The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-27 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 26.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
LARCEN VIARY jt.l IC tam BILL.
Sir J. PAKINGTON moved the third reading of this
Bill.
Sir G. STRICKLAND opposei the Bill. He con-
tended that the Juvenile Offenders' Bill had not operated
in a satisfactory manner, and, therefore, that it ought
not to be extended further. The Hon. Baronet (pow('

from a pamphlet of Mr. Sergeant Adams, to show that that
Act had not decreased the number of juvenile offenders,
and that it was one of the most mischievous mistakes of

modern benevolence. lie (Sir George Strickland) de-
precated the principle of corporal punishment as applied
to children, aad cited the case of a boy in the city of
London who had been twelve times imprisoned and
twelve times flogged, and who was now undergoing im-
prisonment for the thirteenth time. That, be sub-
mitted, was a convincing proof that corporal
punishments tended to harden and brutalize, in-
stead of reforming juvenile offenders. He opposed
the Bill also, on Vie ground that it tended to do away
with trial by jury, the fairest part of the British con-
stitution. The Hon. Baronet then proceeded to quote
a writer in the Staffordshire Conservative, reflez,tiog on
the too great powers of officials, and the many abuses
which it led to. It was with great satisfaction that he
had heard the Recorder of London and the
Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Ri-
pon oppose this Bill, and he thought that
their authority ought to have great weight with the
House. If more duties were pressed upon the unpaid
magistracy than they were able to perform it would be
taking the moat direct course to bring that important

body into discredit.
Mr. M. MILNES was surprised to find himself support-
ing the Hon. Baronet in his present motion, but his motives
were entirely different, and he did not at all share with
him in his nuworthy suspicions of the magistracy of the
country. He presumed that the object of the Hon.
Baronet was to pravent these unfortunate children from
assuming, as little as possible, a criminal status; but
then it must be remembered that the system which the
Honourable Baronet sought to introduce., connected as
it was with prisons and gaols, would have but little effect
in preventing those evils.
Sir J. PAKINGTON hoped, as the Bill would tend
to diminish the evils which arose from the contarnina-

Con of young persons by old offenders, that the House
would disregard the arguments of the two Lion,
Members, and allow the Bill to be read a third time.
Mr. S. CRA.WFORD opposed the Bill, thinking,

they once departed from trial by jury in the case of
young persons under 16, they could urge no reason
against extending that privilege to adults cf all ages.
Mr. BANKES said there were powers in the Bill to
allow 'juvenile offenders to have the option of a trial
either by a jury or a magistrate. He should support
thq Bill.

LLAGII sai3 it was cl4.ngeroui; to lax-ease
the summary jurisliction of rnagistr;,.t.-s. it was estab-
lishing one law or the poor and another for the rich.
and if it were only on that ground he should feel it to be
. . _

hi 6 duty to oppos-e the Bill:
Mr. AGLIUN3Y protested a;ainst the assertion that
V,is was a law sgainst s-lasses; it was a law i;aittst
crioue,.and the rich would be as much amenable to it as

the poor.
Toe 1;C:1130 thEn divided, when there appeared—
For Vl's third reading ... 119
ApiLst,
The Bill was vleu reA a ttifid time.
Mr. 110ITVE1iIE then Ir.,,ved the insertion of the
following clause :—And be it enacted, that one t f
justices tg.sfore whom any person shall be cha ged, anti
proceed?nd agai2st under this Act, or the berembelore
e itioned Acts, before such person shall asked
wt,ether ho or she has any cause to show why
he or'sho should not be convicted, shall say to the per-
son su charged there words, or words to the like Ofect:
" We shall Lavo to 'near what you wish to say in answer
to the charge rt'fainst you; but if you wish the charge
to be tried-by a jury, you roust object now to our de-
cidieg Upon it at once;" and if such p(srson, or a par,-,nt,
or the next friend of such person, shall then ohk et, the
justie:is shall proce:d with the charge as it' the said
Acts hid not been passed.
Sir JoaN PAKINGTON would have no (njection
to place the clause in the Bill. lie however, gu,c4e4ted
that the wocds " next friend" should be struck out.
Sit G. STRICKLAND pointed out, the absurdity of
giving stick an option to a child undor -ten years of is e,
wrs could not las supposed to know anything about
objScting.
After few words from Mr. AGLIONBY,
Mr. BOUVERIE said he had t;)) objeclion to adopt
the suggestion of the Hon. Baronet, and strike out the
words " next friend,"
The clause as amended was then agreed to, and ordered
to he added to the Bill, after which the Bill was passed.
CQPYFIOLDS ENFRANCLII6EUEN'r BILL.

Mr. AGLIONBY moved the second reading of this
Bill; The principle ot the Bill was to relieve the copy-
hold tenures from those remains of the f:eidal system
which pressed so heavily on the prosont occupier. He
was surprised that no Government since 1831 had ven-
tured to take one step in aseordaneo with
this principle, although several Committees had
pronounced in favour of his present measure, and that,
too, very strongly. lie thoneht that if the country only
knew the arse.. eels which were caused by the present
system it would be sore to put an cud to them. The
Hon. Gentleman then conolueed by moving the second
reading of the Bill, expressing his readiness to attend to
any suggestion which might be thrown out to Ishii in the
course. of the debate.
Mr. CURIE ['OMER opposed the second reading of
the Bill. He felt himselt wholly inadequate to cuter
upon the consideration of the change in the law, now
preiposed by the Hoe. Member for Cuckermouth. He
(Me. Christopher) objected to the B:ll more in general
tertne than with respect to details. His great objection
to the Bill was that, altnough the Boa. and Learned Mem-
ber (Mr. Agiionby) submitted than it was his wish to du
justice to all parties, when he (Mr. Christopher) read
the 'provisions of the Bill he found that it was, to all
inteute and purposes, a one-sided measure, and was
calcalsted to injure persons in their own rights, and in
the possession of their property. He saw nothing in
the -Bill irhich could be satisfactory to the landlord and
the tenant, and that being so he objected to the Bill
being proceeded with farther; and ho would beg to move
that it be read a second time this day six months.
Mr. BEATHCOTE said the Hon. and Learned Mem-
her.'fOr Csciterinouth (Mr. Aglionby) pref,ssed to have
in view the doing away with the paraphernalia of the
copyhold courts, he (Mr. Heathcote) did out think
the Bill would effect any such object. He objected to
the Bill also on the ground that it did not do justice to
the lord of the manor and the tenant, though
it prufeseed to attain that object. He was of
opinion that the Government of the country
ought to briug in a Bill ot this kind and cot a private
Member. The Copyhold Commissioners had in some
degree recommended this Bill to be brought forward,
but the Government, finding that it would not answer
had, as he believed, declined to introduce it. He
would support the amendment of the Hon. Member (Mr.
Claristepher).
Mr. StIAITO ADAIR ventured to suggest to the
House to allow the Bill to be read a second time pro
fo-eta, and then to refer it to a Select Committee, the
eleinbers of which would have an opportunity of consi-
sleriair its bearine, and might so modify and improve it
as to meet the wishes of ail parties concerned.
Viscount GALWAY thought that, considering the
great importance attaching to a meesture of this kind, it
should have been introduced to the Rouse under the
auspices of the Geverneetne
Sir GEORGE GREY said, though the Government
could not undertike to introduce a ail of this nature,
he was prepared to support the principle of the measure.
He thought there were great difficuities cAneeted with
this •Subjk.ct He had had many deputations to see him
on the subject of stewards of lords of manors and other
sech persons affec;kd by this Bill. They expressed great
anxiety that the principle of compulsory registration
should be carried out. Their objection to the Bill was
that'. in did not go far enough.—(llear, hear.) Having
arrived at this agreement as to the principle, he was very
sorry that the Bill of his Hon. Friend the Member for
Cirencester was not before the House. Ho should re-
enuamend the second reading of the Bill in order to refer
it to a Select Committee, where the differences between
the Hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Aglionby) and
his Hon. It who had not yet introduced his Bill—
which, however, it was understood would be brought for-
ward_might be reconciled. If this Bill were pressed to a
division he should certainly vote for the second reading,
not prro forma simply, but to approve its principle.
Mr MULLINGS was decidedly in favour cf a mea-
sure for the enfranchisement of copyholds, but he
thought this Bill contained not one word in all its pro-
viiiens for that purpose. He could tall the lion. Mem-
leer' opposite that in no shape could this Bill be carried
into working. He should not oppose the second read-
ing, because of his approval of the principle of it.
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND said that this Bill
Was called a copyhold enfranchisement Bill, but in truth
it was nothing of the kind. It was simply a commute,
Lion Bill, to change the present mode of payment i.nt(ttihtee
fixed rent•charge. It did not get rid of
copyhold tenure ; on the contrary, it was a
Bill to perpetuate that; and his wish was to get
rid of copyhold tenure. If any Member should bring
foreard --a real and not a sham Bill on this subject, he
should give it his cordial support, but he felt bound to
vote against the present Bill, believing that it would
operate very unjustly on the lords of manors.
Colonel SIBTHORP supported the Bill.
Mr. HENLEY observed that there was no principle in
the Bill to protect the enfranchisement of copy holds,
and he should, therefore, vote against the second reading.
Mr. AGLIUNBY said the great object of the Bill
was to enfranchise all property from the objectionable
parts of its tenure, and to leave all which was of service
to the parties interested in that property.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading ... 103
Against it ••• 84
Majority ••• ••• •.. —l9
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on the 17th of July.
ACCIDENTS ON RAILWAY 3 BILL.
Mr. NEW DEGAItE moved the second reading of
this Bill, the object of, which was to force railway com-
p lilies to pay for medical advice end attendance when-
ever an accident on the line required it. The Honour-
able Member proceeded to cite various instances of
accidents on railroads, in which, owing to the uncer-
tainty of the law at to the liability of railway companies
in the case of accidents, great inhumanity had resulted.
All tha: this Itiil provided was, that railwey com-
panies should he an the first instance liable to
erred fur asiitlanco in the case of
accidents on thee. railway;; ,but it gave t ctri the power
of recovering froth the person hurt by such accidents the
expense of the medical attendant, if -such person was
competent to pay, or from the parish, if he was a pauper.

It might be urgel that those accidents on rallroads
were rare; his answer to that was that if those accidents
were rare, the liability was also small. He urged the
House to pass this Bill, which he believed would ope-
rate in mercy to the poor.
Mr, ELLIS opposed the Bill. Ile was a director of
two of the largest railways in the kingdom—the London
and North-Western and the Midland Railways, and he
ventured to say that none of his brother directors had
ever endeavoured to shield themselves from any just
claims which might be made upon them in respect
of any neglect of their servants or want of care on the
line. He referred to the judgment of Mr. Baron Parke
in one of the cases alluded to by the Hon. Gentleman
who introduced the Bill, to show that though railway
companies were not legally responsible for the cost
of surgical aid rendered to persons who might meet
with accidents, yet that little injury could result
to the public from that state of the. law, for a
surgeon could always have a good edam a4atnst any
patient he might attend, and if the patient happened to
be poor and unable to pay, he could recover a sufficient
amount of damages from the company to enable him to
discharge the bill of his medical attendant.
Mr. ADDERLEY said the Bill wa: not proposed to
meet individual cases, but to remedy a very anomalous
state of the law, which exposed her Majesty's subjects to
great danger, more especially the poorer classes.
Colonel SIBTHORP gave his cordial support to the
Bill, and so far did ho approve of its principle that he
would make railway directors grant annuities to the
widows, children, and representatives of persons who
were killed by accidents, for a certain number of years
after their death. If he had his own way, he would
have not only a surgeon but a director in every carriage
attached to a train on a railway.—(A laugh.)
Mr. LABOUCIIER,E said he could not recommend
the House to pass this Bill, because he believed the
principle of it very 01-jectionable. Legislation of the
kind proposed in the Bill was much to bo deprecated.—
(Hear, hear.) It would, in effect, alter the general law
of the land as to principal and agent, and without the
slightest cause being shown for dot so.—(llear.)
Mr. SPOONED agreed with the Right lion. Gentle-
man that before they could take railways out of the ge-
neral
course of the law they must establish a peculiar
case against them, but that case had been made out.
Baron Parke had laid it down that the servant who sent
for the medical man was liable for his charges, and
not the company, and it was to meet this
state of the law that this Bill had been
introduced, for as the law now stood the
servant of a railway company, in the event of an acci-
dent, was afeaid to go tor a medical man through the
dread of having to pay the expenses. The object of the
Bill was to remedy that evil, but if it did not accom-
plish that end, it was the duty of the Railway Board
to suggest some other remedy before it determined
to oppose the measure, or e!se what did they pay the
Board for if it c uhf not deal with a ea its like this?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objcc*-ed both to
th-
title and preamble of the Bill. Ho adinEted taat as the,
law now stood a company was not liable for the acts o'
its servants in calling in medical advice in case (a!'
dents, hut he denied that it was either necessar:,
or expedient to alter the law in that respect.
The House WAS not to be in-tile:iced in this matter
the fact that two ja;,3ges of two different county court,
hal arrived at different conclusions resp::cting the lia-
bility of a servant of a railway to pay for medical at-
tendance which he called in in case of accidents. The
Hou ae ought rather to be guided by th e principle laid do we
by the Court of Exchequer, that railway companies were
not bound by the ails of their servants in calling in
medical aid in case of accidents on their hues. Mix-
was nothing so dangerous in the administrati'm of time
law as the intrialueing exceitioral !.:!:;I..latioci to Ilas,l
particular cases; and it was a saying in Westmluatei
Hall that " hard ca-es ma lo bad law," for it
such cases the judge a were likely t ) be guided'
by their feelings nether than by a strict regtrd to the
rules of law. lie h,prd the House would reject the Bill
Mr. It;CARDO would net argue such a ye,tion
this :is a matter of interest; but he would remind th
House that there was on ICeitifig law caliel Liza;
CainpbAi's Act, under which railway companies were
'table every day to •ho inulcted iu heavy damage,
for eecidents on their railroads. Ile conteade,i
that the ia-v ai it stood wa-. amply sulticicni
to mete out justice to parties meeting witl,
accidents on railways. He also submitted that L
nine cases out of ten the accidents that occurred or
railroads happened through the negligence of the
parties thenaselre,, rather than through that of the corn
panics or their serve; te—(Cries of" Divide.")
The House then divided, when there appeared—
Fer the second reading ... 53
Against it ... „, „, 103
Majority ••• ••• ... —5O
The Bill was accordingly thrown out.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir G. GREY said that it had been arranged that
the House should meet to-morrow at twelve o'clock, t&
proceed with th discussion ~f the Landlord and Tenant
Bill, introduced by the Hon. Member fir Berkshire (Mr.
Piney-). However, consideritur the late sitting last night,
and that the House would also probably sit to a lat}
hour to-morrow night, ho did not think it would be io
conformity v.: ith the general wkh cf Hon. lembrrs to
meet to-norrow at twelve lock. He proposed, there-
fore, that the order for the third reading of that Bill, at
twelve o'clock to-morrow, he discharged.
The order was read and -discharged, and the third
reading of the Bill was fixed for Tuesday rex-, at twelve
o'cloAr.