The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-06 00:00:00

Agt't
- _
to complain--he referred to Hi.; aoll/2;
Campbell's Act, by which the _ tuition
awirded according to the value of the person's in-
come who might suffer by an aceicleht on the railiitiy.
Mr. WATKLN obierved that their 034 Merchant
Shipping Act afforded a precedent by:which this
part of the law might be established, ulieo, there
was a limitation to the amount of damages in, the
event of shipwreck.
Mr. LOWE—That was not a new law, but_ one
taken from the Act of George 11.
Mr. WATKIN knew that in the United Stites the
law of ved, and that -its 'some
cases of casualty 0,900 doll. were awarded, and in
others 2,000 ; but there was in each case a limita-
tion. But the case as applicable to the railways of
this country was different. A person worth 1001.
a-year paid ss. fare for going from one point to
another ; a bishop paid the same sum for going the
same distance, and yet the amount of compensation
for any casualty to tho bishop would be immensely
greater than to the person of 1001. There-was re-
quired some alteration here. No insurance-office
would tike upon themselves the risk that was in-
volved by the operatien of Lord Campbell's
Lord STANLEY—After all the Act only intenled
to represent the status of the different persons to
whom accidents might ocrelr. You must give com-
pensation to Sir Fitzroy Kelly, who was the exam-
ple in these cases—(laughter)—.should any accident
b4all him, according to his worth. That was the
only alteration in Lord Campbell's law.
Mr. WATKIN—There ought, no doubt, to be
some difference between the damages for the injury
to a poor man and a man of rank and station ; but
he should be glad if the railways would refuse to
carry bishops and Sir Fitzroy Kelly altogether.
Lord STANLEY—CouId younot insure yourselves'?
Mr. WATErN—We might be allowed to•charge a
small additional sum for insurance.

Lord STANLEY—I don't mean that. Could you
not go to an insurance-office ?
Mr. WATKIN—No-office would take upon them-
selves the T isk. The thing is so new and so limited
in extent that there is no, office who would engage
in it. They. say it is not a fair risk.
Mr. WANG=E—It is quite Open for persons to in-
„ppm their own hives.— -
LOrd alteration which- ynn- aro
proposing is not an alteration of thelaw in regard
to railways only, • but a change in the law of the
land, as applicable to all other Modes of convey-
ance.

Mr. VANCE then called the attention of Lot d.
Stanley to the very grievous operation of the Par-
liamentary system by which Railway Bills were
pa,tsed, and the competitive principle encouraged.
Lord STANtEY said the argument of the hon.
gentleman was altogether in favour of transferring
the power from Parliament to the Board of Trade,
or some other board of control, but he would re-
mind the deputation that when Lord Dalhousie
made a proposition to that effect it met with the
most strenuous opposition from the railway pro-
prietors. He would, however, say that it was not
at all likely that Parliament would transferthe
power it now possessed to the Board of Trade. ut
he would ask the deputation whether they believed
that the railway interest would prefer submitting
itself to the control of the Board of Trade rather
than to Parliament ?

Mr. WATKIN admittedthat the railway proprie-
tors did not look at their position or at circum-
stances in 1857 as they did in 1845. It was a
matter of great regret that the plans of Lord Dal-
housie were not carried out. What the railway
shareholders required was a responsible body with
which they could deal. If there were a Board of
Trade that took cognizance of railways it would be
a body they could confer with, and one which
would be responsible to the country. It might be
brought in aid of the Parliamentary committee=,
and might exercise a practical control over them.
Mr. LOWE—That does not agree with the me-
morial, which says that it would be more satisfac-
tory if such jurisdiction was vested either in some
independent and responsible tribunal, subject to
the restraining action of public opinion, or placed
under the immediate supervision of the Board of
Trade.

Mr. WATKIN—We don't wish to abrogate the
authority of the 654 members of the House of Com-
mons, but to adopt some plan similar to that which
Lord Dalhousie suggested.
Lord STANLEY considered that groat advantage
would result from such a plan. It was obvious that
the department over which he presided thought so,
because the 'proposition was made by those who
were at the head of that department.