Defining the Early British Station Master

Late Victorian and Edwardian Station Masters are perceived to have been highly respected individuals. They commanded the stations at which they were based, and were pillars of the community; respectable, authoritarian and honourable. However, in the case of station masters before 1870 these attributes are not necessarily applicable. Without established promotional trees, standardised rules and regulations, and with vetting procedures for new employees not being set in stone, Britain’s pioneer station masters were a very mixed bag, to say the least.

Firstly, the term ‘station master’ was not a universal one in the period, although it was certainly around. A London and South Western Railway rule book from 1845 called them ‘station clerks’, and in many cases this is what they were, simply clerks in charge of a station.[1] Indeed, the Great Northern Railway omitted the word ‘station’ altogether, calling officials in these positions ‘clerks-in-charge’ in 1856.[2] Nevertheless, it seems that other railways used ‘clerks-in-charge’ interchangeably with ‘station master’, as shown in the East Lancashire Railway’s 1856 rule book.[3] The most common alternative to ‘station master’ in the period was ‘station agent’, and the London and South Western Railway, after disposing of ‘station clerk’, retained this title right until the 1900 for all except those individuals administering large stations.[4] It was only in the 1860s that ‘station master’ became far more common and part of common parlance.

However, whatever early station masters were called, the individuals filling these posts came to the railways after being occupied in a vast array of other occupations. In my survey of the professions 400 London and North Western Railway workers between 1830 and 1860 had prior to being employed by the railway, thirty-nine of the sample were station masters or ‘agents’. Their previous occupations were diverse, including farmers, journeymen, sailors, civil servants, bookkeepers and porters. Seemingly, most sectors of the mid-Victorian economy were represented amongst the thirty-nine, and it suggests that it would not be wise to pigeonhole early station masters as having one or two types of employment background.[5]

However, it is unsurprising that with men from many backgrounds filling these posts, not all were well behaved. In 1858 George Reeves, Station Master at Lowdham Station on the Midland Railway, pleaded guilty to embezzling the company out of an unspecified amount. In passing sentence the judge stated that he Reeves had been placed in a position of ‘great confidence and trust,’ and while he showed remorse, he was sentenced to six months hard labour.[6] In 1861 the cash held at the London and South Western Railway’s Windsor Station was found to be deficient. While no officials were found to be at fault, it is odd the management would then ‘break up the staff’ throughout the line [7] and remove the Station Master, John Madigan, to Petersfield with a reduction of salary.[8] Lastly, in 1865 at the Usk Quarter Sessions, Alfred Brown, station master at Hengoed Station on the Rhymney Railway, was charged with indecently assaulting Mary Ann Griffiths in a railway carriage.[9]

Of course, the majority of station masters in the period were honourable and did their job satisfactorily. Indeed, most had to have favourable references to be appointed. The Great Northern Railway’s ‘General Instructions and Regulations for the executive department’ stated that ‘experienced clerks’, who I presume were frequently appointed as ‘clerks-in-charge’, were required to have references from their ‘last employer’ and ‘one from each of two housekeepers of an undoubted respectability.’[10] 

Furthermore, after around the mid-1850s it was highly unlikely that an individual would be appointed directly as a station master, as railway companies increasingly preferred these posts to be filled by individuals who had risen through the ranks. Thus, by this time potentially poor station masters were usually weeded out before they reached that post. For example, William Mears was appointed directly as ‘agent’ on the opening of Winchfield Station on the London and South Western Railway in May 1840.[11] Yet his son, Francis, had a longer road into that position. He was appointed as an apprentice clerk at Dorchester 1851, finally becoming ‘agent’ at Dinton fifteen years later in 1866.[12]

Additionally, as the years passed the rules regulating station masters’ work grew in number and were increasingly formalised. The London and South Western Railway’s 1853 rule book dedicated only thirteen pages to instructing station masters,[13] and the East Lancashire Railway provided only eleven in 1856.[14] However, as the complexity of the railway network and density of train movements increased, the regulations for station masters mirrored this by becoming more detailed. For example, in 1858[15] and 1865[16] the London and South Western Railway produced abstracts of ‘instructions which have from time to time been issued to the Station agents’, which were forty-two and 102 pages long respectively. This was in addition to the nineteen dense pages of instructions in the company’s general rule book of 1864.[17] Therefore, because of  companies’ tightening regulation of station master's activities, there was less scope for them to misbehave or commit crime. Indeed, from a brief survey of on-line nineteenth century newspapers, the cases where this was so seemingly decline after the 1850s.

Therefore, the story of the early Victorian station master is one of a mixed bag of individuals doing a job which was not the same at every location or within every company. However, it is also one where what station masters did quickly became standardised and routine within the promotional and organisational frameworks the railway companies established.

-----

[1] London School of Economics Collection [LSE], HE1 (42) – 439, London and South Western Railway Rules to be observed by Enginemen and Firemen , 1845, p.iii-iv

[2] Author’s Collection, Great Northern Railway, General Instructions and Regulations for the executive department’, p.94

[3] LSE, HC1 (42) -41, Bye-laws, rules and regulations to be observed by the officers and men in the service of the East Lancashire Railway Company, Bury, October, 1854. p.51

[4] The National Archives, RAIL 1135/276,Rules and Regulations General Instructions and Appendices to Working Timetables: General Instructions to Staff, Station Staff, 1908

[5] The National Archives, RAIL 410/1805, Register of waged and salaried staff including station masters, agents, porters, policemen, pointsmen, signalmen, female cleaners, foremen, gatemen, shunters, clerks, breaksmen and lampmen.

[6] Nottinghamshire Guardian, Thursday, January 07, 1858, p. 3

[7] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 411/217, Special Committee Minute Book, 11 January 1861

[8] TNA, RAIL 411/492, Clerical staff character book No. 2, p.416

[9] The Leeds Mercury, Saturday, January 7, 1865,

[10] Author’s Collection, Great Northern Railway, General Instructions and Regulations for the executive department’, p.94

[11] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, p.340

[12] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, p.305

[13] LSE, HE 3020 – L.84, Rules and Regulations for the guidance of the officers and servants of the London and South Western Railway, 1853, p.16-29m

[14] LSE, HC1 (42) -41, Bye-laws, rules and regulations to be observed by the officers and men in the service of the East Lancashire Railway Company, Bury, October, 1854. p.51-61

[15] TNA, RAIL 1035/269, Abstract of instructions which have from time to time been issued to the Station agents &c Previous to 1st May 1858

[16] TNA, RAIL 1035/270, Abstract of instructions which have from time to time been issued to the Station agents &c Previous to 1st June 1865

[17] Author’s Collection, Rules and Regulations for the guidance of the officers and servants of the London and South Western Railway, 1 August 1864, p.22-43

Explosions, Crime and Rewards - Stories From The Victorian Station Waiting Room

The waiting room was an early feature of British railway stations. The Liverpool and Manchester Railway, which opened in 1830 and was the world’s first inter-city railway, built waiting rooms at its two termini. Nevertheless, at the stopping places in between they were not present and other early railways also placed little importance on providing waiting room accommodation.[1] Francis Wishaw, who surveyed all the railways in Britain being planned or under construction in 1842, rarely mentioned them.[2]

However, as the time passed they were gradually introduced. Indeed, larger stations started being equipped with separate waiting rooms for men and women and the different classes of passenger. Liverpool Lime Street Station in 1836 had five waiting rooms for first and second class men and women, and one simply designated a ‘ladies’ waiting room.’ Five was also the number at Edinburgh Princes Street in 1896, where the fifth room was simply a ‘general waiting room.’ Most small stations could not be said to have such commodious facilities, most only possessing ‘first class ladies’ and ‘general’ waiting rooms. Inside them there was usually a fire and seating, which if you were lucky was upholstered.[3] Indeed, waiting rooms were were variable in quality and a common cause of complaint. In 1867 a passenger travelling from the London and North Western Railway’s (L&NWR) Huyton Quarry Station stated that the waiting room was unpainted, a ‘fusty’ odour hung in the air and in the winter months the room’s ‘occupants are ingeniously roasted by the fire on one side and exposed on the other to cold blasts.’[4] Nevertheless, the facilities for passengers in country stations were usually better in quality, tended to as they were by dedicated staff.[5]

While the history of waiting rooms’ themselves in the Victorian period is essentially uninteresting, they were places where people met and from which stories emerged. Therefore, a bit of a dig in nineteenth century newspapers has revealed some interesting stories.

Clearly, exploding waiting rooms were a problem given the gas lighting. On the morning of Monday 14 October 1869 at Newton Abbot Station a gas leak occurred in the waiting room. On discovering the leak a Mr Hemmett, the station’s inspector, went looking for it and did this by ill-advisedly lighting a lamp. Unsurprisingly, the gas that had collected in the ceiling exploded, causing Hemmett some injury.[6] A similar event occurred at 5 O’clock on Sunday 2 November 1873 at Kew Gardens Station. On the up side of the station the porter had lit the lamps in the station’s two waiting rooms. Evidently this was done poorly and gas started to accumulate in both. Thus, when another porter began lighting the external lamps this caused an explosion which blew out the rooms’ windows and doors and destroyed the ceilings. A booking clerk and several passengers narrowly escaped injury or death, with the damage coming to around £200.[7]

While possible death by explosion was clearly a risk, the waiting room could also be the site of crimes. On the 23 January 1871 at Shanklin Station on the Isle of Wight, Charles Colenutt was found sleeping in a chair. The station master, James V. Sully, led him out with the assistance of a porter. Yet, Colenutt returned ‘two or three times,’ and on the last struck Sully’s hat with his fist ‘rendering it unfit for further wear.’ At the Hampshire Petty Sessions on the 5 February, Colenutt was fined thirty shillings for the assault, fifteen shillings costs and ten shillings damages.[8] Clearly, for Colenutt the waiting room was a warm place to sleep the day away.

However, sleeping in a waiting room was not a cause of crime in the case of Alexander Thompson who ‘dropped off’ in the Chesterfield station waiting room on 1 August 1896. On that day, while Thompson was asleep there, Linther and Walter Hall entered the waiting room and stole his pocket watch which was worth £15. On rising from his slumber, the victim became aware that his watch chain was hanging down with nothing on its end. A search was conducted and the watch was found nearby. The blame was quickly placed on the Halls, who were arrested shortly after. At the trial, Walter blamed Linther, saying that the former had told him of the crime while in the “House of Correction.” Yet, Linther argued that Walter was trying to save himself, then launched into ‘a torrent of invectives’ against his brother and lastly claimed that Walter had asked for a pardon from the prison Chaplin. Both were found guilty and they imprisoned for four months with hard labour.[9]

With so many people coming and going from waiting rooms, it is unsurprising that incivility also occurred. One passenger in September 1865 complained bitterly about the ‘female official in charge’ of the Ladies Waiting Room at Newcastle Central Station. She described how a lady ‘who held a first class ticket’ for a journey north arrived at the station early and proceeded to the waiting room where she placed her basket on the long side table. The attendant quickly pronounced that “the company don’t like such things placed there.” Having used the table for its purpose, the passenger ignored the comment. Yet, she quickly received another shortly after; “You must take it off the table the company don’t like things there.” The passenger, somewhat confused, asked what the purpose of the table was if it was not for putting things on. The attendant carried on with her work while mumbling and the traveller put the basket on her knees to end the ‘annoying conduct’. The same attendant also accosted two women who entered the waiting room when their train was late. Once they had passed through the doors, she placed herself in front of them stating that “This room is for no one but those going by train.” On the women informing her that their train was late, the attendant’s response was that “People should enquire whether trains were late before coming – the company did not like persons sitting there.” She attendent then proceeded to pace about, muttering. Lastly, another passenger went into the waiting room’s inner room for a little water. The attendant followed her and rudely stated that those who wished to have a drink usually went to the refreshment room.[10 – see below for some thoughts on this case.]

However, waiting rooms were not just used for waiting for trains. In the Gateshead Station Waiting Room on the 2 October 1887 the local Railway Servants Temperance Union held a meeting at which Mrs J.J. Gurney gave an address. [11] In 1878 at the Kew Gardens Station waiting room, which I presume had been repaired by then, the life of a sick animal was ended. On the 7 October a ‘large black retriever dog in a state madness took possession of the ladies waiting room.’ The station master contacted the Metropolitan Police and very soon police constable No.302, John Smith, arrived with a gun. Nothing more could be done than to shoot the poor animal.[12] Furthermore, like today, passengers also left things in waiting rooms. In May 1869 a resident of Richmond (Surrey) offered a reward of five shillings for a ‘large bundle of MS. Pamphlets, Plays, &c’ with paper which was ‘stamped with a coronet’, which had been left in the station waiting room. [13]

I have only mentioned a few events, amongst millions, that occurred in Victorian station waiting rooms. Indeed, what are missing are descriptions of the more mundane meetings between Victorians as they went about their daily lives. However, I will leave you with the following article from an 1894 edition of Hearth and Home, which describes, through the life of a waiting room mirror, the coming and going of passengers.[14]

SPECIAL NOTICE

I will be doing a talk on 17 January at 6.30 pm at Kew Public Library on Victorian Railwaywomen, looking at who they were, where they worked in the industry and their pay and status. Refreshments a provided, all for a mere £1. If you would like to attend, call the library to book a place on 020 8734 3352 (Opening Times: Tues - 10-1, 2-6; Wed 2-6; Fri 2-6; Sat 10-1, 2-6) or email kew.library@richmond.gov.uk 

------

[1] Biddle, Gordon, ‘Waiting Rooms’, The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, (Oxford, 1997), p.553

[2]Whishaw, Francis, The Railways of Great Britain and Ireland: Practically Described and Illustrated, (London, 1842), reprinted (Newton Abbot, 1969)

[3] Biddle, ‘Waiting Rooms’, The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, p.553

[4] Liverpool Mercury, Thursday, 21 November 21, 1867

[5] Biddle, ‘Waiting Rooms’, The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, p.553

[6] Trewman's Exeter Flying Post or Plymouth and Cornish Advertiser, Wednesday, 14 October 1863

[7] The Pall Mall Gazette, Monday, 3 November 1873

[8] Hampshire Telegraph and Sussex Chronicle etc, Wednesday, 8 February 1871

[9] The Derby Mercury, Wednesday, 28 October 1896

[10] The Newcastle Courant etc, Friday, 8 September 1865 – NOTE: On reflection I believe that the attendant at Newcastle was probably suffering from what now would be recognised as mental health problems. Indeed, given that the woman was probably a widow of a railwayman who had been killed in the course of his work and was probably living in poverty with dependents, these factors may have had an effect. The sad thing is that a letter such as this would probably have ended her employment, pushing her into even more hardship. Indeed, I have recounted a similar case HERE which ended up with in attendant going onto the workhouse.

[11] The British Women's Temperance Journal, 1 December 1887 p.134, Issue 60 and 12

[12] The Sporting Gazette, 12 October 1878, p.973

[13] Judy, Wednesday, 19 May 1869 p.38

[14] Hearth and Home, Thursday, 8 November 1894, p.923

100 Disciplinary Actions - A Glimpse of Railway Discipline in the 1860s

Although there has been much commentary in the literature on the subject of railway discipline, there has been no quantitative work on the extent to which the railway companies actually employed the three main methods of punishment: fines, demotions and dismissals. Thus, I thought I would review a railway company’s ‘Black Book’ of disciplinary actions to see how frequently each method was used. While there are a number of Black Books have been digitised (by Ancestry.com), I chose one from the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway (LB&SCR) which covers some of 1862 and 1863. Naturally, I couldn’t analyse all the 90-odd pages of entries for a blog post and so I restricted myself to a hundred that were entered between 1^st August and 7^th November 1862.

Fines were clearly the most regularly imposed punishment. However, the amount of money that employees had taken off them for offences varied from six pence to five shillings depending on the seriousness of their infringements.

Clearly, the company imposed the lowest and highest fines infrequently. Only in one case was an employee fined six pence. In August J.H. Ainscough, a Telegraph Clerk at Victoria, was reported for the ‘wrong delivery of a telegraph message.’ At the higher end of the fine spectrum, only three individuals received the maximum fine of five shillings. In October two Porters at Victoria Station, Messrs Ireland and Conherr, were fined this amount for ‘getting drunk and fighting in a public house.’ Evidently, the company’s reputation was at stake and managers weren’t going to tolerate individuals damaging it while off the premises. The third five pound fine was given to W. Lebbage, a signalman at Brighton station. Possibly this was two fines rolled into one as he both ‘neglected his signals and points whereby an engine was thrown off the road’ and had ‘strangers in his box.’ Whether the two offences were related is unknown.

Most of the employees, fifty-nine out of the hundred, received a one shilling fine, possibly suggesting that this was a ‘standard’ rate. The most common offence to incur this, which was imposed in twenty-five cases, was the rather mundane transgression of ‘coming on duty late.’ The other one shilling fines were imposed for a range minor infringements of the rules or neglect of duties. In August at London Bridge Station four porters, named Gutsell, Peel, Pinter and Burns, were all fined for ‘running alongside of trains and catching hold of the doors while trains are running into station contrary to order.’ In September a C. Cartwright was fined for ‘putting a passenger in the wrong part of 10.50 am train on [the] 12th August.’ Later that month a Guard, J. Croft, was fined for ‘Causing detention of luggage that was put out at Forest Hill by mistake instead of at New Wandsworth’ Station.

Higher fines of 2 shillings (6 instances) and 2 shillings 6 pence (10 instances) were given regularly for more serious offences. Eight employees were fined for causing damage to property, whether it was the LB&SCR’s, other railway companies’ or private individuals’. G. Fulman, a Guard at Victoria, was fined 2 shillings 6 pence in October for ‘causing damage to a first class carriage by not seeing to the proper fastening of the door.’ In September T. Hawkings, a Van Foreman at Brighton, was fined 2 shillings for ‘Loading a van too high whereby roof of shed at Redhill was damaged.’ Other fines of these amounts were imposed for individuals, such as signalmen, delaying trains or for operational errors. T. Eldridge, a Guard based at London Bridge, was fined 2 shillings 6 pence in October for ‘shunting his train without signal from the underguard and leaving several passengers behind.’

Only for very serious offences were individuals dismissed and twenty examples were recorded. Two offences were guaranteed to end an employee’s career, being absent without leave (four instances) or being drunk (one instance). Indeed, in three cases, those of Baldstone, Graves and Baker, the two offences were committed at once. The other frequent cause of dismissal was serious neglect of one’s duty. In this period porters occasionally doubled-up as guards. Thus, two porters, W. Balley of Victoria and A. Allen of Balcome, were both dismissed for falling asleep while doing this duty. But not all individuals were asleep when committing transgressions, and J. Bailey, a signalman at Balham, was evidently fully awake when he was fired for playing cards on duty in August. Only in two cases was actual criminal activity involved, the most serious being that of J. Baker, a Porter at London Bridge, who was fired in September for ‘stealing a £5 note from a passenger.’ He was ‘sentenced to a month’s imprisonment with hard labour.’ While Baker was fired for trying to do something surreptitiously, T. Mead, a Porter at Carshalton, clearly wasn’t. In September he was fired for ‘use of filthy language to one of our customers.’

In the entire sample only one individual was demoted. S Brown was a Lampman at Victoria when he was found not to be up to the job. Consequently, in October he was reduced to being a porter and his wages dropped from twenty-six to eighteen shillings a week.

Naturally, this is only a small sample of the disciplinary actions the LB&SCR took during its existence. Indeed, I have only given some basic statistics and highlighted interesting cases. But the LB&SCR wasn’t unusual in punishing their their employee's transgressions of the rule book by these methods. Therefore, a more detailed quantitative study of Victorian railway discipline is required. Issues surrounding how much individuals were fined, the types of offences that employees faced dismissal for, and how these changed over the decades needs to be seriously addressed and analysed.

All taken from: The National Archives: RAIL 414/759, Names, offences, punishments etc, of various members of operating staff (black book), 1862-1863, p.1-11

How [not] to Defraud a Victorian Railway Company

Being large corporations, the biggest of their day, it is unsurprising that the railways were highly susceptible to attempts to defraud them. All sorts of individuals attempted to steal from the railways by devious means, including railway employees, passengers, traders and others. Thus, this post will detail some of the interesting cases that have been found in 19^th century newspapers which show how the individuals tried, and failed, to commit fraud.

In 1849 John Coulson was a booking clerk in the employ of the Bolton, Blackburn, Clitheroe and West Yorkshire Railway company based at Over Darwen. The company in its formative years seemed to be one of the first to offer cheap tickets to holiday resorts, and it offered them to Blackpool. At the court case in Preston in September, the General Manager of the line, Terence Flanagan, stated that he had become alerted to the fact that something wasn’t right when he noticed that the traffic returns from Over Darwen were less than those from other stations by some considerable margin. Indeed, Coulson’s return sent to the Audit office on Sunday the 12^th of August, recorded that he had booked 10 men and 34 women and children to Blackpool. Yet, the porter at the station, Thomas Griffith, swore that more people than that had been booked from the station. Coulson had no chance after that, and seventeen other witnesses were brought forward who had between them purchased 20 tickets on that day. Furthermore, it was revealed that he was discharged previously from the employ of the Board of Excise for collusion. It was unknown how much he got away with.[1] However, he was eventually sentenced to six months imprisonment with hard labour.[2]

Probably the most common attempts to defraud railway companies were when individuals attempted to travel without a ticket. In May 1858, William Byrd came up before Bromsgrove Pettys Sessions for such an offence. He was known to Midland Railway staff for being a fruitier and dealer in Birmingham. Indeed, he had secured as a trader a free pass for the western part of the company’s line ‘to enable him to visit markets.’ On the 21^st April he had arrived at Camp Hill Station without a ticket. When James Goodchild, the inspector, challenged him he said he had paid his fare at Bromsgrove Station. An investigation soon proved this to be untrue. He had in fact joined the train at Worcester and had avoided paying 11s 0.5d. Byrd pleaded guilty and said he was sorry for the offence. On account of his ‘circumstances in life’ and ingratitude to the company, he had the heaviest fine possible inflicted on him by the court of £2, plus £1 2s 4d in costs. Interestingly, at the trial Mr Draycott, a Midland Railway Inspector, stated that ‘attempts were made daily to defraud railway companies.’[3]

One of the oddest cases of fraud being committed against a railway company relates to twenty individuals who tried to impersonate militia men in Lancaster in 1869. The men, from various parts of the county, had been simultaneously caught on the 31^st of May ‘endeavouring to obtain by false pretences’ from Bryan Thornhill a ‘pair of boots, two shirts and one pair of socks and one shilling and threepence.’ Presumably, they had impersonated militia men in the process of being called up in order to obtain these items. All twenty of them pleaded guilty and were imprisoned for three months with hard labour. However, in passing sentence the chairman of the petty sessions stated that all of them must have ‘defrauded the railway company in making their journeys to Lancaster.’ Indeed, real militia men would have been entitled to free or reduced fare travel and presumably the defendants took advantage of this. However, it is unknown whether any were charged in relation to these offences.[4]

The Abergele railway disaster on 20^th August 1868 was the worst accident on Britain’s railways up to that point. At 12.39 pm a London and North Western Railway (L&NWR) mail train ran into some runaway wagons, causing the train to overturn and setting light to some paraffin oil in the wagons. The ensuing fire enveloped the locomotive and first three carriages, and 33 individuals died, with many more being injured.[5] Some days later Henry Ford contacted a solicitor by the name of Fox to prosecute a claim for £4000 against the L&NWR for injuries he had sustained in the accident. Fox wrote the L&NWR stating that:

‘Our client, Mr Henry Ford, of Patricroft, was in the train at the time of the accident on the Holyhead Railway and was a first-class passenger from Chester to Dublin. He was very much shaken and injured by the shock and has found it necessary to consult a surgeon, who says he is suffering from concussion of the spine, and that he must remain in bed for some time to give him any opportunity of recovering. Mr Ford will claim compensation of the company in respect of his injuries, but it is impossible at present to state the extent and nature of them. If you wish the surgeon of the company to see Mr Ford, please put him in communication with us, and we will arrange for his doing so.’

The surgeons of the company visited Mr Ford and judged that he had indeed been injured. Thus, the £4000 was duly paid. Yet, one of the company’s superintendents was dissatisfied with the claim and commenced an action at the spring assizes to reclaim the money. It was at this point that Ford disappeared. Some weeks later he was met in the street in London, apparently in good health and was arrested. The case at the Manchester assizes on 16^th January 1869 brought forward testimonies that on the day of the accident he had been seen sitting in his lodgings in Patricroft reading a newspaper. Furthermore, a day or two afterwards he was seen in good health in his lodgings. Lastly, his landlord had paid an unexpected visit in the days after the accident and found him standing in his rooms. Ford was found guilty for trying to defraud the company, and was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment.

While I have shown some of the more interesting cases I found, there can be no doubt the majority of the cases of fraud were where the individuals did not pay the full fare, or paid no fare at all. Therefore, it would be interesting to know how much money the railways lost in the manner, and how they attempted to counteract it.

-------------

[1] The Preston Guardian etc, Saturday, September 29, 1849; Issue 1935

[2] The Preston Guardian etc, Saturday, October 20, 1849; Issue 1938

[3] Berrow's Worcester Journal, Saturday, May 15, 1858, pg; 8 Issue 8113

[4] The Lancaster Gazette, and General Advertiser for Lancashire, Westmorland, Yorkshire, &c., Saturday, July 03, 1869, pg. 2, Issue 4292

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abergele_Train_Disaster

[6] Liverpool Mercury etc., Thursday, August 12, 1869; Issue 6723

Infringing The Rule Book - Causes of Dismissal on the Victorian Railway

In my PhD research I have focussed on how individuals’ became London and South Western Railway (L&SWR) clerks through the sitting of an exam and a period of probation. This is important to my PhD because if they passed these they could, if they wished, follow a career path into management. What I have never looked at, because it is irrelevant to my study, is how individuals left the service.

For my own personal interest I have investigated how 300 clerks and salaried staff members left the L&SWR’s employment between 1860 and 1914. Although, given the staff records I have images of, the majority of the cases occurred between 1860 and 1885. For the most part what I have found isn’t blog material, being quite dull. Out of 300 L&SWR staff records covering surnames beginning A to C (roughly), 69 died on the job (23.00%), 97 resigned (32.33%), 51 were superannuated (25.33%) 2 had unknown exits (0.66%) and 10 lost their jobs for unknown reasons or just incompetence (3.33%). However, what are very juicy are the 46 (15.33%) clerks and salaried staff members that went astray or were dismissed for either an infringement against the rule book or, as in a few cases, criminal activity.

The 1884 L&SWR rule book made the consequences of infringements against its contents very clear; ‘The company reserve the right to punish and servant, by immediate dismissal, fine, or suspension from duty, for intoxication, disobedience of orders, negligence, or misconduct, or for being absent from duty without leave; they also reserve the right to deduct from the pay of their servants, and retain the sums which may be imposed as fines, and to withhold their wages during the time of their suspension, or absence from duty from any cause.’[1] Thus, 46 clerks and salaried staff members fell foul of the rule book.

The greatest sin that an individual could commit against the company involved the money clerks handled daily. 16 of the 46 (34.78%) of the offenders were either ‘deficient in accounts’ or ‘short in their cash.’ Consider the case of S. Bedford. He had joined the company as a telegraph clerk in 1867 at the tender age of 16. He had started at Salisbury Station, however, in October 1879 he was working in the booking office at Waterloo on £90 a year. For some reason, Bedford was found to be ‘short in his cash’ by £6. Whether this was because of simple error or the fact that he had been surreptitiously stealing from the company is unknown, however, I would suggest that the former was the case. In many of the dismissal cases where the clerk was at fault, rather than engaging in knowing criminal activity, the individual would be ‘called upon to resign.’ This would allow the company to punish the individual, but also would allow him to avoid having a black mark on his character. In a way, it was an honourable dismissal, borne of the fact that the company recognised the individuals, who in many cases had provided good service in the past, had simply made a costly mistake. Therefore, that fact that this happened in Bedford’s case suggests that he had got his monies out of order, rather than he was stealing from the L&SWR.[2]

But, there were other cases of monetary irregularities that were more serious than simple errors, and 13 other individuals were (28.26%) dismissed for such reasons. Well, I say dismissed, as two, J.G. Batchelor at Portsmouth,[3] and William Clement, who was working in the Steam Packet Department at Southampton,[4] both absconded in 1870 and 1867 respectively. It is highly likely that they stole some money as their records did not say ‘absent without leave.’

The case of E. Agnew is one where his dismissal was almost certainly the result of his criminal activity. Agnew had been working for the company since October 1874, when he had started at the age of 16 ½ at Bournemouth Station as a Junior Clerk. His record shows that he was habitually in trouble, and between January 1876 and April 1884 he was fined on 6 separate occasions. For example: April 1876, fined 2/6 for inattention to telegrams; Oct 1878, fined 5/-+ cautioned for re-issuing tickets improperly; Jan 1884, fined £1 for attempting to retain a sovereign which he picked up from the floor belonging to another clerk’s cash. Things reached crescendo when in April 1886, while working at Waterloo, he was dismissed for embezzling £28 15/- from the company.[5] This was an ignominious end to a bad career.

However, the money stolen by Agnew pales in comparison with that lost by F. Benning who had had on the surface of things a successful career. Starting as an Apprentice Clerk at Southampton in 1862, he had moved up the ranks and pay-scales rapidly. After a spell at the Nine Elms Goods Department, had returned to Southampton to the Dock Office in 1873, and in 1877 was on the large salary of £175 per year. Yet, in December of 1878 it was found that he was ‘short in his cash’ by an impressive £520. Indeed, such was the debt that I suspect that he had kept many accounting errors hidden for years. [6]

Overall, given the nature of the clerks’ work, it is unsurprising that the majority of infringements against the rule book, just under two thirds (28 out of 46), were to do with money. Yet, this does leave 18 other cases. Some are quite boring. Four individuals were ‘absent without leave’ (8.70%) and 2 (4.35%) were dismissed for ‘neglect of duty.’ This said, the remainder are quite interesting.

One of the most serious infringements that any railway employee could committee against the rule book was drinking on duty, and 4 (8.70%) clerks and salaried staff members were dismissed for this reason. E. Brown had joined the L&SWR in 1855 at the age of 32 as a signalman at Clapham Common Station (no longer open). He had been made the Agent at Sutton Bingham Station in June 1860 and was moved to Whimple Station in 1874 on £90 a year. It seems that Brown’s life, for some reason, must have taken a turn for the worse. Between late 1874 and April 1876 he was fined 4 times by the company for being ‘absent without leave,’ (20/-) ‘carelessness’ (20/-), allowing passengers to travel without tickets (20/-) and for holding the last train to Portsmouth (5/-). Finally, in 1876 was found drunk at Sidmouth Station and was dismissed shortly after.[7] The latest dismissal case I saw was that of A. Bowron. Bowron had joined the company at the age of 16 ½ in May 1875 as a Junior Clerk at Twickenham. Yet, after 38 years of unimpressive, but relatively trouble-free service, he was ‘called upon to resign’ for ‘intemperate habits’ in May 1913 at the age of 54 ½.[8]

The remaining cases of dismissal are probably the most interesting. J. Bailey, the station agent at Wareham of 6 years, was dismissed in June 1865 for ‘sending false telegrams.’ What was in these telegrams is unknown, but it suggests some sort of fraud was going on.[9] In April 1873 a new Junior Clerk at Clapham Junction who had only been in the job a month, A.E. Bothams, was reported for ‘using improper language to a passenger.’ Thus, this was the quickest exit from L&SWR employment in my study. [10] My favourite cause of dismissal was that of A.J. Calcott. In 1872 he had joined the company at Netley Station, and by 1881 he was working at Waterloo. On June 22 he was reported for ‘having females in his office and incivility to passengers.’ How he sneaked these ‘females’ into the office at such a busy station is unknown. However, it is interesting that the L&SWR authorities on his record stated that they were ‘females’ rather than just strangers, revealing that the management’s patriarchal view of the workplace. [11]

Over the entire sample there were only 8 cases (17.39%) where the dismissal was for causes that I would classify as ‘criminal.’ They were as follows:-

1. H. Coward - Dec 1865 -Registration Examiners Office, Waterloo - Absent without leave, monies not accounted for (£1.17s.6d). [12]

2. R. Blake - March 1866 - Audit Office, Southampton - Charged out monies on goods in excess of what had been actually paid out by him.[13]

3. J.F. Blann - Oct 1872 - Tisbury Station - Defficient in cash and made overcharges on parcels and kept the money.[14]

4. G.T. Cooksey - Dec 1876 - Surbiton Station - Improperly cashed cheques for a party having no business in connection with the company.[15]

5. J. Brownston - June 1878 - Aldershot Goods Station - Concerned with the destruction of books.[16]

6. F. Burt - Aug 1880 - Walton Station - Short in Cash and Absconded (to be prosecuted when captured.).[17]

7. J. Benbow - Aug 1881 - Timber Yard, Nine Elms - Irregularities in reciept from timber contractors.[18]

8. E. Agnew - April 1886 - Waterloo Station - Embezzlement (£28.15s.0d).[19]

What is interesting is that in only one case, that of F.Burt, was there any mention of criminal proceedings being brought against an ex-clerk. Furthermore, if I take into consideration the 38 other cases of dismissal, this remains the only one where the possibility of criminal proceedings was mentioned, even when the sums of money lost through error was huge. Of course, I have no evidence that in criminal action wasn't brought on these occasions, and that might just be an omission from the staff record books. However, although more study needs to be done, the fact that it is rarely mentioned does (tentatively) suggest that the company very much saw discipline as an internal matter and not concerning outside authorities except in exceptional circumstances.

Indeed, given the prestige attached to clerical work on the railways, the potential benefits that a career could bring, the sense of railway employment making you part of a unique 'family' and the fact that dismissal could mean destitution for many, it is highly possible that by the 1860s there was a sense that the L&SWR punished their own in the ways they saw fit and that its systems of punishment were all that was required in the majority of cases. Additionally, this would juxtapose well against the fact that the L&SWR (as well as other companies) in this period were also looking after their staff in increasingly diverse ways through the introduction of pension schemes, health checks and staff training. Thus, framed in these terms, there is the possibility that from the 1860s the railways may have been developing into self-contained communities that had their own social rules and where, increasingly, paternalism over and punishment of employees was seen as primarily the job of the company and not the state. Yet, to confirm this theory will require more research.

I would love to do more work on the topic of railway company discipline. However, I do not have the time. Yet from this evidence it is clear that most of 46 clerical or salaried staff members were simply dismissed for infringing the very strict rules of the Victorian railway workplace, whereas those who were dismissed because they knowingly wanted to steal from the railway was small. Hopefully, if I do get the time, I can expand my sample to include all the L&SWR clerks, but that would be a massive task.

-----------------

[1] South Western Circle Collection [SWC], 1884 L&SWR Rule Book, Rule 15, Page 10

[2] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 411/492, Clerical staff character book No. 2, 1838 – 1919, p.773

[3] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, 1838 - 1877, p.49

[4] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, 1838 - 1877, p.83

[5] TNA, RAIL 411/492, Clerical staff character book No. 2, 1838 – 1919, p.906

[6] TNA, RAIL 411/492, Clerical staff character book No. 2, 1838 – 1919, p.54

[7] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, 1838 - 1877, p.31

[8] TNA, RAIL 411/492, Clerical staff character book No. 2, 1838 – 1919, p.965

[9] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, 1838 - 1877, p.39

[10] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, 1838 - 1877, p.688

[11] TNA, RAIL 411/492, Clerical staff character book No. 2, 1838 – 1919, p.129

[12] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, 1838 - 1877, p.101

[13] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, 1838 - 1877, p.46

[14] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, 1838 - 1877, p.588

[15] TNA, RAIL 411/491, Clerical staff character book No. 1, 1838 - 1877, p.57

[16] TNA, RAIL 411/492, Clerical staff character book No. 2, 1838 – 1919, p.964

[17] TNA, RAIL 411/492, Clerical staff character book No. 2, 1838 – 1919, p.876

[18] TNA, RAIL 411/492, Clerical staff character book No. 2, 1838 – 1919, p.818

[19] TNA, RAIL 411/492, Clerical staff character book No. 2, 1838 – 1919, p.906

The Riots and Brawls of the Victorian Railway Navvy

The railway navvies, the men who built the railways, were well known as being thieves, rioters and susceptible to the evils of drink. As railway building progressed, and the number of navvies grew, anti-navvy sentiments were aroused. The London Pioneer of December 1847 distinguished between the ‘open, kind-hearted, civil and hardworking’ navvies of the very early years of railway construction, and the influx of newcomers that they dubbed and ‘inferior race of men.’ A Mr Robinson wrote in an article that “they were so excessively drunken and dissolute, that a man would lend his wife to a neighbour for a gallon of beer, and that it was difficult to conceive a set of people more thoroughly depraved, degraded and reckless."[1]Of course, their demonic status was invariably overstated, however, navvies were in large part responsible for crimes and riots around the nation, and the fact that they moved with the construction of the line, from place to place, must have meant that for many they were a roving band to be feared. Indeed, Terry Coleman, in his seminal book on navvies, reported that communities in Scotland began to live in fear as ‘navvy riots were habitual.'[2]In this blog post I will look in brief at the disturbances that were caused by navvies between 1840 and 1850.

Of course much of the trouble that navvies caused was local and somewhat insignificant. On Thursday 19^th March 1846 the The Bradford Observer; and Halifax, Huddersfield, and Keighley Reporter reported that on the Saturday before, in Castlegate, a navvy by the name of Christopher Brown had knocked over an unnamed girl, fracturing her jaw in two places. A William Walker came to her defence and he also was knocked down, receiving a kick to the face from which he suffered a bloodied lip. Both were admitted to the infirmary soon after. However, when on his way back home Walker saw Brown again and was floored a second time. This time Brown did get away with the crime. A police constable was in attendance and took him into custody and he was subsequently committed to two months hard labour.[3]

Yet, on occasion navvies banded together to terrorise local populations. On the 7^th March, 1846, John Bull reported that at some point between Saturday the 28^th February and the Sunday of the 1^st of March a ‘breach of the peace of a most daring kind’ was committed, attended by a murder. Near the North British Railway’s line to Hawick, about 11 miles south of Edinburgh, two navvies were arrested at around midnight as they were suspected of stealing a watch. Soon 300 navvies had gathered, armed with ‘bludgeons, pickaxes, hedgebills &c’ and headed towards the police station to liberate the accused. On reaching it, one of the navvies held a pistol to the sergeant’s head and demanded their comrades’ release. He refused, and subsequently the mob broke open the cell and released their compatriots. In their march towards their workplace, the local Fushie Bridge, they encountered the district constable, Pace, who they savagely attacked leaving his skull smashed open. He died on the Sunday afternoon. Thus, in response to this attack, List, a local police officer, had a force of men put at his disposal and succeeded in apprehending 13 of the rioters in the course of the Monday.[4] Their fate was unknown.

Yet apart from terrorising the local residents, Navvies also had a pinache for antagonising each other. In Bell's Life in London and Sporting Chronicle on June 7^th, 1846, it reported under the heading of ‘Saving trouble,’ that two navvies on the construction of the Marley Tunnel in South Devon were ‘resolved to decide a quarrel by a stand-up fight.’ Once stripped and ready to fight, the quarrel was decided by virtue of the fact that one of the men ‘fell down dead before a blow was struck.'[5]

Yet, inter-navvy hostilities were much worse in many cases, with conflict arising from matters of religion, pay and antagonism between different groups of workers. After all, one third of railway navvies were Irish, another third were Scottish and the last third were English.[6] With many Irish Catholic navvies working in Scotland there was bound to be conflict with the Scottish, predominately Protestant and Non-conformist, navvies. As Terry Coleman stated, Irish labourers did not look for a fight, however two things vexed their Scottish compatriots. Firstly, they worked for less pay than local labourers. But in addition the devoted Catholic Irish regarded ‘the Sabbath as a day of recreation on which thy sand and lazed about,’ when the Scots still worked and only required some quiet prayer time and a drop of whisky. Thus, the Irish were attacked and beaten up by their Scottish co-workers. Railway contractors tried to keep Scottish and Irish navvies apart, but to no avail. All the while, British navvies, in Coleman’s opinion, assembled and fought with anyone, although they generally preferred to attack the Irish. These riots were widespread in the 1840s, and fights would sometimes include up to 2000 navvies.[7]

Of course, what was reported in the newspapers were the worst and most notable examples of navvy violence, and I suspect that in many cases the majority of navvies were law abiding, peaceful and hardworking. However, it is clear that on many occasions navvies did fight, did commit crimes, and were a menace where they worked. This said, to what extent this was the case has not been looked at quantitatively, and much research has to be done on the way that navvy communities, which included their families, interacted with their environment. Of course Terry Coleman’s book is a useful guide; however his book is rather anecdotal. Subsequently, this is an area of railway history into which I wish to look further in the future.

-----------------------

[1] London Pioneer ,Thursday, December 17, 1846; pg. 536; Issue 34

[2] Coleman, The Railway Navvies, p.93

[3] The Bradford Observer; and Halifax, Huddersfield, and Keighley Reporter, Thursday, March 19, 1846; pg. 5; Issue 611

[4] John Bull , Saturday, March 07, 1846; pg. 158; Issue 1,317

[5] Bell's Life in London and Sporting Chronicle, Sunday, June 07, 1846; pg. 8

[6] Coleman, Terry, The Railway Navvies, (London, 1976) p.93

[7] Coleman, The Railway Navvies, p.93-95

Stealing from the Early Victorian Railway

In September this year, The Guardian reported that the theft of copper from the line-side and railway property had led to the delay of 11,000 trains across the network. This was because thieves took advantage of copper’s soaring value in China and India to make profit.[1] Indeed, this problem has got worse since 2005. In 2006, the Evening Standard reported that passengers had been delayed by approximately 240,000 minutes the year before because of theft. However, in 2010 this number had risen to 500,000 minutes.[2]In response to the £35 million worth of losses since 2006, Network Rail set up a taskforce to prevent the estimated £20 million worth of losses that could occur by 2014.[3]

Unsurprisingly, theft from the railway companies is not a new thing, and was something that Victorian railway managers had to deal with regularly. A brief survey of the Old Bailey site, which gives the proceedings of many court cases in full, furnishes the reader with many interesting incidents in the very early railway where the companies lost their property; well, briefly anyway, as these were the individuals that got caught.

On the 21^st April 1837 James Fisher, a police constable, found William Groves (aged 23) under a stack of hay in the yard of the Great Western Railway (GWR), presumably at Paddington. Fearing he had been found out in his thieving, Groves passed 8 of the bolts he had stolen from under his jacket to his ‘left side.’ The Policeman immediately realised what had occurred. “You have been robbing the Company, I saw you pass [the bolts]…from under your jacket.” Groves denied it, yet the Policeman marched him to the railway station. On removing his hat five more bolts and an iron bracket fell out, at which point he was arrested. In court, Charles Thirkettle, an obviously busy man given he stated he was a foreman, carpenter, and superintendent for the GWR, confirmed that the property was theirs. For the crime of attempting to steal 6 shillings worth of materials Groves was sentenced to transportation for seven years. His stated, ‘I am very sorry—I had got no friends, and no where to lie.’ It was quite possible that he was homeless and trying to steal to pay for something to eat.[4]

It wasn’t always outsiders that committed crimes against railway companies, and on many occasions it was company employees themselves. On the 2^nd January 1840, Thomas Emmerson, a policeman in the employ of the London and South Western Railway (L&SWR), was on duty at the gates to the company’s Nine Elms yard. Between 6 and 7 pm noticed John Kelly, a 30 year old employee in the workshops, pass him with something very heavy on his shoulder. Following the man to the Vauxhall Road, he challenged him, asking him what was it was. “A piece of wood,” came the response. Emmerson demanded to look at it, at which point Kelly shouted “no for God’s sake don’t look” and tried to flee. Unsuccessfully it appears, and as iron was found in the basket he was carrying. He was then asked whether it belonged to the company. The response was that it was, and he was marched to the magistrate, to which he stated that the iron “does belong to the Company; I am very sorry for what I have done.” Such was the inconsistency of the Victorian legal system, that for attempting to steal 1 connecting-chain, 1 shackle and 1 iron bolt, the total value of which was 13s 6d, double what Groves had attempted to steal, he received the far lesser sentence than Groves of only 3 months confinement.[5]

Crime was on quite a few occasions committed by multiple persons. On the 3^rd November 1838, at twenty past seven in the evening, Stephen Walter, a policeman, came across George Lincoln (aged 17), James Smith (aged 16) and Robert William Lock (aged 16) in Albany Road next to Regents Park. With his jacket on Lincoln appeared ‘very stout,’ and Walter proceeded to feel his pockets. On finding something heavy, Lincoln immediately gave up his accomplices saying "Stop them, they have something as well as me." On hearing this, Smith and Lock fled, discarding their spoils as they went. Lincoln was taken to the station house, and another police officer was sent to the scene. Lying on the floor he found some brass bearings and a saw. Combined with the brass and jacket found on Lincoln, the total value of the property recovered was £1 6s 6d. It was later discovered that all had been stolen from the Chalk Farm workshops of the London and Birmingham Railway Company. Smith defended himself in court stating that he and Lock had met Lincoln at Chalk Farm Bridge where he had given them the property. The defence was a failure, and all three were sentenced to seven years transportation.[6]

These are just a couple of the many cases that can be found on the Old Bailey website, I really recommend that you take a look. Many are much longer and more detailed (and more interesting) than these. What these, and others, show is that even though railway companies possessed their own police forces and guarded their own yards, they were still highly susceptible to thievery.

---------------------------------

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/28/railway-crackdown-copper-theft

[2] http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23398373-railway-copper-thieves-cause-havoc-for-commuters.do

[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/28/railway-crackdown-copper-theft

[4] http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t18370508-1200&div=t18370508-1200&terms=railway%20company#highlight

[5] http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t18400106-543&div=t18400106-543&terms=south%20western%20Railway#highlight

[6] http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t18381126-83&div=t18381126-83&terms=railway%20company#highlight