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.