HL Deb 11 May 1868 vol 192 cc6-14

House in Committee (on Re-commitment) according to Order.

Clauses 1 to 4 amended and agreed to.

Clause 5 (Penalty for Falsifying Accounts, &c).

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, this clause proposed, under certain circumstances, to send Railway Chairmen and Secretaries to prison; and he, as Chairman of a Railway Company, naturally took a good deal of interest in it. The object of the clause was to punish the wilful falsifying of railway accounts, which was undoubtedly a very laudable object; but the clause was not satisfied with carrying out the object according to ordinary principles of law. According to the ordinary principles of English law, a man was assumed to be innocent till he was proved guilty; but the principle of this clause was to assume railway officials to be guilty till they were proved to be innocent. If there was anything false in any of the accounts, balance sheets or estimates of expenditure, most voluminously required by the Bill, and which the chairman and secretary were required to sign, unless they could prove that they were ignorant of the falsity they would be sent to prison. That was bad enough; but it was not all. Not only must they prove that they were ignorant of the falsity, but they were not allowed the ordinary privilege of trial by jury, like all other Englishmen. They must prove this to the satisfaction of the Court which tried the case—that was, in a case of indictment, it was the Court not the jury, that was to decide the question of fact. That seemed to be an injustice; and to show, in this particular case, how great must be the hardship it would cause to railway officers it was only necessary to glance at the extraordinary complication of the accounts required to be produced by the Bill, There were statements of accounts, and balance sheet for the preceding half-year, and estimates of expenditure on capital account for the next half-year, for lines in the course of construction, rolling stock, works not commenced, &c, and if there was a single error in any of these, unless the officer of the company who had signed these accounts could prove that he was ignorant of it, he would be liable to all the penalties of the clause. Two practical evils would arise from such legislation. First, if they attached disgraceful penalties to the ordinary performance of any particular duty they would not find respectable people to perform it. But, in the second place, if such a power were placed in the hands of some particular Judges, it might be attended with the greatest oppression. No one had greater respect than he had for the general character and ability of the Judges of the English Bench; but they were fallible, and might have crotchets. It was just possible that a Judge might be appointed who might have a crotchet against railway officials, and might have a notion that all railway directors were rogues and ought to be sent to prison on the slightest grounds. He put the question to-day to one who was perfectly conversant with the subject—"What should be done if this clause were carried?" and the answer was—"We must appoint officers who know nothing of the accounts, and they can always prove that they are ignorant, and always sign." It would be much better to proceed on the ordinary rules of law, and unless a man was shown to be guilty of wilful falsification he should not be punished. He should move the insertion of some such words as "if he be cognizant thereof."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, the noble Marquess had drawn such a picture of the consequences which, in his own case, might result from the enactment of the clause as it stood that he feared it would be impossible to persevere with it without some alteration. His noble Friend had also suggested the mode by which a railway company might escape the operation of the clause in a manner reflecting credit upon the ingenuity of those bodies generally, and of his noble Friend in particular. If the noble Marquess would allow him (the Lord Chancellor) to suggest an Amendment in the Clause he thought it would meet the object which they all had in view. He, therefore, proposed to alter the clause thus— That if any statement, balance-sheet, estimate, or report, which is required by this Act, be false in any particular to the knowledge of the auditor or officer of the Company who signs the same for the Company, such auditor or officer shall be liable, upon conviction thereof on indictment to fine or imprisonment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he was entirely satisfied with that.

LORD ROMILLY

hoped that the noble and learned Lord would, during the vacation, adopt the views which had been so clearly stated by the noble Marquess, and would not throw upon persons accused the onus of proving their innocence.

Clause amended and agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 14 (Carriers' Act. Rate of Insurance).

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

opposed the clause, not with a view to its ultimate rejection, but to give time for further consideration, so that an amended clause might be inserted.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

thought that the suggestion was perfectly reasonable, especially as the clause in its present shape was acceptable to neither party interested. He therefore proposed on the Report to bring up an amended Clause. He thought that the best plan would be that the words which had reference to silk should be withdrawn altogether from the Bill, and that next Session a Select Committee should be appointed to consider the Carriers' Act. Persons who dealt largely in silk complained that the Carriers' Act affected them very injuriously. It was said that Railway Companies refused in some cases to carry silk at all; whilst, on the other hand, it was said that the claims received from silk people were exorbitantly high. He would on the Report bring up an amended clause, and then it could be considered whether it should form part of the Bill.

Clause negatived.

Clause 15 (Fares to be posted in Stations).

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

suggested the insertion of the word "ordinary" before the word "fares."

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

thought it would be better, instead of adopting the noble Duke's Amendment, to insert after the words "fares of passengers" the words "by trains included in the time tables of the Company."

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

did not see why all the rates at which railway companies carried goods should not equally be published in the same way. He suggested that the clause should be amended with the view of effecting that object.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

pointed out the practical difficulty of publishing a detailed scale of charges for all the various; kinds of goods conveyed by railway. The information so published would, moreover, be so complicated and voluminous, that, after all, the person wishing to send goods by railway would find it the simplest course to inquire of the station master what the charge for carrying them would be.

EARL GREY

, while admitting that there might be some force in what had fallen from the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond), thought it might be advisable to require the railway companies to print a table of their rates for various classes of goods and to furnish copies of it at a small charge to persons applying for them.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

said, the present state of things was clearly most unsatisfactory, as the argument of the noble Duke admitted that the public did not now know what they had to pay for the conveyance of goods of almost any description.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

condemned the proposal to require railway companies to give the rates for the carriage of each denomination of goods to each particular station, as being calculated to throw heavy expense en the companies.

Clause amended by inserting the words "by trains included in the time-tables of the Company," and agreed to.

Clause 16 (Communication between Passengers and Company's Servants).

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

said, that this clause was stated by the noble Duke to be based upon the recommendation of the Report of one of the Inspectors of the Board of Trade. It would be found, however, that the clause went beyond Colonel Yolland's recommendation, and that the Amendment he had now to propose would carry it out much better. Colonel Yolland expressed an opinion that, in all cases where very long journeys were taken without stopping, a communication between the passengers and the guard was desirable and quite possible. He did not, however, express so decided or positive an opinion as to show that his mind was quite made up, and he recommended that the communication should be first applied to express trains and trains going at high speed, and afterwards to others. The clause applied to all trains running more than fifteen miles without stopping; but he was informed that a very large number of trains would thereby he included which could not properly be called express trains. By leaving out the word "fifteen" and inserting "twenty" every train would be included which could properly be called express trains. He trusted the noble Duke would not object to this Amendment, and then if the clause were found to work well it could be extended to other trains.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, he had no objection to the Amendment. Since the clause was framed, he understood it would include some of the short trains running out of London.

Amendment made; word "fifteen" struck out and "twenty" inserted instead thereof.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE moved an Amendment, to substitute the word "prescribe" for "approve" in the words— Such efficient moans of communication between the passengers and servants of the Company in charge of the train, as the Board of Trade may approve, It was highly desirable that the best system should be adopted and made uniform, as otherwise great confusion and variety would exist.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, he could not agree to this Amendment as he did not think the Board of Trade the most proper tribunal for prescribing the best mode of communication between the passengers and servants of the company. At present they hardly knew what was the best system, and if the Board of Trade prescribed a particular system no alteration or improvement would be made in it.

After a few words from Lord CLANCARTY and Lord STANLEY of ALDEIILEY,

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he should like to know from the noble Duke or the Lord Chancellor the legal operation of the clause. If nothing were proposed to the Board of Trade they could not approve of anything, and if the railway company did not propose anything, would the clause remain inoperative? The clause declared that "efficient means of communication" should be provided. Suppose it turned out that there were no efficient means of communicating between the passengers and drivers of the train—would all the companies be liable to the penalty unless the means were efficient? He recommended the noble Duke to re-construct the clause in a more detailed form, because at present it might entail very considerable litigation.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, the noble Marquess would find in the second line of the clause the words "shall provide," and this, he thought, would dispose of the first question raised. The noble Marquess would doubtless remember that the subject of the clause had been under consideration for upwards of a year at least, and that last Session a Bill specially dealing with it had passed through the Commons and very nearly through this House. The matter had occupied his serious attention during the Recess, experiments had been made, and he had every reason to believe that, if the clause were inserted as it stood, the company would be obliged to provide means of communication between the passengers and the servants of the company while the train was in motion, and to provide such communication to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 (Arbitration of Damages), agreed to.

EARL GREY

said, that an existing law required railway companies to use engines consuming their smoke; but it had become a dead letter, because there was no one to enforce it. He therefore desired to insert a clause in this Bill to enact that all railway companies required by law to use engines consuming their own smoke should be guilty of an offence every time their engines should be found emitting opaque smoke, and that the police, borough and county, should be required to summon the offender. As long as only a general law stood on the statute book without any provisions for enforcing it, railways would transgress the Act with impunity, because no private person would take the trouble to prosecute. He had framed his Clauses on the precedent of the Act of 1854, by which it was provided that steam engines should consume their own smoke; and efficiency was sought to be given to that law, making it the duty of the police to lay informations against the owners of every steam engine in cases where the law was not observed. He would begin by moving the first of the series of clauses, of which he had given Notice, and if this were adopted, he would then move the others which would be required to give it effect.

Moved, after Clause 17, to insert the following clause:— If a Locomotive Engine used by any Railway Company which is required by Law to use Engines consuming their own Smoke shall be seen to emit opaque Smoke, it shall be lawful for any Person to lay a Complaint against such Company before any Justice of the Peace acting for the Division of the County or for the Borough wherein such Cause of Complaint shall arise."—(Earl Grey.)

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, he must admit that he had not given sufficient attention to the noble Earl's Amendment; for although it had been placed on the table before Easter it had escaped his notice; but if the noble Earl would postpone his Motion until the Report of Amendments was brought up, which it was proposed to fix for this day week, he would see what could be done to meet the noble Earl's wishes. He thought the clause of the noble Earl required amendment.

EARL GREY

said, he would be content to leave the matter in his hands entirely.

Clause negatived.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 (Arbitrator appointed by Board of Trade), agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

moved the addition of a clause to provide that the Board of Trade should have power to enforce the recommendations of its officers regarding the construction and maintenance in repair of railways. His object was to prevent accidents through neglect to repair the bridges of a line or the permanent way generally.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

thought the effect of the clause proposed by the noble Marquess would be to shift the responsibility in the case of accidents from the shoulders of the railway companies to those of the Board of Trade, a change which would, in his opinion, be very disastrous to the interests of the public. An Inspector was invariably sent down to inquire into the causes of accidents; and though the Board of Trade could not compel the railway companies to pay implicit attention to his directions, the refusal to afford him any facilities he might require in the performance of his duties or inat- tention to his recommendations would tell very unfavourably for the interests of the company whenever any appeal had to be made to a jury.

EARL GREY

suggested that the clause should be so worded as to provide that the occurrence of a second accident after the recommendations of the Inspector of the Board of Trade had been neglected should be taken as conclusive proof that the accident had resulted from such inattention. He thought that the cause of an accident on one railway should be held in law to affect other railways on which similar accidents occurred subsequently.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that would be a dangerous precedent in point of law, because the circumstances might be altogether different on different railways.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

said, he had no desire to make railway companies pay penalties; what he wished was to protect the lives of passengers. If the Board of Trade was powerless in this matter, what was the use of employing and paying for the expenses of Inspectors? In order to save the House the trouble of dividing upon the question, he would withdraw the clause.

Clause negatived.

Clauses 20 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 23 (Special Trains exclusively for Post Office).

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

proposed an Amendment upon this clause, for the purpose of entitling a railway company to remuneration in the event of their having to furnish trains exclusively for the use of the Post Office.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

believed that payment would be provided for under the clause as it stood; but, as it was advisable that no doubt should exist on the subject, he would not oppose the Amendment.

Clause amended, and agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedules agreed to.

House resumed.

On Motion, "That the Report of the Amendments be received on Monday next,"

LORD REDESDALE

wished to call the noble Duke's attention to the necessity of some regulations being made with regard to the number of passengers carried in railway carriages. In the case of all other stage carriages the licences limited the number of passengers to be conveyed, but there were no such restrictions with regard to railway carriages, and the consequence was that they were frequently inconveniently overcrowded, and the passengers were packed like cattle in a pen. Railway companies should also be required by law to provide accommodation suitable to the position of the different classes of passengers they undertook to convey.

Motion agreed to.

The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 95.)