Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

opinions, and make the choice more difficult. It may be hoped, however, that if the reforming teachers keep to their own business and take counsel together-leaving etymologists to invent a system of etymological orthography for themselves, foreign linguists to construct such alphabets as are easiest for them to work, as ours is easiest for us; making no attempt to convert or conciliate anti-reformers who regard the question as unworthy of serious consideration, and therefore have never considered it seriously; but applying themselves solely to find out the best method of teaching English boys and girls to read and write modern English for modern purposes-they will be able to agree upon one set of symbols and one set of rules to be used by all; and that such an alphabet, having the great advantage of being in possession of the field, will be strong enough to resist foolish changes, to entertain friendly suggestions, to test and adopt real improvements without breaking up, and to serve for the foundation of a system of phonetic notation, the powers and uses of which may be gradually extended to meet all the requirements of the science of language.

JAMES SPEDDING.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.

LITTLE more than half a century has elapsed since the birth of railways, and already they extend over a space of 200,000 miles, absorbing the chief work of interior locomotion in all civilised countries. It was probably fortunate for the world that the work of probation devolved mainly on a country so practical as England, and a genius so sound as Stephenson's, for no sooner had the experimental stage been satisfactorily passed through, and the great value of railways become an admitted fact with statesmen, economists, and men of science, than every country proceeded in its own fashion to encourage, direct, and control this new and matchless means of locomotion. Great differences of opinion existed at the time respecting the merits of the different systems, and at one period England had a very narrow escape from the French system of State initiative, State assistance, and monopoly of districts. It is well to bear in mind the general results of State control in the construction of railways, when discussing the possibility of minimising the frequency and fatality of railway accidents by State control in the working of railways.

In France too much State interference and control have led to strict monopolies, under separate great companies, of the districts respectively allotted to them, and hence have arisen serious difficulties with regard to secondary lines or extensions, wherever competition has been apprehended or a directly profitable return has appeared doubtful.

In America, on the other hand, too little State control has led to ruinous competition without substantial increase of public accommodation, and to catastrophes such as that at Ashtabula, where upwards of 80 persons were killed by the failure of a bridge which Americans themselves admit would never have been passed by any Government inspector. In England our free but not unlicensed mode of procedure has resulted in a railway system unrivalled for completeness, and for the accommodation of all kinds which it affords. Our legislation will doubtless continue to be guided by the same sound general principles, and it is therefore reasonable that the public mind should now be without anxiety on the subject of future railway construction.

It cannot, however, be said that an equal freedom from anxiety exists with reference to the working of our railways, or that the various authorities are in equal accord as to the extent and character of the State interference which should be exercised. On general principles the controllers and controlled are agreed, viz. that railway companies should remain with undivided responsibility, but that some State control is permissible and even necessary.

The management of our railways has been truly stated by Lord Beaconsfield, in a recent speech in the House of Lords, to be perhaps our greatest domestic question,' and fortunately it is one which, notwithstanding the magnitude and universality of the interests affected, is entirely free from anything which could prevent the best men of opposite political parties from acting cordially together.

An Englishman is naturally impatient of State interference with any private enterprise in which he has invested his capital, and in the earlier days of railway inspections by the Board of Trade the proceedings of the inspecting officers were suspiciously watched and sometimes bitterly resented. In one notable case, where considerable public inconvenience resulted from a difference of opinion between the inspector and the company's engineer, official use was made of the circumstance to illustrate the baneful effect of the attempt to introduce the system of centralisation and of Government supervision which was found to be so pernicious in Continental States, and of employing officers who possessed undoubted skill for their own peculiar military duties, but who were placed in a false position when they were entrusted with the execution and conduct of civil works, of which their previous pursuits precluded their obtaining a practical knowledge.' Subsequent events have nevertheless conclusively shown that State control in the construction of railways does not involve an injurious system of centralisation,' but that it is productive of vast benefit to the public, and even to the railway officials, as it provides an independent check of the stability of the works and of the sufficiency and completeness of arrangements for the safe conduct of traffic.

It is contended by some that the extension of the 'pernicious' system of Government supervision to the working of railways would prove equally beneficial, and that the fears now entertained and expressed alike by railway managers and Government inspectors are groundless; whilst others maintain that the limits of judicious interference have already been reached, and that any further legislation in that direction must be an unmixed evil. It was to decide, if possible, this difference between the parties, and to consider other matters hardly less important, that the Royal Commission on Railway Accidents was appointed in June 1874.

The reference to this Commission and to a previous Commission

appointed twenty years ago are identical in terms: a fact which well illustrates the difficulty of giving effect to conclusions arrived at by means of an inquiry into the causes of accidents on railways, and into the possibility of removing any such causes by further legislation.' It would be difficult to over-estimate the value of the evidence collected by the Royal Commission, and now published. No fewer than 336 witnesses were examined, of whom several were four days under examination, and more than 40,000 questions were asked. It is not surprising to find that the members of the Commission have been unable to draw precisely the same conclusions from this vast amount of evidence, and so produce a report and recommendations which all could sign.

To the superficial observer everything is clear. If a powerful new brake is patented and experimentally tried with success, give the Government inspectors power to order its universal application; if a goods and a passenger train unfortunately delay each other or come into collision, order separate lines of rails for passengers and goods; if an accident happens at facing points, let all facing points be abolished. It would be well that all such persons should endeavour to appreciate the real difficulties of dealing with that complex piece of machinery, our railway system. The inability of the able and experienced members of the Royal Commission to agree on the recommendations to be adopted, or to avoid almost opposite views on important points, shows that the problem must be approached in its details with diffidence, and discussed without dogmatism, and in this spirit we now propose to review briefly the labours and recommendations of the Commission appointed by Her Majesty in June 1874, 'to inquire into the causes of accidents on railways, and into the possibility of removing any such causes by further legislation.'

The Commission, as originally constituted, comprised the Duke of Buckingham, the Earl De La Warr, the Right Hon. A. S. Ayrton, Mr. W. Galt, Mr. T. E. Harrison, the Earl of Aberdeen, the Earl of Belmore, Sir W. A. Seymour Fitzgerald, and General Sir J. L. A. Simmons. Of these, only the last four signed without reservation the report of the Commissioners, dated the 2nd of February 1877; whilst of the remaining five members, Mr. Galt concurred 'generally in the recommendations of the majority, and therefore had no hesitation in signing with them; but for reasons adduced he deemed it advisable to append a separate report'-which, by the bye, is of greater length than the original report. Mr. T. E. Harrison also signed the report, but did so subject to a number of observations which greatly qualify the significance of his signature. The Earl De La Warr concurred in much that the others recommended, but as there were 'parts of the report' to which he was unable to give his assent,' and at the same time omissions which he could not

6

but regard as essential,' he declined to sign, and sent in a short independent report. Mr. Ayrton, for some reason not set forth, makes no appearance in the report, which is the more to be regretted as the minutes of evidence bear testimony to his close application to the investigation, and to his valuable services in eliciting important statements from the numerous, witnesses examined. The Duke of Buckingham sat as Chairman of the Commission, and only resigned his functions when appointed to high office in India.

Between the 26th of June, 1874 and the 22nd of June, 1876, a period of exactly two years, the Commissioners examined no less than 336 witnesses, who may be classified as follows:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

In addition to the examination of the above formidable number of witnesses, a personal inspection was made of railway premises and works in various places throughout the kingdom, and investigations were instituted by some of the members on their own behalf in certain typical cases of railway accidents.

The Commissioners naturally proceeded to consider primarily whether they could advise a departure from the policy hitherto characterising railway legislation, which, however it might in other respects have differed, has been invariably 'so adjusted and so limited as to leave with the companies the undivided responsibility of working their lines.' They unanimously decided that any change which would relieve railway companies from the responsibility which now rests upon them to provide for the safety of their traffic would be undesirable;' but qualified this conclusion as follows: The evidence before us shows that, notwithstanding a knowledge of this responsibility, exceptional cases have occurred in which companies have failed to secure a proper maintenance and repair of lines, the

« AnteriorContinua »