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, constitute 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 retarded 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) assembled 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 principal
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 associated 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 assistants. 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
assistants 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 assistants
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 assist 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, Assistant 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 entitled "_Draft Heads of Evidence for
Traders, Industrial Associations, 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 retarded 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 _assuming_ 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
retarded," we felt that our view was not without justification. But I am
anticipating 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 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.