“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 per mile per annum and in Ireland a little over £1,000; 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 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.