RAILWAYS—RAILWAY PASSENGER ACCOMMODATION.—OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 22 February 1875)

§ LORD REDESDALE
rose to call their Lordships' attention to the state of the law in regard to the liability of Railway Companies to provide proper accommodation for different classes of passengers. He believed very few of the travelling public were aware of what they could demand of the Railway Companies, or what the Companies were bound to afford them. Railways were now practically the only means of travelling through the greater part of the country; yet the public were not aware that they were literally at the mercy of the Railway Companies. The terms "first class," "second class," and "third class" were in such general use that people supposed an obligation on the part of the Companies to have carriages of different classes; but it was for the Railway Companies to say whether there were to be any distinctions of class at all on their lines. Again, Railway Companies were not bound to carry any particular species of goods. The occasion of his calling attention to these matters was the movement made by the Midland Company in determining no longer to carry second-class passengers. That Company might go further if it chose, and say it would carry no first-class passengers—there was no law to prevent the Company from carrying such an intention into effect. Unquestionably, when railways were first established, it was the intention of Parliament that three classes of passengers should be carried, and he was convinced that the necessities of the travelling classes required that extent of accommodation. What the intention of Parliament was in the matter was shown by the fact that in the several Acts constituting Railway Companies, maximum fares for each of those classes were set out in plain terms, and until recently the general practice was to have first, second, and third-class carriages on every line of railway. That practice had now been departed from; but if a Railway Company had a right to say that they would not carry second-class passengers, they had also a right to say that they would not carry first-class passengers. The doctrine, in fact, laid down by the Midland Railway Company was this—that they were not bound to 617 consider what the public were entitled to receive from them, but what was most profitable for their shareholders, and that it was therefore open to them to say that they would only carry third-class passengers. He admitted that, taking the Railway Companies as a whole, they had exercised their passenger-carrying power in a satisfactory manner; but he thought the time had come when it was absolutely necessary that some legislation should take place for the purpose of giving to the public adequate protection against them. There was no definition of the minimum amount of accommodation that was to be afforded to the several classes of passengers, and it was in the power of the Companies to provide no better than cattle trucks, and to say to passengers—"There is your carriage; go into it or not, as you choose." There were many other matters connected with the passenger traffic of railways which also required attention. He had mentioned one; he would mention another, also of great importance. At present there was no legal definition as to the minimum extent of accommodation which should be provided for passengers in any one of the three classes. There were great complaints with regard to the accommodation now supplied to passengers, and he might remark that there were frequent complaints, especially on the part of season-ticket holders, that owing to the want of sufficient accommodation in the class for which they paid, they were obliged to put up with seats in a carriage of an inferior class. He did not ask the Government for any reply on the present occasion, as his object was to throw out points for consideration and for future discussion; but he would suggest that Her Majesty's Government should at once call on the various Railway Companies for a Return of the accommodation in the carriages provided by them for the different classes of passengers, respectively, from 1870 to the present time. He wanted nothing unreasonable. For many years it was the practice to insert in Railway Bills passing through Parliament, a clause to the effect that nothing in the Act should exempt the Company from any general Act regarding railways, and it would not therefore be open to them to object to a general measure of the character which he suggested. The law on the matter was in such an 618 unsatisfactory state that some legislation should take place in reference to it. His object in calling attention to the subject was not to call on the Government to say what they intended to do in the matter, but to ventilate the subject with a view to future legislation.

§ LORD CARLINGFORD
said, that if it was found on inquiry desirable to extend the powers of the Railway Commissioners, who were discharging their duties in such a manner as to inspire the confidence of the public and the Railway Companies, he should not oppose such a measure; but he confessed he was unable to see on what grounds the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees invoked the aid of Parliament. The noble Lord had spoken of the step recently taken by the Midland Company; but he (Lord Carlingford) did not understand him to question its legality. [Lord REDESDALE assented.] It certainly appeared that the Company itself had taken that step with a full belief in its own legal powers. He found, in an interesting Report made to the Minister of Public Works in France, by a French gentleman (M. de Franqueville) sent over here by the French Government, that the gentleman in question had a conversation with Mr. Allport, the manager of the Midland Company, some time before that Company publicly announced its intention to abolish the use of second-class carriages on its line. When Mr. Allport informed the gentleman that it was intended to take that step, he said—"What, will Parliament allow you to abolish second-class carriages?" Mr. Allport replied—"We are not bound by law to carry passengers at all." The only thing Railway Companies were bound to do in this respect was to allow other parties to run rolling stock on their lines; but they were not bound to run it themselves. Certainly, some argument in favour of an implied obligation to run carriages of various classes might be drawn from those clauses in the various Railway Acts which referred to first, second, and third classes; but, until lately, there was virtually a fourth class of passenger carriage in this country, the Parliamentary train, though it became merged into the third. He did not regard the change made by the Midland Company in the same light as that in which it was viewed by the noble Lord. If that 619 Company had abolished second-class carriages, they had done so by giving the passengers who had occupied those carriages the advantage of travelling first class in future. The only persons who had any ground of complaint were the old first-class passengers. He could not think that the noble Lord had made out any case for interference by Parliament, and he submitted that time should be given for the practical working of the experiment being tried by the Midland Company.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
said, that as his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees had put no Question to him, it would have been wiser of him not to have risen, and he should not have done so but for the statement of the noble Lord who had just sat down (Lord Carlingford), that Railway Companies were not by law bound to carry any passengers at all. That was not so, because each Company's Act obliged the particular Company, if they carried passengers at all, to run one Parliamentary train each way daily, and, so far, they were bound to give that amount of accommodation. He would not go into the controversy whether the Midland Railway Company had acted rightly or wrongly in the change they had made, or whether the system to be adopted was to be determined by the interests of the shareholders rather than the public; but he might mention, also, that the plan of having only a first-class and a third had not originated with the Midland Company. The Great North of Scotland Company never had any other classes.

§ LORD REDESDALE
observed that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Carlingford) did not deny that we were at the mercy of the Railway Companies. It was all very well to say that second-class passengers on the Midland line got first-class accommodation. There was nothing to prevent the Company from doing away with the first class too; and too often, especially in regard to ladies, the abolition of the second-class had done away, practically, with much of the comfort before enjoyed by the first-class. There was no provision in the law to prevent them taking that step.