§ On the question that 17,000l. be granted for the salaries of the Commissioners of Railways,
§ COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, that, preferring duty to dinner, he had remained in the House purposely to oppose this vote. If these Commissioners must have 17,000l. a year, let it come out of the pockets of the railway companies. Heaven knew they made money enough.
§ MR. HUDSONagreed with the hon. and gallant Member in thinking that the public ought not to be called upon to pay this charge; but he could not concur in the suggestion that it should be transferred to the railway companies. The Commissioners were appointed on the recommendation of a Committee which sat at the end of last Session, and of which he had the honour to be a member; but he disapproved of the recommendation of the Committee, and the experience furnished by the working of the Board convinced him of the propriety of the objection he originally entertained with respect to it. The Committee of the Board of Trade was as useful for all purposes as the present Board could be. But if the appointment of the Commissioners were necessary, the sum they were paid was enormous. In appointing the Commissioners, the Government took no trouble to select men who possessed any knowledge of the railway system. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was the only one of them who could be supposed to know anything of the subject; but one of his Colleagues was a gentleman who had distinguished himself as an Indian judge; and the other was a noble Lord. Persons connected with railway undertakings could not respect the decisions of a Board, the members of which—with the exception of the Chief Commissioner, who, by travelling frequently between Derby and London, knew what a railway was—were totally unacquainted with the subject to which they were required to apply themselves. Their remuneration, however, was excessive under any circumstances. The duties which he performed in connexion with railways were more onerous than those which devolved on the Commissioners, and he was able to execute them without any 1271 assistance. The expenditure of the country had gone on increasing since 1836; and it had become necessary to object to every fresh item which was not indispensably necessary. He thought that 8,000l. a year, instead of 17,000l. would be quite enough for the expenses of the Board.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, if the estimates were examined, it would be found that the expenses of the Board did not exceed 12,000l. a year. Nor could he agree with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that the members of the Board were overpaid. All the public men who had been in the public service during the last twenty years had not put so much into their pockets as had a few gentlemen who, with great skill and integrity, no doubt, had managed railways during the last few years, as the right hon. Gentleman himself had done. The Board was constituted with the full assent of the House and of the Committees both of that House and of the House of Lords, who had investigated the subject; nor did he think that the public generally would either think that Board unnecessary, or that the appointments themselves had not been judiciously made. The object was to get gentlemen to constitute it who were unconnected with railways, and who would be free from the suspicion of partiality. He believed that they had discharged their duties to the great satisfaction of the public, and that, so far from the public money having been wasted, it had been expended for the public benefit. He begged also to observe, that a great portion of the staff of the Railway Board consisted of those officers who had been transferred from the railway department of the Board of Trade.
§ COLONEL SIBTHORPthought that the time of the Railway Board would be well employed in seeing how far compensation had been and should and could be given by railway companies in cases of melancholy accidents, such as that which had recently occurred on the Shrewsbury and Chester Line.
§ MR. STRUTTreminded the hon. and gallant Member, that such cases had been already provided for by the Death by Accidents Compensation Act, which, among other things, gave to the survivors of persons killed a right to recover from the company, which they had not had before. With regard to the accident on the Shrewsbury and Chester Line, the Railway Board had thought it so important, that, besides 1272 the officer of engineers, who had, in due course, proceeded officially to investigate it, they had thought it right to associate with him an eminent civil engineer; and they had chosen Mr. Walker, than whom a more fit person could not be found. They had also communicated with the Ordnance and the Admiralty; and those departments had also sent persons to assist in the inquiry. With regard to the expenses of the Board, he begged to observe, that the duties performed by the department were now much more onerous than they were six months ago under the Board of Trade, in consequence of the additional railways authorized by Parliament.
§ MR. HUMEapproved of the establishment of the Railway Board, but thought the expenses more than they need be.
MR. WILLIAMSobserved, that the expenses of the Board of Trade, notwithstanding the business that had been withdrawn from it, exceeded by 445l. this year what they were for the year 1846.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped the discussion would not be proceeded with. A more fitting opportunity would occur when the new Railways Bill came before the House.
§ MR. HUDSONagreed that this was not the proper occasion for the discussion. He admitted he was wrong as to the expenses of the Board; but he thought even 12,000l. a year too much. He doubted whether the inspection and certificate of any Inspector General could he a sufficient protection to the public in cases of bridges and other works on the lines. As to what the right hon. Gentleman had said on the subject of the profits of those who had managed railway companies, he could only say, that if he had won any prizes, it had not been as the salaried servant of any company; at least, his salary from any company had not exceeded 100l. a year.
§ MR. HUMEinquired whether it was true that third-class passengers were obliged to stand, like cattle, in the carriages, notwithstanding the arrangement of last year?
§ MR. STRUTTsaid, all the Railway Board could do was to see that the law was enforced. By the Act of last year, companies were compelled to run one train per day with seats at 1d. per mile. That Act, he believed, had been strictly complied with throughout the country. But it was quite competent to the companies to run other third or fourth class trains—as, on one line, there was a train at ½d. a 1273 mile—at any rate of cheapness, on the condition, if they chose, of not providing seats. Over such arrangements the Commissioners had no control.
§ Vote agreed to.