Lords Sitting of 27 June 1878

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Innkeepers * (136); Public Works Loans (Ireland) Act (1877) Amendment * (137).
Second Reading—Dental Practitioners (123); Prison Authorities Act, 1874, Amendment* (134).
Committee—Bills of Sale* (80–135); Highways (South Wales) * (98).
Third Reading—Poor Law Amendment Act (1876) Amendment (99); Monuments (Metropolis) (No. 2) * (100); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings) (Cork) * (117); Local Government Provisional Orders (Belper Union, &c.) * (118); Local Government Provisional Orders (Bournemouth, &c.) * (119), and passed.

DENTAL PRACTITIONERS BILL.
(The Lord Selborne.)

(NO. 123.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to effect an arrangement by which the public would have some security that persons calling themselves dentists, and practising as such, were qualified; and the way they proposed to set to work was by establishing a system of registration something like that which existed in regard to the Medical Profession. The persons who would be entitled to have their names placed on the register would be, in the first instance, licentiates in dental surgery of any Royal College of Surgeons in England, in Edinburgh, or in Ireland, and of any University in the United Kingdom, or of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons in Glasgow. In addition they proposed to protect the interests of existing practitioners in dentistry, either as a separate profession or in conjunction with the practices of medicine, surgery, or pharmacy, by enabling anybody who was now in bonâ fide practice to be put on the register on making a proper declaration. The Bill had received a good deal of support from the profession, and it had been favourably viewed by the General Medical Council, under whose supervision the examinations would take place. He, therefore, hoped their Lordships would give the Bill a second reading. The Medical Act of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) dealt with the subject of dentistry, though not so fully as his Bill; but he was glad to believe the objects the Government had in view were very much the same as his own, and provided certain Amendments in regard to the machinery of the registration were accepted, he understood the noble Duke was prepared to view his Bill favourably. He proposed to put the Bill for Committee to-morrow (Friday), with a view to the Amendments being inserted, and its being reprinted. The noble Duke and their Lordships would then be able to see how the Bill stood in its complete shape.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONthought the proposal suggested by the noble Marquess was the most convenient one to adopt; and as he understood he would be agreeable to put into the Bill certain Amendments which he would propose, he had little doubt he should be able to give him all the assistance he might require in passing the Bill.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

POOR LAW AMENDMENT ACT (1876) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 99.)
(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)

THIRD READING.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he had given Notice of an Amendment to reject the Bill, and he put that Motion on the Paper on two grounds. In the first place, it appeared to him desirable that the House should have another opportunity of expressing an opinion on the measure, especially considering the small majority by which the Amendments of his noble Friend (Earl Fortescue) were rejected the other day. In the second place, the arguments which were brought forward in favour of those Amendments were never answered, though they went to the very principle, as well as to the details of the Bill. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) begged the question entirely when he said his great wish was to encourage friendly societies. They all wished to encourage them, and such a remark had the sympathy of every one in their Lordships' House. But that was not the question, and to make such a general observation was no answer to the arguments which had been put forward in favour of the Amendments. The Bill, as it stood, was entirely opposed to the principles which had, up to the present time, regulated the distribution of poor relief; and no answer had been given to the apprehensions which had been expressed that the results which would follow the adoption of the Bill would be very dangerous.

301
It had been said that although the stricter principles of the Poor Law were applicable 30 or 40 years ago, yet it was desirable that a milder system should now be introduced. For his own part, he ventured to think their Lordships would view the admission of the principle of this Bill as a dangerous proposal. The Poor Law undertook to maintain at the public expense every man who was destitute, and had no property of his own, and that was the fundamental principle of their system of Poor Law relief. But this Bill made a distinction when a man became a pauper between the savings which he might have invested in a friendly society and the money he had placed elsewhere. Now, he should like to know—because he had not yet heard either from the noble Duke, or the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill—what were the grounds upon which this distinction was defended. If an individual had invested money in an ordinary insurance company or any savings bank, when he became a pauper the money was an available asset; and on what grounds were they to distinguish between the money invested in those institutions and money which had been invested in a friendly society? To his mind, both cases stood on precisely the same footing; and if they once admitted the principle that the whole property of a man was not liable when he became a pauper, then, in his opinion, they were entering upon a dangerous and an unsound principle. He at once admitted that in the administration of the Poor Law large discretion must be left in the hands of the Guardians. At the same time he hoped their Lordships would not, without careful and due consideration, abandon a principle which had been the foundation of the present law, and for which, if once abandoned, it would be very difficult to substitute a better principle. While saying this, he was also bound to admit that from both sides of the House he had received requests not to press his Motion for the rejection of the Bill to a division. He was in the hands of the House as to what he should do, though he begged to say that it would apparently be consulting the wishes of many noble Lords if he withdrew his Amendment, and enabled the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) to proceed with the alterations he pro
302
posed to make in the provisions of the Bill.
EARL NELSON, as one of those who voted in favour of the Amendment of the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) the other night, was glad to hear the determination of the noble Earl not to press his Motion for the entire rejection of the Bill to a division, but to give their Lordships another opportunity of expressing an opinion with regard to that Amendment. The object of the Amendment moved the other night was to limit the effect of the Bill to the case of pauper lunatics, which was a very different matter to the case of ordinary paupers. When a man went into a lunatic asylum the charges were very heavy, and they would soon absorb the whole of his savings, which would not be the case if he was simply a pauper receiving ordinary poor relief. In the case of a lunatic asylum, he believed that sometimes as much as 9s. and 10 s. a-week was charged; and this would, therefore, soon take up what savings the man might have made.
THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, he did not think the Amendments which were proposed really met the case; and, at all events, he did not see they had any assurance that those Amendments would be carried, if they allowed the Bill to proceed. He, therefore, suggested that they should not allow it to be read a third time, but that they should recommit the Bill for the purpose of inserting the Amendments. One provision in the Bill he strongly objected to, and that was the proposal that the decision as to those who were to receive relief was to be loft, not with the Guardians, but to the friendly societies. The Bill was one which, if it was to be dealt with at all, ought to be dealt with thoroughly and carefully; and he thought that, in the circumstances, instead of attempting to amend the measure on the third reading, the wiser course would be simply to re-commit the Bill.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, the course proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Redesdale) was not a wise one, and that he could not agree to it. In fact, it was the very course which, in his opinion, ought not to be taken. If the Bill was really so bad a measure as his noble Friend appeared to think it, what would be the use of re-committing it at all? A great deal

303
had been said about the alleged departure from the principle of the Poor Law which was involved in the Bill; but, if the proposal made last Monday by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Fortescue) were adopted by the House, the officers of friendly societies would not be able to hand over the savings of pauper lunatics to their wives and families, who would then, of necessity, have to be taken into the workhouse; and in that way a much larger charge would be thrown upon the rates. The present law, which the Bill now under discussion sought to remedy, was the result of an alteration made two years ago in the then existing Statute. From the reign of Queen Elizabeth, down to 1876, if a man was a subscriber to friendly societies, and became an inmate of a lunatic asylum, there were no means whatever of getting at the savings which he contributed to those bodies. The societies would not pay his money to anyone while the man himself remained a lunatic; but, when he was restored to health and left the asylum, his savings were handed over to him. This state of matters was altered in 1876; but the alteration had been found to work so prejudicially upon friendly societies, and through those societies upon the working classes, that it had been considered necessary to introduce the present Bill.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he regarded the measure before their Lordships as one which struck at the very root of a proper administration of the Poor Laws. The argument which had just been used in support of the Bill by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), appeared to him to be most unsound. Everyone concerned in the administration of the Poor Law knew that it was the commonest thing in the world to hear it said—"Oh! if this or that poor man gets half-a-crown or two shillings a-week, joined to the little which he himself earns, he will not go to the workhouse; and the result will be that we shall not have to pay so much in rates." Anything more unsound than that he could scarcely imagine; but it was the same principle, though not in so aggravated a form, which the noble Duke advocated—the principle of making outdoor relief supplement weekly earnings, and of looking to some machinery which would, if possible, keep people off the
304
rates. The true principle, however, which was involved, and which alone should be acted upon, in the administration of the Poor Laws, was that relief should be given in those cases, and in those cases only, where men were destitute.
LORD FORBESthought that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury), instead of taking up their Lordships' time with any mere motion of philanthropy or sentiment, had brought the matter to an issue on the ground of political economy. Though it might appear, on the first blush of the matter, that the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) and his supporters were the advocates of a proper administration of the Poor Law, he believed that what they proposed would tend to increase, and not to diminish, pauperism, and to add to the rates instead of relieving existing burdens.
EARL STANHOPEsaid, there were hundreds of clubs and friendly societies which were not only of a very questionable character, but which were utterly unsound; and no real service would be done to the working classes by passing any law which would bolster up those establishments.
EARL FORTESCUEhoped that his noble Friend (the Earl of Morley), who had given Notice to move that the Bill be read a third time that day three months, would substitute for that proposal the admirable course suggested by the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale). He quite agreed with the latter noble Earl that, if their Lordships passed the third reading of the Bill without re-committing it, they would be in great danger of having the measure placed upon the Statute Book in such a shape that it would conflict with every principle upon which Poor Law Administration was founded. He had been charged with inconsistency, because he had shown himself ready to assent to the principle of the Bill, so far as pauper lunatics were concerned; but it was only fair to remember that, in some previous observations upon the subject, he admitted that the case of such lunatics rested upon somewhat different grounds from that of others whom the measure would affect. There was precedent, moreover, for making an exception in favour of pauper lunatics; for, under the law as it stood, the jus

305
tices were empowered to recognize the claims of the wives and children of such lunatics as a first charge upon the income and property of the latter. The justices might make an order for the maintenance of a pauper lunatic, to be paid out of any property or income which he might have in addition to what was required for the support of his wife and children. There was practical reason and expediency in the power which the justices thus possessed. Great additional depression might affect the mind of a pauper lunatic if he thought that his wife and family would have to go to the workhouse as one of the consequences of his affliction; and, in that way, the chances of his recovery might be seriously diminished. Instead, therefore, of proposing the rejection of the Bill—which, he admitted, strict logical consistency would have called upon him to do—he had simply proposed last Monday night that the operation of the measure should be limited to pauper lunatics. With reference to what had fallen from the Lord President of the Council (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), it appeared to him that the noble Duke was distinctly reversing the policy the Local Government Board had recently recommended in their admirable Circular showing the advantage resulting from a more restricted administration of out-door relief, and had strangely forgotten the principles upon which he acted—or upon which he hoped and presumed he acted—while at the head of the Poor Law Board; but he now seemed to favour bounties on one particular kind of thrift in the case of all paupers. He ventured to say that he and many noble Lords on the same side of the House were quite as alive to the value of friendly societies as the noble Duke was; but he protested against the principle of bounties. Those societies ought to be allowed to stand on their own merits; and he did not believe they would be injured in the least if the Bill were not to pass. If his noble Friend (the Earl of Redesdale) did not put the suggestion he had made into the form of a Motion, he would himself move that the Bill be re-committed.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the noble Earl who had just spoken.
LORD DUNSANYsaid, the noble Earl the ex-Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley) had spoken of the Bill as being objectionable, because it seemed to him to be reverting to the old fallacy of out-door relief; but he begged to call the attention of their Lordships to the important fact that, in a great many of the Unions of the Metropolis, out-door relief was now entirely abandoned. With what object had it been given up? It had been given up with the view of promoting greater providence among the working classes; and he could not approve of or support anything which would tend to interfere with the development of that providence. He thought it would be unwise in their Lordships not to pass, as it was, the Bill which they were now considering. The savings in friendly societies relieved the rates by preventing persons from coming on the Union; and, in many cases, it was the influence of the wife which induced the husband to make deposits in those societies. If, when the breadwinner was laid aside, the little provision which had been thus made through the friendly societies was to be carried off by the Poor Law Guardians—and taken when most required—a very heavy blow would be struck at that thrift and care on the part of the working classes which he desired to see encouraged. The cultivation of provident habits among those classes would ultimately do far more to reduce the poor rates than anything else. Indeed, it was in such a direction, and by such means, that many in London looked forward to an almost total extinction of those rates as possible; and in this view of the matter, the question was an eminently practical and important one. As to the point of principle, it seemed to him that there was but little to be said. It had been stated that, unless a man were destitute, his claim to relief was invalid; but those who made this statement did not at present act fully up to their own contention. In nine cases out of ten working men subscribed to burial funds, and, in his opinion, that was often a great waste of money; but, if the point of principle was to be rigidly enforced, there were circumstances under which it would be argued that the money so contributed should also be confiscated, for such money was as much a part of the assets of a poor man as anything else.
EARL GREYsaid, that considering the very small majority—a majority of 1 only—by which the proposal of his noble Friend (Earl Fortescue) was defeated on Monday night, he considered that the House should have another opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon the question. He thought the Bill should now be read a third time; and, that having boon done, his noble Friend could then move his Amendment. He did not think it would be desirable to throw the measure back a stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he desired to point out that, while it was perfectly competent to move that the Bill be re-committed, it would not be competent, supposing that last proposal should be carried, for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the measure the same night.
EARL FORTESCUEsaid that, after what the noble and learned Lord had just stated, he would not press his Motion.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly.
EARL FORTESCUE EARL FORTESCUE moved, Clause 1, page 1, line 7, to leave out the words ("pauper or"). The effect of the omission would be to restrict the operation of the Bill to the case of pauper lunatics.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he must oppose the Amendment, which he still regarded as inconsistent. The part of the clause retained by the noble Earl, was as much a violation of principle as the part struck out. The noble Earl by whom the discussion was opened on this occasion (the Earl of Morley) did not appear to see the distinction between investments in friendly societies and investments of other kinds. It might be that legally there was none; but morally there was a wide distinction. In a large number of instances, the wives were the persons who subscribed the money to those societies. He did not deny that, to allow the wives and relatives of paupers to claim their savings was a departure, in some respects, from the strict principle of the Act of 1834; but a great complaint made against the working classes of this country was that they were wanting in habits of economy, and the great object of the Bill was to give them encouragement in the pursuit of thrift. Those of them, how
308
ever, who invested savings in friendly societies were not open to the charge of waste; and he considered it unadvisable to seize on such savings when the contributors might be suffering from a visitation for which they might in no way themselves be accountable. The present measure was brought forward in consequence of the clause which was forced on the Government Bill of 1876. The alteration which was made in that year, and the nature of which had been already sufficiently indicated, had produced such a pernicious result in regard to friendly societies, and those who contributed to them, that they now prayed, as the large number of Petitions which had been presented on the subject showed, to be relieved from the great discouragement under which they were labouring. They did not ask or expect any relief in respect of money which might have come to them by gift or inheritance; but they did ask for relief in respect of moneys which they had subscribed from their own savings to friendly or to benefit societies. This was all they required; but they declared, at the same time, that if power were given to the Poor Law Guardians to come, in a time of difficulty and distress, and lay hold upon the money which they had so contributed, any effective progress on the part of friendly societies would be altogether impeded. These friendly societies did not ask for any general power; they only asked that they might deal with these funds in cases where there was a wife or relative dependent upon the man. It was not correct to say that all discretion would be taken from the Boards of Guardians, because they would still have the power of saying, if it was an undeserving case, that the man should have no relief whatever, and in that case he must resort to the money which was in the hands of the friendly society. As he had said before, he was not going to deny that allowing the wives and relatives to claim these savings, and yet receive relief, was in some respects a departure from the strict principles of the Poor Law, as laid down in 1834; but the great complaint against the poorer people of this country was that they were wanting in habits of economy. Those of them, however, who invested savings in friendly societies were not open to that charge, and the Legislature

309
ought to give every assistance it could to these societies in enabling the best use to be made of the money when misfortune came upon the man. It had been stated that the operation of the friendly societies saved the poor rates £2,000,000 a-year. To seize the payments due from the friendly and benefit societies, and then take, as the Guardians must do, the wives and children into the workhouse, would cost the Union perhaps ton times as much as if they had left the society's payments alone, and had given but partial relief.
LORD HAMPTONsaid, it was with extreme regret that he found himself constrained to oppose any measure promoted by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), because they must all admit the excellency of the motives by which the noble Earl was always animated. At the same time, he was rather surprised to find the noble Earl an advocate of this Bill, because he should have thought that he would have been the first to admit, what nobody could doubt, that the measure which had tended more than another to benefit the labouring classes was the Poor Law Act; and he could not regard this Bill in any other light than as a most serious and dangerous invasion of that law. He was not now, but he once was, Chairman of a Board of Guardians; and he appealed to many of their Lordships to say whether he was not right in stating, that amongst those who were called upon to contribute payment to the rates, there were very many who were themselves on the verge of pauperism, and with regard to whom a great hardship was inflicted by calling upon them to so contribute. They could only justify the call on the ground of extreme necessity. It was true it was said that under this Bill there would be an equivalent in the shape of out-door relief, and that the members of these benefit societies would live upon the money they received, instead of placing themselves on the poor rates; but, in regard to that point, he was very much struck by the argument of his noble Friend a few minutes ago, that all these societies were not of the most perfectly sound character. On these grounds he should feel compelled, although it was with regret that he arrived at the determination, to vote against it, because he believed if it passed it would be a serious invasion
310
of the principle of the existing Poor Law.
On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?"—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 71; Non-Contents 52: Majority 19.
The words ("pauper or") struck out.
EARL FORTESCUE EARL FORTESCUE moved to leave out ("other relative"), and insert ("child or children under sixteen years of age, or father or mother.") "Relative" was a word of formidably wide application. He had known various persons with more than 100 cousins.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYobjected to the age of 16 years being mentioned.
EARL FORTESCUEconsented to omit 16 years, and the words ("child or children, or father or mother") were inserted.
EARL FORTESCUE EARL FORTESCUE moved to leave out from ("relative") to the end of the clause.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYpointed out that this clause had received the sanction of the Poor Law Board.
THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, the Board could not know what it was doing when it gave its sanction to such a Bill.
Amendment agreed to; words struck out; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

RAILWAYS— THE FATAL ACCIDENT TO SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANS THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANS rose to call attention to the Report of Colonel Yolland upon the fatal accident to Sir Francis Goldsmid, and to ask, If it is the case that the Board of Trade has no control over the rolling stock of existing railways; and, if so, whether, with respect to any new railways or extensions of existing railways, Her Majesty's Government will take means to acquire such powers of control? It appeared to him, from the Report of Colonel Yolland, that the death of that universally respected Gentleman, the late Sir Francis Goldsmid, must be attributed to the absence of continuous foot

  311
  boards to the railway carriages from which he wished to descend. His fall would not have been prevented, but his life might have been saved. It seemed from the Report of Colonel Yolland that the openings of the doors of the carriage were 2 feet wide, and the step 13 inches below and 8 inches wide. This matter, he considered, was a very important one, and the time had now come when continuous footboards should be insisted upon. By that simple remedy he had no doubt but that a most fatal cause of accidents would be stopped. Now, the Report of the Royal Commission was very clear upon the advantages of continuous footboards, while the cost of adopting them generally could not be very great. He would, therefore, ask the noble Lord who represented the Board of Trade (Lord Henniker), why they had not been insisted upon, and how long this source of danger was to continue? He trusted that juries would mark their opinion on this matter by heavy damages against the Railway Companies whenever accidents of this class were brought before them. The approval of the Board of Trade was necessary in the matter of signals, curves, bridges, and the permanent way generally; but he was informed that the Government had no statutory power over the rolling stock of the Railway Companies; and he should like to know whether that was the case or not, for he did not see why the Government should not have that power. He did not advocate the employment of a Government official to examine every engine and railway carriage which left Waterloo Station; but he did not see why the Board of Trade should not exercise a roving supervision in that important respect, which involved the safety of railway passengers. He did not see why a Railway Company should be relieved from responsibility and liabilities by the Board of Trade control in that respect more than in the case of the permanent way. In the case of a steam-packet boat, the owner was not exempt from liabilities, because he was required to have a Board of Trade certificate to carry passengers, and he was not relieved of the responsibility of the safety of the persons he carried. The authority of the Board of Trade, it appeared to him, was rather a peculiar one. When a line was opened they had
  312
  no power over it until an accident occurred. When the horse had bolted they might inquire who left the door open. He believed that the rolling stock on railways, however, was exempt from any Government control, and that the Railway Companies might carry their passengers in any kind or description of carriage; and he asked why that branch of the Company's undertaking should not be subject to the general sanction of the Board of Trade as well as the line itself. As a rule, the railways were anxious to secure the convenience and safety of the public, especially when they were in competition with other Companies; but he thought it would be more satisfactory if breaks, footboards, and the like were not left to the caprice of railway directors. It would be well, in any future legislation, to extend the powers of the Board of Trade so as to enable them to remove the fruitful sources of many accidents, in respect to which they had at present no power. He wished, therefore, to ask, Whether it was the case that the Board of Trade had no control over the rolling stock of existing railways; and, if so, whether, with respect to any new railways or extensions of existing railways, Her Majesty's Government would take means to acquire such powers of control? He would point out that the approval of the Board was requisite for the condition of the permanent way, and he saw no reason why it should not exercise the same power of control over the rolling stock.
  LORD COTTESLOEsaid, that before the noble Lord who represented the Board of Trade replied to the noble Duke he wished to make a few remarks. He did not propose to go into the whole question of railway accidents. That was a very wide subject, and it was a subject of great gravity and importance; but he wished to confine himself to the question brought before their Lordships by the noble Duke. The question might appear to be a very small matter, but the number of accidents arising therefrom was very considerable. It was the more serious because these accidents were entirely preventable, as it was possible to remove their cause. There was one other consideration which ought not to be lost sight of, and that was the question of who were most liable to be the victims of these accidents. The class of persons who lost their lives

  313
  owing to the way in which the footboards and platforms were at present constructed were not the young, or those who were in the full possession of all their faculties; but the aged and the infirm persons whose eyesight was defective, women with children in their arms, and servants who had packages to carry. It was sometimes said that there was no necessity to pity the people who met with accidents, because it was owing to their own carelessness; but he thought that was not so. The danger arose from the platforms being placed 7 or 8 inches from the carriages. He took the liberty, four years ago, to put a question to the noble Duke opposite on this subject. At that time several accidents had recently occurred, and the Press had taken the matter up. The noble Duke, upon that occasion, told him that the particular case to which he referred would be inquired into, but with regard to the prevention of such accidents the Board of Trade had no power to interfere; the noble Duke, however, added that the question was fully deserving the consideration of the Royal Commission then sitting. It was considered by the Royal Commission, and they reported in very strong terms in the matter, and that only after they had gone largely into the question. They said—
  "But a third alternative, already resorted to by several railways, would, if generally adopted, do a great deal to lessen the evil, and that is the provision of continuous footboards of sufficient width. Objections of different kinds are urged against the use of such footboards; but we confidently believe that the Companies will come to acknowledge, universally, that they are desirable. We, therefore, recommend that the Board of Trade be empowered to enforce their adoption, wherever the circumstances of the traffic are such as to render them necessary for the safety of the passengers.
  "(2.) The subject of platforms has also claimed our attention. We are of opinion that the attainment of uniformity in this respect would be desirable and ought to be kept in view in the construction of new railways and in altering existing stations."
  The Railway Commissioners also reported that—
  "In dealing with accidents to passengers from collateral causes, our attention has been specially called to cases of persons falling between carriages and platforms, and we recommend that the Board of Trade be authorized to enforce the adoption of continuous footboards as the only practicable measure of prevention we can suggest. The inequality in the height of the platforms upon different lines is objection
  314
  able, and the attainment of uniformity in this respect is very desirable."
  One of the Commissioners—Mr. Galt—made a special Report, in which he said—
  "On no subject connected with railways has Captain Tyler expressed so strong an opinion as on the present construction of footboards. From his first Report, in 1870, till his last, for 1875, and in his evidence before us he has denounced, in the strongest possible terms, the present construction of footboards as 'a constant source of danger for which no good excuse could be offered;' and the iron steps, at present generally in use, as 'admirably adapted to cut people in pieces between the train and the platform.'"
  Mr. Galt also said—
  "This Commission has recommended that the Board of Trade should be empowered to enforce the construction of continuous footboards in all cases where they may consider them necessary, and by this means alone, if the recommendation be adopted, there can be no doubt that a great saving of life will in future be effected."
  That was two years ago, but nothing had been done to give effect to the Report of that Commission. He was next obliged to trouble their Lordships with Colonel Yolland's Report. He said that—
  "The public have a right to expect that every Railway Company will cause all its rolling stock, so far as passenger carriages are concerned, to be so constructed or altered, and the height of the platforms to be properly adapted to the passenger carriages, as will afford reasonable grounds for safe travelling in their own lines of railway. Continuous footboards to passenger carriages are also required as a means of properly providing for the safety of passengers getting into and out of carriages on the platforms of all railway stations throughout the Kingdom."
  That seemed a reasonable request that the platforms should be raised and continuous footboards provided; and he believed that the interference of the Board of Trade, if they had the power, would soon induce the Railway Companies to deal with this matter. They certainly were met with the argument that it would be an expensive operation to alter the carriages and platforms; but he believed the expense would be comparatively trifling. Their Lordships had Bills every day before them promoted by Railway Companies to enable them to raise new capital, to enlarge or make new stations, and for other purposes. There seemed to be plenty of money, and railways seemed to be doing remark

  315
  ably well, so that they could not complain of the expense in a case of such real necessity as this. The Railway Commissioners on this point said—
  "We have carefully considered in what way pressure can be brought to bear on Railway Companies which make default in these respects, without impairing their responsibility, and we believe that this may be effected by legislation enforcing upon them the adoption of certain recognized improvements and the construction of necessary works, while leaving to the Railway Companies themselves the settlement of all matters of detail and of administration."
  Replying to the objection against the interference of Government, he would only point out that Parliament interfered in almost every other question in which the safety and health of the public were concerned. To support that statement, he had only to call attention to the laws connected with the Mercantile Marine, with mining, and the use of machinery, and to the laws dealing with questions of sanitation; so that they were not to be met with the argument that Parliament had no right to interfere with public Companies. There was another, and still more startling argument which he could not refrain from alluding to, and that was that the Railway Companies were so strong in both Houses of Parliament, that it was useless to attempt to touch railways. He hoped that was not the case. He knew there were railway directors and shareholders in both Houses of Parliament; but he did not believe that they would be able, or would endeavour, to throw out any real and well-considered Bill for railway reform. But if Parliament would not deal with the matter, let the Government give power to the Board of Trade to interfere. He himself would be glad to see that done, for he had very great faith in the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade, between whom and the Railway Companies there existed an understanding; had done very good service in many cases, but, in the instance under discussion, it had not been able to advance matters without the assistance of Parliament. He, for one, should be glad to support a Bill to give the necessary powers to the Board of Trade. With regard to the accident to Sir Francis Goldsmid, it was perfectly unnecessary to inquire whether that gentleman got out of the door before the train stopped. That was beside the question; the point being whether the door could in any case have been
  316
  opened without danger. Colonel Yolland gave the following facts as to the position of the steps:—
  "Outside of each door there is a wooden step 1 foot 7½ inches long, by 8 inches wide—13 inches below the floor of the carriage—7½ to 7¾ inches above the level of the platform. So that the floor of the carriage is above 4 feet 2½ inches above the level of the rail, and 2¾ inches above the level of the platform where this accident was reported to have occurred. From the top of the door step, vertical distance of 11 inches to the upper suface of the continuous footboard below, and thus the continuous footboard was 3½ inches below the level of the platform. There were 2–3½ inches between the continuous footboards. The outer edge of the wooden doorstep is, horizontally, 7½ from the edge of the wall of the platform and the outward edges of the continuous footboard below the wooden door step 7½ 8¼, and 8½ inches from the upright wall of the platform, and thus there was sufficient space for a man's foot or leg to pass down between the outer edge of the continuous footboard and the upright wall of the platform."
  Colonel Yolland went on to say that the Railway Companies had had these matters pointed out to them over and over again. A suggestion had been made that the edge of the continuous footboard, which ought to take the place of the wooden step, should overlap the platform. Something might be done in that direction, and he would conclude by saying that he hoped the Board of Trade, in whom he had the greatest confidence, would be able to insist upon some measures being taken to protect the lives of railway travellers.
  LORD NORTONsaid, the Government had no control over the private property of any Company, and if the Board of Trade had, with regard to Railway Companies, the suggested task of saying what machinery they should use, it would be a most mischievous thing. The Government would practically enter into partnership with private enterprize, the Government incurring all the responsibility, and the Companies retaining the management without responsibility, and that of the entire traffic of the country involving the daily safety of life and property. The Board of Trade could not be the best judges of constructions which, under private undertaking, were matters of constant improvement and invention. They would make mistakes and lose all authority; and, when right, could not see to the execution, or constant maintenance of their prescriptions. What the Government could do and ought to

  317
  do in questions of this sort, was to enforce recognized requirements. The Government should also give publicity to any neglect to carry these out on the part of Railway Companies. There should be always friendly conference between the Government and the Companies, such as he had himself satisfactorily established. The case of the lamented death of Sir Francis Goldsmid, however, illustrated the impossibility of any Department having the power to prescribe particular construction to the Companies. This Railway had carried out some recommendations of the Board of Trade as to height of platform, but not others as to space between platforms and steps, which required a difficult and general arrangement. Continuous footboards were by no means a settled question, and it would be no use ordering what could not be done, or what may soon be better arrived at.
  LORD TRUROsaid, these accidents sometimes arose from individual carelessness, and at others from defective arrangements on the part of the Railway Companies, and the question was, whether to any further extent than now existed, the Board of Trade should interfere with what he might term the conduct of these commercial undertakings; or whether they ought not to abstain from any direct interference with the detailed arrangements of the Companies? No doubt, it was necessary to issue certain general requirements; but these had always been drawn up with a view to leave, as far as possible, the matter in the hands of the Companies, so that their opinion and experience might be used in the way they considered would be best for the public interests. If the Government interfered too much, they would check those improvements which the Companies might otherwise introduce, and above all, they would take away from them that responsibility which ought properly to attach to them, and without which the public would have no redress.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, their Lordships would be aware that, more than a week ago, he had laid on the Table the Report of Colonel Yolland on the fatal accident, which they must all deplore, that had happened to Sir Francis Goldsmid; and, on Tuesday last, he laid before the House the Correspondence which had passed on the subject between the Board of Trade and the London and South
  318
  Western Railway Company. Their Lordships would have had an opportunity of reading the Report of Colonel Yolland, which was very able and complete, and, therefore, it was unnecessary for him to refer to it at length; but the Correspondence with the South Western Railway Company was not at present in their Lordships' hands, and, therefore, in order to put the case clearly before them, he might, perhaps, be allowed to read the following letter:—
  "London and South Western Railway,
  "Secretary's Office,
  "Waterloo Bridge Station, June 14.
  "Sir,—Your letter of the 4th instant (R 4592), with Colonel Yolland's Report on the recent fatal accident to Sir Francis Goldsmid, have been laid before the directors, and in reply to the request that the Board of Trade may be informed as to what steps have been, or are proposed to be taken to prevent the recurrence of such accidents in future, I am instructed to state that it appears, by the Report of Colonel Yolland, that this Company had, previous to the accident, in respect of the platform at which it occurred, 'practically complied with the recommendation of the officers of the Board of Trade, both as to the height of the platform and the distance at which the line should be laid from the edge of the platform.' But it is remarked that this Company have not adopted the further recommendation of such officers as to the substitution of continuous footboards for the carriage door steps; and, with reference to this matter, I am directed to point out that the adoption upon all carriages of a continuous footboard is not desirable, or, indeed, practicable, while the heights of platforms at stations differ to the extent these now do in many instances, as it is not possible to step from a continuous footboard to a lower carriage step, consequently, one step must be made from the footboard to the platform level, which, with low platforms, such as exist at many railway stations, cannot be effected by passengers either with safety or convenience. It is well known that upon the older lines of railways the platforms were originally constructed of a less height than is now the general practice, and the directors for a considerable time past have acted upon the principle of adopting a uniform height of 2 feet 6 inches for the platforms at all new stations, and when opportunity occurs in the alteration of existing station platforms. And, with respect to the carriage steps, their principle now is to adopt a wooden step at each carriage doorway upwards of 2 feet in length, and about 10 inches in width. While the directors deplore this fatal accident, they are unable from the evidence given at the coroner's inquest, and before Colonel Yolland, to understand the grounds upon which he expresses an opinion that 'there is not the least reason for doubting the complete accuracy of Sir Francis Goldsmid's statement, that the accident was occasioned by the door of his compartment having been opened by some of the officials at the station,' and they, after having used the utmost diligence to produce every witness of the accident, some of these not being railway servants,

  319
  venture to think that Colonel Yolland'a assumption is not supported by the evidence. The directors have, however, ordered that the regulation of the Company, 'that no carriage door must be opened to allow a passenger to alight from or enter a train before it has come to a stand, or after it has started,' be prominently brought under the notice of all their servants.
  "I am, &c.,
  "FREDERICK CLARKE, Secretary.
  "The Assistant Secretary, Railway Department'
  Board of Trade."
  As to Colonel Yolland's Report, he might say, on the part of the Board of Trade, that they entirely agreed in the conclusions at which he had arrived, and were quite aware of the dangers to which passengers travelling by railway were exposed from the want of properly constructed continuous footboards. The attention of the Companies had been called to this matter for many years past. It would also, no doubt, be a very good thing if the platforms at all the stations were made of the same height; and the upper footboard, if more than one were used, a few inches higher than the platform, so that the footboard could be brought nearly close to the edge of the platform, without any danger of its coming into contact with it. But there were a great many cases where the heightening of the platform would entail such a large expense, and inconvenience, that it was not likely the Companies would be able to carry out all this work at once. No doubt, this was a change which must be gradually carried into effect. There did not, however, appear to be the slightest reason why the present narrow iron steps should not be removed, and continuous footboards substituted for them, with the addition of a second continuous footboard at a distance of from 2 inches to 4 inches from the edge of the platform to carriages running on the lines where the platforms were lower than the height recommended by the Board of Trade. With regard to the Question of the noble Duke, about rolling stock, the facts of the case were these. The Regulation of Railways Act gave a power to the Board of Trade, at any time, should they think it necessary, to inspect the rolling stock and premises of any Railway Company. Were the rolling stock of the Railway Companies placed under the control and inspection of the Board of Trade, it would entirely relieve the Companies of the responsi
  320
  bility they ought to bear, as had been already stated by his noble Friend beside him (Lord Norton), and it would throw the whole of it upon the Government. That would be a most undesirable thing to do. The point raised by the noble Duke involved very large principles, and if it were decided to interfere in the direction suggested by him, the whole question of State control over railways would have to be re-considered. This question had been considered not only by Committees of both Houses of Parliament, but more recently by the Commission on Railway Accidents. All these different authorities had looked carefully into the matter, and they were unanimously of opinion that, on the whole, the safety and convenience of the public were better cared for by the system at present in force—allowing the Railway Companies to conduct their own affairs, rather than placing them, more immediately under the control of the Government. Under these circumstances, it was not the intention of the Government to take steps to acquire any further power of control over the arrangements made by the Railway Companies, or to interfere with the manner in which they worked their traffic.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.