HC Deb 25 July 1868 vol 193 cc1781-92

Bill, as amended, considered.

MR. LEEMAN

proposed, after Clause 19, to insert the following:— The Company shall not, except under an insurance as hereinafter mentioned, be liable to pay any larger sums than the following in respect of any passenger killed or injured: (that is to say,) no greater sum in respect of any first-class passenger than four hundred pounds, in respect of any second-class passenger than three hundred pounds, in respect of any third-class passenger than two hundred pounds; but any sum so payable shall be in addition to any claim under an insurance. A vast amount of evidence upon this subject was taken before the Royal Commissioners. Immense frauds were practised upon railway companies under the present system. A case had recently come under his own personal notice. A man, who was injured in a railway accident in the North of England, claimed £8,000 damages, and he laid his damages in an action in one of the Scotch Courts at £5,000; on the eve of the trial he offered to accept £1,750. The company paid £250 into Court, and the jury awarded him £88. That was the case of a person injured under circumstances where there was really no negligence on the part of the company; and it was only by having a detective to watch his motions for three months, that the company had been able to resist the fraud he had attempted to practise upon them. Besides, great injustice was done to the companies in another way. The position of railway companies was this—that whereas they received the same sum for fare from a poor person as from a person with an income of £10,000 a year, yet in case of au accident they had to compensate the latter according to his social position. Not one in ton of these compensation cases ever came before the public. The expenses attending trials were so great that the companies were driven to settle the great bulk of claims privately. This subject had been inquired into by the Royal Commission, who recommended that compensation should be awarded without relation to the income or social position of the party injured except so far as these might be indicated by the class of carriage in which he travelled. It had been said that there was no precedent for such a provision as that contained in the clause, but the Legislature had already interposed for the protection of carriers, both by sea and by land. The clause was founded upon the recommendations of the Commissioners, and as far as the figures were concerned he should be ready, on the part of railway companies, to assent to any alterations that the Government might propose, and to accept an absolute responsibility on their part for all injuries that occurred by accidents on their lines, whether occasioned by their negligence or not, to the extent of £400 for first-class, £300 for second-class, and £200 for third-class passengers. By a subsequent clause he proposed to render it compulsory upon the companies, should they be required by passengers to do so, to insure their lives to the extent of £3,000 for a first-class, £2,000 for a second-class, and £1,000 for a third-class passenger. He now moved the first part of the clause.

Clause (Liability for Accidents,)—(Mr. Leeman,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. STEPHEN CAVE

said, this was a very difficult question. The hon. and learned Member had stated the case very ably on the part of the railway companies, and it could not be denied that excessive damages had been awarded in many instances. It was also true that the principle of limitation of liability had been conceded in the case of shipowners who were not actually in fault, where the liability, under certain circumstances, was confined to £15 a ton up to the value of the ship; so with regard to animals, by the Railway and Canal Act of 1854 as the hon. Member had stated, and in the more parallel case of the Metropolitan Railway Acts of 1864 which he had not mentioned, where the liability with respect to injury to passengers by cheap trains was limited to £100. On the other hand, it must be remembered that carriers of passengers were not like carriers of goods, insurers against all injuries except those by the act of God or the Queen's enemies. They did not undertake to carry with absolute safety, but only so far as human care and foresight would go. Consequently, the only injuries for which they were liable were those which were caused by negligence or misconduct, in itself no unimportant limitation. The principle of legislation had been to leave to railway managers the greatest freedom of action. The Board of Trade had no real control over them, and it was considered that the true safeguard of the public was the fear of heavy damages. As a witness said before a Select Committee on Railway Accidents, "Lord Campbell's Act was the only protection of the passenger." A Bill was brought in with the same object as these clauses in 1863, which was rejected by the House, and called "an appraisement of human life according to the valuation of railway directors." It was true that the Royal Commission reported in favour of limitation of liability; but then it also recommended that railway companies should be liable for all accidents, whether caused by negligence or not. The hon. Member had stated he was willing to accept this recommendation, but he perhaps did not know what had been mentioned to himself by an eminent Member of that Commission, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, that the ideas of the Commissioners as to compensation went far beyond this Amendment, and it was obvious that in this case much more difficulty would arise in framing a scale, because not only would it be necessary to appreciate the value of life, but the calculation of the amount of penalty for negligence or misconduct would be mixed up with it. Then it seemed to him that the principle of insurance was altogether misapplied in extending it to damages for wrong done. The true principle was that the insurer or underwriter received payment for assuming a liability to which he was not legally subject. But in this case he demanded payment for assuming a liability under which he already lay, and he asked the passenger to pay him for insur- ing him against his own wrongful acts. Then, again, there was no provision for securing the existence of such an insurance fund in the case of the insolvency of the company. The last objection which he would take was, that whereas all carriers, shipowners, coach proprietors—and there were still some coaches left—and others were subject to the Common Law as extended in its application by Lord Campbell's Act, this proposed relaxation applied only to railway companies. Now, it was clear that they ought not to be specially exempted; and yet—as no doubt the hon. and learned Member felt—a general exemption would be beyond the scope of this Bill. Under the circumstances, he thought the hon. and learned Member would do well not to press these clauses, as it was evident they were too partial in their application, and he did not think the feeling of the country was at present in favour of an alteration of the law in this direction.

MR. LAING

said, he thought the latter argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Cave) the only forcible one. He admitted that a law should not be made for railway companies which did not apply to coach proprietors and carriers generally. The railway companies desired nothing but what was fair and reasonable; and he, for one, would rather see the figures fixed by Government. The railway companies wished to do all that was possible to ensure the safety of the passengers. He asked the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Leeman) to withdraw the clause, with a view to the introduction of a Bill, in the next Session of Parliament, on the whole subject of the responsibility to make good damages arising from accidents while travelling.

MR. HENLEY

hoped that if the Government did undertake to consider the subject during the Recess they would not be regarded as pledged to accept the principle of the clauses. He did not wish to see the settlement of claims taken away from the cognizance of juries. The subject was a large and difficult one. He could not conceive anything more objectionable than that every time a man went a journey he should be obliged to pay 6d. to prevent his neck being broken. It was enough to frighten the nervous; and if it were carried the railway company ought to be compelled to give with the insurance receipt a glass of very good brandy to keep up the spirits of the passengers. What was wanted was vigilance on the part of the railway company to compel their servants to prevent accidents. If the company wanted funds it would be better for them to put an extra small amount on the price of the railway ticket.

MR. NORWOOD

said, that Lord Campbell's Act had acted most injuriously upon passenger traffic in steam vessels, for many shipowners now refused to carry passengers upon any terms, for fear of the liability which that Act threw upon them in the event of an accident ensuing.

MR. CLAY

pointed out that it was a common practice for passengers to insure their own lives when travelling by railway.

MR. NEATE

said, he was in favour of a high minimum of compensation without relation to the class of carriage by which the person who was injured might travel. It should be put upon a general average.

MR. LEEMAN

expressed himself satisfied with the assurance that had been given on the part of the Government, and withdrew his clauses.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LEEMAN (for Mr. Watkin) moved the following clause (Costs, charges, &c, to be taxed and settled by masters of the Court of Queen's Bench):— That all disputed questions as to any costs, charges, and expenses of and incident to any arbitration or award made under the provisions of 'The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,' or of any special Act of Parliament incorporating the same, whether the question in dispute arise as to compensation to be made for lands required to be purchased and actually taken by any Railway Company or any corporation, or in respect of the injurious affecting of other lands not taken, or otherwise in relation thereto, shall, if either party so requires, be taxed and settled as between the parties by one of the masters of the Court of Queen's Bench.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he had no objection to the reference to the masters of the Court of Queen's Bench; but he objected to the extension of the subject beyond railway companies, and suggested the omission of the words "or any corporation."

Clause (Costs, charges, &c. to be taxed and settled by masters of the Court of Queen's Bench,)—(Mr. Watkin,)—brought up, and read the first and second time; amended, and added.

MR. LEEMAN (in the absence of Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) moved a new clause (Company may apply lo common law Judge at Westminster to hear cases of compensation under "The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act").

Clause (Company may apply to common law judge at Westminster to hear cases of compensation under "Lands Clauses Consolidation Act,")—(Mr. Watkin,)—brought up, and read the first and second time; amended, and added.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN moved a clause (Railway Companies in Ireland shall run one Passenger Train each way every Sunday). The hon. and learned Member said, that the insufficient Sunday accommodation of the Irish railways was a just cause of serious complaint. For instance, in the county he represented it was impossible to leave it between four o'clock on Saturday afternoon and eight o'clock Monday morning. He did not intend to press the clause on the present occasion; but he hoped that the attention of the Government would be directed to the matter.

MR. STACPOOLE

seconded the clause.

Clause (Railway Companies in Ireland shall run one Passenger Train each way every Sunday,)—(Sir Colman O'Loghlen,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. BLAKE

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) had on this occasion showed more good sense than ho exhibited when lust he pressed a similar clause on the attention of the House. Were the hon. and learned Gentleman now prepared to pursue the same course, he (Mr. Blake) should have to appeal to the House to reject his clause. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ennis (Mr. Stacpoole) said that the Waterford and Limerick Railway did everything it could to inconvenience the traffic of the country. Now what were the facts? The company referred to were working this line at a small profit to the shareholders, and on the Ennis line, in which the hon. Members for Clare and Ennis were interested, the traffic was conducted at a loss. He would add, too, that the line was kept up almost exclusively at the expense of a private individual, a friend of his own. He would like to ask the hon. Members who I were in favour of having this line worked on Sundays what number of shares they had in it?

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

None at all.

MR. STACPOOLE

None at all.

MR. BLAKE

remarked that he thought that was the case. His hon. Friends were, doubtless, too sensible to invest their money in a speculation in which they would be unable to get a return for it, and yet they expected that that private gentleman to whom he referred, who worked the line for six days in the week at a loss, should work it on the seventh also, and that too for their own convenience when travelling about to sec their constituents. It was a thing altogether unjustifiable that the 800 employés of that railway group should all be kept on duty during the Sunday in order to suit the convenience of some five-and-twenty persons who might travel just as well if they chose on the other days of the week. As there was no such law in force in England as that which his hon. and learned Friend desired to introduce in Ireland, he hoped the House would not sanction the proposition.

MR. STEPHEN CAVE

observed that the law was the same in both countries. Neither in England nor in Ireland were companies compelled to run trains on Sundays. But it was provided that if any railway company ran a passenger train at all on Sunday it should also run a cheap train. He thought it better to leave the law as it stood. Such an alteration as the hon. and learned Baronet proposed would lead to great dissatisfaction in many quarters.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

then moved the following clause:— And all Railway Companies shall, from and after the passing of this Act, in every passenger train where there are more carriages than one of each class, provide smoking compartments for each class of passengers. It was most desirable that the House should agree to this clause, as the inconvenience of the existing system respecting smoking in railway carriages was generally felt by persons travelling by railways.

Clause (Smoking compartments for all classes,)—(Mr. Henry B. Sheridan,)—brought up, and read the first time.

MR. LEEMAN

opposed the clause, and thought that the better course would be to leave the matter in the hands of the directors of railway companies, who would always be sure to do that which was roost convenient to the great body of those who travelled by their respective lines. If the House agreed to this clause the railway companies would be obliged to have smoking carriages attached to every train passing along their lines. This would lead to great expense, and would not be just to the companies.

MR. LAING

thought that in the case of the main lines of the principal companies the custom already prevailed of providing smoking carriages; but on many of the cross country lines they were unnecessary; and it would be a cause of great expense if all companies, under all circumstances, were compelled to find special and separate accommodation for smokers. He thought that the better way would be for the House to leave the whole subject to be regulated by railway directors, who would, he was sure, do that which was most acceptable to the great body of the passengers using their lines.

MR. NEATE

said, he was decidedly in favour of the clause, for he considered the proposal to provide smoking carriages on railway trains would be a great convenience, not only to those who desired to enjoy smoking, but to those who were opposed to its indulgence. He thought that they were by no means justified in leaving this matter in the hands of railway directors, who certainly were seldom distinguished by the desire to accommodate the public. The example of the Belgian and French railway companies in the providing of smoking carriages had hitherto been thrown away upon English directors, and they had been generally deaf to the repealed representations both of individuals and of the public Press. He could see no sort of objection to the adoption of the clause.

MR. GILPIN

opposed the clause, and said, that the principle of having smoking carriages upon the Belgian and other foreign lines had not given such general satisfaction as was supposed. He had been as much inconvenienced by smoking in carnages which were not set apart for that purpose as in those that were. He thought that the matter should be left in the hands of the directors of railway companies, and that it would be impolitic to legislate upon this subject in the manner proposed. He objected to the clause altogether. It would lead to great expense to railway companies,; for it was to be recollected that it was not that only one compartment was to be provided for the use of smokers on one particular train, but that each class in each train should be provided with such compartments.

MR. STACPOOLE

supported the clause, and believed that it would be regarded as great a convenience to the non smoker as it would be to those who smoked.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

contended that the connivance at smoking by the directors was a breach of contract with those passengers who did not smoke.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON

said, that the way in which the by-laws of the railway companies in reference to smoking in railway carriages had been systematically violated, and which caused much inconvenience to passengers, made it most desirable that some plan should be adopted by which the inconvenience could be got rid of and thought that the plan proposed by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) was the best that could be devised on the subject.

MR. WHALLEY

also supported the clause, on the ground that it would be convenient to non-smokers as well as smokers.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he thought this clause would tend to prevent smoking rather than to facilitate it, because the smoking department would be reduced to its narrowest limits; and when that was full passengers would be allowed to smoke in no other. He thought that the subject was one which ought to be left to the directors of railways to settle; for he believed that those directors were in the habit of providing smoking carriages when it was proved to them that the passengers using their lines were desirous of having them.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

supported the clause. He could not understand the objection to the proposal before the House on the ground of expense, seeing that there was only to be one compartment for smoking attached to each train. He did not endorse the opinion given by the hon. Member (Mr. Gilpin) in reference to smoking on railways on the Continent. There the existing regulations on the subject were very inconvenient. It occurred in his case that a young gentleman travelling in the same carriage asked him if he objected to his smoking a cigar? He (Mr. Griffith) declined to reply to the question, which had the double effect of making him appear discourteous and of causing the young gentleman to manifest annoyance during the remainder of the journey.

MR. J. STUART MILL

thought that the permission sought to be given to smokers travelling by railways, by the proposal before the House, was right and proper; and, for the reasons which had been already urged by hon. Members who had preceded him, he thought that the permission was especially desirous in the case of passengers going long journeys; but he thought that smoking compartments should be in connection with the hindermost carriages.

MR. LEVESON-GOWER

said, he did not think smokers had justice done to them. He must say, so far as his own experience was concerned, he had never seen any gentleman smoking in a railway carriage who, if the practice were objected to, was not ready to discontinue it. Where that was not the case, railway companies had ample powers to enforce their penalties.

COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN

suggested that, as the question under consideration was one that interested all persons travelling by railways, it would be bettor to leave it to be settled between the Board of Trade, and the directors of railways, who, after consultation, might be able to come to some understanding on the subject. There were difficulties to be overcome, and these would be more easily obviated by such an arrangement than by the adoption of a "hard and fast line," as proposed by this clause.

CAPTAIN VIVIAN

said, he believed that three-fourths of the men who travelled by railway were smokers; and he feared there was too much truth in the representation that any arrangement such as was suggested by this clause was sure to be objected to by Directors, because it touched their pockets. If, however, those who represented the Board of Trade and the railway authorities would take this matter in hand and pledge themselves adequately to meet the convenience of the public, he would recommend his hon. Friend (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) to withdraw the clause.

MR. STEPHEN CAVE

would rank himself among the non-smokers, and he thought there was very considerable inconvenience in the present system. It was unreasonable that people should be put in the position of either suffering great annoyance or appearing churlishly to interfere with the enjoyment of others. He thought the railway companies had been backward in consulting the convenience of the public in this respect. He should be happy to do all in his power to press on railway com- panies the absolute necessity of making some arrangements to meet the public complaints, and if they did not agree to do so, he would next Session support the hon. Gentleman in his efforts to obtain what must be admitted to be a consideration in railway travelling.

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

said, he must altogether decline to leave the matter in the hands of railway directors, and would therefore press the clause to a division.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

The House divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 16: Majority 22.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

then said, that it ought to be inserted in the clause the day when it was to come into operation.

MR. W. B. BEAUMONT moved an Amendment to the clause to the effect that the clause should only be applied by railway companies to their trains, "when so required by the Board of Trade."

Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "when so required by the Board of Trade."—(Mr. Beaumont.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

objected to this addition that it would undo all that had already been agreed to. He had no objection to adopt a suggestion suggested by the hon. and learned Baronet (Sir Column O'Loghlen), that the arrangement should begin on the 1st of October.

MR. LEEMAN

said, that there ought to be some limitation in regard to the application of the clause, for if it was made obligatory in respect to small lines of railways it would operate very oppressively.

MR. LAING

thought there should be a dispensing power in the Board of Trade.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

suggested that the words "unless exempted by the Board of Trade "would meet the difficulty—for this would make it obligatory on railway companies generally to have these smoking compartments attached to their trains, whereas, in the case of certain small railways, the Board of Trade would have an opportunity of excusing them if it thought fit to do so.

MR. W. B. BEAUMONT

then framed his Amendment in accordance with the suggestion, and also added the words "first of October" as the period when the clause would come into operation, instead of "from and after the passing of this Act"—the original words in the clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause amended.

Clause, as amended, added.

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

then moved that the following clause be added to the Bill:— It shall not be lawful for any Railway Company to increase any existing rate or charge, without having previously given three months' public notice of their intention so to do.

Clause (Rates or charges not to be increased without public notice,)—(Mr. Henry B. Sheridan,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. LAING

objected to the clause.

MR. STEPHEN CAVE

also objected to the clause, on the ground that it would throw an obstacle in the way of the reduction of the charges, which would be kept at a higher rate than they would be if the companies could raise them when they found the rate did not pay. The Parliamentary limits could not be exceeded in any case.

MR. LEEMAN

said, it was the most unjust clause ever submitted to the House.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

hoped, under all the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman would withdraw it.

MB. H. B. SHERIDAN

said, he would withdraw the clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made.

Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.