HC Deb 26 April 1865 vol 178 cc1060-71

Order for Committee read.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Certain Sections of "Locomotives Act, 1861," repealed.)

MR. AYRTON

said, that on the introduction of the original Bill the promoters of the measure appeared to be very much in love with the Secretary of State, for in spite of his opposition to the plan the regulation of these locomotives had been lodged in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. He wished for an explanation why the supervision of the use of locomotives on roads by the Secretary of State for the Home Department was to be dispensed with and no other provision of a similar character made. He was opposed to the Secretary of State being made supervisor of the actions of the whole of the community, and he was glad that that part of the Act had broken down. He hoped that in future no Bills brought before the House would allow the Secretary of State to exercise a similar power. He should very much like to see some provision made with reference to the exceptional condition of the metropolis, where the horse and carriage traffic was so much greater than in ordinary towns. He should like, therefore, to receive from the hon. Member who had charge of this Bill an assurance of the introduction of some special clause referring to this point. The slower these engines travelled the greater obstruction would they offer to the ordinary traffic, and he almost believed that in the metropolis a speed of ten miles an hour would be better than two, as less obstruction would ensue.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that he de- sired to call the attention of the House to one clause, as the purport of the whole Bill was virtually embodied in it. By the Act of 1861 for regulating the use of locomotives on the public roads, power was given to the Secretary of State, upon representations made to him of danger and inconvenience arising therefrom, to restrict their use in any district by prohibiting their use during certain portions of the day. Tie was not anxious to retain that power, but he thought it ought not to be abolished without substituting some other means of control. He was not aware that this legislation had broken down, or of the grounds upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets made that assertion. There was no law determining the hours at which these engines should run, but the power for regulating their time in different districts was intrusted to the Secretary of State, Since the passing of the former Act he had received several representations from the inhabitants of certain districts, backed by the magistrates of the petty sessions or of those districts, Those representations had been referred to the chief constables of the counties for examinations into the facts alleged in them, and though the use of these locomotives had in no instance been forbidden their employment had in several cases been restricted to certain hours—generally from ten or eleven o'clock at night until six or seven in the morning. Those restrictions, he had reason to believe, had given great satisfaction to the inhabitants of the district, though they had also led to what he regarded as a reasonable complaint on the part of the machine owners and of the agriculturists, who urged that such restrictions interfered with their operations, as the engines were required to be constantly travelling from one farm to another. At the same time it should be remembered that these engines were formidable affairs in narrow lanes. Instances of fatal accidents had occurred, and it was only when the representations had been shown to be reasonable that the order regulating the hours had been issued. He had no reason to believe that any complaint had been made of the undue exercise of the discretion vested in the Secretary of State. He should be glad to see some other mode devised by which they could provide for the safety of the public without any undue interference with the extensive use of these machines for agricultural purposes. The only restriction imposed by the Bill was that these machines should not travel faster than four miles in the country and two miles in towns. The hon. and learned Member objected to the power being vested in the Secretary of State. He (Mr. Ayrton) wished, however, that the use of these machines should be restrained in the metropolis; but if it was unsafe to use them in London, surely it was equally so in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and other largo towns. He should be quite willing to resign the power that was lodged in his hands. The clause before the House, however, proposed an unconditional repeal of this power, relying simply upon the provisions contained in other portions of the measure.

MR. WYKEHAM MARTIN

said, that during the last seven years locomotives had been used in the streets of Rochester and Chatham without any danger having arisen, and he had received a certificate from the municipal authorites stating that during the seven years they had been so employed no accident had occurred. They were used in the narrow streets of Rochester and Chatham, and also in what was called the "Khyber Pass," the very narrow street, which connected Chatham with Rochester, and no accidents had resulted therefrom. He had continually met them in the street, and they passed his own door day after day. Horses soon became perfectly accustomed to their appearance, and were much more liable to fright on passing underneath a screened bridge with a locomotive passing overhead than they were on meeting the engines in the streets. Leamington and Warwick were both famed for hunting, which was extensively engaged in in the neighbourhood of these towns. Consequently the number of high-spirited horses was much larger in these towns than would usually be found elsewhere, and yet the continual use of locomotives had only been attended, to his knowledge, by one accident, and in that instance the locomotive was passing over a screened bridge.

MR. HENLEY moved the postponement of this clause until the remaining clauses had been disposed of. As it was merely a repealing clause he thought it better it should be postponed until they could see what they could do with the body of the Bill to give facilities for the use of these locomotives on common roads. He believed that the general wish was that as much facility as possible in the employment of these engines should be granted to the agriculturists; but it was the duty of the House at the same time to protect the public from the inconveniences which might be caused by their use. High bred horses usually would not get frightened at meeting these engines because they possessed pluck enough to go ahead without caring for anything, but the low bred horses would generally become timid on seeing the locomotives. He hoped that the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill would agree to the postponement of the clause.

MR. HOLLAND

consented.

Clause postponed.

Clause 2 (Imposing Rules for the manner of working Locomotives on Turnpike Roads and Highways.)

MR. HOLLAND moved the insertion of the words "on foot." He said the effect would be that the man who accompanied the engine for the purpose of keeping a lookout would be compelled to walk, and would thus be able to perform his duty in a manner which would better secure the safety of the public.

MR. FELLOWES

said, he should be sorry to oppose so valuable a Bill as respected agricultural interests, but they had a duty to perform to the public, whose safety they had charge of. He thought that the man ought to walk some distance in advance of the engine, and that the safety of the public would not be insured by a distance of sixty yards between the attendant and the engine itself. He believed that 100 yards would be better, and he therefore moved an Amendment securing that provision.

SIR WILLIAM MILES

said, he believed sixty yards to be far enough. The word "precede" would be quite sufficient. A man at the distance of 100 yards would often not be seen at all by the driver of the engine, especially near towns. It would therefore practically be of no advantage.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he was glad to perceive a disposition on the part of the House to regard with some favour the interests of the agriculturists, who as a class did not generally receive that consideration from the House to which they were entitled. He believed that the safety of the public would be best secured by the attendant walking immediately in advance of the engine instead of at so great a distance as sixty yards. He thought the words "on foot" should be retained, omitting either the "sixty yards" or the "100 yards."

COLONEL SYKES

said, that there appeared to be a panic with reference to the safety of the public, especially when it was borne in mind that these engines had constantly been travelling about the country for years. Horses were much more apt to take fright from seeing the heaps of stones which were usually kept at the sides of roads and the "guys" who were employed in breaking them up than they were at the sight of these engines. The locomotives generally travelled only from farm to farm, and he could not therefore see any necessity for compelling the attendant to precede the engine either by sixty or 100 yards.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

thought the attendant might as well he in the next parish as precede the engine by 100 yards. He believed it would be absurd to specify the precise distance at which the man should walk, and he should therefore move the insertion of the words "not more than sixty yards."

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 4, to leave out the word "less," and insert the word "more."—(Sir John Shelley.)

MR. JOHN HARDY

said, that 100 yards was not an inch too far, as a horse and carriage driving rapidly in a narrow lane would occasionally be upon the engine before its proximity could be ascertained in sufficient time to prevent an accident. He should certainly vote for the man's preceding the engine by at least sixty yards.

MR. WARNER

said, the real security to the public lay in the liability which the owners of these engines incurred in case of accident, and that the danger arising from noise in working and other similar causes might be obviated in the manufacture of the locomotives.

MR. D. ROBERTSON

said, that the best plan would be to postpone the Bill for the present. He thought that the regulation of the locomotives should be left to the local authorities, who would best be able to determine what was necessary.

SIR EDWARD DERING

said, he thought it hardly possible that the Committee could decide accurately the precise distance at which the attendant should precede the locomotive. In a straight road in the country it might be desirable that the man should be 100 yards or even more in advance, but in a town or in a narrow lane with turnings, the distance would oftentimes be curtailed with much advantage.

SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON

said, that unless the attendant were compelled to precede the engine he would, except in a town, be in all probability usually engaged in conversation with the man on the engine.

Question put, "That the word 'less' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 32 Noes 90: Majority 58.

MR. FELLOWES

then moved to insert 100 instead of sixty yards.

Another Amendment proposed, in same line, to leave out the word "sixty," and insert the words "one hundred,"—(Mr. Fellowes.)

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he thought the Amendment would defeat the hon. Gentleman's object.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, it would be better to leave the responsibility upon the persons in charge of engines.

Question put, "That the word 'sixty' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 35: Majority 38.

Upon the Motion of Mr. HUNT, the following words were inserted:— And shall warn the riders and drivers of horses of the approach of such locomotive.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

proposed to add the words— All superfluous steam shall be condensed in such a manner as that no steam shall blow off while the locomotive is upon the road.

MR. HOLLAND

said, he thought there was no necessity for the Amendment, as there was no difficulty in rendering locomotives harmless upon roads. The protection of the public had been fully considered by those who had drawn up the Bill.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, if the Committee did not accept his Amendment, he must leave the responsibility for any danger that might arise to those who opposed it.

Amendment negatived.

Upon the Motion of Mr. HOLLAND, the following words were added:— Sixthly. Any person in charge of any such locomotive shall provide two efficient lights to be affixed conspicuously, one at each side, on the front of the same, between the hours of one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that the House, in sanctioning the use of these locomotives under certain restrictions, should take care that they did not hamper the right of persons to bring actions for injuries sustained by them from the results of any carelessness on the part of the owners of locomotives or their servants. He, therefore, moved to add the words— Provided that nothing herein contained shall affect the right of any person to recover damages in an action at law in respect of any injury or damages sustained by him in consequence of the use of such locomotive.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HUNT

said, he wished to call attention to the provision in the clause affixing penalties upon conviction for certain acts, but it did not appear what parties were to be liable to those penalties. It could not always be the owner of the machine, because he might send out the proper number of attendants, and one of them might neglect his duty, in which case it would be unjust to punish the owner.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he thought the clause did require some amendment in the case suggested by the hon. Gentleman, and it should be considered before the Report.

MR. HENLEY

said, he hoped the clause would be made more clear, because, as it stood, he could not tell who would be responsible for anything. As the words "not more" had been introduced, it seemed as though the men in charge of the engine should have a string round their wrist to prevent them from exceeding the limit of distance and exposing themselves to the mercies of informers.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Size and Weight of Locomotives which may be used.)

MR. HENLEY

said, he wished to call the attention of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to the words in this clause which were different from those of the second clause. In the second clause the words "turnpike road or public highway" were used, but in the clause the words were "turnpike or other road." As a different construction would be placed upon the different words, he should propose to strike out the word "other" and insert "public highway."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. FELLOWES

said, that as the locomotive machines might be nine feet in width, and the lanes and by-roads some- times were not more than twelve or fourteen feet wide, any vehicle meeting such a machine in such a place would occasion a blocking up of the thoroughfare. He should propose an Amendment to the effect that locomotives should only travel upon roads twenty feet or upwards in width.

Amendment moved.

MR. WYKEHAM MARTIN

said, he believed that the agricultural machines now drawn by horses upon roads were wider than locomotives, and, moreover, locomotives could back out, which could not be done by horse-power.

SIR WILLIAM MILES

said, the Amendment, if carried, would prevent the use of locomotives in Devonshire and Somersetshire, where narrow roads abounded.

MR. HENLEY

said, that if the engines could back so easily there ought to be something in the Bill to make it clear that they were to be the parties who were to back, and not the others.

MR. GREENWOOD

said, that though no doubt the Bill would confer a great benefit on other interests besides the agricultural interest, the House must take care that this was not done at the expense of the smaller ratepayers. In the former Bill no provision was made for meeting the increased cost of repairing the roads which would be necessitated by the passage of these heavy locomotives over them. He hoped that omission would be remedied in the present Bill. As to backing, how could one of these engines back with a train of four or five trucks behind it?

SIR EDWARD DERING

said, he thought there was no doubt which would have to give way in practice; for the engine could back while the cart could not.

MR. AYRTON

said, the difficulty often occurred in London where two carts or waggons met in a narrow street which did not afford room for them to pass each other. The drivers after squabbling for more or less time, got out of the difficulty in their own way, and it might be left equally to the common sense of country carters to do the same.

SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEY

said, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that in London there was always a policeman about.

Amendment negatived.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that the effect of the clause was to allow engines of nine feet width and fourteen tons weight to use the roads; but there was no express prohibition against the use of engines of greater width and weight. He proposed a provision against engines of larger size or weight being used, except upon special leave being obtained from certain authorities.

Amendment moved to add the words— And no locomotive exceeding nine feet in width and fourteen tons in weight shall he used on any such road, except subject to the provisions contained in the third section of the said Act, as to the use of locomotives exceeding seven feet in width and twelve tons in weight.

MR. HENLEY

said, he wished to ask for information as to why engines of nine feet width and fourteen tons weight were fixed upon by the framers of the Bill. When they recollected that over many country roads there were bridges of a very weak construction, it became a matter of serious consideration whether such heavy engines should be allowed.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HUNT

proposed to add a proviso making it incumbent on the drivers of locomotives to back out whenever they might meet other vehicles in a road too narrow for them to pass each other.

MR. AYRTON

said, that the proviso would only create confusion and vexation.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press it.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Restrictions as to the use of Steam Engines within twenty-five yards of Roads, not to apply to Locomotives used for ploughing purposes.)

MR. FELLOWES

said, that he objected to the removal of these restrictions.

SIR EDWARD DERING

said, that if this clause were struck out of the Bill, it would be tantamount to depriving farmers of the use of these engines for ploughing purposes.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he thought there could be no harm in allowing these engines to be used within the prohibited distance, if the ordinary precautions were taken.

MR. HENLEY

said, that there was no safeguard whatever provided by the Bill to protect the public from danger.

MR. DENT

said, that the double engine system was now found to be the most profitable method of steam cultivation, and if this clause were not passed twenty-live yards of every field which bordered on a road would have to be left unploughed. He had often seen steam ploughs at work, but he never remembered an accident from any horse taking fright.

SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON

said, he did not see why these engines when used for ploughing should be treated with more favour than a thrashing engine, which was not allowed to be at work within twenty-five yards of the road except under a screen.

MR. HUNT

said, he thought the risk of one of these engines being at work within twenty-five yards of the road was no greater than that caused by level crossings, which were now permitted all over the country. Horses, in fact, were getting more used every day to steam-engines and their noises, and were not so apt to be frightened by them.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that that was the case, but he thought there must always be danger when an engine was at work so near the road. If the engine when it got into the field was to be fixed, why could it not be placed on the side furthest away from the road? If that could not be done with convenience, he thought the safety of the public would be best consulted by leaving the law as it at present stood.

MR. HOLLAND

said, he should have no objection to add the following words to the clause:— Provided a person shall be stationed in the road, and employed to signal the engine driver when it shall be necessary to stop and to assist horses and carriages drawn by horses in passing the same.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (How Penalties may be recovered.)

MR. HENLEY

said, he wished to ask what was the object of saying that the summons should be served seven days before the hearing? Ordinarily petty sessions in the country were held weekly; and the provision in question would have the effect of postponing a decision for a fortnight. Unless there was good reason for a contrary course, he hoped the clause would be omitted.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the Bill followed the course prescribed by the Act—the Locomotives Act 1861—which it was intended to amend. The clause was unnecessary.

Clause struck out.

Clause 7 (Short Title of Act.)

On the Motion of Sir GEORGE GREY words added, "and 'the Locomotives Act, 1861,' and this Act, shall be construed together as one Act."

Clause 8 (Extent of Act.)

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the existing Act contained the clause (which restricted the Act to Great Britain), which it was therefore unnecessary to re-enact.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

said, he wished the provisions of the Bill to be extended to Ireland, and proposed to bring up a clause on the Report to effect that object.

Clause negatived.

Clause 1 (Certain Sections of "The Locomotives Act, 1861," repealed.)

MR. AYRTON

said, the clause gave no control whatever over the passage of locomotive engines in large towns. He proposed that the local authorities in the metropolis, and in large cities, should have power to draw up certain rules on the subject, which should be approved by the Secretary of State. He objected to the Secretary of State issuing regulations at the instance of the police authorities.

MR. HOLLAND

said, the promoters of the Bill had no objection to meet the views of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets so far as they related to the metropolitan area, but a good deal of inconvenience might arise were engines used for agricultural purposes compelled to make a long round out of their direct course in order to avoid all the large county towns.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets would lead the House to imagine that the Secretary of State never consulted any persons but the police with reference to the regulations necessary to be issued respecting locomotive engines; but the truth was that no order had ever been made in reference to them except at the request of the local authorities, backed by the magistrates of the district, and by the chief constable of the district. No order of the kind had ever been made at the sole instance of the police. He thought some provisions ought to be made for the control of those engines in large county towns as well as in the metropolis. He suggested, therefore, that the hon. Member should bring up a clause on the Report to that effect. He wished the local municipal authorities in every city and borough should have power to restrict the use of such machines as they thought fit, and to make regulations with regard to them.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, that such authority should he limited to towns having more than 50,000 inhabitants.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, he must object to such a limitation.

MR. HOLLAND

said, he would take care that the wishes of the Committee on this point should be attended to.

On the Motion of Sir COLMAN O'LOGH-LEN, after the word "eleventh" the words "and fifteenth" were added.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

MR. HOLLAND moved a new clause, Nothing in this Act contained shall repeal, alter, or in any way affect the provisions of the 41st section of the Thames Embankment Act, 1862.

Clause agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Wednesday 10th May, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]