[BILL 121.] THIRD READING. (Hansard, 28 April 1873)

§ SIR HERBERT CROFT
moved that the Bill be re-committed for the purpose of inserting clauses, giving to the Commissioners all the powers now exercised by the Board of Trade and the Court of Common Pleas with reference to railways; and enabling them, in addition, to compel Railway Companies to alter and improve a railway station, or level crossing reported to be dangerous; to properly and efficiently light carriages in their passage through tunnels; and to order inconvenient and unreasonable running of trains to be remedied.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE,
in seconding the Amendment, said, that it was well-known in the House that he was not inclined to grant exaggerated powers to the Commissioners appointed under the Bill; but there were two points contemplated in one of the clauses which the hon. Baronet the Member for Herefordshire (Sir Herbert Croft) had now moved that he wished to commend to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade and to the House. The first was, the clause which related to stations and level crossings and their dangerous character. He had three or four times brought before the House the danger of the station at Nuneaton and the level crossing there, now removed; but it took 10 years, six years after the Report of the Inspector, and cost four lives, before that danger was remedied. He had laid these facts before the House, and the pressure of the House had induced the North-Western Company to undertake the remedy of the evil; but why should six years have been wasted after the Inspector reported that the station and level crossing were dangerous, and why should four lives have been sacrificed before the danger was removed? He thought that the powers granted generally to the Commissioners were ample in other respects; and so he was unable to go entirely with the hon. Baronet the Member for Herefordshire; 1106 but he must say this, that he thought the Bill was deficient in not granting the Commissioners power to command the removal of an obvious cause of danger, after it had been reported by their own officers; and he agreed with the hon. Member on another point. He was of opinion that the inhabitants of a locality, who found themselves injured by the manner in which the trains were run at a particular station, ought to have a locus standi before the Commissioners; and he knew that they had not now a proper locus standi before the Board of Trade, or before the House, because he had been obliged to resort to every possible contrivance in order to obtain a due representation from the inhabitants of his own neighbourhood. With reference to two points, therefore, speaking from personal experience, he recommended these clauses to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade.

§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS,
while far from saying that the recommendations of the hon. Baronet the Member for Herefordshire (Sir Herbert Croft) were not worthy of consideration, objected to "breaking the backs" of the Commissioners by imposing upon them work for which they were not appointed. He would remind the House that the Commissioners were appointed for a totally different purpose for that provided for in the proposed clauses—namely, to carry into effect the provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act as amended. The matters brought under the attention of the House were, however, of great importance, and he hoped the Board of Trade would not lose sight of them.

§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY
supported the Amendment. The powers in 1108 question would not be acquired or exercised by the Board of Trade, and ought to be committed to the Commissioners appointed by the Bill. If they were to have a costly Commission, at all events let them have duties performed which if not undertaken by them, would not be performed at all.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
resisted the proposal to recommit the Bill, upon the ground that it was a measure which dealt only with questions of traffic and not with questions of the public safety. He was very much surprised at the view taken of the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, who was utterly mistaken as to the effect of the Bill. The powers transferred to the Commissioners by the Bill came not from the Board of Trade but from the Court of Common Pleas. However, his principal argument against the proposition now made was, that this was the third reading of the Bill, and there had been ample opportunity at previous stages to propose any such Amendments as those now brought forward. The Bill was from first to last a traffic Bill, and care was taken in it that no confusion should arise between the powers of the Commissioners and those of the Board of Trade.

MR. STANHOPE
was satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and would not move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

§ MR. WHALLEY
expressed his disaproval of the creation of the tribunal with such powers as the Bill proposed.

§ MR. HINDE PALMER
supported the Amendment on the ground that an increase of powers to the proposed tribunal was necessary.