Fifty Years of Railway Life in England, Scotland and Ireland Part 13

Fifty Years of Railway Life in England, Scotland and Ireland Part 13

At Monte Carlo we both lost money but revelled in abundant sunshine, and contemplated phases of humanity that to us were new and strange. Soon we grew tired of the gaming table and its glittering surroundings, bade it adieu, and explored other parts of the Riviera, moving at our ease from scene to scene and from place to place.

Kilkelly was an excellent travelling companion, readily pleased, and taking things as they came with easy philosophy. But never more shall we travel together, at home or abroad. A year ago, at the age of 82, he pa.s.sed from among us on the last long journey which we all must take.

_Requiescat in pace_!

CHAPTER XXVIII.

VICE-REGAL COMMISSION ON IRISH RAILWAYS, 1906-1910, AND THE FUTURE OF RAILWAYS

In previous pages I have spoken of the manner in which the railways of Ireland had long been abused. This abuse, as the years went on, instead of diminishing grew in strength if not in grace. The Companies were strangling the country, stifling industry, thwarting enterprise; were extortionate, grasping, greedy, inefficient. These were the things that were said of them, and this in face of what the railways were accomplishing, of which I have previously spoken. Politics were largely at the bottom of it all, I am sure, and certain newspapers joined in the noisy chorus. At length the House of Commons, during the Session of 1905, rewarded the agitators by adopting the following resolution:--

"_That in the opinion of this House, excessive railway rates and defective transit facilities, generally, const.i.tute a serious bar to the advancement of Ireland and should receive immediate attention from the Government with a view to providing a remedy therefor_."

This Resolution bore fruit, for in the ensuing year (1906), in the month of July, a Vice-Regal Commission was appointed to inquire into the subject, and the Terms of Reference to the Commission included these words:--

"_What causes have r.e.t.a.r.ded the expansion of traffic upon the Irish lines and their full utilization for the development of the agricultural and industrial resources of the country; and, generally, by what methods the economical, efficient, and harmonious working of the Irish Railways can best be secured_."

As the newspapers said, the Irish Railway Companies were put upon their trial. As soon as the Commission was appointed the Companies (19 in number) a.s.sembled at the Railway Clearing House in Dublin to discuss the situation, and decide upon a course of action. Unanimously it was resolved to act together and to make a common defence. A Committee, consisting of the Chairman and General Managers of the seven princ.i.p.al companies, was appointed and invested with full power to act in the interest of all, as they should find desirable. The Right Honourable Sir William (then Sir William) Goulding, Baronet, Chairman of the Great Southern and Western Railway, was appointed Chairman of the Committee. I was appointed its Secretary, and Mr. Croker Barrington its Solicitor. It was further decided that one general case for the a.s.sociated railways should be prepared and presented to the Commission by one person, who should also (under the direction of the Committee) have charge of all proceedings connected with the Inquiry. I, to my delight, was unanimously selected as that person, and to enable me to do the work properly, I was allowed to select three a.s.sistants. My choice fell upon G. E. Smyth, John Quirey, and Joseph Ingram, and I could not have chosen better. We were allotted an office in the Railway Clearing House; my a.s.sistants gave their whole time to the work, and I gravitated between Broadstone and Kildare Street, for of course I had to look after the Midland Great Western as well as the Commission business. That I could not, like Sir Boyle Roche's bird, be in two places at once, was my greatest disappointment. I may record here that each of my a.s.sistants has since, to borrow an Americanism, "made good." Smyth is now Traffic Manager of the Great Southern and Western Railway; Quirey is Chief Accountant of the Midland Railway of England, and Ingram became Secretary of the Irish Clearing House, from which be has been recently promoted to an important position under the Ministry of Transport (Ireland).

The way in which the seven Companies worked together, and the success they attained was, I think, something to be proud of. Sir William Goulding was an excellent Chairman. There was just one little rift in the lute. One of the seven Companies showed a disposition, at times, to play off its own bat, but this was, after all, only a small matter, and the general harmony, cohesion and unanimity that prevailed were admirable, and unquestionably productive of good. We had as Counsel, to guide and a.s.sist the Committee, and to represent the Companies before the tribunal, Mr. Balfour Browne, K.C.; Mr. Jas. Campbell, K.C. (now the Rt.

Hon. Sir James Campbell, Baronet, Lord Chancellor of Ireland); Mr. T. M.

Healy, K.C.; Mr. Vesey Knox, K.C.; and Mr. G. Fitzgibbon. They served us well, and were all required. During the proceedings, prolonged as they were, each could not of course always appear, and it was important to have Counsel invariably at hand.

Sir Charles Scotter was appointed Chairman of the Commission. He was Chairman of the London and South Western Railway; had risen from the ranks in the railway service; had been a general manager, and was unquestionably a man of great ability; but he was handicapped by his age, which even then exceeded the Psalmist's allotted span. His health moreover was not good, and in less than six months after the completion of the work of the Commission, he departed this life at the age of 75.

Mr. George Shanahan, a.s.sistant Secretary of the Board of Works, was the capable Secretary of the Commission. He had the advantage of being a railwayman. From the service of the Great Northern Railway, Robertson took him with him to the Board of Works in the year 1896.

Before the Commission began its public sittings it issued and freely circulated a printed paper ent.i.tled "_Draft Heads of Evidence for Traders, Industrial a.s.sociations, Commercial and Public Bodies, etc_."

This paper invited complaints under various set headings and concluded with these words:--

"Whether there is any other question that might be usefully considered in determining the _causes that have r.e.t.a.r.ded the expansion of traffic upon the Irish lines_, and their full utilization for the development of the agricultural and industrial resources of the country."

The italics are mine. We, rightly or wrongly, looked upon this paragraph as _a.s.suming_ the case against the Companies to have some foundation in fact and likely to bias neutral opinion against us, and when (after the hearing was concluded) three of the seven Commissioners reported that the evidence "led them to doubt whether expansion of traffic had been r.e.t.a.r.ded," we felt that our view was not without justification. But I am antic.i.p.ating the findings of the Commission, and perhaps, after all, the peculiar Terms of the Reference largely dictated the course of procedure which the Commission adopted.

The first public sitting was held in Dublin on the 12th of October, 1906, and the last in the same city on the 29th of January, 1909. There were 95 public sittings in all; and 293 witnesses were examined, 29 of whom appeared on behalf of the Railway Companies. The Reports of the Commissioners (for there were two--a Majority and a Minority Report) did not appear till the 4th of July, 1910, so from the time of its appointment until the conclusion of its work the Commission covered a period of four years, all but fourteen days.

During the course of this Inquiry I pa.s.sed 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 a.s.sistants carried on the Commission work with great efficiency. It was a trying experience that I pa.s.sed 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 reb.u.t.ting evidence did not begin till all the public witnesses had been heard. My evidence, on behalf of the a.s.sociated 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 circ.u.mstances 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 s.e.xton, 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 r.e.t.a.r.ded 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 r.e.t.a.r.ded.

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 inst.i.tuted 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 ent.i.tled_ _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 princ.i.p.al 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 princ.i.p.al railways in one single system, and also, that certain lines cla.s.sed 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 pa.s.s; 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 compet.i.tion by road and sea. Past experience teaches this.

It used to be said that railway companies a.s.serted, 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 a.s.sociated 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 a.s.sistants, 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 ent.i.tled to the Resolution of cordial thanks which the a.s.sociated companies accorded to him. I should, I feel, be lacking in grat.i.tude 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.