QUESTION. (Hansard, 7 May 1868)

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
asked 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 RICHMOND
said, 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 CLANRICARDE
said, 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.