Lords Sitting of 19 July 1889

JUVENILE OFFENDERS BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Summary Jurisdiction Acts with respect to the punishment of juvenile offenders—Was presented by the Earl Brownlow; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next. (No. 170.)

DEBATES IN PARLIAMENT.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I crave the indulgence of the House to allow me to make a Motion which I have been unable previously to give notice of my intention to bring before your Lordships, but which I will now take the opportunity of making. It is that a letter written by Mr. Walpole (the representative of Hansard's Parliamentary Debates) to the Marquess of Lothian, and dated 17th July, be printed and circulated among the Members of this House. My Lords, I beg to move to that effect.
Moved,
"That there be laid before this House, Letter addressed by Mr. Walpole (the representative of Hansard's Debates) to the Marquess of Lothian on the 17th of July, 1889"; agreed to.—(The Lord Privy Seal, E. Cadogan.)

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I rise to ask your Lordships' indulgence for a few moments that I may call the attention of the House to the recent Return of overtime work of railway servants; and to move that a copy of the official Report of the recent railway accident in Ireland may be laid upon the Table of the House. The Return
822
gives the number of instances of railway servants being on duty over 12 hours at a time, and also the number of instances of railway servants who, after having remained on duty for 12 hours, had returned to work before they had had eight hours rest. Perhaps I may be allowed to make a few observations upon this Return and the results which have been arrived at. Everybody knows how important and responsible the duties of railway servants are. It is necessary that they should be trustworthy and competent persons, and they ought not to be so employed that their mental and physical powers are overtaxed by long hours of labour. I will briefly put before your Lordships some of the most important facts to which the Return refers. I think it will generally appear to your Lordships that the strength of the strongest man must be very much tried by the length of time for which many railway servants have been employed in the discharge of their responsible duties. The Return relates to two months in the year. Those months were, I believe, selected by the railway companies themselves as showing best the average for the whole year. It appears from the Return that a large number both of signalmen and engine-drivers were employed for a very great number of hours. In two months there were 614,534 instances of railway servants of different kinds being employed overtime; 51,776 were instances of signalmen, and the Return likewise included a large number of engine-drivers. I mention these two instances because your Lordships must know that signalmen and engine-drivers are perhaps the men who have the most responsible work to do. I should like to bring under your Lordships' notice

823
one or two other instances in explanation of the matter which I am venturing to put before the House. Not only are there instances of signalmen and engine-drivers being over 12 hours at work, but in a considerable number of cases they have been on duty for 15, 16, 17, and even 18 hours at a time. My Lords, I have taken these instances from a very responsible class of servants, but the same thing applies also to other classes of railway servants. Your Lordships may readily understand that when a man has been employed for 12 consecutive hours it is almost impossible for him, either mentally or physically, to continue to discharge these responsible duties in the manner which is required of him. The fatigue and exhaustion consequent upon such a number of hours' work must, I think, entirely disable him from further discharging his duty properly. Then, my Lords, besides this class of overtime there is another kind of overtime referred to in the Return. It is shown that a number of these men return to their work after having been more than 12 hours on duty without having had eight hours rest. These facts almost speak for themselves and need very little comment from me. I desire, however, to add that it is furthest from my wish to interfere between railway companies and their servants; but I think it right that some steps should be taken, or means discovered, to put an end to the present state of things. My Lords, we know how ably the railways are managed in this country; but there is danger when we find companies allowing their servants with very responsible duties, or requiring their servants to work more than 12 and sometimes as many as 18 hours at a time. My Lords, I have had an opportunity of looking at this Return, and I find that many of the cases are perhaps exceptional; but it is impossible that the numbers to which I have referred can possibly be regarded as being all of them exceptional cases. But, my Lords, I think this matter not only concerns Railway Companies and railway servants, but that the public are greatly interested in it, and some steps should, I think, be taken, not only in the interests of the railway servants, but also in the interests of the public, to guard against what might result in most serious accidents. When a signalman or engine-driver is fatigued,
824
mentally and bodily, in a way which prevents him discharging properly his responsible duties, the lives of many persons are thereby endangered. And as regards the effects of these excessive hours of work upon the men themselves, I am assured on good authority (and it seems to be only what every one might expect to be the consequence of overwork especially involving a great stretch of mental attention, such as that to which a large number of railway servants are subjected), that it produces a listlessness which increases the risk of accidents; that it prevents the fulfilment of home and social and religious duties, and brings on premature infirmity. I do not ask your Lordships to legislate upon this question; but I think it is one which deserves the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and that some communication on the subject should be made to Railway Companies.
Moved, "That there be laid before this House, Copy of the official Report of the recent railway accident in Ireland."—(The Earl De La Warr.)
LORD STALBRIDGE: My Lords' this subject is undoubtedly an enormous one. It concerns the public at large, as my noble Friend has said, and not merely the Railway Companies and railway men themselves. But I trust your Lordships will not be led away by the idea that this overtime is in any way fostered by the Directors or Managers of Railway Companies in this country. Overtime on railways is, to a certain extent, absolutely necessary, and it is impossible to avoid it in all cases. Foggy weather interferes greatly with the running of trains in this country, and it is marvellous with how small a number of accidents the railway employés carry on their duties. Now the noble Lord has alluded to pressure being brought to bear upon the Railway Companies. I can assure your Lordships that Railway Directors and Managers are as anxious that overtime should be put a stop to as anybody, but it is a matter which is not always under their control. Last year I tried to prove that, from the very lowest point of view, it is distinctly the interest of Railway Directors to put a stop to overtime. In all cases of accidents investigated by the officers of the Board of Trade one of the points always inquired into is how long the servants of the railway have

825
been on duty, and that fact being at once brought out throws a great responsibility on Railway Managers. These Returns do not, on the face of them, entirely bear out the construction which the noble Lord has put upon them. The actual percentage with regard to overtime is comparatively small, and most undoubtedly shows an improvement upon the Returns of last year. I must point out to your Lordships that in the months of September, 1887, and March, 1888, from the mass of figures dealt with and the absence of an analysis, a wrong impression may be formed as to the actual number of hours worked by railway servants. I may congratulate the noble Lord at having, by his demand for a Return last year, brought so much pressure to bear on Railway Companies that the Return is so much better this year. So far the noble Lord may be congratulated that the action he has taken in the matter has had a good effect. The tendency is to reduce overtime as far as possible, and the figures in most cases show a diminution. I should wish not to take individual cases; but, still, in some cases the overtime has been beneficial either to the employés or to the public. On the London and North Western Railway, in March, 1888, 413 men worked overtime. The number of instances prolonged over 12 hours was 42. That brings it down to a daily average of two men working overtime, or ·39 per cent, as against 14 men working overtime daily in 1887, or 3·4 per cent. On the Manchester branch there were 28 instances during September, 1887, of men working 14 hours. One guard was on duty for 14 hours every day one week; he took this duty once every six weeks; and out of the 14 hours was calculated the time before he actually went on duty and the time after he really came off duty. Then there were cases where four signalmen worked 13 hours at Watford. The signalmen commence duty at 4.30 a.m., in order to let out the shunting engines, and finish at 6 p.m.; but the man on duty has nothing to do between half-past 4 and half-past 5 in the morning beyond that one operation of letting out the shunting engine. Then there is another class of cases where the men work extra hours in order to have freedom on Sundays. On the Chester and Holyhead line men are
826
relieved one hour earlier in order to enable them to attend a place of worship in the evening, and consequently the men taking their places have to work longer hours; but their duties are comparatively light on account of the small number of trains running on Sundays. Then your Lordships will understand that it is impossible to put a man into a signal box who has not gained the knowledge and necessary experience of that duty. It is absolutely impossible to take a man and place him in a signal box if he has no knowledge of the duty he is required to perform in that box. Then the engine-drivers—who are, of course, a very intelligent and important class of employés—are very deserving of consideration. I think, if there is one class of men more than another who are deserving of consideration in this respect, it is the intelligent class of men whom we have acting as engine-drivers. The object of the Directors and Managers of railways is to give them an ordinary rota of 10 hours' duty a day for six days a week, and anything over 60 hours a week is paid to them as time and a quarter. Your Lordships will doubtless understand that it is, of course, absolutely impossible to make exactly 10 hours each day. A man may on one day have two hours more than another, but if on the whole he has more than 60 hours per week that is overtime. Particularly stringent orders have lately been given to enginemen that when they have been 15 consecutive hours on duty they are to report the fact at the first station they come to in order that relief may be telegraphed for. The engine-men and firemen have also printed in red ink on their daily tickets a notice that—
"Whenever an engineman or fireman has been over 15 hours on duty or has been sent out to work before having had an opportunity of having six hours' sleep, he is to explain the circumstances fully on the back of his ticket for the day."
In four recent cases the excuses for not doing so have been disallowed as insufficient, and the men punished. That shows that the men are anxious to work overtime on account of the extra pay, and that the Company officials try to prevent the men making overtime. I am not blaming the men at all, but it cannot be said that the men are so exhausted, when in many cases they are

827
anxious to mate overtime and get paid for it. The exigencies of railway work are such that the number of men for the maximum amount of work could not be kept. The necessities are so urgent in regard to carrying passengers and perishable goods in this country that in spite of the regular service of trains on the London and North-Western Railway, which is supposed to be ample to meet every emergency, in the month of March, 1888, they ran 2,230 special passenger and 10,832 special goods trains. That shows that the exigencies of the goods traffic of this country cannot be dealt with by private legislation. There must be a large staff of engines and other railway stock ready to be turned out at a moment's notice. When there is a great press of work it is absolutely unavoidable that there should be overtime in some cases, and that the 60 hours a week regulation for engineers and firemen cannot be rigidly adhered to. Then with regard to mileages, the distances covered by the engines on the London and North-Western Railway lines are over 56,000,000 miles per annum. The intelligence displayed by the railway employés in this country in working the traffic shows they are men fully able to safeguard their own interests. Yet they have not, do not, and are not likely to ask for any Government interference. They have able advocates in Parliament. The Amalgamated Society has endeavoured for some years to make out a case in reference to overwork, but has failed because the men would not support them. The vast majority of the railway servants are satisfied with the way in which their labours are recognized by the Directors and officials of the company. I assure your Lordships that the Railway Directors endeavour to lessen overtime in every way, and the fact that an annual Return is made does not in any way diminish their efforts. From every point of view it is their interest to lessen overtime. I see that a Bill has been introduced in another place which seeks to give the Board of Trade power to ask for additional Returns. My Lords, I think myself the Board of Trade knowing the circumstances in which Railway Companies are placed will not exercise that power and put the Companies to great expense, except when it is in their opinion necessary to do so, and I feel
828
that the Railway Companies would be quite safe in the hands of the Board of Trade.
LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, it is necessary I should say a word or two with regard to the whole subject of overtime which the noble Lord has brought before the House. If I understand his speech aright, the noble Lord who introduced the subject stated that the last Returns were for the months of September, 1887, and March, 1888, and that those months had been selected for the convenience of the Railway Companies. The previous Returns were for July, 1886, and January, 1887. It was felt by everybody that the months of July and January were not a fair representation of the average work of the railways, and when the second Returns were asked for, the months of March and September were chosen as giving the fairest average on the part of the public, the railway servants, and the Railway Companies. As the noble Lord opposite has said, there is a Bill pending before Parliament in which the Board of Trade asks for power to call for Returns on those matters from time to time. I would prefer to avoid any attempt at discussing that proposal until it comes regularly before your Lordships, and I will only add that I do not think the Railway Companies would be any the worse for this subject being agitated from time to time either in this House or before the Board of Trade. I cordially recognize that great efforts have been made on the part of the Directors and Managers of the great majority of the Railway Companies to diminish overtime. It is not for the interests of Railway Companies that overtime should be worked, because they have to pay a large additional sum for it, but it is, at the same time, very difficult to diminish it. But it is a matter of great importance that the subject should not be lost sight of, but continual efforts should be made on the part of Railway Companies, as far as possible, to reduce the hours of work of their employés within reasonable limits. My noble Friend has presented the case in a way which is likely to give your Lordships an impression, and to lead to the belief, that overtime is going on to a much greater extent than is really the case. He produced cases of a certain number of engine-drivers and signalmen who had

829
been on duty for a large number of consecutive hours. Any one who knows the facts knows that the hours of signalmen have been very largely reduced in recent years. With regard to the engine-drivers, it does not necessarily follow that when a man is put down as on duty for 12, 14, or 16 hours he was upon his engine all that time. For instance, suppose a driver takes an excursion train to Brighton and back, waiting eight hours at Brighton. During the whole of the time he is absent from London the driver would be technically on duty perhaps for 12 or 14 hours, although during a great part of that time he would not, in fact, be upon his engine. I do not say that is always the case with overtime; for instance, it does not touch the case of men working goods engines. The ease of engine-drivers of goods train is a different and a difficult one, because they are often delayed on their journeys from causes beyond control. I recognize that a good deal has been done in the way of giving them relief as far as possible; and I feel confident that if the attention of Railway Director was brought to bear upon this point they would endeavour to do more in the future even than they had done in the past. In case it should be thought I have not spoken with sufficient sympathy in this matter I say, without any reserve, that if it can be made out that railway servants work 12, 14, or 16 hours and were really at work upon an engine or otherwise all that time, that was a state of matters which certainly called loudly for remedy; but to say that every driver or fireman who is returned as having been 12, 14, or 16 hours at work has been actually during that long period on the engine is to draw an entirely inaccurate conclusion. That is by no means necessarily the fact. Then upon the point of men returning to work after a very short interval, I think, perhaps, there is some ground for complaint in that respect. But there, again, there is a necessity for a certain amount of caution. Suppose the case of a man waiting to take a goods train from one point to another, and that goods train is delayed for ten hours beyond the time that it should have arrived at its destination. The man would not, to use the ordinary phrase, have turned a single wheel during that
830
time. At the same time it would be obviously unfair to start him on a journey after he had been waiting at "attention during that time, but it would be no great hardship upon him to give him a short rest of six or seven hours and then send him on a journey. Therefore, I say, those who read these returns ought to do so with caution, and see that they do not gather a false impression from them. There is no power on the part of the Board of Trade to compel a certain number, and a certain number only, of hours of labour, and to make a suggestion of that kind would be to open an extremely large question. We hear suggestions in these days for limiting the hours of labour to eight or nine hours. That would be an interference with adult male labour which Parliament has never yet sanctioned and a step which it would be very slow to take. It is not possible to lay down by direct legislation that railway men shall never work more than a certain number of hours, because it is absolutely impossible to foresee emergencies and contingencies which may from time to time arise. But I do say it is most desirable that the public should know what is being done, and that they should bring to bear the pressure of their opinion on the directors and managers of railway companies to abolish overtime as far as possible. That is being done now more than ever it was before, and I believe that if the matter be brought before the public from time to time more will be done in the future than has been done in the past. One of the difficulties of railway companies is the wishes and desires of their servants themselves in the matter. I have in my mind a correspondence which took place with the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company, and in that correspondence it was distinctly put forward that in the case of getting men to work fog-signals the company had the greatest possible difficulty in getting their servants to stay off work the proper number of hours, because they were so anxious to earn the large pay with which such work was rewarded. I do not say that is any real excuse for permitting men to work excessively long hours. I only mention it as one of the difficulties with which Railway Companies have to contend. With regard to

831
the question of the consequent danger to the travelling public, in reading the reports sent in by Inspectors of the Board of Trade, I have been struck with this, fact, that the railway servants who are concerned in accidents are not by any means always those who have been long hours at work. Taking the returns of accidents between 1st June, 1888, and May 31, 1889, the number of casualties inquired into was 86, and deducting from that number 23, which were due to broken axles, trains running off the line, and defects in the permanent way, which of course had nothing to do with the question, there remain 63, which could, by any possibility, be said to have been caused by forgetfulness or negligence on the part of the railway servants. The number of individual servants concerned was 87; the number of those who had been on duty for less than eight hours at the time of the accident was 53, and above eight hours 34. There were therefore concerned in accidents a large number of employés who had been a short time on duty than those who had been at work along time. I do not put that forward as by any means conclusive upon the subject. We do not know how many railway servants are generally within the eight hours limit, and how many exceed it, and to make this comparison really of use we would require to know that, and then find out the relative proportions; but I submit it is not quite, fair to attribute a large number of the casualties which take place to the fact that the servants have been a very long time at work. I can assure the House that the subject has been from time to time engaging the anxious consideration of the Board of Trade, and that every legitimate pressure will be brought to bear on the Railway Companies to do what they can to diminish overtime. My Lords, I deprecate asking Parliament to lay down a fixed rule for this reason, if for no other, that if you take the power of absolute regulation, you in general must also take the responsibility for whatever may occur. The policy of this country has always been to bring pressure to bear upon those who manage the railway companies, but at the same time to leave to them the power and with it the responsibility for what may occur. My Lords, there is only one other point upon
832
which it is necessary for me to say anything, and that is with regard to the recent lamentable disaster in Ireland. I cannot recall any railway accident which has happened in this country more pathetic in its circumstances, or more disastrous in its results. However, as the inquiry has not yet been completed, I will suggest to the noble Lord that he should withdraw his Motion for the Report at the present, and I will undertake that, as soon as the inquiry is completed, it shall be communicated to both this and the other House of Parliament as soon as that can fairly be done
LORD NORTON: The noble Lord has very truly said that overtime is more or less necessary sometimes. What is really meant by overtime is rather overwork—not men working occasionally beyond the regulation hours, but men regularly working beyond the point to which they can safely and properly work. The noble Lord who has just sat down said that few accidents occur from men working overtime, and with regard to engine drivers, it is difficult to lay down exactly what the duration of their work in, all cases should be, or to prevent their working overtime on occasion. But take the case of signalmen's work. I would ask is overtime necessary with them? No. The duration of signalmen's work can be, and is, absolutely regulated. I rather think my noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was wrong in stating that the number of hours for signalmen have been reduced. Formerly there used to be three relays in the 24 hours, giving eight hours' work to each, but now there are by regulation only two, and I contend that a stretch of 12 hours of such work is more than an average man can stand. These men are in the signal-box for twelve hours at a stretch; their food is brought to them; they have no exercise, nor any relaxation from the constant tension they are under. I say that twelve hours of that work is more than any man can stand. I have known cases of signalmen's health breaking down under the strain. I know the case of one near my own place on the Midland Railway, who has broken down under the strain of that work, and is now a drivelling idiot; and I should think

833
there are other such cases. It is true that accidents do not often occur from that cause, but if a man's brain and health give way under the strain he is removed from his post. I do not know whether, when men break down, the Railway Companies provide for them. The question is, whether the actual regulations of Railway Companies for the work of signalmen are such as to make it absolutely impossible for the men engaged in the work to stand it without risk to themselves, and, therefore, danger to the public. That sort of overwork under actual regulations Parliament has interfered with in the case of factories. Too long periods of work had been made illegal by Act of Parliament, and ought to be made just as illegal in the case of Railway Companies as in regard to other kinds of employment. It has been stated that Railway Companies have amended their rules, in consequence of public attention being called to them. I hope that has been done, and, if so, it is an encouragement to us to call more attention to the matter. But if it be the case that under such a rule as I have alluded to, signalmen throughout the country are engaged to work twelve hours out of every twenty-four, if the Railway Companies will not consent to alter such rules, Parliament ought to interpose.
LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, the noble Earl De La Warr, before leaving the House, authorized me to state that he wished to withdraw the Motion. I should like to add that another reason why I should be sorry to promise to present the return as to the railway accident in Ireland at any definite time, is because some of the men connected with it have been arraigned on a criminal charge. But as soon as possible consistently with the interests of justice the Report of the Government Inspector and the evidence on which it is founded shall be laid upon the Table of the House. I only desire to say one word more. The noble Lord behind me is, I think, misinformed when he states that there has been an increase of signalmen's duty to 12 hours. I believe that statement was made on inaccurate information.
LORD STALBRIDGE: My Lords, I will only add that if the instance given
834
by the noble Earl of a man breaking down from the nature of the work were general, such a thing would prevent any demand for the office of signalman, but I can say that there is never any lack of men applying for such berths. If such a measure as the noble Earl suggests were passed, there would, perhaps, be no anxiety on the part of the men to undertake the work. What the noble Lord has said is perfectly true with regard to the duties of signalmen on what is called the Brighton road. There a man has nothing to do except to work the block system and to signal the trains on his dial. By the inter-lucking system, nowadays, it is almost impossible for a man to make a mistake, and all that is expected of him is attention and sobriety. That obviates what has been spoken of as the state of tension the men are under. In places where the signalling is more difficult and complicated there are three shifts in the 24 hours. I do not know whether any noble Lords have heard of other cases of drivelling idiots and prematurely broken-down old men such as the noble Lord opposite has referred to, but I do not know why he should ask for compulsory measures to be taken in this matter merely because he knows of one such case. There is never any want of men for the signalling boxes; naturally they are not unwilling to be placed in so important a post.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

ADVERTISEMENT RATING BILL (No. 163.)
House in Committee (on Re-comitment) (according to order): Further amendments made: The Report there of to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 171.)
WINCHESTER BURGESSES (DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL (No. 137.)
House in Committee (on Re comitment) (according to order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
MARRIAGES (BASUTOLAND, &c.) BILL (No. 155.)

  WINDWARD ISLANDS APPEAL COURT BILL (No. 156.)
  House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without amend-

  835
  ment; and to be read 3a on Monday next.

NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY BILL (No. 144.)
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
CANADA (ONTARIO BOUNDARY) BILL (No. 151.)
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report from, That the Committee have added the Lord Ker (M. Lothian) to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c. for the consideration of the Court of Session and Bill Chamber (Scotland) Clerks Bill. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.