The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-11 00:00:00

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.

Mr. BENTINCK, in calling attention to the subject of
railway accidents, said a great part of the mischief was at-
tributable to over-speed. This was the conclusion arrived
at by the committee over which he presided five years ago,
but he regretted to say that the resolutions then adopted
had never been acted on. A most inhuman argument had
been used by the President of the Board of Trade against
the interference of the house with the present excessive rate
of speed, in saying, on a former occasion that, out, of many
millions of travellers, a few individuals only had been
maimed or killed. Mr. Stephenson, a manufacturer of loco-
motives, said that any person who knew as much as he did
of the effect of speed on express trains, and who was killed
when travelling thereby, ought to be buried on the cross-
roads as a confirmed lunatic. (Hear, and laughter.) The
hon. member concluded by moving that, in the opinion of
the house, it was the duty of the Government to legislate
for the better prevention of such accidents.
Mr. DUTTON supported the motion, and agreed with
his hon. friend (Mr. Bentinck) that speed was the principal
cause of railway accidents.
Mr. M. GIBSON did not well understand what his hon.
friend wished that the Government should do.
Mr. BENTINCK explained that what he desired was,
that the Board of Trade should have the power to interfere
when the rate of speed travelled on any line was considered
not consistent with safety.
Mr. M. GIBSON continued—Speed was a relative term,
and what might be a safe rate on one railway might be a
very unsafe rate on another. Speed depenned on the con-
dition of the permanent way, the rolling stock, the curves,
and gradients, and he for one could not consent that the
best managed lines should be reduced to the standard of the
worst. (Hear, hear.) if interference were at all attempted, it
would be necessary to have a sliding scale of speed— (hear)—
but that he believed was a teak which could not be discharged
by any Government department. The best security for the
public lay in the damages awarded by juries for negligent or
reckless management ; hut, however that might be, it was
satisfactory to know that railway accidents were yearly de-
creasing. In 1861 there were 56 accidents, attended with 46
deaths and 781 injuries; and in 1862, 52 accidents, with 24
deaths and 537 injuries. But while in the former year the
number of passengers was 173,000,000, in the latter they
amounted to 183,000,000. In regard to the present year the
returns were not completed, but during its first halt there had
been only 16 accidents, attended with four deaths and 165 in-
j uries„which showed a considerable decrease as compared with
preceding years. Speed had not been altogether the cause of
accidents, many of them having arisen from collision, the ne-
gligence of the railway servants, and a want of sufficient
break power. It was difficult to guard against negligence and
no legislation could prevent it more efficaciously than by
the present law, which made companies pecuniarily respon-
sible. The best for the public was to leave the law as it at
present stands, leaving it to the directors of railways to
transport travellers from point to point in the best and
safest manner, subject to their present responsibilities.
Mr. HODSON said railway directors would be glad to
til.-ow their responsibility on some Government department.
Railway directors were most anxious to ensure safety to
passengers, but often accidents occurred which were beyond
their control.
ne-tenths of the accidents occurred from
-
4' the trains, and not from speed. He
want of punctuality o.
undertook to say that, whs.
ve the rolling stock and permit.
neat way were in good a
con la° and the directors and offi.
cials did their duty, accidents were ex, remelY infrequent.
Mr. H. LEWIS differed in opinion fro the hon, mem-
ber.7l that the frequency of accidents arose from !ulPunctua-
lity from one terminus to another. He believed that less
accidents arose from fast trains, because more attention was
paid to them. He admitted very many accidents occurred
from the loss of time at intermediate stations, owing to
their having to make up those losses by spasmodic efforts
at increased speed. He considered the object of the motion
was not to relieve, but increase the responsibility of rail-
way directors. The Government inquiries into accidents
several hours after every trace had been removed was a
farce, for it was ridiculous to imagine that railway servants
would convict themselves of negligence. To save acci.
dents, railway directors must be made to feel in their
pockets for unpunctuality at intermediate stations.
After some remarks from Mr. CONINGHA.M and Mr.
KINNAIRD,
The motion was withdrawn.
THE UNION MERCANTILE COMPANY OF
PORTUGAL.
Mr. AYRTON called the attention of the house to the
losses sustained by British subjects in consequence of the
acts of the Government of Portugal respecting the Union
Mercantile Company, guaranteed by Royal decree. and by
acts of the legislation of Portugal. He considered that
whereas in this case the English public had shown no rash.

ness in the matter, but had adopted every possible precau-
tion and had rcted on the good faith of the Portuguese Go-
vernment, it was a case in which our Government ought to
interfere—and he hoped the exertions that bad been made
to get redress from the Portuguese Government would be
continued, and ultimately bocome successful. He asked
for the production of papers relative to the subject.
Mr. LAYARD said the papers should be produced. It
was too complicated a question for him then to enter into
details. There could be no doubt those Englishmen who
had invested their money in this company had been de-
ceived by the Pot tuguose Government, but he hoped they
would listen to the recommendations of her Majesty's Go-
vernment. It was for the interest of the Portuguese Govern-
ment to admit the claim of these English capitalists.

THE COURTS OF LAW AT WESTMINSTER,
AND IN THE CITY OF LONDON.

Mr. M. SMITH called attention to the insufficient ac-
commodation in the courts of law at Westminster and in
the City of London, and asked the First Commissioner of
Works whether it was the intention of the Government to
introduce any measure for providing courts suited to the
increased wants of the country. The hon. and learned gen-
tleman stated he brought the matter forward on behalf of
the suitors and the public; for the present courts were defi-

cient in ventilation, and in all convenient arrangements,

Of the eight courts at 'Westminster there were only two
suitable for the transaction of business—namely, the first

Queen's Bench and the first Exchequer. And in the City
there were only two courts—the first Queen's Bench and
the first Common Pleas—fit for the transaction of business.

He did not think the City authorities were fairly open to
blame for this deficient accommodation, as it was only in
recent years that the practice obtained of holding double
&ttings for each of the superior courts. Formerly one
judge from each court went into the City to try causes.
Mr. MALINS wished to make an appeal on behalf of the
courts of equity, which were still more inconvenient. The
right hon. gentleman the First Commissioner of Works

had visited the court at Lincoln's-inn, and saw the insuffi-

cient accommodation. There was no place for the juries,
and no room to retire to consider their verdict. Two of the
Vice-Chancellors sat in sheds that were a disgrace to the
country. It became the duty of the Government to provide
one large building for all the courts of the country, or, at
any rate, to improve the equity courts at Lincoln's-inn.
Mr. COLLIER supported the motion, and in doing so
said, if a new trial were moved for in the Queen's Bench,
the chances were that, owing to the pressure of business, it
could not be heard for 12 months. The judicial strength of
the country was not sufficient to discharge the duties placed
on it.

Mr. COWPER rose to reply, but having already spoken
was prevented from again addressing the house.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL regretted that the bill

of last year had been passed, but would prefer to bear the
ills that were now suffered than see any plan adopted which
permanently separate the courts of law and equity.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER defended
the scheme, and declared that the cost then stated would
have been the maximum cost of the building.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND an-
nounced, in reply to Mr. Whiteside, that the consolidation
of the Irish statute law had been actually entered upon.
After some observations from Mr. C. BENTINCK, the
subject dropped, and the house went into committee ot sup-
ply pro forma, but immediately resumed.
The Sy daey Branch Mint Bill passed through committee.
The Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange Bill passed
through committee.

The Alkali Works Regulation Bill as amended was con-
sidered.

The Fisheries (Ireland) Bill was read a third Hine.

The India Stock (Remuneration) Bill was reported.
The India Stock Bill passed through committee.
The following bills were read a second time Green-
wich Hosi ital (Provisions for Widows) Bill; Metropolitan
Main Drainage Extension Bill ; Growing Crops Seizure
(Ireland) Bill ; and English Church Services in Wales Bill.
The Navy Prize Agents Bill was read a third time and
passed.
The Nuisances Removal Act (1855) Amendment Bill
passed through committee.

On the motion of Mr. BRUCE, leave was given to intro-
duce a bill to confirm certain provisional orders made under
an Act of the fifteenth year of her present Majesty, to facili-
tate arrangements for the relief of turnpike trusts; and also
a bill to amend the law relating to the repair of turnpike
roads, and to continue certain turnpike Acts in England.
Mr. WHALLEY was moving an address on the subject
of the Jesuits, when an hon. member suggested that there
were not forty members present, and
The house stood adjourned at twenty minutes to two.