HL Deb 26 April 1875 vol 223 cc1621-8

(The Lord Redesdale.)

(NO. 50.) SECOND READING.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

LORD REDESDALE

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time said, that he had introduced it in consequence of the action of the Midland Company in doing away with second-class carriages; but Parliament having given the Railway Companies a monopoly of the passenger traffic, he considered it to be also the duty of Parliament to see that the conditions on which that monopoly was given were fully and fairly carried out. The Midland Railway Company had recently, as he had said, come to the determination to abolish second-class carriages. If they were justified in doing that, they would be equally justified in abolishing first-class carriages also, or third-class, and saying they would run one class only. There was no actual law compelling a railway company to have three classes of carriages; but clearly it was the intention of Parliament that there should be three classes on all lines—otherwise why should there be a maximum of three several scales of fares in railway Bills? If it was not intended that there should be three classes of carriages one maximum for one scale would be sufficient. It might be said that the maximum of three several fares was in the Bills when promoters came to Parliament. That was true, but Parliament accepted that arrangement as one of the conditions on which it gave those Bills its sanction; and that arrangement was in strict accordance with the expectation and habits of the people, and had been in use many years to the great public convenience. He believed that first-class passengers had more to complain of than either of the two other classes in respect to the change on the Midland. The third-class had no complaint at all; and the second-class had perhaps not much; but he believed that first-class passengers were not as well satisfied with the existing arrangement for their comfort as they had been with those which had prevailed before the change. It might be argued that Parliament ought not to interfere in details of this kind, and that if they would let things alone they would right themselves. But he thought that when Bills came before their Lordships, and were passed on the distinct pledge that there should be three classes of accommodation, and maximum fares, it was not right to leave the performance of these conditions to the operation of chance. As to Parliamentary interference, there was no novelty in it. Parliament had already interfered to insist on what were called "Parliamentary trains," and quite recently "Workmen's trains" were insisted on as a condition in many Railway Bills. Why, even in the old coaching days, Parliament had interfered to regulate the number of passengers that might be carried inside and out. As to the loss of accommodation to first-class passengers, it might be said that Pullman's cars might be attached to every train. But everyone did not like Pullman's cars; and as to those who did, there was nothing in this Bill that would prevent them from using them. And as to the argument that "the matter will right itself"—if it righted itself by the Midland Company going back to the old plan of three classes, then the Bill would do neither that Company or any other any harm whatever. If it righted itself by the other Companies following the example the Midland had set in abolishing second-class carriages, legislation such as that which he now proposed, would come rather late. He did not see what possible objection could be raised to the Bill in point of principle; but he felt that if aggressions of this kind were not met promptly they would be carried to an extent which would make Parliament interference far more difficult when it no longer be avoided. Therefore he thought it the duty of Parliament to interpose in time and to secure that the travelling public should have in future what they had before the change made by the Midland Company—first, second, and third-class carriages on every line. The object of the Bill was simply to provide that there should be three classes of passenger carriages; but power was granted to the Railway Commissioners to grant licences for the omission of classes in cases where for five years there had been no class of the particular description in use.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Redesdale.)

LORD HOUGHTON

said, he could not agree with his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees in the inference that when three classes of maximum fares had been settled by Parliament it was intended that the regulations in the particular form to which he referred should be lasting. In fact several railways had been in operation for more than five years in which there never had been any second-class carriages at all, yet no complaint had been made by the public. He would ask their Lordships not to be influenced by any feelings of comfort or discomfort which they might have experienced, but to reject the Bill on totally different grounds. This Bill would interfere unnecessarily with the free action of Railway Companies, and in a manner entirely contrary to the spirit of legislation during the last 20 years. It was obvious that the division of trains and all other matters affecting their arrangement must depend very much upon local and particular circumstances, and if a measure of this description were passed it would be easy to evade its provisions by certain regulations—such as giving particular names to certain trains or portions of trains—the result of which would be that the Bill would work only very partially. The noble Lord did not allege that the action of the railway companies had been averse to the public good; and there was now instituted a Railway Commission which was empowered to determine any complaint in which it was alleged that a company was adopting a course detrimental to public utility. He submitted that by passing such a Bill as this, Parliament would be interfering unnecessarily with the liberty of management by the railway companies which had been productive of so much public advantage. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Houghton.)

THE EARL OF DUNMORE

said, the objections he took to the Bill of his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees were many, as regarded both the principle of the Bill and as regarded its details. First of all, Parliament had not yet thought it expedient—when by the private Act of a Railway Company the maximum and minimum charges which it was authorized to make had been fixed, and when a railway had once been opened for public traffic, after due inspection by a Government officer—to interfere in any way with the amount to be charged or with the facilities which were to be given by the Railway Company in exchange. This Bill of his noble Friend was a Bill of compulsion, for the noble Lord, by the provisions of his Bill, proposed to compel every Railway Company in the United Kingdom to attach carriages marked "First Class," "Second Class," and "Third Class" to every train, unless they got the sanction of the Railway Commissioners to run trains omitting some one class of carriages. The first question which appeared to him to arise was this—what were first, second, and third class, and how were they to be defined? This measure—which was practically directed against the Midland Railway Company—as none of the other Companies had adopted the same scheme—proposed that there should be carriages of three distinct classes; but the noble Lord did not tell them in his Bill how those carriages were to be fitted up to carry out the distinction. Practically, therefore, any Railway Company would fulfil the requirements under the Bill by simply painting "First Class," "Second Class," and "Third Class" on the carriages, and by making the maximum charges authorized by Parliament. It would doubtless be in the recollection of many of their Lordships that a Bill was introduced by Mr. Plimsoll in the other House of Parliament some years ago, the provisions of which were to supply foot-warmers in the carriages for the benefit of the third-class passengers. Mr. Plimsoll was at once met by an objection to the principle of his Bill—philanthropic though it might have been—for the same reason which applied in his (the Earl of Dunmore's) estimation in very much greater force to the Bill of the noble Lord—namely, that the Railway Companies had obtained their Acts of Parliament subject to certain conditions which had been well weighed and well considered both with regard to public as well as to private interests. The bargain had been concluded, Parliament had already sealed its conditions, and the shareholders had already invested their capital under those conditions, and it would not be right to impose additional responsibilities upon them. Well, that Bill of Mr. Plimsoll's was defeated in the other House of Parliament by a large majority; and since that time no measure had been brought before either House of Parliament interfering in any way with the details of the working of Railway Companies until this measure of the noble Lord which was before their Lordships' House that night. The objections raised in the other House of Parliament to such a small measure as that of Mr. Plimsoll's naturally applied with much greater force to the Bill then before their Lordships. The real question at issue was this—At what point should Parliamentary interference with the details of the working of railways commence? Should Parliament think it desirable to alter the course hitherto adopted and to impose conditions upon Railway Companies, would it not be well that the contest between the public and the Railway Companies should not be taken on a question so insignificant as that of convenience to a few, but rather upon the far more important and significant question of the safety of all who travel on the many lines of railway which intersect the United Kingdom? The Bill of the noble Lord was directed avowedly to secure the convenience of the comparatively few persons who were in the habit of travelling first-class. But it must not be forgotten that a very few years ago the greater number of trains which ran consisted only of first and second class carriages, and he thought the Railway Companies might say, and with some fairness—"As long as we ran trains which provided for the convenience of the minority, Parliament was not asked to interfere in any way; but now that the arrangements we have made are supposed in some way to be unsuitable to the comfort of that small class of railway travellers who wish to pay high rates, Parliament is at once requested to depart from the practice it has always adopted since the commencement of the railway system, and to interfere directly with the detailed management of Railway Companies." The noble Lord asserted that if a stand were not made now, Railway Companies would gradually provide less and less accommodation for the convenience of the travelling public. But he (the Earl of Dunmore) did not think that the experience of the last few years would bear out that argument. He thought noble Lords would agree with him when he said that every succeeding year gave the travelling public a better and more comfortable railway carriage. There was another reason—and he thought a good one—why Railway Companies should not be compelled by Parliamentary legislation to make up a train in any particular manner. In addition to the increased expenditure which must necessarily be occasioned to the rolling-stock and permanent way of Companies by trains of unnecessary length and weight being constantly used, he thought there was a more important point yet to be considered—namely, whether by having fewer classes of carriages and fewer carriages of each class in each train, we were not enabled to have short trains, which are much more easily handled, by which greater punctuality was secured, and which, therefore, would tend very much to the increased safety of that large portion of the British public who travel by rail. He hoped their Lordships would oppose the second reading of this Bill and vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite.

LORD BELPER

said, the question was whether a case for interference had been made out by his noble Friend who had introduced the Bill. He was at a loss to understand what was the particular grievance of which his noble Friend complained. It could be no grievance to first-class passengers to have their fares greatly reduced whilst they continued to enjoy the same accommodation as before. Nor was it a grievance to second-class passengers to have the advantage of very superior accommodation without any increase of charge. Did the noble Lord propose to compel the Company, in the one case, to charge higher fares than they were willing to take, or, in the other, to refuse accommodation which they were willing to give? There could be no doubt that, under the new system, the number of carriages in each train, and consequently the weight of the trains, would be diminished, which would contribute both to punctuality and to safety. He thought the changes which had recently been made were for the benefit of the public, and certainly he considered that no case had been made out for interference.

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, he was glad that the Government had not only refused to support the second reading of the Bill, but had refused to support it on the ground taken up by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dunmore)—namely, that they should lay down no principle which should debar them from interfering on sufficient grounds with the proceedings of Railway Companies. He quite agreed that there was no sufficient case for interference in the present instance. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees talked as if Railway Companies from the beginning of railways had been constantly running first, second, and third-class carriages; but that was far from being the case. Until very lately, third-class carriages were not run except with a limited number of trains. That was a grievance which did not concern their Lordships very much, but it concerned other classes of the public. But did Parliament step in and say to the Railway Companies they must run third-class carriages with all their trains? On the contrary, Parliament interfered in the most tender and cautious manner. It required the Railway Companies to make some provision for third-class passengers—but, certainly, the provision was very limited; and when Parliament went a step further, they did not proceed by way of compulsion, but by offering advantages by way of bribe—it promised that on the fulfilment of certain conditions in connection with the running of third-class carriages with a greater number of trains, a portion of the tax on railways would be abated. As to the Midland Company, he did not believe the second-class had been abolished; it was really the first-class that had been discontinued. What the Midland Company had done reminded him of an American newspaper, which put forth an advertisement that on a certain morning they would issue a second edition, but there would be no first edition. But Parliament had always been cautious in interfering with the detailed arrangements of railways. When it was proposed that Railway Companies should be compelled to provide foot-warmers for the comfort of all classes of passengers, it was replied that it would be more for the comfort of all classes of passengers if they were provided with travelling rugs and brandy-and-water. The Midland Company had announced the abolition of the second class, but they really abolished the third-class. He hoped the power of Parliament to be exercised on sufficient grounds would not, as it were, be frittered away by their Lordships sanctioning this Bill.

EARL DE LA WARR

said, he did not think there was a demand, of sufficient strength, from the travelling public to warrant their Lordships in passing this Bill, and, therefore, he should vote against it.

LORD REDESDALE

, in reply, said, they ought to insist upon the Railway Companies supplying the different classes of carriages according to the provisions of the Act of Parliament. He certainly thought there was a case made out for the interference of Parliament, and he should, therefore, divide the House.

On Question, that ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 24; Not-Contents 56: Majority 32.

Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day six months.