Joseph Tatlow - Fifty Years of Railway Life in England, Scotland and Ireland

J >> Joseph Tatlow >> Fifty Years of Railway Life in England, Scotland and Ireland

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

[Sir George Findlay: findlay.jpg]

Between the London and North-Western and the Midland Great-Western much
good feeling existed. They were natural allies, both greatly interested
in the trade and prosperity of Ireland, and of the port of Dublin in
particular. As time went on many matters of mutual interest brought me
into close relation with the North-Western general manager and other
prominent officers of the company.

CHAPTER XXII.
A RAILWAY CONTEST, THE PARCEL POST, AND THE BOARD OF TRADE

The long-looked for fight in the Committee Rooms at Westminster came at
last, as most things that are eagerly looked and longed for do. In May,
1892, a Bill, promoted jointly by the Midland Great-Western and Athenry
and Ennis Railway Companies, was considered by a Select Committee of the
House of Lords. It was a Bill for the acquisition by the Midland of the
Ennis Railway (a line from Athenry to Ennis, 36 miles long), worked but
not owned by the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company. The Midland
were anxious to buy and the Ennis were willing to sell, but Parliament
alone could legalise the bargain. To the Waterford and Limerick, the
bare idea of giving up possession of the fair Ennis to their rival the
Midland was gall and wormwood; and so they opposed the project with might
and main, and they were assisted in their opposition by certain public
bodies, some thought as much for the excitement of a skirmish in the
Committee Rooms as anything else. The working agreement between the
Waterford and Limerick and the Ennis Companies, which had lasted for ten
years or so, was expiring; the Ennis Company had grown tired of the
union; the Midland had held out to her certain glowing prospects, which
had captivated her maiden fancy, and so she was a consenting party to the
Midland scheme. The Ennis line, in the Midland eyes, was a prize worth
fighting for, forming, as it did, part of a route from Dublin to Limerick
in competition with the Great Southern and Western, a company between
which and the Midland, at that time, little love was lost. Those were
the days when competitive traffic, gained almost at any cost, was sweet
as stolen kisses are said to be.

The proceedings opened on Monday, 16th May. _Ennis_ was as familiar to
the Committee Rooms as the suit of _Jarndyce and Jarndyce_ was to the
Court of Chancery. In 1880 the Midland had also sought by Bill to obtain
the fair Ennis (with her consent) but had failed; in 1890 the Waterford
and Limerick (against her wishes) had essayed to do the same and failed
also, and in years long prior to these, other attempts had been made with
the like result. But to proceed: our leading counsel were Sir Ralph
(then Mr.) Littler; Mr. Pember, Mr. Pope and other leaders, and a host of
juniors being arrayed against us. The straitened circumstances of the
Waterford and Limerick; its dearth of rolling stock; its inefficient
ways; its failure to satisfy the public; the admitted superiority of the
Midland and all its works; the splendid results which would "follow as
the night the day," if only Parliament would be wise enough to sanction a
union which the public interest demanded and commonsense approved--these
were the points on which our counsel exercised their forensic skill,
expended their eloquence, and to which they directed the evidence.
Amongst our supporters we had some excellent witnesses, one, a well-known
cattle dealer, named Martin Ryan. The question of _running powers_ was
prominent throughout the case and had been much debated and discussed.
Ryan's evidence was not, however, concerned with this, but in his cross-
examination, relative to something he had stated in his
evidence-in-chief, he was asked this question: "If a beast got on to the
line as a train came along, what would happen to the beast?" "It would
exercise its running powers," answered Mr. Ryan, amidst great laughter.
As good as Stephenson's answer about the "coo," said Mr. Pope.

On the fourth day of the proceedings I made my _debut_ as a Parliamentary
witness. In the preparation of my evidence I had expended much time and
trouble, keeping well in mind the way in which Mr. Wainwright used to
prepare his. Before my examination-in-chief concluded, a short
adjournment for lunch took place--a scramble at the refreshment bars in
the lobbies, where wig and gown elbowed with all and sundry; where cold
beef, cold tongue, cold pie, and, coldest of all cold comestibles, cold
custard, were swallowed in hot haste, washed down with milk and soda, or
perhaps with something stronger. "Quick lunches" they were with a
vengeance. Time was money, and in the brief interval allowed, more than
lunch had to be discussed. Sir Ralph, Mr. Findlay (who was helping us)
and I, had our hasty lunch together. When it was over we discussed the
morning's proceedings, and Mr. Findlay, to my great satisfaction, said I
was doing well--very well indeed, for a first appearance. Then, in a
kind and fatherly way, he gave me some good advice: Don't show too much
eagerness, he said: don't go quite so much into detail; keep on broader
lines; speak deliberately and very distinctly; make your points as plain
as a pikestaff; rub them well in; don't try to make too many points, but
stick fast to the important ones. You've a good manner in the box, he
said; remember these things and you'll make an excellent witness. Then
he added: above all, whilst giving your leading evidence never forget the
_cross_ that has to follow. Be always as frank as you can, and never
lose command of your temper. These were not his very words. I do not
pretend that he expressed himself with such sententious brevity, though
he never wasted speech, but they are the pith and marrow of his
admonitions. For twenty years or so from then nearly every session saw
me in the Committee Rooms, not always on the business of my own company,
as other Irish railway companies on several occasions sought my help in
their Parliamentary projects. Mr. Findlay's advice I never forgot.

In the afternoon my cross-examination began. The final question put to
me by our counsel was: "Lastly, if this amalgamation is carried out, do
you think the public would be served by it, and if so, how?" This
appeared to me a great chance for a little speech, so I summed up as
forcibly and graphically as I could all the advantages that would follow
if the Bill were passed. Then my cross-examination commenced, and the
first words addressed to me, by Mr. Pembroke Stephens, were: "I do not
think that one could have made a better speech oneself, if one had been
on your side." "Not half so good," said Mr. Littler in a stage whisper.
I thought Mr. Stephens spoke satirically, but remembered Mr. Findlay's
advice, and if I flushed inwardly, as I believe I did, no outward sign
escaped me. After Mr. Stephens, three other opposing counsel fired their
guns, but I withstood their shot and shell, and when I came out of the
box Mr. Findlay said I had done well. This was praise enough for me.
Then he gave his evidence in his usual masterly convincing way and I
listened in admiration.

We made a good fight I know, the odds were in our favour and success
seemed assured. Our opponents then presented their case, and still we
felt no doubt; but Fortune is a fickle jade and at the last she left us
in the lurch. On the eighth day of the proceedings the Chairman
announced: "The Committee are of opinion that it is not expedient to
proceed with the Bill." This was the _coup de grace_. No reasons are
ever given by a Committee for their decision and the contending parties
are left to imagine them. The losing side sometimes has the hardihood to
think a decision is wrong. I believe we thought so; and I know that
_Ennis_, who was thus doomed to a further period of single blessedness,
thought the same.

In a previous chapter I have spoken of the _Parcel Post Act_ of 1882, and
mentioned the share of the receipts apportioned to the railway companies
of the United Kingdom. The Act also prescribed the manner in which this
share was to be divided amongst the respective railways. When it was
devised the method seemed fair to all, and had the consent of all. But
the best of theories do not always stand the test of practice and so it
was found in this case. It did not suit Ireland. We discovered that the
Irish railways were, in equity, entitled to more than the scheme awarded
them, and Mr. Alcorn, the Accountant of the Great Southern and Western
Railway, discovered the way to set the matter right; but it could not be
righted without the consent of the Parcel Post Conference, a body which
sat at the Railway Clearing House in London, and was composed of the
managers of all the railways parties to the parcel post scheme, some
eighty or so in number. On the 10th November, 1892, we brought our case
before that body, and Colhoun, Robertson and I were the spokesmen for the
Irish Railways. On the previous day we had met Sir George Findlay (he
had been knighted this year) and had satisfied him of the justice of our
claim. He promised to support us. The meeting commenced at 10 o'clock.
We made our speeches, which were not long, for our printed statement had
been in each member's hands for some time. Clear as our case was to us
the Conference seemed unconvinced, and we began to fear an adverse vote.
Sir George was not present, something had happened, for he was not the
man to disappoint his friends without grave cause. Voting seemed
imminent. Robertson whispered to me, "For heaven's sake, Tatlow, get on
your legs again and keep the thing going; Findlay may be here any
moment." I was supposed to be the glibbest of speech of our party, and
up I got. But Mr. Thompson (afterwards Sir James), the _beau_, was in
the chair, and thought there had been talking enough. However, like the
Irishman I was not, I went on, and--at that moment entered Sir George!
The scene was changed; the day was won! A Sub-Committee of seven, three
of whom were Colhoun, Robertson and myself, was appointed to follow up
the matter, and ultimately the Irish proposal was adopted.

It was a very busy period, this year of 1892, and as interesting as busy.
On the 20th June the _Railway Rates and Charges (Athenry and Ennis
Junction Railways) Order Confirmation Act_, 1892, received the Royal
Assent. It applied to all the railways in Ireland and contained the
Revised Classification and Maximum Rates and Charges settled after long
inquiries under the _Railway and Canal Traffic Act_, 1888, and which were
to control the future rates to be charged by the companies. Only six
months were allowed in which to revise all rates and bring them into
conformity with the new classification and the new conditions--an
absurdly short time, for the work involved was colossal. But it had to
be done. Robert Morrison, Michael O'Neill and I, took off our coats and
worked night and day. We had the satisfaction of accomplishing the task
in the allotted time, which not every company was able to do. Generous,
as always, Sir Ralph in his speech to the shareholders in February, 1893,
said: "I wish to express that we are greatly indebted to Mr. Tatlow for
the care and anxiety with which he has endeavoured to arrange this
important rates matter. He has worked most energetically; has attended
the Committees of the Board of Trade, and the Parliamentary Committee,
and he is now seeing traders constantly. I may tell you that I and my
brother directors place the most implicit reliance on our manager, and I
am satisfied that anything he has done has been reasonable to the traders
and for the benefit of the shareholders." This was warm praise, and the
more welcome, being, as it was, the spontaneous expression of what I knew
he felt.

My meetings with the traders usually, but not invariably, resulted in
friendly settlements. The great firm of Guinness and Company were not so
easily satisfied, and offered a _stout_ resistance which correspondence
and conference failed to overcome. Under the Railway and Canal Traffic
Act a mode of dealing with the _impasse_ was provided by conciliation
proceedings presided over by the Board of Trade. This we took advantage
of, and after several meetings in London a compromise was effected. It
was then that I met for the first time Mr. Francis Hopwood, who had just
been appointed Secretary to the Railway Department of the Board of Trade.
I liked his way and thought that conciliation could not be in better
hands than his.

The Board of Trade is more or less a mythical body, but very practical I
found it on these and all other occasions. Its proper designation is, I
believe, "Committee of Privy Council for Trade." This Committee was
first appointed in Cromwell's time, and was revised under Charles II., as
"Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Foreign Plantations," under
which title it administered the Colonies. When the United States became
independent, Burke in a scathing speech, moved and carried the abolition
of this paid Committee, which included Gibbon as its Secretary. However,
the Board of Trade could not be spared, and so it was restored by Order
in Council in 1786. Under that order the principal officers of State,
and certain members of the Privy Council, including the Archbishop of
Canterbury, have, _ex officio_, seats on the Committee, although no
record exists of His Grace having ever left his arduous duties at Lambeth
to attend the Committee. Its jurisdiction extended as trade and commerce
developed and railways appeared on the scene, and gradually it was
divided into departments, and so the _Board of Trade_ came into being.
Like Topsy it "grow'd." The Board of Trade is, in fact, a mere name, the
president being practically the secretary for trade, the vice-president
having, for 50 years past, been a Parliamentary secretary with duties
similar to those of an under-secretary of State. At present, besides the
president (who has usually a seat in the Cabinet), the Parliamentary
secretary and a permanent secretary, there are six assistant secretaries
(in late war time many more), each in charge of a department.

In charge of the railway department in 1893 was, as I have said, Mr.
Francis Hopwood. He became Sir Francis in 1906, and from then onwards
advanced from office to office and from honour to honour, until, during
his secretaryship of the Irish Convention in 1917, his public services
were rewarded with a peerage. As railway secretary of the Board of Trade
he was particularly distinguished for tact, strength and moderation.
Singularly courteous and obliging on all occasions, I, personally, have
been much indebted to him for help and advice.

But all was not sunshine and happiness in this busy year of 1892. A dark
cloud of sorrow overshadowed it. On a fateful day in January I lost,
with tragic suddenness, the younger of my two sons, a bright amiable boy,
of a sunny nature and gentle disposition. He was accidentally killed on
the railway.

CHAPTER XXIII.
THE "RAILWAY NEWS," THE INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY CONGRESS, AND A TRIP TO
SPAIN AND PORTUGAL

In Chapter XX I recorded the death of my old friend W. F. Mills, which
took place whilst I was writing that chapter. Now, as I pen these lines,
I hear of the loss of another old familiar railway friend; not indeed a
sentient being like you, dear reader, or him or me, yet a friend that
lacked neither perception nor feeling.

The _Railway News_ on Saturday, the 30th day of November, 1918, issued
its last number, and, as a separate entity, ceased to be, its existence
then merging into that of the _Railway Gazette_. I am sad and sorry for
I knew it well. For forty years it was my week-end companion; for ten
years or more, in the April of life, I contributed regularly to its
pages; and never, during all the years, have its columns been closed to
my pen. One of its editors, F. McDermott, has long been my friend, and
its first editor, Edward McDermott, his father, a grand old man, was kind
to me in my salad days and encouraged my budding scribbling proclivities.
He and Samuel Smiles, the author of _Self Help_ (then Secretary of the
South Eastern Railway), were, in 1864, its joint founders.

"Death," the Psalmist saith, "is certain to all." In 1893, the railway
world lost one whom it could ill spare. In the month of March, after a
short illness, Sir George Findlay died at the early age of 63. Gifted of
the gods, in the midst of his work, young in mind and spirit, his
faculties in full vigour, he was suddenly called away. His funeral, I
need not say, was attended by railway men from all parts of the kingdom.
I was one of those who travelled to London to follow his remains to their
resting place.

Further public railway legislation was enacted in 1893 and 1894, and four
important Acts were passed. The first was the _Railway Regulation Act_,
1893. It dealt with the hours of labour of railway servants, a subject
which for some time previously had been enjoying the attention of the
Press. It culminated in the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee. In
February, 1891, a Select Committee, consisting of 24 members, with Sir
Michael Hicks Beach as chairman, was formed, "To inquire whether, and if
so, in what way, the hours of railway servants should be restricted by
legislation." The Committee examined numerous railway servants and
officials, and reported to Parliament, in June, 1892. I was summoned by
the Committee to give evidence and appeared before them in London on 24th
March of that year. My business was to furnish facts concerning the
hours of duty of the employees on my own railway and the conditions of
their work. This I did pretty fully and embraced the opportunity of
showing how different were the circumstances of Irish railways compared
with English, and how legislation suitable to one country might be very
unsuitable to the other. It scarcely needed saying that England was an
industrial country whilst Ireland was agricultural; that England, with
620 people to the square mile, was thickly populated and Ireland with 135
sparsely; that population meant trains and traffic; that in England
railway traffic amounted to about 7,000 pounds per mile per annum and in
Ireland a little over 1,000 pounds; that in Ireland on many lines not
more than five or six trains ran each way daily, and on others only three
or four, whilst in England, on most lines, the _hourly_ number exceeded
these. When the Committee rose Sir Michael engaged me, informally, in
conversation for a little while. He was curious concerning some of the
facts I had adduced, particularly as to the Midland line and the country
it served.

In their report the Committee stated they had confined their inquiry to
the hours of duty of those classes of railway servants that were engaged
in working traffic, viz., drivers, firemen, guards, signalmen, shunters,
platelayers and porters, and had not dealt with other classes; a wise
distinction I thought. It was much easier, they said, to regulate the
hours of persons occupying fixed posts of duty within reasonable limits,
than those of the running staff on railways, on account of the variety in
the nature of the work. They reported also that they were unable to
recommend a "legal day," as they considered it would be found
impracticable owing to the number of cases which must necessarily be
admitted as exceptions to any fixed limit of hours, adding that the hours
of railway servants engaged in working traffic cannot be regulated like
those in a factory, which, I may add, experience has abundantly shown. I
believe, and have always believed, in reasonable working hours, and have
often worked unreasonably long hours myself in endeavouring to arrange
them for others; and more than once when I have re-arranged a rota for
drivers, firemen and guards, to my own satisfaction, I have been begged
by the men concerned not to make any change and to let well alone; not,
of course, because the new rota gave shorter hours, but because it
prevented the men from getting to their homes or interfered with
something else that suited them. Sometimes I gave way to the men and
sometimes I stuck to my revised rota. Every case varied and required
special consideration. The Committee also said: "It is universally
admitted that the railway service is very popular under existing
conditions; and several railway servants who appeared as witnesses
protested vigorously against any interference by Government or the
Legislature." State interference, I know, is the fashion now; but the
blind worship of _any fashion_ is but weakness and folly.

The Act of 1893 was the outcome of the Report. It provided that on
representation being made to the Board of Trade that the hours of any
railway servants were excessive, the Board might inquire into the
complaint, and order the company concerned to submit an amended schedule
of time and duty for such servants, and if the railway company failed to
comply with the order the matter might then be referred to the Railway
Commisioners whose order the company must obey under a penalty of 100
pounds a day. I do not think any company was ever fined; nor do I,
indeed, remember the Commissioners services being required. If they
were, the occasions were few and far between, as the companies generally
loyally carried out the provisions of the Act.

In 1894 was passed the _Notice of Accidents Act_. Where any person
employed in the construction, use, working or repair of any railway,
tramroad, tramway, gas works, canal bridge, tunnel, harbour, dock or
other work authorised by Parliament, suffered (it said) an accident
causing loss of life or bodily injury, the employer must notify the Board
of Trade, and if the Board of Trade considered the case of sufficient
importance, they may (it provided) direct the holding of a formal
inquiry; a report of such inquiry to be presented to the Board of Trade,
which may (it stated) be made public in such manner as they think fit. As
far as accidents to railway servants were concerned, I can vouch that
these inquiries were pretty often held, and the companies, concerned
always for the safety of their employees, never did other than welcome
them.

The _Railway and Canal Traffic Act_, 1894, was an Act to _amend_ (save
the mark!) _The Railway and Canal Traffic Act_, 1888. Its effect, in
fact, was to embitter instead of amend. It was, as I have previously
indicated, panic legislation yielded in haste to unreasonable clamour,
unfair to the railways, and of doubtful advantage to traders. I will say
no more lest I say too much.

The fourth of these enactments was the _Diseases of Animals Act_, 1894.
It invested the Board of Agriculture with further powers to make orders
and regulations respecting animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia or foot-
and-mouth disease, particularly with regard to markets, fairs, transit
and slaughter houses; for securing the providing of water and food; and
for cleansing and disinfecting vessels, vehicles and pens. As regards
Ireland the powers were vested in the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council,
and on the establishment of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland, in
the year 1899, were transferred to that body.

The International Railway Congress Association is an interesting if not
an ancient body. It dates back to the year 1885. Gallant little Belgium
was its parent. In 1885, the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the
first public railway on the Continent of Europe (the line between
Brussels and Malines) was celebrated at Brussels by a Congress convened
on the invitation of the Belgian Government, and this meeting was the
beginning of the now worldwide association. At the first assembly at
Brussels "the study of technical and administrative questions for
railways" was the avowed object in view; and it has been the serious
purpose of every Congress since. But gradually pleasant relaxations,
such as lunches, dinners, dances and excursions, for wives and daughters
accompanying husbands and fathers graced these gatherings of railway
wisdom. During the first ten years the sessions were bi-annual, but
since 1895 have been held every five years. Brussels, Milan, Paris, St.
Petersburg, London, Washington and Berne have each been the scene of
their celebration, and Paris has been favoured twice. For 1915 Berlin
was the capital selected, but the war decided against that; and when
Berlin shall see the world's railway representatives assembled within her
gates only a very bold man will venture to prophesy.

The Congress is composed of some 420 railway systems represented by
nearly 1,500 delegates; and any railway company, the wide world over,
that possesses a mileage of 62 miles or more is competent for membership.
In addition to holding Sessions the Congress publishes a monthly Bulletin
(or did prior to the war), containing, besides original articles on all
questions relating to the construction, operation, and organisation of
railways, reproductions of interesting articles published in the railway
and engineering papers of any nation, as well as notices of books and
pamphlets on railway questions. The Bulletin contains also all reports
prepared for the various Sessions of the Congress and minutes of the
discussions. It was a great gathering that the late King Edward (then
Prince of Wales) opened on June the 26th, 1895, when the Congress was in
London. The scene was the Imperial Institute, and the meetings lasted
till July the 9th. From all parts of the globe delegates came. All was
not dull routine for British hospitality abounded and the companies vied
with each other in worthy entertainments, and Her Majesty the Queen saw
fit to signalise the occasion by giving a garden party in its honour.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19