HC Deb 08 February 1842 vol 60 cc165-77
Mr. Gladstone

rose to ask leave to bring in a bill for the better regulation of Railroads. About twelve months ago the late Government proposed to the House to sanction a measure which gate a very large amount of discretionary power in the management of railroads to the Government. This was deemed necessary for the safety of the public in the minds of many persons, in consequence of the numerous accidents which occurred in the course of the autumn of 1840 on several railroads. The bill, after having been submitted to the House, was referred to a committee up stairs, and it was the opinion of that committee, after mature deliberation, that, on the whole, the power hitherto entrusted to the Board of Trade had worked well; and that, as long as this continued to be the case, it was advisable not to place in the hands of the executive Government a control over the management of railroads. The proceedings since last year had shown that the committee was right in the opinion which it had formed, for he thought that it would be generally admitted, that there had been a great improvement in the management of railroads. [Col. Sibthorp: Hear.] Probably his gallant Friend entertained a different opinion, and, no doubt, the House would hear the gallant Member endeavour to show that matters had been growing worse and worse, but he entertained a widely different opinion. He therefore did nut intend to propose to place any general powers in the hands of the Government as respected railroads. Last year an important suggestion was made by an bon. Gentleman opposite, with the view to the prevention of accidents on railroads—namely, it should be necessary that all engine drivers on railroads should be licensed. The opinion of the committee, however, was rather against this proposition; and such was also the opinion of the present Board of Trade, after the most mature deliberation, who conceived that greater care and security would be produced by the operation of public opinion on the directors of the several railroads. If this should be found to be insufficient for the public safety, then it would be the duty of Parliament to interfere, and pass such enactments as might be deemed necessary. It appeared also to be the opinion of the committee that if the Government gave licences to the engine drivers, it would lessen the responsibility of the directors of railroads, and would not ensure the public against misconduct or neglect on the part of the engine drivers. The question also was, whether the character and conduct of engine drivers had improved or not. He thought that the diminution in the number of accidents last year on railroads showed a great improvement in the conduct of the engine drivers. There would be a report laid on the table of the House in the course of a few days, drawn up by the officers of the Board of Trade belonging to the railroad department, and which would show that very few of the serious accidents which had occurred last year on railroads were traceable or attributable to the misconduct of engine drivers, or to the want of caution. He thought, therefore, when it appeared that a great improvement had already taken place in this particular, and also that it was probable that greater improvement would occur with additional experience on the part of the engine drivers, that it would be better not to interfere, although it would be the duty of the Government to take the sense of the House upon the subject anti to act accordingly. He repeated, then, that in consequence of the improved character of the proceedings of last year in this respect, he did not intend to propose any alteration at present. The bill which he intended to propose contained provisions which tended somewhat to enlarge the powers of the Board of Trade, but only on specific points where experience showed that they were called for. He would proceed to describe to the House the most important clauses in the bill. The first was a clause for the more effectual inspection of railroads previous to their opening, and to give powers to the Board of Trade, to postpone the opening of a railroad, in case of the proper officers not being satisfied of its security. In most cases there was little difficulty in this respect, for the directors of most of the railroads readily attended to the opinions of the surveying officers. If his hon. and gallant Friend would attend to this part of the subject, he would find, that all the blame of the accidents that had occurred was not to be attributed to the railroad companies, for in most cases the directors most readily listened to the suggestions and advice of their surveyors. One of the chief dangers attending the traffic on new railroads arose from the unsettled condition of the soil, and a disposition on the part of railway companies to open their lines before the ground was in a proper state to allow of that being done with safety: it was therefore his intention to propose, that the Board of Trade should be authorised to postpone the opening of railroads when they saw occasion. He intended to propose also to enlarge the power of the Board of Trade as to returns in cases of accident on the railroads. At present such returns were required only when injury to life or limb had occurred, but it was obvious that great negligence might be practised, without causing such an injury: his object, therefore, was to adopt measures which would ensure the obtaining information respecting such cases, and he intended to propose, that it should be incumbent on the directors of railroads, to make a return of all accidents that occurred, whether formidable or not in their nature. He also intended to propose, that in cases where roads crossed the railroad on the line, the gates should be closed across the roads, and not across the railroads. In most of the railway acts it was directed, that the gates should be not across the road, but across the railroad; but experience had proved, that this was not the best course; he, therefore, proposed a clause which would lead to the opposite practice. Another clause would require occupation-gates on railways to be kept locked. There were a vast number of these gates on every line, and it was out of the question, that the railway companies could watch all these gates. Great inconvenience and some accidents arose from their being left open, and cattle getting on the line. He thought, therefore, they ought to be required to be kept locked. He would ask, in another clause, for power to require disputes to be settled by arbitration. Cases of disputes, as with regard to crossings on the level, matters of extreme importance, were frequently arising between railway companies and road trustees, where they could not agree on the conditions of the crossing, or whether a road was to be carried under or over the railway. It was obviously exceedingly inexpedient, that because parties chose to stickle upon some minor conditions, the safety of the public should be exposed to serious damage. He should, therefore, ask for power to require arbitration in such cases; and, if necessary, an umpire to be appointed to ensure a speedy decision. He should propose the adoption of a similar principle with respect to branch communications. A right had been given in certain cases, under railway acts, to introduce branch communications, in order to secure to individuals the use of the way. This power, he believed, had not been used to any material extent. It was clear, that if it had been, it would lead to a frightful multiplication of accidents, and it was desirable, that it should be under control; he should ask the House to give the Government power to increase such control. He should also ask for some power with reference to the right of private parties to use locomotive engines on railways. Stipulations of this sort had been introduced into railway acts antecedently to experience; but experience showed, that they required to be placed under control. There were certain other clauses, by which he proposed to give to railway companies powers of a compulsory nature, which they did not now enjoy. There was one in reference to the public safety. It happened, in certain instances, that cuttings were found too steep, and embankments too narrow for security, either ordinarily or from bad weather. In such cases, the companies should be empowered to take land enough to widen the embankment, and diminish the slope sufficiently to make it secure. In doing so, it was not right, that they should be impeded in the accomplishment of their object; he meant, that in such cases the rights of property should be subjected to modification, if it was clearly made out, that the taking of certain lands was necessary for the public safety. There were some other clauses to make provision for certain cases of misconduct on railways, but without further detail he should now move for leave to bring in the bill.

Colonel Sibthorp

was glad the hon. Gentleman had adopted the course which he formerly had the pleasure of suggesting, and that it was placed in such able hands. He was actuated by but one motive in that opposition which he had always given to the introduction of railway schemes, and if accidents increased, as they had done latterly, he could have wished that his hon. Friend had introduced a bill for the annihilation of railways. But when the hon. Gentleman told them, with regard to the measures which he proposed for the consideration of the House, that great discretionary powers were to be given to the Government, it appeared to him that little public good would result from it in regard to the lamentable accidents and loss of life which had of late occurred; and if the hon. Gentleman should not do so, he would take the liberty of moving for a return of those accidents, and of the opinions of the juries on the various cases. He thought, too, that sufficient had fallen from the public press on this subject, and he alluded in particular to one paper, from which he differed in political matters—he alluded to The Sun, the comments of which on the unfortunate accidents which occurred, were of the most salutary kind, and whose efforts in urging that some efficient measure should be adopted to prevent them, conferred great credit on itself. He thought that most of those accidents occurred from want of due precaution on the part of the directors, and he would be glad that a measure was brought forward for settling a greater responsibility on them. He thought it was necessary that such a course of inspection as was mentioned should be adopted, not only with regard to new railways, but regarding all railways. He thought that imposing a mere deodand, even of 1000l., was not a sufficient recompense to the relatives of the sufferers. The directors of those schemes should be compelled to sup- port the families of those who were killed. He was also of opinion that the losses sustained by the proprietors of stage-coaches should be made a subject of consideration by her Majesty's Ministers. He thought that railroads were a proper subject taxation; they would produce a revenue to the Government, and would not affect the body of the people. He had been conscientiously opposed to the introduction of all railroads, but with regard to this bill, it certainly did not seem to him to be adequate to the protection of the people. It was due to the public at large, and to individuals that life and property should be protected, and he should take the opportunity of opposing certain parts of this bill at every stage.

Mr. Wakley

felt bound to express his belief that this bill as at present constructed would not carry out the object the right hon. Gentleman had in view. He was decidedly impressed with the opinion that a far more stringent measure was necessary, but he felt also compelled to state his fear that the influence of the proprietors of railways in that House was far too great to allow of any hope that such a bill could at present pass. By and by, when three or four lords had lost their lives, or perhaps some members of the Government, the House would strongly sympathize with the subject, and some efficient remedy would be provided for the prevention of accidents in future; but, until some such event occurred, he was convinced that the House would not pass the kind of law which the circumstances of the case demanded. One hon. Member opposite had himself had his life in jeopardy, and he would probably give the House an account of the circumstances attending the accident on the Brighton line. Some of the cases that had occurred having come officially under his notice, he had had the fullest opportunity of investigating the facts and comparing the evidence, and he had come to this conclusion —that railway travelling, if it were under proper regulation, would be the safest in the kingdom. He entertained no doubt upon the subject, not the slightest. This bill of the right hon. Gentleman was another which Ministers had brought out of the back shop of the Whig store. They had had four already. He wished the Government would take the whole batch, ticket them "Whig bills," and let them know which they meant to stick to. It was not long since he had heard the Whig measures described as the most vicious and most rascally that had ever been exhibited to an intelligent assembly; they had been denounced in that House and in the country. But now, when questions were put to the Government from that (the Opposition) side on their measures, the answer was "Oh! I found a bill in my office" (a sort of legacy of the noble lord), "and, with slight modifications, I intend to introduce it the first opportunity. That bad been done with regard to the all-important question of the factories, and also with regard to the poor-law, though that was not to come on till after Easter—a circumstance which, as the commission expired in July, appeared rather strange. He did not like these tactics. To-night, another bill had been proposed by the right hon, mover of the present measure, for the regulation of the customs of the Wet-India Islands, and there had been no end to the compliments he paid to the late President of the Board of Trade. He had not heard those compliments paid formerly. But it was astonishing how well those who had obtained the victory could afford to be complimentary. This bill was inefficient last year, and he had felt so: it was equally inefficient now. A stringent hand must be applied to the railway proprietors. The director and chairman of one of the great companies was now in the House, and it might be that he had some influence in the right quarter. It happened to him the day before Christmas-day to be on the Great Western Railway, a few hours after the accident that happened at Sonning-hill. He was in the third train. It would be useless for him to describe the feelings of the people, nor need he advert to the distressing, painful, agonizing character of the accident—not less distressing because he knew that every person on the spot concurred in thinking that, had the commonest precaution been used, such an accident could not have occurred. Would it be believed, that on that night, in the darkness, there was no watchman at the cutting at Sunning-hill? He made this statement upon the allegation of persons who were on the spot. And on the statement of the secretary of the company when examined on the inquest. The evidence of the policeman was that it was his duty to be there in time for the train which leaves London at six. But there was another train—a "luggage" train— which left London at half-past four. It was that containing the trucks that held the unfortunate men whose lives were lost. That train was at the place before the watchman arrived, for it was not a part of his duty to be there till day-light. Was this a system that ought to be sanctioned? Railways were a great national undertaking, conducive to commercial advancement, and adding greatly to the convenience of the public; and those who thought they ought to be placed under proper regulations should not object to have a regulating power placed in proper hands. They should not be the parties interested in railways; there ought to be a power above them, and that power ought to be the Government. Then, take the case of the accident that happened on the Birmingham line—a case that had come before him. What were the facts? They would hardly be credited. But, perhaps it would be inconvenient for him to enter into the facts of that case on the present occasion, and he would defer his observations till the second reading.

Mr. Gladstone

had thought he might venture to move for leave to bring in the bill, as no new principle was contained in it beyond what had been already before the House, and he had done so notwithstanding that the report on the subject was not yet delivered. But in a very few days that report would be on the Table of the House, and in that report would be given the detailed opinions of the officers on the accidents that had occurred, and their reasons for those opinions. He thought it was desirable for all parties that the whole subjects should be gone into, but, under the circumstances he had mentioned, not perhaps at present.

Mr. Wakley

had not hesitated to allude to the accident on the Great Western, because the chairman of the company, being present in his place in the House, would be able to reply on the instant. But as there was no person in the House who could have offered a similar explanation on the part of the Birmingham Railway Company, he had abstained.

Mr.C. Russell

expressed his satisfaction that the right hon. Gentleman had brought in this bill in accordance with the principle recommended last year. As there was to be another day for the discussion, he would confine his present observations to the allusion made by the hon. Member for Finsbury, to the accident that had recently occurred on the Great Western Railway. He could assure that hon. Gentleman and the House that no person in the country more deeply deplored that accident than did the company, nor had any persons in the country laboured more intensely and earnestly to avert such accidents, or, when they unfortunately had occurred, to prevent them in future. He had felt it his duty to attend the inquest on the sufferers by the accident alluded to, and axiously to consider whether any blame could attach to any officer of the company, and he could solemnly and sincerely declare his belief that the accident was more to be attributed to those causes that were under the control of Providence, and which could not be foreseen by man. He could show the hon. Member a section of the embankment where the accident occurred, by which it would be seen that it was caused by the percolation of the water at a stratum much deeper than the superficial portion of the embankment. The hon. Member had complained of the want of a watchman at Sonning-hill cutting. He would surely see that it was impossible to have a watch kept along the whole of a line, from one end to the other, extending 118 miles. Had there been any reason to fear danger at that particular spot, then there would have been a watchman, but there was no such reason. He should defer his remarks on the bill and its details until a future occasion.

Mr. Ewart

differed with the hon. Member for Finsbury, on the question of Government control. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had acted wisely in not removing so much of the responsibility from the proprietors. Interfere with the personal responsibility of the directors, and you increased the danger to the public. By superintending, without interfering, the Government had exercised a wise discretion. The hon. Member for Finsbury said, that the power ought not to be intrusted to interested hands. Who were more interested than the directors in insuring the safety of the public? He hoped that neither the right hon. Gentleman, nor any Member of any Government would do away with the principle of non-interference, which ought to be the basis of all legislation on this subject. Looking at the effects of past legislation, it should not be forgotten that the older railways were, after all, the safest; and in the case of the new railways, the system of superintendance did not appear to have been attended with that additional safety to the public that might have been expected. He hoped, however, that it would be more efficacious in future. There was this anomaly in the law of England—that if a man survived the injuries he received, he could recover damages from those who were the cause of those injuries being inflicted; but if the man died, his surviving relatives had no remedy or means of recovering compensation. This was a strange anomaly, and ought not to be allowed to continue. He had no doubt that the number of accidents would diminish, as the experience of the railway directors increased; and he would give his cordial support to a measure which, while it would control, would not unwisely and hastily interfere with railway companies.

Mr.Hardy

said, he thought that the provisions of the proposed measure did not go far enough; and he should feel obliged to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), if he were allowed to engraft a clause or two, in order to increase the public safety. The late accidents on the railways showed what ought to be done upon this subject. For instance, there was the accident on the Brighton railway, on which occasion he himself had very narrowly escaped, and which had resulted from two engines having been used. One of them was more powerful than the other; and it was his conviction that the more powerful engine, which was the second, pushed the other off the road and overturned it. The consequence was, that the other carriages were driven on the other side of the road. He attached much importance to these facts, because only three carriages was materially injured. One of those who almost dragged to pieces, and the other two were in much the same condition; but none of the passengers were hurt, except those who were in the carriages he had mentioned. Therefore, if something were done to prevent carriages with persons in them being placed near the engine, accidents of this kind to passengers were not likely to occur. There was likewise the recent accident on the Great Western Railway, to which the same observations applied. He would therefore, propose, (and the recommendation would tend to the advantage of the railway proprietors themselves), this contrivance to prevent, in cases of those accidents that might happen on any part of the road from the overturning of the engine, and not merely from slips of land, those accidents being attended by the fatal consequences that had resulted in the two instances he had named. He hoped that he should see in his right hon. Friend's Bill, some provision for this, that would at once be satisfactory to the public, and would be no injury to the proprietors of the railways themselves.

Sir R. Peel

said, he thought that in matters that were conducted upon so large a scale, by companies with such large capitals, and in establishments that had, to a great extent, superseded other modes of travelling, if the Legislature could devise any precautions against the occurrence of accidents, it would be perfectly justified in so doing; and he felt certain that there could be no influence on the part of railway proprietors who might have seats in that House that could stand against the sense of that House and the influence of reason. He doubted whether all the influence of all the proprietors could prevent the adoption by Parliament of effectual measures for the regulation of railways, if it were shown that the regulations proposed would have the effect of preventing accidents. But he should deprecate the interference of Parliament being carried beyond the proper limits, because he felt certain that such an interference would not tend to the security of the public. It would be impossible for Parliament, or the Government, or any part of the Government, to undertake too minute an interference with the affairs of the railways; and the attempt would, in his opinion, greatly increase the risk of those travelling by them. In the first place, it was the interest of the railway companies to prevent accidents occurring. When accidents did occur, the result was a diminution of traffic on that particular line, and a preference was given to other modes of travelling. That hon. Members might form a correct opinion on this subject, he would recommend them to read the evidence that was received last year by the railway committee, which showed there were certain matters in respect to which Government could take an active part. They could undertake to offer sug- gestions, thus increasing the responsibility of the companies if those suggestions were not adopted; but he thought that, if any department of Government were to direct, as had been suggested by his hon. Friend, a certain interval between this engine and that particular description of carriages, the effect would be to increase rather than diminish the risk of accidents. The railway companies would, in such cases, feel relieved from the responsibility. They would then shield themselves from public indignation, on account of Government having the superintendence of the regulations. Then their vigilance would be relaxed; and they would have the power of asserting, that as the Government had relieved them from the responsibility, the Government ought to assume it. There were certain matters in which the Government could beneficially interfere, as in the instance of the railway establishments, and the management of the gates across roads; but, as to the appointment of a certain number of watchmen, or the regulation that the trains should not travel beyond a certain degree of speed, he thought legislation on those grounds would be impracticable. As he thought, the evidence already given before the committee proved that any attempt on the part of any department of the Government to prescribe rates of speed, or determine as to the engines, or the other matters that required actual experience or local knowledge, would be going beyond the proper authority of Government, and, in his opinion, would fail in the object in view. He believed that the effect of the measure now proposed would be to increase the personal safety of her Majesty's subjects travelling by means of railways.

Mr. Labouchere

said, that the present bill differed somewhat from that which was proposed last session, inasmuch as his bill was more stringent, and gave greater power to the Board of Trade than this would give. Those portions of his measure that gave the Board of Trade such power had been referred to the consideration of a Select Committee of that House; and the result of their investigations was, that his opinion was altered upon the subject. He believed that the means most likely to accomplish the object that all had in view would be to leave undivided responsibility in the directors and officers of the different railways. He therefore thought that a sound discretion had been exercised in leaving those clauses out of the present bill. But it was a mistake to say, that the committee had been decidedly against the clause that gave the Board of Trade the power of licensing engine-drivers, because, that had not been referred to that committee, and they could not, therefore, have come to any decision upon it. As far as he could collect, the committee was of opinion, however, that at the present time it was not desirable to have a clause of that description included in the measure. He therefore did not blame the right hon. Member for not introducing that clause in the present bill. It was by no means a simple question, and it was not to be so easily legislated on as at first it might appear. He thought, that it would be the safer course to interfere with the companies too little rather than too much. He was not prepared to say, that it would not be expedient, after they had had more experience, for the Government to interfere to a greater extent than was now contemplated; but he thought, that in the present state of the question, the right hon. Gentleman had exercised a sound discretion in bringing forward the bill as now framed, and in giving the Board of Trade power only of making suggestions, and leaving it to the directors to act upon them or not.

Leave was given.