Lords Sitting of 7 May 1868

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Marquess of Salisbury, after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Capital Punishment within Prisons (83); Industrial Schools (Ireland)* (69).
Third Reading—Medical Practitioners (Colonies)* (78), and passed.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS WITHIN PRISONS BILL—(No. 83.)
(The Duke of Richmond)
CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS WITHIN PRISONS BILL—(No. 83.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it had already passed through the House of Commons; and its object was to provide that in future all executions of criminals shall take place within the walls of prisons. The subject had been thoroughly considered by a Royal Commission who had recommended that a Bill to this effect should be introduced. A Committee, of which a right rev. Prelate who presides over the diocese of Oxford was Chairman, had come to a similar conclusion. It was believed that, instead of public executions doing good or operating as a deterrent among criminals, the revolting scenes which, on many occasions, took place before the gallows, especially in the metropolis, did considerable harm, and ought to be prevented. The Bill provided that in future all executions of criminals should take place within the walls of the prisons, in the presence of the sheriff and others who were named, that the prison surgeon should certify the death of the criminal, and that a coroner's inquest should be held upon the body.
  LORD CRANWORTHexpressed his approval of the principle of the Bill, which he hoped would put a stop to the Saturnalia which occurred on the occasion of every execution in the metropolis.
  LORD HOUGHTONalso expressed his satisfaction at such a measure being likely to become law, he having had the honour on several occasions of bringing the subject of public executions, with their evil consequences, before the House of Commons.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

RAILWAYS—ACCIDENT UPON THE BRECON AND NEATH RAILWAY.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEasked the noble Duke the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any Report was made to the Board of Trade of the fatal Occurrence on the Brecon and Neath Railway, on Friday, the 24th of April last, in which Case the Jury at the Inquest returned
  1880
  a Verdict of "Wilful Murder?" It appeared that, on the occasion of the accident, a passenger train—which, fortunately, carried no passengers, although a mail train—ran into a siding in consequence of the points having been displaced, and the result was that the engine-driver was killed. It appeared that the points were usually kept in position by means of a pin, which had, to the knowledge of the servants of the Company, been missing for twenty-four hours prior to the accident. The coroner's jury returned a verdict of "Wilful murder against some person unknown." No notice of the matter had been taken by the Board of Trade which had, in matters of this kind, no proper control over railway companies. The case was one in which companies were not bound to make any reference whatever to the Board of Trade. Had the person killed been a passenger, the Company would have been bound to report the facts to the Board of Trade, and they would have sent down an inspector to make a special inquiry into the facts. But even in that case the Board of Trade would have been powerless; for they could not enforce the recommendations of their Inspector. When this siding was opened, but before it was used, an Inspector was sent down to examine it, and he particularly recommended, indeed ordered, that an instrument called an "indicator" should be placed there. The indicator was accordingly placed there by the Company at an expense of £10 or £12; but it was never used—in fact, he was told the instrument was very rarely used by railway companies except within crowded stations. After all, what a farce it was that the Board of Trade should have power to make Orders which they had not the power to enforce—or rather that their Order having been made and an indicator placed, the Board should have no power to compel the use of the instrument. Such a case as the present was not of very common occurrence, but there were incidents of an analogous kind which happened every day all over the country. The Board of Trade, having no power, escaped responsibility; but it was the duty of Parliament, he thought, to take care that the safety of passengers was properly attended to, and impose that responsibility. The late Duke of Wellington expressed his opinion very strongly that the Government should have more power over railway companies; but the railway interest was too strong for

  1881
  them in the House of Commons. He hoped the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) would see that sufficient powers were obtained in his Bill for the regulation of railways. He had himself given notice of a clause, but it was not sufficiently stringent. He wished to ask the noble Duke, Whether the Board of Trade had received any accounts on the subject to which he had called his attention; and, whether he would lay them on the Table?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was not aware that it had been the intention of the noble Marquess to enter so much at length into the law which at present prevails with regard to accidents on railways: nor did he anticipate that he would refer to the opinions of the Duke of Wellington on the subject of railway management. Had he known such to be the intention of the noble Marquess, he should have been prepared with a more satisfactory answer. The noble Marquess was incorrect in thinking that no notice of this accident was taken by the Board of Trade. On hearing of the accident, the Board of Trade communicated with the Railway Company, requiring them to transmit to the Board every particular connected with the accident. That Report reached the Board this afternoon, and tomorrow an Inspector would proceed to inquire into the facts and causes of the accident.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that as the noble Duke had used the phrase "on hearing of the accident" it seemed clear that no Report was made by the Company to the Board of Trade, in the first instance. The Board heard of it only casually and through the usual channels of information, not on special information from the Company.
  House adjourned at a Quarter before Six o'Clock; till To-morrow, Half past Ten o'Clock.