The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-22 00:00:00

t 4 btrb Nobttton

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock,

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT
(THIS DAY)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)

LANDS AND COMPANIES' CLAUSES pONSOLIDA
TION BILL.

On the motion for the second reading of the Lands and
Companies' Clauses Consolidation Bill being read,
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said, that the House should not
affirm the principle of the Bill under existing circumstances,
or at least until they were in possession of the evidence taken
before the Committee, and until the Committee made its re-
port, for it would be premature to take into consideration
the Bill as introduced by the Hon. Member for Paisley.
With regard to the Bill itself, if his Hon. Friend would con-
sent to a postponement of it, it would not be necessary to go
into any discussion upon the merits of the Bill. The Bill had
been considered by those most competent to form an opinion
upon the subject, and they had come to the conclusion that
this measure ought not to bo alllowed under any circum-
stances, as its result would be to impose upon railway com-
panies difficulties and obligations which they did not antici-
pate when they obtained their Acts, and which they would
be unable to fulfil.
Mr. HASTIE said the object of the Bill was to compel
railway companies to register a certain amount of their scrip
within a given period after obtaining their Act, and he con-
ceived this was a matter of the utmost importance to the
public, because if this Bill were passed, they would be
enabled to distinguish the good from the bad schemes.
This was the reason which induced him to bring forward the
Bill, but after the explanation of the Right Hon. Gentleman
he had no difficulty in consenting to its postponement. He
must, however, at the same time express a hope that Govern-
ment would not allow the present session to pass by without
taking steps to rid the market of doubtful or useless scheme.
Mr. HAYTER argued that the Bill would fail in effecting
the object the Hon. Member had in view, even supposing the
House agreed to pass it.—(Hear, hear.) Besides, the pro-
visions of the Bill were not only dangerous, but unconstitu-
tional. It proceeded upon the principle that the only parties
who were interested in the railway were those who
had subscribed to it, but there was the public to be con-
sidered, who were no less interested in the making of the
line, and he thought it unconstitutional to allow a certain
number of the former to repeal the Act passed for making
their railway.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUDSON said there certainly were objections to
some of the details; but he thought if the House would
allow the Bill to go into Committee, such alterations might
be made in its clauses as to render it important for the
public that the Bill should be passed into a law. If they diet
not pass a Bill of this sort, what did the House think would be
the consequence? Why there would be a re-occurrence of the
events of some seven years ago, when parties who had pur-
chased scrip in the great railways of the north, neglected to
register themselves as shareholders in the undertaking, and
the consequence was the Company fell back upon the party
who had originally signed the deed, entailing, in many in-
stances, ruin and destruction on those parties who had laboured
under the impression that in parting with their interest in
the line they had parted with their liability.—(Hear, hear.)
It was but fair that the House, having giving the scriphclders
power to break up their companies, should confer the same
privilege on the party whesoriginally signed the deed, and he
warned the House that if they did not pees a simple measure to
compel registration, they would see extensive works com-
menced and abandoned, and families without end involved in
ruin and misery.—( Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. HENLEY and Lord G. SOMER-
SET, the Bill was withdrawn.
ART-UNION BILL.
Mr. WYSE presented a large number of petitions from
various parts of the country in favour of this Bill, and after-
wards moved that the House resolve itself into Committee
on the measure.
The Speaker accordingly left the Chair, and the House
went into Committee on the Bill.
Sir R. H. INGLIS objected to the Bill in principle. It
was encouraging what was unquestionably gambling, and
encouraging the fine arta in a very questionable manner.
Mr. EWART said the most beneficial results had attended
the establishment of art-union institutions on the Continent,
and he coald not see why their establishment in
England should not do so too. The objection to the
Bill, on the ground that it would encourage gambling, was
ridiculous; while the second objection of the lion. Baronet
was not borne out by experience. The Bill, however, was
not introduced solely for the purpose of encouraging art.
Sir G. GREY said it appeared to him that the objection of
the Hon. Baronet was not urged so much against this par-
ticular Bill, but the Hon. Baronet objected to it because it
might lead to other trades establishing similar institutions.
His Right Hon. Friend, however, the Attorney-General, had
a clause to propose providing against such a result.
Colonel SIBTHORP snpeorted the Bill.
Mr. HUME said the Bill appeared to him to be a simple
mode of encouraging art in this country, where it had been
so much neglected. In other countries it was supported and
encouraged by the State, but he thought this was the best
way thej could do it in England.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. .NEWDEGATE trusted his Hon. Friend the Member
for the University of Oxford would not oppose this Bill. He
could assure him that the Art Union institutions in no way
encouraged what could be considered in the light of gam-
bling, and from personal observations he could bear testi-
mony to the admirable results the establishment of an Art
Union had produced in Birmingham.--(Hear, hear.)
Sir DE LACY EVANS was a strong advocate for the
establishment of these institutions, and as he thought it was
high time they had done something for art in this country,
he certainly should give the Bill his hearty support.—(Hear.)
Mr. EWART referred the Hon. Baronet the Member for
Oxford to Dr. Johnson's; Dictionary (a quarto copy of which
he produced) for the learned doctor's definition of the word
"gambling," a term which he had applied to art unions;
Dr. Johnson defined " gambling " as " playing extravagantly
for money," which he apprehended could not be applied to
art-unions, as the subscriptions were offone guinea, and were
distributed amongst several thousand individuals.
The clauses were then proceeded with, and were agreed
to with several vt real amendments.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said, as his /lon. Friend (Mr. Ewart)
had taken the trouble to favour him with Dr. Johnson's defi-
nition of the word " gambling," lie wished tep ask him if the
distribution of prizes by lottery was not the very spirit of
gambling?
Mr. EWART repeated that art unions were not based on
the spirit of gambling, and that many eminent lawyers, Sir
Fitzroy Kelly amongst others, had given an opinion to that
effect.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said it was important that the opinions
of eminent lawyers should be obtained on the subject. He
for one was of opinion that such societies were formed on the
principle of gambling.
The remaining clauses were agreed to, the House resumed,
and the report was brought up by Mr. GREENE.
The further discussion was appointed for Monday.
NEW MEMBER.
The Lord Advocate, Mr. RUTHERFORD, took the oaths,
and his seat for Leith. The Hon. Member was introduced
by the Attorney-General (Mr. Jervis) and Mr. Macaulay.
THE SUGAR DUTIES.
Sir GEORGE GREY informed the House that his Noble
Friend the First] Lord of the Treasury would be in his place
at four o'clock on Friday, in order to bring before the House
the question of the Sugar Duties.
DEATH BY ACCIDENT COMPENSATION BILL.
On the motion for going into Committee on this• Bill,
Sir F. THESIGER said he considered it his duty to
oppose it on the ground of its startling circumstances, and
the great evils which could not fail to arise under it if it were
passed into a law, because it was a hastily gat up, and conse-
quently ill digested measure. The facts to which these re-
marks particularly referred were those respecting the bringing
of actions of the executors and administrators of the person de
stroy-ed by an accident, carelessly caused, and the division of the
money received amongst thewidow and children of the deceased.
Ile was strongly of opinion that the time had arrived when
some measures should be adopted by which the widow,
children or relations of a person killed by an
accident, should have the means of obtaining.
compensation for the great injury they had sustained by his
death, if that death was biought about by the reckless or
careless conduct of others. Ha would suggest, in order to
render the measure useful, that the widow of a person killed
by. the wrong act of another should have the right of
bringing an action by his executor or administrator
although his death should have been caused under circum-
stances which amounted to manslaughter, provided the
action was brought within one year from the death of such
person.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thanked his Hon. Friend
for the attention he had given to the Bill, and proceeded at
considerable length to show that great anomalies could not
fail to ensue, under the provisions of the Bill, in the cases
of different individuals moving in different spheres of life.
lie trusted that the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) would
postpone the measure, in order that its provisions might be
altered, so as to do away with the inconsistency of various
parts of it.

Mr. BOLIVERIE said the Bill was similar in substance to
one introduced this session into the other House of Parlia-
ment. The House would perceive that the Bill specified two
kinds of damages—one to the person
linjured,ue; and the other
to his widow and children; but if the died, but one
kind of damage could be recovered. He no objection to
postpone the Bill for a week, in order that the proposed al_
aerations might be made in it.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM pointed out the great difficulties
in the way of proving who or what caused the death of per-
sons by accident, and who were the persons to sue for com-
pensation. Accidents to a frightful extent frequently oc-
curred in the mines, from the carelessness and ignorance,
and not from the neglect of the miners. Who, in
such a case, ought to give compensation to the persons
injured or their relatives? There were great difficulties
in the way which he conceived could not be easily overcome.
He should be glad, before saying whether he should support
the Bill or not, to hear the opinion of the Lord Advocate
with respect to the law of Scotland on the subject, which
was generally understood to make provision for the
bringing of actions for compensation for the deaths of
weons caused by the reckless conduct of others.
The Bill was one of which the general
itsalynciple was alcorrect
one; but the great uncertainty o
bably lead to very many and serious mistakes wordinga would
ou
subject
pro-
Sir F. KELLY said that he never saiduPthat anabcje.ct.
might be maintained for the benefit of creditors. He stated
that his executors and administrators could bring an action,
and that the money which they received as damages might,
be assets for his creditors.
fir. WAKLEY thought that the Bill was an extremely
Crnae and was drawn up in a very careless manner,
andtli fact the first clause was totally incomprehensible.
Be hoped the Hon. Member for Kilmarnock would consent to
pOilt pone his motion, until some more definitive measure
could be brought forward. It was quite preposterous that any
who received any injury to his limbs or body, could ob-
tain 0rgu,..0
man while, in the event of his death his relations,.
who were Injured by it, could not recover. Such a state of
introduced by rtainl
tyhe Hon,
Sir GEORGE GREY suggested that the Hon. Member
who brought forward the motion should leave the matter to
be referred to a Select Committee, on which he could claim
the attendance of the Lord Advocate. He concurred
with the Lord Advocate that the sole intention of
She Bill was not to shift the liability from one
party to another, or a new class of persons. It was
only to extend the liability in cases resulting in death. It
was a curious anomaly in the law, that a man who received
any in could bring an action to recover damages for
medical attendance and the injury he bad received, but if he
died in the course of the action, his family were not only
liable to the expenses incurred in his illness,
but to the expense, of the action. Some alteration in that
state of the law was desirable, and as the Bill for the abolition
of deodands was one of a somewhat similar nature, he would
auggest that it be also referred to the Select Committee on
the present Bill.
J.
Sir J GRAHAM suggested that the Bills should be re-
fered to the Criminal Law Commissioners, and that the
question should be for the present postponed, in order to give
time for due deliberation on the subject,