§ MR. STRUTT, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for regulating the proceedings of the Commissioners of Railways, and for amending the law relating to railways, said, it would be in the recollection of the House, that, towards the close of last Session of Parliament, a Bill was prepared, and on the recommendation of a Committee, passed that House with general acquiescence, for the purpose of constituting a new Board for the superintendence of railways. By that Bill, the powers formerly possessed by the Railway Department of the Board of Trade were transferred to new Commissioners; but it was understood that early in the present Session Her Majesty's Government would be prepared with a measure to regulate the proceedings of the Commissioners, and to make new regulations concerning the management and law of railways. In accordance with that understanding, he was now prepared shortly to state the substance of the measure which Her Majesty's 1176 Government intended to propose to Parliament. He would not trespass on the attention of the House by going into any preliminary matter as to the necessity or expediency of further legislation on railways, because he conceived that to be admitted with general acquiescence by the passing of the Bill of last Session. But what he had to propose might naturally be divided into two parts: first, that which related to proceedings preliminary to bringing in Bills into that House; and second, that which related to the regulation of railways which had actually received the sanction of the Legislature. He ought first to state that he did not intend to carry the plan wholly into effect by a Bill only, but partly by a Bill, and partly by alterations in the Standing Orders. He proposed that wherever new duties were imposed on the Commissioners of Railways, they should be mentioned in the Bill; but whenever the functions of that or the other House of Parliament were interfered with, that should take place, not under the Bill, but under the Standing Orders of either House. He thought that desirable, because by this means they would not part with any portion of their jurisdiction, but each House would regulate its own proceedings by its Standing Orders; and if it should see fit in future to repeal any part of this measure, it might resume the power formerly bestowed. He thought it most convenient that he should proceed by order of time; and, first, was the survey made by the railway company themselves preparatory to bringing in the Bill. And here he must refer to an anomaly which had often excited observation. Before a Bill could be brought into the House, they required certain plans and sections to be deposited, which could only be made by means of an entry on the land; and yet they gave to the parties whom they required to make this service, no right of entry for this purpose. This could not be done at present, in case of opposition on the part of the landlord or occupier, without a violation of the law. So long as no particular evil arose from this state of things, it might perhaps not receive the attention of the Legislature; but they knew that latterly evils had arisen, and conflicts had ensued, which had afterwards in certain cases been brought to adjudication before courts of law. He thought therefore, under these circumstances, it would not be right, in proposing a measure for the regulation of railways, to omit some remedy 1177 for this state of things by course of law. One difficulty connected with the question arose upon the point of entering upon lands. If the power of entering upon lands was to be facilitated, it was necessary to give a cheap and easy method of recovering for any damages that might be sustained by such entry; for if the promoters of a railway were to be empowered to enter, it was manifestly unjust to drive the landowner to the trouble and expense of the ordinary course provided by law for the recovery of damages. With a view of meeting this difficulty, it was proposed that before the promoters of a railway should be authorized to enter upon any lands, they should apply to the Commissioners of Railways, and deposit with them such a sum as in the opinion of the Commissioners should be sufficient for the purpose of giving compensation for any damages that might arise; that on depositing this sum, they should obtain the warrant of the Commissioners to enter upon the lands; that after such entry the proprietor should be entitled to full compensation for damage; and should the promoters refuse to grant it, he should apply to the Commissioners, who should have power to award him such compensation as he was fairly entitled to. The next part of the proposal was also an alteration in the present system. In many cases much difficulty had been experienced by many persons through whose lands railways were intended to pass, in ascertaining how their interests and property were likely to be affected. It had been his duty, as chairman of the Committee on Standing Orders, to examine farmers and other persons connected with agriculture—the class most affected by these measures—and he had found among them a difficulty of understanding these plans and sections. Now it was most desirable that these persons should be clearly informed of the exact course of the line, and it was therefore proposed that after the completion of the survey, the promoters of a Bill should mark out the proposed line, either by a narrow furrow, or by stakes, also placing posts at convenient distances on which they would have to inscribe the number of feet or inches above or below the surface of the ground, so as to afford to every party interested clear and distinct information of the course and level of the line. By this means information of the most valuable kind would be afforded to that class of whom he had been speaking, which they were now totally incapable 1178 of obtaining. He would now pass to another part of the subject, in which the hon. Member for Montrose had taken great interest, and which arose out of the recommendation of a Committee over which the hon. Member presided during the last Session—he meant the propriety of instituting local inquiry previous to the introduction of a Bill into Parliament. Hon. Members might have observed the injury that had often accrued to proprietors, as well as expense to railway companies, from the fact, that in ordinary cases the landowner, not being aware of the exact course to be taken by the railway, had no opportunity of suggesting any improvement or alteration until the plans and sections had been deposited. It often happened that a landed proprietor, upon seeing that the course of a proposed railway would be inconvenient or injurious to him, went to the promoters, and representing this inconvenience, showed at the same time that another route through adjoining lands, while it would be much less injurious to him, would be equal, if not superior, as regarded the interests of the company, to that which they had selected. The answer of the company, in such cases, had often been, "We should really have been glad to know this before; but it is now too late. We have deposited our plans and sections, and we are required by the Standing Orders to bring in our plan in exact conformity with those plans, so that, unless we abandon our Bill altogether, it is impossible for us to attend to the suggestion." What then was the position of the landowner? Either he must rest contented with the injury his property would receive, or he must carry on an opposition to the Bill at great expense both to himself and the company. And what was the position of the Committee on the Bill? They were obliged either to put off a measure they believed to be generally good, or, by passing it, to inflict injustice on an individual. For the purpose of removing this evil, he proposed that the Commissioners, on receiving information of such cases, or on application after the marking out of the line in the manner suggested, should be empowered to send a competent officer to the spot to make a local inspection of the line; that this officer should, wherever the Commissioners might think it desirable, by public advertisement or otherwise, give notice of the times at which he would attend at different parts of the line, for the purpose of receiving any suggestions which might be offered; that 1179 on these being communicated to him and the promoters of the line, if the promoters should choose to adopt them, the Commissioners might authorize the promoters of the Bill to adopt such variations, and include them in their line. If, on the other hand, the promoters should decline to adopt these variations; and if the party should still remain anxious to press them, and to submit them to the Commissioners and the Legislature, it was proposed that the Commissioners should have the power to authorize these persons to deposit plans and sections of such variations, to make the necessary application to the landowners, and bring them before the Committee, so that the Committee might form a fair judgment whether they ought to be adopted, or whether the line ought to be constructed according to the original plan. He considered this a cheap and easy mode of proceeding, and hoped, not only that much expense and inconvenience might be saved to the landowners, but also that a considerable portion of the expense now incurred before the Committees of the House might also be spared. Supposing the line to be adopted, the next point would be to deposit the plans and sections in conformity with the Standing Orders. It was well known that a change had recently taken place in this respect. Those inquiries as to the compliance with the Standing Orders, which had been formerly taken before Committees of the House, had now, for the first time, been removed from the sub-committees, and two Gentlemen had been appointed examiners, in which capacity, he believed, they had discharged their duty with satisfaction to all the parties concerned. In future Sessions, he thought it would be desirable, so far as related to Railway Bills, that these duties should be discharged by the Commissioners, or by officers under their supervision. Previous information on engineering points might be of great advantage in investigating questions connected with the Standing Orders. These examinations had always been in some degree imperfect, because the only mode of testing how far the Standing Orders might have been complied with, so far as respected the engineering part of the measure, depended almost exclusively upon the objections of those parties who were opposed to it; and, therefore, supposing no opponents should present themselves, or that the opposition should be withdrawn — although hon. Members might be aware that, in numerous 1180 cases, the Standing Orders had not been complied with, still they had no opportunity of obtaining evidence on the subject. Now, when a person had been employed in examining thoroughly into the engineering portion of the line, the information thus obtained might also be brought to bear on that part of the subject. Without supposing that frivolous objections would be taken, it would still be in his power to ascertain that no substantial error existed with reference to the Standing Orders. Having now come to the point where the Standing Orders were proved, the next question would be, as to the Bill being submitted to the House. It was one part of the recommendation of the Committee on Railways last Session, that the Commissioners should report to both Houses of Parliament upon the merits of the different railway measures which might be proposed during the Session; and this part of the recommendation, of course, would be adopted. For that purpose it would be necessary, not only to possess engineers and persons competent to examine thoroughly into the plans and sections, but also to have power to enter upon the land and examine upon the spot all engineering questions relating to the line. There would also be a regulation requiring the Commissioners, or their officers, to hear those persons who might have objections to urge against the line of railway. It was proposed to hear those objections in such a manner as the Commissioners might appoint, so as to give a fair hearing to both parties in the case. It might be asked whether or not the Commissioners proposed to hear counsel. He certainly thought that would be a very unwise course, because it would be like hearing them twice over — once before the Commissioners, and a second time before the Committee—it would prolong the proceedings to so great an extent, that it would scarcely be possible for the Commissioners to get through their business; and, he thought, the business would be decided in a more satisfactory manner by taking a shorter and much cheaper course. Supposing the question to be an engineering one, a competent and disinterested engineer might be appointed to inquire into it, and have the two opposing engineers before him at the same time; and he (Mr. Strutt) laid great stress on this point, because it was desirable that no private information should be given either to the Commissioners or their officers. By authorizing 1181 the engineer so appointed to go into the engineering points connected with the line, giving him the power of calling additional witnesses, or sending a qualified person to make an inspection on the spot, they would be able to come to a fair decision on the question infinitely sooner, and much more cheaply, than by employing the expensive machinery of counsel. And with respect to various other points, they might be examined in a similar manner without the employment of counsel. After hearing the parties, it was proposed that the Commissioners should report to both Houses of Parliament, giving the fullest information on all the points on which Committees were now required to report, such as the engineering details, the amount of tolls, the amount of capital, &c. He thought these reports would be found to be of great benefit in preparing the matter for the consideration of the Committee, in shortening their proceedings, and in providing them with disinterested evidence on which to ground their decisions. Another important point was the degree of authority which should be given to the reports of the Commissioners. For reasons which he had already stated, he proposed that authority should be given to these reports, not by Bill, but by the Standing Orders of the House. The duty of reporting, he proposed, should be regulated by the Bill, but the degree of authority by the Standing Orders of the House itself. It appeared to him desirable, that on all matters of engineering, the report of the Commissioners should be primâ facie conclusive; and for this reason, the Commissioners would have better opportunities than the Committee of forming a correct opinion of the engineering merits of a line; and he believed, that by making their report on this point primâ facie conclusive, the Committee, and the parties to a Bill, would be relieved of great trouble and expense. He used the words primâ facie conclusive, because it would, no doubt, be sometimes necessary that the Committee should have additional information besides that conveyed to them by the reports. However full those reports, it might happen that points arose on which the Committee would require further elucidation; and, in that case, the Bill authorized them to report specially to the House, who would make an order for the additional information required. There was yet another contingency to be provided for. It might be possible, in some cases, that, notwithstanding every care, a serious 1182 error of fact might exist in the report of the Commissioners; and, in such a case, it would be obviously unfair that the parties should suffer. It was, therefore, provided by the Bill, that if either party complained of a serious error, in a matter of fact, existing in the report of the Commissioners, they might apply to the Committee to refer back the report to the Commissioners for reconsideration; but with this proviso, that if the Committee should see no reason for the reconsideration, the party so applying should be liable to costs. This proviso was for the purpose of preventing frivolous and vexatious objections. Another point of importance was that of fixing the fares and tolls to be adopted in Bills. He had often heard members of Committees complain of the difficult position in which they had been placed in this respect. With respect to engineering and other parts of the Bill, there were mostly two parties before them; and, after the long proceedings that took place, the speeches of counsel, and the examination of witnesses, justice might be done in the case; but in regard to tolls and fares, there were seldom two parties present, but those who promoted the proceedings were all interested one way, and there was no one representing the interests of the public. The Committee had no evidence as to tolls and fares in different parts of the country: they had, in fact, no data whereon to arrive at a fair decision on the point; and he had been told that in many cases Committees had done little more than adopt the tables placed before them. Now, it appeared to him that a report from a body having full information upon all these points—having before them the tolls and fares of all railways in the kingdom—knowing the practical effect of the rise and reduction of fares upon different lines, both upon the public and upon railway companies themselves—would render essential service in aiding the Committee to come to a fair conclusion. He came now to other points of importance, which were interesting to many hon. Gentlemen, and regarding which it appeared to him that similar advantages might be derived by the Committee from the reports of the commissioners—he alluded to the clauses in Railway Bills relating to the raising capital, the borrowing money, and the amalgamation of lines. The right hon. Member for Coventry was interested in this part of the subject, as he had been the chairman of a Committee last 1183 Session in which important questions of the kind had been raised. There had been a case in which a railway company had purchased another line, and had paid a sum amounting to 150 per cent beyond the original value of the stock; and the Committee had referred the subject to the House, expressing the opinion that some general regulation should be laid down. These were subjects which he thought might very properly occupy the attention of the Railway Board, and upon which, as the different Bills came before them, they might be able to afford very valuable information to the Committees, and offer opinions deserving consideration. By these regulations, an important amendment might be effected in regard to the cheapness of the mode in which the proceedings were conducted before the House. One point which had been urged upon him by gentlemen connected with railways, and by other persons, was this—that the Railway Board ought to retain under this Bill a veto upon all Bills submitted to Parliament. He owned, however, that he could not agree to that proposal. Suppose the Board possessed this veto, and suppose they used it, as very likely they would, only very sparingly, as, in the case of Bills obviously useless or improper, it appeared to him that the veto would be of little practical use, because the fate of those Bills would be shortly determined in another way, and very likely the opinion of the Commissioners themselves would put an end to them. But suppose the Commissioners used their veto very freely, and in the case of competing lines, were to give the preference to certain Bills over others, thus assuming the functions of Parliament, he doubted very much, looking to the feeling which existed in the country upon such matters, whether it would tolerate a board constituted with such enormous power as to say, in regard to two competing lines, this only shall pass, and the other shall not be allowed to be submitted for the consideration of Parliament. There was another question of great importance which had been urged upon him for consideration, as to whether powers should be granted to the railway companies in perpetuity, or only for a term of years. The latter practice had prevailed in other countries, especially in France; and a great deal of evidence on the subject had been taken before the Committee on Railways last Session. It should be remembered that French railways were altogether on a different 1184 footing to those of England. In France, the lines were selected by the Government, and a large part of the works were executed by the Government; so that in that country the railway companies might be considered in the position of occupying tenants, while in England they were in fact proprietors of the lines. Nevertheless, if the House were now, for the first time, commencing railway legislation, he thought it would be a matter deserving most serious consideration, whether or not some restriction of this kind should be imposed; but at present the case stood in a wholly different position. Nearly all the great lines of the country had already been granted on the terms of belonging to the companies in perpetuity, and not on lease for a term; and the question now was, whether in the case of proposed railways, and which were generally in connexion with existing lines, any sufficient advantage would be derived by granting those branches for terms of years only, while the great trunk lines remained grants in perpetuity. If a course of that kind were taken, it would not only excite considerable jealousy, but would also tend to limit the means the Legislature had of interfering generally in other ways. These measures of limitation would be brought forward by the railway companies as an argument against any other check which the House might seek to impose upon them; and he very much doubted whether, by so doing, the House would not be sacrificing greater and more important objects, for the attainment of a remote and uncertain benefit. For these reasons, no such proposal of limitation was made in the Bill. Another point which had been raised was, how far it would be desirable in new Bills to limit the rate of interest obtained by railway companies. It appeared to him that if a restriction of this kind were imposed, it would, instead of giving an interest to the company in economy and good management, give them an interest in waste and bad management. He thought that in attempting to regulate the rate of interest, they should be beginning at the wrong end; and that the more proper course was to adopt a judicious system with respect to fares and tolls. It was for the Legislature to exercise a wise and judicious control over railway companies, and to take care that the public should be fairly served, and at fair prices. If the Legislature could put reasonable restrictions of that kind on railway companies, and could introduce a 1185 system, the effect of which would be to guarantee to the public the advantage of moderate fares and tolls, it certainly did appear to him, that, this great object once gained, it was of very little importance to Parliament what amount of profit the companies might realize. If they could succeed in making their railways profitable, it was no evil to the public, and would, of course, be the source of much advantage to themselves. He had already explained the means he had proposed to adopt for determining the question of fares and tolls, so far as new and already existing companies were concerned; and it was therefore unnecessary to dwell now at any great length on the point; but he would observe that there was an addition which he proposed to make to the system. He considered that it was only fair and equitable that in the case of future railways the rate of fares and tolls should be limited by Parliament for a term of years. It was exceedingly difficult to estimate (and especially so in railway matters) what the future course of improvement might be, and to what great results it might conduce. Fares and tolls which were very reasonable and proper to-day, might not be at all so after the lapse of a number of years; and the interests of the public might be injuriously affected if a final and arbitrary rule were to be applied to a state of things which was essentially liable to change. Bearing these facts in mind, it appeared to him that Parliament, in granting such powers for the future, should take care to limit them to a certain stated period. Ten years was the period which he was inclined to advocate. But here he would take leave to say that he was most anxious not to be misunderstood upon this question. He did not mean that at the end of that period the property of those companies was to be thrown open, and that Parliament was to be at liberty to introduce any limitation of fares and tolls that it might think proper, without regard to the interests of the company; but he certainly did think that it was highly essential to the interests of the public, that at the end of a term of ten years the fares and tolls should be submitted to a revision, to be conducted on a principle similar to that upon which the scale had been in the first instance appointed. What he advocated was, that the requirements and interests of all parties concerned having been taken carefully into consideration, and it having been ascertained what fares and tolls other railway 1186 companies had exacted with advantage alike to themselves and the public, that all those facts having been clearly brought before them, Parliament should at the end of ten years address itself to the consideration of the question, what would be a fair provision to be made under the altered circumstances of the cases. Heretofore he had only spoken of the fares and tolls of new railways; but now the question suggested itself whether it was advisable that any revision should take place with respect to the existing lines. This consideration was the more urgent, because many Bills had been passed in the course of the last two Sessions, which contained clauses rendering the companies in whose favour they were enacted, subject to the future revision of Parliament upon this subject. That was one class of Acts. There was another class of Acts which did not render the companies who obtained them liable to any such revision. But then it should be borne in mind, that whenever those companies applied for new powers, it would of course be in the power of Parliament, in granting the powers so required, to make such conditions and stipulations as might appear to them best calculated to promote the welfare of the community. This right was exercised most beneficially for all parties at the instance of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth in the case of the cheap trains. The right hon. Baronet, whose suggestion had been productive of great good, not only to the public but to the companies themselves, proposed that whenever a railway company came to Parliament seeking for a Bill or demanding new powers, they should only receive the Bill or the new powers on the express condition of rendering themselves liable to the cheap-train regulation. He did not mean to contend that those companies which, by their Acts, were not liable to revision, should be placed upon the same footing with companies which were so liable; but this he would say, that when the former class of companies came to that House seeking for more powers — whether for amalgamation, extension, or any other purpose—the granting of their request should be made provisional on their compliance with such conditions as Parliament, in its solicitude for the welfare of the public, might think proper to impose. The course, therefore, which he was prepared to recommend was, that it should be made a provision of the Bill which he proposed to introduce, that when the Commissioners 1187 should have reported on any new railway with respect to its fares and tolls, they should not only recommend what scale should be adopted in this Bill, but, referring to the maximum scale of fares and tolls which they might find in any other Act of Parliament then existing, affecting the company in question, should also give their opinion as to the necessity of revising that scale. Where the right of revision was specially reserved in the original Act of a company, it was of course the same as a new Bill; but in cases where such special powers had not been reserved, it would then be a matter of consideration, taking into account the extent of the new powers demanded, and the evil, if any, which had resulted to the public from too high a rate of fares—whether for the Commissioners to report, and for Parliament to decide, how far it might be wise and expedient to institute a revision with respect to Acts belonging to that class. In all cases a limitation of time would be necessary, for it would be impossible for Parliament to make a regulation for all future time, having no grounds on which to form a conclusion, but the state of things at the present moment. There was another point connected with this question of fares and tolls, which would be included in the Bill, namely, that the fares upon any railway should not be altered without due notice of the fact being given to the Commissioners and the public. He had heard of serious complaints in consequence of non-compliance with this practice. He had heard of a case where a railway company suddenly raised their fares without giving notice to the public, and great inconvenience had been the consequence, for persons applied for tickets at the office with the old rate of charge in their hands; and in cases where the applicants were poor, or did not happen to have more money about them at the time, the annoyance endured was very serious indeed, for they were unable to proceed upon their journey. This was not at all fair. He did not think it at all right that any change should be made, without duly notifying to the public the company's intention in that respect. He would propose that notice should be given both to the public and the Commissioners. It would be optional with the company to state their reasons for making the alteration. They might, if they liked, assign their reasons; and the advantage of their doing so would be that they would be supplying with useful and interesting information 1188 the Commissioners, whose duty it would be to make an annual report to Parliament upon the state of the fares and tolls throughout the year, setting forth the inequalities and irregularities which had taken place, and their causes—calling attention to the cases (if any) where the public had been aggrieved, and, if necessary, making suggestions for additional accommodation, and a more strict regard to public convenience, by the granting of new lines or otherwise. Ample security should be taken for the due accommodation of the public, and it ought to be done in a manner of which no man should have reason to complain. He had no intention whatever to cast the slightest reflection on the great railway interests of this country. He was well aware that many of the railway companies had shown by their conduct that they were themselves satisfied that their own interests were identical with those of the public, and that if they desired to promote the success of the great works in which they were engaged, they could only hope to do it effectually by increasing their traffic, and giving greater accommodation to the public. Of this fact he was fully conscious; and although he considered that the regulations he was proposing were necessary, he felt confident that in many cases the wishes of the Commissioners and of Parliament would be anticipated by the companies themselves. He hoped and believed it would be so; but the fact of its being very generally supposed that this anticipation would be realized in many instances, did not render it less necessary that the Legislature should endeavour to procure some better security for a due and continuous regard to the welfare of the public, than was to be found in the expectation that all railway companies would take an enlightened view of their own interests. Government would not do its duty unless it proposed to undertake some such control as he described. It was necessary, not only for the public, but for the railway companies themselves. Suppose a case where four different companies had in their joint hands a very important line of communication. Three of them might take an enlightened view of their interests, and concur that the rates of fares should be reduced. If, however, the fourth company stood aloof, and were to refuse its assent to any such proposition, was it not manifest that not only the public, but the three companies whose opinions coincided, would have grievous 1189 cause of complaint? In fact, the three companies who were for adopting a liberal and enlightened policy, would be robbed by the single recusant. He was justified, therefore, in making the assertion that it was not only for the interest of the public at large, but also for that of the railway companies themselves, that some such system of supervision and restriction as he was now advocating, should be enforced. He now came to a question of inferior importance, but still of sufficient consequence to justify the application of the attention of the House to it; he alluded to the charges which were made by companies on account of services rendered to the Post Office establishment. He was sorry that greater precaution had not been taken at an earlier period in reference to this matter, with a view to securing the interest of the public. He was sorry that more extensive powers had not been reserved by the public for the transmission of the mails; for the arrangements which at present existed, were defective and unmethodical. The mode in which the charges of the companies were now regulated was this: when the Post Office authorities wanted certain services to be rendered, they applied to the company, and the rate of remuneration was settled by arbitration. Now, this certainly appeared to him an exceptionable mode of proceeding. It was an unsatisfactory and unbusiness-like system. Some clear and definite terms of remuneration ought to be specified. He was informed by the authorities of the Post Office department, that it was very probable that much greater services than were at present demanded, would hereafter be required from railway companies; and if so, it was only fair and equitable that those enlarged services should not be given at the same proportion of cost. If more extensive services were required, of course they should be given at a pro-portionably reduced rate. What he proposed was, that the Commissioners, after consultation with the Post Office authorities, should submit a specification of the different services that would be required from the companies. The companies should be called upon to furnish, in every new Railway Bill, a scale of the prices which they were disposed to charge to the Post Office authorities; and the Commissioners should make it their business to report on the matter to Parliament. But as in the case of fares and tolls, so too in this, it was requisite that there should be a 1190 distinct limitation as to time; and as circumstances might, in this instance more rapidly than in the other, occur to justify a change, he would suggest the limitation should be taken for five years only. The next point on which he would propose legislation, referred to the question of the punctuality of trains. There was no point on which the public and the companies were more deeply interested, than on that which had reference to the punctuality of trains. He had heard it stated by many gentlemen who had large property sunk in railway projects, that their local traffic was the most important item in their receipts; and there could be no question that the advantage of local traffic, as far as the public were concerned, very much consisted in punctuality. It was not so much the speed of the trains as their punctuality that was regarded by a man who had to go a short distance. If he had to wait at the station for the train, it would be scarcely worth his while taking it at all for a short distance. At the same time, however, it was clear that this punctuality was an object that was not to be attained by direct means. They could not regulate these matters by penalties. The object could only be promoted by bringing publicity and public opinion to bear as much as possible upon matters of this kind. He would propose that it should be made imperative on every railway company to keep, at such stations as the companies should appoint, a correct register of the arrival and departure of every train. This was already done for their own satisfaction; but he proposed that for the future the registry should be kept by an officer expressly appointed for the purpose by the company, but appointed under the sanction of the Commissioners. That there might be ample opportunity for checking the accuracy of the entries, he would suggest that the table should be hung up for a given time at the station for the inspection of the public; and that it should be subsequently forwarded to the Commissioners. The Commissioners should make an annual report to Parliament on the punctuality of the trains throughout the country, and should call attention to the effects of such punctuality or want of punctuality not only on the convenience, but on the safety of the public; for he contended that safety was quite as much affected as convenience by a want of punctuality. With respect to the cheap trains, some additional regulations might be advantageously introduced. Hon. Members were 1191 aware, that as things stood at present there was a law declaring that every railway company should run at least one train in the day, by which passengers were to be conveyed at not more than one penny per mile, in carriages provided with seats, and protected from the weather, in a manner to be approved by the Commissioners. These trains were bound to travel at an average speed of not less than twelve miles an hour, and to start at a period of the day most likely to suit the convenience of the class of passengers they were intended to convey, and to be approved by the Commissioners. Now, he did not propose any change in the principle of these regulations; but he begged attention to this fact, that companies would fulfil the requisitions of that Act by travelling at the rate of twenty or thirty miles an hour for a certain period, and then leaving the passengers on the road-side, perhaps for two or three hours, before the company might find it compatible with their convenience to forward them to the end of their journey. This appeared to him a manifest perversion of the meaning of the Act. He did not think it by any means a fair mode of proceeding, nor did he think it could ever be the intention of the Legislature that any such option as that now exercised should be extended to companies. For these reasons, and for the interests of the public, he thought it was expedient that the duration of the stoppages, as well as all the other matters specified in the Act, might, where necessary, come under the cognizance of the Commissioners. With respect to the number of passengers to be carried in each of the carriages, he would observe that this was a matter in respect of which it was not at present possible to enforce any restriction; but it appeared to him desirable that the number of passengers should be defined by the Commissioners, and printed upon the outside of each carriage. Another advantageous regulation was, that whenever they travelled by night, there should be a light in the carriage. He now came to another question, and one which related to disputes between railway companies, and in which he considered the Commissioners might have the power of interfering with advantage. He found this view of the case confirmed by the evidence of Mr. Hawkshaw, engineer to the Leeds and Manchester Railway, given before the Committee of last Session of which the hon. Member for Montrose was chairman. 1192 Referring to the advantage a Railway Board would be, that hon. Member asked—
You consider that they might act as arbitrators in disputes and differences between companies?—Yes; in many cases where the traffic is destroyed altogether, because one company does not understand its own interest, or takes a different view of it from another company, and the consequence is, that you cannot get on at all. There are a number of links in a chain, and the middle link may say, 'We will not be troubled with this kind of traffic—we will not be annoyed with it.' That is a case in which the interference of the board would be very useful.Mr. Glynn also says in his evidence—I thought that that department should be a controlling body with regard to railway companies amongst themselves in many particulars, and between them and the public; for instance, in the case of working two lines in connexion. Such things have occurred that one company has refused to put on second-class trains to meet second-class trains coming to it, and many other cases of inconvenient working.Now, suppose the case of two competing lines meeting in a given point, and a third line forming a continuation of both from this point; and suppose the third line to be in the hands of one of the two rival companies, it is obvious that this company might, by the turning of its trains, and in other ways, inflict serious injury on its rival. Now, this was a case that would require the interference of the Commissioners. As the law now stood, if any two or more railway companies having a common terminus, or a portion of the same line in common, had any dispute, the Commissioners had full power to make such regulations as might appear to them most conducive to the safety of the public. He was for adopting the same words as were used in the Act; but he would enlarge them, and authorize interference on the part of the Commissioners, not only where the public safety was concerned, but also in cases where the public were exposed to serious inconvenience and the disadvantages attendant on want of sufficient accommodation. But it was to be understood that this interference was only to be undertaken in cases where the complaint came from one of the railway companies in question. Then there was another point as to the formation of railways, respecting the police requisite for preserving order. In Scotland, he believed, the sheriff had the power of requiring the appointment of a sufficient force; but in England the justices possessed this power only in cases in which actual outrage had occurred; and he would, therefore, propose that, in every case of the formation of a railway, if 1193 two justices of the peace reported to the Commissioners that any additional number of policemen ought to be appointed, the Commissioners might require such appointment. There were some other points to which he would not then allude, and which might be thought of minor importance; such as concerning the by-laws of the companies, and the convenience required for the transportation of the military from one place to another; but he should mention that he would propose to give the Commissioners a general power of calling for returns from the railway companies, and of testing the accuracy of such returns, when necessary, by a reference to books. He was sorry to have detained the House so long; but he could not sit down without referring to the subject of giving compensation to the relatives of persons killed by accidents on railways, on which a question had been asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln. There had latterly been an alteration of the law on this subject; for last Session a law had been passed, giving a right of action for compensation to the relations of persons killed by accidents. Such being the case, he did not feel inclined to propose any additional legislation on the subject, because it was desirable to see how the present Act would work; and if any other were found necessary, he thought that it ought to be general, and not confined to railways. He had now, he believed, gone through the main provisions which he had the honour of proposing for adoption in this Bill. He did not mean to propose it as a complete measure, because it was obvious that a measure of this nature could not be complete, and that further experience must give rise to further improvements; but this he might say, that he trusted it would be found by the public a useful amendment of the existing laws, without being, at the same time, injurious to the railway companies themselves. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by asking leave to bring in the Bill.
§ MR. AGLIONBYhoped he should not be deemed guilty of presumption in rising thus early to address the House. He felt bound to say, that during the fourteen or fifteen years that he had been a Member of the House, it never had been his lot to hear any Member make a more clear or straightforward statement than that which had been just made by the right hon. Gentleman. It was a statement on a subject 1194 of very great importance and great interest; and he must congratulate the House and the public at the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had commenced in that House the discharge of his official duties. His reason for rising so early was, for the purpose of offering a suggestion; and he would remark, that in offering the suggestion he was about to make, he merely spoke as one of the public, having an interest in the well-doing of railways, and participating in the advantages which the public derived from them; but, at the same time, he should observe, that he had no pecuniary interest or share in them. The point to which he was about to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and the House, was one that fairly came within the limits and province of his Bill. It was one in which he conceived the public had stronger interest than in many of the points to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded. He might be told that the proposition he was about to make, would amount to an interference with the directors of railways, and that it was one of which they would themselves take care, without the supervision of any board whatever. That might be a sufficient answer to his proposition, were it not that there were three points which the right hon. Gentleman intended to bring within the province of the Commissioners, which were analogous to the proposition which he was about to make. The point to which he (Mr. Aglionby) would call the attention of the House, and to which the right hon. Gentleman had not alluded, was one in which the public had a great interest: he meant that a number of stations should be selected and fixed for the trains to stop at, and at those stations there should be a certain number of trains always required to stop. That should be a matter of regulation for the public convenience. He admitted it would be an interference with the directors; but it would be for the right hon. Gentleman to say whether or not it would be a reasonable interference with them. The right hon. Gentleman proposed himself to interfere in cases which he considered to be analogous. The first case was with respect to fares; and why should the Commissioners have the power of interference in the case of fares, any more than they should have it with regard to the case which he had suggested? The next was with regard to punctuality; and the other case to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, was the duration of stoppages. And why had they 1195 interfered with them, but for the protection of certain classes of the public who had not received the full benefit of legislative enactment? With respect to the case to which he had referred, it appeared, that while great attention was given at present to passengers travelling a long distance, sufficient attention was not paid to passengers travelling a short distance; and he submitted, that every man going a short distance had a right to complain, except the railway enabled him to alight near his destination by frequent stoppages. There should, he conceived, be this general rule laid down, that wherever a railway proposed to supply a particular district with accommodation, and when it could be fairly proved that the district had been deprived of other modes of conveyance, it was necessary for the interest of the public to have a station at that place, at which a certain number of trains should stop in the day. How far having those stopping trains might interfere with the interests of railway companies, he did not know; but he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman to take his proposition into consideration before the Bill went into Committee.
§ MR. HUMEwished to know if any means were to be adopted by which uniform and regular communication for the public on Sundays would be secured. This he considered to be a subject of importance, when they saw whole districts canvassing and discussing it as they now were, and when they saw that no less than nineteen towns had presented petitions against the stoppage that had taken place. It appeared that two millions and a half of persons were interested in the traffic, and he believed only two directors had prevented it. He did hope that some means would be adopted by which uniform and regular communication on Sundays might be secured. There was another point which he also thought of importance to the public—that was, to have more speedy communication by the third-class trains. At present they travelled at very inconvenient hours; and he (Mr. Hume) thought they had been hitherto too negligent of the interests of the persons who were accustomed to travel in them, and who had not the means of paying the increased charges that were demanded in the other classes. He thought the Legislature should rather assist them than throw any impediment in their way, and he hoped the Commissioners would also be able to give their attention to that point.
MR. ELLICEsaid, he would not interrupt 1196 the present discussion for a very long time. He had only to observe, that he agreed in the opinion already expressed, that the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced the present Motion, had, in the manner in which he had laid it before the House, furnished the best possible exposition, and given the best example of the good that might be expected from the board of which the right hon. Gentleman was a president. He wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman. It was this: What was the course to be adopted with respect to the Bills of the present Session? He had not had time to examine, himself, the details of those Bills; but he took it that there were before the House Bills involving the expenditure of a sum of forty millions of capital. It was very important they should know what course was intended to be taken before the present Bill reached Committee. He was sure, in the present state of public business, his right hon. Friend did not expect to carry the Bill which he had announced to the House before those Bills were referred to Committees; and it was desirable the public should understand what course was intended to be adopted with respect to the Bills of this Session.
§ MR. STRUTTstated, in reply, that the Bill which he had had the honour of proposing that evening, respected principally the Bills of future Sessions, and did not so much refer to those of the present Session, as the time for that had now gone by. With respect to the bearing of the new regulations on Bills now before the House, he could only observe, that by the Act of last Session the only additional powers that had been given to the new board beyond those with which the Board of Trade had been invested, were the power of making local inquiries and the power of reporting to the Crown; and, therefore, if there were any special matters relating to the Bills of the present Session on which Parliament required reports from the board, it would be in the power of Parliament to refer such matters to the board. But at this period it would be impossible for the board to go into the general questions relating to these Bills, or into the consideration of matters including the merits of the Bills, both because of the want of time, and also because the board had not yet such an organization of officers as would enable it to conduct the local inquiries satisfactorily. But questions of amalgamation, or any questions of that nature which the House might refer to 1197 them, they would consider and deal with to the best of their ability, and be ready, if required, to report upon them. He would humbly submit, however, that in all orders of reference, questions of this nature should be kept distinct from questions relating to the merits of the Bills; because, as he had intimated, both from want of time and want of officers, it was impossible that the board could report satisfactorily on questions of merits during the present Session. He was so anxious that the board should be enabled to discharge its duty satisfactorily to the country, that he thought it most important that they should not at first have any duties cast upon them which they were unprepared to deal with. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might devise some method by which his suggestions could be carried into effect.
MR. ELLICEthought that the matters to which he had referred, and which were of extreme importance, ought not to be left to individual Members of the House. He wished to put a question to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon a subject which had been specially referred to in the report made by the Railway Committee of last Session, of which he (Mr. Ellice) had been chairman. He wished to know whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose any Standing Order, under which all matters relating to the capital of companies, and their power of raising loans, in the Bills of this Session, should be referred to the new board, for the purpose of its making, upon these subjects, reports which should be laid before the Committees on the different Bills before they proceeded to consider the clauses relating to the capital of the company, and its power of raising loans?
§ MR. ENTWISLEmost heartily concurred with the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby), in what he had said of the ability with which the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman had been brought forward. With regard to the degree of discretion and control which the board was to exercise over the new schemes before the House, and as to their power of adjudication between rival schemes, he begged to observe, that, as had been forcibly stated in the report of a Committee of the other House, it sometimes happened that two schemes were put forward by two rival companies, neither of them being the best attainable line for the public, but each being put forward by the rival companies 1198 upon the ground of being advantageous to their own personal interests. Thus it was that the public often did not get the best line. Now, he was inclined to think it a defect in the measure of the right hon. Gentleman, that it did not give the power to the board of placing a veto on such lines as the board might see reason to disapprove; nor did it give them the power to originate, or cause to be originated, any line that might be really calculated to satisfy the wants of the district, in such a case as that to which he had referred. This suggestion he had ventured to make, with a sincere desire to promote the object of the right hon. Gentleman. As to the objection to vesting a veto in the board, that it would stand between the House of Commons and the parties, he thought it did not altogether apply; for the veto, if conferred, would be exercised, he was convinced, only for the purpose of keeping out of the House many schemes that were not entitled to apply to Parliament at all. A veto would not interfere with the authority of Parliament; and he would therefore wish to call the attention of the board to the question, whether they could not effect this object themselves by means of local surveys, which they must often be obliged to undertake, in order to determine between the conflicting claims of two companies, so as to be enabled to put a stop to such schemes as might appear clearly undesirable, before coming to that House. At any rate, he thought the board ought to have authority over such schemes, and be able to put a stop to those which their officers, upon local survey, found to be clearly inadequate to the wants of the districts through which it was proposed that they should pass; and he even thought that the board ought to have power to originate themselves the line that ought to be constructed in such cases. Now, with regard to the authority the report of the board ought to bear, after the minute and accurate investigation of which it would be the result, and when they signified their approval of one scheme and disapproval of the other and conflicting one, though their determination might be, in such case, that the latter scheme ought not to be brought before a Committee of the House, yet it might be right for the House to consider whether that might not be done by way of appeal against the decision of the board, costs being allowed to the party whose claim was confirmed before the Committee. He would not say anything as to the control 1199 to be exercised by the board over fares and tolls from time to time, except that he thought the period suggested by the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat short — too short, perhaps, to ascertain completely the effect of the rates. Before the true result could be arrived at of the enormous amalgamations that were going on, they must have a longer experience than could be derived from a ten years' trial. He had not risen to offer any opposition to that or any other part of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme; but he could not help expressing his fear, that the true result of the operation of a tariff of tolls and fares could not be ascertained with respect to some of the vast undertakings that were now in existence, except after a longer period of trial. With respect to the stopping of Parliamentary trains, it was very true that those trains did stop often, and more often perhaps than was requisite; but it was often necessary that Parliamentary trains, travelling much slower, as they did, should be moved out of the way of other trains, not only on account of the goods' traffic, but for the safety of passengers who were conveyed at a more speedy rate. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Aglionby) had made some observations with regard to the propriety of enforcing frequent stoppings on the line; and that which was in general the merit of a railway, and the proof of its success, the hon. and learned Gentleman would take as the test of its delinquency, namely, that it had put down other means of conveyance in the same district. He thought this was one of those accusations against the railway companies which tended to refute themselves.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERconsidered the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Ellice) was well worthy of attention. It would probably be very desirable that the report his right hon. Friend had alluded to should be made by the Railway Board.
§ MR. GOULBURNsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ellice) had alluded to the powers given to railway companies to raise large sums of money by means of loans on securities that were transferable from hand to hand. Now, in his opinion, there was no reason why railway companies, like other parties, should not raise money on securities that were substantial; but the objection was, that the powers given to railway companies by Parliament put in their hands the means of raising 1200 loans by what was in fact a sort of paper money, entering into the circulation throughout the country, and that was manifestly inconvenient. He had been so unfortunate as only to hear a part of the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Strutt's) statement, and possibly this subject had been touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman; but in case nothing of the kind had suggested itself to the right hon. Gentleman, he trusted the subject would be taken into consideration, for it was a subject which he was anxious should not be overlooked, not only as regarded the railways themselves, but the financial state of the country.
MR. B. DENISONthought the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman was so good that he hoped no attempt would be made to give a veto to the board, for he was quite sure that the House of Commons would never assent to it. He begged to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, whether the board could not yet undertake the investigation of the Bills of this year. If those Bills were to stand over until next year, the benefits of the new board would be lost for this year with respect to railway legislation. It was very much in consequence of the Board of Trade not being in the habit of examining the parties to rival schemes face to face, that the public had not had confidence in their reports; and he was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to examine parties face to face. If the Railway Department of the Board of Trade had done that, he believed it would have been still on its legs. But he must suggest that something should be done with respect to the Bills now before the House; there was abundant time for it; the parties would be content to wait till Easter to allow time for the necessary preparatory steps to be taken; and it would save an immense deal of trouble, and an immense deal of expense.
§ MR. R. HODGSONprotested against any delay with the Bills now before the House awaiting the results of this scheme. He was quite certain that it would be fatal to many of those Bills to be protracted to the end of the Session.
§ MR. FERRANDhad not had the pleasure of hearing the statement of the evening, not knowing that it would come on so early; but he begged to ask the attention of the House to a matter affecting his own neighbourhood. A Railway Act had received the assent of the Legislature last year, under which a line had been made in his neighbourhood, crossing several turnpike 1201 roads on a level, and that in a thickly inhabited manufacturing district, to the great danger of the lives of the public. He had mentioned the circumstance to the right hon. Gentleman, but the right hon. Gentleman said he could only regret that the inspector had no power to interfere; but when he told the House that this railway crossed on a level a turnpike road to Keighley, along which 2,000 factory operatives had to pass to their work every day of the week, he would ask them whether, if the authority entrusted to the inspector did not permit him to interfere, there ought not to be authority to interfere vested somewhere, so as to protect the public, by obliging the company to build a bridge, or avoid by some other means the danger to which the people were exposed. This railroad, besides, crossed on a level five or six other turnpike roads. He was certain it could not be opened a single month without loss of life ensuing. When he applied to the right hon. Gentleman, the reply was that he had not the power to interfere. This was to be lamented; and in this case it was sufficiently evident that the Committee on the Bill had not sufficiently inquired into the circumstances of the line. He was anxious to draw the attention of the House to some other circumstances, by which he had been a sufferer to the amount of 4,000l. or 5,000l. He was tenant in tail of an estate through which this railway ran for two miles; and though the Act of Parliament compelled the company to give him notice that they meant to take the land, the tenant for life had the power of making a bargain behind his (Mr. Ferrand's) back with the directors for whatever sum they could agree upon, and the consequence had been a loss to him (Mr. Ferrand) to the extent he had stated. He had written to the directors for redress; but the chairman had kept him a full month without any answer, till at last, on the 1st of January, he received a letter, stating that he could have no redress, and finishing off by wishing him the compliments of the season. He protested against such legislation. The House had allowed a Bill to pass in so slovenly a manner as to enable a railway company to rob him as he had been robbed. Why was it that the directors of a railway company should have power given them to make a private bargain for their own advantage, which had the effect of robbing any person of his just rights? He had no enmity to railways; he thought they had conferred great benefits on the country; and he 1202 thought no man had conferred greater benefit on the country than his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hudson); but he said, while they legislated, let them do justice between man and man; and if the railways were to be the highways of this country, they ought to be obliged to do justice to all the parties concerned; and he hoped that some alteration would be made in the present law, so as to protect the interest of tenants in tail.
§ MR. HUDSONwould give the plan his patient consideration. He wished to quiet the fears and alarms of his hon. Friend (Mr. Ferrand) with respect to the railway to which his hon. Friend had referred. He believed that it was rarely that accidents had taken place on crossings on a level; accidents, however, had been found to occur where the turnpikes were carried over railways by bridges. It must be remembered that we could not have unmixed good in anything. With respect to the remarks of the right Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn), as to the power of borrowing money given by Railway Acts to companies, it was during the Administration with which the right hon. Gentleman had been connected, that Mr. Gladstone had introduced a Bill which limited that power of borrowing; it put a stop to the power of borrowing by way of loan notes, but the companies were given five years in which to bring in their outstanding loan notes. He must, however, say this for the directors of companies, that, in several cases, had they not taken on them to exceed the powers conferred by their Acts, many of those undertakings which now contributed so much to the ornament and advantage of the country could not have proceeded. The directors of railway companies had on many occasions been called on, in order to prevent the stopping of the works, to give their own personal security. One thing had struck him during the able statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Strutt), namely, that he was attempting to do far too much, and much more than the board would be able to do satisfactorily to the public. With respect to tolls and fares, the right hon. Gentleman claimed the power of revision once in every ten years without any limitation; but when Mr. Gladstone introduced the Bill to which he had referred, it was thought right by Parliament, that the Board of Trade should not have the power of reducing tolls unless where the interest paid on the shares exceeded a certain rate. If it were otherwise, 1203 the interference of the board might totally destroy the dividends of the company. In giving that right of revision of tolls to Parliament, it was proper to put some limitation upon its exercise, so as not wholly to deprive of their fair remuneration those parties who had invested their capital in railways. It would appear that one of the objects proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was to secure punctuality in the trains; and for this purpose there was to be a superintendent appointed, who was to require greater punctuality on the part of the companies. He did hope that the right hon. Gentleman would have gone a little further, and that he would at once have suggested that the railway companies were not as punctual as they ought to be, and that something was wrong in the present management of railways. Now, he was by no means sure that the effect of the proposed superintendence would not be to diminish the speed of trains. Railway directors, in the apprehension that they would not be able on all occasions to insure punctuality, would probably not give that speed to the public which they now enjoyed. He begged to tell the House that a perfectly punctual system could not be attained. There were so many things that affected the speed of trains, the state of the atmosphere, the wind, the state of the rails, the coke and water, all these rendered it perfectly impossible that perfect punctuality should be insured on all occasions. But the great interest of railway companies was to ensure punctuality as much as possible, and to make every exertion for the purpose of increasing their traffic. He believed they had attained upon railways a degree of punctuality fully equal to that obtained in any other means of conveyance that had ever been attempted. He doubted whether Parliament would by its interference obtain greater punctuality; but at the same time he did not complain, because Parliament might have the right to undertake this legislation upon minute points. It had little to do, perhaps, and it must amuse itself, he supposed, at other people's expense. Instead of guiding the commercial enterprise of this country, he must say that this was not Inarching in the onward direction; it was a retrograde movement. He believed that railway undertakings would have prospered much more, had there been less interference on the part of Parliament. The more responsibility they threw upon the directors, and the less upon Parliament or the 1204 Railway Board, the better for the public. It appeared, that under the new Bill, the fares were not to be reduced without giving notice to the Commissioners. ["Raised."] Well, altered; but, surely, it was hard that the directors should be obliged to come to the board to ask their consent to excise powers which Parliament had given them under the Act. [Mr. STRUTT: Notice would have to be given of the intention to raise fares.] It had been complained that one railway had raised its fares without giving any previous notice to the public. Perhaps it would have been better if they had given notice. His system was not that of raising, but of reducing fares; but it was not his practice to give notice of his intention; and the company in question had only followed a similar plan in a reverse case. He thought it would be impolitic to press this Bill at present, and that there would be no possibility of carrying out the proposed inspection in a manner satisfactory to the public. Still, on behalf of the railway interest, he would say that they would give the Bill that consideration which it deserved; and if it were not unfair to their interests, they were willing to offer all the suggestions in their power to make the measure a fair and useful one to all parties.
§ MR. MANGLESwished to guard against committing himself to any of the details of the measure; but he must, at the same time, emphatically disclaim any participation in the jealousy and fear expressed by the right hon. Member for Sunderland with regard to the superintendence of the Railway Board. He was sure he expressed the opinion of the gentlemen with whom he was associated, the directors of the London and North-Western Railway, when he said that, being well aware, and having always maintained, that the principle of competition could not be applied to railroads, they were not only willing, but anxious, that the only other effectual protection to the public should be afforded in the shape of strong and even stringent control, exercised by some competent public authority such as the newly-constituted Railway Board. He wished to ask one question of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had omitted to explain one point upon which he was most anxious to be informed. He did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to say whether, in the event of reporting upon competing lines, it was intended that the Railway Board should distinctly state to 1205 which of the lines it gave the preference, and also the grounds of that preference. This he held to be of the utmost importance; and this was a labour which the late Railway Department of the Board of Trade, in his opinion, performed most satisfactorily. He was, moreover, of opinion that a great part of the mischief caused last year by over-speculation, had its origin in the readiness with which that House threw overboard the most excellent reports of the Board of Trade. He believed that the great majority of those reports were correct, and that they would, if they had been acted on, have obviated a great many of the evils by which the country was afflicted last year.
§ MR. STRUTTsaid, it would be impossible for the Board to report on the comparative merits of two competing schemes without expressing a preference. The hon. Member for Knaresborough had complained of a railway crossing the public highways near a populous place in his neighbourhood on the level. The Act authorizing that line had passed, and the unfortunate results to which the hon. Member referred were attributable to the conduct of Parliament alone, and were beyond the interference of the Commissioners. The Commissioners had only a power of interference to a certain extent: for instance, if a company should think fit to substitute a bridge for a crossing on the level, the Commissioners had the power to authorize this deviation from the original plan; but they had no further power save in the shape of remonstrance. He regretted that the right hon. Member for Sunderland should have misunderstood one part of his speech, with respect to the periodical revision of tolls by Parliament. The right hon. Member seemed to think that the object of that provision was to restrict the profits of railway companies; but he had distinctly stated that the principle on which, in his opinion, such a revision should take place, was exactly the principle on which the fares were first established, acting fairly between the railway companies and the public—giving the railway companies every due advantage, and affording to the public the advantages derivable from an altered state of circumstances, so that in the event of such altered circumstances Parliament might have the power of revision. The right hon. Member also said that it would be impossible for the Commissioners to ensure punctuality. Of course it would be impossible to 1206 secure perfect punctuality; neither had he supposed nor asserted such a thing to be possible. All he proposed was that the facts should be ascertained, so that where a railway company was remarkable for its great punctuality, and for the skill and attention with which it succeeded in affording accommodation to the public, the fact should be known; and that, on the other hand, where a company was remarkable for conduct the reverse of this, especially where their remissness led to accidents, that fact should likewise be laid before Parliament and the public. There was one more point on which the right hon. Gentleman was anxious for information—namely, with reference to lowering the fares. He begged to tell the right hon. Gentleman that under this Bill he might lower his fares when he pleased—no notice would be required.
§ Leave given. Bill brought in and read a first time.