The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-30 00:00:00

reason, reduced the assessment from 24,0001. to 12,0001. If
the former sum was right, why did not the Commissioners
adhere to it? Why did they not examine his books? It might
rot be of any consequence to the Hon. Gentleman, who was
reported to be a man of property, in this instance, fmr
every body knew his wealth, but it might be of very serious
importance to an individual of less standing to state for two or
three years together the losses which he had sustained. It was
a monstrous thing that neighbours should be sitting in secret
conclave on their neighbour's affairs, and he thought, therefore,
that another tribunal ought to be instituted to which all might
appeal. The House clearly could not investigate the circum-
stances of every case, and he therefore felt assured that this was
a fair case for inquiry.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had no more
power to compel the product ion of the papers than the Hon.
Gentleman himself (Mr. Hawes). He would be told that be
was a very impertinent ftlb,w if he attempted to do so.
Mr. BERNAL said if the Government wished to
alleviate the odium consequent on this tax, they should
take such steps as suggested themselves to well-regu-
lated minds as best adapted for that purpose.—( Hear.)
He hoped they would take this unpopular tax, as well as the
mode in which it was collected, into their consideration during
the recess, and if they did he was quite sure they would be able
to find out other sources of taxation to meet the exigencies of the
country, and other modes of collection, by which such com-
plaints as that brought forward by the Hon. Member fur Old-
ham would be entirely removed.
_ . .

Mr. HUME said that the Land-tax Commissioners were all
appointed by that House, and were therefore merely political
nominees, who were totally irre,ponsible to the Government.
They were merely political agents selected by party spirit. He
objected to their having anything to do with the income-tax
at the time the Bill was before the House. And the
Government might recollect the paltry excuse which
they offered, that the Bill was only for a short time, and that
the power would cease after a very limited period. Could
anything be more disgraceful than the conduct adopted
in the Tower Hamlets ? The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer said he had no power in the matter, and
it appeared to be without remedy. He attributed the treat-
ment of the Hon. Member for Oldham to a political grudge.
He hoped, however, the Government would take the matter
into their consideration' and if the tax was to be a per-
petual one (as he had no other expectation) that
measures would be devised during the recess to change the
whole system. _

Sir R. PEEL thought it extremely unfair to find fault with
the Government with respect to the Land Commissioners. The
Act of Parliament appointing them had far different objects in
view than an income-tax. They took them as they found
them. They were the best machinery they could get without
creating new officers, and were selected as being more likely
than any other body, to give satisfaction to the country,
and to prevent any jealousy that might arise if the Go-
vernment had taken the matter into its own hands.
With regard to the assertion of the Hon. Member (Sir.
Hume) that the Land Commissioners who bad levied a distress
on Mr. Fielden's property were actuated by political feelings in
the course they took, he could not believe that any person hold-
ing such an office could be actuated by such unworthy motives.
Mr. BROTHERTON said when they considered that the
Land Commissioners were appointed through the instru-
mentality of Members of Parliament, the statement of the
Hon. Baronet that they could not be actuated by political
motives could not hold gcod, as these persons too frequently
held the opinions of those by whom they were appointed to
their cffices. When it was considered that Messrs. Fielden
and Co. had lost large sum, of money in their business, it
must be evident that they were not liable for the income-tax.
Captain PECHELL hoped that the motion would lead to
ir quiries into other cases equally as severe, and cited the case
of Mrs. Shuttlewood, a poor widow, with an income under
1501., who owed three years' rent, but who, though in difficul-
ties was compelled to pay the income. tax.
Mr. FIELDEN replied, and said he would not divide the
House if the Government would consent to the returns he had
moved for.

he CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER consented to
do so and the subject dropped.
RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.

Mr. BERNAL called the attention of the Government to
the late railway accidents, particularly to that on the South-
Eastern Railway. The train after the accident was detained
full six minutes by the clerks and cheque-takers in collecting
tickets, though many of the persons in the train were suffering
from the severe contusions which they had received. Of late,
railway accidents had been very frequent, especially to the mail
trains on the London and Birmingham Railway. He wished
to know what steps the Government had taken with respect to
the accidents to which he had alluded, and whether steps would
be taken to ensure more safety to those who travelled by rail-
ways?
Sir G. CLERK said that an officer had been dispatched
to inquire into the accidents to which the Hon. Gentleman had
referred. The Government had taken steps to insure a report
in all cases of accidents or loss of life on railways immediately
on their occurrence. —( Hear, hear,) As yet they had not re-
ceived any official statement with regard to the accidents, al-
though they had seen accounts of them in the public prints.
He was bound to state that when the official report was re-
ceived, that it would be fully considered by the Board of Trade,
with the view of affording better security to the public.
Mr. CLI VE considered that the late serious accident on the
South-Eastern Railway had resulted through gross carelessness.
Mr. P. HOWARD trusted that the active supervision of
the Legislature would be exercised over railways, that such
dreadful accidents might be prevented for the future,
and that, in the next session of Parliament his
recommendation might be carried into effect. The
way in which the Brussels and Antwerp Railway was managed
showed to demonstration that it was possible to prevent acci-
dent. Surely the engineers of this country were equal to those
of the continent. He hoped that Hon. Gentlemen connected
with railways would take the subject into their consideration,
as they were surely as fully competent to manage their railways
as their neighbours of the Continent.
Sir R. PEEL said he certainly was not sorry that the Hon.
Gentleman had called the attention of the House to the
subject, especially, as at present, they had no means of
reaching those who were really the responsible parties.
The responsibility which attached to those connected
with the management of railways was at present in-
sufficient to ensure the safety of the public: He hoped,
then, that Parliament would insist that better security
should be given to the public by railway companies. It was
no argument to say that there were a number of accidents
occasioned by stage coaches. They had a right to demand
that large companies should give greater security against
accidents than they had hitherto given. Occurrrences of the
nature alluded to had a most injurious effect on the public
mind, especially at the present moment, when railways were
growing into greater favour than before. He believed that
many accidents which had occurred on railways might have
been prevented, and might be prevented, by proper caution.
These accidents followed from not having proper arrangements,
and the competition which had induced such rapid travelling
on these lines. He thought that due protection should be
given to the public, even if it led to a reduction of profits.
Nothing could be so fatal to railway undertakings, and to the
interests of their proprietors, as any course that would destroy
the confidence of the public in the safety of this mode of
travelling.
Mr. HUME said he would go. further than the Right Hon.
Baronet. Those who undertook a certain amount of work in
matters that did not involve the loss of life were found to
execute it, and, surely, in the more important matters that in-
volved the lives of her Majesty's subject at least the same rule
should be enjoined. Parliament was entrusted with
certain powers, and they ought to enforce them for the
protection of the public. He was glad to hear that the
Right Hon. Baronet opposite was to take the matter into con-
sideration next session. He objected going into Committee at
that hour of the day, when such an important matter as voting
assay the public money was concerned. It was a bad principle,
and one, he believed, without precedent.
The SPEAKER—There is one precedent for it.
The HON. AlEstsEß proceeded to say—He had, on
former cccasions, when he took a more active part in
the business of the House, objected always to the course
of bringing the estimates on after twelve o'clock at night, and he
had been successful in getting that practice ahondoned. The
vote ought only to be taken when there was something like a
House and when it was convenient for Members to be present.
He considered some arrangement might be come to, by which
the necessity of bringing on the estimates at unseasonable
hours would be avoided. He thought that Tuesday and
Thursday night might be set apart for those who had
independent motions, Monday and Friday could be set apart fer
Government business, and on Wednesday they might meet at
twelve o'clock to settle private Bills and business of minor im-
portance, so as to sperate at six o'clock. This would leave the
evening at the discretion of Members. In meeting at twelve
o'clock, it should be arranged for no Committees to sit on that
day. He was sure that by this means much more business could
ke got through than at present. Members by such a course would
have a holiday at least one day in the week, and the Right Hon.
Baronet and his colleagues, who so assiduously attended to the
duties of their office, be allowed some relaxation from the
fatigues of business.
Sir R. PEEL said the present session had been a very pecu-
liar one, from the great amount of private business. The calls
on the time and attention of Hon. Members had consequently
been very hard.—( Hear, hear.) So far as the Government
was concernetl there had not been any disposition to delay the
House, but the contrary. Very early in the session he intro-
duced the Income-tax Bill and the question of the tariff; also
his general financial statement. All this was done to facilitate
business ; and be must say, that as far as other Hon. Members
were concerned, there had been no factious opposition shown to
the measures of the Government. With respect to the ques-
tion referred to by the Honourable Member, he thought that
the proposition of meeting at twelve and rising at half-past six
on Wednesdays a very judicious one. Sitting in that House
for five continuous nights was far too much, and any arrange-
ment to alter it he would very gladly support. Members
ought not tolbe called on to sit every day fur the five days:the
length of fourteen hours per day. Means should also be taken
to bring about an earlier termination of the session. With re-
gard to Thursday nights, he thought it ought to be left to
Members who had motions to propose. Having said so much,
he hoped Hon. Members would take such steps with regard to
the remaining business of the session as would bring it to an
early close.
Mr. HAWES said that ifsuch an arrangement as that named
respecting the House meeting on Wednesday at twelve o'clock
was agreed to, steps should be taken to ensure the attendance
of Members so as to make a House. He thought Itha at
such sittings questions that, in the present session bad been
discussed three or four different times might be settled at once.
He complained that though Thursday had been hitherto un-
derstood as the night for independent motions since the Ist of
July, there had been no certainty of any Hon. Member having
the opportunity of commanding the ear of the House.
Mr. BERNAL thought that next session of Parliament it
would not be so easy to command the attendance of the Hon.
Members as it had been in the present. He thought there
ought to be some other tribunal to refer the consideration of
Railway Bills than such Committees as had sat upon them in
the present session. He did not think it would be possible for
the Government to get a sufficient number of volunteers the
next session to sit upon the quantity of Bills that would be
' brought under the consideration of the House.
Sir ROBERT PEEL was of opinion that it would be a very
unsafe st..p to divest Parliament of the control which it now
possessed. He was persuaded the House of Lords would do
its duty, and he had full confidence that Hon. Members would
also do theirs.

Mr. A GLIONBY said that having seven years' experience
of the business of that House, and seen the evils of continuous
sittings, he congratulated the public and the Right Hon.
Baronet on the step that was proposed to be taken regarding
the Wednesday sittings. Such a course would be beneficial to
all parties concerned.
Mr. HA WES said that in the twelve o'clock sittings the
attendance of Members ought to be enforced. S.nce the open-
ing of Parliament he never recollected such assiduous atten-
tion to business in any session as had been given. All general
business brought before the House had been most carefully
attended to. He must, however, except the private business.
He thought some change was necessary in the mode in which
those Bills were considered.

Mr. BULLER wished to express an opinion on the way in
which the private business was managed. He would take the op-
portunity of stating that a more injurious mode of conducting
inquiries on such Bills never existed in any country. He was
opposed to stand-still legislation, and wished a change. The
Right Hon. Baronet had expressed himself satisfied with the
present mode, but he (Mr. Buller) was not. There were in-
stances of a Bill that session, which having passed through a
Committee of that House at prodigious expense, was again
submitted to the same ordeal in the House of Lords,
thus repeating the whole expense. But what