RAILWAYS BILL. (Hansard, 5 August 1844)

§ Lord Wharncliffe
moved the resumption of the adjourned debate on the Amendment moved after the third reading. His Lordship stated, that having fully considered the effect of the words proposed to be inserted by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) he should briefly state the course which the Government intended to pursue. An Amendment had been proposed by the right rev. Prelate near him upon the sixth Clause of the Bill, in order to do away with the compulsory enactment of the Clause upon Railway Companies to run third class trains upon Sundays. Now, the feeling of the House no doubt was this, that although it might not be desirable to compel trains to be run on the Lord's Day, yet that it would be most unjust to the humbler classes of the public if measures were to be taken under this Act which would give an undue advantage to the wealthy—which would compel the convenience of Dives to be consulted, whilst Lazarus was refused permission to travel. Now, there were certainly two reasons deserving some weight why the Clause, as it at present stood, should be made the subject of some consideration. In the first place, when this Act was originally submitted to the Proprietors of Railways they were not led to expect that anything would appear in it under which they would be compelled to run third-class carriages on Sundays; and secondly, there could be no doubt but that if these trains were run, Government Inspectors and other persons must be compelled to break into their day of rest, in order to superintend and regulate the traffic. Under these circumstances, the Government had come to this decision, that nothing should appear in the Act to compel Railway Proprietors to run trains on Sundays; but that if they did run such trains, they should be compelled to afford as much accommodation to the poor as they afforded to the wealthy. They had, therefore, prepared a Clause to be introduced by way of rider to the sixth Clause, as amended by the Bishop of London, by which Clause it would be enacted that whenever any Railway should run any train whatever upon the Sabbath 1721 Day, to such train, or to one at least of any trains so run on the day, third-class carriages should be attached. This Amendment would, he hoped, entirely meet the difficulty which had been raised to the Clause.

§ Lord Monteagle
thought some further explanation was necessary to induce their Lordships to adopt the Bill as now proposed to be altered, instead of in the shape in which it had come up to them from the other House. The question was, whether the accommodation which, under this proviso, the Railway Companies would provide for the poorer class, would be equal in point of accommodation and cost to that which they were required to provide for the same class on week-days? As the Bill came up from the Commons third-class trains were to be provided to run at the rate of twelve miles an hour, so that the proviso now suggested, if in all other respects equal advantages were given, would be an improvement.

§ Lord Wharncliffe
doubted whether it would be competent for their Lordships to make any regulation in the Bill in regard to fares, without infringing the privileges of the other House, by whom a Clause had been inserted to limit the rates of fares. As to the accommodation which the Railway Companies would provide for third-class passengers on Sundays, in other respects he thought they might depend that they would attach third-class carriages on the Sundays of the same description as they were required to provide on the week-days. He objected, however, to making it compulsory on the Companies to provide carriages on Sundays with a certain amount of accommodation, because if that accommodation were nearly approaching that which was given in the second-class carriages, the second-class passengers would go to the third-class carriages; and if, to prevent that, a reduction was made in the second-class fares, and an inferior description of carriage provided, the first-class passengers would resort to the second-class carriages.

§ Lord Monteagle
thought he could undertake to show that there was no question of privilege in the matter. The Bill, as it had come up from the Commons, enacted that the Railways should provide a certain description of third-class carriages at a certain fare, and all he wished was, that the same description of carriage should be provided on the Sunday. He, for one, 1722 could not rely upon the Companies doing this, unless they were compelled by the Bill, because, as the Sunday was the day on which the greatest number of people travelled, it would be the interest of the Companies to drive them into their second-class trains.

The Earl of Minto
suggested that it would be necessary to make an alteration in the Amendment proposed by the right rev. Bishop. This was a Bill that applied to the whole Empire, and it made an exception from the other days of the year of Good Friday and Christmas Day. These were days not observed by the Church of Scotland, and it would give great offence to that country if any Bill were to pass introducing such an observance of those days in that country.

The Bishop of London
would meet the objection by altering the latter words of his Amendment, as follows: "and of England on Christmas Day and Good Friday."

The Earl of Dalhousie
said, as the Bill would stand with the Amendment proposed, every Railway must run cheap carriages at the same fares as those carriages were required to run on week days, with one at least of any trains they might run on the Sunday. He was not prepared, however, to compel the Companies to run the same description of third-class carriages on the Sundays as on the week-days; as the effect would be to induce persons to defer their journeys till the Sundays, and thus, by decreasing the week-day and increasing the Sunday traffic, act injuriously and unfairly upon the Railway Companies. He, for one, had no doubt that the Railway Companies being compelled to provide a particular description of third class carriage on week-days, would, under the influence of public opinion, employ the same kind of carriage on the Sunday; but, looking at the circumstances under which the Bill had been introduced, he did not think they could, with anything like justice to the Companies, make it compulsory on them to do so.

The Earl of Wicklow
did not consider that there was any danger of interfering with the Privileges of the House of Commons in this matter. He thought it highly necessary to the practical working of this Clause, that the poor should not be subjected to higher fares or to worse accommodation on Sundays, than upon 1723 any other day of the week, and therefore, that their Lordships ought to insist that the third class carriages used on Sundays should have seats, and be roofed in from the weather.

The Marquess of Clanricarde
wanted to know whether, under this Clause, it would be competent for the Companies to run third class trains for third class passengers only on the Sunday.

§ Lord Wharncliffe
said, it would be perfectly open for the Railway Proprietors to run such third class carriages if they pleased.

The Marquess of Clanricarde
But would they in that case be compelled to put on third class carriages to some one of the first and second class trains.

§ Lord Wharncliffe
No.

The Earl of Dalhousie
said, by this Clause the Railway Proprietors were not compelled to run any train on the Sunday; but if they did, they must run once a day at least, third class carriages.

§ Lord Monteagle
was not satisfied with the Clause, until words should be introduced which would prevent the poor man from being compelled to travel by the present incommodious third class carriages, which no one had condemned or stigmatised more strongly than the noble Earl himself. He would, therefore, move that words "with such third class carriages as third class passengers shall be conveyed on other days, viz., by carriages covered over and provided with seats," be inserted.

A noble Lord
objected to the word covered, as not sufficiently explicit. A covered carriage meant merely a carriage with a top to it, but it need not have sides.

The Marquess of Normanby
was anxious that the poor who would travel by these third class carriages should be secured the same advantages on Sundays, in respect to the stations at which the trains stopped, as they would have on work-days. He should propose to insert words compelling the trains to stop at proper intermediate stations. His opinion was, that they ought to be made to stop at all the stations.

The Earl of Dalhousie
said, as the Clause now stood, the third class carriages would stop at all the stations at which the other carriages stopped; but he must object to giving more accommodation in this respect to third class passengers than to those who travelled by the first and 1724 second class carriages; and in the next place, if they made the trains stop at every station, they would make all the bookkeepers and other officers at those stations sacrifice their Sunday in order to attend the coming and going of the trains; so that if the noble Marquess's proposition were carried, the number of persons who would be compelled to work on the Sunday would be almost as great as that of those he was anxious to accommodate. Unless in the case of State necessity, they should not interfere to compel people to work on the Sunday.

The Marquess of Normanby
understood from what the noble Lord had said, that he was not now prepared to put the poor persons who travelled on railways on Sundays on the same footing with the wealthier classes who travelled on them. He was not prepared to admit any amendment providing for their accommodation, or any amendment which would tend to prevent the Companies running their trains "right through," without stopping at a single intermediate station at which passengers might choose to alight. Under these circumstances, he proposed that the Clause should be printed, and that the discussion should be adjourned until to-morrow (this day), in order that noble Lords might have time to consider how the Amendments might best be worded.

§ Lord Wharncliffe
objected to any further postponement.

Lord Campbell
moved that the debate be adjourned till to-morrow.

The Bishop of London
objected to any further adjournment, so far as his Amendment was concerned.

§ Lord Monteagle
proposed as an Amendment to the Clause to insert after the word "carriages" the words "with seats and protected from the weather." He trusted their Lordships would agree to his Amendment, as the third class carriages on many railways were no better than cattle-trucks, leaving the passengers exposed to the weather to the great hazard of their health and lives.