§ MR. HUMEsaid, he rose to put a question to the right hon. Home Secretary which related to a matter of considerable importance to the public. A short time ago, two persons took third-class tickets at one of the stations on the Eastern Counties Railway. When the train came up, there was no room in the third-class carriages, and an officer of the company directed them to take their seats in a second-class carriage. The passengers hesitated, but the officer told them to get into the carriage, and they accordingly did so. When they arrived in London they were asked for their tickets, and, on producing the third-class tickets, they were told they must pay the difference between the second and third-class fare. They refused to do so, explaining that they had been placed in a second-class carriage by an officer of the company. They were then taken in charge by a constable, and were locked up until the arrival of the superintendent, who, instead of dismissing them, directed them to be taken before a magistrate. The magistrate, on hearing the complaint, at once dismissed it. One of the parties, Mr. Gay, had since brought an action for false imprisonment against the company. The case was tried, and the jury returned a verdict that the company were liable for the acts of their servant; but they were directed by the Judge to reconsider that verdict. He, therefore, wished to ask the 1277 right hon. Gentleman whether the attention of the Government had been drawn to the recent charge of Baron Alderson to the jury in the case of "Gay against the Eastern Counties Railway Company," and whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce any measure for the protection of the public against the misconduct of those acting in the employ of railway companies?
§ SIR G. GREYsaid, that without professing to be very accurately informed as to the particulars of the case to which his attention had been called, he believed the facts stated by the hon. Gentleman were substantially correct. A person named Gay brought an action against the Eastern Counties Railway Company for an alleged illegal imprisonment by the servant or servants of that company. He was advised—and he spoke under the correction of hon. Friends of his learned in the law—that it had long been the settled rule of law, that when a servant wilfully did an illegal act in the course of his employment, the master was not liable, unless there was evidence to show that such act had been done by his authority or with his consent. The case, he believed, resolved itself into this, that the plaintiff had brought his action against the wrong party; that he had proceeded against the company instead of against their servant. He could only say, in reply to the hon. Gentleman's question, that the Government had no intention of altering the long-settled rule of law by which the liability of masters for the acts of their servants was determined.