Lords Sitting of 27 April 1877

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Horbury, &c.) (55), and referred to the Examiners; Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation (Holywood, &c.), and referred to the Examiners.
THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE RUSSIAN CIRCULAR.

  QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CAMPBELL: I wish to put a Question to my noble Friend the Secretary of State, of which I have given him private Notice. On Wednesday there appeared in the morning journals a Russian Circular, and in that document it is alleged that the Emperor of Russia represents the views and interests of
  2
  Europe. As regards "interests," the assertion may be passed over—every aggressor and spoliator is in the habit of asserting that he was acting in the interests of the world. But the assertion in the Circular that the Czar represented the "views" of Europe involves the dignity and compromises the policy of every Power that does not distinctly repudiate it. I therefore wish to ask my noble Friend how far the assertion is correct as regards the views of Her Majesty's Government?
  EARL GRANVILLE: It appears to to me that the Question of the noble Lord is one that opens up considerable matter of debate, and I would therefore ask whether it is one which should be put without public Notice to your Lordships?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: When my noble Friend gave me private Notice of the Question he was about to put it struck me that in point of form it was

  3
  one of a somewhat unusual character; because my noble Friend does not ask what the Government has done, or what it is doing, or what it proposes to do, but asks whether it concurs in certain statements expressed in a document which has been addressed to us, and to all the European Powers by a foreign Government. It is obvious, as the noble Earl (Earl Granville) has observed, that this is a question which it is not easy to answer by a simple "Yes" or "No," and one which might lead to a very considerable debate. I think, therefore, that I shall best deal with the question of my noble Friend by saying this—that we are in no way bound by the expression of opinion issued by the Russian Government, and that, as a matter of fact, we do not accept or admit the arguments and conclusions embodied in that document.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.—RESOLUTION.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, that in calling the attention of their Lordships to the Report of the Royal Commission on Railway Accidents and to move a Resolution, he felt that on this subject he was speaking to an assembly of experts, so large had been the share taken by their Lordships in railway legislation and in inquiries as to the working of railways. He had, however, brought forward his Motion in order that the matter might be fully and fairly discussed. The principle on which Parliament had hitherto acted was that they should exercise a general supervision over railways, but that it would be injudicious to interfere by legislation with the details of railway management. That principle had received the sanction of several Royal Commissions and Parliamentary Committees; and the Royal Commission, to the Report of which he was about to call attention, and which was appointed in 1874, having given a summary of what had been done by the Committee of 1857-8 and by the Committee of 1870, and of the results attained by the labours of those Committees and by several statutes, commenced the second part of its Report by laying down in broad and simple terms that it would be highly injudicious for Parliament to interfere with the details of railway management. But having done that, the Commission—strangely enough—proceeded to contra-
  4
  dict its own proposition and to make a series of recommendations which were a direct interference with the details of railway management. His noble Friend (Lord Cottesloe) had given Notice of an Amendment to the Motion, which proposed in effect the adoption of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. He (Viscount Bury) thought he was entitled to ask his noble Friend what part of those recommendations he would have Parliament adopt. Was it that part which condemned the interference of Parliament or that which, if adopted, would be a direct interference on the part of the Legislature? It might be well, in the first place, to consider in what our railway system consisted. When, in 1846, railway losses became so severe and the profits on railways almost nil, shareholders' railways were no longer constructed. Small lines were then amalgamated, and the great trunk systems were formed by amalgamations. The public was not satisfied with that state of things; every market town wished to have its line to the Metropolis; and railway contractors discovered the means of "financing" railways and so perpetuating the schemes by which they had become rich and prosperous. Thus the railway system of the country was extended in a hap-hazard manner, and was not based on any sound conditions. Taking all Europe, there were three systems of railway management. Under one of those, railways were entirely subject to Government control. Under another the railways were governed by Railway Boards, but were subject to Government supervision; and under the third the Railway Boards were subject only to Government interference. Now, he thought it could be easily shown that from the earliest period of railway legislation in this country the principle steadily adhered to had been that Parliament should not interfere in the details of railway management or take in any degree from the responsibility of a Railway Company for the safety of its traffic. Lord Campbell's Act, under which compensation could be obtained for injuries on railways, went on that principle; and it was obvious that for the State to enter into the details of railway management would be a hopeless undertaking unless it took the railways into its own hands. Except in the latter circumstances, it must acquire its experience through

  5
  railway managers, and could only be their mere mouthpiece. What he objected to, therefore, in the Report of the Royal Commission was that, by the 12 Resolutions therein contained, the Commission subverted and controverted the general principle with which its Report set out. The Commission had shown very considerable industry, for it had asked about 40,000 questions. The noble Earl (Earl De La Warr), who succeeded the Duke of Buckingham as Chairman of the Commission, had also shown great ability throughout the inquiry, and upon upon him, in the first instance, devolved the labour of drawing up a Report; but unfortunately the Commissioners were not of one mind, and instead of having one Report to guide them, their Lordships would have to consider a number of Reports. Only four of the Commissioners signed the Report of the Commission without comment; and Mr. Ayrton, one of the ablest men on the Commission, refused either to sign the Report or give any written opinion of his own, though he had closely attended to the labours of the Commission during the examination of the witnesses. The noble Earl (Earl De La Warr) drew up a separate Report; and Mr. Harrison—a late President of the Institute of Civil Engineers and a most able man—though he signed the Report of the Commission, signed a separate one also, in which he quarrelled with the Commissioners on nearly every point of their Report. So that the Report was not only discordant with itself, but was signed without comment by only four of the Commissioners. He would remind their Lordships as to the present state of the law and as to the authority under which the Railway Companies carried out their functions. As their Lordships were aware, a special Board was constituted in 1845 which exercised powers similar to those now vested in the Board of Trade. But in 1861 this separate Board was abolished, and the Board of Trade was restored to the provision assigned to it by former legislation, and resumed the authority which it had formerly exercised. The functions of the Board of Trade in this respect were derived under several Acts of Parliament. The Board granted certificates to Railway Companies authorizing them to enter into agreements with each other, and to enter into provi-
  6
  sional contracts. No railway might open for traffic till the Board of Trade gave it a certificate. In the case of a disagreement between various Railways the Board of Trade might, with their consent, arbitrate between them. The Board of Trade might authorize the construction of bridges over level crossings, condemn illegal and dangerous gauges, regulate the speed of mail trains, sanction bye-laws, and, in certain circumstances, authorize the abandonment of schemes and extend the time for taking lands. But no Act of Parliament conferred anything like executive authority on the Board of Trade in respect of railways. It could not initiate any new policy or command anything to be done. To confer executive authority on the Board of Trade could only be justified by some failure of the present law that could only be obviated by such a step. Was it true that railway accidents had increased so much of late years as to render it necessary to depart from the present system? He found from the Report of the Commission that the number of passenger journeys in the years 1872-3-4-5 were, in round numbers, 1,863,000,000; and during the same period the number of deaths caused by accidents to trains was 155: so that the proportion of passengers killed by causes beyond their own control amounted to 1 in 11,500,000, and the proportion of passengers injured 35 in 11,500,000, No doubt the total number of persons injured was considerable; but when the extent of railway travelling in the United Kingdom was considered, he thought it could hardly be said that our railway travelling was otherwise than extremely safe. In speaking of the causes of railway accidents the Commissioners, adopting a word invented by Captain Tyler, stated that "human fallibility" was the great cause. It was impossible to eliminate the carelessness of human beings from the calculation of railway accidents. Human fallibility was the principal thing to be guarded against. That might be done by discipline and improved machinery; but legislation would not be effectual against it. The Report of the Commission recommended the extension of the civil liability of Railway Companies for accidents to their servants and of the criminal liability of the latter for negligence endangering human life. The noble Duke (the Duke of St. Albans)

  7
  had before their Lordships a Bill relating to the liability of Railway Companies in respect of their servants. If there was to be legislation on that subject, it would be better in the form proposed by the noble Duke than in that recommended by the Commission; but he did not believe that such a Bill was necessary, because the subject could be dealt with in the general question of masters and servants, which was before the other House of Parliament. Then, as to the recommendation that there should be a tribunal for the trial of cases of unpunctuality by railways, that was not desirable—and for the obvious reason that where the traveller passed over several lines in the course of his journey the question of responsibility for the unpunctuality might be an intricate one. To fasten the offence on the last of the concurring lines might be very unjust; and therefore he did not think that any tribunal could deal cheaply, speedily, and satisfactorily with such questions. Then, as to brake power, the Railway Companies were at present in communication with the Board of Trade on that subject; he thought the Board of Trade would be able to come to a satisfactory conclusion; but he thought the Railway Companies themselves might be left to make their own regulations on that head. An important point involved in the question of brake power was the excessive speed at which trains were now run. He believed that if the speed were diminished the enormous brake power of which their Lordships had heard so much would not be required, and that a great source of danger would be thereby eliminated. The Commissioners did not report that excessive speed was a source of danger; but he thought common sense showed that excessive speed constituted a real and fruitful source of serious casualties. Only for excessive speed there would be no occasion for extraordinary brake power. When trains were driven at a speed of 55 or 60 miles an hour great weight must be placed on the driving wheel of the engine to make it bite the rail, and the engines of such trains must have driving wheels of very large diameter, or otherwise they could not effect the revolutions with sufficient velocity. The consequence was that those express trains running at enormous velocity knocked the line about in a manner
  8
  that trains running at moderate speed—say 40 miles au hour—did not. There were a great many railways on which trains were run at a velocity exceeding 40 miles an hour; but in his opinion, and in the opinion of many competent engineers, 40 miles an hour constituted the limit which could be obtained with safety. If the public, however, insisted on being carried at the rate of 55 or 60 miles an hour it was only right they should know that that could not be done without the risk of imminent peril, and that when under such circumstances an accident happened the responsibility rested morally on those who insisted upon being driven at such an enormous speed. Again, as to continuous brakes —he held that great danger might result from their use. There were engine-drivers who would drive at the highest speed to the last moment, and there was in consequence every chance of running 30 or 40 yards beyond the station at which the train was to stop, and then the brake would be put on, and every time they were used on a train travelling at high velocity, they would cause a strain that would initiate mischief to the rolling stock. The strain of a continuous brake on carriages recently taken from a siding and attached to a train which had been travelling would be greater than on the other portions of the train, and might cause axles to break. His opinion, and that of men who were much more competent to form an opinion on the subject, was that continuous brakes would be a source rather of danger than of safety. There was another consideration—namely, that if the use of any particular appliance was made compulsory on Railway Companies the effect would be to stop all improvement in that direction. Captain Tyler considered that if the annual reports of Railway Companies were continued, those Companies which had adopted improvements would, in consequence of their own experience, go on improving, instead of relying on what they had already done. But Captain Tyler considered that it would be extremely unwise to impose on the Board of Trade the duty of deciding between rival appliances of brake power. Having quoted the testimony of Mr. Farrer and others against allowing the Board of Trade to determine whether increased station accommodation was required, the noble

  9
  Lord said that all the evidence came to this—that if such a power was given them the Board of Trade must assume the total responsibility of the line. With regard to the appellate jurisdiction, Captain Tyler's evidence was conclusive, for he said that if that was given, the Companies would be relieved of their responsibility, further invention and improvement would be discouraged, and undue responsibility would undoubtedly be thrown on the tribunal. There was a great deal more to the same effect; and all the evidence he had been able to collect proved that if you increased the power of the Board of Trade and gave it, not a consultative, but executive authority, you must go further, and assume the control of the railways by the State. The amount of money at present invested in railways was so enormous that such a proposal would not for a moment be entertained. But that was not the question now. The question was whether the position of the Board of Trade should be changed —whether, instead of being a merely consultative body, with power of investigation, report, and constant supervision, it should be enabled to say to the Railway Companies that such and such things must be done. His belief was that the principle laid down by the Royal Commission was the right one, but that the Resolutions they founded on it were not right. His noble Friend (Lord Cottesloe) would, he believed contend that the Resolutions of the Royal Commission ought to be carried out. It appeared to him, however, that, instead of giving further powers to the Board of Trade, it would be far more reasonable to embody in a Bill such requirements as ought to be demanded from Railway Companies, and then to give to the Board of Trade, as the representative of the Legislature, the power of remitting those requirements where it thought that could properly be done. Such a course would save the principle, which he believed to be a just one; would not impose on the Board of Trade other duties than those which from the earliest times of our railway history had been recognized to be right, and would preserve the logical consistency of our legislation. Let it not be supposed that in the arguments he had used he had spoken in the interests of the Railway Companies. He had spoken in the
  10
  interest of the public safety, because he believed that interference in the details of railway management would introduce a new danger into railway travelling. He thought the Royal Commission deserved every credit for what they had done, but it was their principles and not their Resolutions that should be carried into effect.
  Moved to resolve, "That direct legislative interference with the details of railway management tends rather to increase than diminish the danger of accident by dividing responsibility; that Parliament in dealing with regulations for the prevention of railway accidents has hitherto always recognized this principle; and that in any legislation which may from time to time become necessary on the subject, the necessity of maintaining the undivided responsibility of Railway Companies for the safe conduct of their traffic ought to be kept steadily in view."— (Viscount Bury.)
  THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANS,in moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice, to insert after the words "the details of railway management" the words "except in so far as relates to the systematic overwork of railway servants," said: It is not my intention to trouble your Lordships with the battle of the brakes and many of the subjects which this Report deals with in connection with railway management. I would ask your Lordships, indulgence to refer to that portion which deals with the overwork of railway servants, and to bring before your notice the disastrous consequences which have arisen in consequence. I go, to a certain extent, with the Motion of the noble Lord (Viscount Bury), believing that the public interest will be best served by not interfering with the responsibility of the Railway Companies, and by punishing them severely when they fail. I go, however, further, and think when it does appear that by the action of Railway Companies life and property confided to its charge have been imperilled, though no actual loss has occurred, the Company ought to be liable and summarily punished. On the question of the "systematic overwork of railway servants" the Report of the Royal Commissioners is clear — the Great Eastern Company holding a dishonourable distinction. The Commissioners, after much care and after many difficulties thrown in their way by some Companies, have proved that in many cases the duties ordinarily exacted from the

  11
  men are too protracted. Having established this, they relinquish the result they have arrived at, and say it is obviously true that railway managers and superintendents are the best judges of the capacity of their employés. The subject of overwork has come before the Commissioners in reference to accidents on railways, and is referred to in the evidence. I have to ask your Lordships' permission to read certain facts in Captain Tyler's Reports to the Board of Trade of 1875 and 1873, and your Lordships will judge if it is so.
  Captain Tyler's General Reports to the Board of Trade, 1875.

  Lancashire and Yorkshire:
  "January 1st.—Seven persons injured. The guard was to blame for not having lighted the tail lamps. There was some excuse, however, for those men. They had at the time of the collision been on duty for an uninterrupted period of 22 hours.
  Potteries and North Wales Railway, 1875:
  "28th December.—Four persons injured. The station master had to do the guard's duty when he was taken ill. The hours of the signalman were too long."
  Midland Great Western, Ireland:
  "30th October.—One killed and seven injured. The engineer and his firemen had been on duty 18½ hours."
  Waterford and Limerick:
  "4th November.—Engine driver had been on continuous duty 21 hours."
  Lancashire and Yorkshire, 1873:
  "6th November.—Fourteen passengers, the driver and guard injured. The engine driver of the goods train had been 25 hours on duty."
  North Eastern:
  "21st December.—Six persons bruised. The inquiry disclosed the objectionable practice of keeping a signalman on duty 16 hours."

  North Staffordshire:
  "26th September.—Guard injured, and died in consequence. He had been 19 hours on duty, and was over-fatigued and omitted to apply his break. The driver of the pilot engine was stated to have been confused by drink after having been on duty for 32 hours. He was employed altogether for 40 hours. The fireman had been asleep on the engine, and was unfit for duty."
  These are cases which have been brought under our notice, because accidents occurred; we hear nothing of many narrow escapes. I wish to know from Her Majesty's Government if they intend to remove or lessen this source of danger to railway travelling, especially as the
  12
  Report states that the Board of Trade have no power in the matter. I am surprised when I read these Reports, that the Board of Trade have rested content, but I suppose it requires a Plimsoll to rouse that apathetic Department. The Board of Trade does, no doubt, much useful work; but if it had been left to that Department, rotten ships would still continue to navigate our seas; and I am afraid if we have to wait for the Board of Trade to move, tired points-men and overworked engine drivers will continue to hurry the public to destruction. It is true that the Commissioners deprecate interference on this head, since Parliament has never applied the principles of the Factory Acts to adult labour. This case is, however, not one of two parties, sui juris, and able to take carp of themselves. It differs, because not only Railway Companies and their servants, but also the public in the matter of their safety are affected; and therefore it is not one of those cases in which contractor and contractee alone have art interest. Mr. Cross, in 1875, acknowledged this in the Conspiracy Act in which he drew a distinction between workmen employed in ordinary work, and workmen engaged in supplying a town with water, gas making, &c., &c.—and in the latter case, where the safety of the public was involved, he made them punishable in a criminal, as well as in a Civil Court. I have had the honour to lay upon your Lordships' Table a Bill on this subject, which I hope to explain at the proper time. I should, however, be most glad to be relieved of the responsibility by the Government incorporating the subject in any measure they bring in. I should be most glad if some simple means could be adopted to restrain Railway Companies from keeping men employed 20 and 40 hours at great risk to the public safety; but when a strong Government recoils in evident terror from interfering with so powerful an interest, I must acknowledge the difficulty of a private Member being successful. The Crown cannot, nor does it desire to, influence the decisions of Parliament. It is a much more real danger, lest some great interest created by the flow of capital, in this country, should become too powerful in Parliament. Against this no safeguard exists. Of existing interests the Railway Companies are most

  13
  powerfully represented both in your Lordships' House and "elsewhere." I do not mean that a Member of either House would sacrifice his convictions because he is a Railway Director, but it is natural; and to be consistent a Railway Director must support in Parliament the policy he has approved on his Board. I mean they do not come with independent views having prejudged the subject. I am not surprised that in the face of this powerful phalanx, the Government should have shifted their responsibility in the matter on to a Commission, and now we have the Report that they should be anxious to deal tenderly with the railway interests. The travelling public, however, may well think sufficient time has already been allowed to pass, that the courtesies between the Board of Trade should cease, and that something should be done in the matter.
  An Amendment moved, to insert after the words ("the details of railway management") the words ("except so far as it relates to the systematic overwork of railway servants.")—(The Duke of Saint Albans.)
  LORD COTTESLOE,who had given Notice to move an Amendment, to leave out all the words after the words ("dividing responsibility") and to insert—
  "Without, however, impairing the responsibility of railway companies for the safety of their traffic, it is expedient that further precautions should be taken for the prevention of accidents on railways by enforcing on railway companies by legislative enactment the adoption of those mechanical contrivances and recognized improvements, the value of which has been thoroughly ascertained. That the recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on Accidents on Railways are deserving of the fullest and most favourable consideration; and if they be adopted by Parliament, subject to such modifications and amendments as on further inquiry it may be proper to suggest, many causes of accident will be removed, and additional security will be afforded to all persons who have occasion to travel by railway, and to the servants of the railway companies,"
  said, that he had given some attention to this subject, and that was the reason why he had given Notice of his Amendment to the Motion of his noble Friend. With regard to the Resolution of his noble Friend, he saw no objection to it; it seemed to be carefully drawn, and its principle was that which had been admitted by the Railway Commissioners.
  14
  But his objection was that if it should be agreed to, it would be saying, in effect, that the labours of the Commissioners should be passed over, that it was unnecessary to make any changes, and that the public safety was sufficiently cared for and required no additional protection. But, in his opinion, the Report of the Commissioners contained many recommendations that ought to be carried out. It was wonderful that as things were there should be so little loss of life. The noble Lord (Viscount Bury) objected to a Government interference with the internal management of railways: but that was no new principle—it was done already in the cases of mines and factories, and had been recently applied to shipping. Now, he (Lord Cottesloe) thought that as there were many Departments of the Government which had Inspectors to see that the provisions of certain Acts of Parliament were carried into effect, so the Board of Trade ought to have Inspectors to see that the Railway Companies performed their duties; and it should be left to the Board of Trade to say whether certain things were properly done. The Report showed that stations and sidings were much too small, and were a great source of danger; and the Board of Trade could be properly employed in seeing that they were made larger and gave more accommodation to the public. Again, the Report showed that the rate of speed was too high, and also that the platforms should be continuous. At present they were a gratuitous danger placed in the way of the public, and nothing could be easier than to remove it.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, your Lordships' attention has been called to-night to a great subject—perhaps the greatest domestic subject that can come under your consideration —and I would wish to induce your Lordships not to arrive at any rash conclusion on this occasion. My noble Friend behind me (Viscount Bury) who brought forward the whole matter in an able speech, appeared to wish to concentrate the whole responsibility for the management of the railroads on the Railroad Directors. He wishes, to use the language of his Resolution, to establish "the undivided responsibility of Railway Companies." Now, my Lords, I am perfectly willing to bear my testi-

  15
  mony—as I am sure all your Lordships would be equally willing to do—to the efficiency with which the Railway Companies of this country are managed. At the same time, I am not prepared to support any change which would remove that degree of control—not, in my opinion, an extravagant one—which at present exists, and, therefore, I feel it my duty to oppose the Motion of my noble Friend. I must, however, bear testimony to the able manner in which he has introduced the subject and to the acquaintance with its details which he has shown. Well, the Amendment of which Notice has been given by my noble Friend who has just addressed us (Lord Cottesloe) is in favour of a policy exactly opposite to that which is recommended in the original Resolution. My noble Friend would remove to a great degree the responsibility that now rests upon the Railway Boards, and he recommends a course which your Lordships would at once see would be a great departure from that policy which hitherto has been observed with respect to all these enterprizes. We have always held that the responsibility of the managers of the railroads should be as great as is consistent with public safety; but, having regard to the public safety, we have established a control which, though certainly not a stringent control, is yet a salutary one, and which in practice is much more powerful than it would appear to be from the letter of the statute—because, as the exponent of public sentiment and armed with great experience, the Board of Trade is listened to when it makes suggestions with as much attention as it would be if those suggestions were backed by legislation. I am unwilling for my part to recommend or sanction in any way any deviation from the policy which has hitherto been pursued, and which is contrary to that which is recommended in the Amendment of my noble Friend who last addressed us. But that Amendment was preceded by another—that of the noble Duke (the Duke of St. Albans). I regret that I do not find myself in a position to agree to any of the courses which have been proposed this evening. I understand the plan of the noble Duke to be to apply the provisions of the Factory Acts in the case of railway servants. Now, I think there is no Member of your Lordships' House who
  16
  is a warmer supporter of those Acts than myself. I think they have contributed much to the happiness and in a great degree to the prosperity of this country. But hitherto, although we have applied the qualifications and conditions of the Factory Acts to female and infantile labour—to women and children—we have hitherto been always strictly on our guard not to extend them to adult males; and I cannot believe that the proposal in the present case is one that would really be popular with the great body of the railway servants, or that it would tend to the convenience or safety of the passengers;—because it is easy to conceive circumstances in which a sudden withdrawal of a railway servant from his duty at the close of the statutory hours of labour might occasion considerable danger, and, perhaps, disaster. The principle upon which the recommendation of the noble Duke is founded is in my opinion a vicious one, for between men and their employers, the law, to my mind, should not interfere. Well, after noticing the original Motion and the two Amendments, we come to consider the recommendations of the Report of the Royal Commissioners. I can assure my noble Friend who last addressed us that I have no wish in any way to diminish the authority of those recommendations. In answering a Question at the beginning of the Session, when Government were pressed to act upon their very voluminous and elaborate Report, which was founded on labours extending over two years, I did remark that the Report was not introduced to our notice by a unanimous opinion of the Royal Commissioners. My Lords, I must say that was a fact which at the first blush would naturally make any one responsible for acting on the Report hesitate in order that he might well consider it. There is no wish on my part to undervalue the labours of the Commissioners—indeed, those labours cannot be too much appreciated, because in the evidence which was collected, and collected by men of acuteness and ability from persons of much experience, there is an inestimable mass of knowledge on a subject which is one of the most interesting to this country. All that I wanted then and wish now to do is to impress upon your Lordships that it would be well not to be precipitate in acting upon the re-

  17
  commendations or suggestions that may be in that Report, and that it is desirable to let those recommendations and the evidence on which they are founded be well digested both by Parliament and the Government, in order that such propositions may be made as the necessity of the case may require. Now, in the first place, we must remember that in many of the recommendations of the Commissioners there is involved a great transference of the powers of the control of Parliament to the Board of Trade or some other body, and I would remind your Lordships that that operation alone is a matter which induces considerations of the utmost gravity and difficulty. It opens the whole question of Private Bill legislation and of our system of Provisional Orders. Now, it would be perfectly unfair—and would be not only unfair but useless—to call upon the Railway Companies to increase, for example, their sidings and their stations, to build bridges and lodges, and greatly to alter and increase the accommodation which they provide for the public, without at the same time giving them the necessary powers to carry these improvements into effect. You must give new powers. To the new Department that is proposed you must give power to buy land compulsorily and to raise new capital adequate for the occasion. All these are important considerations which require the closest attention before such a plan should be adopted. Suppose you say—"We will trust these new powers to the Board of Trade—we will agree to a transfer of this authority from Parliament to the Board of Trade." You would have to consider then whether you would have new legislation independent of all preceding legislation on the subject, or whether you could attain your ends by an extension of the general Acts that now exist; or you might have to consider whether you could not effect your object without forfeiting your authority in Parliament; whether the Board of Trade might not have power to consider these particular points in the administration of particular railways, and whether they might not report to a Parliamentary Committee. Then your Lordships would have to consider whether it should be a Joint Committee, and also the powers which it might be necessary for that Joint Committee to pos-
  18
  sess. These are the first inferences which occur to me from the speech of my noble Friend. Your Lordships will see that these are complicated considerations, and that it is impossible, without careful discussion, that we can arrive at clear and safe results. There was another point referred to by my noble Friend who introduced the subject, and also by my noble Friend who last addressed us—the question of the Appellate Courts. I do not wish to give anything like a definitive opinion on this occasion; but I must say the suggestion of Appellate Courts in the Report of the Royal Commission is not to me an altogether satisfactory one. It is not one at all in harmony with the Parliamentary practice of this country that there should be a Department of State presided over by a Minister of the Crown sitting in one of the Houses of Parliament, and responsible—clearly and evidently and momentarily responsible—to Parliament, and that its decisions should be subject to an Appellate Court which is altogether irresponsible. That is not the way in which hitherto we have been accustomed to carry on the public business of this country, and I should hesitate very much—I should require much consideration—before I could accept an Appellate Court such as the Royal Commission recommends. Then there are in the Report of the Royal Commission suggestions about the Railway Commissioners which, I think, are hardly well considered. It appears to me that under the recommendations of the Royal Commission the present Railway Commissioners might really have no small share in the management of railways. Now, the duties thrown upon the Railway Commissioners are eminently and essentially judicial; and it has always been held as a principle—and, I believe, a sound principle — that you should refrain as much as possible from mixing up judicial duties with executive functions. I foresee great confusion and dissatisfaction that might arise unless we guard ourselves carefully in these matters. Then there is the block and interlocking system. I must say that my noble Friend, who is well informed on all the details of the subject, did not appear to me to place that matter before the House quite in the light in which I think it might truly be placed. The block and interlocking system is not

  19
  a new subject for legislation. We have attempted to legislate for it in this House itself. My noble Friend the noble Earl (Earl De La Warr) who takes great interest in this subject, dealt with it in a Bill, and a Bill well worthy of consideration, which was read a second time and referred to a Select Committee. That Select Committee which was presided over by a noble Duke who sits, unfortunately, opposite (the Duke of Somerset), but whose vigorous mind was particularly well qualified to deal with the subject, took evidence of the highest quality from men who were perfect masters of the subject; and what did they report? They reported that it was advisable not to legislate, because the evidence which they had received showed that all the chief railways were giving great attention to the subject, and were making experiments, and even improvements; and they recommended that they should place themselves in constant communication with the Board of Trade,—at least, that is my recollection of the Report of the Committee, and I believe it to be accurate,—and that the Board of Trade should at times and periods specifically inform Parliament and the country of the progress made in that respect. Well, I am not myself aware that there has been any failure of the expectations of that Committee, and what I heard from my noble Friend who last addressed us, when he quoted the evidence of Mr. Moon, was an eulogium of the admirable manner in which that gentleman, distinguished for his management of railways, had carried into effect all the recommendations and suggestions which had been made with regard to the block and interlocking system as far as was practicable. Therefore, I should hesitate before taking any too decisive a step in that direction. Well now, I confess that although my noble Friend who last addressed us did full justice to the subject, I cannot bring myself to believe that continuous footboards really depend upon legislation. If they cannot have continuous boards without coming to Parliament, I really think Railway Directors must be in a state of great degeneracy. I believe that to be a subject which Boards of Directors could deal with amply and efficiently. There are two other subjects of great importance which, though at the first glance they appear easy to deal
  20
  with, the House will, I think, admit should not be dealt with too hastily. The one is punctuality, and the other is continuous brakes. Now, there is not the slightest doubt but that a great virtue—perhaps, I might say the greatest virtue—in railway management is punctuality. There is nothing, evidently, that contributes so much to the convenience and to the safety of passengers as punctuality. But there may be some circumstances in which an artificial punctuality may be not only not to the convenience, but to the extreme danger of passengers. That punctuality which is to be secured by fines and penalties in case of its not being observed stimulates and encourages unsafe expedition. Not long ago a great railway disaster occurred because the driver had lost time through a severe snowstorm, and had put on steam in order to avoid unpunctuality and its penalties. Therefore, it is not quite clear that you can by a dash of the pen or the issuing of an order obtain punctuality on railways. It is a subject which requires consideration, and must be approached with that feeling with which one always approaches problems that are difficult of solution. On the question of continuous brakes there is a great difference of opinion. To decide upon an efficient form of continuous brake is no doubt one of the chief objects which those connected with railways are desirous of accomplishing. Are not the Directors of all the great lines giving their attention to the subject? The Board of Trade is, I know, in negotiation with all the railways, and is constantly receiving reports, upon the subject. Experiments are making; inventions are being examined and tried; and soon, I have reason to believe, a Report from the Board of Trade in reference to these matters will be placed on the Table of your Lordships' House. In these circumstances I hope your Lordships' House will not be required to express an opinion upon the questions before it. The subject of railway communication is one which every year will become more and more important. I do not know that at this moment there is one to which more science, attention, or capital are ready to be devoted. In the remarks I have made I do not mean to say that it may not be necessary to legislate upon the subject. There are some points on which it is clear that we could not act without

  21
  legislation. Extreme or excessive speed on bad lines is, no doubt, a subject which requires attention. The use of brake power generally is a matter which requires legislation. The conditions as to the opening of new lines are again a subject on which legislative power is needed. But still, even in these instances, the moral influence of the Board of Trade would have great effect in mitigating evils. What I wish is that, having these documents before us, having the Report, with this immense body of evidence which the Government have now been for some time examining and digesting, we may not at this period of the Session be called upon to legislate; but, taking the general view I have done of the position, which I believe is a just and candid view, we shall be allowed an opportunity of further considering this matter.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, their Lordships would probably all agree that it was far better in the interest of the public and of Parliament that the Government should maintain their entire freedom of opinion and decision on this extremely difficult subject of legislation. Theironly wish could be that the Government should feel and bear the responsibility of forming their own decisions on the extremely difficult matters of legislation which were contained in the Report; and that when the time arrived the Government might find themselves in a position to give an opinion to Parliament either in favour of the necessity of legislation or against it. His noble Friend opposite (Viscount Bury) desired to hold back the Government altogether from any action in this matter. After the speech of the Prime Minister he did not think that the Government required much holding back. It would be exceedingly unwise for the House to give its authority to all the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and he trusted it would turn out that in regard to many of those recommendations legislation might not be necessary. As to some of them, there were great reasons for hoping that what was requisite might be done by the voluntary action of the Companies themselves, under the pressure of the opinion of the public and of Parliament. A great deal had already been done, and was still being done, in respect to the block system, and the system of interlocking points and sig-
  22
  nals under the pressure of public opinion and of the Report of the Committee of that House, which had been alluded to. But he was not so sure about all the points included in the recommendation of the Commission. Continuous brakes would no doubt be an important means of safety, considering the rate at which many trains travelled; and in that matter the Companies up to this moment were in an extremely unsatisfactory position; and he was not persuaded by what had fallen from his noble Friend opposite that that arose from any idea of danger to the public from the use of such brakes. On the contrary, he believed that the importance of their use for safety in railway travelling was established. There were a number of competing interests of a pecuniary kind which made it difficult for the Companies to decide on one or more of the different inventions which had been introduced; but if the Companies held out and refused to meet the views of Parliament and the public in that matter, he was not prepared to say that compulsory legislation might not be necessary. In regard to the condition of the permanent way and the rate of speed at which it would be safe to travel over it, he thought that Parliament might do more than it had done for the purpose of obtaining additional securities in those respects. The Board of Trade had certain powers in that direction already on the opening of a new line; and there would be no insuperable difficulty in the Board of Trade afterwards interfering to repeat the process if necessary, and requiring the Company to put the permanent way in a safe condition. The late accident at Long Ashton, though it was not attended with great loss of life, was nevertheless by its nature one of the most formidable accidents they had had, and one that was well calculated to alarm the travelling public; and he thought the Board of Trade, or whatever other body might be entrusted with such functions, should have the power of forbidding a Company to run its trains at beyond a certain rate of speed on a line which was in a defective state. There was another point to which he wished to direct attention, and that was as to the body which should exercise compulsory powers. He did not think the Board of Trade was adapted for

  23
  that purpose; but other means might be found for carrying into effect the recommendation on the subject. In the Railway Commission— a body which had acquired the confidence both of the Railway Companies and the public—a tribunal such as was required might, he thought, be found. The Board of Trade might be kept strictly within administrative limits; it might bring cases of sufficient importance before the tribunal and support its views by the ample means at its disposal, while the Companies could defend themselves in the same way. The objection of the noble Earl (the Earl of Beaconsfield) would not apply in this case, because the tribunal would be judicial, and once it had given its decisions the Board of Trade would carry them into effect. He was content, however, to leave the Government free on their own responsibility to deal with all these points. He did not think, from what they had heard to-night, that there was any reason to fear rash or rapid legislation.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, that as a Member of the Commission which had inquired into the subject he desired to make a few remarks. And, first, with regard to the objection pointed out by his noble Friend (Viscount Bury) that many, or some, of the recommendations made by the Railway Commissioners were inconsistent with the principle they had laid down—namely, that the responsibility of Railway Companies in working their traffic ought not to be impaired. But he denied that that was the case. For instance, as regarded the application of mechanical inventions and appliances the Commissioners carefully abstained from specifying any, so as to leave free scope for the ingenuity of inventors. Then came the question as to excessive speed. On that point he might remind their Lordships that the most eminent and experienced engineers in the country held that speed in itself was not a source of danger, provided the permanent way was in good condition, and capable of bearing the strain thrown upon it. Next came the recommendation of the Commissioners with regard to brake power. But the Commissioners did not pretend to say that Parliament ought to specify the means by which trains should be stopped within a certain distance. The Companies were left free to devise whatever means they might find
  24
  best for accomplishing that object. Neither did they say that continuous brakes were the only means — scope was thus left for future ingenuity. The noble Earl had alluded to the recommendation of the Commissioners of continuous footboards. It might seem as if that matter was too trivial for legislation; but the want of continuous footboards was a matter that was constantly insisted upon in the Reports of the Board of Trade, and it must therefore be supposed that they attached considerable importance to these footboards as a means of safety. Continuous footboards were, no doubt, very useful and very important; but he did not think they would be sufficient in themselves to remove all cause of danger so far as the carriages were concerned. As some reference had been made to the relations subsisting between the Board of Trade and the Railway Commissioners, he would beg to observe that he spoke for his brother Commissioners when he said that in the recommendations they had made, the last thing that could have entered their minds was to show any disrespect towards the Board of Trade, or any want of appreciation of the importance and dignity of its functions. The fact that they wished to confer additional powers on the Board showed what confidence they felt in the Department. He thought that the Reports of the Board of Trade would have additional dignity and weight if the name of the President instead of the officers of the Board was attached to them. Looking now at the question of the railway servants, and the remarks that had been made on the subject, not only by the noble Duke, but also by some other noble Lords who had spoken, it was no doubt true that a great many accidents were attributable to the failure of railway servants to perform their duty accurately. But it should be remembered that it was easy to suppose an accident which should be caused apparently by the failure of a railway servant to do his duty; while, at the same time, by looking into the matter a little more closely, they might find that the servant had not at hand all the means necessary to enable him to perform his duty. For instance, there was the case of an accident arising from a servant having given the wrong signal: the accident was therefore attributed to

  25
  the signal; but the Inspector pointed out in his Report that the accident could have been prevented if some particular contrivance had been adopted. That was one instance, and several might be adduced; and it was a reason why further attention should be devoted to all such cases. With regard to railway servants, it was sometimes said that in these days they expected every advantage and even luxury. That was not true: on the other hand, increased demands were made upon them, owing to increased traffic and an increased number of trains and of signals. But though our ancestors used rushes for carpets, and rode in waggons, a good carpet was not looked upon as a luxury—and there were certain lines upon which the Directors might improve the condition of their servants by a comparatively small outlay—such as giving protection for their engineers, which had been adopted on some lines, but not on others. Many points had been brought out by the Report on Accidents which deserved to be inquired into; but at that late hour he would not further detain their Lordships. For the last 15 years he had opportunities of studying railway work in all its branches, and these opportunities had been given him by the courtesy of gentlemen responsible for the management of railways. But men of the greatest experience who had been in the habit of observing things from one point of view might, perhaps, receive useful suggestions from others who had no interest or bias in any direction.
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that the tone of the debate would be most grateful to all persons connected with railway management, and he could assure the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) who had conducted the labours of the Commission with so much intelligence, that the Companies would do all they could to carry into effect the recommendations of the Commissioners. With regard to the use of continous brakes, he wished to state that on two-thirds of the whole railway mileage experiments were going on under the direction of the most skilful engineers, and if there was delay in the adoption of any one particular brake, it proceeded not from negligence, or from any mistaken economy, but solely from the conflicting opinions of experts as to which brake was the most effective. As to speed, he was sure that Englishmen
  26
  could no more be prevented from desiring to travel at a high rate of speed, even at considerable risk, than their Lordships from desiring to go across country at the best speed of the best and fastest hunter. It was the habit of the English, and they would indulge it. The noble Duke (the Duke of St. Albans) bad alluded to the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway. He regretted the accident which had occurred as much as anyone, but every possible precaution had been taken. The noble Earl opposite had given due credit to the Railway Companies for their zeal, which zeal, strange to say, was sometimes the cause of accidents. And there were many other causes, of which one was, in very exceptional cases, over labour.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that having been one of the Commission, he desired to offer a few remarks. The noble Viscount (Viscount Bury) stated that the principle had been laid down that the responsibility of the Railway Companies was by the Commission not to be impaired; but he thought he should have referred him to the chapter of the Report in which that responsibility was laid down. There were some exceptional cases in which Railway Companies had been found not to act up to their responsibility, and in those cases it was recommended that power should be given by which certain steps could be taken. He would like to say a few words on the question which he thought the most important of all—namely, the question of brake power. The Commission had recommended the adoption of no particular brake—they simply recommended, what had been proved to be practicable, that every train should be supplied with a brake capable of bringing the train to a stand-still within 500 yards. Two years ago very extensive experiments had been made at Newark, and though no particular brake was adopted, it was found perfectly possible to bring up the train within that distance. Officers of the Great Western and Great Northern Railway Companies had told him as witnesses the result of certain experiments. A. Great Western Railway train of ordinary weight, with seven carriages, one with a brake, one brake van, and tender brake, travelling on the broad gauge at 55 miles an hour, stopped in 890 yards in 58 seconds; at

  27
  64 miles an hour stopped in 1,185 yards in 67 seconds; on the narrow gauge a similar train travelling at 52 miles an hour stopped in 965 yards in 70 seconds, at 47 miles an hour it stopped in 853 yards in 68 seconds. On the Great Northern Railway a train of 15 carriages with Smith's vacuum brake, travelling at 56 miles an hour, stopped in 356 yards in 21 seconds; at 40 miles an hour stopped in 153 yards in 17 seconds; at 45 miles an hour stopped in 271 yards in 16 seconds; at 60 miles an hour stopped in 346 yards in 23 seconds. In the face of these facts, he hoped that brakes for stopping trains in 500 yards would be adopted. With regard to the recommendations relating to the Board of Trade, it was clear that some tribunal should have authority over the Railway Companies, and what the Commissioners meant was, that some steps should be taken in the direction recommended by the Commission to modify the power already possessed by the Board. When a Parliamentary Committee had allowed a new Company to come into an existing Company's stations and goods sheds, and had made no regulation as to the responsibility or management, a great deal of difficulty and risk of public danger had arisen. There were, of course, two engineers and two Boards of Directors to consult;—and he might mention Huddersfield station as an instance of an arrangement of this kind. Indeed, it was the case of Huddersfield which mainly led to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Commissioners. As to the rate of speed, the Report showed what the opinions of the Commissioners were, and their recommendations in that respect would, no doubt, be duly considered. The noble Earl at the head of the Government had made some remarks on the powers which the Commissioners proposed to confer on the Board of Trade or some other tribunal, and had observed that this would deprive Parliament of powers which it at present possessed. It was true that the Commissioners did make some recommendations to allow Companies, with the permission of the Board of Trade, to purchase land for the purpose of affording increased accommodation. They did not for a moment propose, however, that any tribunal should be enabled to authorise Companies to raise capital without Parliamentary
  28
  sanction. It was felt by some of the Commissioners that if Parliament gave extensive powers to the Board of Trade to compel Railway Companies to increase their station accommodation, there ought to be some mode of appeal on the part of the Company from what they might consider an unjust order. This Court was proposed entirely in the interest of the Railway Companies; but his views had been rather modified since Mr. Harrison, who had particularly represented the railway interest on the Commission, had stated in his counter Report that he was not in favour of an Appellate Court; and he now thought that if the Railway Companies did not really want an appeal, but would be content to act upon the suggestions of the Board of Trade without one, the matter of the proposed Court might be allowed to drop. The Commissioners had anticipated the objection of the noble Earl at the head of the Government as to the difficulty of making any Court superior to the Board of Trade. One object in recommending the Board of Trade in preference to a new Court was that it was presided over by a Minister who was responsible to Parliament. Of course, the question immediately arose as to how an appeal could lie from the Minister himself, and he admitted that there could be no Court of Appeal, unless it were presided over by a Judge equal in rank to the Judges of the Supreme Court. There were some other points in the Report of the Commissioners to which he would have directed their Lordships' attention; but in the present state of the House, and considering the full manner in which this question had been discussed, he would not trouble their Lordships with any further remarks.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, that as one of the Members of the Royal Commission on Railway Accidents, he would gladly have made a few remarks to their Lordships; but in consequence of the late hour and the present state of the benches on either side of the House, he would defer his observations to some future occasion. After what had fallen from the noble Earl at the head of the Government, he hoped his noble Friend would not press his Amendment to a division.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  29
  Then an Amendment moved—
  To leave out all the words after the words ("dividing responsibility,") and to insert ("without, however, impairing the responsibility of railway companies for the safety of their traffic, it is expedient that further precautions should be taken for the prevention of accidents on railways by enforcing on railway companies by legislative enactment the adoption of those mechanical contrivances and recognised improvements, the value of which has been thoroughly ascertained. That the recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on Accidents on Railways are deserving of the fullest and most favourable consideration; and if they be adopted by Parliament, subject to such modifications and amendments as on further inquiry it may be proper to suggest, many causes of accident will be removed, and additional security will be afforded to all persons who have occasion to travel by railway, and to the servants of the railway companies.")—(The Lord Cottesloe.)
  After a short debate, the said Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Then the original Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  PROVISIONAL ORDERS (IRELAND) CONFIRMATION (HOLYWOOD, &c.) BILL.
  A Bill for confirming certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Waterworks in the Town of Holywood and Greystones—Was presented by The LORD PRESIDENT; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.