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

4; /

[PRICE SD.

improvements Parliament could make in the railway sys-
tem the public were entitled to require at its hands.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CARDWELL—If I do not occupy at any great
length the time of the house upon this subject, it will cer-
tainly be from no want of a sincere conviction of its ex-
treme importance ; nor will it be from the least desire to
distract the attention of the house from a question so in-
teresting to the whole community ; but it will be out of a
consideration for the position in which the question has
beeh placed by the House of Commons itself. The late
Government with, I think, very good judgment, deter-
mined that a most careful inquiry should be, made into
the whole of the subjects connected with railways—that
inquiry is now making progress. I had not the honour of
being a member of this house at the time the house de-
cided upon appointing that committee ; but now, by virtue,
of the office I have the honour to hold, it is my duty to be
in the chair of that committee, and we are taking the
utmost pains to sift and examine the whole question of the
management of railways. We have examined several per-
sons who, from their great eminence in the railway world,
are most calculated to carry weight from their experience,
and we shall proceed to examine more. we have also
examined those who, by their official connection with rail-
ways, are most competent to give us their opinions. We
have reported the evidence we have taken from time to
time, in order that the House of Commons may have the
best and fullest opportunity of judging the effect of that
evidence. Upon the particular subject of accidents very
comprehensive,evidence was, a fortnight ago, laid upon the
table of the house and sent to the printers. It is only de-
layed by the pressure on the printers, but it will shortly
be in the possession of members of this house. We have
further examined into all the recent accidents in detail,
and shall present the evidence to the house. Almost im-
' mediately after I was appointed to office I sent a gentle-
-1 man to examine what were the means employed upon the
French and Belgain railways foi the purpose of avoiding
accidents." The result of that inquiry has been laid before
Parliament, and has been considered by the committee.
The hon. gentleman who brings this motion forward has
referred to a contrivance of great importonce, in regard to
the prevention of accidents, for making a communication
between guards and drivers. We have taken evidence
upon that subject—we have 'a report from the "clearing
house" on that subject—and several of us have seen the in-
vention actually in the course of experiment. I think,
then, it is desirable that the House of Commons having
appointed this committee, should be in a position to con-
sider the evidence taken before it, before they commit
themselves upon this subject. (Hear.) The honourable
gentleman has also referred, particularly, to a point which
I must acknowledge to be well deserving of inquiry—that is,
to the difference there is in the law upon this subject
between different parts of the United Kingdom. Have
the committee been indifferent to that subject ? When
hon. members get the report, which is now in the hands of
the printer, it will be found that the committee have taken
the evidence of the practical officers of the Boaad of Trade
upon that subject; that they have had before them the
views of that very judge—a most able man, whom I have
the honour of calling my friend—to whom reference has
been made, the Lord-Justice Clerk of Scotland, for he
kindly communicated them to me, and I laid them before
the committee. My learned friend the Lord-Advocate of
Scotland has just returned from conducting a successful
prosecution under the law of Scotland against persons
guilty of culpable negligence leading to accident and loss of
life. I have applied to him to attend as a witness before
the committee, and he has engaged to do so at the earliest
possible opportunity. Certainly then we are making pro-
gress in our inquiry. Having got the opinion of the chief
criminal judge of Scotland, we shall shortly have that of
my learned friend the Lord Advocate as to what the law is
in Scotland ; but it would be premature in us to pronounce
any opinion upon such a subject before we have heard all
the evidence. (Hear, hear) I have here an extract show-
ing how severe the Scotch criminal law is. I will read it,
in order to show that the subject is, as it deserves to be,
under consideration, but not as passing any opinion,
because I hold we should first examine the whole case and
decide upon the evidence. At the trial referred to, the
Lord-Justice Clerk said, in summing up, that, " after the
disclosures that had been made, it was plain that on ano-
ther such occasion it would be the parties responsible for
.maintaining such a state of things that would be put at
the bar—directors or manager." That, we are told, is the
law of Scotland ; but it is not the law of England. It may
be right, or it may be wrong, that it should be law; but
before either the committee or the House of Commons
pass any opinion upon the subject, they should thoroughly
understand the case. When the House of Commons
appointed a committee to go into these cases, and to con-
sider them, I am sure that they intended that they should
be carefully considered ; that the committee should come
prepared with their whole measure to the house, not that
they should prosecute their inquiry under the direction of
the house, or that the house should adept some abstract
resolutions. (Hear, hear.) During the last few days we
have had a document laid before us through the public
press of great interest. It was the result of an incpiiry
which, by direction of the Congress of the United States,
has been made by a committee for the purpose of ascer-
taining how far the interference of Government is desirable
for the purpose of preventing accidents. There is a great
deal well worth reading in that report. The committee
say it is very doubtful whether a more direct interference
might not tend to increase the danger to the public, instead
of diminishing it ; and they give the following reasons
"To divide the authority from which the regulations
necessary to effect these objects must emanate, would give
rise to confusion and embarassments, engender bad feelings