The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-06 00:00:00

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.

Mr. H. BROWN said he had to propose a resolution,
at the suggestion of a large number of persons who had
asked him to be their instrument, in calling the attention
of the house to a subject of which he admitted the
difficulty. He had some reason to expect that his motion
would be met with two exceptions—first, that it was
idle ; and, secondly, that it was unnecessary. He would
be told that a select committee was at that moment sit-
ting up stairs who would make such a report as would
satisfy the house on tho subject. If ho thought the
carrying of the motion would be offensive to the railway
interest or embarrassing to tho Government, lie should be
the last person to seek to bring it forward. But he sub-
mitted his motion was of such a character that, if the com-
mittee should make a report that it was necessary to have
a tribunal to insist on the regulation of railways, it would
only tend to strengthen the hands of the Government. The
right honourable gentleman, the President of the Board of
Trade, had done him the honour to say that there was
nothing in the terms of his resolution in the slightest de-
gree objectionable. If that were so, he would ask the
right honourable gentleman to adopt the resolution, If
there was anything more marked than another going on
in the committee up stairs, it was that they were all
agreed on the necessity of what he (Mr. Brown) now
asked the house to do. The house would recollect that
when the late President of the Board of Trade moved
for that committee, he had only in view an inquiry into
the general amalgamation of railways, and that another
hon. member followed np the motion of the right hon.
gentleman by a proposition for 'extending the scope of
inquiry of the committee. But what was the result ?
The committee was now sitting, and the evidence given
before them was just a repetition of statements with
which the house was already familiar. He would refer
the house to the evidence of a great authority in matters
connected with railways; Mr. Seymour Clark. That
gentleman stated that, in his opinion, the result of the
proposed amalgamations and arrangements would be that,
without some superintending authority, the public would
be deprived of those advantages which they now possessed.
Capt. Huish, the superintendent of the London and North-
Western Railway, in reply to a question put to him, to the
effect of whether all just complaints made by the public
against the companies might not become a subject, of arbi-
tration, said that it would require careful consideration,
and the assistance of men who were conversant with the
details of the working of railways, who would give judg-
ments which would be acceptable to the companies. Each
of the five witnesses already examined had stated, in the
most marked manner, that the supervision of the railways,
to be effective, must be •placed in some central power.
He would be the last person to advocate any interference
in the fiscal arrangements connected with railways, but
he contended that, until they made some better arrange-
ments, until they had some authority to which the public
could appeal, or some power to enforce such regulations as
might be deemed necessary for the public safety, they
would have the colirmnS of their daily papers constantly
filled with accounts •of 4 fatal accidents on railways. The
comparatively small nalmber of accidents which occurred on
the Scotch railways was attributed by some persons to the
low rate of velocity ;: he considered, however, that it was
owing far more to, the wholesome state of the criminal law
in that country. [At this part of the hon. member's re-
marks Mr. Labouclaere appeared at the bar, and stated that
the House of Lords requested a conference on the subject
of the commission of inquiry into the borough of Hull.'
Several hon. members named by the Speaker proceeded to
the Lords, and after short absence returned and reported
the result of the conference.] The lion. member then pro-
ceeded to state that under the Scotch law there was a pub-
lic prosecutor, by whose exertions justice was secured to
the peasant as well as to the peer. This state of things
were very different from that of the English law on this
subject. Under the 9th and 10th Victoria (Lord Camp-
bell's Act) a right of civil action was given for damages,
which unfortunately, however, practically valued-the use-
ful man at pence and the ornamental at thousands. He
remembered that when this bill was under discussion a
noble lord in the other house asked whether, supposing
the Lord Chancellor on the woolsack was killed, any jury
would dare to estimate his value. The rejoinder of the
Lord Chancellor was, that he could conceive a much more
difficult case, which was that of estimating the damages of
a noble lord in expectation of a seat on the woolsack. (A
laugh.) At a recent accident on a branch of the Midland
Railway, in which a passenger carriage drawn by a horse
was
ssrarion for the deaths into byaneeangino? a poor man received 3/. as com-
his wife, while a lady travel-
ling in the same carriage obtained W. as compensation for
damage done to her dress. What was wanted, therefore,
was a public prosecutor, who should take care of the in-
terests of the poor and working classes who might suffer
from accidents on railways. 'The larger proportion of ac-
cidents which occurred on railways arose from disregard of
arrangements and regulations, and from the inefficiency of
the staff of servants. If this case could be made out, it
was clearly the duty of this house to become the conser-
vators of the public safety. • Former Governments had
thought it right to introduce, measures providing for the
auditing of railway accounts, and it surely could not be
contended that while Parliainent ought to interfere in the
fiscal arrangements of railways, it should not attempt to do
anything to secure the safety of the public travelling upon
them. (Hear.) Whenever a railway was to be opened,
the Board of Trade always sent down a surveyor to report
upon the state of the railway and the works previous to
the public opening of the line. It was a requirement for
the public safety that no line should be opened till a satis-
factory report of its condition was made by the inspector.
As soon, however, as this report was made, the authority
of the Board of Trade ceased, and however much the line
might hereafter be,come disordered, and whatever acci-
dents might occur, the Board of Trade was powerless, and
could only send down an inspector to report upon the cause
of the accident. Upon looking over many of the reports
made to the commissioners by the inspectors, he could not
fail to be struck with the necessity which existed for ves-
ing in the Board of Trade, or some other central body, the
power of enforcing regulations calculated to prevent the
occurrence of accidents. Captain Simmons, in his report
upon the Ulster Railway, stated that there wore no signals
upon a portion of the line, and that the company never
used tiny, and, so recommended that the company should be
" coinpellei"—to adopt proper signals, and
requested—not
abandon a method of working their line which was evi-
dently attended with so much danger. In another of that