, and they had stated that they
were not inclined to go so far as the Noble Lord's pro-
position, and had therefore put on paper what the pro-
prietors would freely concede. This had been framed
into a clause which he thought might be adopted by the
Committee. Its purport was—To enable the Board
of Trade to call for accounts with regard first
of all to the total number of passengers and
the aggregate number of miles which they travelled,
on each railway. Then for accounts of accidents at-
tended with personal injury to passengers ; also the
total number of tons of merchandize conveyed, and the
aggregate number of miles; and then the tolls and
rates levied on passengers and merchandize. They
moreover required that these returns should net be re-
quired of a particular Company, but of Railway Corn•
panics generally. In addition to this, he (Lord G.
Somerset) would propose that the returns should be
made within 30 days after the demand for them, under
a penalty of .5/. for every additional day. They did not
wish to return the number of servants employed, or of
the salaries given to servants, or in what manner they
conducted their business, except so far as the public
were concerned. Nor did they wish it should he known
what they gave for their locomotive engines, nor the
railways,
outlay to be compared betwixt the different
which they said were inquisitorial powers which
could be productive of no public good, and which, there-
fore, they hoped the House would not sanction. He
thought they should look at railways in a somewhat dif-
ferent light to canal and other Companies, because
they were monopolies ; and he thought the public should
have some protection since 'they abrogated other modes
of travelling. He therefore proposed this as an amend-
ment to the clause of the Noble Lord.—(Hear, hear.)
The CHAIRMAN said it would be more regular it
it were proposed as a new clause, which, after some con-
versation, was done.
Lord SEYMOUR said he had no objection to strike
out the clause as it there stow!, and make some
alteration, hut the clause of the Noble Lord did not
quite provide what he wanted. He wished to know,
and he thought it important that it should be known,
what was the accommodation railways gave to the la-
bouring classes.—(Hear, bear.) And what, therefore,
were the number and classes of passengers ; next, the
period of arrival and departure. He also thought it
would be of great advantage to have accidents classeto
d,
as to the injuries to person and propert, and also
y
know what rates, tolls, and other charges were im-
posed on the public. With these additions, he should
have no objection to the classe. With respect to the
registry of servants, his object was to prevent persons
discharged for improper conduct on one railway, being
employed by another ; but if there was any objection
to that, he would not press it.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. LOCH said, as a Director and Railway Pro-
prietor, it would not be supposed he should ask for any
returns which would be detrimental to those great
schemes of national improvement—Railway Companies.
They stood in three different positions. In the first place,
as taking toll ; secondly, as to their locomotive power ;
and thirdly, as carrying goods. It was important to
ascertain whether or not the traffic in goods was in-
jurious, and whether the passengers paid for the traffic
in goods, or the traffic in goods paid for passengers.
The former was the opinion of the Secretary of the
Manchester and Leeds Railway.
Mr. EAST HOPE contvaded that the clause would
place railway proprietors in great difficulty. It would
render it penal for them not to render correct accounts
of accidents, while it did not point out any way in
which they could obtain such accounts. He could
assure the Committee that accidents frequently took
place on railroads, with which the proprietors were
wholly unacquainted, or which were made known to
them by the merest accident.
Lord G. SOMERSET said that there should be some
parties responsible for accidents, end though the Directors
might be deceived in certain instances, they could in
general rely on the fidelity of the servants they might
employ. He doubted whether it would be desirable
that the public should know to what expense railway
companies were put in the transfer of passengers, and
what expense in the transfer of goods, and what was the
profit they derived from each of those sources. He
did not wish that the public should be made acquainted,
further than might be absolutely necessary, with the
private affairs of those companies, or that those affairs
should be too closely pried into. Sonic such accounts
might be obtained from the Liverpool and Manchester
Railway Company, which was forced to carry goods at
a certain price, whether they were losers or gainers
thereby, but in every other case the Act of Parliament
had left the subject to the discretion of the' companies
themselves.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the House seemed
to think that the clause el his Noble Friend might be
altered with advantage ; and, on the other hand, he be-
lieved it would be dangerous to adopt the clause of the
Noble Lord without further consideration. He' would,
therefore, advise his Noble Friend not to ask the
House to assent to his clauses and that he would, in the
report, avail himself of the suggestions thrown out
in the course of the debate, and introduce a new clause on
the subject. He thought it better, therefore, not to go
on then with the discussion. But at the same time he
wished to take the opportunity of stating his opinion
that the proprietors of railways seemed determined so to
limit the powers of inquiry on the part of the Board of
Trade as to render such inquiry altogether nugatory.
Those gentlemen were not only the owners of the road,
and the owners of the tolls levied on them as the Act of
Parliament alovved, but they were also the sole carriers
on those roads—a power which they had not acquired by
Act of Parliament. Now, he wished the Board of Trade
could separate the receipts of railway proprietors into two
heads—the one their profits as proprietors of the roads,
and the other their profits as carriers. Those returns,
however, could not be obtained without due inquiry on the
part of the Board of Trade ; and if that inquiry were
too limited they could not exp-ct very important results th
from it. He should again observe at bethought it would
be better that his Noble Friend and the Noble Lord
, should withdraw those disuses, and that they should intro-
duce an amended clause in the Report.
Mr. FINCH said that the House should obtain every in-
formation which would unable them to determine what
might be the charges which Railway Companies should
shyip,;igl
da, tonho wpserre
rm,
bi lee
iwnlopuolsds
irbelme uf
on
re r aptser
ltihae.
jevy on the public for locomotive power. Engineers had
6Pmtaier:nPt4rite:t4afiali'aanf'yirttlimits on tbet subject unless the Board of
Trade could institute an inquiry into locomotive charge,.
Parliament had authorised the Companies to levy tolls, but
1 jos contended that Parliament had intended that on payment
of touk l)it jpdividual bade railway
i;iwg:yt
st!, a
.iii
,n
nt introduce dt
huee ewlocomotivetanks, ,
public had
06 -the F 94,4, tt might, however, be said that the
tanigts t
along the different h 4
lines. .4 hp
udblic the
use n
ofo right
thought that those who paid the tolls enjoined by p4r4=
meat had such a right.
Mr. WARD couldnot approve of the doctrine of the
Hon. Gentleman who hind laet eddresse4 the compettge,
notHe thought
pried
thatinto the
more affairsn
mo fi
g rhati illa iYo uc no dth P'ianndi iessp esnhalldy
necessary.
Lord SEYMOUR said that le was ready to withdraw
tbsielause for the relent On the bringing up of the
1,

_-66

report he intended to introduce a clause which wculd re-
quire railway companies to give returns of ttie total num-
ber of passengers, and of the time of arrivals and departures
of trains as well as the number of trains and the accidents
attended with injury to the person, or injury to property
in cases in which compensation was required, He
thought that in that last case there would be no difficulty
in furnishing the returns. He would also raise the penalty
of 51., which he did not thick sufficiently high.
Lord 110 WIC K said that he thought it would be bet-
ter that the House should adopt the principle of periodical
returns, and not give the Board of Trade the power of
calling for returns whenever it might think fit. He did
not think that the returns which might be made could by
any possibility be too particular. He was persuaded on
the contrary, that every detail should be entered into in
the periodical returns; and he was convinced that every
well-managed company would be glad to give such details,
because such a company would have nothing to fear from
publicity. It was important, too, that the public should
know not only the charge of tolls, but the amount of profits
received by the company ; and it would be highly desirable
that they should have an entire knowledge of those profits,
because he believed that such a knowledge would be a
great check on companies not to attempt to obtain exorhi-
tant charges. It should not be forgotten that they had given
those companies far larger powers than they bad intended
when the B:11 was first passed. The truth was, that the
measure was not fully understood at the time. A provi-
sion had been introduced into the Act, by which railways
were to be left open to the public, on the payment of cer-
tain tolls. That provision, however, had turned out to
be entirely nugatory. The companies had the power of
refusing the use of stations and other conveniences ; and
it was, besides, impossible that different locomotive en-
gines could progress on the same line without great dan-
ger. So that the provision was inoperative, and the com-
panies were armed with greater powers than had been ori-
ginally contemplated. It appeared to him that, in order
to insure the convenience of the public, they should have
not only returns of the rates of tolls, but of the amount of
profit which the company derived ; and he therefore hoped
that the Noble Lord, in framing the clause anew, would
take care that every possible information should be given
with regard to conveyance on railroads.
Mr. HAWES said that one of two things must be
done either a clause mutt be drawn so minutely as to
suit the views of the Noble Lord the Member for Nor-
thumberland, or to give a general power to the Board of
Trade. The effect of framing so minute a clause as the
Noble Lord wished could only be to give to rival carriers
—suppose to canals running parallel to the railway—the
means of ascertaining the expenses and profits of carriage
on the railway.—( Hear, hear.) lie would prefer to give
the power to the Board of Trade rather than to insert in
an Act of Parliament such a clause as was proposed. The
Noble Lord below him (Lord Seymour) wished to ascot--
tain the classes of passengers. Now, how was that to be
done ? The classes of the trains could be ascertained, but
not the clews of the passengers.
Lord SEYMOUR—It can be ascertained what accom-
modation is afforded to the labouring classes.
Mr. H AWES—But the passengers could not be
distinguished. It could not be ascertained what persons
travelled in fine cloth coats or in flannel jackets. The
railway directors could not object to give every necessary
information.
Lord SEYMOUR said that all the charges made
ought t be distinctly stated ; and it was desirable, as far
as could be ascertained, to have a return of the different
classes of the passengers, so that it might be known to
what extent the working classes were accommodated.
Mr. LOCH, who could not be distinctly heard in the
gallery, was understood to complain of some observations
made by a gentleman above him.
Mr. AINSWORTH knew the case of a railroad lessee
(the only one, he believed, in this country) who had taken
two railroads on lease, and who would be seriously injured
by the clause now before the Committee. He hoped the
Noble Lord who had the management of the Bill would
allow him to bring in a clause to meet the case of this in-
dividual.
Lord SEYMOUR did not think there was any reason
to bring in a clause especially for this individual. As far
as the public were concerned, this individual was the rail-
way proprietor. He made what charges ho thought pro-
per, and should be subject to the same regulations as the
company.
Mr. BROTHERTON did not think the railway
company could object to give any information that could
be derived. Is was impossible that railways could be any
other than a monopoly, and no carrier on a railway could
compete with the company.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET had beard a great
deal about the difficulty of competition on railways, and
very contradictory evidence was given on the subject in the
Committee. But the fact was, that at present the Grand
Junction Company used a part of the Birmingham Rail-
way, and in all the great linen the same thing was done—
one company running upon part of the other's line—and
the competition was found to be very useful, and had tended
to lower the rates. With respect to the expense of loco-
motion, he did not think it possible for any company to
give an exact return.
Sir ROBERT PEEL protested against the doctrine of
an Hon. Member who bad said that Parliament had no
more right to investigate the accounts of a railroad than
those of an individual trader. But Parliament had this
reason for requiring to know the profits of the railroad
company—it had given them special privileges.—( Hear,
hear.) On the same principle it could call upon the
Bank of England to give information, which it would not
require from an individual trader.—( Hear.) He thought,
however, that the Act ought to specify the general objects
which were desired, without entering too minutely into
particulars, but placing some confidence in both parties,
in the public department in which the superintendence
was vested and in the railway company.—( Hear, hear.)
With respect to employing carriers on the railways, he
thought it necessary that they should, for the safety of
the public, be subject to the regulations of the railway
directors, and he believed that a carrier who had not the
goodwill of the company would have great difficulty in
using the road.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. EASTH 0 PE thought that those who opposed full
inquiries with respect to railroads were their greatest ene-
mies. He was anxious that legislation in this respect
should be as definite for the interest of the public as pos-
sible. As to any concealment of the charges and profits
of the railroads, he should think it unworthy of any
railway company.—( Hear, hear, hear.) In fact, it
was impossible, because the profits must necessarily
be known to the proprietors. He concurred with the
sentiments of the Hon. Member who had spoken last, that
it was to the interest of the railway companies to go in
union with the public.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. MORRISON thought it ought to be understood
that railroads were monopolies, and that they should be
treated as such.
Mr. BAINES considered that railroad companies had
been large benefactors to the public, and ought, therefore,
to be supported. He thought that no information should
be required from them further than was necessary, and he
did not approve of an inquisition into their affairs, that
would be harassing and troublesome.
After a few observations from Lord G. SOMERSET,
clause 2 was struck out of the Bill, as were also clauses
3 and 4.
Upon clause 5 being put, which authorised the appoint-
ment of inspectors of railways,
Mr. HA WES objected to the appointment of more
than one inspector, and moved to strike out the words
authorising the appointment of inspectors, to the insertion
of words allowing only one to be appointed.
Lord SANDON objected to the amendment, feeling
confident that one inspector would not be able to accom-
plish the task assigned to hint.
Mr. AG LIO NBY thought the words at present in the
clause were far botter than those proposed to be inserted
by the Hon. Member for Lambeth.
Mr. E W ART opposed the amendment. It would be
impossible for one individual to attend to the whole of the
railways throughout the country,
Mr. FRENCH was also of opinion it would be advisable
to retain the clause as it stood.
Captain BOLDER() suggested that the inspector
should be selected from the corps of engineers.
Sir R. PEEL was of opinion that an immense advan-
tage would be derived from employing occasional in.
spectors. He was opposed to any permanent appointment
and, above all, would object to any thing like superan-
nuation allowances being made. The parties appointed
ought to be men of honour and high character, and he
knew of no class of men who could be confided in more
titan the corps of engineere.—( Hear.)
After a short desultory discussion, the amendment was
negatived without a division.
Mr. H AYT ER then moved the following proviso, in-
stead of the proviso in the clause.—" Provided always,
that no person who shall hold any office of trust or profit
under any railway or canal company, or shall be interested
or concerned in any contract with any such company, or
who may have held any such office or place, or may have
been so interested or concerned within three years pre
.
ceding the passing of this Act, shall be appointed for any
such purposes as aforesaid." Notwithstandingreh th
ende e discu
thes•
sion that had already taken place, lie app
Government would appoint one person to be an
d
Inspector-General of Railways, and if such per-
son were appointed, he would, under the provi-
sions of the Bill, be clothed with considerable powers.
He would have great influence over all persons connected
with railways. What he wonted to secure was, that such
an intervening time should elapse between the period be
held any situation connected with the line, and the period
of his appointment as inspector, as would satisfy every
person be had divested himself of all interest in the con-
cern, and for that purpose he had fixed the period of three
years.
Sir R. PEEL thought he would be very unwise to men-
tion any single disqualification. There were 50 or 100
disqualifications that ought to be attended to ; and if one
was mentioned and the others were not enumerated, the dis-
cretion of the parties having the appointment of the officer
might be fettered.—( Hear, hear,)
Mr. HA WES was of opinion that If no such proviso
were agreed to, there ought to be a declaration set out in
the Act which the inspector should be called upon to sign.
Mr. LABOUCHER E thought the proviso was alto-
gether unnecessary.—( Hear, hear.) It would he the
duty of these who had the Appointment of' the inspector
to see that he was an entirely disinterested party.
Lord SEYMOUR opposed the proviso.
Mr. MIL DM A Y thought that the proviso ought to i
inserted. Thereiwere certainly some situations which
ought not to be held in coilunctiol vxith Ore appointments
under the act,
'
Lord SANDON was understood to oppose the proviso.
Lord SEYMOUR thought it very desirable that the
appointments should not be given to persons connected
with railways. But be found that there were vary fewfito
bo were not
ernnogricneoerr andess even
connected. military
th rfani
rgwinaeyest.t. v‘
He therefore
suggested that,, the clause should be withdrawn, upon the
understanding that, as Far as possible, the persons appointed
ahould be unconnected with gny eellsre,y,
After a 'few words from feord G.SQMF:RSET, the
re provisoed tw2t: witilaiwyn, and the as amended, was
pauses 0,7, 8,9, 10, and 11, were then agreed to
without discussion.
On clause 12 being proposed,

Mr. EASTHOPE proposed to substitute one year for
two years, which was agreed to.
On clause 13 being proposed,
M:. E A STHOPE said he thought the clause should
be postponed. It was notorious that the greater ptopor-
tioa of danger and accidents arose from the misconduct of
the engineers He thought they should pause a little be-
fore they legislated on this subject. A case had come
within his own knowledge of an engine driver who had
been guilt) of gross negligence, by which three carriages,
which were fortunately empty, were shattered to pieces in
such a manner that had there been any persons in them
they must have been destroyed. The man was eppre-
hooded and taken before a Magistrate, and everything
was done that could be done by the railway directors
to have him properly punished, but the Magistrate
felt that all he could do, though there was no
doubt of the man's identity, or of his gross misconduct, was
to fine him 403.—( Hear, hear.) This man, and men like
him, 'N ould go to a distant place and obtain similar employ-
ment.—( Hear, hear.) He submitted the clause intended
to provide against this evil was extremely insufficient. He
was quite aware the subject was attended with great diffi-
culty, and that what he might feel necessary to meet the
case, the Attorney-General might think a violation of the
existing law, and by those who properly regarded the rights
of British subjects, as some encroachment on them; but he
thought it was of the utmost importance for the security of
those who travelled by railways, that those men should feel
they were responsible for their conduct. The Noble Lord
would confer great benefit on the country if be would de-
lay this clause till Hon. Members had directed their atten-
tion to it, and were enabled to meet with some practical
remedy to the evil he wished to point out.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord SEYMOUR had put in the clause at the special
reqaest of the Directors, and he believed it would tend to
prevent the misconduct the Hon. Member had referred to.
He did not, therefore, wish to withdraw it, but if the Hon.
Member could make it more effectual, he would have an
opportunity of doing so when it was brought up.
Mr. EASTHOPE said be thought the clause had been
drawn with considerable haste, or taken from some Local
Act.
Mr. HUME said the clause gave a summary jurisdic-
tion to some one Justice to inflict a punishment of two
months' imprisonment, or a fine of 51. He should be
sorry to allow a larger penalty, but he thought one Justice
not sufficient.
Mr. LABOUCHERE thought it desirable that the
punishment should be summary in cases of this kind, and
that this would be difficult with more than one Justice.
Ile thought the clause sufficient in its present shape.
Lord SANDON made some observations which were
aLnest inaudible in the gallery, but which were understood
to imply that he thought the clause did not sufficiently
provide for punishment in aggravated cases.
After a few words from the Attorney-General, Mr,
Easthope. and Mr. Puulett Scrope, which were inaudible,
Mr. EASTHOPE said he thought another provision
might be beneficially introduced, making it imperative
of
upon a Company to give and receive a certificate
character with their servants.
Atter a few words from Mr. GOULBURN, the sug-
gestion of the Hon. Member for Leicester was withdrawn.
Tho clause as amended was then ordered to stand part
of the Bill.
On clause 14 being moved,
Sir R. PEEL said that there was a provision in the
clause which in his opinion should be altered. It was
proposed that any one who might throw stones or any
other impediment on any part of a railway which the trains
might pass over should be liable to certain punishment.
He thought, however, that the provision should extend to
the placing of impediments in any part of a railway what-
ever.—( Hear.)
Mr. HUME wished to know whether the clause had
emanated from the Noble Lord himself?
Lord SEYMOUR said that the provisions of the
clause had been recommended to him by the Directors,
and that he merely submitted them to the consideration of
the House.
Mr. HUME complained that the Noble Lord had not
himself taken care of the framing of the clause.
Mr. AGLIONBY wished to know whether the pe-
nalty would extend to parties whose cattle had strayed on
the roads during the night?
Lord SEYMOUR said that the clause did not extend
to that case, as it was considered one which should not be
so severely dealt with as the other.
Lord G. SOMERSET said that the question was a
serious one, but the companies themselves were often an-
swerable in such a case as that referred to, as they did not
pay sufficient attention to the raising of their fences.
Mr. EASTHOPE said that that might have been the
case fotmerly, but the raising of fences was now duly at-
tended to.
On the suggestion of Sir R. PEEL, the clause was
atended by rendering persons who should do any a:t to
obstruct the engines liable to the penalties provided by the
Act,

Clauses 15, 16, and 17, were agreed to with a few verbal
amendments. •
Clause 18 was agreed to after a short discussion.
The preamble was agreed to with a few verbal amend-
ments.
The House resumed, and the Report was ordered to be
received on Monday next.
RATING STOCK IN TRADE.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then moved that the
House resolve itself into a Committee on the Rating of
Stock in Trade Bill.
Sir CH ARLES DOUGLAS must oppose proceed-
ing with the Bill at that late hour (a quarter to twelve). He
wished to know why the Bill had been delayed so long.
Many Hon.!,Gcntlemen bad gone away, under the notion
that the Bill would not be proceeded with at a late hour.
—(Cries of ‘• Go on, go on.") If the House was against
him, he would not of course press the postponement.
Mr. GOULBURN thought it would be unfair to call
upon the House to discuss the Bill, for the first time, at
twelve o'clock.
Lord J. RUSSELL had known Bills brought in and
discussed at two, or three, or even five o'clock in the
morning.
Mr. B ROTHERTON—That was a very bad practice,
Sir.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.)
The question being put that the Speaker do leave the
chair,
Mr. GOULBURN said, if the Government in-,
Fisted upon pressing the Bill at that late hour, he would
shortly state his objections to it then, but should
feel it to be his duty to renew the discussion at a future
stage of the Bill. There would, therefore, be two discus-
sions instead of one upon the principle of the Bill, but
perhaps the Government preferred that mode of facilita-
ting the business of the House. The Bill proposed to I
exempt that class of property comprised under the term '
stock in trade. The Bill, strictly speaking, would infl'et
an augmentation tax, and that to no inconsiderable ex-
tent, upon every other species of property. In many
parishes the practice had prevailed of rating stock in
trade, and he had received statements from many
persons that if the Bill passed their burthens would be
considerably increased. The principle of the statute of
Elizabeth was that the rating should be equal, but by this
Bill the liability of one species of property was removel,
chile the liabilities of other property were increased. He
did not deny that there were difficulties which ought to
be removed, but it was not enough, he contended, for the
Hon. and Learned Attorney-General to come down with
a Bill to meet the apparent evil of the moment. The
House was bound to view the whole question, and to take
care that the remedy was such as would leave all parties
upon an equal footing. The owners of tithes would be
placed in a most peculiar situation by the Bill. The
Bill would impose heavier burthens upon the tithes
than were imposed upon the land, whereas the tithes were
heretofore exempted from burthens to which other pro-
perty was liable. The injustice to the tithe-owner was
the greater in consequence of the arrangements to which
he had come under the Tithe Commatation Act. By that
Act Parliament gave a pledge to the tithe-owner that he
should be subject to no further charges. Besides, the
value of the tithes was fixed and known to every body in
the parish, whereas the value of the land was changing
every year, and the landowner had many means of evading
the rate to which he might be subjected as to its amount.
The tithe-owner was also the only person whose propor.
tionate income was subject to any such charge. The clergy_
man was also precluded from having recourse to any other
means of increasing his income than the pursuit of his pro-
fession ; whereas the landowner might, at the same time
that he derived an income from the property subjected to
this tax, derive additional income from other sources. It
was, upon every consideration, a great injustice to the
tithe-owner to subject him to this rate without any compen-
satin.. advantage. Lf this Bill had been introduced only
for the purpose •of taking the whole question of rating
iiito consideration at a future time, he should not object to
it. In this case it was proposed to tax the clergyman
for purposes for which no other professsional
man was taxed.—( Hear, hear.) A deduction ought
at least to be made from the tithes to be taxed of so much
as would amount to only a fair remuneration for the dis-
charge of the duties of the clergyman,
io that
tihs:focrlehrisopmroa-n
fessnal labour. When the Legislature was about to
exempt from the burthen a particular kind of property,
and to subject to the burthen a species
of property tha't,
was before exempt from it, the case of
ought to be fully and fairly considered,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that from the
n e
sp h
eech of the Right Qntlem. 4n, and the length of
it, he had expected that thet
•Gentleman would
Gbut heE wasRA
GeetTinnthbhelei elGsidAiebntnelot‘t
Gentleman, that Committee.t
et this
ho would.d—aythree
conclude
Ie ti t
sy.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL athloasts thoeknhoawd
ck
what he had to answer.
all through the speech of the Right
Mr. GOULBURN said he had forgotten to say, that
conclude with 011°11y.;
of
t.irna deee,n
consequence
lie intended to move an amendment relating to the rating
th
glittaedn beenee nf ftohuen
meansd
moving
W i t h r e sthat-
t
had of evading it.
im-
possible to enforce
which the tradesmen The injustice
of enforcing the rating
pect to the rating
of stock
in trade as it now existed
would be monstrous. aman bad 50/. worth of stock
in trade in one pariah, te might evade his liability by re-
siding in the next. If there were two partners having
an equal interest
in the profits of their business, if the
ho
one lived in the same papists,would be liable to be
rated as an inhataitarit, while if the other lived in an ad-
would not be liable.
joinina perish he There were many
ether anomalies which rendered the present system quite
of
thest° rate,
odious, and except in rare. instances hardly any attempt
had been made to enforce it, and the usage undoubtedly
was to confine the rate to the occupiers of the real property.
Such being the case what h
was the proper course? Was it
not to make that law Ahic now was usage? The Right
lion. Gentleman had not complained of any grievance to
the landowner nor even to the titheowner, but bad only said
that one particular class, the ecclesiastical ohiss, would have
reason to complain. Now first there was the grievance to
the landowner, because they were understood to bo a
11nCde4 ore ow land, and what was the distinction
between the landowner and the titheowner ? There
a,s no greater burden, comparatively speaking, upon the one
than the either. The case of the Queen v. Kent did not
affect the rase in the slightest degree. There was no
more truth in saying that the owner of tithes was subjected
to greater bardens under Mr. Scrope's Act than that
there was any distinction between the ecclesiastical and

rlay owner. He felt no interest in the Bill ; but as the 1
Right Honourable Gentleman had asked his opi- 1
nien, he said that be thought the Bill ought to I
pass as it was drawn, and that he should resist
any amendment. Before the Queen v. Capel
was decided, he had been asked to introduce a clause to
overturn the decision in the case of the Queen v. Jodrell,
and had said that he would not do so, but with regard to
the occupiers of land every thing should remain precisely
as it was. Now the Queen v. Capel had been decided,
he should resist any alteration which would affect the re-
sident liability of the occupier of real property. The ec-
clesiastical owner received his tithes subject to the charge
that they were subject to in the reign of Elizabeth,
and had continued subject to till the present time. He
should further resist the exemption of coal mines, canals,
and gas companies, the proprietors of all of which were
rateable as occepiers, and as he wished the law to remain
as the usage was, all he proposed to do was to meet the
' grievance that was complained of, namely, of inhabitants,
as such, being liable to be rated for personal property.
The Bill now introduced remedied that grievance, and he
therefore hoped it would receive the approbation of the
House.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir EARDLEY WILMOT did not rise to oppose
the Bill, being assured some such Bill must pass.—
( Hear, hear.) But the question was not only the
rating stock in trade. But what was stock in trade.
There were great difficulties in this subject, and this was
peculiarly felt in Birmingham in the case of machinery.
Gentlemen conversant with machinery must know the great
difficulty there was in deciding what of this was free-
hold and what not.—( Hear, hear,) What he there-
fore wished to call the attention of the Attorney-Ge-
neral to was this—the propriety of having a clause
providing how far and how much of the machinery should
he considered as real property, end rated accordingly.
lie wished to know, therefore, whether the Attorney-
General would resist any alteration in this respect in this
Bill?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he could Lot
agree to any alteration in the Bill.
Mr. DARBY thought there would be many appeals
under the Bill, and he also thougl.t there were many
questions respecting rating which must ultimately come
before the House, to be decided by it after the most mature
deliberation. He thought it would be much better to
make this Bill a temporary measure, and at an early pe-
riod next Session to lay the whole question before the
House.
Mr. WOOD quite agreed in the necessity of passing
this measure. He deprecated the practice of the Poor-law
Commissioners issuing their mandates to overturn the law.
Mr. P. SCRO PE said the tithe-owner had always paid
the full proportion of rate for his tithe.
Mr. MUNTZ trusted that the lion. and Learned Gen-
tleman would make the measure more general in its appli-

cation.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
On the first, and only clause, being proposed,
Sir C. DOUGLAS moved as an amendment that gas
and water pipes should be excluded from the operation of
the Biil, which was negatived without a division.
Sir E. WILMOT proposed a clause for the purpose of
defining what parts of machinery were connected with the
freehold, and what not.
The clause was negatived without a division.
Mr. GO ULB URN proposed to add a clause to exempt
the incumbents of benefices from rates upon tithes, which,
after a short discussion, was negatived.
Mr. DARB Y proposed a clause limiting the operation
of the Act to the Ist of October, 1841.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the clause.
After a short discussion the clause was negatived with-
out a division.
The House resumed.
CANADA CLERGY RESERVES.

Mr. BERNAL brought up the Report on the Canada
Clergy Reserves Bill.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated that he proposed to
insert a clause to extend the sale of Clergy Reserves
to the Lower as well as Upper Province. He
also proposed to insert a clause, declaring more
fully than the first clause did, that the Act of 1791 should
be no longer in force, with respect to any future reserva-
tion of the grants of Crown-lands.
The clauses were then brought up and agreed to.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL.

The second reading of the Administration of Justice
Bill was postponed till Monday.
The Soap Duties Bill was read a third time and passed.
The East India Shipping. Bill was read a second time.
On the motion of Mr. FOX MAULE the Insane Pri.
boners Bill was read a third time.
The Fisheries Bill went through Committee.
AFFIRMATIONS BILL.

- _
Mr. HAVES brought up the Report on the Affirms,
tions Bill which was ordered to be engrossed, and the Bill
to be read a third time to-morrow (this day).
The Reports on the Turnpike Acts Continuance (Ire-
land) Bill, and the Turnpike Acts Continuance Bitl,
were received.
The Bills were, after a short discussion, ordered to be
read a third time (this day) to-morrow.
The Linen Manufacturers' Bill (Ireland) went through
Committee, and the Report was ordered to be received
to-morrow (this day).
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
the Huuse adjourned at a Quarter past Two o'Clock.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

TATTERSALL'S-YFSTERDAY.

The alterations in the betting this day may be described in a
few words. For the Goodwood Stakes, Hetman Platoff and
Oreha were hacked with considerable spirit, the horse hav-
ing the lead at the finish ; Clarion underwent .a further de-
cline; and the other favourites (if such a term can be ap-
plied to them) were in very little favour. The Cup betting was
confined to a small number ; to I was taken eagerly about the
first favourite, and in some instances a shade less ; two or
three small sums were also laid on Hetman Platoff, Beggar-
Man, Pocahontas, and Romulus, but we did not observe any
•{ eagerness" to get on about either ; Lanercost was friendless.
A.: few engagements were entered into on Galen, Dr. Caius,
and iSferoon for the St. Leger, without causing any material
change Gibraltar, for want of supporters, dropped to 15 to 1,
and the Only bets weheard again,t the two favourites were at
sto 4 against them jointly. The following were the prices at
the close of a very dull afternoon :—.

GOODNVOOD STA K FS.
6 to 1 agst Hetman Platoff—taken
7 to 1 agst Orelia—taken
12 to 1 agst" Clarion
2) to 1 agst Forlorn Hope
30 to 1 agst Black Beck—taken
30, to 1 agst The Drama L-taken
33 to 1 agst The Ruler—taken
500 even between Pocket Hercules and The Drama—taken
GOODWOOD CUP.
20 to 11 agst Charles the Twelfth-2 to 1 taken freely
6 to 1 agst Hetman Platoff—taken
10 to 1 agst Lanercost
15 to 1 agst Beggarman—taken
20 to 1 agst Pocahontas—taken
20 to 1 agst Amurath—takf n
25 to 1 agst Romulus—taken
ST. LEGER.

3 to 1 on the field
14 to 1 agst Galen—taken
15 to 1 agst Gibraltar—taken
24 to 1 agst Dr. Cains—taken
40 to 1 agst Maroon—taken
500 to 400 on the field agst the two favourites—taken

EDINBURGH RACES.
(From the Scotsman of Wednesday.)
The races over the Musselburgh course, for 1840, com-
menced yesterday. The attendance of spectators was thinner
than has been known for many years. This may be accounted
for in some measure by the uncertain character of the wea-
ther, which made people afraid to venture out. The day,
though dull and threatening, kept up till between three and
four o'clock, when it rained rather heavily. The fallowing is
the result of the racing :
A Plate of 50 sovs. given by the Duke of Buccleuch, for horses,
&c. which never won 100 sovereigns at any one time, in-
cluding their own stake (two miles). Three to start or no
race.
Earl of Dunmore'sbr h Aladdin, five years okl.
Mr. J. 0. Fairlie's gr g Pyramid, six years old.
Mr. Bowman's hr g Easingwold, four years old.
A beautiful race, and won by ab 3ut a neck. The third not
beat by more than half a head.
A Handicap Sweepstakes of 10 sovs. each, h it. One mile and
a quarter, for horses the property of, and to be ridden by,
officers of the Queen's Bays. (Nine Subsaribers.)
Mr. Dallas's b m, Cuttysark, llst 101 b.
Captain Campbell's br g, Mango, six years old, list.
Mr. Knox's br g, Newbold, six years old, 10st l'2lb.
Captain Mildmay's b in, Countess.
Won by a head.
Her Majesty's Plate of One Hundred Guineas, granted to the
city of Edinburgh (under deduction of fees at Exchequer,
&c.) (Heats, two miles).
Mr. Ramsay's bl h, The Doctor, six years old.
Earl of Dunmore's Aladdin.
Mr. Robertson's Olympias__

Won easy.

It it were but considered what dangerous conse-
quences to vision must inevitably result from the continued use
of faulty or improper spectacles, the dreadful effects would be
cautiously 'prevented by the removal of the cause; hence
visual diseases would be considerably diminished and good sight
preserved to the community to extreme old age. These ob-
servations are called forth in consequence of the distinguished
recommendation from some of the most eminent practitioners
in Europe, that is bestowed on the "Patent Preservation
Spectacles," manufactured by Mr. E. Solomons, optician, No.
1, Old Jewry, City, and 36, Old Bond-street, and their disposal
exclusively secured to these establishments by " Royal autho-
, ity," which, while they are contradistinguished in their pre-
serving and strengthening powers from the irremediable injury
that is to be apprehended from the pernicious attributes of the
ordinary common glasses, convey a sense of coolness and plea-
ure to the eyes during their protracted use, thus affording the
most delightful present enjoyment and prospective benefit. It
will no doubt be gratifying to that poi tion of our readers
afflicted with deafness, to know that the distressing effects of
which they have to complain may also be as wonderfully re-
lieved by the application of Invisible Hearing Instruments,
recently produced by Mr. E. Solomons, which not only restore
hearing to the deaf, enabling them to distinguish the faintest
inflections of a distant speaker, and to participate in all the
serious enjoyments which its privation has hitherto excluded,
but that the torpid pirits which generally prevail on such sub-
jects, give place to the most lively and pleasurable sensations.
In consequence of the various attempts to counterfeit the above
invaluable inventions, particular attention should be paid to
the proprietor's address, namely, No. 1, Old Jewry, City, and
36, Old Bond-street, Piccadilly
COMPLETION OF MR. JESSE'S "MEMOIRS
Of THE COURT of ENGLAND."—We are requested to state
that the third and fourth volumes of the work entitled " Me-
moirs of the Court of England under the Stuarts,rby_Jen Me-
moirs
Jesse, Esq.," are published this day bY
1%1;r Majesty,
New Burlington-street, Publisher in Ordinary to h
and can now be had of all Booksellers.
DETERMINED SUICIDE.--Thursday morning a
respectable young mar., named Christopher Latimer, a trades-
man residing in Eaton-lane South, Pimlico, destroyed himself
by cutting his throat with a razor. The body was found about
nine o'clock by the deceased's brother. The deceased, who
was about thirty years of age, had been for some time in an
' ailing and desponding state. The body lies at the house where
the fatal act was committed, to await a Coroner's Inquest.
The various parishes in Dublin are getting up
meetings in support of Mr. O'Connell's present plan for ob-
taining a repeal of the Union ; as yet, however, no person of
any note hasjoined him in his object,