Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman, to whose special care they must look in matters of this kind, had deliberately adopted certain clauses, was the House to submit to have them struck out at the dictation of railway companies? If the clauses were wrong why introduce them into the original Bill? If right, why strike them out? MR. HARVEY LEWIS said, the in- the Vice President of the Board of Trade, habitants of the metropolis had the and which was contained in the original greatest possible reason to complain of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. Several Bills had been withdrawn to-day on the ground that it was too late in the Session to pass them, and that was the course which ought to have been pursued with regard to the present Bill; but the right hon. Gentleman had allowed himself to be overpersuaded by the railway directors who were now sitting behind him. The Metropolitan Underground Railway was calculated to supply a grievous want, but it also brought to light a grievous want, and that was, a want of proper legislation for railways running through the metropolis. His noble Colleague (Lord Fermoy) had stated that he knew several instances of persons who had been ruined by the construction of the metropolitan railways. The law was, that persons injuriously affected might obtain damages against the companies, and many persons proceeded against them in the Sheriff's Court and had been awarded damages, which in some cases the companies paid. But at last the railway authorities took heart of grace and appealed to the Court of Queen's Bench; and the Court decided that the judgment of the Sheriffs' Court was right. The railway companies upon this appealed from that decision to the Court of Error, and there it was decided that a person might be injuriously affected without being wronged. And now the law was, in such a case, that persons not having money could not obtain compensation because they could not go to the House of Lords. One would have thought that to Clauses 21 and 22 of the former Bill there could have been no reasonable objection; and yet these clauses had been struck out, through what occult influences he would leave it to the House to imagine. He had himself presented a petition in favour of these clauses, and especially of the compensation clause. They were told that the Bill contained nothing new, and, therefore, they ought to pass it as a matter of course. But if there was nothing in the Bill but what was law at present, then let the law remain as it was until next Session; and let nothing be introduced by a side wind. If the Bill should go into Committee, which he hoped would not be the case, he should ask leave to introduce a clause which, he believed, had emanated from MR. M‘MAHON said, that in the course of last Session a Bill was introduced for the purpose of limiting the amount of compensation to first-class railway passengers to the small sum of £300. The whole power of the railway interest was brought to bear in support of that Bill. [Mr. MILNER GIBSON: No!] The right hon. Gentleman must know what influences were brought to bear better than he could, but at all events the Bill was favourable to the railway interests. That Bill was thoroughly considered by the House, and thrown out by a very large majority. Now, it so happened that in one of the Railway Bills passed last Session a clause was smuggled through the House limiting the compensation for killing a mechanic towhat sum did the House think? What was the value of a mechanic's life in the opinion of railway directors? [An hon. MEMBER: No; of the Board of Trade.] Well, it might be the opinion of the Board of Trade too. The clause to which he referred was in the Bill of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway—and he mentioned the circumstance because the right hon. Gentleman said there was nothing new in the Bill. Now, he would ask, was there any general railway Act in force applying to England, Ireland, and Scotland in which the compensation for killing a mechanic was reduced to £100? And not only was the compensation not to exceed £100, but the amount to be awarded was to be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade, and not otherwise. Now, in a Christian country to introduce such a clause was the most wicked thing he ever heard of. Cicero mentioned that it was one of the moot questions of his day whether in a storm one should throw overboard a cheap slave or a dear horse. Well, he supposed the right hon. Gentleman had been considering that question. In the Canal Navigation Act the limit of compensation for the loss of a horse was £50. Assuredly a valuable horse ought in the estimation of the right hon. Gentleman to rank with, been framed in the interest of the railway a mechanic, and therefore they had better companies, he had received a deputation reduce the compensation for a mechanic's representing the railway interest, which life to £50. Such a clause as that to which had asked him not to proceed with the he had referred would alone be enough Bill. The Bill had been introduced in to show that this Bill had been clearly in the public interest, and not in that of the troduced in the interest of the railway railway companies, and he thought it would companies. Hon. Members might be sure be acceptable to the House. The hon. that the interest of those companies had Member for Liverpool proposed to inbeen consulted to the detriment of the troduce a new clause. [Mr. HORSFALL: public. It has been introduced already in another Bill.] It was new matter as far as the object of the Bill before the House was concerned. It was true it had been introduced in one Bill; but that was not enough. The Government did not propose to put into this Bill every clause that had ever been introduced in a private Bill, but only such as had unmistakeably received the sanction of Parliament. The Bill was intended to re-enact such clauses only as Parliament had affirmed over and over again. There might be errors in the Bill, but those errors might be corrected in Committee; but if it was to be opposed at this period of the Session, clause by clause, he quite admitted that that was an argument against going on with the Bill. He did not wish to take anyone by surprise, but the measure was not volunteered by the Board of Trade. It was in consequence of a recommendation of a joint Committee of the Lords and Commons, which sat in the beginning of last Session, that the Bill was brought in. That Committee considered the question of metropolitan railways, and they recommended that as soon as practicable a Bill should be introduced, containing such clauses as had received the sanction and approval of Parliament, and which should apply to all future Bills. If, however, the feeling of the House was that it was too late in the Session to carry such a Bill, he would not stand in the way. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) wanted the House precipitately to enact without inquiry, as a permanent clause for the government of all future railways, a new clause somewhat similar to one once inserted in a private railway Act. This was a clause settling for the future the mode of assessing the terminal charges on railways. But the hon. Gentleman was the Member of a Commission appointed to inquire into that particular question. It was his duty to bring that subject under the consideration of the Commission, and recommend to Parliament what he thought right after MR. MILNER GIBSON said, there was clearly some misapprehension as to the nature and objects of this Bill. He was charged with having been advised by the railway companies and the various parties interested in order to determine what clauses the Bill should contain. Of course it was right, as far as it could be done, to consult all parties interested, so as to know what they had to urge. But in this case it happened that the only advisers he had were the Acts of Parliament and the decisions of that House. The object of the Bill was to condense and settle the clauses which had been sanctioned by Committees on Private Bills, and which were of such a character that it was thought safe and proper to incorporate them in a general Act, so as to save Parliament the trouble of repeatedly enacting the same thing. His hon. Friend objected to the Bill because it did not contain a great many provisions which would be for the public advantage. He was quite ready to admit that changes had been made in the Bill since it was first introduced. And why? Because it was found after some consideration that clauses had been introduced which it was believed had not been sufficiently sanctioned by Parliament to justify their incorporation in all future Acts. The clause in which the Marylebone vestry took such great interest had been introduced into only one metropolitan railway Act, and in consequence of which the company concerned gave up the line altogether, because the compensations would be so excessive that it was out of the question to think of making it. The Board of Trade, therefore, did not consider themselves justified in introducing that clause, seeing that it had had the sanction of Parliament only in one particular Bill. He accepted the doctrine that every person should be protected from injustice, but the present law was supposed sufficient to do that. ["No, no!"] Parliament at least had thought Now, so far from the Bill having inquiry by the Commission. But the hasty legislation which the hon. Member now asked for was not prudent or justifiable. He (Mr. Milner Gibson) did not wish to prolong the Session unnecessarily. By not passing this Bill the question would be left where it was, and hon. Gentlemen must be held responsible for declining to protect the public interests covered by the Bill. He would ask leave of the House to withdraw the Motion. MR. AYRTON said, the right hon. Gentleman had given no explanation of the allusion made by the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. M'Mahon) to the valuation of a mechanic's life at £100 in certain cases of railway accident. Now, the clause in question was really of extreme benefit to the working classes. Whereas the railway companies had power to charge at the rate of 1d. a mile, the London, Chatham, and Dover offered to carry working men at certain times of the day at the rate of one penny per journey, upon condition that the responsibility of the company should be limited in case of railway accident, and the maximum payment should not exceed £100. He saw nothing in this arrangement but what was highly beneficial to the working man. MR. HENLEY said, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman would follow the course which all his Colleagues had recommended should be taken with every measure that had come before them to-day; and therein the right hon. Gentleman was acting with great discretion. But the right hon. Gentleman would allow him (Mr. Henley) to call his attention to this COLONEL DUNNE could not see the point. The House had been informed advantage to the working classes from such that, as regarded the framing of this Bill an arrangement, and asked what Parliathe right hon. Gentleman had held no con-mentary sanction had been given to this sultation with anybody, but had framed his valuation of a working man's life at £100? measure by taking those clauses which Amendment and Motion, by leave, withwere usually found in railway Acts. drawn. MR. MILNER GIBSON denied having said that he had had no communication with the railway authorities in respect to this measure. He had certainly intended to say the very reverse. sure MR. HENLEY repeated, that the right( hon. Gentleman had stated that his meawas framed on those clauses that were usually found in railway Acts. How was it, then, that every provision that operated as a protection to the public had been struck out of the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman's own hand? As the Bill originally stood there were five or six provisions which gave some protection to the public; but they were now gone. Now, it was the duty of the Government, in introducing model clauses, to take care to introduce those which protected the public; the railway interest was quite capable of looking after itself. The title of the Bill as amended, was, "A Bill for consolidating in one Act provisions frequently inserted in acts relating to Metropolitan and other railways." But these words should have been added, "and to give further power to certain public bodies in the metropolis to obstruct improvement, and enable railway companies further to oppress the public.' He was thankful that the measure was to go along with all the other Bills already discharged, and that hon. Members would have the chance of getting away sooner. Bill withdrawn. SALMON FISHERY ACT (1861) AMEND- THIRD READING. Order for Third Reading read. MR. LAWSON asked, Whether there was any intention on the part of the Government to alter the law respecting the Solway, as to which there was considerable uncertainty? MR. PEEL said, the Lord Advocate intended early next Session to introduce a Bill making the law on that point quite clear. Bill read 3o and passed. INDEMNITY BILL. MR. PEEL moved for leave to introduce a Bill to indemnify such persons in the United Kingdom as have omitted to qualify themselves for offices and employments, and to extend the time limited for these purposes accordingly. MR. HADFIELD asked, Whether it was a dignified course for the House to pass every year these indemnity Bills? He believed that if the Government had taken up a measure for abolishing the old quali fication such a measure would have passed the Upper House; but the Bill he had submitted had been rejected by the other House of Parliament for the sixth time, for no other reason, that he could conceive, except to punish the humble individual who had charge of the Bill. MR. PEEL said, the object of the Bill he was now introducing was not only to grant indemnity to those officials who had not taken the declaration required by the Act of George IV., but also to grant it to those who had not taken the consolidated oath now imposed in lieu of the former oath of allegiance and abjuration. The Bill of the hon. Gentleman had reference exclusively to the declaration under the Act of George IV., and even if passed it would not have dispensed with the necessity of this measure. Motion agreed to. Bill to indemnify such persons in the United Kingdom as have oniitted to qualify themselves for offices and employments, and to extend the time limited for those purposes respectively, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PEEL and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUEr. CONSOLIDATED FUND APPROPRIATION BILL. HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, June 22, 1865. * · Report Public Schools * MINUTES.PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading- * * * * Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 234.] Third Reading-Public House Closing Act (1864) Amendment (192); Trespass (Scotland) (146); Ecclesiastical Leasing Act (1858) Amendment (125); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation) (157); Pilotage Order Confirmation (No. 2) (154); Churches and Chapels Exemption (Scotland)* (128); Colonial Laws Validity (158); Colonial Marriages Validity* (159); Defence Act (1860) Amendment (152). On Motion of Mr. DODSON, Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund and the Surplus of Ways and Means to the Service of the year ending thirty-first day of March one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and M". PEEL. Bill presented, and read 1o. EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE. On Motion of Mr. PEEL, Bill for continuing various expiring Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PEEL and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the ExCHEQUER. Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 235.] COMPOUND SPIRITS WAREHOUSING BILL. Bill "to allow British Compounded Spirits to be warehoused upon Drawback," presented, and read 1°. [Bill 233.] House adjourned at a quarter SMALL BENEFICES (IRELAND) ACT (1860) AMENDMENT BILL. [BILL 61.] COMMITTEE. Bill considered in Committee (according to Order). THE EARL OF BELMORE, in moving to insert a new clause after Clause 2, said, that it was in harmony with the principle of the Bill, which was one to amend the Acts relating to the endowment of district parishes and building of churches, and that it was not objected to by the Most Rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Dublin). As the law now stood in any case where a district parish was formed out of two or more parishes, and the bishop, by the power he now possessed, compelled the incumbents of those parishes to contribute towards the endowment of the new parish, or in case it was made out of a portion of one parish, then the incumben of that parish, and they alone, had the throughout the Civil Service that two perpatronage of the new incumbency in such sons are selected by the Treasury, in each order and with such number of turns each office, to make out the List of Payments as the bishop might think fit. It might to be made, which Lists are sent to the so happen, and indeed sometimes did Paymaster General, who pays them withhappen, that the endowment was aug-out question if signed by the officers duly mented by private persons in the form of appointed to sign, and the Audit Office subscriptions or donations, and the object passes the accounts (of some offices) in the of this Amendment was to provide that in accounts of the Paymaster General? Whethe case of any person subscribing not less ther those officers in the several Depart than £500, the bishop might, if he chose, ments do not substantially draw cheques on give that person one or more turns in the the Paymaster General, as the Treasury nomination of the incumbent. As the banker, which are honoured by him, and clause was not objected to, he would, with passed by the Audit Office as a matter of this short explanation, move its insertion. course? Who audits the accounts of the drawers of cheques? What securities are there against the drawing of cheques connot for the Public Service, or against fraud, trary to Treasury authority, and possibly except the integrity of the drawers of cheques? And is there any, and what, security for the discovery of fraud by an audit of the accounts in the account of the Paymaster General ? Motion agreed to; Clause inserted. Amendment made; the Report thereof to be received To-Morrow; and Bill to be to be received To-Morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 205.) RENTCHARGES (IRELAND) REVISION BILL [H.L.] A Bill to provide for the annual Variation of Rentcharges in lieu of Tithe in Ireland, and its Applotment in certain Cases-Was presented by The Lord SOMERHILL; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 203.) HOUSE House adjourned at Six o'clock, Ten o'clock. OF COMMONS, THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, in reply, that the Question of his hon. Friend did not permit of being answered in that House. It could only be answered by explanations in detail of all the arrangements connected with the drawing of money and the audit of accounts in all the Departments of the public service; and such an explanation, if given by word of mouth only, would not be intelligible to the House. He would, however, give his hon. Friend a partial answer. He Henry should be happy to give him an opportu Bank-nity of considering the subject more at large, leaving it to him to determine how far he would prosecute his investigations; for he could not imagine a more legitimate subject of inquiry than that with which his hon. Friend proposed to charge himself. He believed he should be right in saying that it was not the fact that whole of the Civil Service. The payany one system prevailed throughout the ments, the accounts, the audits, of the different Departments, were differently regulated; in some cases by precise and stringent provisions of Acts of Parliament, and in others by the authority of the Department itself. In the case of the Navy, an Act of William IV. provided that an account should be made out, signed by the Accountant General of the Navy, and countersigned in the manner the Lords of the Admiralty should from time to time direct. In this instance, therefore, no question of selection by the Treasury could MINUTES.]-NEW MEMBER SWORN * Turnpike Acts Continuance [227]. AUDIT OFFICE.-QUESTION. SIR CHARLES DOUGLAS said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it be the system |