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 Poë, 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