The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-26 00:00:00

WEDNESD AY

^ r

" We shall have to hear what you wish to say in answer
to the charge against you; but if you wish the charge
to be tried by a jury, you must object now to our de-
ciding upon it at once;" and if such person, or a parent,
or the next friend of such person, shall then object, the
justices shall proceed with the charge as if the said
Acts had not been passed.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON would have no objection
to place the clause in the Bill. He however, suggested
that the words "next friend" should be struck out.
Sir G. STRICKLAND pointed out the absurd iiy of
giving such an option to a child under ten years of age,
who could not be supposed to know anything about
objecting.
After few words from Mr. AGLIONBY,
_ _ _

Mr. BOUVERIE said he had no objection 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 be added to the Bill, afthr which the Bill was passed.
COPYHOLDS ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.

Mr. AGLIONBY moved the second reading of this
Bill. The principle of the Bill was to relieve tne copy-
hold tenures from those remains of the feudal system
which pressed so heavily on the present occupier. He
was surprised that no Government since 1831 had ven-
tured to take one step in accordance with
this principle, although several Committees had
pronounced in favour of his present measure, and that,
too, very strongly. He thought that if the country only
knew the great evils which were caused by the present
system it would be sure to put an. end to them. The
Hon. Gentleman then concluded by moving the second
reading of the Bill, expressing his readiness to attend to
any suggestion which might be thrown out to him in the
course of the debate.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER opposed the second reading of
the Bill. He felt himselt wholly inadequate to enter
upon the consideration of the change in the law cow
proposed by the lion. Member for Cockermouth. He
(Mr. Christopher) objected to the Bill more in general
terms than with respect to details. His great objection
to the Bill was that, although the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber (Mr. Aglionby) submitted that it was his wish to do
justice to ell parties, when he (Mr. Christopher) read
the provisions of the Bill he found that it was, to all
purposes,urepersons in their own rights, and in
a one-sided measure, and was
cinatlecnultsateadndto
the possessive of their property. He saw nothing in
the Bill which could be satisfactory to the landlord and
the tenant, and that being so he objected to the Bill
being proceeded wita farther; and be would beg to mute
that it be read a second time this day six months.
Mr. HEA rth,o staid the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Cockermouth (Mc. Aglionby) professed to have
in view the doing away with the paraphernalia of the
copyhold courts, but he
(Mr. Heatbcote) did not think
the Bill wool I effect any such object. fie objected to
the Bill also on the ground that it did not do justice to
the lad of tie manor and the tenant, though
it processed to a tau that object. He was of
opinion that the Government of the country
ought
in a Bill of this kind and Lot a private
Member. T
copyhold Commissioners had in some
degree
g tt t o bringeo m
ended this Bill to be brought forward,
r e
but the Government, finding that it would not answer
well, had, as tie believed, declined to introduce it. He
would support the amendment of the Hon. Member (Mr.
Christopher).
Mr. SHAFT() ADAIR ventured to suggest to the
House to allow the Bill to be read a second time pro
fermi', and then to refer it to a Select Committee, the
members of which would have an opportunity of consi-
dering its bearing, and might so modify and improve it
as to meet the wishes of all parties concerned.
Viscount GALWAY thought that, considering the
great importance attaching to a measure of this kind, it
should have been introduced to the House under the
auspices of the Government.
Sir GEORGE GREY said, though the Government
could not undeaake to introduce a Bill of this nature,
he was prepared to support the principle of the measure.
He thought there were great difficulties connected with
this subject. He had had many deputations to see him
on the subject of stewards of lords of manors and other
such persons affected by this Bill. They expressed great
anxiety that the principle of compulsory registration
should be carried out. Their objection to the Bid was
that it did not go far enough.—(Hear, 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. He should re-
commend 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 lion. Friend 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 pro lorrnd simply, but to approve its principle.
Mr. MULLINGS was decidedly in favour of a mea-
sure for the enfranchisement of copyholds, but he
thought this Bill coetained not one word in all its pro-
visions for that purpose. He could tell the Hon. Mem-
ber opposite that in no shape could this Bill bo 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-
time Bill, to change the present mode of payment into a
fixed rent-charge. ,It , did not get rid of the
eopyhold tenure ; on . the contrary, it was a
Bill td' perpetuate that; and his wish was to get
rid of copyhold tenure. If any Member should bring
forward a real and not a sham Bill on this subject, he
should give it his cordial support, but be 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 copyholds,
and he should, therefore, vote against the second reading.
Mr. AGLIONBY 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
Majority ... -19

The Bill was then road a second time, and ordered to
be committed on the 17th of July.
ACCIDENTS ON RAILWAYS BILL.
Mr. NEWDEGATE moved the second reading of
this Bill, the object of which was to force railway com-
panies to pay for medical advice and 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 as to the liability of railway companies
in the case of accidents, great inhumanity lied resulted.
All that this Bill provided was, that railway com-
panies should be in the first instance liable to
send for medical assistance in the case of
accidents on their railways; but it gave them the power
of recovering from 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 urged that those accidents on railroads
were rare; his answer to that was that if those accidents
were rare, the liability was also small. He urged the
Rouse to pass this Bill, which he believed would ope-
rate in mercy to the poor.
Mr, ELLIS opposed the Bill. He 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
elver endeavoured to shield themselves from any just
claims which might be made upon them in respect
lif any neglect oftheir servants or want of care on the
ne. 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
cif surgical aid rendered to persons who might meet
with accidents, yet that little injury could result
tb the public from that state of the law, for a
Surgeon could always have a good claim against any
liatient he might attend, arid 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 was 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 SIB FHORP gave • his cordial support to the
Bill, and so far" did he approve of its principle that he
Would make railway directors grant annuities to the
Widows, Children, and representatives of persons who
were killed by a cidents, 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 toe train on a railway.—(A laugh.)
Mr. LABOUCHERE said he could not recommend
the House to pass this Bill, because he believed the
Principle. of lit very objectionable. Legislation of the
kind proposed in the Bill was much to be 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 doing so.— (Hear.)
Mr. SPOONER agreed with the Right Hon. 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 lawthat 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 afraid to go for 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 souse other remedy before it determined
to oppose the measure, or else what did they pay the
Board for if it could not deal with a ease like this?
ThnATTORNEY-GENERAL objected both to the
title and preamble of the Bill. He admitted that as the
law now stood at company was not liable for the acts of
its servants in calling in medical advice in case of acci-
dents, but he denied that it was either necessary
or expedient to alter the law in that respect.
The House was not to be influenced in this matter by
the fact that two judges of two different county courts
had arrived at different conclusions respecting the lia-
bility of a servant of a railway to pay for medical at-
tendance which he called in in case of accidents. The
Home ought rather to he guided by the principle laid down
by the Court of Exchequer, that railway companies were
nut 'bound by the acts of their servants in calling in
medical aid in case of accidents on their lines. There
was nothing so dangerous in the administration of the
law as the introducing exceptional legislation to meet
particular cases; and
.it was a saying in Westminster
Hall that " hard cases made bad . law," for in
such cases the judges were likely to be guided
by their feelings rather than by a strict regard to the
:rule* of law. ,He hoped the House would reject the
Mr. RICARDO would not argue such a question as