Lords Sitting of 27 July 1866

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Fees (Public Departments)* (233); Aberdeen Provisional Order Confirmation* (234); Parishes (Scotland) Act (1844) Amendment* (235); Inclosure (No. 2)* (236).
Second Reading—Straits Settlements* (211); Hundred Bridges (210), negatived; Courts of Justice* (218); Suburban Commons* (222); Inland Revenue* (229); Court of Session (Scotland)* (230); Colonial Branch Mint*(227).
Committee—British Columbia* (213); Land Tax Commissioners' Names* (179); Militia Pay*; Drainage and Improvement of Lands Act (Ireland) Provisional Order* (217); Public Works, Harbours, &c.* (219); Public Works Loans (Ireland)* (220); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries* (239); Foreign Jurisdiction Act Amendment* (165).
Report—New Forest Poor Relief* (203); Rochdale Vicarage* (204); British Columbia* (213); Oyster Bed Licences (Ireland)* (205); Land Tax Commissioners' Names* (179); Militia Pay*; Drainage and Improvement of ands Act (Ireland) Provisional Order* (217); Public Works, Harbours, &c.* (219); Public Works Loans (Ireland)* (220); Foreign Jurisdiction Act Amendment* (165).
Third Reading—Dean Forest (Walmore and the Bearce Commons) * (178); Ecclesiastical Commission* (232), and passed.

PUBLIC MEETING PLACES IN THE METROPOLIS.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, perhaps you will allow me to occupy your attention for a few moments while I make a suggestion to the noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury; and that I

1589
may be strictly in order, I will move that this House at its rising do adjourn till Monday next. It had been my intention to give Notice of an Address to the Crown, the effect of which I will now state. It refers in some measure to the present crisis, though it conveys an opinion and project which I have entertained long anterior to the present time, and before, therefore, the disturbances which have arisen from the attempt to meet in Hyde Park. These are the terms of the Motion of which I had intended to give notice—
"That in the event of the appeal to a Court of Law respecting the right of the people to hold Public Meetings in Hyde Park being decided in the negative, to move an Address to the Crown, praying Her Majesty to take such measures as shall secure to the people one or more open spaces, or covered buildings in or near the Metropolis, for the purpose of political or other discussion."
Now I have long entertained the opinion that open spaces for public meetings should be provided in London, and have had some notion of bringing the subject under the notice of your Lordships; and I think you will see that there is some justice in the proposition. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Court of Law to which this appeal is made decides that the people have no right whatever to meet in the Park; the people will naturally say, "The Constitution recognizes our right to hold public meetings," which it undoubtedly does, "in order that we may assert our privileges, express our opinions, and transact any business which we may think of advantage to ourselves or to the community; but where have we the power to hold such assemblies? You shut us out of the Parks, and there are no other places in central situations where we can assemble without, as you say, committing a breach of the peace." My Lords, it appears to me, therefore, that we are only following the example of the great free States of antiquity in providing open spaces where the people may have the undisputed right of considering all the affairs relating to their own condition, and the state of the commonwealth at large. It may be said that the people can go to Primrose Hill. That may be perfectly true; but the people have no undisputed right of meeting even at Primrose Hill; and I am quite certain, from what I know of the people—and I have had a good deal of intercourse with them for a very long time—that that for which they look is the provision of some place or places where they may have an undisputed right
1590
of meeting without any other appeal than to the authority which has charge of these places. I would take care that these places should be under no sort of official control in any way connected with the Government. They might, however, be provided by and subject to the control of the Metropolitan Board of Works. That Board has power to levy a rate, and might levy such a rate as would enable them to provide places in which the people might meet and deliberate, and of which they might have the use simply upon a requisition to the authorities signed by five or six householders, stating that they wished to hold a meeting at such a place and on such a day. It appears to me that we should really in this way not only give to the people the opportunity of exercising their constitutional right, but we should obviate the possibility of any future disturbances similar to those which have taken place in Hyde Park. If my noble Friend should say that it is inconvenient that I should give formal notice of an Address to the Crown, I will abide by his advice. But it is a subject of very considerable importance, and I hope it will receive the favourable consideration of the Government. May I, therefore, ask my noble Friend to state his views upon this question? I hope he will be able to say—without, of course, pledging himself to adopt any particular course respecting it—that the subject is one of importance, and that he will take it into his favourable consideration.
THE EARL of DERBY: My Lords, I think my noble Friend has exercised a sound discretion in not giving formal notice, or in asking the House in its present state, and at this period of the Session, to sanction an Address pledging the Crown to take any particular course.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: Pardon me. What I proposed was to give Notice of an Address in case a Court of Law should decide against the right of the people to meet in Hyde Park.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Exactly. I think that another objection to the Motion is supplied by the fact that my noble Friend anticipates that an Address should be presented in certain contingencies which may or may not arise.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I proposed to give Notice for next Session.
THE EARL OF DERBY: At all events I think this is a question which it would be very inconvenient to discuss in the shape either of a formal Motion or, as I now

1591
understand my noble Friend, of a Notice of Motion for next Session. He will excuse me, therefore, if I refrain from discussing the merits of so hypothetical a question, more especially looking at the various difficulties which may arise in carrying out his project. However, I have no objection to say that I think it is not at all unreasonable that there should be such open spaces within a convenient distance of the metropolis in which the people may exercise without question an undisputed right of holding public meetings. I say that is not unreasonable—on the contrary, I think it desirable—that the people should have these places; and the subject shall, therefore, have our consideration during the recess. If we see our way to introduce any such measure, in the event of its being laid down, as will certainly be the case, that the public have no undisputed right of entry into the Park, the question of doing so will certainly be worthy of the consideration of the Government. As far as I am concerned I shall be ready to give to such a project the most favourable consideration in my power. At present the noble Earl would hardly expect me to say more than that it is a question worth consideration, and that it does form a reasonable ground of complaint on the part of the people that they have no such open places to which they can resort. Permission to use Primrose Hill has been granted for the present, and I have no doubt that on similar occasions similar permission will be granted; but the privilege to use Primrose Hill rests not on right, but on permission.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY; I am entirely satisfied with the answer of my noble Friend.
Lord REDESDALE: I wish to say a word upon the subject of the Notice which the noble Earl had proposed to give. It seems to imply that, provided it shall be held that Hyde Park is not open for meetings of this sort, it would be desirable that it should be made open for them. On the contrary, however desirable it may be that some place should be secured where meetings of this sort may be held, I think Hyde Park is not a fit and desirable place for such meetings, and I believe that is the general opinion. I wish to call your Lordships' attention to facts which show that this opinion as to the impropriety of holding political meetings in parks is one which is held independently of party feeling, or of considerations arising out of
1592
temporary occurrence. A gentleman well known to many of your Lordships, and certainly to the public for his liberality to the district to which he belongs—Sir Francis Crossley—in 1857, gave a park to the people of Halifax; and in the indenture by which he conveyed that park to the people of Halifax the provision is made that the park shall on no occasion be used for the purpose of a political or any other meeting, nor for open air preaching, nor for the celebration of the anniversaries or other reunions of clubs or benefit societies. Sir Francis Crossley is a Liberal and perhaps an advanced Liberal, and these arc the conditions on which lie made the noble gift of this park, which is of the value of £30,000, to the town. This year a gentleman has given a park to Middlesborough, and again in the agreement under which the park is handed over to the local authority it is provided that it shall not be used for the purpose of a political or any other meeting. I think it is desirable that your Lordships' attention should be called to these facts, which show that parks have been given and are reserved for other purposes than political meetings and open air assemblages of that kind.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYdesired to set himself right with their Lordships by saying that he was extremely averse to the Parks themselves being used for public meetings. What he desired was expressed in the terms of his proposed Motion—that in the event of the Courts of Law deciding against the right of the people to hold public meetings in the Parks, their Lordships should address Her Majesty to secure to the people some open space or covered building for the purpose of holding political or other discussion.

STANDING ORDERS CLXXX., CLXXXIV., CLXXXV.
LORD REDESDALE,according to notice, moved a series of Amendments to the Standing Orders relating to Railway and other Companies. In regard to the first of these Amendments, the noble Lord said that there was a practice among companies to take general powers without specifying what they desired to accomplish, and it was to secure due notice to the shareholders that he moved this Amendment, believing that it was especially desirable that the terms of amalgamation should be made known.
Moved in Standing Order CLXXX., Section 1, Page 27., after the Word ("Intention") in the 13th Line of Section 1. to insert ("And if it be intended to apply for Powers to amalgamate with any other Company, or to sell or lease the Undertaking, or to purchase or take on Lease the Undertaking of any other Company, or to enter into Traffic Arrangements, the Notices shall specify the Company, Person or Persons, with, to, from, or by whom it is intended to be proposed that such Amalgamation, Sale, Purchase, or Lease, or Traffic Arrangements shall be made"): agreed to.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, the object of the second Amendment was to prevent a Company raising additional capital for extensions without due notice.
Then it was moved in Standing Order CLXXXIV., Section 2., Page 37., after the Word ("Capital") in the 4th Line of Section 2. to insert ("or by an existing Railway Company when the Capital to be raised is greater than the existing authorized Capital of the Company"): agreed to.
LORD REDESDALE,in moving the third Amendment, said, it was a fact, established before a Committee, that many Railway schemes were brought into Parliament without there being ls. of capital at the disposal of the promoters. Representations were being made to him constantly respecting such proceedings; and only the other day he heard of a man who was appointed a resident engineer, and who, after working for a year, was dismissed on asking for the payment of his salary. He proceeded against the Company which employed him, and compromised the action for a sum of £300 or £400; but, even then, there was no property that he could get at in any way to secure the payment of the sum he had consented to accept. The whole thing was a sham, and there really was no capital whatever. He believed that if those who were the real way promoters of a line were required to make that a deposit which could be available to satisfy such claims the effect would be to make schemes a little more secure than they are now. He did not believe that such security could be obtained in any way other than that proposed; and, at the same time, he was confident that any sound project would be taken up without prejudice from the requirement of a deposit. It was quite necessary to put a little check upon practices that had brought discredit upon railway enterprize, as well as to save unsuspecting persons from embarking money in unsound concerns.
Then it was moved after Section 2. to insert the following sections: —
That a Statement be inserted in a Schedule to every Railway Bill of the Names, Residences, and Description of the Contributors to the Deposit; and also of the Sums contributed by way of Deposit, and paid by them respectively, amounting in the aggregate to not less than Eight perCent. of the estimated Cost of the Undertaking, and that no Contribution to such Deposit be for a less Sum than £20:
That a Clause be inserted in each Railway Bill in which, after reciting the Fact of the Deposit having been made and the Amount paid as stated in the Schedule, it shall be enacted that so soon as it shall be proved to the Satisfaction of the Board of Trade that the Company has paid up One Half of their authorized Share Capital and has expended that amount on their Undertaking, it shall be lawful for the Company to withdraw the Sum deposited for the Purpose of the Undertaking; and thereupon they shall issue Shares to the Contributors and their Assigns to the Amount represented by their respective Contributions:
That the above Requirements shall not apply to any incorporated Railway Company seeking Power to construct new Works, provided the new Capital to be raised is not greater than the existing authorized Capital of the Company, and provided that the Company is paying a Dividend upon its ordinary Stock. For Companies so exempted the present £50 a Day Penalty shall be retained until the same shall amount to Eight per Cent. on the estimated Cost of the Works, together with Interest at the Rate of Five per Cent. on the Balance remaining unpaid from the Date of the Act to the Date of the Final Payment.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYassumed that the Amendment was intended to apply strictly to railway companies, and that Amendments necessary to restrict its application would be assented to.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he doubted the policy of making these alterations in the Standing Orders at this period of the Session. The evidence given before the Committee showed that such an alteration as was proposed would raise serious impediments to the extension of railway enterprizes. The evidence also showed some of our most useful lines had been constructed and brought into public use under what was called the system of "contractors' lines." With regard to one remark made by the noble Lord he might state that in the case of most lines the engineer—though not perhaps the head engineer—was usually paid every month. The proposed system would put a check upon the making of railways in this kingdom, whereas every foreign Government wished to extend railway enterprize by every means in their power. This was, in fact, a question of State policy. When it was first brought forward, the noble Lord said a change was necessary because the railway speculations had affected

1595
the whole monetary transactions of the country. He should like to know, however, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made any complaints respecting railway investments? Why should a stop be put by that House to such investments, which had proved to be of the greatest utility to the country? Where was to be found a list of railways that had been abandoned? One of the witnesses examined before the Committee stated that, from the introduction of railways to the present time, the Government had never thought it necessary to enforce the penalty for the non-completion of the works, and that only twenty cases had occurred in which the bonds could have been forfeited. Of all the Bills that had ever been passed, to enable private companies to carry out works, the Railway Bills had been the most useful to the country, and he was still of opinion that a great deal of harm would be done if the proposal of his noble Friend were adopted. If their Lordships wished to interfere with the management of railways, they might beneficially do so with the object of preserving the property and the lives of the public. He might, perhaps, astonish their Lordships by stating that, in four out of the six years for which Returns had been made, the number of persons killed and wounded on the railways of this country had been greater than the number of killed and wounded at the battle of the Nile. There had been no communication upon the proposed measure with the House of Commons, which, he believed, would not feel disposed to assent to the proposed alterations in the Standing Orders. To stop the enterprize of the country would be an improvident and an unwise act, and he therefore trusted that their Lordships would at least wait until next Session before coming to any decision on this important subject.
THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that having been a Member of the Select Committee, he wished to make a few remarks on this proposal. When a railway was about to be made it was not sufficient merely to look at the probability of its being completed, but the question should also be taken into consideration whether, when completed, it would afford proper accommodation to the district through which it was to pass. As, unfortunately, he had had some experience of non-paying lines in Ireland, he could say with great confidence, that if in making a line worth £100,000 you put in circulation a
1596
capital of £300,000, it would be impossible to provide for the public the amount of accommodation which they might have expected under a more prudent management. In his opinion the Standing Order modified as now proposed would throw very little impediment in the way of legitimate railway enterprize. In conclusion, the noble Earl said he was quite in favour of the proposal of the noble Lord.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that he entertained the strongest objection to the alteration of the Standing Order which had been originally proposed, but he did not think that in its modified form it was open to the same objection. He did not, at the same time, consider it desirable that it should be adopted without communicating with the other House of Parliament, and he would suggest that the noble Earl should consult Colonel Wilson Patten upon that subject.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the Order was not of that importance which the noble Lord seemed to think. He had not acted without consultation with Colonel Wilson Patten, the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee of the House of Commons; but that hon. and gallant Gentleman recommended him to proceed without communicating with the House of Commons. Several of the Members of the Standing Orders Committee were now out of town; and if the Order were referred to the Commons, it must go over altogether. In the House of Commons it would have to meet with the opposition of certain interested parties, who would set themselves against any proposition of the kind. The amended Order would not affect bonâ fide undertakings. The House of Commons never referred to their Lordships in questions relating to their own Standing Orders. A noble Lord had talked of expense; but the Bills against which the amended Order was directed were promoted by parties who lived by bringing forward such Bills.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he had also been in communication with Colonel Wilson Patten that evening, and he did not seem inclined to support this alteration. He moved, as an Amendment, that before the Standing Order is adopted the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees should communicate with the Standing Order Committee of the other House upon the subject.
Amendment moved to leave out all the Words after ("Moved") and insert ("That the Chairman

1597
of Committees be directed to communicate a Copy of the proposed Amendments to the Standing Orders to the Standing Order Committee of the other House of Parliament"):—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsupported the Amendment of his noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley). His noble Friend the Chairman of Committees had made out no case for the amended Order. One of the lines to which he referred was a very useful one, connecting as it did two great railways. Then as to the London, Chatham, and Dover Company, let their Lordships consider what accommodation to the public it was affording at present. His noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) said that the amended Order would not stand in the way of good schemes; but when he first brought his suggestion forward, he admitted that it would have that effect, and justified such a result by saying that "repose" was wanted. Where was the railway made which had not been of use to the public? It was true that some of the Irish lines had not paid good dividends; but that might arise from faults in the management. There was only one railway in Ireland and one in England which, after being opened for traffic, had been given up. If the House of Commons were not communicated with before the amended Standing Order was agreed to by their Lordships, they would be making a Standing Order of their own House the law of the land, without taking the sense of Parliament on it.
On Question, that the words proposed to be left out stand Part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 24; Not-Contents 12: Majority 12.
Resolved in the Affirmative.
Then the Original Motion was agreed to.

CONTENTS.

Chelmsford, L.(L.Chancellor).

Hawarden, V.

Berners, L.

Bath, M.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Belmore, E. [Teller.]

Hylton, L.

Bradford, E.

Kilmaine, L.

Cadogan, E.

Lyveden, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Monson, L.

Derby, E.

Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

Devon, E.

Romilly, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Silchester, L.(E. Longford.)

Leven and Melville, E.

Southampton, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Wentworth, L.

Lucan, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Normanby, M.

Houghton, L. Minster, L.(M.Conyngham.)

Chichester, E.

Huntingdon, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Romney, E.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.) [Teller.]

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Colville of Culross, L.

[Teller.]

Foley, L.

LORD REDESDALE,in moving the next Amendment, explained that the object of the alteration was to make it clear that only one form of proxy was to be sent out, and that the name of the person to whom it was addressed should be placed on the back with a view to identification, and in accordance with the practice now adopted in the case of all charities.
Then the following Amendments were moved in Standing Order CLXXXV.: The Second and Fourth Paragraphs of the First Section to be amended as follows; the Words proposed to be left out being placed within [], and those to be added printed in Italics:
2nd. That such Meeting was called by Advertisement inserted for Two consecutive Weeks in a Morning Newspaper published in London, Edinburgh, or Dublin, as the Case may be, and in a Newspaper of the County or Counties in which the principal Office or Offices of the Company is or are situate; and also by a Circular addressed to each Proprietor at his last known or usual Address, and sent by Post or delivered at such Address not less than Ten Days before the holding of such Meeting, enclosing a Blank Form of Proxy, with proper Instructions for the Use of the same; and the same Form of Proxy and the same Instructions [and none other], shall be sent to every such Proprietor, and shall be addressed to each Proprietor on the Back of the Form of Proxy; but no such Form of Proxy shall be stamped, nor shall the Funds of the Company be used for the stamping any Proxies [except the Company shall at a General Meeting determine otherwise, in which Case a stamped Proxy shall be sent to each Proprietor, with such Instructions as aforesaid] nor shall any Intimation be sent as to any Person to whom the Proxy may be given or addressed; and no other Circular or Form of Proxy relating to such Meeting shall be sent to any Proprietor from the Office of the Company, or by any Director or Officer of the Company so describing himself.
In reply to Lord STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that proxies were required to be stamped originally, when the fee was 2s. 6d. Now only a penny stamp would be required, and that was a payment which the proprietor of the shares might fairly be called on to make in defence of his property.
Amendment agreed to.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, the object

1599
of the next amended paragraph was to meet the case of proprietors of preference or other shares, who in many companies were prevented from voting at meetings, though questions affecting their interests might be under consideration. They would now be allowed to vote, but their votes would be recorded separately. The paragraph was as follows:—
4th. That at such Meeting the said Bill was submitted to the Proprietors [aforesaid] then present, and was approved of by Proprietors, present in Person or by Proxy, holding at least Three Fourths of the paid-up Capital of the Company represented at such Meeting, such Proprietors being qualified to vote at [the Meeting] all ordinary Meetings of the Company in right of such Capital. The Votes of Proprietors of any paid-up Shares or Stock, other than Debenture Stock, not qualified to vote at ordinary Meetings whose Interests may be affected by the said Bill, if tendered at the Meeting, shall be recorded separately and reported accordingly.
The same were agreed to.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, the next paragraph was intended to prevent companies from dealing with lines of railway at their own will and pleasure. Ordinary arrangements, such as were contemplated by the general law, they would, of course, retain power to make; but when legislative sanction was sought to any special provisions, nothing was more important than that the nature of the arrangements which the companies proposed to enter into should be disclosed on the face of the Bill.
Then it was moved after Section 9. of Standing Order CLXXXIX. to insert the following Section:
That when by any Bill Powers are applied for to amalgamate with any other Company, or to sell or lease the Undertaking, or to purchase or take on Lease the Undertaking of any other Company, or to enter into Traffic Arrangements, the Company, Person, or Persons, with, to, from, or by whom, and the Terms and Conditions on which it is proposed that such Amalgamation, Sale, Purchase, or Lease, or Traffic Arrangements, shall be made, shall be specified in the Bill as introduced into Parliament:
The same was agreed to:
Ordered, That the said Standing Orders as amended be printed. (No. 237.)

HUNDRED BRIDGES BILL—(No. 210.)
(The Earl of Romney.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ROMNEY moved the second reading of the Bill, the intention of which was to do away with local difficulties
1600
occasioned by the size and struggling character of the hundreds, and transferring the charge for the maintenance of the bridge in the hundreds to the county.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Romney.)
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he did not think it was either fair or desirable to transfer a charge which was now borne by a particular locality to the county fund.
THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMobserved, that the noble Earl had not informed the House what other bridges besides those of hundreds would be affected by the measure; nor had any reason been given for the proposal to transfer the charge for the maintenance of the roads over the bridges to a fund other than that which maintained the roads over the ordinary bridges. He could not see that it would be right to make the change contemplated by the Bill.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he did not think any just cause had been adduced for transferring the charge in question from the hundreds to the whole of the county.
After a short conversation,
LORD REDESDALE,not wishing to see the Bill entirely rejected until more information had been obtained on the subject, said he would move the Previous Question.
And a Question being stated thereupon, the Question was put, Whether the said Question shall be now put?
Resolved in the Negative.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he desired some Returns to be laid before Parliament to show what expense was incurred by the Board of Trade in connection with the official inquiry made into the causes of railway accidents. The officer despatched by the Board of Trade to the scene of the accident expended much time in making his inquiry; and although he reported what injury had been done to persons and property, the information he gave very often ended there, and, as far as the public was concerned, the cost of the inquiry was too often little else than money thrown away. The number of accidents which occurred upon the railways was very considerable. In 1859

  1601
  the number of persons killed was 245, the injured 464; making together 709 persons. In 1860 the number of killed was 255, and of injured 580; together 835. In 1861 there were 284 killed, and 883 injured; together 1,167. In 1862 there were 216 killed, and 600 injured; making 816. In 1863, which was the lightest year, there were 184 killed, and 470 injured; together 654. In 1864 there were 222 killed, and 793 injured; together 1,015. The Return for 1865 was not yet published. At the battle of the Nile 218 men were killed and 677 wounded; together 895; so that our railway companies killed and wounded in 1864 more persons than fell in that great fight. Moreover, the official documents stated that the returns of accidents to "servants of the companies or contractors " were not complete, as many of the railway companies, not being required by law to do so, did not report to the Board of Trade every accident that might have occurred to this class of persons. He hoped the new Government would turn their attention to the subject, and, if necessary, introduce an Act of Parliament next Session in order to enforce such regulations upon the railway companies as would guard against accidents. Colonel Yolland's Report showed that accidents often resulted from causes that might be easily removed. Still, however, they were not removed, and the Directors ought really in such cases to be indicted for manslaughter. Thus, Colonel Yolland reported in December, 1864, against the practice of running tank-engines tender foremost, because, he said, in cases of collision the lives of the engine-driver and stoker were much more endangered when so running than they would be if the engines were run with the chimney in front. However, in May, 1865, five months afterwards, Colonel Yolland had to notice the same thing in the West of England. "It is quite impossible," he said, "for men to keep a proper look-out in very bad weather, when travelling at high speed, unless shelter of some kind is provided for them." And in December, 1865, he had to notice the same practice again in the West of England. The prevention of accidents was not a matter to be decided wholly on those economical principles which kept the company from adopting, for instance, inventions for keeping a connection between the engine-driver and the guard. Year after year accidents occurred, and no steps were taken to prevent the recurrence of
  1602
  those which arose from preventible causes. As to the Report of the Railway Commissioners, there was no occasion to wait for that, unless the Commissioners were prepared to point out a remedy. The noble Marquess concluded by moving—
  That there be laid before this House, Return of the Expenses incurred by the Board of Trade (exclusive of the Salaries of Officers of the Department) in investigating and reporting upon Railway Accidents during the Five years ending 1st July 1866: Also,
  Return of any Regulations, Rules, or Byelaws which may have been enforced by the Board of Trade upon any Railway Companies in consequence of such Investigations and Reports.—(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he was instructed by the Board of Trade that it would be extremely difficult to give with any degree of accuracy the Returns asked for by the first part of his noble and learned Friend's Motion; and as to the second part, there were no rules or regulations such as those referred to. Even if such power as was implied by the Motion existed, it would, in his opinion, be unwise to remove the responsibility from the companies, and transfer it to the Government. Everybody knew that Government responsibility meant very little responsibility at all; and if there was a divided responsibility, the railway company, when an accident occurred, would be sure to say that if they had been allowed to take their own course the accident would never have happened. As to the Report of the Railway Commission, the evidence and returns collected by the Commission were very voluminous, and to present it in a perfect form would require very great care and deliberation in its preparation; nevertheless, he hoped it would be in the hands of the public before next Session.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

  RAILWAY TRAFFIC PROTECTION BILL.
  (No. 180.)—(The Chairman of Committees.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that as he had stated on introducing the Bill, its object was to prevent the seizure of rolling stock by the creditors of a railway; and his object in introducing it was, that due notice might be given to those concerned of the proposal to take away part of the

  1603
  security of railway creditors. He classed rolling stock with other species of property and settled property which were protected from seizure, on the ground that great public inconvenience would result if railway traffic were suspended by a seizure at the instance of creditors. As he did not think there was a prospect of the measure being passed by the House of Commons this Session, he moved that the Order to go into Committee be discharged.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid, that the Bill involved a great invasion of principle, because it was proposed to take away almost the only available security upon which a new Company could raise the money which it was empowered by Act of Parliament to borrow. It seemed to him that the making of so great a change would endanger the credit of railway companies, and would render necessary a complete revision of the law affecting them; because it would be useless to give them large borrowing powers if their property could not be accepted as security. It would be necessary to consider, in the event of the Bill passing, whether such charges as rates and tithe rent should not be exempt from its operations. On these grounds, he trusted that the Bill would be reserved for a future Session.
  LORD REDESDALEobserved, that a clause in the Bill provided for such charges as rates.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order of the Day discharged.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, half past Eleven o'clock.