The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-02-26 00:00:00

14e (stottrlyibg Obstrint.

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1870.

RAILWAYS AND LEGISLATION.

There was, we believe, a pretty general ex-
pectation that Government would this session
propose some legislation affecting the railways;
but whether the Government never had any in-
tention of the kind, or whether they felt that
they hail quite enough on hand without attempt-
ing to deal with so vast an interest—and the
latter supposition is the more probable—Minis-
ters have not yet afforded any indication of an
intention to propose any legislation on the sub-
ject. But from quite another quarter— from the
railway companies themselves—we have hints of
legislation of a different character to that which
we might have expected at the hands of the
Ministry. Several railway companies have re-
cently held their half-yearly meetings; and at
many of them there have been complaints of
the working of the existing law relative to com-
pensation for injuries received while travelling.
At the North-Western meeting the chairman,
alluding to the liability of railway compensate
for accidents, complained of the exeptional law
by which they were subjected to heavy charges
from which shipowners and other carriers are
tree, and said he hoped that now they had a man
of common sense, Mr. Bright, at the Lead of the
Board of Trade, this anomaly and injustice
would be removed. At the meeting of the Great
Northern a resolution was passed requesting the
disectors to co-operate with other railway com-
panies in seeking the sanction of Parliament to
a modification of the existing laws imposing un-
limited liability on railway companies in cases
of injury to passengers. At several other rail-
way meetings similar views have been pro-
nounced. The resolution passed at the Great
Northern meeting is not only important in it-
self, but, we have reason to believe, is indicative
of a coming measure. The railway interest is
known to he very largely represented in both
houses of Parliament, and it may be for this
reason that railway directors have not been com-
peNed by Parliament to act more iu accordance
with what the public conceive to be just than
they have been. But, not to insist on this point,
it is rather strange that the railway interest in
Parliament has so long remained passive under
the Act of the late Lord Cimpbell, which works
with such stringency against the pecuniary inte-
rests of the railway companies. We believe that
an attempt will this session be made to amend
this Act, or at least to establish such legislation
as will limit the liability of railway companies
in cases of compensation for injuries, and which
will, at the same time, enable the public to se-
cure the right to a larger compensation than
they would otherwise be entitled to, by paying
an assurance fee when taking their tickets, as is
now done through the companies which absurdly
call themselves " accident insurance compa-
nies.

On the merits of any such measure we cm,
of course, say nothing till its details, supposing
any bill of the kind be brought forward, are be-
fore us; but, meanwhile, we may say that it is
not at all surprising that railway companies,
finding their dividends reduced by the enor-
mous sums they have to pay for compensation,
should wish the law to be revised under which
they have to pay them. When we find, for ex-
ample, the London and Brighton Railway setting
asite £45,000 for compensation cases arising out
of the New Cross Fete, and when we remember
thst several of the first verdicts have been set
aside on appeal, owing to the unreasonably high
damages at first awarded, we see that there is
some reason why the railway companies should
be heard in their own defence. The principle
of compensation for injury is fair enough in it-
self, but it is sometimes grossly abused, and it is
unequal in operation. We see no reason why
one law should not lay down a general principle,
which juries should have the power to carry out
within some definite limit. For a corupensation
action arising out of a steamboat accident to be
brought under one law, and an action for com-
pensation for a railway accident to be brought
under another, is scarcely in accordance with
common sense. It might be a vholesome law to
give compensation for injury in all cases—com-
pensation proportioned as well to the extent of
the injury as to the carelessness which led to it;
but if so, we must bear in mind that, under the
best possible arrangements, and with the most
rigid carefulness, accidents will occasionally
happen, and that it is not just for juries, who
can be wise after the event, to give viudictive
damages, to come out of the pockets of share-
holders who had nothing to do with the accident.
Juries have of late overdone this sort of thing,
and there is a reaction even in the public mind,
quite irrespective of any pecuniary interest in
railways. There is another thing which, in any
future legislation, ought to 6 studied A strong
agitation has sprung up recently for workmen s
trains, and the workmen, driven from their
homes in large towns, have much to say for
themselves. But they do not sufficiently take
into account the increased risk of having to pay
compensation, which ii really the chief reason
why railway companies are so chary of provid-
ing the required accommodation. When work-
Ineu's trains are legislated for, we shall find that
the compensation question will also have to be
discussed. If there is accommodation on the
one side, there must be justice on the other.
This, perhaps, may not be it very popular view
to take of the matter, but the subject in all its
hearings nolst be considered when any legislation
ia plsqms«l. There is leuple room for railway
reform in many particulars, but the railways,
perhaps, after :ill, are not so black as they are
painted. We most of us take pleasure in abus-
ing them, and now and then some little good
coiw:s of i in tardy improvement on the part of
directors, but it must be admitted that the rail-
way companies have sonic ground of complaint
against the public.