Commons Sitting of 15 March 1871

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Salmon Fisheries* [75].
First Reading—Medical Act (1858) Amendment (No. 2)* [73].
Second Reading—Railway Companies [5], deferred till To-morrow; Bank Holidays* [50].
Committee—Report—Public Parks, &c. (Land)* [25]; Workshop Regulation Act (1867) Amendment* [58–74]; Poor Law (Loans)* [68]; Income Tax Assessment* [64].
Third Reading—Stamp Act (1870) Amendment* [46], and passed.

RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL— [BILL 5.]
(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Hinde Palmer, Mr. Rowland Winn.)
RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL— [BILL 5.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that any man who touched such a great interest as the railway
  2
  system of this country ought not to do so carelessly or unadvisedly, and he felt all the responsibility which attached to him for having brought this measure before the House. But there were other interests to be considered in connection with the subject-matter of the Bill other than those of the railway companies—a strong feeling of doubt had grown up in the public mind of late years whether the security of railway travelling had increased with the facilities for travelling. In time past a temporary thrill of horror ran through society on the occurrence of an alarming railway accident; but as these accidents seemed to be, for the most part, the inevitable results of working great and complicated systems, the painful feelings soon subsided. But a few years since occurred the dreadful accident at Abergele, by which many persons lost their lives in a most horrible manner, and the inquiry which followed was very protracted and searching, and brought public opinion to bear much

  3
  more on the management of railway affairs. The Report of the Inspector of of the Board of Trade upon that accident revealed a state of things which—though he believed it was exceptional—made the public feel that there was much more insecurity in railway travelling than they had before realized. It was shown that there was a siding upon that line of railway which was quite unfit in its extent, and in its means of safety, for the work expected from it; that had it not existed the accident could not have occurred, and that it was being worked by the railway company without the sanction of the Board of Trade; having, in fact, been constructed since the section of the Chester and Holyhead line, on which they were situate, had been opened. But the Report went further, for Colonel Rich, the Inspector, said he feared it was only too true that the rules printed and issued by railway companies to their servants, and which were generally very good, were made principally with the object of being produced when accidents happened from the breach of them, and that the companies systematically allowed many of them to be broken daily without taking the slightest notice of the disobedience. The breach of the regulation which led to this sad accident—namely, shunting within 10 minutes of the arrival of a passenger train, might be observed constantly at stations. This accident, and the disclosures consequent to it, led the public to consider whether they did not, when travelling by railway, run unnecessary risks, originating in three causes—first, the neglect of rules on the part of railway servants; second, the length of hours' service which some companies imposed upon their servants; and third, the want of proper inspection by competent authorities. With reference to the first point—the neglect of rules—an instance was to be found in a collision which happened at the Preston Station of the Lancashire and Yorkshire line. Colonel Yolland, the Inspector, said that no effort was made to have the rules enforced, and that when violations of the rules took place under the eyes, and, indeed, by the order of the officers of the company whose duty it was to see them carried out, it was impossible to avoid the conclusion that the discipline of the company was by no means what it ought to be. In another accident at
  4
  Rochdale, Colonel Yolland, the Inspector, reported that the guard had admitted that he should have looked out for a signal, but that it was not usual to do so; while the signalman said he was justified in shunting across one line or shunting carriages upon it just before a passenger train was expected. Colonel Yolland remarked upon that, that, strange to say, the company's regulations did not prohibit shunting even when a mail train was momentarily expected. With these two instances before them it seemed that on one line of railway at least—but he feared the case was not singular—great risk was incurred by passengers in consequence of official neglect of rules. Then, as to the second point—the overworking of servants. That was a point as to which there were many and great difficulties. No doubt many lines in the country were not financially successful; and as an additional staff of servants naturally meant increased expenditure, such companies were sometimes led, from motives of false economy, to limit the number of their servants, and to prolong their hours of labour. It was a frightful thing that human life should be placed in hourly danger from considerations such as this. Many of those servants were placed in positions of great responsibility in regard to the public safety, and hours were enforced upon them which rendered it almost hopeless for them properly to discharge their duties. Within the last few months several very serious cases of this sort had come to light. An accident occurred on the Caledonian Railway, where two people were killed and 11 injured; and Colonel Hutchinson, the Inspector, reported that the porters' hours were very long, extending in winter from half-past 4 in the morning until the station closed at 9 at night—but that the duties were not severe. In the case of another accident, at Wigan, Colonel Hutchinson reported that the signalmen in one cabin were on duty once every other week for 23 hours at a spell; and after the inquiry arising out of the Sydenham accident Colonel Yolland reported that the guard of the train had sent in his resignation on the ground that the number of hours he was required to work were too long, amounting sometimes for two or three days consecutively to 18 hours a-day. This state of things, Colonel

  5
  Yolland said, was not fair to the man, nor right to the public. Another case occurred last year, resulting in the death of a station-master, named Henry Addey, on the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway, and at the inquest the station-master's wife stated that her husband had sole charge of the station, and had no one to help him; and that though he had applied for assistance, as the business of the station had increased, none had been given to him. That man had sometimes been kept at work until 1 o'clock in the morning, and had to be up again at 5 o'clock, for the line was a single one, and required great attention. He (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) did not wish to raise any feeling against the railway companies; he wanted to point out that these things did exist, that they were prejudicial to the public safety, and that they formed a strong argument for some better system of inspection than now existed—an inspection entirely apart from the actual machinery of railway companies. At present the Government inspection was limited to the inspection of lines previous to their being opened, and to the power of inspecting the permanent way of any line on a representation of the necessity for such inspection being made; but the Board of Trade had no power to enforce the adoption of any recommendation that might result from their inquiries. Even where a line had been inspected by the Board of Trade before it was opened, its system might be entirely changed to one less conducive to public safety, after it was opened, without any reference to the Board of Trade. Remonstrances and recommendations made by the Board of Trade to railway companies were, in point of fact, only valuable as showing that the Board was doing its work, but were not at all valuable as weapons or instruments by which the Board could act upon railway companies. In the case of the London and North-Western, and Lancashire and Yorkshire joint railway station at Preston, Colonel Tyler, one of the most experienced of the Board of Trade Inspectors, said it was hopeless and useless to recommend any partial alteration, and that the Board had often remonstrated with both companies in regard to the general condition of their station. Before the Committee which sat last year Mr. Grierson, of the Great Western Railway, said the block system
  6
  had never been adopted on any portion of that line, in consequence of the recommendation of the Board of Trade. Here was a case in which a grave accident occurred, and which the directors admitted might have been prevented if a certain system of working the lines had been in force. The Board of Trade had recommended that it should be put in force, but months after it was proved that they had never been influenced by the recommendations of the Board, but were still considering the question and acting upon their own ideas. The railway directors, and particularly the directors of old companies, would, no doubt, allege that these were commercial undertakings, and that it would be unjust to subject them to interference and to supervision other than those which were imposed by the Acts which created them. But he did not think that objection of much weight. The case had very much changed since the older companies were created. Let the House look at the enormous increase of traffic on the lines. The Returns showed an increase of 18,000,000 in the number of passenger tickets issued between 1867 and the last Returns—the gross receipts on goods traffic had risen from £5,500,000 in 1849, to £13,200,000 in 1859, and £22,262,000 in 1869. The consequence of this increase of traffic was necessarily a corresponding increase in the number of trains and miles run, and in the danger to the public which was never contemplated when the existing Acts were passed. If such a state of things had been contemplated when the companies obtained their Acts, he felt sure that Parliament would have taken larger powers for the central inspection of railways, and would have provided for greater publicity in regard to the details of railway management. This being so, he thought he now had good ground for saying that some legislation was necessary in the interests of the public. The directors might say that they were bound by their Acts of Parliament to certain fares, and that unless a dividend was guaranteed no one had a right to interfere with the machinery by which they conducted their work. But, although he did not dispute that, he might say that the fares laid down in the Acts were never enforced—that the companies were working at a rate below that which they might work;

  7
  so that that argument did not possess the value some attached to it. In considering the question of railway direction and management through their own boards, the public had a right to ask if it was altogether an impartial direction. Now when, the board had to consider the question of a dividend for the next general meeting, and the interests of the shareholders, they were to a certain extent bi-assed against improvements. The system of railway management was greatly subdivided. The directors were mainly dependent for information both as to the material and the working of the line on the superintendents of departments. These superintendents were naturally anxious to keep down the expenses of their particular departments; and he had been informed by several of them that they had, on the recommendation of the Board of Trade, pointed out certain improvements which would greatly conduce to the working of the lines and the safety of the public; but that, after making one or two suggestions on the subject, they had received an intimation from the secretary, or some other official, that they were beginning to be troublesome and had better not interfere further. That was another argument in favour of the necessity of adopting some system of inspection which would have the power of making public the recommendations made with respect to particular railways, and pointing out those which had been neglected. One thing was quite clear—that, whether the system of management was right or wrong, the fact of the increase of accidents was a sad truth. As traffic increased, accidents increased, but he greatly feared that the precautions did not travel quite so fast as the disaster. He might be met by the argument that, considering the enormous amount of traffic, the proportion of accidents was infinitesimal. The last Returns showed that the number of passenger tickets issued last year was 305,000,000; whereas, in France, in 1869, the whole number of passengers did not amount to 90,000,000. Now, he did not say that the number of accidents was large in proportion to the traffic; but he did say that a large number of the accidents were preventable, and that in such cases companies could hardly be considered as doing their duty to the public if they did not avoid them. He had a table which showed the number
  8
  of accidents which occurred in 1867, 1868, 1869, and 1870. He had endeavoured to separate what he could call "collisions proper"—what in railway phraseology was known by the less elegant term of a "pitch-in"—from other classes of accidents. In 1867 the number of avoidable collisions was 65, and of accidents from all other causes 41—total 106. In 1868 the number of avoidable collisions was 46, and of accidents from other causes 55—total 101. In 1869 the number of avoidable collisions was 77, and of accidents from other causes 47—total 124. In 1870 the number of avoidable collisions was 97, and of other accidents 35. The deaths from the avoidable collisions in 1867 were 27, and from other accidents, 8. The deaths from avoidable collisions in 1868 were 41, and from other accidents, 8. The deaths in 1869 from avoidable collisions were 15, and from other accidents, 17. The deaths from avoidable collisions in 1870 were 62, and from other accidents, 26. The number of persons injured from avoidable collisions in 1867 was 544, and from other accidents, 213. The number injured from avoidable collisions in 1868 was 409, and from other accidents, 156. The number injured from avoidable collisions in 1869 was 923, and from other accidents, 226. The number injured from avoidable collisions in 1870 was 969, and from other accidents, 231. Thus in the course of four years the number of deaths from avoidable collisions was 145 as against 59 from all other accidents. The number injured from avoidable collisions was 2,845 as against 826 from all other accidents. Between the 14th of November and the 16th of December last year the number killed from avoidable collisions was 27, and the number seriously injured was 108. It was not surprising that the public feeling had been somewhat roused on this subject; and the inquiry arose, was it not possible to adopt some plan by which avoidable accidents should be prevented, and which would not diminish the efficiency of the working of our railways throughout the country? And he should like to ask whether anything had been recommended which carried out the idea that greater security might be effected? He could refer to the opinions of those highly scientific and experienced gentlemen, the Inspectors of the Board of Trade, who

  9
  were likely to form more impartial judgments than the directors, founded on a little more knowledge of what was taking place on different lines. These gentlemen had constantly recommended the adoption of the block system, which was a system of maintaining intervals between trains, as the most effectual means of avoiding collisions. In 1868 and 1869 they 28 times recommended the block system to different boards of directors, and in most of these instances they stated that the accidents to which their Reports referred might have been prevented if the absolute block system had been in operation. Whilst in 1870 the Reports showed that they had 25 times recommended it to boards of directors. Colonel Yolland, in one of his Reports, expressed a hope that the Legislature would compulsory introduce the absolute block system on all railways, or empower some public department to make it compulsory. Captain Tyler, Colonel Rich, and Colonel Hutchinson had also impressed on directors the necessity of adopting the block system as the best security against accidents. And the jury appointed to investigate the causes of the Harrow accident expressed an opinion that in all cases an absolute block system should be legally enforced, and that the hours of working of the signalmen were excessive. With regard to break-power, the value and importance of a sufficiency of break-power had been repeatedly pointed out by the Inspectors. They had repeated, again and again, in their various Reports that if a continuous break-power had been in the hands of the persons conducting the train, certain accidents might not have occurred, and that these serious effects might have been greatly diminished. For example, with reference to the collision in Watford tunnel, Colonel Hutchinson said that collision again pointed to the value of continuous breaks; that the servants of the London and North-Western Company in the mail train seemed to have done their duty on the occasion, in promptly using the means they had at their disposal for stopping the train, and yet it ran 870 yards past the distant signal, and 70 past the main signal, with a remaining velocity of 10 miles an hour. As to the Brighouse collision, on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, through which 1 person was killed and 20 injured, Captain Tyler said it was
  10
  fortunately due to the circumstance that the guard was provided with ample break-power that 20 or 30 passengers instead of one were not killed. He (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) thought few people would deny that continuous break-power applied to a train did materially assist those in charge in stopping the train in case an accident should be imminent, because the break could be worked both by the driver and the guard. The directors might meet his argument by saying—"We are aware of the advantages of the block system—we admit that it is a great improvement, but we wish you to leave it to us—we do not wish to have the interference of any central authority, and prefer carrying out the system on our own lines as fast as we can." He (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had no doubt that the directors of many of the lines entertained that opinion, and were setting to work in real earnest. But it was not those lines that his Bill would affect—he wished to touch those lines the directors of which had set their faces against the working out of that system, and he thought some authority ought to be established to enforce the carrying out of a system which must be so greatly to the advantage of the public. To show that railway travelling was not so safe as many people imagined, and that some better protection was necessary for public safety, he would refer to the Report of Captain Tyler on the working of a portion of the Lancashire and Yorkshire line. After pointing out the immense number of trains running over that portion of the line in the course of a day, he states that the following regulation exists:—
  "The signalman will observe that passenger trains are timed to run at intervals of two, three, four, or five minutes; they are, therefore, requested to stop any second train which may arrive within the five minutes, and inform the engine-driver what he has got before him."
  Now, what was the position of an engine-driver with a train two minutes in front of him, and another only three minutes behind him? Why, it was almost impossible to avoid accidents. The public generally were not aware that rules existed allowing trains to run under such perilous circumstances. Captain Tyler went on to say that such a system of working was not safe on any line, but it was most objectionable on a line of heavy gradients, and on which the view was obstructed. That was the

  11
  result of allowing directors to act entirely upon their own views. If any proof were wanting of the advantages of the block system, he would refer to a comparison drawn between some of the lines worked on that system and those which were worked in the present manner. He had taken seven lines which were worked in part on the block system during the past year. The London, Brighton, and South Coast have, with 351 miles of working, had 128 miles of the block system. The number of collisions in 1870 was 2, in which 1 person was killed and 45 were wounded. On the Great Western line, of 1,387 miles, 368 miles under the block system, there had been 1 collision by which 7 persons had been injured. On the London and South Western line, of 657 miles, with 174 miles under the block system, the number of collisions was 1, and 2 persons had been killed and 1 wounded. On the Great Northern line, of 609 miles, with 68 miles under the block system, there had been 2 accidents and 1 person was killed and 5 injured. On the Midland line, of 947 miles, with 85 miles under the block system, there had been 9 collisions, in which no persons were killed and 84 wounded. On the Lancashire and Yorkshire line, of 423 miles, with 27 miles under the block system, there had been 10 accidents, by which 2 persons had been killed and 79 wounded. On the London and North Western line, of 1,477 miles, with 69 miles under the block system, there had been 29 collisions, by which 13 persons had been killed and 310 injured. He would now take two lines, on which there were no blocks, or comparatively none. The Manchester and Sheffield had 333 miles, and no system of block, as far as he was aware, and there had been 2 accidents, with 15 persons killed and 73 wounded. The North Eastern had 1,275 miles, and no block; there had been 11 accidents, with 4 persons killed, and 71 wounded. Let them now turn to the companies in which the block system prevailed. The South Eastern had 327 miles blocked. There had been no collision last year at all. The North Staffordshire had 182 miles blocked, and there had been no collision. The London, Chatham, and Dover had 139 miles, all under block; there had been no collision. The Rymney Railway had 25 miles blocked; no collision. The North
  12
  London, 12 miles long, and blocked, but carrying an immense traffic, had had only 1 accident, in which 3 persons were injured. The Metropolitan line, 15 miles long, and all blocked, had had 2 accidents, in which 18 persons were injured. These statistics would speak clearly enough for the advantages of the block system. He might, perhaps, be told that the traffic on the southern lines was not a mineral, but principally a passenger traffic. That was true; but the passenger traffic on these six lines was enormous. On the six lines 93,299,000 tickets were issued last year, as against 146,000,000 on the other 9 lines. The block system had been shown to be quite possible to work with enormous traffic, and without hindrance to it. He would next turn to an important point—namely, railway compensation, and it came before the Committee last year. The railway directors had issued a circular on the point—which was not altogether accurate—in which they said that this Bill was promoted by the minority of the Committee. It was true that they were in a minority; but the House would remember that after he had given Notice of his Committee, the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Denison) stepped into his place and also moved for a Committee, which was accepted by the Board of Trade, and he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had only been able, in conjunction with the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Hinde Palmer), to move an Instruction to the Committee that it should also inquire into the causes of railway accidents. The Bill, however, was not the Bill of the minority of that Committee, though he had endeavoured to prepare it in a friendly spirit, so far as he could do so consistently with his views on the subject. The Bill had arisen out of the attempts that he had been making during the last three years to call attention to this subject, and he was prepared even if the Committee had not sat, to do what he could to enlist the feeling and interest of the public on the subject. The witnesses who had been called before the Committee were for the most part gentlemen who came there for a particular object; but of 12 called by the railway interest, nine gave evidence in favour of the block system, and only two—namely, the managers of the North Eastern and the Great Western

  13
  —distinctly stated that they had an objection to it. The evidence would leave no doubt in the mind of any reasonable man that, in the opinion of the most competent and practical men, the block system might be adopted with eminent advantage to the public safety. In regard, also, to the system of continuous breaks the superintendent of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway said that he had worked it, and with success, notwithstanding that they were obliged to break their trains up more than any other company. He believed that if the principles of this Bill were accepted, they would make railways as safe as they could reasonably be. Perfect immunity from accident no one expected; but the public had the right to demand that all reasonable precautions should be adopted. In framing the Bill he had aimed at giving a greater amount of power to a central authority; but if the feeling of hostility was too strong on the score of centralization, the Bill was drawn in such a way that the clauses 4th, 5th, and 6th on the subject might be withdrawn. The 7th clause enlarged the powers of inspection which the Board of Trade already possessed in a qualified form, and gave authority to enforce penalties after inspection, with the right of appeal, however, on the part of the railway companies. Power was also given to examine into the question of long hours, but in that particular without authority to enforce penalties, because he held that once public opinion was brought to bear on railway companies through the publication of the results of inspection, these companies would be unable to resist its pressure. He had altered the provision with regard to the tribunal that was to award compensation in order to meet the statements made before the Committee of last year, that the present tribunal subjected companies to grievous frauds, and that in many cases the verdicts were anything but in accordance with the justice of the case. He proposed, therefore, to establish a court of arbitration similar to that which existed with respect to working men's trains on many lines, and he ventured to think that such a court would prove a very successful check to cases of fraud and injustice against railway companies. As a private Member he had endeavoured to grapple with a subject which ought properly to be dealt with by the Government. He had, perhaps, been led into that error by his success
  14
  on another question; but if the Government would only say that they were ready to take it up he should be satisfied to leave the matter in their hands, his only object being that greater security for the public should be provided.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Henry Selwin-lbbetson.)
  MR. LEEMAN, in moving that the Bill be read a second time upon that day six months, said, he would endeavour to remove a very unnecessary degree of alarm which might be excited in the public mind by the speech of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson). He avowed that he represented the railway nterest in the opposition he should offer to the measure. He denied in the strongest manner that the question of expense ever prevented the railway directors from carrying out what they deemed to be improvements; indeed, the fact was that men who had a practical knowledge of the working of railways had been obliged in many respects to disagree with the engineers of the Board of Trade, not one of whom had ever had practical experience of the working of railways. The managers of the different railways had given evidence entirely different in its effect from that which the hon. Baronet had deduced; and were it not that he did not wish to weary the House, he (Mr. Leeman) could show by that evidence that they had instructions from the directors to adopt all such improvements as they believed to be real. Indeed, if railway directors were satisfied of the soundness of the improvements suggested, it would be to their interest that they should be made; for when an accident occurred the companies had to meet the claims, in many cases exaggerated, of the injured and of the relatives of those who were killed. He asked the House to give railway directors—many of whom, like himself, had been connected with railway management for 25 years—credit for ordinary business knowledge, and for common sense. The evidence of Colonel Yolland and Captain Tyler had been referred to. But what were the facts? Why, Colonel Yolland and Captain Tyler when examined before the Committee differed in most important points; and when that was the case the directors felt that they would be doing harm rather than good if they were to adopt many things which

  15
  had been recommended. There was no doubt that collisions had occurred upon the large northern railways; but the House must be aware of the difference between the working of railways in the northern and southern portions of the kingdom. When the hon. Baronet spoke of the 97 collisions or train accidents which had occurred it would have been only fair to give the actual work which was done upon the lines where these collisions took place. A great run had been made against the London and North-Western. That railway had no less than 1,500 miles of line; it traversed districts where the population was most dense; there were necessarily a vast number of junctions; and altogether there was no railway in the kingdom, except a portion of the North-Eastern, where greater difficulty in the working existed. The hon. Baronet had said that 29 collisions had occurred on the London and North-Western in the course of last year. But then it should be remembered that the London and North-Western had from 1,300 to 1,500 locomotive engines, and between 3,000 and 4,000 passenger carriages in daily running. That company ran daily 2,000 coal waggons of its own, not to speak of the waggons belonging to coal-owners and other companies, about 2,000 cattle waggons, 20,000 goods waggons; a total of 30,000 vehicles. The engines of that railway had run over 25,000,000 miles in the course of the year, and carried 30,000,000 passengers and 23,000,000 tons of goods and minerals. That being so, and seeing that only 29 collisions had occurred, some of them very insignificant in their character, he thought he might adopt the language of Captain Tyler and say that "it was a perfect marvel." On the North-Eastern there had been 11 collisions. But the House should bear in mind the country through which the North-Eastern passed. It traversed the whole district between the Humber and the Tweed, embracing the great coal districts on the Tees, the Wear, and the Tyne. It had 1,300 miles of line, 800 locomotives; it ran daily 1,500 passenger carriages and vans, 25,000 coal waggons, nearly 1,500 cattle waggons, and 15,000 goods waggons; making a total of 45,000 vehicles. That company ran 16,000,000 of miles, and carried 13,000,000 of passengers, and 23,000,000 of tons of goods and minerals last year. The Midland, to which the
  16
  hon. Baronet had referred, ran over nearly as populous a district as any in the kingdom; it had 937 miles of rail, 1850 locomotives, 1,750 passenger carriages, 1,000 of its own coal waggons, besides those of coal-owners, 1,600 cattle waggons, 16,000 goods waggons, and a total of about 20,000 vehicles. It ran during the year over 17,000,000 miles, and carried 16,000,000 passengers, and yet the number of collisions was only 9. He came next to the Lancashire and Yorkshire, which traversed a district reminding one of a great beehive, embracing Liverpool, Manchester, and several of the large towns of the West Riding, and on which there was a junction at almost every two or three miles. It had a mileage of 428 miles, it possessed 483 locomotive engines, 1,600 passenger carriages, 790 coal waggons, 13,000 goods waggons, and 1,100 cattle waggons. The distance traversed was 9,500,000 miles, the number of passengers carried was 23,000,000, and the quantity of merchandise carried amounted to almost the same number of tons. The number of collisions on the line was 12. The Caledonian traversed the great line between Carlisle and Edinburgh and Glasgow, and ran over 8,500,000 miles annually, and carried 9,000,000 passengers, and almost as many tons of goods, and upon it there were 9 accidents. The North-British ran about 6,000,000 of miles annually, and upon it the number of collisions was 5. On the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire line there were 3 collisions, there being nearly 4,000,000 miles traversed annually, and the number of passengers carried being about 7,000,000. The Great Western, which traversed, the West of England and part of South Wales, had 738 miles of railway, it ran over 16,000,000 miles, and carried 23,000,000 passengers, and there were 3 collisions. The Great Northern ran through a great mineral district of Yorkshire, and took the towns of Leeds and Bradford. It ran over 9,000,000 miles in the year, and carried 9,500,000 passengers, and many millions of tons of goods, and the entire number of collisions on the Great Northern Railway was 3. The South-Western had 657 miles of railway. It ran over 6,500,000 miles annually, and carried 13,000,000 passengers, and the number of accidents was 2. He was anxious to put the House in possession of these

  17
  statistics, inasmuch as the railways he had quoted constituted 10 of the great lines on which the collisions complained of had taken place during the last year.
  MR. BASSsaid, that the hon. Member had not mentioned the number of collisions of goods trains.
  MR. LEEMANsaid, that was not the point to which the attention of the House had been directed. What they were considering was the safety of human life and limb. They were not considering the safety of the barrels of beer which were transported in such quantities from the hon. Member's brewery at Burton. The hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had called attention to the loss of lives of railway servants, and to their long hours of working. He (Mr. Leeman) denied the allegation that the companies were indifferent as to the safety of their servants, and those who had inquired into the matter had found how devoid of weight was that charge. The hon. Baronet had said that on the 4,000 miles of the southern lines there had not been the proportion of accidents which there were on the northern lines. But that was easily accounted for when the relative amount of traffic was considered. There was not the same amount of traffic, and consequently there was not the same difficulty in working the lines. When the hon. Baronet told the House that the various officials called before the Committee of last year were one and all in favour of adopting the block system—for that was the impression sought to be produced on the House—he forgot to state the fact that not one of them, not even Captain Tyler himself, but was obliged to admit that the block system was one about which differences of opinion existed among the most experienced of the railway managers. If the 4th, 5th, and 6th clauses of the Bill of the hon. Baronet, which seemed to have been introduced by way of a sop to the Board of Trade, were to pass into law the result would be that the officers of the Board of Trade would be empowered to enter and examine the premises of the railway companies throughout the entire kingdom, and that men in the position of Colonel Yolland and Captain Tyler would have authority to make changes in the construction of all their locomotives and rolling stock, the products of the genius of such men as Stephenson. [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON was understood to say that it was not his intention
  18
  to press the clauses to which the hon. Gentleman referred.] If the clauses were to be withdrawn, and they had been proposed merely in a speculative spirit, then there was, he maintained, great reason why hon. Members should look with suspicion on the remaining portions of the Bill—such as the clauses which would enforce on all railway companies the adoption of the block system, whether they deemed it to be right or wrong. The short answer of those companies, he might add, to the measure of the hon. Baronet was that if, as the result of the labours of the Select Committee of last year, which had conducted its inquiry into the subject with the greatest impartiality, it was thought expedient that legislation should follow, that legislation ought to have proceeded from the Board of Trade and the Government, and not from a private Member, who sought to carry out the views of what was, after all, only a minority of the Committee which had considered the question. The railway companies asked for nothing but that in favour of which the Committee itself had reported. The railway interest was prepared to adopt the Report of the Committee, but the hon. Baronet wished them to put in action the opinion of the minority. He thought the hon. Baronet had formed very extraordinary ideas as to the evidence of witnesses with reference to the working of the block system. Mr. Allport, the manager of the Midland Railway, had probably had the greatest experience of any man in England on these subjects. That gentleman, in the course of his evidence, did not deny that the block system had its advantages as applied to main lines; but he denied that it could be put into operation over every branch line of railway. Both Mr. Allport and Mr. Cawkwell, the manager of the London and North Western, would tell the hon. Baronet that it would be impossible to adopt the system indiscriminately. He was surprised that the hon. Baronet should suppose that Mr. Cawkwell was in favour of the block system as it had been advocated by the hon. Baronet. Mr. Allport, no doubt, admitted that, to some extent, it would diminish the chance of accidents; but unless they could make men perfect they must by no means imagine that the adoption of the block system would prevent accidents; and if, under it, accidents did happen, they would probably be frequently of a worse

  19
  character. No doubt the adoption of the block system would cause additional cost to railway companies; but he (Mr. Leeman) denied that it was the habit of directors to refuse to spend money for the purpose of promoting the security of the public.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that witnesses brought in favour of the railway companies admitted the advantages of the block system.
  MR. LEEMANcontended that the universal application of the block system, which the hon. Baronet sought to enforce, was not desirable, and that in some cases it would be impracticable. A very strong objection existed to lodging in the hands of the Board of Trade such exclusive powers as those with which it had been proposed to invest them. Mr. Allport, in his evidence, also said that he differed from many of the opinions of the Board of Trade Inspectors; and added, that he could mention several accidents—and serious one, too—which had taken place where the block system was in operation. It might be very well for Parliament to order railway companies to adopt particular systems, but would the Board of Trade and Parliament take the responsibility that might result, or was all the responsibility still to be left upon the companies? Even the Board of Trade Inspectors did not agree among themselves. Colonel Yolland had stated his opinion to be entirely in accordance with that of the hon. Baronet who had brought in this measure—that the adoption of the block system should be forced upon railway companies; whilst Captain Tyler said that he did not agree with Colonel Yolland. Caplain Tyler said that he did not agree that it was desirable that the Board of Trade should have power to compel railway companies to do certain things. He thought that this would have a very mischievous tendency; that it would take responsibility from the directors and put it upon the Board of Trade. Captain Tyler further said that he was quite opposed to the principle of the Board of Trade saying to a railway company—"You shall do this, or you must not do that." He (Captain Tyler) thought that if the Board of Trade were to interfere in the details of the management of railways, they should take them altogether in their own hands, and manage them; but that anything short of that would be very mischievous.
  20
  In answer to another question, he said that the less they interfered with the working of railways the better, because if they interfered the responsibility must fall upon the Inspector. Captain Tyler conceived it to be an entirely wrong principle that they, who were not daily watching events on each particular railway, should control the management. It would be ridiculous for anybody to interfere with the management of railways unless they had the control from day to day. [Railways required supervision from hour to hour, and from minute to minute, and for anybody who had not the perfect control of the railways to attempt to manage them from Whitehall, would be a perfect absurdity. Having heard such evidence, the Committee, he (Mr. Leeman) need hardly say, declined to report in favour of any such proposals as those which were contained in the Bill before the House. They stated that they had received evidence in support of the block system, as well as in reference to signals and the system of continuous breaks, and concluded by saying that they recommended that evidence to the careful consideration of boards of directors. At that point their Report stopped, and the Government had not since deemed it to be their duty to enforce such rules as the hon. Baronet recommended. The railway companies had, however, paid every deference to the Report of the Committee, and the block system was gradually being brought into operation on all the great main lines throughout the country. The London and North-Western Company had, so far as their main line was concerned, adopted the system very extensively, and the same observation applied to the Midland, the Great Northern, the Great Western, and the South-Western lines. The railway companies, however, objected to the Bill, inasmuch as its effect would be to produce an interference on the part of the Board of Trade, which, according to the evidence of Captain Tyler, was calculated to be most mischievous, while they were prepared to have recourse to the block system wherever, as practical men, they thought it would work advantageously. The same remark applied to a system of continuous breaks, as to the safety of different descriptions of which the greatest difference of opinion prevailed among engineers; and to show that the great railway companies were not opposed to the introduction of im-

  21
  provements, he might state that there was under consideration an invention of a French engineer of a nature entirely distinct from those breaks to which the hon. Baronet had referred, by means of which a more powerful break would be put on the engine itself than any which had hitherto been devised. Any legislation of this character must have the effect of preventing the adoption on railways of mechanical improvements which might from time to time be made. With regard to the third head of the Bill, relating to compensation, the railway companies were perfectly willing to adopt the principle of the Report of the Committee of last year, when a measure embodying it was brought forward by a responsible Minister. The railway interest was one of the most important in the kingdom, involving a capital of £600,000,000. He need hardly apologize for defending such an interest.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Leeman.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. DODSONsaid, they were much indebted to the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex for the care and attention he had devoted to this subject, and for the able manner in which he had brought it before the House. He had, indeed, given them three Bills in one—tria juncta in uno. As to the first part, entitled the "Traffic Regulation," it proposed to compel railway companies to work on the block and continuous break system, and it gave power to the Board of Trade to order railways to adopt other improvements. Now, it was evident that these systems of working were matters upon which the opinions of experts differed. The Railway Commissioners entered into the question most elaborately some years ago, and they decided in favour of leaving to the companies the responsibility of working their lines in their own way; and the Committee of last year were evidently of the same opinion, for having taken evidence, they simply recommend it to the attention of directors. As one of the public, he (Mr. Dodson) entirely concurred in that view, and thought that they must leave to those who had the management of railways the selection of the mode and the instruments by which they
  22
  would work them. It appeared to him that to give to the Board of Trade power to order the adoption of any kind of break, or any other machinery or instrument in the working of railways, must have an injurious effect by relieving the directors from responsibility. And it would certainly place a check upon the ingenuity of inventors, for if any central power had authority to order the adoption of a particular system upon all lines there would not be so much chance as there now was for a new invention. Therefore, he was opposed to the first part of the Bill, even with the modifications which the hon. Baronet was willing to introduce. The second part of the Bill related to the system of inquiries respecting railway accidents. The law on that subject was now very imperfect and unsatisfactory. Under the Act of 1840 the Board of Trade was empowered to call upon railway companies to make Returns of accidents attended with personal injury. Under the Act of 1842 the Board had power to call for Returns of "serious" accidents, whether attended with personal injury or not. By another clause in the same Act it was also provided that railway companies should, within 48 hours after the occurrence of an accident attended with serious personal injury to a passenger, notify the same to the Board of Trade, who might order an inquiry into the causes of the accident. The Board also had powers to inspect railways, and to ascertain before a new line was opened that it was fit for traffic. These inquiries were, he believed, optional on both sides, the Board of Trade not being obliged to institute them, while the railway companies were not bound to furnish information. How imperfect were the Returns of accidents obtained by the Board of Trade was apparent from a comparison between the Reports of accidents annually laid before the House by the Board of Trade and the Reports of the Registrar General. Thus, in 1868, according to the Reports of the Board of Trade, the deaths in England and Wales from railway accidents were stated at 150. According to the Report of the Registrar General the number of persons killed by railways in the same year was 797. Such a statement was of itself conclusive evidence that some amendment was required in the law respecting inquiries into railway accidents. He, therefore, cordially approved of the principle of the second part of the Bill.

  23
  In the third part, that dealing with compensation for accidents, the hon. Baronet had grappled boldly with a very difficult and complicated subject, and proposed extensive changes in the law. As it stood, every impartial person must admit that the law bore hardly on railway companies. Carriers of goods on land had the benefit of a limit of value beyond which they could not be liable, except in the case of enumerated goods, where the consignor notified their character and paid higher rates. Again, carriers by sea could in a measure specify beforehand the conditions on which they would convey the goods and the risks for which they would not be answerable. But in the conveyance of passengers railway companies enjoyed no such protection. Practically their liability was unlimited. They must carry everybody that came—whether a labourer whose life, in a pecuniary point of view, was of little value, or a professional man earning an enormous income whose life was of very great value; and the administration of the law was such that a railway company was liable for every accident unless it could show it to have been unavoidable, or to have arisen from some act of negligence on the part of the passenger himself. The railway companies complained of the administration of the law in this respect even more than they did of the law itself; for juries were disposed to show scant mercy to those whom they regarded as wealthy companies. To meet this state of things a variety of remedies had been proposed. The Royal Commissioners of 1857, among other things, recommended a maximum of compensation according to the class of passengers injured, beyond which railway companies should not be liable. The Committee of last year recommended the establishment of a special tribunal or court of arbitration without a jury to settle these questions, but did not propose to limit the liability of railway companies. Yet it was impossible to close our eyes to the fact, that while the law was hard upon the companies, that which constituted their danger formed, in a great measure, the security of the public against acts of carelessness. Parliament must, therefore, be extremely careful in any changes which might be adopted. The case of workmen's trains had been quoted as an instance in point. But the limit of £100 fixed in these cases as compensation
  24
  was only allowed in return for the obligation imposed upon suburban railway companies of running workmen's trains at specified hours, and at extremely low fares—namely, 1d. per journey for distances of five, six, and in one instance of very nearly eight miles. The hon. Baronet proposed to give the companies the benefit both of the limitation or concession which had been recommended by the Railway Commissioners and of that approved by the Committee of last year. It appeared to him (Mr. Dodson) that in this, as in other parts of his Bill, the hon. Baronet had run into extremes. For his part, if he were to make a selection between the two alternatives which had been proposed, he preferred the appointment of a special tribunal without a jury. Such a court would diminish the expenses of litigation, now very heavy, amounting often to one-fifth or even one-fourth of the amount of compensation awarded. But he would not limit the amount of compensation to be awarded, because the unlimited liability of railway companies afforded a wholesome protection for the public, and kept a sword over the heads of the companies in cases of accidents arising from their own carelessness. He thought, too, that railway companies would find it ultimately to their advantage that claims for compensation should be settled by a Court without a jury, and without a maximum, rather than by a jury with a maximum; for juries would probably very often solve the difficulty by awarding the maximum. Moreover, if no maximum were fixed there would be no necessity to enter upon the consideration of any system of insurance of the passenger by the railway company. To the first part of the Bill, then, he was entirely opposed; as regarded the second part, that relating to inquiries, he entirely approved of the principle of it; and as regarded the third part of the Bill—that relating to compensation—he approved of the principle of it generally, and was prepared to adopt several of the provisions for giving effect to it. But the body that as to carry out both the second and third parts of the Bill was the Board of Trade, and it appeared to him that the Board should propose the machinery necessary for that purpose. If the Board of Trade were prepared to introduce a measure adopting the principles, contained in the second and third

  25
  parts of the Bill, he thought the hon. Baronet might be satisfied and withdraw the measure. But if the Board of Trade declined to take that course, or if their "trumpet blew an uncertain sound," he should be prepared to vote for the second reading, as a protest in favour of the principles contained in the second and third parts, reserving to himself the right of opposing at a future stage the parts of the Bill to which he objected.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, it had been alleged against the present Bill that it had emanated from the minority of the Committee, and discredit was thrown upon it in consequence. The Committee was proposed in the interest of the railway companies, and its inquiries were directed to cutting down the limit of responsibility by the companies to the public; and the present Bill originated from a rider which he (Mr. H. Palmer) had proposed to the terms of the reference, whereby a vast amount of evidence had been elucidated in the course of the inquiry in regard to the precautions which should be adopted by the railway companies in favour of the public. The Committee having been moved for with the view to diminish the responsibility of railway companies in the amount of damages, it was not to be expected that those who suggested the rider he had referred to would be able to carry any strong Report in favour of the adoption of the precautions they deemed necessary; and it was, consequently, a legitimate course on their part to attempt now to obtain something by direct legislation. That part of the Bill which conferred additional power on the Board of Trade in case of railway accidents was most valuable, and would, no doubt, be accepted by the House. Whatever objections might be entertained to it could be urged in Committee on the Bill; but he certainly thought that if the railway companies were to be exempted from full liability in cases of accidents, they must be compelled to adopt necessary precautions for the security of life and person. A very large amount of damages had been awarded as compensation against companies, and he found that in 1868 the amount was nearly £500,000; and in 1869, £469,255. But that was not all, because there was a large amount of destruction and injury to the rolling stock. The House, however, must not take these figures as relating to passengers
  26
  only, because they had relation to injury for goods destroyed on the line. The amount of compensation in 1869 to passengers amounted to £333,000; but though the amount was so large, it furnished no substantial check on the railway companies. These injuries were increasing instead of diminishing. In 1869 the total number of passengers killed was 39 only; but in 1870, there were 90 passengers killed. This increase was the reason why some preventionary system, should be adopted to protect the interests of the public. The hon. Baronet had referred to some mechanical precautions, and particularly to the "block system," the evidence in favour of which was most overwhelming. Though the "block system" did not prevent all accidents, it undoubtedly tended to diminish their number greatly, and therefore it was desirable that all railway companies should be compelled to adopt it. If the Government could not undertake to deal with this question, he thought the Bill should be pressed to a second reading, with the view of having it amended in Committee in the manner which the House thought most beneficial to the public, without neglecting the fair claims of railway companies.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that after the alarming railway accidents of last year, he was not surprised that the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) should have thought it his duty to bring before the House, as he had done in a most candid and public-spirited manner, the painful subject of the largely increased amount of railway accidents. He thought the public had a right to complain of the extent to which railway accidents had increased of late, and were justified in thinking that, with, a reasonable degree of care, they might be prevented. The fact that railway accidents had largely increased during 1870 was one which the hon. Baronet was justified in bringing under the notice of the House, and to which the House, as well as railway directors, were bound to give their best attention. With regard to the Bill, he must say that in the second and third parts there were many matters well deserving the careful attention of the House. In the first part the hon. Baronet, like a bold man, attempted to prevent these lamentable railway accidents by the direct influence of Governmental and Parliamentary interference. That was the portion of

  27
  the measure with which it was necessary mainly to deal. He (Mr. C. Fortescue) was not prepared to preach a doctrine of absolute non - intervention between the House on the one side and the railway companies on the other, for he did not see how it was possible, under present circumstances, for the House to maintain the principle of "peace at any price." They would have to look to their position, and satisfy the public that they had done their best to prevent a recurrence of those accidents which had caused such a terrible loss of life and property. At the same time, the policy of compulsory intervention advocated by the hon. Baronet was beset with dangers and difficulties. Even in a more modified form his proposal would be attended with disadvantages. The Government, acting from the outside upon the management of a railway company, could not obtain that amount of power which would be equal to the responsibility that the hon. Baronet attempted to impose. It was essential that the power should remain with the managing body of these great enterprizes, and interference by a Government Department in the manner provided by the Bill would have the effect of separating responsibility from power. As the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Dodson) had pointed out, an attempt to apply to railway companies such appliances as Parliament might think necessary would be attended with the great danger of paralyzing all attempts to introduce improvements and new inventions on the part of those who were responsible for the management of railways, and if they were told that they must adopt a certain piece of mechanism, he was not without apprehension that in some future accident the public would be maimed and mangled in strict compliance with the Act of Parliament. This was a difficulty of a serious nature lying in the way of the legislation proposed by the hon. Baronet. He did not quite understand why the hon. Baronet had sought to lower the authority of the Committee of last year; but, at any rate, that Committee thoroughly investigated the subject of the "block system," and he wished to place before the House specimens of the evidence given in reference to the proposals embodied in the Bill. Upon this point Captain Tyler, the eminent Railway Inspector, stated, in his evidence before the Committee—
  28
  "I am quite opposed to the principle of the Board of Trade saying to a railway company you shall do this, or you must do that; I think that is a wrong principle. … It would take the saddle from the right horse and put it on the wrong one."
  Again—
  "It is not that I am at all afraid of responsibility, but that I conceive it to be an entirely wrong principle."
  He would next quote the opinion of a gentleman who at one time was an important member of the Board of Trade. Mr. Samuel Laing said—
  "If the Board of Trade can see their way to take the responsibility of saying what shall be done, and therefore assuming the principal responsibility for the safety of the public on railways, I, as a railway director, should not object. …. I should be very glad, indeed, if the Board of Trade would pronounce authoritative decisions. I should feel that I was free from responsibility if I obeyed."
  He would also refer to the evidence of a gentleman, who was not merely an experienced manager of English railways, but who also had a large experience of foreign railways. Mr. Forbes, who was now the manager of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, which had adopted the "block system," said—
  "Having worked in Prussia and in Holland and having seen in many parts of Germany the operation of very stringent codes prepared by the State for carrying on the details of a railway, I am quite satisfied that they do more harm than good. I think it would imperil the safety of a railway, if any Government Department were to attempt to interfere in the details of its administration."
  What, then, did the present Bill propose to do? Clause 4 gave the most unlimited powers to the Board of Trade—but he would not dwell on that point, as the hon. Baronet had signified his intention not to insist on it; but the hon. Baronet asked Parliament to enact, by the aid of his Bill, that the absolute "block system" should be established on all railways subject to a discretionary power in the Board of Trade to excuse its adoption in certain cases. But what did the enactment that railways should adopt the "block system" amount to? It was a provision of as vague a character as if it were enacted that railway companies should carry all their passengers safely. The "block system" to be worth anything, depended on a thousand things—on mechanical appliances, on good regulations, and on careful employés. Captain Tyler, who was a great advocate of the "block system," said—

  29
  "The block system is not in itself a panacea for the prevention of railway collisions, nor is it even the principal remedy required. It becomes valuable only when it is applied under good regulations, with suitable apparatus, in the hands of trustworthy servants, and with the aid of good discipline. It requires also to be employed and properly maintained in combination with many other appliances, sufficient sidings, carefully adopted signal and point arrangements, ample break power, observance of signals," &c.
  Captain Tyler enumerates 15 remedies against accidents, of which the "block system" was only one; and therefore simply to enact the "block system" uncombined with the other remedies would be a mere delusion. It was not his wish to express any doubt as to the good effect of the "block system," for, from all he had learnt at the Board of Trade, from independent authorities, and the evidence of railway managers, he did not question the advantage of the adoption of the "block system" on main or crowded lines. That could not be treated any longer as an open question, and the "block system" ought undoubtedly to be adopted on all crowded and upon almost all main lines. In his opinion, it ought to have gained ground more rapidly than it had on such a line, for instance, as the London and North-Western; upon which, however, having been unfortunately the chief offender last winter, it had at last been decided to introduce the "block system," and he was also glad to learn that it was intended to lay down upon the same railway a fourth line of rail to a considerable distance from London, so as to relieve some of the long traffic. He could not think that the directors and managers of that line had been as prompt as they ought to have been in meeting the requirements of the traffic, with a view to the reasonable safety of passengers. Having said so much of the first part of the hon. Baronet's Bill, he now came to the latter part of it. He would not dwell at any length on the third part of the Bill. He could not say that this was a very happy moment to introduce the subject of the limitation of the liability of railway companies. The present system was undoubtedly not satisfactory; but railway companies would be in a better position to urge their claims in that respect upon Parliament and the public when they had succeeded in providing a greater amount of safety for the public. He was quite willing, however, to say—and he did so
  30
  with all sincerity—that that part of the hon. Baronet's Bill was deserving of full consideration, both as to the tribunal before which the cases should be brought and the limit of the liability. That consideration he hoped to give it. With respect to the second part of the Bill—the liability to inspection and inquiry, such as was necessary for the purpose of securing full and immediate publicity as to the condition of any railway and accidents occurring on it, he thought the hon. Baronet was perfectly right in attaching great importance to that part of the Bill. He (Mr. C. Fortescue) was prepared to say that upon these matters the present state of the law and the powers possessed by the Board of Trade were anything but satisfactory. Companies were only bound to report accidents occurring to passengers, and not accidents occurring to their own servants. He did not see why that legal obligation should not be extended. He thought it would be a most wholesome thing that that obligation on railway companies should be largely extended. They should be required to report every accident of every kind, no matter whether the sufferer from it was a person in their immediate employment or a passenger. The accident in either case might be of a most vital kind in its bearing on the general safety of the line, and it was highly desirable that the Board of Trade should be informed of every one of the accidents on its occurrence. As to the power of inspection by the Board of Trade, they were enabled at any time to inspect a line or part of a line; but their powers did not enable them to require production of the evidence and information which might be desired. He did not see why these powers should not be made more extensive, enabling them at any time to inspect and require the production of evidence. Then, as to the system of inquiry pursued by the Board of Trade when accidents occurred, he was surprised to find that there was no legal power in his Department of requiring the production of witnesses, books, papers, and material objects concerned in the inquiry. He could not see why these inquiries, if they were to be of any use—and they had already been of great use, and might be of much greater advantage—should not be made legal, statutory, solemn, and judicial. Railway companies themselves would admit that these inquiries, and the re-

  31
  commendations which often resulted from them, had been of great use, directing attention to weak points, and contributing both to the interests of the railways an the public. To put them, therefore, on a legal and responsible footing would, he thought, greatly add to their moral weight and power; and the fact of a public judicial inquiry, held by a competent person, the result being at once published to the world, would bring public opinion to bear in a most efficient way on railway companies, and prove as much to the interest of railway companies as of the public. In that direction he was quite prepared to endeavour to travel with his hon. Friend opposite. He was not able to assent to the second reading of this Bill, differing, as he did, from the first part of it; and, however valuable the other portions of the Bill might be for the consideration of the Government, he thought it would be more in accordance with the duty of a Member of the Government if, instead of simply agreeing to them in their present shape, he should undertake to give them his best attention, with the hope of making proposals in regard to the second part of the Bill. The hon. Baronet said he wished to act as a spur to the Government and the Board of Trade; for himself, he might say he was quite ready to make use of that spur, but he must be allowed to act towards the hon. Baronet as the bridle. He believed on these conditions the proposals of the hon. Baronet would be of use, and while quite unable to agree to accompany him as far as he desired to go in the policy of Government and State interference with the management of railways and dictation to them, he was able to go along with him to a very considerable extent in other parts of his Bill, and would give them his best consideration.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that having formerly represented the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman now presided, he wished to make a few observations. The right hon. Gentleman had said that railway companies had been slow in adopting well-ascertained improvements. In that he entirely agreed, and that was the whole question; if they were so slow in adopting the machinery necessary for the safety of the travelling public, there certainly ought to be some method of compelling them to do so. The hon. Member for York
  32
  (Mr. Leeman)—whose re-appearance in Parliament gave additional strength to the railway interest—told them that very few accidents occurred on railways in proportion to their enormous traffic; this he admitted, but the question was whether they could not be fewer; and he must say the examination into every accident showed that there ought to be fewer—railway accidents being generally caused by preventible circumstances. What were the causes of railway accidents generally? Either bad regulations, or good regulations badly carried out. Bad regulations were much less frequent now than formerly, but good regulations were still very often badly carried out. It would be impossible to prevent accidents so long as human nature is what it is; but care should be taken not to over-work human nature; and when they heard of signalmen and others being kept for so many hours continuously at their work, they could not expect the "block system" or any other system entirely to answer. Besides these causes, there were defects in the permanent way and rolling stock, and—especially in the North—the overcrowding of the lines. Parliament was, to some extent, responsible for these things. They were responsible for the enormous capital which had been expended, and for much of the waste of money. The directors were often between Scylla and Charybdis. They had their half-yearly meetings to look to, and they had often to choose between presenting a meagre dividend to their shareholders and allowing a faulty state of things to go on too long. There was also the jealousy of competing lines; for in every railway direction there was what was called a foreign office, where the best and most active of the directors were engaged in looking to what other lines were doing, and taking care they did not trench too much on them; whereas the inferior directors only were employed in the general direction of the line. The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken said he objected to compulsory interference with railways; but the telegraph system had long been enforced on single lines, as was that of facing points, that of communication between passengers and guards, of smoking carriages, and some others. The weak point in the system of the Board of Trade was this, that although before a line was opened they could compel the adoption of any

  33
  improvements which might be thought necessary, yet, when the line was once opened, they had no power whatever. One or two cases had been brought before him, in which it was proved that the railway company ought to make certain improvements in the line with reference to dangerous crossings and dangerous stations; over and over again the company was recommended to make them; he was answered very civilly, but the recommendations were not carried out, and all he could say, which he did frankly, was that unless they were adopted, he hoped, in case of accident, the jury would remember it in assessing the damages. The hon. Member for York had made a very awkward admission. He had told them that several improvements had been carried out since the appointment of the Committee of last year. This showed the advantages to the public of a little pressure from without upon railway companies. With regard to the third part of the Bill, he did not think the limitation of the liability of railway companies would be a good thing. It had been called appraisement of human life according to the valuation of railway directors, which he thought was a very good definition. Shipowners and common carriers were not placed in a more favourable position as the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Dodson) appeared to think, because they were subject to unlimited liability in case of wrong on their own part. He admitted that the tribunal was not satisfactory at present; juries were often very severe on railways, and the damages were excessive. He thought any amelioration of the tribunal would be very valuable. So far he went with his hon. Friend. There were other points to which he might have alluded; but they had been mentioned by previous speakers. He objected to the first part of the Bill; he did not think they ought to interfere so much with the management and details of railway companies. Railways, as he had already stated, were too slow in adopting perfectly recognized improvements, and to that extent there ought to be pressure upon them. He thought his hon. Friend might very well be satisfied with the effect of having introduced this Bill, and the discussion upon it. He should be prepared to vote for the second reading if it were pressed to a Division; but it was quite certain the Bill would
  34
  be entirely changed in Committee, and his hon. Friend would do no good by pressing it further at that moment. The President of the Board of Trade had said as much as could be expected of him under the circumstances; and, so far, he might congratulate his hon. Friend on the result of the discussion—the public would be indebted to him for travelling with greater security in future.
  MR. M. T. BASSsaid, that reference having been made to the tendency of juries to give excessive verdicts in the case of accidents against railway companies, he had heard the opinion of a very eminent Judge, once a Member of that House, that in all his experience, both as a Judge and a barrister, he found that juries were not only just in their intention with regard to the verdicts they gave in railway cases, but that they were also generally judicious; and that when he was leader on the Northern Circuit it was very common for him, being engaged against a railway company, after the case had been stated and witnesses examined, not to trouble the jury with any address, so confident was he in the principles of justice by which they were generally guided. The House had been congratulated on the small number of railway accidents last year, there being only 286 persons killed and 1,239 wounded. He (Mr. Bass), however, did not consider that an accurate Return. According to the Report of the Registrar General, although the Board of Trade only reported 150 people killed by railways in 1868, they figured in the Registrar General's Report at 800. The number reported for 1870 was 286, and, taking the same proportion from the Report of last year, it would increase the number of the killed to 1,500. He (Mr. Bass) should now proceed to show from genuine documents furnished him by servants engaged on railways how those servants generally were treated. The borough which he had the honour to represent (Derby) was the centre of a great railway system, and he felt especially interested in this question. He had been applied to by between 400 and 500 railway servants on the Midland lines to interfere with the directors on their behalf, with a view to a reduction of their onerous labour, and for more liberal wages. They stated that they had themselves applied to the directors, but

  35
  without success. He mentioned their case at the last half-yearly meeting; but, he was sorry to say, with no more favourable result. The men complained of being employed from 12 to 15 hours a day habitually without intermission, excepting the half-hour or so allowed them for their meals. Even on Sunday they were generally employed 14 hours. Some few months ago the drivers on the Midland Railway applied to him to interfere with the directors because they were required to do an amount of continuous labour that was absolutely incompatible with the performance of their duty to the public, to their employers, and to themselves. They were engaged frequently 15, 16, or 17 hours a-day, with an interval of only six or seven hours allowed them for repose. The manager, however, of the railway in question, in reply to his representations, said that the men had nothing whatever to complain of. Not satisfied with this state of things, the men sent him a statement of the nature and period of their services during the previous month and the month before that. It appeared that there were 30 or 40 drivers of the Midland Railway who had worked nearly double the time usually assigned to them. The usual time was 10 hours; but they had worked during the months referred to 19½ hours a-day, and in one instance a man had never left his engine for 29½ hours. Now those facts could not be doubted, for they were taken from the books of the company. How, with such a state of things, was it possible that the "block" or any other system could ensure the safety of the public? The Report presented to the House regarding railway accidents represented the Midland Railway as being free from accidents, occasioning loss of life either of passengers or servants, last year; but, at the last meeting of the company which he attended, he was informed that there had been killed on that railway a man a week on an average last year, and he had since been informed that at one station of that railway four persons had been killed between the 20th May and 4th December last. Now, it was a remarkable fact that not one of those cases had been publicly noticed. The servants were warned against furnishing such information on pain of being instantly discharged. Indeed,
  36
  he had an account given him of the servants that had been discharged because they had given such information, made some complaints against the company, or had gone to a society for the mutual protection of railway servants. When he found fault with the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), for confining his statement of railway accidents to passenger trains, the hon. Baronet said—"Oh, who cares for the casks of beer that were spilled about the roads." But he (Mr. Bass) was prepared to show that there were hundreds of people killed by accidents to goods trains as well as passenger trains, and the widows and children of the unfortunate victims were left without a penny compensation. Now why, he asked, did not the Bill make all railway and other employers liable to compensation to the relatives of the deceased in the case of the destruction of their servants from want of care or caution on the part of the employers? According to facts communicated to him that morning it appeared that one servant of the Midland Railway had been 25 years in their employ at a wretched salary of only 16 s. a-week. Pointsmen were worked 16 hours a-day when trains kept time, and when they did not for 18 or 19 hours. One guard of the Midland Railway, after 24 years' service, had been dismissed for no assigned reason except that he had joined a society that was not agreeable to the management. In the case of the man Evans, who was tried for manslaughter at Warwick about a week ago, in connection with a railway accident that occurred some time since, the jury acquitted him, it was stated, because their minds were influenced in his favour by the fact that this man had been required to work for a great number of hours together, and one time he had actually worked 36 hours at a stretch when a fellow-servant was sick or away. In another case, three men were obliged to do the work of four, each for 36 hours at a stretch. On one occasion a man was stated to have been 66 hours on duty without any interval of repose, and except on Good Friday, when there were fewer trains, was obliged to have his wife beside him to keep him awake all the time, otherwise he should have been unable to perform his duty. How could collisions be avoided—how could fatal accidents be

  37
  prevented when the energies of railway employés were over-taxed to such an extent? The Committee of last year had been referred to; but the bulk of its Members were interested in railways. The Committee consisted of four railway directors, one or two of whom were chairmen, and of two lawyers who had been brought tip at the feet of directors; and therefore it might be reasonably doubted whether the interests of the public were sufficiently represented. It was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to promote legislation on this matter; and if he would not accept the Bill of the hon. Baronet he ought to bring in one of his own, or else a year hence he might have to answer for a hundred preventible deaths. Of all Government Departments the Board of Trade seemed to him to be the slowest, and he was convinced we should never have the railway system placed upon the footing most consistent with the interests and the safety of the public until it was put under a special Department, one which might be constructed in such a way as to avoid the evils of improper patronage, and which ought to be empowered to see that we were treated as well by railways as people were on the other side of the Channel.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade with great regret, considering that he admitted the great increase of accidents last year from causes that were preventible, and yet proposed to do nothing. The Government must be made to bear the entire responsibility, for it was the whole source from which any security to life and property could be derived. He could not understand the argument which said—"We, the Government, will not interfere, because by doing so we shall destroy the responsibility of the directors." He asserted that that was a complete delusion and misconception. Surely if the Board of Trade insisted upon the observance of certain regulations by the railway companies, the non-observance of any of these regulations by such companies must be laid to the responsibility of the directors. He wished he had more time to consider the subject. Short, however, as the time was, he would say one word more. Looking at the enormous number and the frightful character
  38
  of the accidents which occurred on railways, and the utter hopelessness of looking to any other source for a cure, he contended that the whole responsibility of these accidents rested on the Government from this time forth. It was the Government alone that were able to deal with the subject, and if they declined the task they were wholly and solely responsible for every accident that could not be attributed to causes beyond human control. The country was fully alive on the subject, and he hoped the House would express its opinion in such a manner that it could not be disregarded.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, that having been Chairman of the Committee to which reference had been made, it would be his duty to address a word or two on the important question now before the House; and as that Committee had been more or less reflected upon he must say, on their behalf, that a more fair Committee could not have been appointed, nor one with a more earnest desire to do their duty in the inquiry which had been committed to them. There were undoubtedly three railway directors on the Committee; but that was only in accordance with a practice which had grown up of allowing Members of the position of those whose conduct was impugned a seat on the Committee to whom the inquiry was entrusted; but the rest of the Committee were as unbiassed as he was himself. His only bias was that railways should be well managed. He was perfectly certain that the true interests of the public and of the railway companies were identical. The desideratum was that the law should be right and true and fair between the parties. The public could not get any benefit from the punishment of the railway directors. The President of the Board of Trade said the subject should have his best consideration; but in his (Mr. Headlam's) opinion the subject was one which demanded the action of the House.
  MR. W. P. PRICEsaid, the charges brought by the hon. Member for Derby against the Midland Railway Company ought not to pass without some answer. He was not quite prepared to meet them all in detail, because the hon. Member had given him notice of the charges he intended to make only that day, and he refused to give him such particulars as would enable the officers of the company to investigate them. The complaints

  39
  which had been made referred to two distinct classes of servants, the pointsmen and the engine-drivers. He (Mr. Price) did not hesitate to say, in the most emphatic language he could use in that House, that there was not a shadow of a foundation for the charge. [A laugh.] He meant literally what he said, that there was not the shadow of a foundation for the charge made against them. He did not mean to say that engine-drivers might not have been on the engine for 30 hours; but these would be exceptional cases, and the result of accident, and not cases that might be introduced against the Midland Railway Company as the foundation of a general charge.
  MR. M. T. BASSrose to explain. His hon. Friend had accused him of misrepresentation. He had the name of every train, and the list was entirely at his service.
  Ms. W. P. PRICEsaid, it would have been more to the purpose if the hon. Member had made him that offer yesterday, in which case he might have had time to have made an inquiry, and offer an explanation. He (Mr. Price) again repeated that the hon. Member for Derby could not substantiate the charge which he had brought against the company. He held in his hand the correspondence between the company and the hon. Member for Derby, and the hon. Member had been conceded liberty to publish it, provided he published it in its entirety—but probably that was not a satisfactory condition.
  MR. C. DENISONsaid, that as the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would require for reply more than the few minutes which remained, he would move the adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Denison,)—put, and negatived.
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought the House would have done right in adjourning the Debate—
  But it being now a quarter to Six of the clock—
  Further Proceedings deferred till To-morrow.

  SALMON FISHERIES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DODDS, Bill to amend the Laws relating to Salmon Fisheries in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODDS, Mr. LIDDELL, Colonel AMCOTTS, Earl PERCY, and Colonel EDWARDES.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 75.]
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.