TERMINALS, RATES AND FARES, AND OTHER MATTERS
Of course it was right that Parliament, when conferring upon the railway
companies certain privileges, such as the compulsory acquisition of land
and property, should, in the public interest, impose restrictions on
their charging powers. No one could reasonably complain of this, and had
it been done from the beginning in a clear, logical way, and in language
free from doubt, all might have been well and much subsequent trouble
avoided. But this was not the case. Each company's charging powers were
contained in its own private Acts (which were usually very numerous) and
differed for different sections of the railway. It was often impossible
for the public to ascertain the rights of the companies, and well nigh
impossible for the companies themselves to know what they were. These
powers were in the form of tolls for the use of the railway; charges for
the use of carriages, wagons, and locomotive power, and total maximum
charges which were less than the sum of the several charges. In the Acts
no mention was made of terminals, though in some of them power to make a
charge for _services incidental to conveyance_ was authorised, and what
these words really meant was the subject of much legal argument and great
forensic expenditure.
In addition to the tolls and charges, the Acts usually contained a rough
classification of goods to which they applied. These were divided into
from three to five classes, and comprised some 50 to 60 articles. The
railway companies, however, had in existence, for practical everyday use,
a general classification called The Railway Clearing House
Classification, and this contained over 2,700 articles divided into seven
classes.
The tolls and charges in the Companies' Acts were fixed originally in the
old belief (to which I have before alluded) that railway companies, like
canal companies, would be mere owners of the route; and when they became
carriers and provided stations, sidings, warehouses, cranes, and all the
paraphernalia appertaining to the business of a carrier, the old form was
not altered, the charging powers remained as originally expressed in
subsequent Acts, and the same old model was followed. For several years
prior to 1881 complaints by merchants, traders and public bodies against
railway rates and fares had become very common. The cry was taken up by
the public generally, and railway companies had a decidedly unpleasant
time of it, which they bore with that good temper and equanimity which I
(perhaps not altogether an unprejudiced witness) venture to affirm
generally characterised them. The complaints increased in number and
intensity and Members of Parliament and newspaper writers joined in the
jeremiad.
Parliament, as Parliaments do, yielded to clamour, and in 1881 a Select
Committee was appointed by the House of Commons to inquire into railway
charges, into the laws and conditions affecting such charges, and
specially into passenger fares. It was a big committee, consisted of 23
members, took 858 pages of evidence, and examined 80 witnesses. At the
end of the session they reported that, although they had sat
continuously, time had failed for consideration of the evidence, and
recommended that the committee be re-appointed in the next session. This
was done, and the committee, enlarged to 27 members, took further
evidence, and submitted a report to Parliament.
The gravest issue was the right of the companies to charge terminals, and
the committee found that the railways had made out their case, and
recommended that the right of the companies to station terminals should
be recognised by Parliament. Further, the committee, on the whole of the
evidence, acquitted the railway companies of any grave dereliction of
their duty to the public, and added: "It is remarkable that no witnesses
have appeared to complain of 'preferences' given to individuals by
railway companies as acts of private favour or partiality." As to
passenger fares, the committee reported that the complaints submitted to
them were rather local than general, and not of an important character,
but thought that it might be well for the Railway Commissioners to have
the same jurisdiction in respect to passengers as to goods traffic.
The railway companies thus emerged from this searching inquiry with
credit, as they have done in the many investigations to which they have
been subjected, and no high-minded and aspiring young railway novice need
ever blush for the traditions of the service.
Before the committee Mr. James Grierson, General Manager of the Great
Western, was the principal witness for the railway companies, and yeoman
service he rendered. He presented the railway case with great ability,
and his views were accepted on the important terminal question. In 1886
he published a book on _Railway Rates_, which was warmly welcomed by the
Press and, in the words of _Herepath's Journal_, was "an exhaustive,
able, and dispassionate _resume_ of all the conflicting statements,
claims, and interests verging round the much vexed question of railway
rates." Certainly he did much towards the ultimate settlement of the
matter. Mr. Grierson was, perhaps, the ablest witness before
Parliamentary Committees the railway service ever had, which is saying
much. A leading counsel, during the luncheon interval, once said to him,
"We feel small when we are cross-examining you. You know all about the
business, and we can only touch the fringe of it." The great secret of
Mr. Grierson's success was his mastery of, and scrupulous regard for,
facts and his straightforwardness. Of his book he himself said, "My
conclusions may be disputed, but no one shall dispute the facts on which
they are based."
The committee recommended that Parliament, when authorising new lines, or
extending the powers of existing companies, should have its attention
drawn by some public authority to the proposed, and in the case of
existing companies, to the existing rates and fares. They also
recommended that one uniform classification of merchandise be established
by law; that the Court of Railway Commissioners be made permanent; and
that the amalgamation of Irish Railways be promoted and facilitated. Thus
the great inquiry ended; but public agitation did not cease. One or two
attempts at legislation followed, but from one cause or another, fell
through; and it was not until 1888 that the subject was seriously tackled
by Parliament. In that year the _Railway and Canal Traffic Act_, of
which I shall later on have something to say, was passed.
On the appearance of the Report in 1882, it was recognised in railway
circles that something _must_ happen regarding the eternal rates
question, and the companies began to prepare themselves as best they
could. It fell upon me to examine the many Acts of Parliament of the
Glasgow and South-Western Railway, to collate the provisions relating to
tolls, charges and maximum powers, to compare those powers with actual
rates, to work out cost of terminal service, and to draw up a revised
proposed scale of maximum conveyance rates and terminal charges. Deeply
interesting work it was, and led, not very many years afterwards, to
unexpected promotion, which I valued much, and about which I shall have
more to say.
In the year 1880 a Scotch branch of the Railway Benevolent Institution
was established. Mr. Wainwright was made its chairman, and I was
appointed secretary. He and I had for some time urged upon the Board in
London the desirability of a local committee of management in Scotland.
The Institution had a great membership in England, and was generously
helped there in the matter of funds by the public. The subscription
payable by members was small, and the benefits it bestowed were
substantial; but railway men in Scotland looked at it askance: "the Board
in London kenned little aboot Scotland and Scotch claims wouldna get vera
much conseederation." Well, all this was changed by what we did. Soon a
numerous membership succeeded to the few who on Scottish railways had
previously joined the Institution, and we had much satisfaction in
finding that we were able to dispense substantial aid to many old and
needy railwaymen and to their widows and orphans. Mr. Wainwright
remained Chairman of the Branch till his death, and I continued Secretary
until I left Scotland.
In 1883, after my return from Paris, I grew restless again, with a
longing for more responsibility and a larger and freer life; with,
perhaps, an admixture of something not so ennobling--the desire for a
bigger income. Never was I indifferent to the comforts that money can
bring, though never, I must confess, was I gifted with the capacity for
money making or money saving. The pleasures of life (the rational
pleasures I hope) had always an attraction for me. I could never forego
them, or forego the expense they involved, for the sake of future distant
advantages. What weighed with me, too, was the fact that I was
undoubtedly overworked and my health was suffering. It was not that my
railway duties proper were oppressive, but the duties as Secretary of the
Railway Benevolent Institution in Scotland added considerably to my
office hours, and at home I often worked far into the night writing for
the several papers to which I contributed. Too much work and too little
play was making Jack a very dull boy. I envied those officers, such as
John Mathieson, whose duties took them often out of doors, and gave them
the control and management of men.
My chief was as kind and considerate as ever, and I confided to him the
thoughts that disturbed me. Warm-heartedly he sympathised with my
feelings. He himself had gone, he said, through the same experience some
twenty years before. The prospect of promotion at St. Enoch, he agreed,
seemed remote; the principal officers, except the engineer, were young or
middle-aged; and he himself was in the prime of life. He did not want to
lose me, but I must look out, and he would look out too. At last the
opportunity came, and it came from Ireland. The Belfast and County Down
Railway Chairman, Mr. R. W. Kelly, and a director, Lord (then Mr.)
Pirrie, were deputed to see half a dozen or so likely young applicants in
England and Scotland. I was interviewed by these gentlemen in Glasgow,
was selected for the vacant post of general manager, and in May, 1885,
removed with my family to Belfast, and entered upon my duties there.
Lord Pirrie is a great shipbuilder of world-wide fame. I was not long at
the County Down before I discovered his wonderful energy, his marvellous
capacity for work, his thoroughness, and keen business ability. I always
thought that at our interview at Saint Enoch he was as much impressed
with the order and method which appeared in the office of which I had
charge as by anything else. I showed him everything very freely, and
remember his appreciation and also his criticism, of which latter, as I
afterwards found, he was at times by no means sparing, but if sometimes
severe, it was always just and salutary. How little one foresees events.
Not long had I left Glasgow before unexpected changes occurred. In 1886,
Mr. Wainwright took ill and died; soon after Mathieson went to
Queensland; and in less than eight short years three general managers had
succeeded Mr. Wainwright.
They were good to me when I left Glasgow. I was presented with a
valuable testimonial at a banquet at which Mr. Wainwright presided and at
which my good friend, G. G., made a fine speech. It would be idle for me
to say that the warm congratulations of my friends, the prospects of
change, and the sense of new responsibilities, did not delight and excite
me. But a strong measure of regret was mixed with the pleasurable
draught. I was greatly attached to my chief, and keenly felt the parting
from him. He felt it too. When it came to the last handshake words
failed us both.
The Nestor of the Glasgow and South-Western Railway was Andrew Galloway,
the chief engineer. A Nestor he looked with his fine, strong, grave
features, abundant hair, and flowing beard. He was a very able engineer,
but had many old-fashioned ways, one of which was an objection to anyone
but himself opening his letters, and when absent from his office they
would at times lie for several days untouched. If remonstrated with he
was quite unmoved. He had a theory that most letters, if left long
enough unanswered, answered themselves. In me he always showed a
fatherly interest, and sometimes chided me for talking too freely and
writing too much. His last words when he bade me farewell, and gave me
his blessing were, to remember always to think twice before I spoke once.
On the very day I was assured of my appointment as general manager for
the County Down Railway I discarded the tall silk hat and the black
morning coat, which for some time had been my usual business garb, as it
was of many serious-minded aspiring young business men in Glasgow. Mr.
Galloway asked me the reason of the change, which he was quick to
observe. "Well," said I, "I have secured my position, so it's all right
now." Never since, except in London, have I renounced the liberty I then
assumed; the bowler and the jacket suit became my regular business wear,
and the other habiliments of severe respectability were relegated to
churchgoing, weddings, christenings, and funerals and other formal
occasions.