The Hours Victorian Railway Clerks Worked - 1856

Being employed on the Victorian railway would always mean long hours, as with most other jobs of the period. Kingsford argued that ‘in the early years [of the railways] hours of work were extremely long and left a bare minimum for sleep. There was no regular provision for Sunday relief or for holidays and the working week was normally a seven day one.’[1] Amongst the railway staff records on Ancestry.com, I came across a file that provided insight into clerks and station master’s working day on the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway in 1856. This contained questionnaires where they were asked a range of questions, including how long in each day they toiled.[2]

Kingsford commented on this file in passing (although he said erroneously that all the returns were filled in by Station Masters), and argued that the seventy-six individuals in it worked an average of fourteen hours a day.[3] I have not sampled every man’s hours of work, and have only surveyed the first  twenty-five returns, but I can confidently say that this is a generalisation that hides considerable nuance and variance in each individual’s employment circumstances. Nevertheless, the average number of hours worked by the men in my sample came out at thirteen hours, thirty-five minutes; close to Kingsford’s calculation.

The individual who worked the shortest hours was Mr Brabrook, a clerk at New Cross Station, who most days worked a mere eight and a half hours. However, he did work for ten hours forty-five minutes some weeks. The individual who had the longest working day was Mr Beacon, a clerk at Bridlington Station, who reported that he was at the station for sixteen hours, twenty-five minutes per day - from 7.30am to 11.55pm. Thus, if I estimate he daily had thirty minutes off for lunch, this would mean his working week was 112 hours, 25 minutes long.

While Kingsford worked out the number of hours the men were on duty was fourteen hours, it seems that the length of time people were on duty varied considerably amongst the twenty-five men I looked at. The results are as follows:

Clearly, the majority of those in the sample were working between fourteen and fifteen hours. Yet, nine were working less than that amount, while eight were working more. There are two possible explanations for this variation. Firstly, it is quite conceivable that people worked more hours because they were higher in the organisation, and, therefore, had greater responsibility. Alternatively, because some individuals were at remote locations, they may have had fewer colleagues to cover them and allow them time off.

Firstly, I decided to examine the theory that those who were higher in the organisation worked longer hours. Broadly speaking there were three ‘ranks’ of employees represented amongst the twenty-five, junior managers (superintendents), supervisory posts (Station Masters or Foremen) and General Clerks (including one junior). The average number of hours worked for each group of employees was as follows:-

While the sample size is small, and we have to be wary about making any firm conclusions from these figures, what this table would suggest is that individuals’ working hours were on average shorter before they went into supervisory posts. Yet, on being promoted to a junior managerial position their hours improved.

But what about the idea that those individuals employed in the country worked longer days? Indeed, this was postulated by Kingsford. The results were that the thirteen country workers in the sample were on duty for an average of 14.01 hours per day, whereas for the twelve in the town it was 12.96 hours. Therefore, this tentatively confirms the theory. Lastly, I wanted to look at the two sets of statistics in combination, to see whether all ranks worked more hours at country stations.

The results really show why I need to expand the sample size to all seventy-six individuals in the file. However, while no firm conclusions can be made regarding the supervisors or Junior Managers, clearly, general clerks in the country worked more hours than their counterparts in the town.

Overall, while there are problems with this brief survey given my sample size, it has presented some interesting questions to be tackled in the future.

------

[1] Kingsford, P.W., Victorian Railwaymen, (London, 1970), p.115

[2] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 414/767, Traffic staff histories based on questionnaire and relating to staff appointed 1836-1854

[3] Kingsford, Victorian Railwaymen, p.117

The Social Backgrounds of Female Railway Clerks - 1875-1886

Mid-way through last year, I looked at the first sixteen female ledger clerks employed at the London and North Western Railway’s (L&NWR) Birmingham Curzon Street goods station between 1874 and 1876. However, in the course of my research I actually discovered the staff records of fifty-six female clerks that the company appointed between 1874 and 1886 at eight locations across the company’s network.

While I determined from the records these women’s rates of pay, length of employment, promotional prospects and what their jobs involved, I did not look at their family backgrounds. However, understanding individuals’ backgrounds is important, as they ultimately they determined their employment prospects. Indeed, I have postulated elsewhere that these clerks were possibly the daughters of railwaymen. Thus, I set out to test this theory. To determine the women’s backgrounds, which in the Victorian period were essentially their father’s occupations, I looked for the clerks in census records. Consequently, I found the professions of eighteen of their fathers.

Firstly, my theory that the female clerks predominantly came from railway families seems to be unfounded. Of the nineteen clerks only five had fathers employed by the L&NWR (27.78%).  For example, Margaret A. Peacock, who was employed at Shrewsbury station on the 1 December 1876,[1] was the daughter of Edward Peacock who made Station Master at Tattenhale Station in 1881.[2] Furthermore, in that year William Redford, Goods Agent in Manchester,[3] was father to both  Elizabeth[4] and Isabella[5] Redford, who were both clerks in Manchester Moss Street Goods Station. Lastly, Mary Hannah Hassall, who was also appointed at Manchester Moss Street in 1876,[6] had a brother, James, who was a Junior Clerk at the time,[7] which may also have facilitated her entrance into the company. Thus, a considerable, but not overwhelming, proportion of the women did have some link with the railway.

Of the nineteen fathers, seven could be considered to have been in some form of trade (38.89%). For example, Edith Gould, who joined the Camden Goods Office in 1876,[8] was the daughter of James Gould, a cheesemonger in St Pancras.[9] Additionally, James Harris was a Blacksmith employing one man, [10]  and was the father of Martha and Mary Harris who were employed at Birmingham Curzon Street in 1874 and 1876[11] respectively. The professions of the remaining four fathers were a cabinet maker, someone simply listed as a ‘manufacturer,’ a cigar and tobacco manufacturer and a master jeweller employing one boy.

Four (22.22%) of the fathers had positions in some form of administration. Probably the highest ranked was Joseph Arlom, father of Emma Arlom who was appointed at Manchester Moss Street Station in 1878[12], who was an ‘Inspector of Police.’[13] The lowest ranked socially was Alfred Vigurs, who by 1881 was a clerk at a lamp makers.[14] He was the father of Lizzie Vigurs, who was appointed to the Birmingham Curzon Street office in 1875.[15] The others fathers were working as Canal (or possibly Burial) Agent and a Superintendent of a public baths.

Only two of the fathers (11.11%) had what can be considered unskilled jobs. Frederick Hughes, the father of Martha Hughes, an appointee at Birmingham in 1875[16], was a ‘spoon and fork filer.’[17] The other was a Wheelhouseman in Manchester.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the vast majority of the female clerks had fathers who were in professions that required skill or education. Indeed, sixteen of the eighteen (88.89%) fathers would almost certainly have provided comfortable households for their families including good schooling for their children. Furthermore, the majority of the fathers were in positions that Victorian society considered ‘respectable’, meaning their daughters would have had a good chance of obtaining the positive references that potential employers required. Lastly, while this brief piece of research has shown that familial links to the railway were not necessarily required for the women to become clerks on the L&NWR, it has shown that the basis of their entry was identical to that for male clerks, in that the social class, public standing and educational level of the father were hugely important factors.

-----

[1] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 410/1837, Register of salaried permanent officers in the Goods Department including clerks, goods managers, inspectors, superintendents, time keepers, accountants, foremen, agents, canvassers and collectors., p.1286

[2] TNA, RG 11/3552, 1881 Census, Cheshire, Tattenhale, District 6, p.1

[3] TNA, RG 11/3473, 1881 Census, Lancashire, Manchester, Heaton Norris, District 12, p.16

[4] TNA, RAIL 410/1841, Salaried Staff Register [No 2, pages 2593-3088] - Miscellaneous departments. Includes staff employed in the following departments: Goods, Cattle, Horse, Rolling Stock, Detective and Canal. Includes station masters, inspectors, detectives and clerks, p.2634

[5] TNA, RAIL 410/1843, Salaried staff register [No. 1, pages 1089-1599] - Goods Department. Includes clerks, goods managers, inspectors, superintendents, time keepers, accountants, foremen, agents, canvassers, collectors, timber measurer, traffic solicitor and cartage, p.1338

[6] TNA, RAIL 410/1837, Register of salaried permanent officers in the Goods Departmentp.1215

[7] TNA, RG 11/4003, 1881 Census, Lancashire, Manchester, St George, District 19, p.71

[8] TNA, RAIL 410/1837, Register of salaried permanent officers in the Goods Department, p.1227

[9] TNA, RG 11/176, London, St Pancras, Regents Park, District 4, p.17

[10] TNA, RG 11/2982, 1881 Census, Warwickshire, Birmingham, St Martin, District 7, p.24

[11] TNA, RAIL 410/1837, Register of salaried permanent officers in the Goods Department, p.1207

[12] TNA, RAIL 410/1841, Salaried Staff Register [No 2, pages 2593-3088] - Miscellaneous departments, p.1338

[13] TNA, RG 11/3940, 1881 Census, Lancashire, Moss Side, District 81, p.59

[14] TNA, RG 11/2835, 1881 Census, Staffordshire, Handsworth, District 20, p.26

[15] TNA, RAIL 410/1837, Register of salaried permanent officers in the Goods Department, p.1207

[16] TNA, RAIL 410/1837, Register of salaried permanent officers in the Goods Department, p.1207

[17] TNA, RG 11/3033, Warwickshire, Aston, Duddeston, District 41, p.19

From Railway Clerk to Railway Manager - Changes in the Route to Management 1840-1910

One of the questions that I ask in my PhD is how exactly did people get promoted into managerial positions within the London and South Western Railway’s (L&SWR) Traffic Department? This is important, as understanding who was making policy within the company allows me to better appreciate the factors behind the decisions the company made.

 

The vast majority of the company’s senior Traffic Department managers, which included Superintendents of the Line, Traffic Managers, District Superintendents, District Goods Superintendents and Wagon Masters, originated from the company’s primary labour market (PLM). This labour market consisted of the clerical staff and included office lads, junior clerks, telegraph clerks, clerks, station masters, chief clerks, inspectors, goods canvassers and goods agents. A ‘rough’ promotional tree in the department is shown. Furthermore, only a few of the department’s managers came from external sources or the secondary labour market (which encompassed all non-clerical posts).

Therefore, future manager’s careers was largely determined by the position they started in. Research on the position in which L&SWR’s Traffic Department managers started their railway careers is shown in the table below and the data is presented by the decade in which they joined the company.

Overall, only three of the seventy railway managers sampled started their careers on the secondary labour market (4.28%), two beginning as porters and one as a ticket inspector. Indeed, those who began their employment in clerical positions dominated.

However, one feature of the table that should be noted is that the proportion of future managers who started their L&SWR careers in positions higher in the hierarchy, for example clerk or chief clerk, diminished over the period. The proportion in the 1830s and 40s was 57.1%, while in the 1850s it was 83.3%. However, as the criteria to become a clerk became stricter, being increasingly restricted to school-leavers, these proportions declined, and only 40% of future managers joined the company in senior clerical positions in the 1860s. Therefore, by the1870s no future managers started in any position in the hierarchy above ‘Junior Clerk’, ‘Lad’ or ‘Messenger.’

The result of the policy of increasing restricting entrance into the PLM to school leavers was that as the railway industry matured the age most managers joined the company also declined through the decades. The table below shows the ages that seventy-one Traffic Department managers started their careers between 1850 and 1900. The data is sorted by the decade in which they joined the company.  

The future managers who had begun their L&SWR careers in the 1830s and 40s had a wide range of ages, with 46.7% joining the company when they were beyond their teenage years. But, because of the changes outlined above, the proportion joining above twenty years old diminished. In the 1850s it was 38.4% and in the 1860s 21.0%. Thereafter, all those who became middle or senior traffic managers on the L&SWR were in their teens when they joined the company.

The effect of these changes was that as the decades progressed, the length of time it took individuals to become middle or senior managers grew longer. The table below shows the average number of years that it took the managers to reach their first middle or senior management post. The data is collated according to the decade in which they reached that point.

While in some decades the sample sizes are small, and this would have affected the figures, there was a clear change in the 1880s. In the very early years of the L&SWR new middle or senior managers had on average only served the company for a short time.  While in the 1850s, 60s and 70s, individuals who were appointed to managerial posts had been employed for an average of between twelve and sixteen years. However, thereafter, all new middle or senior managers had been with the company above an average of twenty-five years.

Therefore, what the three sets of suggest is that there is a change in the starting position, starting age and length of career of new middle and senior managers around 1880. Before then managers could have begun their careers in fairly senior positions, above the age of twenty and would have gone into management after a short space of time. However, thereafter, new middle and senior managers had started their railway careers in their teens, usually in the position of junior clerk or lad, and had worked their way through the ranks of the company.

Therefore, the evidence shows that in the company’s early years, large numbers of people were appointed to more senior posts in the PLM, such as Clerk, Station Agent or Chief Clerk. This reflected the emergent nature of the industry and the fact that trained railway professionals were in short supply. Yet, as the company matured there were increasingly enough people being promoted up the hierarchy from below to fill any vacancies that appeared. Consequently, fewer people were appointed directly into higher positions. Consequently, after the 1870s the, only way to enter the company’s PLM, and have the chance of rising into management, was to join it out of school at the lowest point on the promotional ladder.

All data from company staff records, and the L&SWR’s Staff Magazine, ‘The South Western Gazette.’

Female clerk's pay in the 1910s on the London and South Western Railway (verses male clerk's)

There is no doubt that before 1914, on average, railwaywomen earned less than their male colleagues. However, the wage gap between the genders is difficult to determine accurately because there were only a few jobs that both women and men did and where direct comparisons can be made. One was clerical work, which by 1914 was increasingly being opened up to women. I have talked in three posts about the first sixteen female clerks that were employed at the London and North Western Railway’s Birmingham Goods Depot from 1874. One post looked at wages the women were paid, finding that until their eighth year they received the same amount as men (here), after which their pay rises stopped. Nevertheless, I have not looked at the amount female clerks were paid in the 1910s, when they were becoming commonplace in the offices Britain’s railways.

Between 1870 and 1900 the London and South Western Railway (L&SWR) is known to have employed nineteen women as telegraph clerks across its network. However, these appointments were made in isolation from each other and were not part of an established policy. Indeed, the women usually received their positions because station masters requested that their daughters be found a job before they were married. It was only in March 1914, on the arrival of a new General Manager, Herbert Ashcombe Walker, that the company formalised the ‘conditions of service’ for new female clerks. This laid out what qualifications they were required to have, as well as their wages.[1] Therefore, because a formal policy was established, female and male clerks’ pay can be compared. Furthermore, it should also be noted that male clerks’ scales were revised in 1911.[2]

However, the comparison isn’t a direct one for a number of reasons. Firstly, it should be stressed that male and female clerks were paid differently, in that most men were paid monthly, while all women received their wages weekly (and, therefore, could be fired more easily). Furthermore, the document describing the female clerks wages does not specify exactly when increases should occur, nor by how much. Therefore, this information has had to be gleaned from staff records. All it does specify are that the maximum rate for London based clerks was 28 shillings per week (£72 16s/year), while for those in the country it was 26 shillings (£67 12s/year).[3] London wages covered stations including ‘Waterloo, Vauxhall, Nine Elms [goods depot], Queen's Road, Clapham Junction, Kensington and Receiving offices in London.’[4] For the purposes of this post I will only be looking at the wages of the women based in London.

In addition, male clerks’ salaries were increased automatically each year, whereas the records indicate that the female clerks’ wages were raised at different points and by different amounts, presumably based on their individual abilities. This said, most women were guaranteed increases each year. Thus, Florence Emily Elliott, who joined as a telephone operator at Waterloo in July 1914, earned ten shillings a week for a year before increasing to fourteen.[5] Whereas Lilian E Teuten, who joined the company in the same capacity in April 1915, only stayed on the lowest rate for three months before advancing to twelve shillings.[6] Consequently, because the female clerks’ wages were not strictly standardised, I averaged the wages that twenty clerks were on at different points in their employment to ascertain the rapidity of their wage increases. However, some of the twenty left the service in the seven years and, thus, the number of wages being averaged for the later years of service diminished (See the table on the left). Lastly, in early 1920 the L&SWR significantly revised the rates female clerks were paid, and consequently good data to make a comparison with male clerks’ salaries is only available for their first seven years of their employment.

The figures suggest that for much of the seven years female clerks on average earned more than the men, as indicated in the graph below. This shows the average yearly rates that female clerks were on at any given point, as well as the male scale. Indeed, while the women started on a yearly rate that was £4 less than the men, it was only after half a year that the women’s’ average surpassed it. Indeed, of the nineteen female clerks still employed after a year of service, fourteen were earning more than the men’s standard rate of £35 per year. In the third year of service the average rate the women were being paid slowed and male clerks began earning more than the women’s average per year, five years after appointment.

Furthermore, the difference between the wages male and female clerks were on at points across the period is shown better in the graph below. Indeed, the average wage that the women were on passed those of the men after half a years’ service. It reached its peak at two and three-quarter years’ service, when the average yearly rate that sixteen female clerks were on was £12 4s more than the men’s set rate of £40 per year. Thereafter, the difference fell and from the women’s’ fifth year onwards the average rate they were earning was less than the men’s standard salary of £70.  

Lastly, I want to look at the total earnings that male and female clerks earned over the first seven years of their employment. The table below shows the standard raise that male clerks received each year, as well as the average rate that female clerks were on at the same points. The table shows that over the seven year period, female clerks, on average, earned £8 4s more than their male counterparts.

Ultimately, these figures show that the L&SWR’s female clerical workers in the 1910s did not earn less in their first seven years employment than their male colleagues. Rather, they actually were paid a little more. Additionally, combined with research I have done on female clerks working for the London and North Western Railway in the 1870s, which also showed male and female clerks’ wages were comparable, it tentatively suggests that the railway industry’s female clerical workers before the inter-war years were in the first years of their employment paid just as well as the men. However, this clearly requires further investigation given I have only studied two companies.

However, more importantly, it should be remembered that this research does not alter the fact that the women’s wages were capped at 28 shillings (£72 16s) and they could not gain promotion beyond the position of supervisor. Furthermore, in the L&SWR’s case very few women stayed in employment long enough to earn the maximum rate, as even in the First World War they were barred from serving while married. Of the twenty women sampled, only three women ever received the 28 shillings a week stated in the 1914 ‘conditions of service’.

(NB: Some did go on to earn higher wages when the L&SWR revised the scales in 1920. Yet these were high in comparison with the earlier scales, given the inflation of wartime, and for this reason they have not been included in the sample.)

SPECIAL NOTICE

I will be doing two talks on 20 December and 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 will be 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] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 411/275, Traffic Officer’s Conference, 27 March 1918, p.113 and Appendix A, p.18

[2] Hampshire Record Office [HRO], 104A02/A3/13, London and South Western Railway minutes extracts: Carriage Department, marked number 13 on spine, Jul 1910-Jul 1914, circular Revised Scale of Salaries for Clerical Staff, 20 November 1911

[3] TNA, RAIL 411/275, Traffic Officer’s Conference, 27 March 1918, Appendix A, p.18

[4] HRO, 104A02/A3/13, London and South Western Railway minutes extracts: Carriage Department, marked number 13 on spine, Jul 1910-Jul 1914, circular Revised Scale of Salaries for Clerical Staff, 20 November 1911

[5] TNA, RAIL 411/506, Clerical register - Female staff 1915 – 1924, p.5

[6] TNA, RAIL 411/506, Clerical register - Female staff 1915 – 1924, p.7

I was a Schoolboy, a Soldier, a Labourer. Recruitment in the Early Railway Industry - Part 2

In my last post I discussed research I have been doing on  professions that the earliest railway workers had before they joined the London and North Western Railway’s (L&NWR) Operating, Traffic and Coaching Department (to be hereon known as the Traffic Department) between 1837 and 1871. Previously, I looked at sixty-eight individuals (out of 400) who had been employed in the company’s Engineering Department before to coming to the Traffic Department. In this post I will start to focus on the remaining 332 men who, before coming to the L&NWR, were employed in jobs outside the company.

As stated, for ease of interpretation I have categorised the 400 workers into the following fourteen categories (Note, there is one slight modification from the table presented in the last post because an error was found.)

Firstly, only a very small proportion of the individuals, twenty-three out of the 400 (5.75%), had no prior employment before coming to the railway. This was reflected in their ages. The youngest of them were three boys of thirteen, two of which were appointed as Booking Clerks and another of which became an ‘assistant agent.’ The oldest individual in the sample was James Nicholson, the [Station] Agent at Bulkington, who was listed as being thirty-six.  Yet, because of his age and his position of responsibility it is highly implausible that he had done nothing before coming to the railway. Overall, apart from Nicholson and two other individuals, the rest were all under the age of eighteen.

However, more interesting conclusions can be made about changes in the L&NWR's recruitment processes. Only four of the individuals who had had no prior profession were recruited in the 1830s and 1840s (3.57% of the 121 individuals recruited in these years). Furthermore, only three of these men were engaged in the early 1850s (2.67% of 112 new employees). Thus, this leaves sixteen that were appointed between 1855 and 1860 (12.80% of 125 individuals). Clearly, in the railway's emergent years it was principally recruiting individuals who had experience of other industries. However, in the late-1850s did it start to recruit people straight out of school, and this is presumably when families’ decades-long associations with the railways began.

The positions that these individuals went into are also of interest. In this period only two went into the secondary labour market (with low weekly pay, low job security and few promotional prospects), becoming a policeman and pointsman. Indeed, the twenty remaining took up positions as agents, clerks and assistant agents (all clerical positions), and, thus, were in the primary labour market (with high job security, promotional prospects and good pay). Consequently, because only sixty-six of the individuals in the overall sample of 400 went into the primary labour market, the L&NWR’s Traffic Department evidently was recruiting a large number of school-leavers into clerical positions before 1860, possibly because of a skills shortage in the economy. But, importantly, this data also signals that by 1860 the distinction between the two labour markets, the jobs they encompassed and what sort of individuals went into them, were well-defined.

One of the most repeated stories about early railway managers was that their ranks were dominated by senior military men, as they were the only ones that had experience of administering large organisations. However, in four previous blogs (starting here) I have clearly showed the error of this assertion. Nevertheless, my interest in the transference of skills from the military to the early railways meant that I was on the look-out for soldiers and sailors when doing this study.

Of the 400 railway workers in my sample only twenty-eight (7.00%) had been in the military before being employed by the L&NWR. Six had been in the royal navy (two as Royal Marines), with twenty-two being ex-soldiers. All bar three of the individuals went into the secondary labour market. Indeed, it is no surprise that fourteen joined the railway police as presumably the discipline of military training made them suitable for this position. Additionally, eight others received manual positions where strength was required, three becoming porters and five taking up posts as pointsmen.

As for when the individuals were appointed, it seems that there was a consistent stream of soldiers and sailors moving from the military to the railway between 1837 and 1860. Indeed, of those employees who joined in the late-1830s, ex-military men made up 9.09% of these. This increased to 11.1% in the early-1840s, but decreased to 7.14% in the early 1850s. However, thereafter the proportion rose again to 9.80% in 1860. In the early-1840s there was seemingly an anomalous result as only 1.59% of the sixty-three new railway workers appointed in the period had been in the army or navy. The reason for this anomaly is unknown.

The profession that most of those in the sample were engaged in before coming to the Traffic Department was that of ‘labourer’ (apart from those who had worked in the Engineering Department). Anyone who has used the census’ will testify how ambiguous this job description is. Indeed, only in six cases out of the sixty-two ex-labourers was more information available (one carter, one collier, two quarraymen and two warehousemen). Unsurprisingly, all the ex-labourers went into the secondary labour market and the positions that they were appointed to in the greatest numbers were as porters (17), pointsmen (19) and policemen (8). Additionally, they also obtained positions as foremen, gatemen, greaser and shaklers (whatever they were) or signalmen. Therefore, the majority of ex-labourers went from strenuous positions to strenuous positions. However, it is quite possible that the railways paid better than their previous employers.

Of more interest is that the proportion of new Traffic Department staff that had been labourers declined over the period. Between 1837 and 1839 they constituted 27.2% of all those appointed. Yet, in the early-1840s this dropped to 18.5%, in the late-1840s the proportion was 15.8%, in the early 1850s it rose slightly to 16.1%, but declined again in the late-1850s to 14.4%. Lastly, in 1860 they constituted only 9.8% of all new staff.

This suggests that changes occurred in the national economy, as well as within the railway companies. Firstly, it would appear that the simple description of ‘labourer’ was becoming less common as time progressed, possibly as new trades were started, new inventions were created and the economy diversified in the early to mid-nineteenth century. Furthermore, and as will be shown in the next post, the reducing number of ex-labourers, who would have had only poor education at best, suggests that the L&NWR was increasing looking to recruit into secondary labour market men with better schooling or even better backgrounds. Only an investigation of the company's files have the potential to prove this.

Overall, this post has revealed that between 1837 and 1860 the L&NWR’s Traffic Department refined who it wished to recruit into its ranks. In the 1830s the new company was recruiting a far higher proportion of poorly educated individuals whose experiences were limited to labouring work. Indeed, school leavers did not feature highly.  Yet, by 1860 most positions that new railway workers were appointed to were highly dependent on their prior experiences and education, as well as being defined by the strict parameters of the company’s primary and secondary labour markets. Thus, it is clear that between 1837 and 1860 the norms of railway employment of the later nineteenth century were developed. In the last post of this series this will be demonstrated further.

"Scale of Advances for Junior Clerks" - The Pay of Midland Railway Junior Clerks in the 1880s

Sometimes as a historian you come across single documents that shed light on a whole subject, and this happened to me today. When browsing some railway company staff records online, something that I am apt to do at the moment, a Midland Railway clerical staff record book had pasted in the front a number of documents on clerks’ pay scales before and after the 31^stof December 1885. Indeed, it seems that the Midland Railway’s board modified significantly the pay scales for all new clerks at this date and the document these changes.

Before commenting on the pay scales, it is interesting to note that the ages at which new clerks were employed changed. The first document, listing employment practices before the 31^st December 1885, showed the wages for clerks beginning their careers ‘over 14 or 15.’ However, in the document specifying employment procedures thereafter, the word ‘over’ was lost and it merely stated individuals started at ’14 or 15.’ It may be tentatively suggested that the Midland, in line with procedure from most railway companies at the time, began to restrict entrance ages of its new clerical staff to younger and younger individuals. However, without more data this is uncertain.

Before 1885, in a practice that has not been observed at railway the London and South Western Railway which I am studying, the department that individuals went into determined their initial wages. Thus, new clerks who entered into the Locomotive, Carriage, Secretary’s, Accountant’s and Stores departments started on the measly sum of £15 per annum or 5s 9d per week. However, those going into the Way and Works Department received £24 per annum (9s 3d per week), those entering the General Managers, Goods and Coaching Offices received yearly £20 (7s 8d per week) and ne clerks in the Telegraph department received £30 per annum (11s 6d per week).

Possibly, the prestige of the different departments and the skill involved in the job of hand may have affected the starting salaries. While the telegraphists would have required far more skills to undertake their work and consequently received more pay, the higher salaries of the ‘General Managers, Goods and Coaching Offices’ may have reflected that these posts had more potential to lead to managerial careers (clerks being the only ones being able to realistically ascend to such heights).

Thereafter, the junior clerks’ wages increased at varying rates of between £5 and £10 per year. While it would be dull to detail all the wage increases the clerks in the different departments received, I will look at how quickly they reached the point at which they became full clerks and began to be promoted ‘on merit only’. The wages they were receiving in the year before their promotion to being full clerks, as well as the number of years it took, are listed below:

• Locomotive: £65 in eight years
• Carriage: £60 in seven years
• Way and Works: £66 in seven years
• General Managers, Goods and Coaching Offices: £65 in five years (£5 extra at each stage for each clerk working in the London goods Offices)
• Secretary’s, Accountants and Stores: (uncertain) Possibly £60 in eight years (4^th to 6^th years - £5 bonus at Christmas, 7^th and 8^th years £7 10/- bonus)
• Telegraph: £80 in eleven years

Thus, once again there was variance depending on the prestige of the department and the skill involved in the work. Those employed in the prestige General Managers, Goods and Coaching Offices became full clerks quicker than those in other departments. Whereas, those employed in the Secretary’s, Accountants and Stores departments also received regular bonuses after their fourth year. Furthermore, the skill that was required by telegraph clerks is shown by the longer period individuals spent as a junior and the high wages they received at the end of this period.

However, in 1885 the company changed this system and established to two employment streams for junior clerks (thereafter known as ‘third class’ clerks), splitting them into those employed at the head offices in Derby, and those stationed at other locations. This made wage patterns fairer so that most new clerks received the same incomes at the same points in their careers. However, it also would have brought down the company’s costs by slowing the rate at which new clerks in some departments advanced, and would allow the company to anticipate increases in wage costs better than previously, in an era when wage costs were rising.

Clerks appointed to ‘stations’ beyond Derby started on £20 per annum (with £5 extra in their first three years if living away from home), and reached £60 in their sixth year. Thereafter, they became second class clerks. Those living in London, like clerks in other companies, received London-weighting of £5 extra per year. Yet, Clerks who began their careers at the Derby Headquarters began on only £15 per year and remained ‘third class’ until their eighth year when they were receiving £60. However, between their fourth and sixth year they did receive a £5 bonus at Christmas, and in their seventh and eighth year received £7 10/-.

Possibly, the reason that headquarters clerks stayed in the ‘third class’ for so long was due to their  potential to ascend to the ranks of management. Thus, they were given more training. It would, therefore, imply that from a very young age the Midland Railway assessed whether their new clerical intake were ‘management material,’ and posted those competent individuals to the headquarters to become well versed in all aspects of railway operation. Therefore, this change, combined with the reorganised pay scales, suggests an increasing professionalization and standardisation within the Midland Railway in the period.

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

All information taken from: The National Archives, RAIL 491/1086, Midland Railway Company: Records, Locomotive Department, 1872-1892,

Discovering More About Britain's First Fifteen Female Railway Clerks - Part 2

In the last post (here) I looked at the first sixteen women to be employed in clerical positions on Britain’s railways between 1874 and 1876 at the London and North Western Railway’s (L&NWR) Curzon Street goods offices in Birmingham. I looked at their ages on appointment, the management structure of the office and their starting wages. In this post I will look at their careers, wages after appointment, how they left the service and the effect that this ‘experiment,’ as it was called by the press, had on women’s clerical employment on the L&NWR.

It was discussed in the last post how many of the women started on wages that were slightly better than those of similarly aged male apprentices. An investigation of their wages after they started their jobs again shows that while the press was adamant that their employment would immediately reduce company costs, male clerks only began to earn significantly more later in their careers. J.M.A. Heywood and Martha Hughes had increases in their wages typical of the other women in the office. The graph below shows the progression of their wages compared with those of four male clerks appointed in the same period. While the full wage details of only one male clerk has been found and only a small sample is involved, the graph shows that for the first 8 years of their employment the women’s wages kept pace with those of their male colleagues. However, once they reached this point in their increases became much more infrequent. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the wages for female clerks were always capped at £65.00 per annum.

Only in cases where they were promoted to Matron or Assistant Matron did the women earn more. A good proportion of sixteen women eventually took up these posts. Emma Eliza Beard was office Matron until 21^st October 1894, at which point she was earning £100.00. Into her shoes stepped E.A. Besley, who at that point had been earning the maximum for clerks of £65.00 per annum. She was thereafter paid £80.00 and by 1903 she was earning £100. However, in December 1907 she became sick and left the company’s employ. She died on the 30^th January 1908.[8] Her successor was another of the fifteen, Maria Newman. When the first Assistant Matron, Butler, had resigned in March 1899, and she had taken up that post, and it was only natural that she would become Chief Matron when the position became vacant. It is unknown when she left the position, however, her last known wage rise to £160 came on the 1^st January 1917.[9] This suggests that until the early 20^th century, the matrons’ wages were also capped at £100 per annum, but thereafter the cap was raised, possibly due to the inflation of the First World War.

The details of how and when eleven of the women left the company have been found and a breakdown of how long each was employed is shown below. The first to leave after four years seven months service (aged 20) was Mary M. Hill and the longest service was given by Maria Newman who, as stated, was still serving in 1917. Seven of the twelve resigned at a young age, possibly to get married. Three individuals left because of sickness. One case, that of E.A. Besley, has been cited. E.E. Beard left the service in November 1894, finally being ‘struck off’ in July 1897. Lastly, Emily J. Mitchell fell sick in February 1883 and was paid until the 12^th May when she was struck off.[10] She died shortly after on the 15^th May.[11] Only A.J. Stoker eventually received a pension, and on the 1^st November 1908 she was superannuated after 43 years service.[12]

Not all the women stayed in the Birmingham office during their careers, and two transferred elsewhere. A.J. Stoker was the first to move, transferring in May 1878 to the company’s Mill Street offices in Wolverhampton. [13] She remained here for the rest of her career. The most eventful career was Sarah Jane Besley’s. Having joined the company in January 1875, she moved on the 1^st July 1886 to the company’s goods offices in Leeds.[14] Yet, in June 1890 she again transferred to the Huddersfield Goods Department where she stayed until her resignation in 1892.[15] Why they moved is unknown. However, it is possible that like with the male clerks they were offered the chance to transfer and took it.

As was detailed in the last blog, the ‘experiment’ was deemed a success and expanded. The Cheshire Observer of Saturday July 16^th 1876 reported that female clerks were employed at Chester.[16] While the female clerks at Chester have not been found (as yet), I began cataloguing any others that I could. The L&NWR’s Goods offices at Manchester London Road and Mosley Street hired ten female clerks between 9^th July 1876 and the end of 1878.[17] Furthermore, between 17^th July and 1^st December 1876 eight women were recruited at Camden.[18] Three women were hired at Shrewsbury Station on the 1^st December 1876[19] and one is known to have been appointed to Bolton Station on the 9^th October 1876.[20] I am sure there were more and more research will hopefully be conducted in the future.

These two posts have highlighted interesting features of the employment of Britain’s first female clerks. Firstly, the women were generally unmarried and under the age of 25, with a few notable exceptions. However, unsurprisingly they had to leave employment on marriage. Yet, a few gave considerable service to the company, some upwards of 40 years. Furthermore, the wages they received were comparable with those of their male colleagues for the first eight years of employment. However, thereafter they stagnated with the maximum they could earn being £65.00. The only way they could receive more was through promotion. However, opportunities were limited to moving into the posts of Matron or Assistant Matron, and there was clearly no chance of promotion into middle or senior managerial positions.

Most importantly, the sixteen women of the Birmingham Goods Department showed their managers that gender was not an issue when it came to ability or quality of work. Thus, what happened in Birmingham between June 1874 and June 1876 changed employment practices on Britain’s railways, as women’s clerical employment was considered by other railway companies and expanded within the L&NWR.

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

[8] TNA, RAIL 410/1842, Salaried Staff Register [No 1, pages 581-1087] - Goods Department. Includes station masters and clerks, p.913

[9] TNA, RAIL 410/1839, Salaried staff register [No 2, pages 1613-2092] - Goods Department. Includes station masters and clerks, p.1810

[10] TNA, RAIL 410/1842, p.913

[11] TNA, RAIL 410/1842, p.914

[12] TNA, RAIL 410/1839, Salaried staff register [No 2, pages 1613-2092] - Goods Department. Includes station masters and clerks, p.130

[13] TNA, RAIL 410/1842, p.867

[14] TNA, RAIL 410/1842, p.913

[15] TNA, RAIL 410/1843, Salaried staff register [No. 1, pages 1089-1599] - Goods Department. Includes clerks, goods managers, inspectors, superintendents, time keepers, accountants, foremen, agents, canvassers, collectors, timber measurer, traffic solicitor and cartage, p.1413

[16] The Cheshire Observer, Saturday July 15^th, 1876, p.6

[17] TNA, RAIL 410/1837, p.1215; TNA, RAIL 410/1841, Salaried Staff Register [No 2, pages 2593-3088] - Miscellaneous departments. Includes staff employed in the following departments: Goods,

Cattle, Horse, Rolling Stock, Detective and Canal. Includes station masters, inspectors, detectives and clerks, p.2634; TNA, RAIL 410/1843, p.1337 and p.1339

[18] TNA, RAIL 410/1837, p.1227

[19] TNA, RAIL 410/1837, p.1286

[20] TNA, RAIL 410/1837, p.1289

Discovering More About Britain's First Fifteen Female Railway Clerks - Part 1

I recently wrote about the first fifteen female clerks appointed by the London and North Western Railway’s (L&NWR) at its Curzon Street Goods Offices in Birmingham in the mid-1870s (Here). Dubbed an 'experiment' on the press, their employment was the initiative of the District Goods Superintendent, Mr W.J. Nichols, and was the first time on Britain's railways that women had been employedto perform functions that were at the time ordinarily undertaken by male employees.[1] However, having limited resources my post was informed by newspapers from the period. I knew nothing of the women’s names, ages or careers. I just dubbed them the ‘Birmingham Fifteen.’

But then I was pleasantly surprised. As I related in my last post (Here), The National Archives (via Ancestry.co.uk) has in the last fortnight made available on-line the staff records from some of Britain’s major railway companies from the 19^th and 20^th century. Therefore, after purchasing a subscription the first thing I did was to look for the ‘Birmingham Fifteen.’ Firstly, I found one clerks' name on the 1881 census, the only census which has been transcribed with individuals’ occupations, and then searched the staff records. The result was that I found more information than I could handle and I have, therefore, decided to dedicate two posts to my findings. The first post will look at when the women were appointed, their ages on appointment, the management structure of the office and their starting wages. The second will look at their careers, their wages after appointment, how they left the service and the effects of Mr Nichols’ initiative on clerical employment for women in the L&NWR generally.

I’ll start this post logically, at the beginning. The first women appointed as clerks at the Curzon Street offices were J.M.A. Heywood, J.M. Matthews and Emma Eliza Beard on the 1^st June 1874. These were soon followed by others. However, there is a bit of confusion as to how many women were actually appointed. Indeed, it shows that 19^th century newspapers were not always reliable. The Englishwoman’s Review of February 1878 stated that at that point there were 15 women working in the office.[2] Up to June 1876 it seems that only fourteen women had been appointed. Yet, the appointment of Martha E. Hughes and Louisa J. Hands in early 1877 made the total number up to sixteen.[3] The answer to this conundrum, I think, is that Beard, was significantly older and paid more than the others, suggesting that she was the ‘matron.’ Thus, it can be surmised that the Review did not count her in the fifteen as she was their line manager. The number of women in the office only remained at sixteen until the 1^st May 1878, when A.J. Stoker transferred to the company’s Wolverhampton offices.[4]
 

The ages of the women varied, however, all would have been unmarried and possibly the daughters of railway workers. The Englishwoman’s Review of 1878 stated that the majority of the women were ‘young persons,’ [6] and this is confirmed by the evidence. The youngest clerk appointed was L.M. Matthews who was only fifteen years and six months old. It is presumably for this reason that she was listed as a ‘female apprentice.’ [5] As shown below, of the thirteen women employed under the age of twenty, five of the clerks (31.25%) were employed at the age of 15, with the rest being engaged between the ages of 16 and 19.

Only 3 of the women were over the age of 20. As stated, the oldest woman in the office was Beard, who was thirty-two years old and five months. However, Stoker was twenty-six years and eleven months old and Mary Butler was twenty-seven months and eleven months old. Indeed, it is suspected that because of her age and her wages (see below) that Butler was the Assistant Matron. 

Interestingly, their starting wages compared very favourably with those of male clerks, who usually also began their L&NWR careers between 14 and 19 years old. Eleven of the thirteen (84.61%) women entering the service below the age of 20 received £26.00 per annum, or 10s per week (which concurs with the Review article). This was £1 higher than the starting rate for most male apprentices (based on records observed). Thus, the initial claims of the press that the employment of women would reduce railway company costs seems to have been their opinion rather than based on any evidence. Furthermore, 18 year old M.E. Harris and the 26 year old A.J. Stoker both received £31 per annum (or 11s 11d per week). Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that in these two cases the L&NWR was rewarding prior experience of clerical work, especially as Harris was under the age of 20 but receiving more than her similarly aged counterparts. Naturally, the managers of the office received more than the others. Beard received £65 per annum (24s per week) and Butler received £39 per annum (15s per week).[7]

What has been shown is that from the outset the office of ‘Birmingham Fifteen’ was initially identical to those elsewhere in the company. There was a hierarchy, transfers, apprentices, comparable pay with male clerks and variance in wages based on experience. Indeed, this is interesting when juxtaposed against of the initial views of the press that perceived the employment of women clerks as abnormal, using words like 'experiment,' and claiming that their engagement would reduce railway company costs. However, as will be shown in part 2, the options open to the ‘Birmingham Fifteen’ were actually very limited, with the heights they could reach in pay and positions capped. 

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

[1] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 410/1837, Register of salaried permanent officers in the Goods Department including clerks, goods managers, inspectors, superintendents, time keepers, accountants, foremen, agents, canvassers and collectors, p.929

[2] The Englishwoman’s Review, Friday, February 15^th 1878, p.77

[3] TNA, RAIL 410/1837, Register of salaried permanent officers in the Goods Department including clerks, goods managers, inspectors, superintendents, time keepers, accountants, foremen, agents, canvassers and collectors, p.1207

[4] TNA, RAIL 410/1842, Salaried Staff Register [No 1, pages 581-1087] - Goods Department. Includes station masters and clerks, p.167

[5] The Englishwoman’s Review, Friday, February 15^th 1878, p.77

[6] TNA, RAIL 410/1837, p.1207

[7] TNA, RAIL 410/1842, p.913

It's Who Knows You - Promotion Amongst Victorian Railway Clerks

Britain’s railways have two stories that run like a thread through them. On the one hand, there were the events that took place in the head offices and amongst senior managers that shaped what actually happened on the railways. On the other, there were the myriad of stories that played out at stations, yards and on trains around the network amongst railway employees. Therefore, the role of the railway historian is to either choose to focus on one aspect of these tales, or, to look at their interaction.

This fact was brought to mind when, on visiting the National Railway Museum’s (NRM) archive on Monday, I looked at a book by W. Buckmaster called Railway Reminiscences. Produced after his retirement in 1937, this small pamphlet detailed his career as a member of the clerical staff of the London and South Western Railway (L&SWR) and his subsequent rise into management. Indeed, it was his management activities that consistently brought to my mind the diary of another L&SWR clerk, Sam Fay (Shown), which I have in my possession. What was interesting was that Buckmaster showed how senior managers approached the promotion of clerks within the company, while Fay’s diary starkly detailed the strains, pressures and hopes that clerks had while trying to gain these promotions. Thus, what I have now is a view of promotion amongst the L&SWR’s clerical staff from those being promoted and those doing promoting.

Buckmaster started his L&SWR career in 1875 when he became a clerk in the company’s Goods Department. After spending seven years at what he called his ‘home station,’ he then became a clerk at a ‘busy goods depot’ for another seven. He then spent three years as a relief clerk, was posted at the Superintendent of the Line’s office in around 1892 and was appointed ‘Chief of the Traffic Department Staff’ a few years later.

Thus, for the five years that Buckmaster was in this post he was the man who best understood the Traffic Department’s staff from a management perspective, gaining ‘a thorough insight’ into the staff’s ‘character, temperament, disposition etc.’ Thus, with such knowledge he was seemingly the one who had control over clerks’ career paths as it enabled him to ‘form an opinion as to their fitness and ability to undertake other and more responsible duties as and when vacancies occurred.’ Subsequently, he controlled ‘to a great extent their destinies.’[1] This suggests that single senior managers had the most say in who was promoted within the Traffic Department. Furthermore, the recommendations that these managers made as to who should be promoted were simply based on their subjective opinions of individuals’ suitability to fill vacancies.

But what about the process clerks went through in applying for jobs? While some were clearly approached directly to fill positions within the Traffic department by senior management, as Buckmaster himself was,[2] evidence from Sam Fay’s diary, written during his time as a clerk in Kingston, shows how the L&SWR’s clerical staff went about applying for positions (If you would like to know more about Fay’s life at the time see HERE.)

Firstly, within the company there was seemingly a network whereby individuals would acquire knowledge about vacancies, whether it were through letters, news stories or through word of mouth. Thus, on the 25th February 1878 Fay, who was looking to advance his career at this point, ‘asked Mr Pettit [the station master] on Friday if he had any objection to my applying for Queen's Road as I heard the Chief Clark was about to leave.’[3] Additionally, in April 1879 F. Mears, Agent at Bournemouth died. Such was the dissemination of this knowledge that Fay reported that there was ‘over 100 applications for the latter job.’[4] Of course, occasionally information regarding potential opportunities was received too late for vacancies to be applied for. When in November 1879 a vacancy came up at Reading, Fay applied. However, a Mr Goffe in the General Manager’s office replied to Fay’s application stating that ‘Stacey late agent at Midhurst had been appointed there.’[5]

However, what is evident from diary is that while there was an internal labour market, whereby individuals applied for jobs en masse and competed for vacant positions, a clerk’s chances were more likely to be shaped by the knowledge that those above them in the management hierarchy had. Indeed, this confirms Buckmaster’s assertion that senior managers were key to clerks’ promotional prospects. In October 1878 Fay ‘asked the governor his opinion about applying for vacancies caused by the opening of Holsworthy line.’ However, because Petit was ‘strongly against [him] applying,’ he gave up the idea.[6] Indeed, there is evidence that Station Agents had some sway over who left their stations and on the 25th February 1878 Fay ‘asked Mr Pettit on Friday if he had any objection to my applying for Queen's Road as I heard the Chief Clark was about to leave.’[7] Lastly, in August 1879 Fay himself went up to see the company’s General Manager, Archibald Scott, about a vacancy at Andover if ‘Lawrence goes to Midhurst.’[8]

Thus, Fay’s superiors, from his direct line manager, Petit, to the General Manager of the company, Scott, all played a part in advancing or holding his back is career. Therefore, within the late Victorian railway company, while competition for posts clearly existed, career advancement was more dependent on how superiors thought of individuals, how aware they were of them within the organisation, and their subjective opinion of their abilities. Indeed, this puts a ‘human’ element into the studies of social mobility within the Victorian railway, which have seemingly only seen career advancement as a logical outcome of good education and start-of-life opportunities. Indeed, this small study has shown that it wasn’t always what you knew or who you knew that got you advanced, rather, it was who knew you that sometimes did the trick.

[1] Buckmaster, W. Railway Reminiscences, (London, 1937), p.7
[2] Buckmaster, Railway Reminiscences, p.4
[3] William Fay Collection [WFC], Sam Fay's Diary, Monday, 25th February 1878
[4] WFC, Sam Fay's Diary, Tuesday, 22nd April 1879
[5] WFC, Sam Fay's Diary, Tuesday, 28th November 1879
[6] WFC, Sam Fay's Diary, Wednesday, 16th October 1878
[7] WFC, Sam Fay's Diary, Wednesday, 16th October 1878
[8] WFC, Sam Fay's Diary, Monday, 25th February 1878

When Railway Clerks Went to Work - The Entrance Age of Victorian Clerks

It is generally understood that in the late Victorian period most individuals started their railway careers shortly after leaving school. However, what is not so commonly recognised is that different employment practices were in place earlier in the period and many started their railway careers at later points in their lives. In this post I will examine the ages that clerks on the London and South Western Railway were appointed (L&SWR) to their first posts between 1840 and 1910. It should be noted, that I have also included in this study all cases where individuals were appointed to positions on the clerical career ladder, including junior clerks, chief clerks, goods agents and station agents.

The table below shows the age at which 200 clerks with surnames beginning with ‘A’ or ‘B’ were appointed to the company’s staff. Figures for the period 1880 to 1899 were unavailable as I have not photographed the records yet.

Of the 200 individuals in the sample, 148 (74%) were appointed under the age of 20. Thus, it can be inferred that majority of the clerks joined the company after leaving school. However, evidently, the likelihood that new clerks would be from this age group increased. So, in the 1840s only two new clerks, or 15.38%, of the 13 appointed in the decade were under 20. However, in the 1850s this proportion had risen to 29.63% (8 out of 27 appointed), in the 1860s it was 69.6% (39 out of 56 appointed) and in the 1870s it was 93.24% (69 out of 74 appointed). Lastly, after 1900, 100% of all new clerks were under the age of 20.

Conversely, the number of clerks of older ages declined. In the 1840s and 1850s the table shows that clerks were being appointed at a diverse range of ages. Indeed, in the 1840s 46.15% (6 out of 13 appointed) were appointed above the age of 30, and this had increased in the 1850s to 48.15% (13 out of 27 appointed). This would suggest that the majority would have had employment elsewhere beforehand, and this may have been in clerical positions either within other railway companies or other industries.

However, after 1860 the proportion of clerks appointed who were above 30 years of age declined. In the 1860s they constituted only 8.9% of all appointments (5 out of 56 appointed) and in the 1870s the proportion dropped to 2.70% (2 out of 74 appointed). Considering all clerks after 1900 were appointed in their teens, this indicates a change occurring in railway company employment practices over the period

In the early railways there were no railway professionals. Railway company managers, who had very little idea how to manage their new, but complex, businesses, looked to external sources to find the talented individuals needed to undertake the clerical and administrative work. Thus, while the L&SWR clearly did employ teenage individuals as clerks where available (possibly because they were cheaper), experience was a much more valued attribute at the time. However, as the L&SWR’s business matured and developed, it started to develop its own staff and turned less and less to external sources for labour. Indeed, the company increasingly opted for employing younger and younger individuals.

Thus, within the L&SWR was formed an ‘Internal Labour Market’ (ILM) whereby the company internalised a process, that of recruitment, that had previously occurred externally. The benefits of this for the company was that the cost of searching for labour was reduced and managers could be certain that the time taken training young clerks would not be wasted. For the clerks, the reduction in entrance ages meant that those entering the company later in its history would have far more structured careers ahead of them, good job security, the possibility of reaching management positions and, unless they did something wrong (and they did – see here), have employment for life.

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