Lords Sitting of 27 April 1874

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Church Patronage, The Marquess of Lansdowne added.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Orders Confirmation * (36); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation * (37); Marriages Legalization (St. Paul's Church at Pooley Bridge) * (42).
Committee—Report—Re-committed—Real Property Limitation * (39); Land Titles and Transfer * (40); Peal Property Vendors and Purchasers * (41).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders * (26), and passed.

PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION BILL.

  SECOND READING POSTPONED.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHrose to inquire of the most reverend Primate. Whether, in view of the Meeting of Convocation to-day, further time will be given for the consideration of the Public Worship Regulation Bill, which stood appointed for second reading on Thursday next. Convocation would sit for several days, and it was a matter of the most vital importance that they should have a fair opportunity of considering this measure. The Bill was one which would not only affect the status and position of a large number of the clergy of the Established Church, but even went so far as to expose them to penalties. This was not the time for entering into the provisions of the Bill, but they were of very great importance, and those who would be affected by them ought to have an opportunity of giving them a full and deliberate consideration. He believed there was a very generally received opinion out-of-doors that the provisions of the Bill had been recommended by the Ritual Commission, and therefore in answer to his request for further time before the Motion for the second reading, it might be urged that the clergy had already had the gist of the measure before them; but he ventured to remind the most rev. Prelate that some of the modifications in the existing law provided by the Bill went far beyond the recommendations in the Report of the Ritual Commissioners. Those recommendations had reference to incense, lights, and vestments; but the Bill of the most rev. Prelate entered into legislation respecting various matters allowed or forbidden by the Book of Common Prayer, and provided various serious forms and penalties on refractory clergy, amounting pro tanto to sequestration. He was sure the most rev. Prelate had no desire that there should not be an ample consideration of the measure by the clergy, and he hoped, therefore, he would accede to his request for further time before the Bill was brought on.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he could assure their Lordships that the noble Duke did him nothing but justice when he gave him credit for being unwilling that there should be any undue haste in pressing on the Bill. On

  1147
  the first reading, one of his right rev. Brethren expressed an opinion that the day originally proposed for the second reading would not give sufficient time, and in consequence of that representation he and his right rev. Brethren agreed to postpone the second reading for two days. He should be very sorry if the clergy had not an opportunity of informing themselves on the provisions of the Bill and expressing an opinion for or against it. The Convocation of the Province of Canterbury would meet not to-day but to-morrow, and would continue its sittings daily till Saturday, which was the usual process. It was his full intention to request that the Members of the Lower House of Convocation should consider, during Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, any matters in the Bill on which they might wish, in a legitimate manner, to express their feeling to their Lordships' House. It had been found that on Fridays the meetings of Convocation were not very well attended, and that to continue the consideration of the Bill till that day would not practically be of any use. Besides, three days seemed to be a sufficient time to enable the clergy to deliberate upon the measure and take such steps with reference to it as they might think right. His remarks had reference to the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury; but their Lordships were no doubt aware that when "Convocation" was spoken of the expression meant something more. No formal act could be done by "Convocation" which had not been considered both by the Convocation of Canterbury and by the Convocation of York; and if there were any difference between the Convocations of the two Provinces there must be further deliberation, and therefore further delay. If the noble Duke wished—but he was sure he did not—that this Bill should be brought fully before "Convocation," a delay of a year must occur. Moreover, as the noble Duke was aware, "Convocation" had no right to pass any formal and binding canon on any subject without a licence from the Crown. He did not think it likely that such a licence would be issued in this case. "Letters of Business" might also be issued authorizing the Convocations of Canterbury and York to go into a formal consideration of the matter. But he apprehended that what the noble
  1148
  Duke referred to was an informal consideration by a representation more or less perfect of the clergy of one of the two Provinces. It was most desirable that there should be such a consideration. He must, however, remind their Lordships that before now the question itself had been considered somewhat carefully in the Convocation of Canterbury, and there was lying on its Table the Report of a Committee to which the question had been referred. In addition to that Report, the Lower House of the Convocation had passed certain Resolutions on the subject. One of these Resolutions referred to the mode in which laws such as those proposed in the Bill should be made, and recommended that they should be made by canon and not by statute. That recommendation would not, however, be applicable to the case in hand, because what had to be dealt with were statutes which no Canon of Convocation would deal with. He and his right rev. Brethren felt obliged most unwillingly to adhere to Thursday for the second reading. They believed they had given sufficient time for the consideration of the question throughout the country, and as circumstances over which they had no control had thrown back the business of the Session, they could not accede to the postponement asked for by the noble Duke.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, he would move the adjournment of the House. The most rev. Prelate said that Convocation could not discuss the Bill; but what was asked for was not a formal expression of the opinion of Convocation—what was asked for was an expression of opinion on the part of the clergy throughout the country on a matter which most seriously concerned them. By the Bill the clergy would be bound hand and foot at the feet of the right rev. Bench. It would be in the power of the Bishops to restrain them from the performance of all their offices and to confiscate their incomes. If a railway company proposed to deal in such a manner with the property of a private landowner, would any one advocate that the Bill should pass without those landowners having time to consider the effect of the measure on their interest and to make a representation to the House? The fact that the clergy were a body scattered all over the country and therefore at a great disadvantage as to the

  1149
  power of meeting and consulting together, afforded an additional reason why, in the words used by a right rev. Prelate on the occasion of the introduction of the Bill, there should he no "indecent haste."
  Moved. "That this House do now adjourn."—(The Marquess of Bath.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he thought nothing could be more inconvenient or more undesirable than that there should be a lengthened discussion on the mere question whether a particular day should be fixed for a second reading. He could not help thinking that his noble Friend who had just spoken made use of stronger language than he could have intended when he alluded to the possibility of the most rev. Prelate proceeding with "indecent liaste." No one could suppose the most rev. Prelate desired to use undue, much less indecent, haste; but he desired to put before the most rev. Prelate one or two considerations the Bill was one of very great importance, not only to a large number of the clergy, but to the laity of the Church of England. It dealt with matters which stirred the feelings of large masses of the people to the lowest depths. Now, though those who had heard the very able speech made by the most rev. Prelate when introducing the Bill, and who had since had an opportunity of examining the measure itself might have a very clear conception of its provisions and be prepared to discuss it, he ventured to suggest that there were very many without those walls who might not be in the same position, and he thought it would be undesirable to proceed to the second reading till the country at large should have had an opportunity of considering and expressing its feelings. Whatever view their Lordships might take of the Bill, he was convinced that unless the merits of a Bill of this kind were thoroughly understood by the country it would be impossible to make its provisions acceptable. He presumed that nothing could be further from any one's mind than that Convocation should deal with the Bill in a legislative character—it was regarded only as a medium for the expression of the opinion of a great number of the clergy. He ventured to express a hope that the most rev. Prelate
  1150
  would see reason to postpone the second reading for a few days.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that at the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he would consent to postpone the second reading for a few days. He hoped, however, that it would be only for a few clays. He trusted that the policy to be adopted in respect to the Bill was not one of inaction and delay. The Bill was one on which it was right that Parliament should pronounce a distinct opinion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Then the Second Reading of the Bill was put off to Monday, the 11th of May next.

RAILWAYS—ADDRESS FOR A ROYAL COMMISSION.
ERAL DE LA WARRrose to move an humble Address to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the working and general management of Railways; to report upon the causes and the best means to be adopted for the prevention of Accidents; and whether further legislation is required the noble Earl said he was aware that in bringing under their Lordships' notice the subject of railway accidents, he was dealing with a question of great importance—one in which very large interests were concerned, and one which had for some time very much occupied the public mind. It must have come to their Lordships' knowledge, from the Reports laid upon the Table as well as from accounts in the newspapers, that railway accidents had lately increased to an alarming extent. The Board of Trade Report for the year 1872 stated that there were 246 railway accidents in that year; that upwards of 1,100 persons were killed, and more than 3,000 persons injured in connection with railway accidents. Now, those figures showed an increase of 44 per cent in railway accidents for 1872 over those which occurred in 1871. Out of the 246 accidents no less than 238 were classed as preventable accidents; so that to say the least this latter number might have been greatly reduced if there had been proper management and proper precautions. He would ask their Lordships to

1151
look back to 1830, when the first railway in this country was opened, and then to observe what an enormous development there had been in our railway system since that date. We had now 15,000 miles of railway owned by companies having, a capital of £560,000,000 and a revenue of about £60,000,000, and the traffic had increased proportionately. Therefore it was not to be wondered at that additional means of accommodation and precaution had become necessary to meet such an enormous development of the railway system, which, of course, was consequent on an immense growth of traffic in goods and passengers. To meet what appeared to him to be the wants of the case, he last Session brought in a Bill—the Regulation of Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Bill—to provide for the adoption on railways of the telegraphic block system, and also that of the interlocking of points and signals. That Bill was referred to a Select Committee, which Committee advised that there should be no further legislation last Session, on the ground that the Railway Companies were doing much for the safety of the public, and would do still more, and that therefore compulsory legislation was not necessary in the case. He ventured at the time to differ from that opinion, and he differed from it now. He differed from it on the ground that the Railway Companies themselves, from their constitution, could not enter into any very large schemes for securing safety to the public travelling on their lines. Railway Directors and Railway Boards represented railway shareholders, and the interests of the public and the interests of railway shareholders were not identical. The Railway Director, representing the railway shareholders, must, if possible, make a dividend. Now, the public interest was that the safety of passengers should be preferred to all questions of dividend. He thought, therefore, that there was ample cause for the interference of the Legislature in the public interest in order to diminish the number of accidents; and he proposed a consideration of the question by a Royal Commission, because that Commission, having considered the causes of railway accidents, could make an independent Report recommending what might appear to it to be the best means of preventing these accidents. The Railway
1152
Companies had immense power, because, to a very large extent, they controlled the commercial traffic and the passenger traffic of the entire country. It was not going too far to say that to a great degree the lives of the passengers depended on the management of Boards of Directors. He was far from saying that Boards of Directors had not done much—he believed they had done much and would yet do much more; but they could not do what the public safety required. When they remembered that during the 14 years, from 1858 to 1872, the traffic on the railways had more than doubled, it would be evident to their Lordships that very much increased accommodation was wanted to supply that traffic. A remedy had been suggested—and he believed it was the best one—additional rails on the great lines. He believed that on some of the large lines additions had already been made; but he did not think it would be sufficient to meet the end desired—he was of opinion that much more ought to be done in that direction. Besides the want of a sufficient number of rails, he believed another source of accidents was the want of proper appliances for working the traffic, such as had been recommended by the Board of Trade long ago. The block system, the interlocking points system, and additional sidings had not been brought into requisition by any means to the necessary extent. Then there were the faulty arrangements for passing from platforms to carriages. In the year 1872 no fewer than 66 persons lost their lives by falling between the carriages and the platforms. Another cause of accident was overworking of railway servants. If their Lordships referred to the printed documents relating to these subjects, they would find a certain number of hours set down as those during which railway servants worked; but if they inquired a little further they would find that nearly double that number of hours were not unfrequently required of these men. Many of these were officials engaged in very responsible positions. In several instances the guards of goods trains had been employed for 30 hours at a stretch. In the official papers, engine-drivers were set down as working from 8 to 10 hours: but there were instances of their being on duty for 14 hours, and even longer, at a stretch. Now, he regarded this

1153
question of the hours of labour as a most important point. The duties to be discharged by these men were most responsible, and they could not be discharged properly if the men were kept at work for an unreasonable number of hours. He might mention other causes of accidents; but no doubt their Lordships were aware of them, and he thought he had brought enough before them to show that action on the part of Parliament was necessary with the view of preventing accidents on railways. He submitted that no better course could be adopted in the first instance than the appointment of a Royal Commission the Royal Commission would have to consider first whether immediate compulsory legislation was advisable. If they should arrive at the conclusion that it was not, they would then have to consider whether additional powers should not be given to the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, or whether a tribunal, such as the existing Railway Commission, should not be established to enforce what might be deemed necessary for the public safety on railways. He thought that the appointment of a Royal Commission would relieve Her Majesty's Government of the grave responsibility now resting upon them. He ventured to think it would be satisfactory to the public, and he ventured also to hope that it would not be unsatisfactory to the Railway Companies themselves.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the working and general management of Railways; to report upon the causes and the best means to be adopted for the prevention of Accidents; and whether further legislation is required.—(The Earl De La Warr.)
LORD HOUGHTONsaid, he hoped he should be allowed to say a few words in opposition to the Motion the noble Karl (Earl De La Warr) had referred to the Bill introduced by him last year to compel railway companies to manage their lines in a manner that he thought would be more conducive to the public safety than the systems under which they were at present managed. That Bill was referred to a Select Committee, which was presided over by a noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset), in whom their Lordships had confidence, and who was not wanting in independence and
1154
judgment. Well, the decision of that Committee was that there should be no such legislation, but that the matter should be left with the railway companies. The noble Earl now proposed a Royal Commission to consider the question of railway accidents and their prevention, and also to enter upon and, he supposed, give some recommendation with reference to the question of compulsory legislation. Railways were great monopolies, and you could deal with them effectually in only one or other of two ways—either by improving the system under which they existed, so as to render them as little noxious as possible, or by extinguishing them altogether. The latter mode of dealing with railways was a question which very much occupied attention last year. Some able papers were written upon it, and persons of considerable authority advocated the transfer of the whole railway system to the State. That was a debateable subject, but too large an one to enter upon in this discussion. He might, however, observe that, apart from all financial, and he might say administrative, difficulties, there would be something extremely dangerous to the mercantile habits of the country if the amount of capital now invested in railways were transferred to the management of the State. The point was one which should receive the attention of any Royal Commission appointed to go into the questions raised by the noble Earl. Now, as to the subject of legislation to compel the railway companies to adopt measures for affording greater security to the lives of passengers, he believed that in the opinion of the best authorities there was no means of safety which appeared acceptable to the great engineers that had not already been adopted or was not in course of adoption on the principal lines. The noble Earl complained that there were lines on which the block system had not been adopted; but that system was rapidly advancing in favour and was being established as rapidly as the circumstances of the various lines would permit of its being brought into practice. Their Lordships would find that on lines where it was at work accidents had occurred through the deficiencies of signalmen—through the momentary neglect of those men. He could assure their Lordships that to work it, a particular class of men was required. It was

1155
only by practice that men could be educated to work it, and the men employed at it must be persons of great temperance, great caution, and great self-command. It was not easy to find such men. The question of brake power was one which was at the present moment engaging the anxious attention of Railway Directors and railway engineers. Of what class of men was the Royal Commission proposed by the noble Earl to be composed? Were the members of it to be amateurs, or were they to be practical men of science? If they were to be amateurs, he did not think their judgment on the matter would be generally accepted as of any great weight, because it was one which they could hardly be expected to understand. If they were to be engineers, they ought to be railway engineers, and these were the very men who, with the Directors and managers of railways, had been and were engaged in considering the various questions which the noble Earl would refer to the Royal Commission. The Board of Trade last year interfered in a manner sufficiently decided by addressing a Circular to the various railway companies. Answers were given to that Circular, and he thought the public must be agreed as to the sufficiency of those answers. Certainly it had struck him that there was an affecting disinterestedness in those answers. [Laughter.] Yes, that had been his feeling when he found the companies which were hardly earning their working expenses had gone on increasing their improvements and sacrificing without regret all hope of profit to the exigencies of the safety of the travelling public. He would tell the noble Earl he was quite mistaken if he thought that the making of a dividend for the shareholders was the prominent motive with an important railway Board. It was not so; and for this reason—that, in order to insure prosperity for a line the Directors must manage it to the satisfaction of the public. It was efficiency and not expense that was the paramount consideration with a Board of Directors. The noble Earl had thrown out that if coercion should be decided on, a Board like the Railway Commission might be appointed to carry it into effect. But it was now admitted that the Railway Commission was nothing more than a Board of Arbitration, and that there were no means of enforcing its decrees.
1156
The decision was in the hands of the English people themselves. If they liked to travel leisurely and stop to eat sandwiches and drink beer, as people did in Germany, accidents might be perhaps altogether avoided; but that was not the way Englishmen travelled, and any coercive action to make companies diminish the speed or the traffic on their lines would be coercive action on Englishmen. If there was to be no hesitation about depriving the people of an immense amount of convenience which they now enjoyed there need be no more crowding at railway stations, and a very quiet system of working the railways might be introduced. That would be one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission if it took into consideration nothing but the prevention of accidents. But the prevention of accidents—however important it might be to achieve that result—could not be the primary motive in the administration of an efficient railway. The primary motive must be the affording as much accommodation as possible to the travelling public with as much safety as possible. The noble Earl said increased railway accommodation had become necessary in consequence of the enormous development of traffic. No doubt that was true; but additional lines were being provided, and would be provided, though he could not expect to see a return of such times as there were 20 years ago, when the late Mr. George Hudson induced three companies to come to Parliament in the one Session with 40 lines involving £10,000,000 of capital. A Railway Commission might recommend any number of lines; but who was to undertake them? Who was to undertake their management? Who was to make them profitable? The increase of the number of their lines of rails must depend on the companies themselves. The Commission could do no more than recommend fresh lines. In such a matter the companies must act for themselves in accordance with what they found to be the requirements of the public. He thought the whole tenor of legislation in this country with reference to interference in railways had been impolitic and unwise. Soon after the establishment of railways, Sir Robert Peel formed a Railway Board, of which Lord Dalhousie was chairman. It had been very much what the Railway Commission was now, and it had died out.

1157
The Board of Trade, by its Circular last year, had done considerable harm in giving such prominence to the subject of accidents on railways. In the newspapers every morning were accounts of railway accidents—there was nothing else for the public eyes to rest upon. But did not hunting accidents and accidents in factories occur very frequently? Why was not the same prominence given to them? Respecting railway accidents there was an amount of confusion and agitation in the public mind which did not exist in it with reference to any other casualties. Again, it was important that railway servants should have confidence in themselves and believe that the public had a reasonable amount of confidence in them. Such confidence was impaired by the publication in Papers issued by the Board of Trade of the names of engine-drivers and guards on duty at the time of railway accidents, and who might, perhaps, be quite blameless. Such a publication was impolitic and unjust. It made the men nervous. In considering the labour question in reference to the administration of labour, their Lordships ought to bear in mind that Railway Directors were placed in a peculiar position. The owner of a mill if in a difficulty with his workmen might put them on half-time; but Railway Directors had to meet the requirements of the public; they were conducting what must be regarded as a public service, and in case of a disagreement they had to conciliate or submit to their men. That was a circumstance which ought not to be lost sight of by those who were considering the question of railway management. In all the catastrophes that occurred last year, he did not think that any case of serious neglect had been made out against a railway company. One of the most terrible of the accidents was that at Wigan. At first it was generally thought to be impossible that there had not been neglect in that case; but the Company was able to assume an attitude of complete innocence, and, though there was a rigid inquiry, their assertion of innocence had not been disproved or denied. Accidents occurred sometimes, and must occur, from causes which could not have been foreseen in the particular cases. An accident sometimes occurred from the breaking of a tire, and, where there were many thousands of wheels and many more thou-
1158
sands of tires, no human wisdom could prevent such occurrences. With regard to signalmen their hours of employment were now, as a general rule, limited to eight, and if a man had naturally a clear judgment and was of temperate habits, he would be perfectly able to apply his attention to his work during that length of time. It was unjust to say that the railway companies were chiefly impelled to take precautions against accidents by considerations as to the compensation they might be called upon to pay. He believed, for his part, that just as much attention would be paid to the safety of passengers whether compensation were exacted or not. The railway interest in this country was served by Director who gave to it an amount of gratuitous attention which could not possibly be obtained in any other part of the world, by managers who were, as a whole, the most capable body of men he had ever known, and by Engineers—working Engineers—who were at the head of the science of the world. To whom better than to them could a Royal Commission go for the information and suggestions it wanted? Men better qualified in science, in education, or in general intelligence for the supervision of our railways, than those who were now engaged in the task it would, he believed, be impossible to find. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would not think it advisable to grant a Royal Commission. Any recommendations it might make would, he was convinced, merely point to matters that were already engaging the serious attention of tin-railway world.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: I can assure your Lordships that it is not my intention on the present occasion to follow the noble Lord who has just sat down (Lord Houghton) into the very great number of topics that he has touched upon. In regard to one point that he took up, there seems to me to be a great inconsistency in the remarks of the noble Lord. On the one hand, I find him stating that it is impossible to take up a newspaper without being horrified by the number of accidents.
LORD HOUGHTON: I meant the Papers presented to your Lordships.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: That seems to me to make the inconsistency worse, for the reports in the public journals may be exaggerated, while the official

1159
Papers are little likely to possess that fault. The noble Lord then went on to say—such, at all events, seemed to me to be the tenor of his remarks—that there were not so many railway accidents as was commonly supposed, and that no accidents ever occurred through the neglect either of the railway companies or of their servants. At the same time—and the observation struck me as very remarkable—he pointed out that it was considered a great hardship by the railway servants themselves, and injurious to their interests, that the names of those servants to whom accidents occurred were given in the Reports presented to Parliament. There is an inconsistency in all these statements which I shall not inquire into, but which I leave to the noble Lord to digest when he has more time; and I think he will see on reflection that he has taken up a most untenable position. It has been said that it would be impossible to appoint a Railway Commission that would have the confidence of the country; but I entirely dispute that assertion. I venture to say that if a Railway Commission were issued on this subject, Her Majesty's Government would succeed on this occasion, as former Governments have on other occasions, in finding gentlemen perfectly competent to undertake the inquiry, and in whom the country would have confidence. I shall not follow the noble Lord into the eulogium he passed on directors and managers, and all others connected with railways. I have heard the noble Lord speak in a similar strain on another occasion; and I cannot help thinking that when he was eulogizing that body of men—of whom far be it from me to speak in any terms but those of the highest respect—he must have forgotten that he either is or has been a member of that distinguished body. My Lords, I think the thanks of this House and of the country are due to the noble Earl (Earl Do La Warr) for having brought forward this Motion and called your Lordships' attention to the subject of railway accidents. I can conceive nothing more important to all classes of the people than that they should be carried with safety and convenience by the railways of the country. The matter is one affecting equally the poor man and the rich, railways having become as it were the monopolizers of the carrying trade of the country; and
1160
surely it would be hard if the safety and convenience of persons obliged to travel by them were not duly considered. Within the last 30 years, during which the railways of the country have been brought to their present state of perfection, there has been legislation of various kinds suggested with regard to them; and I perfectly believe that what may have been a satisfactory and sufficient mode of dealing with them some years back, when the amount of traffic was far less than it is at present, and lines had not been opened up as we now find them in all parts of the country, may in these days stand in need of some revision and alteration. The whole question has been from time to time considered by Parliament and Government. Since the year 1853 there have been no less than ten Committees, two Joint Committees of both Houses, and one Royal Commission appointed to consider matters relating to the railway systems of the country. The Royal Commission, which was presided over by a noble Duke (the Duke of Devonshire), gave very valuable information on various subjects that came under its consideration. In this question the interest of the public is two-fold. In the first place, it is that there should be facility of transport, and that there should be ample means available for the interchange of traffic between the different lines. In the second place, the public interest demands that safety and convenience should be secured—and this is a consideration which is equally important to the railway servants themselves. With regard to the former point, a Committee, which I think was presided over by a noble Lord whom I see opposite (Lord Cardwell), carried out an investigation in 1853 which resulted in an Act of Parliament being passed, called the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, and otherwise known as Cardwell's Act. This measure dealt with the subject of the interchange of traffic; but, if I mistake not, it has been generally considered that the machinery employed under it was much too cumbrous and inconvenient to be practically useful. I think the late Lord Campbell prophesied at the time it was passed that it would not meet the requirements of the case, or be so satisfactory as its promoters anticipated. Nothing further was done by the Legislature with regard to this part of the subject till last year, when, in cones-

1161
quence of a Report of a Joint Committee, which was presided over by the noble Lord (Lord Carlingford), who was then President of the Board of Trade, an Act was passed transferring to a Commission the powers then vested in the Court of Common Pleas in reference to railway cases. The Commissioners then appointed do not deal at all with the second part of the subject—namely, the safety and convenience of the public and the railway servants. With regard to the first part of the subject, legislation had no doubt been active during the last 30 years; but not so much has been done as to the second branch, the safety of the public and the prevention of accidents, which have given rise to so much anxiety in the public mind. Last year the noble Lord who then presided at the Board of Trade issued a very able Circular to the various Railway Companies, pointing out his views as to the position of matters in that respect. He said—
"It appears from the report that a large proportion of those casualties are due to causes which are within the control of the railway companies. If it may be contended that the traffic on many lines has very greatly increased, and with it the risks of railway travelling, it is no less true that it is within the power of the companies to take care that the permanent way, the rolling stock, and the station and siding accommodation are kept up to the requirements of the traffic; that the officers and servants are sufficient in number and quality for the work to be done, and that proper regulations for their guidance are not only made, but enforced; that pains are taken to test every reasonable invention and expedient devised for the purpose of preventing danger; and that such of those expedients as experience proves to be effective are adopted without undue delay."
I cannot help thinking that everybody who reads it will be prepared to admit the wisdom and sagacity of such a Circular. But the noble Lord goes on to say—
"In these observations I do not attempt to distinguish between the various Companies, to ail of which they do not in an equal degree apply. Another subject which urgently requires attention is the frequent unpunctuality of passenger trains."
That was very fair and straightforward and honest in the noble Lord; but it had this unfortunate result, if I may judge from the Papers which have been presented to your Lordships and from other means of ascertaining the facts—that it led to the receiving of replies from every railway company throughout the kingdom, in which each states
1162
that the Circular of the noble Lord could have no application to itself. Each represented itself as being the best conducted company in the country, as never having an accident on its line, and as having all its arrangements on the most satisfactory footing possible. And here I may observe that I differ from the noble Lord who spoke last (Lord Houghton), and who says the country was perfectly satisfied with the answers which were returned by the railway companies to the Circular of the Board of Trade. I, on the contrary, venture to think that the country was extremely dissatisfied with those answers; because if those replies were as correct answers as the noble Lord wishes us to believe, then, in point of fact, there is no railway company in the country in whose case there is any want of punctuality; all their arrangements are satisfactory, and no accident has ever occurred on any one of our railway lines. Now, that would be absurd; and I am therefore justified, I think, in saying that the replies of the railway companies were unsatisfactory, that the public has endorsed the statements contained in the Circular of the noble Lord, and that they are of opinion that accidents have increased, are increasing, and ought to be diminished. I may add that only two Committees have during all these years sat to inquire directly into the causes of accidents on railways, the other inquiries being into the general question. The first of the two Committees to which I refer was a very important one. It was moved for by Mr. Bentinck, the Member for Norfolk, and sat in the year 1857. That Committee reported as follows—
"Your Committee is of opinion that a rate of speed considerably in excess of what is considered safe, in the opinion of the great majority of the witnesses examined, is sometimes attained on many of the lines; that the evidence taken further tends to show that such excessive speed has arisen not so much from the average speed required as advertised by the railway time tables as from the want of strict punctuality in the time of the departure and arrival of trains from each station, which leads to an excess of speed for the purpose of endeavouring to make up time lost."
The Report goes on to say—
"That your Committee, impressed with the many difficulties and complications connected with this part of the subject, and also with the inexpediency of relieving railway companies from the responsibility which now devolves on them, is not prepared to recommend any direct

1163
legislative interference by the House upon the question of the extreme speed at which railway trains may he permitted to travel."
The Committee then suggests—
"That a greater degree of punctuality might be insured if the public had some means of obtaining prompt and cheap redress in the recovery of penalties in every case of want of punctuality in the departure and arrival of trains at every station."
The other Committee on the subject was that of last Session, which sat on the Bill introduced by my noble Friend behind me (Earl De La Warr). It was presided over by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Somerset), but its inquiry was necessarily very much limited because it could not go beyond the four corners of the Bill, which dealt only with the interlocking and block systems. The Committee recommended that—
"Relying on the great exertions recently and very generally made by different railway companies to extend the block and interlocking systems, and the improvements now in progress, the Bill should not be proceeded with during the present Session. They recommend, however, that the Board of Trade should call for such information as may enable the inspectors, in the annual reports, to state specially the progress made in their adoption on all passenger lines. Parliament will then be in a condition to decide whether or not it would be right to require the further and more prompt extension of these systems on those lines where they are necessary."
I believe these Reports are in process of being compiled, and that they will very shortly be presented to Parliament with the information referred to by the Committee which sat on the Bill of last year. I ought to have mentioned that one of the advantages of the Committee which was presided over by Mr. Bentinck, was that it was mainly the means of establishing the block system in this country. I now come to the concluding paragraph of the Circular of the noble Lord the late President of the Board of Trade. He says—
"Her Majesty's Government are fully sensible of the difficulties incidental to railway working in a country where the traffic is so great and so various, as well as of the efforts which have been made by the railway companies, in many respects with remarkable success, for the accommodation of the public; but safety for life and limb, which ought to be a paramount object, has nevertheless, not been sufficiently secured, and great and increasing dissatisfaction is the result. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, reserving their own liberty to consider at anytime the expediency of legislating upon any part of this important subject, have deemed it their duty to call the attention of the railway
1164
companies to the whole question, in the hope that they, in whose hands the means of improvement mainly rest, will themselves make every effort to meet the reasonable demands of the public and of Parliament."
I bring the subject down to this point—that though there has been a very considerable number of inquiries into one branch of the subject—the interchange of traffic—there has not been that amount of inquiry as to accidents or the causes of accidents which would enable your Lordships to legislate with advantage. When Her Majesty's present Government came into office the accidents on railways and various other matters connected with railways was one of the first subjects which they attempted to consider; and they would have been very happy if one of their earliest acts had been to bring in a Bill to deal with the question; but, on looking into a subject so important, we did not see our way to legislate upon it for the present. I wish to guard myself against any idea that I deprecate legislation, because that is far from my intention. What I do deprecate, however, is dealing with so large a subject in an imperfect and hasty manner, and in the absence of that information which we think is absolutely necessary to enable us to come to a satisfactory conclusion. The difficulty in dealing with this subject in a partial manner is that you at once introduce a divided responsibility; and, to my mind, there could be nothing so disastrous in the present instance as such a division, because in that degree in which you reduce the responsibility of the Companies you increase that of the Government. The practice has hitherto been for the Government to use all possible precaution before a line is opened, and to have it thoroughly inspected by men most competent to the discharge of the duty, such as the Railway Inspectors, who report to the Board of Trade as to its condition. But as soon as the line is opened it has hitherto been the practice to leave with the parties who convey passengers the responsibility for their safety, comfort, and convenience. Of course, one mode of cutting this knot would be for the Government to acquire the whole of the railways of the country; but that is so very large a question as to be really at the present moment outside the sphere of practical legislation, and therefore I dismiss it alto-

1165
gether. I come now to the proposal of the noble Earl (Karl De La Warr). I shall be prepared on the part of the Government to accept his proposition, but in a limited form. The terms of the noble Earl's proposal are much too large; I cannot, therefore, accept that part of it which proposes to inquire into the working and general management of railways. Indeed, I did not gather from the noble Earl's remarks that he went into that subject at all; and if he will be satisfied with limiting the terms of his proposal, I, on the part of the Government, shall be perfectly ready to advise Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission on the subject. I shall do it on this ground—that I do not think we have before us such evidence upon the causes of accidents on railways as would enable us in a satisfactory manner at the present time to initiate legislation; because I believe that if legislation is undertaken, it ought to be of such a character as would not be likely to require altering for some time, and also because the Government are perfectly agreed that with regard to accidents on railways the country is in a most unsatisfactory condition, and one which ought to be met by legislation at a future period. I propose, therefore, to alter the Motion so as to make it ask for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the causes of accidents on railways, and into the possibility of removing any such causes by further legislation.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had referred to the facilities afforded to railway companies for interchanging and increasing their traffic. But the increase of traffic had unfortunately been attended by the increase of danger, because increased accommodation had not at the same time been provided for the public by the companies. When the Government were proposing to issue a new Commission he would remind them that they had already a Commission, composed of three paid Commissioners, selected with great care—one of them being a man conversant with railway management, another a lawyer able to guide the Government as to the law which should be enforced, and the third a man of great official experience, whose judgment on those subjects would be of great value. Why should not that ex-
1166
isting Commission be strengthened in any way that was deemed necessary, and do the work which it was now proposed to throw upon a new Commission? The three paid Commissioners to whom he referred were men of great activity of mind, and they had now really nothing to do. It would be better to utilize them, and if they required some able Engineer or any other person to assist them, let them have such assistance. The season for excursion trains would now soon arrive—a period at which they all knew those accidents increased. Crowds of passengers went away from town from Saturday to Monday; and as they could not obtain their tickets beforehand there was great confusion at the railway stations. Last year an unfortunate lady, in scrambling to get a return ticket, lost her child in the crowd; and another person had his collar-bone broken. Thus the unfortunate passenger experienced the dangers of railway travelling even before he got into the train. Instead of compelling everybody to go to one little pigeon-hole for a ticket, surely it did not require much talent or ability on the part of Managers and Directors—who, they were told, were such wise, clever, and excellent men—to make better arrangements for the public convenience. Again, if the Government not only appointed a Commission, but gave it a little more power to interfere in a mild way, it might do a great deal of good, and prevent a great number of accidents. Accidents often arose from unpunctuality, and unpunctuality again often arose from bad arrangements at stations. One train followed another in a few minutes, and goods trains had not time to go on to a siding to get out of the way. The Commission might also help the Companies in passing Bills through Parliament to provide improved accommodation wherever it was wanted, especially in the acquisition of space for sidings. These were some of the main points in which amendment was required, and he thought the proposed inquiry would do good.
LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that before coming to the Motion before the House, and the line taken upon it by the Government, he wished to say a word or two about the Circular of November last, for which, on the part of the late Government, he was responsible, and also about the replies which it had called

1167
forth. That Circular had probably never yet been so severely condemned—even by the most angry railway company—as it had been that night by his noble Friend behind him (Lord Houghton). He was surprised to find that his noble Friend appeared to think it a piece of impertinent meddling with what he seemed to regard as the entirety satisfactory and gratifying state of things which was going on on all the railways of the country last autumn and winter. For himself, however, he was much in hopes that that Circular had been and still would be of use. He believed it was the duty of the late Government to call the attention of the Companies and the public—in the marked way which was secured by a deliberate and serious publication of that kind—to the state of things existing on railways. It was quite evident that nothing else would have obtained for the subject the degree of attention which it received throughout the winter from the public Press in the most able and useful manner, and also from the Companies themselves. He was bound to say he thought the replies elicited by that Circular had been rather hardly dealt with by some portions of the Press, and even by the noble Duke himself. There had been, of course, a good deal of injured innocence on the part of Railway Chairmen, of which they had had a stronger instance that night from his noble Friend (Lord Houghton) than was contained in most of the replies sent in. But, on the other hand, there was not a little that was satisfactory in those replies. They were almost all written in a tone and spirit of which the late Government had no reason to complain. He did not remember above two or three somewhat angry answers. The greater part of them admitted that it was the duty of the Government to take notice of the state of things which was prevailing, and—what was more—they admitted the definition and description given in the Circular of the duties of Companies and Directors—a matter of no small importance. While pointing out what they had been and were doing to remedy the evils and fulfil the duties prescribed in the Circular, almost all the Companies gave a distinct pledge of further efforts. The business, therefore, of the State was to see that within a reasonable time
1168
these promises were fulfilled; for when in six months 48 passengers had been killed and 984 injured by causes admittedly beyond their own control, such a state of things could not be allowed to continue. It must be remedied either by the voluntary action of the Companies themselves, which was pointed out by the Circular as the best way or by the intervention of Parliament. He was too sensible of the difficulties of legislation to find fault with the Government for desiring further inquiry before introducing a Bill; but he was not sure whether he went with the noble Duke as to the direction of that inquiry. Accidents were largely due to the lack of important appliances, like those elicited by the Committee of last Session; but the chief cause of the increase of accidents was that the traffic had outgrown the means of safely managing it. Increased traffic, while signifying increased danger, meant also augmented profits, so that the Companies were under a greater amount of obligation to insure a reasonable degree of safety. Almost every serious accident had arisen from a goods train being in the way of a fast passenger train at a time when the latter ought to have been expected. The chief requisite was an extension of lines and sidings, and other means of safely managing this enormous traffic going on at various rates of speed; and he doubted whether the Companies were sufficiently exerting themselves in this direction. He should be inclined to think that the information might be ascertained departmentally, through the Inspectors of the Board of Trade or otherwise, but he would not quarrel with the machinery proposed by the Government. The inquiry might resemble that undertaken by the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) and his Committee last year, but directed generally to the causes of accidents, and especially to the provision of sufficient accommodation. The Chairman of the Great Western Company had deprecated minute interference; but, while avoiding this, there might be a compulsory provision of works proved to be necessary for reasonable safety, coupled with greater facilities for obtaining Parliamentary powers for that purpose. He did not wish to prejudge the conclusion of the Commission, which he hoped might lead to a solution of the question. Its constitution would require

1169
careful consideration. There appeared difficulties in the way of the noble Duke's suggestion as to the employment, of the Railway Commission. That body was a semi-judicial tribunal, and if compulsory interference should prove to be necessary it might, very probably, be intrusted to it—in which case it was obviously undesirable that the body which exercised the power should have conducted the inquiry.
THE MAUQUESS OF SALISBURY: I quite agree with the noble Lord opposite (Lord Carlingford) that it is premature to enter into the subjects which the Commission will have to consider; but both in his remarks and those of the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) there appear to lurk some fallacies which are very popular, and which, as far as they have obtained a hold on the public mind, are apt to mislead. The noble Duke put the matter with his usual epigrammatic force when he said he should like to give the Railway Commissioners the power of interfering "in a mild way." It is that very power which I dread more than any other course Parliament might adopt. It may be its duty to interfere in a summary way. I should deplore it very much, yet under conceivable circumstances it might be the duty of Parliament to resort to much greater interference than at present; but anything like partial interference, involving divided management and responsibility would tend to more accidents than it would prevent. It is a very favourite course, in view of the difficulties of the question and the dangers of the passengers, to point to this or that nostrum as a certain remedy. Last year it was the interlocking system; this year it is the duplication of lines, to which the noble Lord apparently pointed. [Lord CARLINGFORD: New sidings.] I do not think sidings would do much to case the traffic. The real difficulty is that on many lines, unless there is perfect punctuality, there is not time for the number of trains to keep apart. With any regard to the engagements into which it has entered with the Companies, Parliament could not ask them to undertake the gigantic enterprise of duplicating their tunnels or heavy bridges. The cost would be so enormous as to sink the capital even of the richest of them; while if tunnels and bridges were left as they are, and the rest of the lines dupli-
1170
cated, there would be a constant succession of trains travelling side by side on four lines, and converging at particular points to travel on two lines. Can we imagine any arrangement more fertile in the elements of mischief in the event of the slightest unpunctuality? That is a specimen of the difficulties of the nostrums recommended to us. I am told there have been two or three very narrow escapes from accident through the indiscriminate operation of the block system; and the remedy, recently much in vogue, of allowing passengers to stop trains whenever they liked has, to my certain knowledge, led ladies, unjustifiably frightened by the expression of face of gentlemen travelling with them, to produce dangerous complications and threaten serious disasters. In the adoption of such plans you must remember that, though you may prescribe the theory of the plan, it may have to be worked by other hands, whom your interference may possibly make hostile. You will have to lay down rules which must be worked by a general Manager, whose interest it will be that they should fail—it will be his interest to prove that the Government has made a mistake; and do you think that the generality of Managers are so foolish that they will not be able to bring about such a result? Will they not protest that the interlocking system, or the block system, or the continuous brake, or the duplicated lines which you have forced upon them without their consent, are responsible for the accidents which may occur or that may be brought about, and declare them to be the result of your interference? I do not, however, say that the railway Managers are not merciful, or that accidents of this class would do more than cause considerable concussion, without loss of life. My Lords, there is one subject to which I hope the Commission will devote special attention, and in the inquiring into which I think the elements of safety may be found—I allude to the subject of unpunctuality. Here is a matter in respect of which the railway companies cannot say that your interference is an act of injustice. You are but requiring them to abide by their own time-tables. They promise and undertake that trains shall depart and arrive at certain stated times, and it is doing them no injustice to require them to keep their promise. For my

1171
own part, I believe that to unpunctuality may be traced nine-tenths of the accidents that occur. Goods trains are always being shunted just as a late passenger train arrives—it arrives when the goods train is half-way across the line, and an accident is the inevitable consequence. If you could make the companies adopt measures to secure that their passenger trains were in time, and that goods trains were not prowling about just in front of them, you would have taken the best means in my judgment of preventing railway accidents. A suggestion has been made by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Somerset) which I do not think he would, on reflection, be inclined to insist on. After much consideration last Session, Commissioners were appointed to perform semi-judicial functions. They had some difficulty in attracting suitors to their court; and now, when they have hardly warmed to their work, the noble Duke proposes to intrust to them additional duties of a wholly different character. It is impossible but that duties involving such large questions and such diverse interests should occupy the entire time of the Commissioners to be appointed; and the consequence of appointing the Railway Commissioners would be to cause them to neglect the duties in respect of which they were originally appointed, and to make the Act of last Session, from which the commercial world hopes so many good things, an entire failure. I hope and believe that the Commissioners to be selected will be enabled to gather such valuable information as may enable Parliament to deal satisfactorily with one of the most difficult and embarrassing questions to which its attention could be directed.
EARL DE LA WARRsaid, he would accept the limitations suggested by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond)—though it was difficult to see how, if the words "working and general management" were omitted from the Motion, the Commissioners could inquire into the want of punctuality and excessive speed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYobserved that that subject would come under the head of "Causes of Railway Accidents."
Motion amended, and agreed to.
Ordered that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the Causes of Accidents on Railways, and into the possibility of removing any such causes by further legislation.—(The Earl De La Warr.)

COLONIAL CHURCH BILL.—QUESTION.
LORD BLACHFORDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, What steps have been taken to obtain from the Colonies the information desired by the Select Committee on the Colonial Church Bill, and when it is likely to be laid before the House?
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that a number of answers had been received front the Colonies in reply to the Circular which had been sent to them on the subject referred to in the noble Lord's Question. Some Colonies had not, however, yet sent replies. He was ready to lay the Correspondence on the Table of the House, although it was not yet completed. It related mainly to the devolution of Church property on the death of a Bishop; and he might mention that, out of 19 Colonies which had forwarded replies, 15 were content with local Acts and opposed to Imperial legislation, and four only took an opposite view. The general conclusion he had arrived at from a perusal of the Papers was, that it was wiser for the present to rely on the Colonial Acts and Ordinances than to propose any measure to the Imperial Parliament.

COLONIAL CHURCH BILL.—QUESTION.
  OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERIES ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm certain Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868, relating to Menai Straits and Paglesham—Was presented by The Lord DUNMORE: read 1a. (No. 36.)
  PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Bray, Buckie (Cluny), Carlingford, Lough, Cattewater, Eyemouth, Great Yarmouth, Kinsale, Lybster, Sandown, Sidmouth, Tees, and Yarmouth (Isle of Wight)—Was presented by The Lord DUNMORE; read 1a. (No. 37.)

  MARRIAGES LEGALIZATION (ST. PAUL'S CHURCH AT POOLEY BRIDGE) BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to render valid Marriages heretofore solemnized in the Chapel of Ease called "Saint Paul's Church at Pooley Bridge," in the parish

  1173
  of Barton in the county of Westmorland—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of CARLISLE; read 1a. (No. 42.)
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, 'till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock