§ MR. CANDLISHcalled the attention of the House to the great loss of life by drowning in the Bute Docks at Cardiff. Though the Notice which he had put on the Paper was limited to the Bute Docks, the facts he had to bring forward applied to the whole of Cardiff harbour. From 1862 to 1868, both inclusive, no fewer than 208 human beings had lost their lives by drowning at Cardiff, which was nearly at the rate of 30 a year. In 1862, 21 persons were drowned; in 1863, 24; in 1864, 30; in 1865, 32; in 1866, 37; in 1867, 34; and in 1868, 30; making a total of 208. In some years every month had its human sacrifices. He would ask was there anything special in Cardiff from which this loss of life must necessarily result? He was informed that there was nothing like it even in London or Liverpool. One of the causes he was told was that there were no railings or chains by the water's edge, and again and again people walked over into the water. Another cause was that in one of the docks there was not a single light; in another the lighting was 739 very imperfect, and in both there was want of watching. Again, the coals shipped there gave off a light kind of dust which lay alike on the water and the ground, and the consequence was that people mistook the one for the other. The question was whether this loss of life was preventible. He did not suppose that any precaution which could be adopted would prevent the loss of some lives wherever there was work and water, but he believed there was a preventible loss here, and that either the Government or the House, which had given power to construct these docks, ought to see that proper arrangements were made for the preservation of life. Many of the accidents, he was told, might be prevented by means of a moveable chain, which could be taken away when men were at their work, and by better lighting; but it was for the parties concerned to devise the necessary preventives.
COLONEL STUARTsaid, he was not prepared to admit, especially upon the very short notice which his hon. Friend had given, the accuracy of the statistics which he had quoted. He could assure the House that the managers of the docks were quite alive to their responsibility, and would be glad to take every possible precaution, for they had always exerted themselves to the utmost to prevent those calamitous accidents which were almost unavoidable in the case of docks. Believing that the hon. Member's Notice referred only to the Bute Docks, he had not made any inquiry as to the other docks, but he found that in 1867 the deaths by accident in the Bute Docks were only twenty-one, of which five took place by day, and three or four were "females" and supposed to be suicides; and as about 60,000 sailors entered the docks in that year, that was an average of about one casualty to 5,000 sailors. In 1868 the average was greater. In consequence of some extensive works which were going on, the number of sailors that entered was only 54,000, but the casualties were as one to every 3,200 sailors. He could assure the House that the proprietors of the Cardiff Docks would be most happy if the Board of Trade would assist them in carrying out measures for the greater preservation of life in future.
MR. BRIGHTThe Question that has been put to me by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) I take to 740 belong rather to the Home Office, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will probably answer it by-and-by. The hon. Gentleman who has brought forward the question of railway accidents appears to me to have based his Question and his proposition on a very insecure foundation, because he asks me whether my attention has been called to the increased number of railway accidents during the last few months, arising from the enormous traffic now carried on by the principal lines. Now, so far as the figures which are before the Board of Trade prove, there has been no increase in railway accidents; and, in fact, if we consider the constant increase in the amount of mileage, and the number of trains run, and of passengers carried, it is quite clear that the accidents have steadily diminished. Now, these are the figures which will perhaps interest the hon. Gentleman—The number of accidents—I do not speak now of injuries to person or loss of life—was, in 1864, 78; in 1865, 92; in 1866, 69; in 1867, 95; and in 1868, 87. These are accidents that were more or less considerable, and the number, though it varies to some extent, does not show anything like the increase to which the hon. Gentleman has called the attention of the House. Well, the passengers killed in 1864 were 14; in 1865, 22; in 1866, 15; and in 1867, 19. Then we come to the extraordinary accident at Abergele of which, I believe the hon. Gentleman himself was a witness, in which thirty-one persons lost their lives, and yet the whole number of passengers killed in 1868 was forty, so that, deducting that accident, the whole number of lives lost during the year besides was only nine, An accident of the kind that occurred at Abergele, grievous and horrible as it is, should not be taken into consideration in looking at the figures and the averages. The number of persons injured stands thus—in 1864, 697; in 1865, 1,034; in 1866,540; inl867,689; andinl868,519. Therefore, the number of persons injured in railway trains in 1868 was lower than in any of the previous four years, and that notwithstanding the increase of carriage and trains, and the enormous increase constantly occurring in the mileage and number of persons travelling. That loss of life, I ought to state, does not include the servants of the companies, nor does it include trespassers, 741 it includes merely passengers who have been killed by circumstances over which they had no control, and, as it may be said, either by accident or the fault of the companies. The House -will see, if I next give them some figures as to the increase of passengers, how much better this account shows than it does as I have read it. In 1857 the number of passengers carried (exclusive of season tickets) was in round numbers 139,000,000; in 1864 it was 229,000,000; in 1865, 251,000,000; in 1866, 274,000,000; and in 1867, 287,000,000. The Return for the last year has not yet been furnished. But, notwithstanding that enormous increase in the number of persons carried, the number who lost their lives is almost stationary; while the number injured has really fallen off. Therefore, looking at the whole case, there is nothing to create alarm in regard to this question. The hon. Gentleman asks whether the Government will do anything more to regulate this traffic, and give greater security to passengers? I think I have shown that there is no diminution of security so far as the figures go; and the hon. Member must know that there has been almost any amount of legislation heretofore with the view of in some way or other giving the Board of Trade power to interfere with the railway companies. My own impression—and it is also the impression of the most skilled and most experienced gentlemen in the Department with which I am connected—is that it would be a very perilous thing, and one not good for the public, to add continually to this interference with railways on the part of the Board of Trade, because you take from them some of the responsibility which ought to attach to them; and you ask me, or those who are assisting me in that Department, to regulate that which no man in it can know one-hundreth part as much about as the actual managers and directors of these railways. But then there comes this other question—What are the inducements which the companies now have to afford security to their passengers and prevent accidents? I will give the House two or three figures that are to me most astonishing, although I had before an opinion that the inducements for the good management of their lines were very great on the part of the companies. By the force of law passengers who are injured on 742 railways, and the friends of those who are killed, can claim compensation from the companies on whose lines the accidents by which they suffered have happened. Now, in the year 1865, the compensation paid for these personal injuries alone amounted to more than £333,000, while the amount paid for damage done to goods in the same year was £115,000. In 1866, the sum paid as compensation for personal injuries was £306,000, and for damage to goods £178,000. In 1867, the compensation for personal injuries was £347,000, and the amount paid for damages to goods £ 166,000. Thus the total amount of compensation paid in each year was—in 1865, £449,000; in 1866, £484,000; and in 1867, £513,000. The Returns for 1868 are not yet furnished, and therefore I am unable to give them to the House. Let the House bear in mind that there is this enormous expense to the companies of more than £500,000 annually, which is equal to a capital sum of from £10,000,000 to £15,000,000. In addition to that there are law expenses to a very large amount. I ask, then, is it possible for Parliament to pass any law which shall add to the force of this great argument acting on railway directors and managers with the view to induce them to give the greatest possible security to the passengers and goods travelling on their lines? The London and North Western Company paid in 1867 not less than £86,000 for personal injuries alone. And, without wishing to give any additional authority to my opinion on account of the office which I hold—for I am now only expressing the opinion I have entertained for years past—I venture to say that the law itself as it stands, without limit of compensation, is a law of very questionable character; and I think, further, that neither the Press, nor juries, nor the public are disposed to give the credit which is due to the managers of the great lines of railway in this kingdom. My own belief is that, owing so much as we do to them, and considering their vast expenditure of capital, with the service they render to the public, we might, on many occasions, take a fairer view of the conduct and the success of railway management than we are accustomed to do in this country. The hon. Member asked, further, whether the Government would not grant a Select Committee— 743
To inquire as to the best method of regulating such traffic, either by the establishment of a separate line for the conveyance of goods, or by a compulsory system of telegraphic signals?I think the hon. Member can hardly suppose that it would be possible for a Committee to recommend, or for Parliament to insist on, the formation of separate lines for the conveyance of goods. As the lines become more and more crowded, in some circumstances it is possible that recourse may be had to other lines. The London and North Western Company have, for some miles, another line out of London; and that example may, perhaps, be followed elsewhere. But when you consider the difficulty which many of these companies are now under in regard to capital, I think it would be throwing away the time and labour of a Committee to ask it to investigate a question like that. With respect to a compulsory system of telegraphic signals, these signals are, I think, universal on the lines; they are, as far as I understand, very complete; and if the Board of Trade or any Act of Parliament were to interfere with a matter so delicate and minute in the management and arrangements of railways as that, I think that in all probability it would do ten times more harm than good. I hope, then, that the statement I have made may not only be deemed a sufficient answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, but may do something to allay the fears which have been created among those who have not examined the facts, and which no doubt give a shock to the nerves of many persons who travel by railway. For myself, I agree very much with those connected with railways when they say that there is no place in which a man can put himself where he can remain so long and go so far without taking any harm as in a first-class railway carriage.
MR. BRUCEIn answer to the appeal of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish), I think I need hardly assure him that the Home Office has no power of direct interference in cases such as that which he has brought under the notice of the House. I have no doubt that the facts he has mentioned will cause the attention of the local authorities of Cardiff and of the proprietors of the Bute Docks to be directed to the many accidents which happen there, whether they are or are not as 744 numerous as he has stated. But under the circumstances it will be my duty to communicate with the local authorities, and to call their attention to the facts to which the hon. Gentleman has referred; and I hope the result will be that steps will be taken for affording security to human life in these docks.