§ LORD REDESDALE,in moving the second reading of this Bill, wished to call the attention of their Lordships to one of its clauses, to which objections had been raised both in the other House of Parliament and in the public press—he referred to the clause by which the amount to be recovered in certain cases of death by accident was restricted to £100. The intention in introducing this clause had been quite misunderstood. By their original Act the Metropolitan Railway Company were required to send one train in the morning and another in the evening, each way at the fare of 1d., for the use of the working classes; but it was provided that in the event of an accident occurring to those trains the amount of compensation to those injured or to the families of those killed should not exceed the sum of £100. The trains running under the provision of the Act were much used by the labouring classes, not less than from 8,000 to 10,000 per week travelling by them. The company wished to extend this peculiar class of accommodation by running three of these 1771 trains every morning, and by giving liberty to every person holding a ticket for those trains to return by any train in the afternoon. A clause had, therefore, been inserted in the Bill before them limiting the amount of compensation in the event of any accident occurring to persons travelling on the Company's line with these labouring-class tickets to £100. This arrangement was so beneficial to the working classes that it should be adopted; should, however, Parliament refuse to sanction the clause the Company would have to return to the limited accommodation of two trains, one in the morning the other in the evening.
§ Moved," That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Redesdale.)
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought their Lordships should not without careful consideration assent to the introduction into a Railway Bill of a new principle limiting the amount of compensation to be paid by the Railway Company in case of accidents arising upon their line.
§ LORD REDESDALEsaid, it was not the introduction of a new principle. It already existed in the Act under which these workmen's trains had been started, and he thought it was only reasonable to apply it to those who took advantage of the ordinary trains with a workman's ticket.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he thought the explanation satisfactory. It was only extending the provisions of the present law. At the same time, they must take care that they did not inadvertently sanction that which might inflict great injury on the community.
§ LORD EGERTONwished to know whether it was proposed to extend the principle to all the other railways. He thought that the introduction of a clause which would put aside the law of compensation as contained in Lord Campbell's Act was most objectionable.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsupposed that the introduction of the clause limiting the amount of liability must be regarded as a sort of payment to the Company for the additional facilities they proposed to give to the public.
§ LORD REDESDALEremarked that the Bill was opposed, and therefore any person objecting to its provisions might discuss the matter before the Committee.
§ Motion agreed to: Bill read the second time.