John D. Rockefeller - "Random Reminiscences of Men and Events"

Algernon Charles Swinburne - "A Study of Shakespeare"

Thomas Nash - "The Choise of Valentines"

G. W. E. Russell - "Matthew Arnold"

A Life Split in Two
An astonishing account of the intricate and unexpected swarm intelligence of wasps, bees, ants and termites.

E Pluribus Unum
Two centuries after Gibbon, a historian plots the trajectory of another great empire’s demise.

Little Britain
Carolyn Chute’s new novel is a love song to a voiceless part of America: the rural poor.

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




During the course of this Inquiry I passed through a crisis in my life.
From more than a year before the Commission was appointed I had been in
most indifferent health, the cause of which doctors both in Dublin and in
London were unable to discover. As time went on I became worse.
Recurring attacks of intense internal pain and constant loss of sleep
worked havoc with my strength; but I held on grimly to my work, and few
there were who knew how I suffered. One day, indeed, at the close of a
sitting of the Commission, Sir John (then Mr.) Aspinall came over to
where I sat, and said: "How ill you have looked all day, Tatlow; what is
wrong?" By the time March, 1907 came round, finding I could go on no
longer, I went to London and saw three medical men, one of whom was the
eminent surgeon, Sir Mayo (then Mr.) Robson. He, happily, discovered the
cause of my trouble, and forthwith operated upon me. It was a severe and
prolonged operation, but saved my life and re-established my health. Not
until late in July was I able to resume work--an enforced absence from
duty of four long months. In this absence my three assistants carried on
the Commission work with great efficiency. It was a trying experience
that I passed through, but from it I gathered some knowledge of what a
man can endure and still perform his daily task, and what the value of
true and sympathetic friendship means to one in a time of suffering. It
was during this illness that my friend, F. K. shewed what a true friend
he was. He, and my dear kinsman Harry, devoted themselves to me,
especially during my convalescence, giving up their time ungrudgingly and
accompanying me to the Mediterranean and elsewhere.

The presentation of the Railway case and the rebutting evidence did not
begin till all the public witnesses had been heard. My evidence, on
behalf of the associated companies, occupied five days. Other railway
managers followed with evidence specially affecting their own railways,
and one Chairman (Mr. F. W. Pim, Dublin and South-Eastern Railway) also
appeared in the witness box. We had also as a witness Mr. E. A. Pratt,
the well-known journalist and author of works on railways and commercial
subjects, who gave evidence for us regarding Continental railway rates
and conditions of transit abroad, in answer to evidence which had been
given on the subject by an official of the Department of Agriculture. An
extraordinary amount of importance had been attached to Continental
railway rates as compared with rates in Ireland, and the Department had
sent their representative abroad to gather all the information he could.
He returned, armed with figures, and submitted lengthy evidence and
numerous tables. A great outcry had been made for years in the Press and
on the platform that rates in Ireland were exorbitant compared with
Continental rates; and now, it was thought, this will be brought home to
the Irish Companies. Mr. Pratt was well informed, having investigated
the subject thoroughly in various countries, and written and published
books and articles thereon. Between us we were able to show the
unfairness of the comparisons, the dissimilarity of the circumstances of
each country, and the varied conditions and nature of the services
rendered in each, and the Commissioners in the Majority Report confessed
that after a full consideration of the evidence, they did not think any
useful purpose would be served by attempting to make particular and
detailed comparisons between Continental and Irish rates.

I could write much that would be interesting about the proceedings and
the evidence given against and for the Companies; how reckless were many
of the charges brought against them, how easily they were disproved; how
subtle and disingenuous other charges were and what skill was required to
refute them; how some of the witnesses were up in the clouds and had to
be brought down to common earth; how conclusively the Companies proved
that the railways had done their best to encourage and help every
industry and that their efforts had not been unsuccessful; but I will
resist the temptation, and proceed to the Reports which the Commissioners
presented to His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant. As I have said, there
were two reports, one signed by four, the other by three Commissioners.
The Majority Report bore the signatures of the Chairman, the Rt. Hon.
Lord Pirrie, Colonel (now Sir) Hutcheson Poe, and Mr. Thomas Sexton,
while the Minority Report was signed by Sir Herbert Jekyll, Mr. W. M.
Acworth, and Mr. (now Sir) John Aspinall. The first-mentioned Report was
not so favourable to the railways as the other, yet the worst thing it
said of the Companies was that they were commercial bodies conducted on
commercial principles and ran the railways for profit, and it admitted
that Irish railway managers neglected few opportunities for developing
traffic. In a sort of way it apologised for the evidence-seeking printed
papers to which I have already referred, and admitted that had the
Commissioners been in possession of the statistics of trade and industry
published in 1906 by the Department of Agriculture (which seemed to have
surprised them by the facts and figures they contained of Ireland's
progress) these circulars might have been framed differently. The Report
also said that the complaints the Commissioners received would have been
fewer in number if some of the public witnesses had been better informed
and had taken pains to verify their statements. The Commissioners
further reported that they were satisfied that it was impracticable for
the Railway Companies, as commercial undertakings, to make such reduction
in rates as was desired, and, "as the economic condition of the country
required," but it was not mentioned that no inquiry had been made as to
the economic condition alluded to. In regard to this question of
economic condition the Minority Report took a more modest view. It
expressed the opinion that regarding the causes which had retarded the
expansion of traffic upon the Irish lines, "A complete answer would
involve an inquiry ranging over the whole field of agriculture and
industry in all its aspects," and that this the Commissioners had not
made. It also added that the statistics of Irish trade which had been
published by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction
since the commencement of the Inquiry led them (the Minority
Commissioners) to doubt whether the expansion of traffic _had_ been
retarded.

To return to the Majority Report. The Commissioners who signed it were
of opinion that Ireland needed special treatment in regard to her
railways and that public acquisition (not State acquisition) and public
control of a unified railway system was the consummation to be desired.
In their view, if only this were accomplished blessings innumerable would
ensue and all complaints would for ever cease. As to the way in which
this unification and public control were to be carried out, they
recommended that an Irish Authority should be instituted to acquire the
Irish Railways and work them as a single system, that this Authority
should be a railway Board of twenty Directors, four nominated and sixteen
elected; that the general terms of purchase be those prescribed by the
Regulation of Railways Act of 1844; that the financial medium be a
Railway Stock; and that such Stock be charged upon (1) The Consolidated
Fund; (2) the net revenues of the unified railway system; (3) an annual
grant from the Imperial Exchequer; and (4) a general rate to be struck by
the Irish Railway Authority if and when required.

The Commissioners who signed the Minority Report said the evidence, as a
whole, had not produced the same general effect upon their minds as upon
the minds of their colleagues, and they were inclined to attach less
importance than their colleagues did to the evidence given against the
Irish Railway Companies, and more importance to the evidence given in
their favour. In their opinion the result of the evidence was, that if
the Companies were to be considered as having been on their trial, _they
were entitled_ _to a verdict of acquittal_, and that no case had been
made out for the reversal of railway policy which their colleagues
advocated. They added that it would hardly be disputed that the Railways
had on the whole conferred great benefits upon Ireland.

On the question of reductions in rates (reductions which the Majority
Report strongly urged as necessary), they did not think that reductions
were more likely to occur under public than under private ownership. They
suggested, further, that the official statistics of various countries
showed that the fall in the average rate had been much greater on the
privately owned railways of France and the United States than on the
State-owned railways of Prussia, which were universally accepted as the
most favourable example of State managed railways in the world. They
came to the conclusion, after hearing all the evidence, that the
management of the principal Irish Companies was not inferior to that of
similar companies in England and Scotland. They narrated the many
improvements (with which they seemed much impressed) that Irish Companies
had in recent years effected for the benefit of the public and the good
of the country, and said "they had spent money, and not always
profitably, in endeavouring to promote the development of new
industries." They considered the principle of private ownership should
be maintained, believing that railways are better and more economically
managed by directors responsible to their own shareholders than they
would be under any form of State or popular control, and that
administration on commercial principles was the best in the public
interest.

In their opinion, however, the Irish railway system was faulty by reason
of its sub-division into so many independent companies, and they
recommended a policy of amalgamation, with the ultimate object of
including the principal railways in one single system, and also, that
certain lines classed as railways, but which were really tramways serving
purely local interests, need not be incorporated with the general railway
system. Such amalgamation, they considered, need not be effected at one
time, but should be accomplished gradually. Failing amalgamation by
voluntary effort within three years, compulsion should be resorted to.

On the whole the Reports were highly satisfactory to the Irish railways.
They showed that the Companies had done their duty to the country
honestly and well, and that they had been unjustifiably attacked. The
good character of the Irish railways was thus re-established, and they
again held their rightful place in public esteem.

Of the two I much preferred the Minority Report. The working of the
Irish railways (in accordance with its Recommendations) as business
concerns on commercial principles, seemed to me both sound and sensible
and the policy best calculated to serve the interests of the country. I
cannot, however, say that I concurred in that part of the Minority Report
which proposed the welding of all the railways of Ireland into one great
system. In my humble opinion, the formation of three large systems--a
Northern, a Midland and a Southern--was the desirable course to adopt.
This course would, at any rate, keep alive the spirit of emulation which,
in itself, is a wholesome stimulant to enterprise and endeavour, as well
as to economy.

The Majority Report, which amongst other things said, "We consider it
obvious that Irish development will not be fully served by the railways
until they cease to be commercial undertakings," found favour mostly, I
think, with those who looked upon Ireland as an exceptional country
requiring eleemosynary treatment, and whose railways ought, in their
view, to be placed beyond the ordinary healthy necessity of paying their
way. Our Chairman, the Honourable Richard Nugent, addressing his
shareholders at the time, put the matter rather neatly. He said: "The
case, as recommended by the Majority Report, stands thus--the Government
to find the money for purchasing the railways; the Government to
guarantee the interest on the capital cost; the County Councils to work
the railways on uncommercial lines; the Government to pay to the extent
of 250,000 pounds a year any deficiency incurred by uncommercial
management; and any further annual losses to be paid by the County
Councils striking a general rate, which you and I and all of us would be
required to pay." He added, "Does this seem a businesslike proposal?"

The Government took no steps towards carrying out the Recommendations of
either Report. Perhaps they thought them so nearly divided, and so
almost evenly balanced, that the one neutralised the other. They may
also have thought that each Report made it clear that the Irish railways
were well managed, not lacking in enterprise or energy, were doing well
for the country; and that, therefore, the wisest course was to "let well
alone."

Were we living in ordinary times, had there been no world-wide war, with
its vast upheavals and colossal changes, it would be both interesting and
profitable to further discuss the Reports, their conclusions and
recommendations; but the war has altered the whole railway situation, and
it would be idle to do so now. Victor Hugo says: "Great events have
incalculable consequences," which is unquestionably true in respect of
the railways and the war. The vital question now in regard, not only to
the railways of Ireland, but to the railways of the whole United Kingdom,
is as to their future. It is, however, with the Irish railways I am
specially concerned, and of them I may pretend to have a little
knowledge, which must be my excuse for saying a few words more on the
subject.

The Irish railways, like those of Great Britain, are at present
controlled by the Government, under the _Regulation of the Forces Act_,
1871--a war arrangement which is to be continued, under the powers of the
_Ministry of Transport Act_, for a further period of two years, "with a
view to affording time for the consideration and formulation of the
policy to be pursued as to the future position" of the railways. This
arrangement, temporary in its nature, provides, as is pretty generally
known, that during its continuance, the railway companies shall be
guaranteed the same net income as they earned in the year preceding the
war, viz., 1913. So far so good. But two years will quickly pass; and
what then? It is also generally known that the Government control of the
railways, during the war and since, has resulted in enormous additions to
the working expenses. Perhaps these additions were inevitable. The cost
of coal, and of all materials used in the working of railways, advanced
by leaps and bounds; but the biggest increase has been in the wages bill.
The Government granted these increases of wages, and also conceded
shorter hours of labour, involving an immensity of expense, on their own
responsibility, without consultation with the Irish railway companies.
Upon the Irish railway companies, for the present position of affairs no
responsibility, therefore, rests. Again I say, the course which the
Government adopted was, perhaps, inevitable. They had to win the war.
Labour was clamorous and insistent, and serious trouble threatened. High
reasons of State may be presumed to have dictated the Government policy.
Anyhow the thing is done, and the hard fact remains that the Irish
railways have been brought to such a financial condition that, if they
were handed back to the companies, many of them not only could not pay
any dividends but would be unable to meet their fixed charges whilst some
would not be able to even pay their working expenses.

In England the opinion is held that a proper balance between receipts and
expenditure can be restored by increased charges and reduced expenditure.
This may be so in England, with its teeming population and its almost
illimitable industrial resources. As to that I venture no opinion, but
Ireland is very differently situated. It is mainly an agricultural
country, and for most of its railways no such promising prospect can, it
seems to me, be discerned. To _unduly_ increase rates would diminish
traffic and induce competition by road and sea. Past experience teaches
this.

It used to be said that railway companies asserted, in justification of
their rates, that they were fixed on the principle of "what the traffic
could bear," and the companies were reproached on the ground that the
principle involved an injustice, but a principle which involved the
imposition of rates beyond what the traffic _could bear_, could hardly be
said to be either sound or just. However that may be, the Government
have imposed upon the Irish railways a burden of working expenses which
they cannot bear. What is the remedy? Whatever course is adopted, it is
devoutly to be hoped that it will be fair and just to the proprietors of
a railway system, which has done so much for Ireland, and in respect of
which the proprietors have received on their capital an annual return
averaging less than 4 per cent.! No bloated capitalists these. Irish
railway shareholders largely consist of people of moderate means, and
their individual holdings, on the Midland Great-Western, for example,
average only 570 pounds per shareholder.

Whilst I am by nature optimistic, I must confess that in these latter
days my optimism occasionally receives a shock. Nevertheless, I believe
that the spirit of justice still animates the British people and
Parliament; that fair treatment will be accorded to the owners of Irish
railways, and that they shall not suffer by the policy which the
Government, under the stress of war, have pursued. Railway directors are
alive to the seriousness of the position, and may I think be trusted to
see that no precaution will be neglected to secure for their companies
fair terms from the Government. Shareholders also I am glad to observe
are banding themselves together for the protection of their interests.




CHAPTER XXIX.
THE GENERAL MANAGERS' CONFERENCE, GOODAY'S DINNER, AND DIVERS MATTERS


Soon after the Vice-Regal Commission had concluded its public sittings,
and long before its Reports were issued, I had the pleasure of receiving
from the associated companies a cordial minute of appreciation of the
work I had done, accompanied by a handsome cheque. Nor was this mark of
appreciation confined to me. My friend, Croker Barrington, Solicitor to
the Committee, who had given yeoman service, and my capable assistants,
were not overlooked.

Sir William Goulding was proud of his chairmanship, and well he might be,
for during the long and trying period of the Inquiry he kept his team
well together and (no easy task) discharged the duties of Chairman with
admirable tact and ability. He was well entitled to the Resolution of
cordial thanks which the associated companies accorded to him. I should,
I feel, be lacking in gratitude if I failed to acknowledge also the
invaluable help afforded me by my brother managers, help ungrudgingly and
unstintingly given.

The Irish railways did not stand still. Their march along the path of
progress and improvement continued _sans_ interruption. From 1906 to
1910 (the Commission period) railway business, measured by receipts,
advanced in Ireland by seven per cent., compared with six per cent. in
England and three per cent. in Scotland!

In November, 1909, as was my habit unless prevented by other important
duties, I attended the General Managers' Conference at the Railway
Clearing House in London, and to my surprise and delight was unanimously
elected Chairman of the Conference for the ensuing year, the first and
only occasion on which the Manager of an Irish railway has been selected
to fill that office.

The Conference consists of the General Managers of all railways who are
parties to the London Clearing House, which means all the principal
railways of the United Kingdom. Other Conferences there were such as the
Goods Managers', the Superintendents', the Claims Conference, etc., but
it was the General Managers' Conference that dealt with the most
important matters.

I remember that, in returning thanks for my election, I ventured on a few
remarks which I thought appropriate to the occasion. Amongst other
things I said it was breaking new ground for the Conference to look to
Ireland for a Pope, but that in doing so they exhibited a catholicity of
outlook which did them honor; and I added that, in filling the high
office to which they had elected me, though I should certainly never
pretend to the infallibility of His Holiness, I should no doubt find it
necessary at times to exercise his authority. At ten o'clock in the
morning this little attempt at pleasantry seemed to be rather unexpected,
but it raised a laugh, which, of course, was something to the good. The
Conference was a businesslike assembly that prided itself on getting
through much work with little talk--an accomplishment uncommon at any
time, and particularly uncommon in these latter days. In these restless
days when--

"_What this troubled old world needs_,
_Is fewer words and better deeds_."

My year of office quickly passed and I got through it without discredit,
indeed my successor to the chair, Sir (then Mr.) Sam Fay, writing me just
after his election, said that I "had won golden opinions," and expressed
the hope that he would do as well. Of course he did better, for he was
far more experienced than I in British railway affairs, and this was only
his modesty. My friend Sir William (then Mr.) Forbes was my immediate
predecessor as Chairman, and to him I was indebted for the suggestion to
the Conference that I should succeed him in the occupancy of the chair.

Early in the year 1910 a delightful duty devolved upon me, the duty of
presiding at a farewell dinner to J. F. S. Gooday, General Manager of the
Great Eastern Railway, to celebrate his retirement from that position,
and his accession to the Board of Directors. For some years it had been
the custom, when a General Manager retired, for his colleagues to
entertain him to dinner, and for the Chairman of the Conference to
officiate as Chairman at the dinner. Gooday's brother Managers flocked
to London from all parts of the kingdom to do him honor, for whilst he
was esteemed for his ability as a manager, he was loved for his qualities
as a man. Of refined tastes, including a _penchant_ for blue china,
being a thriving bachelor, he was able to gratify them. We were so fond
of him that the best of dinners was not enough, in our estimation, to
worthily mark the occasion and to give him the pleasure he wished, and we
presented to him some rare blue vases which _Cousin Pons_ himself would
have been proud to possess.

By virtue of my office of Chairman of the Conference, I also, during
1910, sat as a member of the Council of the _Railway Companies'
Association_. This Association, of which I have not yet spoken, merits a
word or two. As described by its present Secretary, Mr. Arthur B. Cane,
it is "a voluntary Association of railway companies, established for the
purpose of mutual consultation upon matters affecting their common
interests, and is the result of a gradual development." It dates back as
far as the year 1854, when a meeting of Railway Directors was held in
London to consider certain legislative proposals which resulted in the
Railway and Canal Traffic Act of that year. In its present form it
consists of all the principal railway companies of the United Kingdom,
each Company being represented by its Chairman, Deputy Chairman, General
Manager and Solicitor. A Director of any so associated Company, who is a
Member of Parliament, is also _ex officio_ a member of the Association.
As its membership increased it was found that the Association was
inconveniently large for executive purposes, and some twenty years or so
ago a _Council_ was formed with power to represent the Association on all
questions affecting general railway interests. At this moment this
Council is engaged in looking after the interests of the railway
companies in the matter of the great _Ways and Communications Bill_. By
the suffrages and goodwill of my colleagues in Ireland, who had the
election of one member, I remained on the Council till the end of the
year 1912. Mr. Cane states that "The Association has always preserved
its original character of a purely voluntary association, and has been
most careful to safeguard the independence of its individual members."
Also, that it has "been expressly provided by its constitution that no
action shall be taken by the Council unless the members are unanimous."
For many years Sir Henry Oakley was its honorary secretary, performing
_con amore_ the duties which were by no means light, but in 1898 it was
resolved to appoint a paid secretary and to establish permanent offices,
which now are located in Parliament Street, Westminster. Mr. (now Sir
Guy) Granet was the first paid secretary, Mr. Temple Franks succeeded
him, and Mr. Cane, as I have already mentioned, is the present occupant
of the office.

Copyright (c) 2007. topmasterworks.com. All rights reserved.