RAILWAYS.

HC Deb 22 April 1842 vol 62 cc1040-50

Order of the Day read for the reconsidering the report of the Railways-bill. Bill to be recommitted.

On the question that the Speaker leave the Chair,

Lord J. Russell

thought, there ought to be some general understanding as to the succession in which business was to be brought on, in case of one particular order not occupying so much time as had been expected. There were many Gentlemen interested in the subject now before the House, and anxious to discuss it, who might not now be present in consequence of its not being expected to be brought on.

Sir R. Peel

perfectly agreed with the noble Lord, that there should be some such understanding, and he should take care, as far as possible, in future, to give notice of the succession in which the orders of the day were to be brought on, in case any particular order should not last so long as had been anticipated; but he must urge as his excuse on the present occasion, that, after the formidable announcement made by the noble Lord with reference to the second reading of the Income-tax Bill, he had hardly expected that the discussion would have been over at half-past nine, and that there would have been only seventy-six Gentlemen on the other side of the House. He had thought the great debate would have been on the second reading, and had never anticipated so early a termination of it. He must, however, apologise to the noble Lord for not having given notice, and should take care, as far as possible, to give sufficient intimations of the course of business in future.

Mr. V. Smith

said, he believed that the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary to the Board of Trade had given no notice of an intention to proceed with this bill to-night; and, as far as Members on the Opposition side had been able to collect, the intention was to proceed with the ordnance estimates, and it was only on account of the absence of the hon. Gentleman who was to move them that the House was called upon to proceed with a discussion for which no one was prepared.

Mr. Gladstone

observed that the majority of the Gentlemen who had given notice of amendments on the bill were present, and so far the House was prepared for the discussion.

Lord J. Russell

said, he had observed an anxiety on the other side to prevent Gentlemen from speaking even in favour of the Income-tax, and that had tended to bring the discussion to a conclusion early.

Sir R. Peel

said, he had not observed anything of the kind. He could assure the noble Lord that he had offered no obstruction to any Gentleman speaking. He certainly had been afraid that the House would have been counted out at one time.

House in committee.

The clauses of the Railway Bill to the 10th inclusive were agreed to. On clause 11 being proposed, which compels occupiers of land to keep gates and private roads erected by sides of railways properly fastened between railways and the adjoining ground,

Sir W. Jolliffe

expressed regret that the bill had been proceeded with. With respect to this clause he thought it should be omitted, and that it would be much better to leave the law as it stood. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat hasty in respect to this bill.

Mr. Gladstone

said, that as the clause dealt with minute legislation, it was necessary that it should be carefully framed. The object of the clause was to insure that gates connected with private rights of way over railways should be kept properly locked or secured, and the public safety demanded that proper provision on this head should be made. He meant, however, that this clause should be reprinted, and if then it should be found not to give satisfaction, he would be ready to withdraw it. The clause, however, was not a new one. It was similar to one in the Grand Junction Railway Act, and which bad been found to work exceedingly well.

Mr. Labouchere

thought it highly important that proper provision should be made for the keeping of such gates locked.

Sir W. Jolliffe

contended that the Railway Companies, and not the owners or occupiers of land, should be the parties to see after these gates. He thought it would be impossible to carry out the clause as it stood.

Mr. C. Russell

said, that as the gates in question could only be used by the owners and occupiers of the land, it was but reasonable that they should be responsible for their being kept locked up or properly secured, so as to avoid danger to the public.

Mr. Labouchere

did not care on which party the responsibility fell, provided sufficient security were given that the gates should be kept locked or secured.

Mr. Henley

said, that such a burden should not be thrown upon the farmers along the line, and therefore, if the hon. Baronet went to a division, he should support him.

Mr. Tatton Egerton

disapproved of the clause, and thought that there would be no hardship in obliging the railway companies to undertake the charge of these gates.

Sir T. Wilde

thought the responsibility should be on the railway.

Sir W. Jolliffe

said, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon his motion.

The committee divided on the question that the clause stand part of the bill:— Ayes 103; Noes 104: Majority 1.

List of the AYES.
Ackland, Sir T. D.	Hornby, J.
Acland, T. D.	Howard, P. H.
Adare Visct.	Howard, Sir R.
Aldam, W.	Jermyn, Earl
Alford, Visct.	Johnson, W. G.
Bagot, hon W.	Johnston, A.
Baillie, Col.	Knightley, Sir C.
Baring, H. B.	Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T.	Lincoln, Earl of
Beresford, Capt.	Lyall, G.
Bernal, Capt.	Mahon, Visct.
Bodkin, W. H.	Mitcalfe, H.
Boldero, H. G.	Mitchell, T. A.
Bowring, Dr.	Morgan, O.
Broadley, H.	Morris, D.
Brotherton, J.	Munday, E. M.
Bruce, Lord E.	Murray, C. R. S.
Buller C.	Neville, R.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	O'Brien, W. S.
Campbell, Sir H.	O'Connell, M. J.
Cardwell, E.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Chelsea, Visct.	Parker, J.
Clerk, Sir G.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Codrington, C. W.	Peel, J.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Philips, G. R.
Corry, right hon. H.	Philips, M.
Craig, W. G.	Phillpotts, J.
Damer, Hon. Col.	Pollock, Sir F.
Darby G.	Pringle, A.
Dawnay, hon. W. H.	Rashleigh, W.
Denison, E. B.	Reade, W. M.
Dickinson, F. H.	Rundle, J.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Scarlett, Hon. R. C.
Duncan, Visct.	Stanley, Lord
Dundas, G.	Stanton, W. H.
Duncombe, Hon. A.	Strutt, E.
Ewart, W.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
Ferguson, Col.	Thompson, Mr. AId.
Feilden, W.	Thorneley, T.
Filmer, Sir E.	Towneley, J.
Fleming, J. W.	Trench, Sir F. W.
Forbes, W.	Tuite, H. M.
Fox, C. R.	Verner, Col.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.	Wallace, R.
Goring, C.	Whitmore, T. C.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.	Williams, W.
Granger, T. C.	Williams, T. P.
Hale, R. B.	Wood, G. W.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.	Wyndham, Col. C.
Hardy, J.	Young, J.
Herbert, Hon. S.	TELLERS.
Hinde, J. H.	Freemantle, Sir T.
Holmes, Hn. W. A'Ct.	Russell, C.

List of the NOES.
Ackers, J.	Baskerville, T. B. M.
Adderley, C. B.	Beckett, W.
Allix, J.P.	Bell, J.
Arbuthnott, Hon. H.	Berkeley, hon. C.
Archbold, R.	Berkeley, hon. Capt.
Armstrong, Sir A.	Blake, M. J.
Bailey, J. jun.	Blewitt, R. J.
Baird, W.	Borthwick, P.
Bannerman, A.	Browne, hon. W.
Barrington, Visct.	Buckley, E.

Burrell, Sir C. M.	Mackenzie, T.
Campbell, A.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Chute, W. L. W.	Mackinnon, W. A.
Clayton, R, R.	Master, T. W. C.
Clements, Visct.	Miles, P. W. S.
Cobden, R.	Miles, W.
Cochrane, A.	Murphy, F. S.
Collett, W. R.	Murray, A.
Colvile, C. R.	Napier, Sir C.
Curteis, H. B.	Neeld, J.
Duff, James	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Duncombe, T.	O'Brien, A. S.
Egerton, Sir P.	O'Brien, C.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Paget, Col.
Fielden, J.	Plumptre, J. P.
Forester, hon. G. C. W.	Power, J.
Fuller, A. E.	Pryse, P.
Gill, T.	Pusey, P.
Gordon, Lord F.	Redington, T. N.
Grimsditch, T.	Rushbrooke, Col.
Grimston, Visct.	Scott, hon. F.
Grogan, E.	Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Hall, Sir B.	Smith, rt. hn. R. V.
Hamilton, C. J. B.	Smollett, A.
Hamilton, W. J.	Somerville, Sir W. M.
Hastie, A.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Hay, Sir A. L.	Stuart, H.
Hayes, Sir E.	Strickland, Sir G.
Henley, J. W.	Talbot, C. R. M.
Hepburn, Sir T. B.	Tollemache, hn. F. J.
Hill, Lord M.	Tollemache, J.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.	Tuffnell, H.
Hodgson, R.	Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Ingestrie, Visct.	Vivian, hon. Major
Inglis, Sir R. H.	Waddington, H. S.
Irton, S.	Wason, R.
Jackson, J. D.	Watson, W.
James, W.	Wawn, J. T.
Johnstone, Sir J.	Wilde, Sir T.
Kemble, H.	Wood. B.
Langston, J. H.
Legh, G. C.	TELLERS.
Lemon, Sir C.	Joliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Lockhart, W.	Egerton, W. T.

Clause expunged.

Mr. Labouchere

hoped the right lion. Gentlemen opposite would be able to suggest some less objectionable mode of attaining the object in view.

Mr. Gladstone

said, he would endeavour to do so at some future stage; but he feared the farmer would be under greater disadvantages if the key were taken from him and given to the railway company.

On clause 16,

Mr. Labouchere

objected to the clause, as making an invidious distinction between parks and pleasure grounds and the property of poor persons.

The Attorney-General

denied that there was any such distinction, and said the cottage garden of the humblest labourer was as much protected by the clause as the rich man's park.

Clause withdrawn in order to be amended.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Mr. Hardy

moved that the following clause be added to the bill:— And whereas many fatal accidents have happened in consequence of carriages containing passengers on railways being placed next or near to the-engine drawing such carriages; now be it enacted, that whenever there shall be a train comprising carriages with passengers therein, such carriages shall be so placed in such train that the first of them shall be separated from the tender of the engine drawing the train by two or more carriages not containing any passenger therein, and by a space of not less than twenty feet between every such tender, and the first carriage having any passenger therein. The hon. Member observed that the want of such precautions as he had provided in this clause had been the principal cause of the accident on the Brighton Railway, and the remedy which he proposed was so simple and so easily adopted that he did not apprehend any objection on the part of the railway companies.

Clause read a first time.

On the question that it be read a second time,

Mr. C. Russell

opposed the motion. The clause just proposed by the hon. Member showed the danger of persons not possessing practical knowledge interfering in these matters. If the carriages which he (Mr. Hardy) proposed should intervene were light, they would be most dangerous. If filled with luggage or other goods, they should weigh seven or eight tons in order to be safe. This would be an additional weight of sixteen tons at the head of each train. But as many accidents had taken place at the back part of the train as at the head, so that two more would be required there, which would make an additional weight of thirty tons altogether. Now the entire weight of the light trains was generally only about sixty tons, and the hon. Member's motion would thus, if carried out, increase it by one half. It would, therefore, become necessary to have two engines to the trains; but the second clause which the hon. Member had to propose said that this should not be. Again, if the trains were made very numerous, the objection would be advanced that this would produce a multiplication of dangers. To legislate on these practical points would be to involve the House in the greatest difficulty.

Mr. Gladstone

said, he thought the ob- ject proposed by the hon. and learned Member would not be attained by the clause submitted to the committee. Lengthening the train would be found to produce great inconvenience, and merely from this circumstance danger to the life of the passenger would be incurred. It was also of importance that the trains should not be encumbered by the necessity of carrying two carriages, weighing from fourteen to sixteen tons, as mere dead weight, in order to prevent the danger apprehended from passengers' carriages being placed next to the tender and engine. He should, therefore, notwithstanding he was as anxious to prevent the recurrence of accidents as the hon. and learned mover, oppose the clause.

Mr. S. O'Brien

suggested that a power should be given to a jury to award compensation to the relatives of those who should have suffered fatal accidents on railways.

Mr. Ewart

hoped the Attorney-general would include a remedy to that effect in the bill. It was an anomaly in the English law.

The Attorney-General

said, there was no compensation for the death of a human being in law, because it was either an accident or a felony. He thought, however, that something should be done for the families of sufferers by railway companies.

Mr. Hardy

replied, his only motive in bringing the clause forward was to provide for the safety of human life, as he had had a fearful experience of the sequences of accidents on railways.

Mr. Hardy

withdrew the clause.

Mr. H. Hinde

moved the insertion of the following clause:— And whereas, by various acts relating to railways, 'it is provided that the companies shall cause to be painted on boards, and to be affixed and continued, and renewed as often as the same shall be obliterated or defaced, to or upon every toll-house or building at which any rates or tolls shall be collected or received, in some conspicuous place, in large and legible characters, an account or list of the several rates and tolls which the said company shall from time to time direct and appoint to be taken: and, whereas, it is for the public convenience that the said list of rates and tolls should be printed and affixed within every station house, or other place where such rates and tolls shall be payable; be it enacted, that it may be lawful for any railway company to affix such printed list of rates and tolls in a conspicuous situation within every station-house or other building where such rates or tolls are collected, instead of affixing such boards painted as aforesaid; and that such company shall be held to have complied with the provision of the said acts as effectually as if the said table of rates and tolls had been painted on boards and affixed to such toll-house or building; and that such rates or tolls shall be payable, and may be demanded and taken during the time in which such printed lists are affixed as aforesaid, in the same manner as they are authorised to be demanded and taken during the time that such boards shall remain so affixed.

Mr. Gladstone

opposed the introduction of the clause as being a matter of mere regulation of rates and tolls, which it was perfectly proper to confide to the discretion of the railway companies themselves.

Mr. H. Hinde

said, unless there was some objection upon principle to the clause he should take the sense of the committee upon it.

Mr. Brotherton

moved, that the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion agreed to, House resumed. Committee to sit again.

House adjourned.