HC Deb 10 July 1863 vol 172 cc594-603
MR. BENTINCK

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the subject of accidents on railways, and to move that, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of the Government to legislate for the better prevention of such accidents. The progress of science, and various other causes, had led to a complete monopoly by railways of the whole locomotion of the country, and their safety was a matter affecting almost every member of the community. This, he thought, rendered it sufficient for that House and the Government to interfere, if proper cause for interference could be shown. He thought he might ask, whether, during the last few years, there had not arisen a great feeling of insecurity on the part of the public with reference to railway travelling. Many inquiries had taken place on this subject; but this was a subject which should be grappled with in a satisfactory manner, for it involved the safety of every member of the community, of every class, and of both sexes. If he could show that any great number of the accidents resulting from the frightful casualties that had occurred could have been prevented by legislative interference, he thought he should have made out a case for Government to deal with the question, and upon them he should fix the responsibility for the future if they failed to take measures to provide against their recurrence. On previous occasions his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had argued against Government interference on the ground of the difficulties inherent in dealing with the question. He admitted that there were difficulties, but that was no reason for inaction. That there were difficulties which none but Governments could deal with was the very reason why Governments were required. The point to which he wished specially to call attention was the amount of speed obtained in railway travelling, because he believed the great majority of accidents was to be attributed to that rate of speed. Such was the general opinion of those who had given evidence upon the question. Five years ago he had the honour of presiding over a Committee which sat upon railway accidents, and in their Report they stated that a rate of speed beyond what was safe was attained on many of the lines, and that the evidence showed that such an excessive rate of speed had arisen principally from the want of strict regularity in the times of departure. He wished to show that regularity was incompatible with the rate of speed now adopted. The Report went on to say— Your Committee is therefore of opinion that it is incumbent on the Board of Trade to apply to Parliament for such further powers as may enable them to carry out such recommendations as, in the opinion of your Committee, would greatly diminish railway accidents. Bat what was the result? The result was that nothing was done—the result which usually followed the labours of Committees of that House. The interests involved, however, in the question were so great that it called for special energy on the part of the Government. What were the reasons which had been assigned for the inaction which had been displayed in dealing with that matter? These reasons were twofold. The first reason was, that any interference on the part of the Government with travelling on railways would diminish the responsibility of Directors, and would therefore tend to increase the number of accidents. Now, he readily admitted that any interference by the Government in the details of railway management would be most injudicious and mischievous. But he would confine his interference to the question of speed, and he contended that he would not by that means in any way interfere with the responsibility of railway Directors. The second reason assigned against any action in that matter, was one which he had heard urged some years ago by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. His right hon. Friend, upon that occasion, produced figures to show that out of many millions of persons who travelled by railways, there were only a few maimed or killed; and his right hon. Friend therefore contended that there was no necessity for any interference with the manner in which railway travelling was conducted. But that argument amounted to this—that the Government had no right to interfere for the preservation of only a limited number of the lives of Her Majesty's subjects. That was, however, the most inhuman doctrine that could possibly be advanced, and he was sure could not have been in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. If it could be shown that legislative interference would tend to decrease the number of railway accidents, he was prepared to assert that the response- bility for every accident which could by that means be prevented must rest upon the Government that declined to act in the matter. He repeated that he only proposed to deal with the question of speed, and he was convinced that to over-speed the great majority of railway accidents were attributable. He would cite upon that subject a remarkable statement which had been made to him by a most competent authority, namely, Mr. Stephenson, who had succeeded to the business of the late Member for Whitby, and who was himself a great manufacturer of railway engines. That gentleman told him, that anxious as he naturally was, as a man of business, for expeditious travelling, he never, if he could avoid it, put his foot into an express train; and he went on to say, that any man who knew as much as he did of the risk which must be encountered by every train travelling at express speed, and who afterwards lost his life from travelling in such a train, would deserve to be buried at the cross roads as one who had been guilty of suicide. He might add that it was in all ordinary cases the manifest interest of the railway companies themselves to adopt a moderate rate of speed. He could understand, that if a particular company, travelling to the same point over a longer line, had to compete with the managers of a shorter line, and had, for that purpose, to travel with unusual rapidity, it would be their interest to travel at an exceptional speed. But the lives and limbs of Her Majesty's subjects ought not to be placed in continual danger to put money into the pockets of a particular line. The high rate of speed was the cause of great want of regularity. It was said that the public put a pressure on the railway companies, and insisted that they should be carried at a high rate of speed. But the people who entertained that feeling were not, he believed, the regular men of business, who wished, indeed, for speed, but, above all things, for regularity combined with safety; and those who called for high speed had really no interest in quick travelling, and were quite unaware of the risk. Besides, he should observe, that it was the duty of a Government, in this instance as in others, to endeavour to protect the public against the consequences of their own folly; and the virtual responsibility for all accidents that might occur would rest on the right hon. Gentleman and the Government if they evaded the duty of legislating in the matter. Con- siderable attention had of late been directed to that question in consequence of the occurrence of some most serious railway accidents. One of the most remarkable of these accidents was that which had taken place on the Brighton line, and in that case the jury, by their verdict, had attributed the calamity entirely to the rapidity with which the train had been travelling. If his right hon. Friend had dealt with that question a few years ago, that accident, in all probability, would never have occurred, and he believed that a very serious responsibility must attach to his right hon. Friend if he refused any longer to deal with that subject.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of the Government to legislate for the better prevention of Accidents on Railways,"—(Mr. Bentinck,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. DUTTON

said, that the House was indebted to the hon. Member for the attention he had devoted to this subject, and it was to be regretted that the inquiry over which he presided with so much ability had not been more successful in its results. As a railway director be could say little on the subject of Government interference; he was not deputed by any of his colleagues to express their views; and he approached the subject with reserve. If the Government could introduce and pass a Bill that would do something to prevent railway accidents, that Act would, perhaps, be the most useful Bill of the Session. The course of proceedings at inquests on persons killed by accidents had generally been most unsatisfactory, and verdicts had been arrived at without the causes of the accidents being ascertained, notwithstanding the best engineering evidence the coroner could obtain. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the high rate of speed was the great cause of accidents. He thought that forty miles an hour was the highest railway speed consistent with the safety of the passengers. He agreed with the gentleman who never travelled in an express train when he could avoid it. Although the locomotives were better built now than formerly, the new permanent ways were net better constructed than the old ones, the gradients were steeper and the curves were sharper; and therefore there was greater danger on the new than on the old lines. But the railway directors were not to blame in the matter of punctuality in the starting of the trains—it was chiefly attributable to the public themselves—they never would come in time. Only a few days ago he had travelled by a train on the South Western, and ten minutes after the time at which the train should have started luggage was being put into the van. It was true that by their by-laws companies had the power of closing the doors five minutes before the train started; and it might be said why did they not do it? Simply because the people would pull the doors down if they did. In France they started their trains with great regularity. The express from Paris to Marseilles was probably the most punctual train in Europe. It left Paris at eleven in the morning and arrived at Marseilles at 6.15 the following morning, the distance being 524 miles. That express never travelled more than thirty miles an hour, but its remarkable punctuality made up for its want of greater speed. And it was much more advantageous to a man of business to travel at a lower rate of speed, with a certainty of being at his journey's end within the appointed time, than to be carried at a higher rate of speed, with the chance of being an hour or two behind his time.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he did not wish to discuss the general question of Government interference. He admitted, that if Parliament should be of opinion that it was advisable to have more legislative interference with the management of our railways, it would be the duty of the Board of Trade to endeavour to overcome any difficulties that might exist in respect to such interference. He also admitted that though the inquiry which bad been conducted by the Committee presided over by his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) had not led to any legislative action, it had, in all probability, effected considerable benefit in indicating to railway directors the points in respect to which their management might be improved. His hon. Friend now wanted the Board of Trade to ask for power to interfere in railway management with a view of preventing accidents; but he did not think his hon. Friend had distinctly defined the direction in which it was desirable to supply such power.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he had distinctly stated that the Board of Trade ought to have power to interfere when they thought that the speed was in excess of what it ought to he.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, the proposition of his hon. Friend was that the Board of Trade should regulate the speed of railway trains. But how was that question to be decided? Speed was a relative term. What might be a very safe speed on one line might be a very unsafe speed on another line. There were several circumstances which had a bearing on the point—such as the general management of the line, the condition of the permanent way, the condition of the rolling stock, the nature of the curves, and the inclines of the gradients; and it would be monstrous to limit a well-constructed and well-managed railway to the minimum of speed of a railway in which these conditions were reversed; and when it was remembered that the weather affected the condition of the permanent way, it would be manifest that even on the same line what might be a safe rate of speed one day would not be so on the day following. The Board of Trade should have a sliding scale of speed; and he did not think that Department would be able to encounter the management of such a system. Their doing so would involve the necessity of a vexatious and constant interference, and it would relieve railway directors of much of the responsibility which at present properly attached to them. If it were shown to juries that accidents occurred from culpable neglect, or from trains travelling at a speed the condition of the rolling stock or of the permanent way did not admit of, they would take the circumstances into consideration in estimating the amount of damages they might be called upon to give, and the liability of the directors to pay such damages was the best security for the public safety. He therefore preferred to leave the matter where it was, and he must therefore decline to hold out any hope that the Government would propose legislation with the view of regulating the speed of railway trains. He did not know of one Inspector of Railways who recommended such an interference. The circumstance of a few persons being killed or injured would not entitle them to pass over the matter; for the sake even of a few it might be their duty to legislate, if legislation would prevent accidents; but it was satisfactory to know that there was the less occasion for such interference now than formerly because he believed that the increased speed on our railways had been accompanied by improved regulation and improved management; and that the public were getting each year the increased convenience of rapid communication with the comfort of increased safety. In 1861 there were 56 accidents, resulting in the death of 46 persons, and injuries to 780. In 1862 there were only 52 accidents, with 24 deaths and 536 injuries of passengers. In 1861 the number of passengers carried by railways was 173,000,000. For 1862 he had not the exact Returns, but he thought the number carried might be taken at 180,000,000. For the first half of the present year there had been 16 accidents, with 4 deaths of passengers and 165 injuries. Thus there had been a gradual improvement, and a strong reason was afforded why the House should let the matter alone and not take into its hands a work which it would never successfully accomplish—the regulation of railway traffic. Speed had not been the cause of very many accidents. The Inspectors' Reports showed that a very large proportion resulted from collisions, the negligence of servants, the want of a sufficient amount of break power, and so on. Interference with the rate of speed would not prevent these; while, with greater speed, longer intervals between the trains could be afforded, and the risk of collisions was therefore reduced. As to the next cause, where you had to rely on a great deal of human machinery you must take into account a certain occasional neglect of duty. In a large body of servants no legislation could prevent some negligence; and the best security for the vigilance of servants was the present state of the law, which made the master responsible for the culpable negligence of his servants, and for the injuries done visited him with heavy damages. Then another cause of accident was that trains sometimes got off the rails; this arose from the bad condition of the permanent way and from too high a speed in running on sharp curves. But these were casualties against which the Legislature could not provide; and his conclusion was that it would be better to leave the law as it stood. The Department over which he presided had always found railway boards ready to give full consideration to any representations made to them; and though the Board of Trade were not empowered by law to hold a court of inquiry into the causes of accidents, railway companies were only too happy to co-operate with the Inspectors in, finding out the real cause of these deplorable accidents, with the view of providing a fitting remedy. Under these circumstances, he should not be justified in asking Parliament for powers to interfere in the management of railways, and to impose restrictions upon railway directors, and he hoped, therefore, that the House would not encourage the Motion.

MR. RICHARD HODGSON

said, that if railway Directors were subject to the supervision by legislative enactment of the Board of Trade, they would feel themselves relieved from a great portion of the responsibility which had rested upon them, and would cast the responsibility upon the Government Department. At the same time, he did not think that railway directors were remiss in endeavouring to provide against the recurrence of accidents, for it was their interest so to do, in order to avoid heavy damage, and thus protect the property of shareholders. If they permitted unpunctuality in their trains, and had to pay heavy damages, their losses would be quite deserved. Want of punctuality was the main cause of railway accidents; and to show that a high rate of speed was not, he would refer to the quick trains along the east coast between London and Edinburgh, and to the corresponding trains on the west coast, which had met with fewer accidents than any running an equal number of miles throughout the kingdom. The reason was very plain—the directors took care that the line was kept clear for the fast trains, and that proper arrangements were made for them. In fact, express trains were on the whole less subject to accidents than slow ones. Perhaps the House would hear with incredulity the opinion, that where accidents had occurred from railway trains running at undue speed, those accidents in the majority of cases had not occurred upon curves or severe gradients but upon straight and level portions of the line, and that a curve was rather a protection than otherwise where the train was going at a high rate of speed. He believed that this conclusion would be borne out by investigation. No doubt, if trains were run continuously at great speed, they would cause a greater wear and tear of the permanent way and rolling stock; but that was compensated by the increased fares taken for them from the passengers, and by the favour which they met from the public. In fact, if the proposal of the hon. Member were carried into effect, and the Government were to fix a maximum of thirty miles an hour, or were to attempt to regulate the speed upon railways, the public would be highly dissatisfied, and the regulation would soon have to be repealed. If goods trains ran at undue speed, that was a fault on the part of the management; but the speed of express trains was not the principal cause of accidents.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

thought the hon. Member for West Norfolk deserved well of the country for bringing this subject forward. He believed the fast trains were the safest, on account of the extra attention that was paid to them. No doubt the principal cause of accidents on railways was want of punctuality—not want of punctuality at the starting, but at the intermediate stations; there was a loss of time at those stations, and this led to spasmodic efforts to make up the time, and consequent danger. It was essential that punctuality ought to be observed, not only at the terminus but at the intermediate stations. The directors of various railways must be gratified with the way in which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had whitewashed them. But the object of the Motion was not to cast blame upon directors, but to call attention to the causes of the too frequent accidents upon railways. The inquiry that was now made after an accident was little better than a farce, because it was made after all traces of the accident had been removed; but he thought the chief cause of accident was that to which he had referred, an attempt to keep time at the terminus after delays at intermediate stages. Until there was some law to make directors, or the railway investing public, feel in their pockets for the loss of life which continually occurred, there would be no hope of preventing these disasters.

MR. CONINGHAM

was not quite certain that it would not be for the interest of the railway companies at least that the Government should fix a maximum of speed for travelling. But he believed that express trains were the safest, because the greatest care was taken with them. With stopping trains time was sometimes inevitably lost at intermediate stations, and then, to make up, a high rate of velocity was obtained, which was always attended with some degree of risk. Excursion trains were also a great source of accidents.

MR. KINNAIRD

thought that nothing had been said to alter his opinion of the judicious course adopted by the Government. Reference had been made to railways in France, but he hoped we should never approximate to the French system of railway travelling; for if there was a greater nuisance than another, it was that of being compelled to come to the station half an hour before the time, and to be penned up in a room under lock and key till the train started—and then again, when you come to your journey's end, to be obliged to wait another half hour before you could get your luggage and be off.

MR. BENTINCK

said, that the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and of the hon. Member below him (Mr. Richard Hodgson) were so much in his favour that he should not weaken their effect by any attempt at reply. He would, under the circumstances, withdraw his Motion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."