GENERAL RAILWAY ACTS OF PARLIAMENT
Such unromantic literature as Acts of Parliament had not, it may be
supposed, up to this, formed part of my mental pabulum. I knew that an
Act was a necessary preliminary to the construction of a railway, and
this was all I knew concerning the relations between the railways and the
State. Whilst a little learning may be a dangerous thing, in my new
situation, I soon discovered that a general manager's clerk would be the
better of possessing some knowledge of the numerous Acts of Parliament
that affected railway companies. Almost daily questions arose in which
such knowledge was useful; so I determined to become acquainted with
them, and in my leisure hours made as profound a study as I could of that
compilation which, in railway offices was then in general use--_Bigg's
General Railway Acts_. I found the formidable looking volume more
readable than I had imagined and less difficult to understand than I had
expected.
Governments have ever kept a watchful eye on railway companies. Up to
1875, the year at which we have now arrived, no less than 112 general
Acts of Parliament affecting railways had been placed on the Statute Book
of the realm. They were applicable to all railways alike, and in
addition to and independent of the special Acts which each company must
obtain for itself, first for its incorporation and construction, and
afterwards for extensions of its system, for the raising of capital, and
for various other purposes.
Many of the general Acts have been framed upon the recommendations of
various Select Committees and Royal and Vice-Regal Commissions, which
have been appointed from time to time since railways began. From 1835
down to the present year of 1918 some score or more of these Committees
and Commissions have gravely sat and issued their more or less wise and
weighty reports.
What are these numerous Acts of Parliament and what are their objects,
scope, and intentions?
Whilst neither time nor space admit of detailed exposition, not to speak
of the patience of my readers, a few observations upon some of the
principal enactments may not be inapposite or uninteresting.
Pride of place belongs to the _Carriers' Act_ of 1830, passed in the
reign of William IV., five years after the first public railway (the
Stockton and Darlington) was opened. This Act, although in it the word
_railway_ does not appear, is an important Act to railway companies, and
possesses the singular and uncommon merit of having been framed for the
_protection_ of Common Carriers. It is intituled "_An Act for the more
effectual Protection of Mail Contractors, Stage Coach Proprietors, and
other Common Carriers for Hire, against the Loss or Injury to Parcels or
Packages delivered to them for Conveyance or Custody, the Value and
Contents of which shall not be Declared to them by the Owners thereof_."
The draughtsman of this dignified little Act it is clear was greatly
addicted to _capitals_. Probably he thought they heightened effect, much
as Charles Lamb spelt plum pudding with a _b_--"plumb pudding," because,
he said, "it reads fatter and more suetty." At the time this Act came
into being, railways in the eye of Parliament were public highways, upon
which you or I, if we paid the prescribed tolls, could convey our
traffic, our vehicles, or ourselves. In the years 1838-1840 many of the
companies obtained powers enabling them to act as public carriers; and in
1840 questions having arisen in Parliament as to the rights of the public
in this respect the subject was referred to a Select Committee of the
House of Commons. The Committee's report disposed of the view which,
until then, Parliament had held, and expressed the opinion that the right
of persons to run their own engines and carriages was a dead letter for
the good reason, amongst others, that it was necessary for railway trains
to be run and controlled by and under one complete undivided authority.
After the _Carriers' Act_, which applied to all carriers as well as to
railways, the first general railway Act of importance was the _Railways
(Conveyance of Mails) Act_ of 1838. This Act enabled the
Postmaster-General to require railway companies to convey mails by all
trains and to provide sorting carriages when necessary, the Royal Arms to
be painted on such carriages, and in 1844, under the _Railway Regulation
Act_, it was further enacted that the Postmaster-General could require,
for the conveyance of mails, that trains should be run at any rate of
speed, _certified to be safe_, but not to exceed 27 miles an hour!
As I have said, the Select Committee of 1840 reported against the right
of the public to run their own engines and carriages on railways. They
made recommendations which led to the passing of the _Railway Regulation
Act_ of that year, and in that Act powers were, for the first time,
conferred upon the Board of Trade in connection with railways. It was
the beginning of that authority, which since has greatly grown, but which
the Board of Trade have in the main exercised with an impartiality, which
public authorities do not always display. The Act empowered the Board,
before any new railway was opened, to require notice from the railway
company. This power was repealed by an Act of 1842, and larger powers
granted in its place, including the right to compel the inspection of
such railways before being opened for traffic. The Act of 1840 also
required the companies, under penalty, to furnish to the Board of Trade
returns of traffic, as well as of all accidents attended with personal
injury; and to submit their bye-laws for certification.
Of the _railway mania_ period I have spoken in a previous chapter. For a
time enormous success attended some of the lines. Amongst others the
Liverpool and Manchester and the Stockton and Darlington enjoyed mouth
watering dividends; the former ten, the latter fifteen per cent.! Said
the Government to themselves, "'Tis time we saw to this," and accordingly
they passed the _Railway Regulation Act_ of 1844. This Act provided that
if at any time, after twenty-one years, the dividend of any railway
should exceed ten per cent., the Treasury might revise the rates and
fares so as to reduce the profits to not more than ten per cent. This
expectation of high dividends, I need hardly say, has not been realised,
and the Act in this respect has been a dead letter. The Act also
conferred an option on the Treasury to acquire future railways at twenty-
five years purchase of the annual profits; or, if such profits were less
than ten per cent., the price was to be left to arbitration.
It is interesting now, when, owing to the war, the railways of the land
are under temporary Government control, and their future all uncertain,
to remember that, on the Statute Book to-day, there is an Act which
provides for State purchase of the railways of the country. Whether a
solution of the difficulty will be found in State purchase or in State
control it is hard to say, but it is clear that some solution of the
problem will become imperative when the war is ended and normal
conditions return. Justice and reason demand it.
In the year 1845 three long Acts of Parliament came into force; the
_Companies Clauses_, the _Lands Clauses_ and the _Railway Clauses Acts_.
Between them they contained no less than 483 sections. Each Act was a
consolidating measure. The first contained provisions usually inserted
in Acts for the constitution of public companies, the second the same in
regard to the taking of land compulsorily, and the third consolidated in
one general statute provisions usually introduced into Acts of Parliament
authorising the construction of railways.
The _Railway Clauses Act_ authorised railway companies to use locomotive
engines, carriages and wagons; to carry passengers and goods, and to make
reasonable charges not exceeding the tolls authorised by their special
Acts. Since then the whole of the trade of transit by rail has been
conducted by the companies owning the lines.
The gauge of railways in Great Britain was not fixed upon any scientific
principle. At first it followed the width of the coal tram-roads in the
north of England, which was adopted simply on account of its practical
convenience (five feet being the usual width of the gates through which
the "way-leaves" led) and so four feet eight and a-half inches became the
ordinary gauge, but in the early days it was by no means the universal
gauge. Five feet was chosen for the Eastern Counties Railway; seven feet
for the Great Western and five feet six was used in Scotland. The Ulster
Company in Ireland made twenty-five miles of the line from Belfast to
Dublin on a gauge of six feet two, while the Drogheda Company, which set
out from Dublin to meet the Ulster line, adopted five feet two. When the
Ulster Company complained of this, the Irish Board of Works, it is said,
admitted that it was a little awkward, but added that, as it was not
likely the intervening part would ever be made, it did not much matter.
The subject was, I believe, in Ireland referred to a General Pasley, who
consulted the authorities (who were many) throughout the kingdom. He
ultimately solved the question by adding up the various gauges the
authorities favoured, and recommended the mean, which was five feet three
inches; and so, for Ireland, five feet three became the standard gauge.
"The battle of the gauges," as it was styled at the time, was lively and
spirited. Eventually it was decided by Parliament, which in the year
1846 passed the _Railway Regulation (Gauge) Act_. This Act ordained that
in Great Britain all future railways were to be constructed on a gauge of
four feet eight and a-half inches, and in Ireland of five feet three
inches, excepting only certain extensions of the broad gauge Great
Western Railway.
Up to this time no action at common law was maintainable against a person
who by his wrongful act, neglect or default caused the immediate death of
another person, and an Act (known as _Lord Campbell's Act_), "for
compensating the Families of Persons Killed by Accidents," became law.
This enactment was due principally to the railway accidents that
occurred. They were relatively more numerous than they are now, for the
many modern appliances for ensuring safety had not then been introduced.
The Act provided that compensation would be for the benefit of wife,
husband, parent and child of the person whose death shall have been
caused. The Act did not apply to Scotland. Perhaps it was because the
laws of the two countries differed more then than now, and the life of
the railways in Scotland was young, England being well ahead. Probably
England thought she was doing enough when she legislated for herself by
passing this Act. It must be observed, however, that the Act applies to
Ireland as well as England.
In the year 1854 Parliament considered that _regulations_ were necessary
to further control the companies and passed an important statute, the
_Railway and Canal Traffic Act_. Known, for short, in railway parlance,
as "the Act of '54," its main provisions dealt with:--
Reasonable facilities for receiving and forwarding traffic
The subject of undue preference, which was forbidden
Railways forming part of continuous lines to receive and forward
through traffic without obstruction
The liability of railway companies for loss of, or damage to, goods or
animals
and it preserved to railway companies the _protection_ of the _Carriers'
Act_, to which I have referred.
The Select Committees of 1858 and 1863 sat on the subject of the great
length of time and the immense cost which railway promotion in those days
entailed, when Bills were fiercely contested, and protracted struggles
before Parliamentary Committees took place. Two Acts resulted from their
deliberations: the _Railway Companies' Powers Act_, 1864, and the
_Railway Construction Facilities Act_ of the same year. These Acts
empowered railway companies to enter into agreements with each other in
regard to maintenance, management, running over or use of each others
lines or property and for joint ownership of stations. They also enabled
powers to be obtained from the Board of Trade to construct a railway
without a special Act of Parliament, subject to the conditions that all
the landowners concerned agreed to part with the requisite land, and that
no objection was raised by any other railway or canal company. Little
use has ever been made of this well-intentioned enactment. Landowners
have rarely been disposed to accept terms which the companies thought
fair; and rival railways, in the days gone by, dearly loved a fight.
By the _Companies Clauses Consolidation Act_ of 1845 railway companies
were required to keep full and true accounts of receipts and expenditure,
but it was not until the year 1868 that Parliament placed upon the
companies an obligation to keep their accounts in a prescribed form. This
form was scheduled to the _Regulation of Railways Act_, 1868. It
provides for half-yearly accounts, and is the form which has been
familiar to shareholders for many years. This Act (1868) also ordained
that smoking compartments be provided on all trains, for all classes, on
all railways, except on the railway of the Metropolitan Company. Up to
then the railway smoker had to obtain the consent of his fellow
passengers in the same compartment before he could light up, or brave
their displeasure; and many were the altercations that ensued. The Act
also imposed penalties on railways who provided trains for attending
prize fights, which was hard on companies of sporting instincts. A
clause provided for means of communication between passengers and the
servants of the company in charge of trains running twenty miles without
stopping; and another clause gave the companies power to cut down trees
adjoining their line which might be dangerous. Prior to 1868, although
railways had then existed for three and forty years, the accounts of one
company could not usefully be compared with those of another, for
scarcely any two companies made up their accounts in the same way.
Variety may be charming, but uniformity has its advantages.
The Board of Trade, in 1871, was endowed with further powers. By the
_Regulation of Railways Act_ of that year, they were given additional
rights of inspection; authority to enquire into accidents, and further
powers in regard to the opening of additional lines of railway, stations
or junctions. And by this statute the companies were required to furnish
the Board of Trade with elaborate statistical documents, annually, in a
form prescribed in a schedule to the Act.
The only other important Act down to the year 1875 is the _Regulation of
Railways Act_ of 1873. This Act was passed for the purpose of making
"better provision for carrying into effect the _Railway and Canal Traffic
Act_ of 1854, and for other purposes connected therewith." In 1872 a
Joint Committee of both Houses sat and, following upon their report, this
Act was passed. It established a new tribunal, to be called the _Railway
and Canal Commission_, to consist of three Commissioners, of whom--one
was to be experienced in the law, one in railway business, and it also
authorised the appointment of not more than two _assistant_
Commissioners. As to the _third Commissioner_, no mention was made of
qualifications. This tribunal, though styled a _Commission_, conducted
its work as if it were a court; and a regularly constituted court in time
it became. By the _Railway and Canal Traffic Act_, 1888, the section in
the Act of 1873 appointing the Commission was repealed and a new
Commission established consisting of two appointed and three _ex officio_
Commissioners, such Commission to be "a Court of Record, and have an
official seal, which shall be judicially noticed." One of the
Commissioners must be experienced in railway business; and of the three
_ex officio_ Commissioners, one was to be nominated for England, one for
Scotland and one for Ireland, and in each case such Commissioner was to
be a Judge of the High Court of the land. Under the Act of 1873, the
chief functions of the Commissioners were: To hear and decide upon
complaints from the public in regard to undue preference, or to refusal
of facilities; to hear and determine questions of through rates; and to
settle differences between two railway companies or between a railway
company and a canal company, upon the application of either party to the
difference. The Act of 1888 continued these and included some further
powers.
In my humble opinion the Railway Commissioners have done much useful work
and done it well. For more than forty years I have read most if not all
the cases they have dealt with. On several occasions I have been engaged
in proceedings before them, and not always on the winning side.