CHAPTER XXIII.

THE "RAILWAY NEWS," THE INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY CONGRESS, AND A TRIP TO SPAIN AND PORTUGAL

In Chapter XX I recorded the death of my old friend W. F. Mills, which took place whilst I was writing that chapter. Now, as I pen these lines, I hear of the loss of another old familiar railway friend; not indeed a sentient being like you, dear reader, or him or me, yet a friend that lacked neither perception nor feeling.

The Railway News on Saturday, the 30th day of November, 1918, issued its last number, and, as a separate entity, ceased to be, its existence then merging into that of the Railway Gazette. I am sad and sorry for I knew it well. For forty years it was my week-end companion; for ten years or more, in the April of life, I contributed regularly to its pages; and never, during all the years, have its columns been closed to my pen. One of its editors, F. McDermott, has long been my friend, and its first editor, Edward McDermott, his father, a grand old man, was kind to me in my salad days and encouraged my budding scribbling proclivities. He and Samuel Smiles, the author of Self Help (then Secretary of the South Eastern Railway), were, in 1864, its joint founders.

"Death," the Psalmist saith, "is certain to all." In 1893, the railway world lost one whom it could ill spare. In the month of March, after a short illness, Sir George Findlay died at the early age of 63. Gifted of the gods, in the midst of his work, young in mind and spirit, his faculties in full vigour, he was suddenly called away. His funeral, I need not say, was attended by railway men from all parts of the kingdom. I was one of those who travelled to London to follow his remains to their resting place.

Further public railway legislation was enacted in 1893 and 1894, and four important Acts were passed. The first was the Railway Regulation Act, 1893. It dealt with the hours of labour of railway servants, a subject which for some time previously had been enjoying the attention of the Press. It culminated in the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee. In February, 1891, a Select Committee, consisting of 24 members, with Sir Michael Hicks Beach as chairman, was formed, "To inquire whether, and if so, in what way, the hours of railway servants should be restricted by legislation." The Committee examined numerous railway servants and officials, and reported to Parliament, in June, 1892. I was summoned by the Committee to give evidence and appeared before them in London on 24th March of that year. My business was to furnish facts concerning the hours of duty of the employees on my own railway and the conditions of their work. This I did pretty fully and embraced the opportunity of showing how different were the circumstances of Irish railways compared with English, and how legislation suitable to one country might be very unsuitable to the other. It scarcely needed saying that England was an industrial country whilst Ireland was agricultural; that England, with 620 people to the square mile, was thickly populated and Ireland with 135 sparsely; that population meant trains and traffic; that in England railway traffic amounted to about 7,000 pounds per mile per annum and in Ireland a little over 1,000 pounds; that in Ireland on many lines not more than five or six trains ran each way daily, and on others only three or four, whilst in England, on most lines, the hourly number exceeded these. When the Committee rose Sir Michael engaged me, informally, in conversation for a little while. He was curious concerning some of the facts I had adduced, particularly as to the Midland line and the country it served.

In their report the Committee stated they had confined their inquiry to the hours of duty of those classes of railway servants that were engaged in working traffic, viz., drivers, firemen, guards, signalmen, shunters, platelayers and porters, and had not dealt with other classes; a wise distinction I thought. It was much easier, they said, to regulate the hours of persons occupying fixed posts of duty within reasonable limits, than those of the running staff on railways, on account of the variety in the nature of the work. They reported also that they were unable to recommend a "legal day," as they considered it would be found impracticable owing to the number of cases which must necessarily be admitted as exceptions to any fixed limit of hours, adding that the hours of railway servants engaged in working traffic cannot be regulated like those in a factory, which, I may add, experience has abundantly shown. I believe, and have always believed, in reasonable working hours, and have often worked unreasonably long hours myself in endeavouring to arrange them for others; and more than once when I have re-arranged a rota for drivers, firemen and guards, to my own satisfaction, I have been begged by the men concerned not to make any change and to let well alone; not, of course, because the new rota gave shorter hours, but because it prevented the men from getting to their homes or interfered with something else that suited them. Sometimes I gave way to the men and sometimes I stuck to my revised rota. Every case varied and required special consideration. The Committee also said: "It is universally admitted that the railway service is very popular under existing conditions; and several railway servants who appeared as witnesses protested vigorously against any interference by Government or the Legislature." State interference, I know, is the fashion now; but the blind worship of any fashion is but weakness and folly.

The Act of 1893 was the outcome of the Report. It provided that on representation being made to the Board of Trade that the hours of any railway servants were excessive, the Board might inquire into the complaint, and order the company concerned to submit an amended schedule of time and duty for such servants, and if the railway company failed to comply with the order the matter might then be referred to the Railway Commisioners whose order the company must obey under a penalty of 100 pounds a day. I do not think any company was ever fined; nor do I, indeed, remember the Commissioners services being required. If they were, the occasions were few and far between, as the companies generally loyally carried out the provisions of the Act.

In 1894 was passed the Notice of Accidents Act. Where any person employed in the construction, use, working or repair of any railway, tramroad, tramway, gas works, canal bridge, tunnel, harbour, dock or other work authorised by Parliament, suffered (it said) an accident causing loss of life or bodily injury, the employer must notify the Board of Trade, and if the Board of Trade considered the case of sufficient importance, they may (it provided) direct the holding of a formal inquiry; a report of such inquiry to be presented to the Board of Trade, which may (it stated) be made public in such manner as they think fit. As far as accidents to railway servants were concerned, I can vouch that these inquiries were pretty often held, and the companies, concerned always for the safety of their employees, never did other than welcome them.

The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894, was an Act to amend (save the mark!) The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888. Its effect, in fact, was to embitter instead of amend. It was, as I have previously indicated, panic legislation yielded in haste to unreasonable clamour, unfair to the railways, and of doubtful advantage to traders. I will say no more lest I say too much.

The fourth of these enactments was the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894. It invested the Board of Agriculture with further powers to make orders and regulations respecting animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia or foot- and-mouth disease, particularly with regard to markets, fairs, transit and slaughter houses; for securing the providing of water and food; and for cleansing and disinfecting vessels, vehicles and pens. As regards Ireland the powers were vested in the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council, and on the establishment of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland, in the year 1899, were transferred to that body.

The International Railway Congress Association is an interesting if not an ancient body. It dates back to the year 1885. Gallant little Belgium was its parent. In 1885, the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the first public railway on the Continent of Europe (the line between Brussels and Malines) was celebrated at Brussels by a Congress convened on the invitation of the Belgian Government, and this meeting was the beginning of the now worldwide association. At the first assembly at Brussels "the study of technical and administrative questions for railways" was the avowed object in view; and it has been the serious purpose of every Congress since. But gradually pleasant relaxations, such as lunches, dinners, dances and excursions, for wives and daughters accompanying husbands and fathers graced these gatherings of railway wisdom. During the first ten years the sessions were bi-annual, but since 1895 have been held every five years. Brussels, Milan, Paris, St. Petersburg, London, Washington and Berne have each been the scene of their celebration, and Paris has been favoured twice. For 1915 Berlin was the capital selected, but the war decided against that; and when Berlin shall see the world's railway representatives assembled within her gates only a very bold man will venture to prophesy.

The Congress is composed of some 420 railway systems represented by nearly 1,500 delegates; and any railway company, the wide world over, that possesses a mileage of 62 miles or more is competent for membership. In addition to holding Sessions the Congress publishes a monthly Bulletin (or did prior to the war), containing, besides original articles on all questions relating to the construction, operation, and organisation of railways, reproductions of interesting articles published in the railway and engineering papers of any nation, as well as notices of books and pamphlets on railway questions. The Bulletin contains also all reports prepared for the various Sessions of the Congress and minutes of the discussions. It was a great gathering that the late King Edward (then Prince of Wales) opened on June the 26th, 1895, when the Congress was in London. The scene was the Imperial Institute, and the meetings lasted till July the 9th. From all parts of the globe delegates came. All was not dull routine for British hospitality abounded and the companies vied with each other in worthy entertainments, and Her Majesty the Queen saw fit to signalise the occasion by giving a garden party in its honour.

Mr. W. M. Acworth, the well-known writer on railway economics, and a keen but friendly critic of railway affairs, was appointed Secretary to the English Section of the Congress, and to him fell the principal work connected with the Session. His scholarly and linguistic attainments and his varied travels, fitted him well for the task. My eldest son, then a youth of 18, just entered the railway service, had the good fortune to be selected as one of Mr. Acworth's assistants. He had not long finished his education in France, and spoke the language fluently, which, of course, was a recommendation. It was valuable experience to him as well as delightful work. He conducted several parties of delegates through various parts of England and Ireland in connection with the many excursions that were arranged for their pleasure and profit. The weather was very hot, and railway travelling at times oppressive, even to delegates from the sunny land of France, and shandy-gaff, a beverage new to most of the visitors, was in great request. Said a French delegate one day to my son, as the train was approaching Rugby: "Oh! M'sieu Tatlow, the weather it is so hot; will you not at Rugby give us some of your beautiful char-a-banc?" On another occasion he was asked if he would "be so kind as to give the recipe for making that beautiful toast."

At the close of the session in London, a number of the foreign delegates, at the invitation of the Irish Railway Companies, visited Ireland, and were shown its railways, and its beauty spots from east to west, from north to south. It is not too much to say they were greatly impressed. The splendid scenery that surrounds the island like a beautiful frame, delighted them, and the excellence of the Irish railways was no little surprise. They did not expect to see such fine carriages, such handsome dining saloons, nor such permanent way and stations. Of course we showed them our best and the best was very good. Ireland is often accused of neglecting her opportunities, but never her hospitality. On this occasion, personified by her railway companies, she neglected neither, and in the latter surpassed herself.

In the autumn of this year I was able to gratify my taste for travel by a longer excursion than usual. Hitherto my furthest flights had been to Paris, Belgium, and Holland, but now I went as far as Spain and Portugal. F. K. was my pleasant companion and we travelled, via Paris, straight through to Madrid, where we stayed for a week at the Hotel de la Paix, in the bright and busy and sunny Puerto del Sol. In Madrid we visited the Royal Palace (or so much of it as was shown to the public--principally the Royal stables); the Escurial; the Art Galleries and Museums; drove in the Buen Retiro; witnessed a bull fight, which rather sickened us when the horses, which never stood a chance in the contest, were ripped up by the bull; admired dark-eyed senoritas, their mantillas and coquettish fans, enjoyed the southern sunshine and the Spanish wines; and then left for Lisbon by an express train that stopped at nearly every station. At Lisbon three or four days were pleasantly passed, though we were annoyed sometimes by the crowd of persistent beggars that thronged the streets, and who, we were told, pursued their calling by license from the authorities. This was a small matter, however. He who travels should be proof against such minor annoyances. Then Oporto was visited, and the Douro valley, the very centre of the port wine industry. A young Englishman, a wine merchant, accompanied us in our journey through this sultry valley and was our cicerone. Under his guidance we visited many famous "wine lodges," sampled wonderful vintages in most generous glasses, drank old port, green port, tawny port, and I am sure too much port, and when, at last, we reached the port of Biarritz, where we stayed for several days, we blessed its lighter wines and refreshing breezes. After Biarritz Bordeaux detained us for a day or two, and so did Paris, which we found very attractive and refreshing in early November.

This year also had for me a delightful week's interlude, in the month of June, in the Committee Rooms at Westminster. A certain Bill was promoted by an Irish railway company, which we considered an aggressive attempt to invade our territory, and, of course, we vigorously opposed it. Again I had the pleasure of giving evidence and of being crossed-examined by Mr. Pembroke Stephens; but the Bill was passed and became an Act. Further sign of vitality it never showed as the line was never made. It is one thing, by the grace of Parliament to obtain an Act, but quite another by the favour of the public to obtain capital. Parliament is often more easily persuaded than the shrewd investor, as many a too sanguine promoter knows.