§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
§ Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl De La Warr.)
LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSS, in rising to move the Previous Question, said, he had no intention of entering into the controversy on the continuous brakes system, or to inquire whether the Westinghouse system or any other was or was not the best. He would admit that he was strongly of opinion that every passenger train in the country should be provided with a continuous brake; and was sorry to have to admit that some Companies were very tardy in adopting it. But the Bill before their Lordships aimed to impose upon Railway Companies the application of a new principle altogether—that of the automatic brake. He was strongly of opinion that any legislation on such a subject ought not to come from a private individual, but from the Board of Trade, that Department of the Government which attended particularly to railway matters and the safety of the public in connection with railways. His noble Friend would, no doubt, say that the Bill was 1232 founded on the recommendation of some officer of that Department some five years ago. Perfect unanimity, however, it was well known, did not exist in the Board of Trade on the subject. The Report of the Committee who had sat on the matter in 1877 had also been largely quoted by the supporters of some such measure as the present; but if the experience of 1882 had existed in 1877, he did not think the recommendations of that Committee in favour of an automatic brake would ever have seen the light. He attended a few days ago a deputation which waited on the President of the Board of Trade, when Mr. Chamberlain stated that he was adverse to any legislation for bringing Parliamentary pressure on Railway Companies which could be avoided. The right hon. Gentleman particularly instanced the blocking system and the interlocking system as inventions which, he said, were adopted without any Parliamentary pressure whatever. Railway Companies had not any object in killing or maiming people; their great desire was to carry their passengers with the utmost safety, not only on the ground of humanity, but because of that very ugly word, compensation. No doubt, a great many accidents must occur in the management of railways, a great many of which must be fatal; but, according to the Report of the Board of Trade for 1880, the last which had been issued, he found that no fewer than 603,884,000 railway journeys had been made in this country in the course of that year, and only 29 persons were killed from circumstances beyond their own control, being at the rate of one in 20,927,034 persons who travelled on railways, or, including season ticket holders, one person in every 24,600,000. That, if compared with walking in the streets of London, was comparative safety. The Bill required the adoption of a kind of brake which would only act when the couplings were broken. An eminent engineer had informed him that this automatic brake would give no warning in cases where an axle broke, or where the train jumped off the line; for it would not act of itself so long as no severance took place. In the face of such testimony, he could not support the Bill, which made the automatic brake compulsory, and which came from a private Member of their Lordships' House, and not from the Board 1233 of Trade, which ought to assume the responsibility of legislation of such a nature; and he trusted their Lordships would support him in moving the Previous Question.
§ Previous question moved.—(The Lord Colville of Culross.)
§ THE DUKE OF SUTHERLANDsaid, that he strongly objected to the Bill as unnecessary, considering the progress that had been made of late years by the Railway Companies in the adoption of these brakes. If the noble Earl opposite (Earl De La Warr) had brought forward the Bill five or six years ago, there might be some reason for it. All Railway Companies were convinced that continuous brakes were necessary, and did not seem in any way to be slow in adopting adequate measures of precaution; and he could quote figures to show at what rate brakes were being fitted on the different trains. It was his belief, indeed, that after a very short time no trains would leave London without this system of brake—in fact, hardly any left without them at present. The interference of Parliament with the Board of Trade in respect of the brake question would be most mischievous, as it would relieve the Companies of a great deal of responsibility, and would work in a way prejudicial to great improvements. It seemed to him, from some experiments that had been carried out within the last few months, that the Railway Companies were now convinced that the proposed brake was not the best that could be adopted. It was an American invention that was supposed to be the best at the time it was proposed; but better brakes had now been provided. He thought much responsibility would attach to the Government if they supported a Bill like the present, being convinced that much the better course would be to leave the matter in the hands of the Railway Companies themselves, who were progressing very satisfactorily in the application of improved brakes.
§ LORD SUDELEYsaid, he hoped the House would not support the Motion for the Previous Question, but would allow the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee. The noble Earl who had introduced the Bill (Earl De La Warr) deserved great credit for the perseverance 1234 with which, year after year, he had pressed forward this important question; and it would hardly be a courteous act to him if the Bill was shelved at this stage. It must also be remembered that continuous brakes were brought to the notice of the Companies as far back as September, 1858, and it was as long ago as the year 1874 that the Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the best means of preventing railway accidents. That Commission, on which the noble Earl sat, after careful investigations for three years, reported, in 1877, that they considered it desirable that the Railway Companies should be compelled to adopt some system of continuous brakes; and, while they thought at that moment that the question was not sufficiently ripe for them to state which brake should be used, yet they indicated in general terms that they concurred in the conditions necessary for a good brake which the Board of Trade had recommended in the general Report on Railway Accidents in 1874. The Commissioners, in their Report in 1877, expressed—
Their decided opinion that no train could be considered properly equipped which was not furnished with sufficient brake power to bring it, at the highest speed at which it will be running upon any gradients within its journey, to an absolute stop within 500 yards.So convinced were they of the absolute necessity of having sufficient brake power for the security of life and prevention of accidents that they went on to state—That there are ample means of accomplishing this object with certainty and safety, and we recommend that this be made obligatory by statute.He (Lord Sudeley) need hardly say since that date the urgency of the case had been greatly strengthened by the enormous increase in traffic, and by the invention of improved forms of brakes. He found that the increase in the amount received for traffic had been for passengers, in 1870, £19,300,000; 1880, £27,200,000; for goods, 1870, £24,100,000; 1880, £35,700,000. The Board of Trade had felt most unwilling to interfere with railway management, or to impair, in the slightest degree, the responsibility of the Companies for injury or loss of life by accident on their lines, by any legislation which would have laid down a stereotyped form of brake. They had limited themselves to 1235 laying down certain conditions, which they concluded, after full consideration, were necessary for continuous brakes to comply with, and they had endeavoured steadily to press upon the Companies the necessity of carrying out these requirements. Attempts had also been made, at different times, by private individuals during recent years to obtain legislative authority to compel all Railway Companies to adopt a continuous brake; but, on each occasion, the Board of Trade had advised that the measures should not be proceeded with, relying as they did upon the assurance of the Companies that they were actively engaged in fitting their stock with brakes which would comply with the suggestions shadowed forth by the Report of the Royal Commission and recommended for adoption to the Companies by the Board of Trade in 1876. In 1878 an Act was passed compelling all the Companies to make Returns showing what description of brakes were in use on their lines, what amount of stock was fitted, and what failures (if any) had occurred in the use of the brakes. From those Returns, he was sorry to say, it appeared that the action of the Companies generally had been very slow and inadequate; and, up to the present time, there was no general concurrence as to what form of brake should be universally adopted. Some Companies (two in particular) were bright exceptions to the rule, and their action in the matter and the result of their experience proved that the conditions of the Board of Trade were not only, as they obviously must be, desirable, but perfectly practicable and capable of being carried out without any inconvenience to the Companies concerned. Other Companies had partially and very slowly fitted their trains with brakes which did not comply with the suggestions of the Board of Trade; and, again, other Companies had wholly neglected their duty in this respect. On December, 1881, the Returns showed that the amount of stock fitted with continuous brakes was 2,393 engines and 24,749 carriages, leaving stock unfitted, 2,894 engines and 20,486 carriages. There was thus supposed to be fitted—of engines 45 per cent. and of carriages 55 per cent. Unfortunately, of this number, a large amount of rolling-stock did not comply with all the conditions 1236 contained in the Circular of the Board of Trade of 1877, for the numbers which complied with all the conditions were only 1,423 engines and 10,403 carriages. The noble Lord who had moved the Previous Question (Lord Colville of Culross), and who represented several of the large Railway Companies, would not deny that that was a most unsatisfactory state of things; indeed, he had already stated that he thought every railway ought to adopt some sort of continuous brake. The Board of Trade had, up to the present time, been in hope that the force of public opinion and the moral pressure which they were able to bring to bear upon the Companies, with these Returns before them, would have induced them voluntarily to take up and deal thoroughly with this important question. Such a course was, in every way, far more desirable than to compel them by legislation to do so; but, after the experience of the last five or six years, it was difficult to maintain that anything short of legislative enactments would induce the Companies thoroughly to grapple with it. In those circumstances, and while the Board of Trade would not, perhaps, have initiated a measure of the kind which was now before the House, they could not help thinking that the time had arrived, in the interests of the travelling public, when some pressure should be put on the Companies. While he did not wish for one moment to go into the rival merits of various brakes, or to imply that it was desirable to stereotype by Act of Parliament any particular form of brake, yet the Board of Trade, after the experience of six years, and after having given the fullest consideration to the subject, were of opinion that there was no reason to withdraw or modify the suggestion which they had previously expressed as being necessary for providing brake-power for passenger trains. It had been constantly urged that automatic brakes were too complicated and were liable to get out of order. On that point the most conclusive evidence had been given to the Board of Trade that, while it was undoubtedly true that all mechanical contrivances were at times liable to get out of order, and that continuous brakes were no exception to this rule, yet careful instruction to those who were in- 1237 trusted with brake duties minimized and almost removed all chances of failure. That had been shown on one railway, where a van was specially fitted up and all the guards and engine-drivers were made to go through a course of instruction, the result being that slight accidents and failures in the brake had been almost entirely prevented. When it was remembered that enormous speeds were now attained by express trains, the desirability and urgency of having efficient brakes that could be used instantaneously was brought vividly before everyone's notice. The Board of Trade felt sure that if their conditions were carried out a continuous brake would be given which would work with thorough efficiency. There could be no doubt of their practicability, for brakes complying with them had been adopted by the French Government and on the Belgian railways, and, he believed, in Austria, and were largely used in America. At the same time, he admitted that there was still considerable divergence of opinion on the matter; and the Board of Trade, while still unwilling to force legislation on the railways, saw no objection to the Bill going to a Select Committee, believing that further inquiry might tend to stimulate the Railway Companies to greater exertions.
§ EARL CAIRNSsaid, that he was quite certain the noble Earl who introduced the Bill (Earl De La Warr) was actuated by the best intentions; but, looking to the character of the measure, he (Earl Cairns) could not support it. He was himself quite as anxious as anyone could be upon the matter, and agreed that it was very desirable that a system of continuous brakes should be adopted; and if the Board had made up their minds as to the best system, and had come to Parliament for powers to compel its adoption, he, for one, should be very much disposed to grant their request. But that was just what they had not done. By the Bill under notice Parliament was asked to stereotype now and for ever, or, at any rate, until the Act was repealed, a sort of ideal brake; and, what was still more objectionable, to submit the question whether the brakes of the various Companies answered the requirements of the Act, and other questions not of a judicial character, to a body of gentlemen—the Railway Commissioners—who were 1238 utterly unfit to determine such matters. Such questions were altogether foreign to the business the Commissioners were appointed to transact, and he held that duties of that nature ought not to be thrown upon them. The first condition of the Board of Trade was that the adopted brake
Must be efficient in stopping the train, must be instantaneous in its action, and capable of being applied without difficulty by engine-drivers and guards.But the Commissioners who were to decide this point were not supposed to be mechanics, and knew nothing of the structural formation of the rolling stock of a railway. The next condition was, "in case of accident, it must be instantaneously self-acting." He presumed that, as "in case of accident" meant in case of any accident whatever, no brake could conceivably satisfy such an impossible condition. Then, again, "the brake must be capable of being easily put on and taken off the engines every day with the train;" and the question of the case with which this could be done was to be left to the arbitrium of the Railway Commissioners. And, lastly, the materials of the brake must be "of a durable character, so as to be easily maintained and kept in order." How, he might ask, were the Railway Commissioners to estimate the case with which all these various operations could be performed? Under the provisions of the Bill any crochety person who might be travelling on a railway would be able to bring a Railway Company before the Commissioners on the most trivial complaints with respect to the brake. The Commissioners were appointed in 1873 to settle legal questions connected with the administration of railways and the relation of one Company to another; but they were in no way qualified to pronounce an opinion on questions of practical mechanics, and it was most unfair to put upon them, after the lapse of some years, additional duties quite different to those for the discharge of which they were appointed, and among them the duty of issuing an injunction against a Railway Company on the ground that their brakes were bad, or that they did not comply with the conditions laid down in the Act of Parliament. He must object, therefore, to the proposal to impose these new duties on a tribunal which had already enough 1239 to do to attend to its own proper functions. Indeed, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Sudeley) had himself condemned the Bill, when he spoke of the unwillingness of the Board of Trade to relieve the Railway Companies of their responsibility. But what could be done if the Bill passed? The noble Earl in charge of it (Earl De La Warr), believing the brake of a Railway Company to be a bad one, might proceed against the Company before the Commissioners, who might give judgment and impose a penalty. The Company might then adopt a brake of the pattern recommended by the noble Earl, and if it turned out to be a bad one and a serious accident ensued, and if the Company were sued for damages, the answer would be—"It is not our doing, but the doing of the noble Earl and of the Railway Commissioners." If the Board of Trade asked Parliament for further powers, their Lordships would probably entertain the request and give it full consideration; but this measure, or any measure of a similar character, seemed to him to be full of danger, and one that would get them into difficulties; and he, therefore, hoped that the Bill would be withdrawn. If that course were not adopted, he should feel bound to support the Amendment for the Previous Question.
§ EARL DE LA WARRsaid, the course taken by the noble Lord (Lord Colville of Culross) was rather an unusual one—to move the Previous Question on the Motion to go into Committee on a Bill which had been read a second time without opposition, and more particularly so, when it was considered that the noble Lord had, to a certain extent, on that occasion, approved of its objects. The only inference he (Earl De La Warr) could deduce was that the noble Lord did not wish that the Bill should be considered on its merits, as it might be, in Committee. He could not see why the Bill should be objected to by a noble Lord who was identified with one of the largest of the Railway Companies, which for some time had had continuous brakes in use. He demurred to the assertion that there was any new principle in the Bill; the principle was adopted in America in 1869, and in this country in 1871; consequently, it was not a new one, and it was rapidly spreading. In France, all the principal lines used a 1240 brake with automatic action; in Belgium, and, he believed, also in Holland, a similar brake was adopted; and it was being gradually employed in Germany and Austria. There would be ground for objection if the Board of Trade were to insist upon a particular kind of brake; that would be far too great a responsibility for the Board of Trade to assume, and it would relieve the Railway Companies of the responsibility of arriving at a decision for themselves. But that was a very different thing from merely laying down certain requirements, which was all that the Bill would do. There were many brakes in use which were admittedly not efficient, and that notwithstanding the pressure which had been put upon the Companies for several years. It had been said that the block and interlocking systems were adopted without pressure; still, a Bill was introduced and referred to a Select Committee, and that of itself did amount to considerable pressure. And such pressure might be useful in the case of continuous brakes, by which he meant brakes attached to every wheel of a carriage, and all capable of being applied instantaneously. There were some brakes that it took several seconds to apply, and that was a matter of great importance in the case of a train travelling about 60 miles an hour, for it would run 30 or 40 yards in a second, and that might make all the difference between danger and safety. There was only one kind of continuous brake—the automatic—capable of the instantaneous action required in such a contingency. The noble Lord who moved the Previous Question had asserted that only 29 persons were killed on the railways in 1880; but he forgot to take into account the servants of the Companies, 700 of whom, on the average, were annually killed. In conclusion, the noble Earl expressed the hope that their Lordships would not hesitate to allow the Bill to go into Committee.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the matter to which the Bill referred was one of great importance, involving as it did the public interests, so far as their safety was concerned. The Board of Trade were anxious that the measure should be referred to a Select Committee; but as no encouragement had been given to the adoption of that course, he could not help suggesting to the noble Earl (Earl De La Warr) that he would 1241 not further what he had so very much at heart by pressing the Motion to a division.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwished to say, with reference to the observation of the noble Earl (Earl Granville), that the objection taken was to referring the Bill to a Select Committee. If the Government thought a public object could be served by referring the whole question to a Committee of the Whole House, he was sure no objection would be made by noble Lords sitting on that side of the House.
§ Previous question put, Whether the said question shall be now put?
§ Resolved in the negative.