§ MR. C. DENISONrose to call attention to a case which was not at all confined in its principle and legal bearings to the interests of railway companies and proprietors, but which equally affected the liability of every associated company, every private individual who owned a warehouse or manufactory, and every professional man who had an office for daily business. In thus trespassing upon the House, he had no wish or intention to invite expression of opinion on the merits of the case itself, or on the settlement, which was now beyond litigation or dispute. Therefore, after citing the bare facts, it would not be necessary for him to allude cither to plaintiff or defendant. The circumstances were as follows:—On the 17th of February, 1868, a lady professor of dancing travelled in a third-class carriage by an early train from Boston to Spalding; distance, seventeen miles, fare 1s. 6d. On alighting at Spalding she went into the ladies' waiting-room, and in turning to pass out she caught her foot in the seam of the carpet, which, as she stated in evidence, had become unsewn, the thread having worn away. She foil, and in so falling caused, as she alleged, a serious injury to the lower portion of her spine, which incapacitated her afterwards from following her profession for many months. She claimed at first £1,000 damages, which (for technical reasons) were subsequently increased by Judge's order to £10,000. The railway company pleaded non-lia- 1435 bility and absence of all negligence or default. The learned Judge, he believed, at an early stage of the inquiry, before medical witnesses were called and after they had been called, ruled unhesitatingly that the company were liable. There remained, then, only the question of compensation, which was settled by consent at £1,500, because it was deemed inadvisable to press the case. This, no doubt, was a very extreme case, a very unusual case; and were it not for fear of giving offence, where it was least his intention to do so, he should say that it was an exaggerated view almost amounting to burlesque upon reasonable liability. As well might it be ruled that if one stone in a paved courtyard of a station was rougher than another or an inch higher than its neighbour, and a passenger tripped over the offending stone, that the proprietor was liable for costly damages. He was not a lawyer, and was perhaps incapable of appreciating those subtle refinements which went to make up the legal view of liability; but he put it to anyone who was the proprietor of any office what his notion would be if anybody in passing from his premises met with an accident, went away, and successfully claimed excessive damages. Where railway companies or directors were concerned every small injury or wrong assumed exaggerated proportions. The plaintiff, the witnesses, and the professional men all took an exaggerated view, and verdicts were given not with reference to the injury sustained, but to the ability of the railway companies to pay. He asked the attention of the House to this subject on public grounds alone; and the broad proposition he laid down was this —It was not the interest of the public to relieve railway companies from liability in proven cases of negligence and neglect, but neither was it the interest of the public to hold them liable for injuries in such a case as he had detailed. If courts of justice were to act as insurance arbitrators in every ease of accident between the public and railway companies, then railway companies ought to have the powers of insurance companies and charge a special rate in proportion to the risk they ran. Railway companies did not ask to be relieved of general liability; they only asked that damages should be apportioned to the fare received and the distance run. He hoped 1436 when he brought this subject forward next Session he should have the sympathy and assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade.
MR. BRIGHTThe answer I shall give to the Question of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) will be very short and simple. As the House is aware an Act was passed last year for the purpose of compelling railway companies to establish some mode of communication between passengers, guards, and drivers. The management of the affair was, to a certain extent, placed in the hands of the Board of Trade, and after the Act was passed there were offered to the Board—I believe that I should be within the mark if I said—many scores of plans. I believe from first to last 200 or 300 plans were offered to them, by which such a communication could be established. We have many sagacious men connected with the Board, of Trade, and I say nothing to their discredit when I admit that they could not decide absolutely what was to be done. The course taken was to communicate with the leading men that manage the great railways of the country, and ask their opinion, for they have just as much interest as the public in preventing accidents and saving the lives of their passengers. The companies formed a committee of their ablest managers, and I need not say that some of the very ablest men in the country are connected with the management of the railways. The result was that they suggested — after having examined all the plans—that a particular plan should be adopted. The Board of Trade thought it was infinitely better for the public that they should act in this matter along with the intelligent managers of the companies rather than sanction or determine upon any particular plan of their own. Now, the plan that was sanctioned was that to which my hon. Friend referred in terms, I thought, almost of contempt. The Act fixed the 1st of April, as the date at which this communication was to be established; but the interval allowed was too short, because it took some months to determine how it was to be done, and then necessarily it would take some months more to fit up the rolling stock of the companies. The Board of Trade exercising the power given to them, extended the 1437 time to the 1st of August, and, so far as I know, the Act has been complied with. The hon. Gentleman says, or supposes, or suspects, for of his own knowledge he knows nothing—ho does not tell the House that he has been spending his time since the 1st of August in inspecting the various railways—that no communications have been established. He has read in a paper that in certain, trains on the Great Western Railway the communication was not in a condition to work with success. I have had a communication from the management, and the explanation given is this—that with all their efforts they had not been able to fit up all the carriages composing the rolling stock of the company, but had fitted as many carriages as were necessary for the ordinary traffic; but during the last few months everyone that could run away—not being a Member of Parliament—was leaving London, and the Great Western Railway Company found it necessary for the convenience of passengers to bring into use the whole power of their rolling stock, and they had to use certain carriages to which the band of connection had not been attached, and the consequence was that the mechanical contrivance was not accurately fixed, and the thing for the moment was a failure. The manager says—"I have every reason to believe that in the course of a few days the whole of the company's stock will be fitted up, and the system will be in full operation." Wherever the rope system has been sanctioned by the Board of Trade we have found that the rope is attached, and, as we have reason to believe, it is in successful operation. The hon. Member has referred to the South Western Railway, where a different system has been operation for two or three years. The directors thought that it worked sufficiently well for them, and the Board of Trade sanctioned that system upon that line; but on the lines of the North they have sanctioned the rope system, and it is in operation. I will undertake to say that if the Board of Trade had sanctioned any other system some hon. Member would have have been found to put a similar question to me, and would probably have been able to bring as many arguments against that other system as the hon. Member has urged against the system which the Board of Trade has sanctioned. We have done the best we 1438 could, on consultation with able men connected with the railways, and the plan sanctioned is in operation, and I say it is not fair to the railways—within four days of the time fixed for bringing the plan of communication into effect— [Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN: Four months after the time allowed by the Act.]—The Act no doubt said the 1st of April; but the Board of Trade finding the time insufficient, extended the period to the 1st of August. But even if a longer time had been necessary, what then? We are not endeavouring to entrap the railways, but to deal generously and fairly by them as with the public. We have endeavoured to do so. But to get up— and without speaking from his own knowledge—from his having travelled on the railways—[Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN said, he had travelled on the lines]. I did not understand the hon. Gentleman to say so in his speech—to get up within four or five days of the time allowed for bringing the plan into operation and bring a general charge against the railway companies after the plan had been adopted by so many competent men, and assume that nothing had been done and no effort made to promote the safety of the public, was hardly fair to the railways. I will say nothing about the Board of Trade, for we are not thin skinned, and we do not suffer much from such criticism. As to the case referred to by the hon. Member for Yorkshire (Mr. C. Denison) it has been before a court. It may be that the Judge's ruling was entirely wrong, and the jury's verdict contrary both to law and fact. I know nothing about it. But this I know, and I will give my own opinion. I thought it one of the most monstrous cases I had ever heard of in connection with questions of compensation. My opinion is that the whole law with regard to compensation for accidents as now worked with regard to railways, is one of very serious injustice, and deserves the examination and consideration of the House. It was only the other day that I read in the newspapers of a man brought into the court on a stretcher to show the jury what a deplorable condition he was in. The Judge said that was not a wise thing to do in the case of a man so near death's door; but the man, after receiving his compensation money, "was found in two or three weeks following his former avocation in perfect health. 1439 Another similar case was mentioned where the man was going about on crutches—[An hon. MEMBER: It was the same man] — and in a few weeks after he got compensation he was following his ordinary occupation. There are, no doubt, instances from time to time of neglect and carelessness on the part of railway companies, for which they ought to suffer. But there is also a system which I consider to be no better than swindling practised upon railway companies. And if the hon. Gentleman at the beginning of next Session moves in this House for a Select Committee to inquire into this question thoroughly, with a view to justice to the companies, as well as to the general, public, I think I am empowered to say that the Government will make no objection to the appointment of such a Committee, and I should be very glad if from it there should come a Report which should enable Parliament to establish a more satisfactory condition of the law than that which prevails at present.
§ MR. H. B. SHERIDANrose, and was about to address the House, when there arose cries of "Order!" The hon. Member said, I move the adjournment of the House.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that having already spoken the hon. Member could not make such a Motion.
§ MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, that he only wished to correct a statement of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member could make an explanation, but could not make a reply.
§ MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had charged him with bringing forward this question only five days after the Bill came into operation; but it was not known that the time had been extended.
§ MR. SPEAKERThat is not explanation.
MR. BRIGHTI have stated in this House on more than one occasion that the time had been extended to the 1st of August.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that no one could object to the appointment of the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman had suggested. It was, however, to be wished that the right hon. Gentleman had not expressed himself so 1440 strongly, for the phrases which he employed—injustice, and so forth—led to the conclusion that he himself had prejudged the question.