CHAPTER XXII.. A Railway Contest, the Parcel Post, and the Board of Trade

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.