HC Deb 05 April 1853 vol 125 cc601-20
MR. H. BROWN

said, he had to propose a Resolution, at the suggestion of a large number of persons who had asked him to be their instrument, in calling the attention of the House to a subject of which he admitted the very great difficulty. He had some reason to expect that his Motion would be met with two objections: first, that it was ill-timed; and, secondly, that it was unnecessary. He would doubtless be told that a Select Committee was at that moment sitting upstairs, who would make such a Report as would satisfy the House on the subject. If he thought the carrying of his Motion would be offensive to the railway interest, or embarrassing to the Government, he should be the last person to seek to bring it forward. But he submitted, his Motion was of such a character that, if the Committee should make a Report that it was unnecessary to have a tribunal to insist on the regulation of railways, it would only tend to strengthen the hands of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Cardwell) had done him the honour to say that there was nothing in the terms of his Resolution in the slightest degree objectionable. If that were so, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to adopt the Resolution. If there was anything more marked than another going on in the Committee upstairs, it was that they were all agreed on the necessity of what he (Mr. Brown) now asked the House to do. The House would recollect that when the late President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Henley) moved for that Committee, he had only in view an inquiry into the general amalgamation of railways, and that an hon. Member followed up the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman by a proposition for extending the scope of inquiry of the Committee. But what was the result? The Committee was now sitting, and the evidence given before them was just a repetition of statements with which the House was already familiar. He would refer the House to the evidence of a great authority in matters connected with railways, Mr. Seymour Clarke. That gentleman stated that in his opinion the result of the proposed amalgamations and arrangements would be, that, without some superintending authority, the public would be deprived of those advantages which they now possessed. Captain Huish, the superintendent of the London and North-Western Railway, in reply to a question put to him, to the effect of whether all just complaints made by the public against the companies might not become a subject of arbitration, said that it would require careful consideration, and the assistance of men who were conversant with the details of the working of railways, who would give judgments which would be acceptable to the companies. Each of the five witnesses already examined had stated in the most marked manner, that the supervision of the railways, to be effective, must be placed in some central power. He would be the last person to advocate any interference in the fiscal arrangements connected with railways; but he contended that until they made some better arrangements, until they had some authority to which the public could appeal, or some power to enforce such regulations as might be deemed necessary for the public safety, they would have the columns of their daily papers constantly filled with accounts of lamentable and fatal accidents on railways. He would now direct the attention of the House to a very recent case which had been tried in Scotland. Some persons attributed the fewness of railway accidents in Scotland to the lower rate of velocity adopted there; but he attributed it to the wholesome correction of the criminal law of that country. A trial took place a few days ago in Scotland, and he thought the summing up of the Lord Justice Clerk was a striking lesson as to legislating on these matters. He said— That, after the disclosures that had been made, it was plain that on another such occasion it would be the parties responsible for maintaining such a state of things that would be put at the bar—directors or manager. The same state of matters seemed to have been continued even after this accident, and neither the manager nor the directors seemed to have taken any steps whatever to prevent the repetition of such accidents. Of course such a state of things was maintained at their own peril; and if another such catastrophe occurred, they had received a pretty plain intimation as to how the public prosecutor would deal with those who persisted in maintaining it. Under the Scotch law there was a public prosecutor, by whose exertions justice was secured to the peasant as well as to the peer. This state of things was very different from that of the English law on the subject. Under the 9 & 10 Vict. (Lord Campbell's Act), a right of civil action was given for damages, which unfortunately, however, practically valued the useful man at pence, and the ornamental at thousands. He remembered that when this Bill was under discussion a noble Lord in the other House asked whether, supposing the Lord Chancellor on the woolsack was killed, any jury would dare to estimate his value. The rejoinder of the Lord Chancellor was, that he could conceive a much more difficult case, which was that of estimating the damages of a noble Lord in expectation of a seat on the woolsack. At a recent accident on a branch of the Midland Railway, in which a passenger carriage drawn by a horse was run into by an engine, a poor man received three pounds as compensation for the death of his wife, while a lady travelling in the same carriage obtained five pounds as compensation for damage done to her dress. What was wanted, therefore, was a public prosecutor, who would take care of the interests of the poor and working classes who might suffer from accidents on railways. Another objection that he believed would be made to his Motion was, that it would interfere with private enterprise; but that argument was worn out, and in the most satisfactory manner, for the Government felt it their duty to interfere with all private enterprise where the public were concerned. As a proof of that he need only refer to the supervision of steam-boats, of emigrant ships, factories, and stagecoaches. Any one who would take the trouble to read the reports that had been made from time to time on this subject, would see that the greater number of the accidents that occurred resulted from a disregard of proper management and arrangement. It was the duty of the House, then, to become the conservators of the public safety; and he thought they could not hesitate to adopt his Resolution, which was a mere declaration by the House that something should be done. The Board of Trade had, indeed, adopted the inspection of railways; but that power of inspection was most extraordinary in its origin, and still more so in its continuation. If a railway was about to be opened, the Board of Trade sent down a surveyor and engineer to report upon the state of it, and see that it was such as was required for the public safety; but the power of the Board ceased there, and, whatever might be the result afterwards, however much the line might become disordered, or the machinery defective, or whatever calamities might arise from it, the Board of Trade had no other power. Upon a late occasion the President of the Board of Trade had estimated, and very fairly, the valuable services of one of the inspectors of railways (Captain Simmonds). Now that gentleman, in his report on the Ulster Railway, complained of the want of proper signals. He said— This is a most dangerous arrangement, involving points set to meet the traffic and constant stoppages on one of the main lines. I requested that it might be altered, so that trains travelling in either direction must stop on their own line. I was informed by the secretary that this arrangement was common at the other stations upon that part of the line between Belfast and Portadown, now in operation. I think it my duty to make the circumstance known to the Commissioners, in order that the company may be recommended to abandon a method of working attended with such great risk. And then he went on to say— Each station is provided with a signal of the ordinary semaphore pattern, but the men were very imperfectly instructed in the use of them. In a Report upon the Eastern Counties Railway, it was stated that a dangerous practice prevailed of sending off swift special trains, at a moment's notice, depending for their safety on the electric telegraph, which at many of the stations was not at work, and it was even stated that at one of the principal stations the station-master had delegated his duty to the maid-servant. Captain Laffan had also made a report upon the Leicester and Swannington Railway, in which he said— The signals in present use are the old and very indifferent signals that sufficed for the traffic of a coal-line. I am of opinion that these should be replaced by others of a better description. And again— There is one circumstance connected with the traffic upon this line which I would wish to bring particularly under the notice of the Commissioners—namely, that it is proposed to work with trains composed partly of coal-trucks and partly of passenger-carriages, and that many of the coal-trucks now upon the line are either so slight in construction or so much worn by long use, that they will prove a source of danger to every train in which they are used. On my return to Leicester, after inspecting the line, a number of coal-trucks were attached to the engine, and one of the axles gave way, and delayed the train a considerable time. This, I was informed by the managing director, was by no means an unusual occurrence, an accident of the kind generally happening at least once a month, sometimes two or three in the course of a single week. In one instance lately the giving way of an axle caused the destruction of seven other coal-trucks which were following; and if, instead of coal-trucks, these had been passenger-carriages, it is frightful to contemplate what might have been the result. The same report might have been made upon all the metropolitan railways, particularly upon the London and North-Western line. Upon that line there was very little regard paid to the condition of the carriages, and they would find that the great majority of accidents upon that line, whether attended with loss of life or not, arose from the breaking down of goods trains. Captain Laffan, upon the Belfast and Ballymena line, said— The permanent way is very roughly put down, and in very many places it is not even ballasted. There are no signals; and, from the absence of mileposts and gradient boards, it is difficult to define any particular place. The cuttings through rock are unfinished, large masses of earth and stones being left standing in dangerous proximity to the rails. These cuttings, too, are very badly drained. With respect to another line, which was very fruitful of accidents, the Midland Railway—Captain Laffan said— On a recent inquiry into a collision on the Nottingham branch of this railway, I attributed the accident then, in a great measure, to the want of a proper surveillance over the servants of the company, and a consequent laxity of discipline. A review of the circumstances attending the collision at Eckington will, I think, lead to a similar conclusion. The driver was without the power of giving an alarm, because for three days previously his whistle had been deranged. That an engine should be permitted to work on a line so intricate as the Midland, without the power of giving an alarm, appears to me one of the worst features of the case. I do not think this combination of disobedience or indifference to orders, and carelessness, which resulted in a collision, could have occurred had a proper supervision and strict enforcement of duty been maintained over the servants of the company; and, unless a speedy change in this part of the company's economy is introduced, I fear that still more serious consequences will result. The Board of Trade had no power to check or enforce any regulations—all they could do was to recommend. The House had had laid before them a Report of the Commissioners themselves, with their own judgments upon the reports of the inspectors, and he would read a paragraph from that Report. They said— It only remains to advert to the cases in which inattention to regulations or carelessness of the servants of the company are involved. It would appear that in twenty-three out of forty-one cases, into the circumstances attending which investigations were made, considerations of this nature were involved. These may be divided under two distinct denominations:—1st, occasional, those caused by inexperience or carelessness of individuals; 2nd, habitual, those caused by general inattention to regulations on the part of the servants of the company, exhibiting, as a natural consequence, a laxity of discipline throughout the whole management of the railway. On this subject, as to which it is very difficult to give any accurate statement, and to separate the two classes, it appears that there is much ground for apprehension, that on some railways the disregard of regulations is habitual, and the general discipline lax, from the fact that breaches of the regulations issued by the directors of railway companies for the guidance of their servants are of very frequent occurrence under the immediate supervision of the superior officers of the railways, and in which many of them participate, or of which, at any rate, they are cognisant. Discipline upon railways is of the greatest importance, both to the public and to the companies, who are subject, by the occurrence of serious accidents, to great losses, and to the payment of compensation to injured persons; but, notwithstanding the direct interest which the companies thus have in maintaining discipline and enforcing the regulations which they themselves have considered necessary for the safe conduct of the traffic upon their lines, it has been the duty both of the Commissioners of Railways and of the Lords of this Committee, to animadvert, in some cases, in very pointed terms, upon the neglect of these regulations. Captain Wynne, in a report upon a serious accident on the Midland Railway, said— This is the third accident on the Midland Railway which has occurred in an interval of little more than a month. On the two former occasions the accidents arose from an utter disregard of the orders and regulations of the company, which was traced to have arisen from a want of proper supervision over their servants; and though in this instance the disobedience has not been so direct and marked as in the others, yet there has been exhibited both recklessness and inattention to regulations. These, taken in conjunction with what transpired on my inquiries inso the circumstances of the two previous accidents, justify me, I consider, in placing the cause of this accident to the same inefficient system of discipline which led to the others. There was also some very important information given by Captain Huish, in a document issued from the clearing-house which had been established for railway business, wherein he suggested a mode of communication between the guards and engine-drivers of railway trains. The mode was very simple, and consisted in extending the footways of the carriages from one to another. Such a plan, however, could not be carried out, unless all the companies connected with the "clearing-house" agreed to it. These were instances in which the Board of Trade might exercise a most salutary power in compelling uniformity, and thus increasing the safety of the travelling community. As the case stood at present, the Report of the inspectors merely had the effect of removing the responsibility from the shoulders of the engineers connected with the line, without placing it upon other parties. He would now refer to the Report of Captain Wynne on a fire which occurred in one of the trains on the London and North-Western Railway, upon which occasion, had it not been for the exertions of a Mr. Crampton, who at great personal risk had passed from one carriage to another, the results might have been most distressing in their character. Had the foot-boards of the carriages been extended in the mode suggested, there would have been no difficulty or risk in making the required communication with the guard of the train. Captain Huish, in answer to the recommendation in this Report, that the foot-boards should be extended, stated, with regard to the London and North Western Company, that they were willing to consider it; but, he added, that such a plan could not be observed unless it was generally adopted, as the carriages in every train were nearly always the property of different companies. This was a case in which he (Mr. Brown) conceived that interference might readily be made effective. He need hardly remind the House that two lamentable accidents had occurred within the last few weeks, which showed the inutility of the present system of Government inspection. In the first case there was a most distressing loss of life; and he thought the verdict of the coroner's jury would read Her Majesty's Government a lesson which ought to show them that, if their inspection was to be good for anything, it ought to be effective for the safety of the travelling public. This accident occurred on the line between Man- chester and Bolton, and this was the verdict of the jury:— We find that the deceased, Thomas Croston, Richard Simmons, and George Barbour, were killed, on the 4th day of March inst., by the engine No. 13 running off the rails, and upsetting, near the Dixonfold station, on the Manchester and Bolton railway, caused by the excessive speed at which it was driven by the deceased Thomas Croston, against whom we return a verdict of manslaughter. And we state that, although the rules of the company furnished to the guards and drivers limit the speed of express trains to thirty miles an hour, the train has usually far exceeded that speed; and we think this cannot so constantly have occurred without the knowledge and approbation of the directors of the company. We find also that the engine No. 13, from having only four wheels, and the length of time it has been in use, was not a proper engine to attach to a train running at thirty miles an hour, even on a railway in good and efficient order. That the permanent way of this railway, as regards sleepers, chairs, and rails, in material and construction, is generally very defective, and by no means safe; that the speed at which the points at the branch lines are passed is highly dangerous; that the quick succession of trains on the line from Manchester to Clifton Junction with the East Lancashire Company is also very dangerous; that the general arrangements of the company as to the maintenance of way and management of trains do not conduce to the safety of the public; and we cannot too strongly condemn the management of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company on that portion of their line known as the Bolton and Preston district. We are also of opinion that the speed at which express trains travel on all railways is so great, that a stringent investigation should be instituted by the Board of Trade as to the construction and present condition of the permanent way, engines, and carriages, as well as working arrangements; and we fear it will be found that the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway is not the only one on which such a system of economy prevails as seriously to endanger the safety of the public. In the other case the jury returned the following verdict:— The verdict of the jury is, that William Stephenson came to his death by the engine No. 104 running off the line of rails and falling over the embankment at the west end of Willington viaduct, on the Newcastle and Tynemouth Railway, on the 2nd of March, 1853. They also find, from the evidence brought before them, that the line was not in a good and safe state, and that gross negligence in the management has been manifested in allowing ballast taken from the north line of Willington-bridge, while under repair, to be laid upon the south line, so as to render it dangerous. They are of opinion that a strange engine-driver ought not to have been sent down the line without some caution given as to the repairs going on at Willington-bridge. They are also of opinion that some legislative measure should be passed, making it compulsory on railway companies not to remove a single vestige of destruction of the line, carriages, &c., but that everything remain intact until inspected by competent persons. He would put it to the House whether these were not lamentable cases, and whether the circumstances did not fully justify the findings of the juries. But what was the use of the present system of inspection, if, as was here shown, the poor people who had lost their lives perished from a want of care and an absence of due arrangement? Was it right that the Government should see these things occur day after day and not interpose? Was it right they should thus see the safety of the public disregarded, and not propose measures calculated to procure security and create confidence? Certainly not. They seemed to suppose that these accidents were wearing themselves out; but the public were fully roused to the necessity of some active interposition, and they would not be satisfied until it was provided. Now, what was it that he asked the Government to do? Why, nothing more than that they should provide for the public travelling along railways the same safeguards as they required in steamboats, emigrant ships, and factories. Passing from this immediate subject, he must say that the proceedings of some railway companies certainly required the exercise of some control. The South Eastern Company had provided carriages of such a description that they were actually obliged to bar up the windows in order to prevent the passengers from putting out their heads lest they should come into collision with the walls of the bridges. They were under the necessity of providing this precaution in order to guard against accidents from the use of those carriages and the narrowness of the bridges; for it happened that a passenger who had put his head out of the window, was killed upon the spot. In such a case as that, why, he asked, was not the Scotch law made to apply by which the directors would be criminally responsible? If the Scotch law had applied, there would have been far more care taken to secure the safety of the public. He held further, that there ought to be a tribunal to which the public might forthwith appeal—where the accommodation was not suitable, where the traffic arrangements were incomplete, and where hostilities existed between rival companies detrimental to the public service. At present we had nothing of the sort. In bringing this subject under the notice of the House, he had no party or private purposes to serve. He was moved solely by a desire to discharge his public duties. If, he would add, the circumstances he had detailed pointed out the fact that there was a great disregard for public safety on the part of the railway companies themselves, then the House, in his judgment, was bound to affirm the Resolution he should move; but if they thought these things were incidental to railway travelling and beyond all remedy, then the Resolution will fall to the ground. But he was sure the House would arrive at the conclusion that they were not beyond remedy, and that the railways of this country must be put under such a system of inspection as would provide for the public safety. The Select Committee now sitting, he feared would lead to no practical result, and therefore he hoped the House would give the Board of Trade effectual powers. If, as he expected, nothing should result from the Committee, and no proposition should be made on the part of Her Majesty's Government, he should, at a future time, think it his duty to propose some effectual remedy for the evils he had endeavoured to point out. It was the duty of a good Government to propose to the House all such measures as might appear necessary for the public safety. The great increase in the number of accidents which had of late occurred on railways, demanded the especial attention of the House; and it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to propose more effectual measures than now existed for securing the safety of the public while travelling on railways.

MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH

seconded the Motion. He said his hon. Friend had shown most conclusively that there was no appeal against the maladministration of railways except to the public through the press. He had also shown the evils which arose from the want of a tribunal of reference such as was established upon the Continent and in the United States. Without some such tribunal it was hopeless to expect any improvement in the railway system calculated to secure the safety of the public. In his opinion the Resolution was perfectly unobjectionable, and his hon. Friend had applied to the proper quarter, for it was to the Government that all the evils of the present system of railway travelling fairly and legitimately belonged. At the same time the railways had to complain of the proceedings of Parliament itself. They had been called upon to pay a sum of 11,000,000l. for Parliamentary expenses in England alone—a sum sufficient to have executed 1,100 miles of railway. They had also been subjected in some localities to excessive demands from landed proprietors. They had paid sums varying from 5,000l. to 14,000l. per mile. Under such circumstances it was not possible they could maintain a sufficient staff and pay a remuneration to their proprietors. But after putting them to these vast expenses, Parliament had actually granted in many cases competing lines. He repeated then that both Parliament and Government were to blame for the existing system. The evil of it was apparent some years ago, and a Committee was appointed, over which the Earl of Dalhousie presided, to whom all projected railways were to be referred. No tribunal ever arrived at more just conclusions than this Committee, or at conclusions more calculated to develop the interests of the country if they had been attended to; but the late Sir Robert Peel threw over its Reports, and nothing was done. Under these circumstances he had no hesitation in saying that whatever improvements Parliament could make in the railway system, the public were entitled to require at its hands.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That it is the duty of a good Government to propose to this house all such measures as may appear necessary for the public safety: That the great increase in the number of accidents which have of late occurred on Railways demands the especial attention of this House; and that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to propose more effectual measures than now exist for securing the safety of the public while travelling on Railways.

MR. CARDWELL

Sir, if I do not occupy at any great length the time of the House upon this subject, it will certainly be from no want of a sincere conviction of its extreme importance; nor will it be from the least desire to distract the attention of the House from a question so interesting to the whole community; but it will be out of a consideration for the position in which the question has been placed by the House of Commons itself. The late Government with, I think, very good judgment, determined that a most careful inquiry should be made into the whole of the subjects connected with railways: that inquiry is now making progress. I had not the honour of being a Member of this House at the time the House decided upon appointing that Committee; but, now, by virtue of the office I have the honour to hold, it is my duty to be in the chair of that Committee, and we are taking the utmost pains to sift and examine the whole question of the management of railways. We have examined several persons who, from their great eminence in the railway world, are most calculated to carry weight from their experience, and we shall proceed to examine more. We have also examined those who, by their official connexion with railways, are most competent to give us their opinions. We have reported the evidence we have taken from time to time, in order that the House of Commons may have the best and fullest opportunity of judging the effect of that evidence. Upon the particular subject of accidents, very comprehensive evidence was, a fortnight ago, laid upon the table of the House and sent to the printers. It is only delayed by the pressure on the printers, but it will shortly be in the possession of Members of this House. We have further examined into all the recent accidents in detail, and shall present the evidence to the House. Almost immediately after I was appointed to office, I sent a gentleman to examine what were the means employed upon the French and Belgian railways for the purpose of avoiding accidents. The result of that inquiry has been considered by the Committee, and will shortly be laid before Parliament. The hon. Gentleman who brings this Motion has dwelt much on the importance of devising an effectual communication between guards and drivers. We have taken evidence upon that subject—we have a Report from the Clearing-house on that subject—and several of us have seen the invention actually in the course of experiment I think, then, it is desirable that the House of Commons, having appointed this Committee, should be in a position to consider the evidence taken before it, before they commit themselves to legislate upon this subject. The hon. Gentleman has also referred, particularly, to a point which I must acknowledge to be well deserving of inquiry—that is, to the difference in these matters between the law of Scotland and the law of England. Have the Committee been indifferent to that subject? When hon. Members get the Report, which is now in the hands of the printer, it will be found that the Committee have taken the evidence of the practical officers of the Board of Trade upon that subject; that they have had before them the views of that very Judge—a most able man, whom I have the honour of calling my friend—to whom reference has been made, the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland, for he kindly communicated them to me, and I laid them before the Committee. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate of Scotland has just returned from conducting a successful prosecution under the law of Scotland against persons guilty of culpable negligence leading to accident and loss of life. I have applied to him to attend as a witness before the Committee, and he has engaged to do so at the earliest possible opportunity. Certainly, then, we are making progress in our inquiry. Having got the opinion of the chief Criminal Judge of Scotland, and we shall shortly, I hope, have that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate as to what the law is in Scotland; therefore it would be premature in us to pronounce any opinion upon such a subject before we have heard all the evidence. I have here an extract showing how severe the Scotch criminal law is. I will read it to the House, in order to show that the subject is, as it deserves to be, under consideration, but not as passing any opinion, because I hold we should first examine the whole case and decide upon the evidence. At the trial referred to, the Lord Justice Clerk said, in summing up, that— After the disclosures that had been made, it was plain that on another such occasion it would be the parties responsible for maintaining such a state of things that would be put at the bar—directors or manager. That, we are told, is the practical operation of the law of Scotland; but it is not so in England. It may be right, or it may be wrong, that it should be law; but before either the Committee or the House of Commons pass any opinion upon the subject, they should thoroughly understand the case. When the House of Commons appointed a Committee to go into these cases, and to consider them, I am sure they intended that they should be carefully considered; that the Committee should come prepared with their whole measure to the House, not that they should prosecute their inquiry under the direction of the House, or that the House should adopt some abstract Resolutions. During the last few days we had a document laid before us through the public press of great interest. It was the result of an inquiry which, by direction of the Congress of the United States has been made by a Committee for the purpose of ascertaining how far the interference of Government is desirable for the purpose of preventing accidents. There is a great deal well worth reading in that Report. The Committee say it is very doubtful whether a more direct interference might not tend to increase the danger to the public instead of diminishing it; and they gave the following reasons:— To divide the authority, from which the regulations necessary to effect these objects must emanate, would give rise to confusion and embarrassments, engender bad feelings and hostility on the part of companies, take from officers their responsibility, and might result disastrously for the safety of the public. Then, I say, give us time to know whether what we are called upon to recommend will "result disastrously for the safety of the public," before we express any opinion. I have no objection to assume to the Government any responsibility which will tend to promote the public safety. I desire to say clearly and distinctly that we do not ask for power, nor are we anxious for responsibility; yet, if by casting responsibility upon us you can secure the safety of the public, it is your duty to cast it upon us, and it is our duty to undertake it. Only, do it well advised; and do not come to a Resolution to that effect until you have read the evidence on the subject. The hon. Gentleman who has brought forward this subject does not impute that the very limited powers of the Board of Trade have been neglected or improperly exercised; and I have heard him do justice to that able public servant, Captain Simmons, to whose assiduity I can myself bear testimony; but he complains of the state of the law. Well, as I have said, the House of Commons have appointed a Committee which will inquire into and report upon that subject. We have not been negligent in our duty with regard to that inquiry; but allow it to come to a termination. Not only the Committee but the Government are giving their attention to this subject. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that in bringing forward this Motion he was giving us the benefit of his experience; but the time for making a practical Motion will be when the Committee have made their Report. I have no right, however, to complain of the Motion; but the question now arises, how will the House deal with it? The hon. Gentleman truly said that when he showed it to me I could take no objection to it. That is so. I do not think that any more true proposition can be stated than "that it is the duty of a good Government to propose to this House all such measures as may appear necessary for the public safety." I shall not dispute that. Neither is it in my power to dispute "that the great increase in the number of accidents which have of late occurred on railways demands the especial attention of this House," or that "it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to propose more effectual measures than now exist for securing the safety of the public while travelling on railways." That is certainly to do what we are doing, namely, most carefully to assist in the examination of these matters, and to ascertain the state of the law as it exists in different parts of the kingdom, in order that we may obtain one which will be effectual. It only remains, then, to consider what is to be done with the Motion. Is it respectful in the House towards itself, or calculated to create confidence in the public, to pass a Resolution which will stand upon our proceedings as a mere abstract Resolution without any practical consequence? I would advise the hon. Gentleman not to press his Motion, because it is unusual to put on the books Motions of an abstract nature, leading to no practical consequences. If he is content to adopt that course, then it will not be necessary for me to urge any further objections; but, with a view merely to keeping the proceedings of the House in conformity with the usual practice, I shall move the previous question.

Whereupon, Previous Question proposed, "That that Question be now put."

MR. JAMES MACGREGOR

said, he could not permit the observations which had been made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. H. Brown) to pass unnoticed. The hon. Member had asserted that the directors of railways had not performed their duty to the public in carrying out the administration which the public had placed in their hands. He thought it was only fair, therefore, to call the attention of the House to the fact, that the precautions which were now employed throughout the length and breadth of the country, in conducting the traffic upon 7,000 miles of railway, were perfectly unknown when the railway system was first originated. So far as ingenuity could secure the safety of the public in travelling upon railways, ingenuity had been applied, and the whole body of men engaged in the conduct of the traffic devoted themselves, so far as their intelligence enabled them to do so, to this great and important question. The hon. Member had referred to an accident through non-attendance to sig- nals; but he must remember that distance-signals were the invention of but the last few years—that the electric telegraph, now so important an agent in the prevention of accidents, was a perfectly novel expedient—and, in fact, that every appliance of skill and genius was resorted to, and every exertion made by those who had the management of railways, to do justice to the trust reposed in them, and to insure the safety of the travelling public. He hoped the House would credit his statement that there was the greatest anxiety on the part of the railway interest to perform their duty; and he asserted, without fear of contradiction, that such a number of persons as now travelled upon railways were never moved before with, comparatively, so few accidents.

MR. HUME

said, that Parliament having, as it appeared to him, given most undue powers to certain individuals, it was the duty of that House to see that those powers were exercised for the benefit of the public; and if any defects existed in the system, to correct them. He thought they should be indebted to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for having brought the subject forward; but after the very satisfactory explanation which had been elicited from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, he suggested that the hon. Member should withdraw his Motion, reserving to himself the right of bringing it forward at a future period, in the event of any improper delay occurring on the part of the Government.

MR. D. WADDINGTON

said, he was convinced that on this subject the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in his position as Chairman of the Railway Committee, would do all in his power to arrive at a just and fair conclusion. The hon. Member (Mr. H. Brown) in introducing the Motion, had stated that the railway interest, or the directors of railways, were indisposed to provide, by every possible means, for the safety of the public; and he could not allow that statement to be made without giving it a most unqualified denial. Since the hon. Gentleman took a part in railway management, a very different state of things had arisen, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman and the House, from thirteen or fourteen years' experience, that he did not know an instance in which the Board of Trade had made suggestions with reference to the public safety, in which the directors had not either carried those suggestions out, or shown the Board that it was impossible to do so. With reference to the allusion which had been made by the hon. Gentleman to an accident on the Eastern Counties Railway, and the Report upon it, although exception was taken to that Report by the chief officers of the Railway, it had the effect of calling the attention of every member of the Board to the consequences of negligence by a railway servant; and from that time, now nearly two years ago, nothing approaching to an accident had occurred on that line. Railway directors were sincerely desirous of insuring perfect immunity, if it were possible, from these casualties, and whenever an accident did occur, whether on their own line or on the lines of other companies, for the management of which they were not responsible, they felt the same deep anxiety and regret. He should leave the matter to the Committee over which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) presided, convinced that on a careful review of all the circumstances, they would present a Report which would be beneficial to the railway interest, and, at the same time, conducive to the greater safety of the public.

MR. LAING

said, that the course which had been proposed by the right hon. President of the Board of Trade recommended itself so obviously to the House that he should not trespass at any great length upon their attention. He merely rose for the purpose of correcting, so far as he could, the impression likely to be created by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. H. Brown), that there was, on the part of the railway interest, and in the minds of railway directors, a disinclination to submit to any measure of Government control, which could be proved to them practically to conduce to public safety. However much the railway interest might justly complain of Parliament having put them to unnecessary expense, and they were consequently prevented declaring satisfactory dividends, when the public safety was involved every other consideration must give way; and if any measure were introduced with that view, there would not only be no factious opposition from the railway interest, but railway directors would be the foremost to assist in carrying it into effect. Independent of all considerations of humanity, to which he hoped even railway directors were not altogether lost, the pecuniary responsibility made it apparent to common sense that the directors were anxious to do every thing in their power to assist the Government in any measure which should be really conducive to the public safety. But the question involved in this Resolution, and more especially involved in the observations of the hon. Mover of it, was the extent and nature of Government interference. He would not refer to the Report of the American Committee, which contained very sound views on this subject; but the question of Government interference had already been investigated by a Committee of that House. Soon after the railway department of the Board of Trade was first constituted, there were loud demands for the most stringent Government control, and a Committee, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere), at that time President of the Board of Trade, was appointed, and the result was a complete explosion of the notion that any amount of interference on the part of the Government would conduce to the public safety. It was obvious that if the Government assumed the practical control of the working of railways, all responsibility with those who had charge of their management disappeared. Government interference might be invoked for increasing public safety; but it must resolve itself into three measures—either the Government must assume a superintendence of minute details, which, he was satisfied, would be attended with the worst possible consequences; or give such additional security to railway property that the companies would be in a position to incur large expenses in making experiments, so as to obtain the means of insuring the greatest possible security; or, if the present state of the law was not efficient, make it efficient, to bring home the responsibility to the proper parties. Upon this last point he must say, he had read, with great pleasure and satisfaction, the recent judgment of the Lord Justice Clerk, and he believed that was the commonsense view of the subject. He should be exceedingly happy if those principles were the general law of the land, so that every one in all grades of railway management might feel that, in the event of negligence, they would be made responsible should any accident occur. He thought it only right to state, in confirmation of the testimony borne by the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. James Macgregor), and as the result of his long experience, that a more zealous and intelligent body of men it would be difficult to bring together than the class of officers to whom the working of railway traffic was intrusted. He believed they were keenly alive to the responsibilities which attached to their several situations, and in the discharge of their duties were deserving of all praise. Indeed, if it were not so, it would be absolutely impossible to conduct the great mass of traffic on the English railways with even the number of accidents which were now thought to be so large. This led him to remark, in comparing the accidents on English with the accidents on foreign railways, on the greater speed and greater number of trains in this country. In Belgium there were few accidents; but by the Belgian trains they did not travel much faster than by the old stage coaches in England. In France also there were few accidents; and in America, until lately, their number was very limited. The speed, comparatively speaking, was slow, and the number of trains would be totally inadequate to meet the wants of an English community. Where in England ten or twenty trains were run, in France or America the number was only four or five. As the speed was increased, the number of accidents increased. In a recent letter from Berlin he saw an account in the Times of five serious accidents on the Prussian railways, and in America the son of the President had lost his life in as frightful a casualty as had ever been reported. By the last official return from the Board of Trade, it appeared that, while the number of passengers in the half-year ending the 30th June, 1852, was 39,249,605, only one passenger was killed from causes beyond his own control. He did not dispute the fact that accidents had occurred which ought not to have occurred, and that they ought to be prevented by legislation, if legislation could prevent them. But no later than the last half-year, it was shown by an official return that, with the multiplicity of trains, and the high rate of speed to meet the public wants, only one passenger had lost his life from causes beyond his own control. In common with all who were interested in railways, he entertained the confident hope and expectation that some good would result from the labours of the Committee which was now sitting, and which was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He certainly did not expect that that good would be exclusively for the benefit of the railway interest. If the railway interest benefited by it, he believed it would be indirectly; that the public would, in the first instance, derive the benefit, and that it would ultimately extend to those connected with railways.

MR. H. BROWN

said, he was quite in the hands of the House. If there was a general wish that he should withdraw the Motion, he had no objection to do so. The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. D. Waddington) had told him that a marked change had occurred in the management of the railways since he (Mr. Brown) was connected with them. He admitted that a change had occurred, but it was a melancholy one, for in his time an accident was an exceedingly rare occurrence; whereas now the first question at every breakfast table in the morning was, had any railway accident occurred?

Previous Question, and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.