'As Temperate a Body as Could be Found' - The United Kingdom Railway Temperance Union

I got it into my head that I should write a blog post about railway temperance this week as I will be traipsing off to the Great British Beer Festival at Earls Court, twice. So, perhaps it is my subconscious, or my liver, trying to tell me something.

Temperance was one of the key principals of railway employment in the 19^th century, ensuring that individuals’ who were in safety critical positions, such as enginemen, firemen, porters, signalmen or guards, did not have impaired judgements when undertaking their duties. The London and South Western Railway’s rule book from 1845 stated that ‘any engineman or fireman found drunk whilst on duty, or on the company’s premises, will be instantly discharged, and visited with the severest penalties of the law.’[1] By 1912 this had not really changed and the Railway Clearing House’s rule book of that year stated that railway employees were not allowed into station Refreshment Rooms and any found drunk on duty would be dismissed ‘without notice.’[2]

Nevertheless, Jack Simmons pointed out that the greatest extension of the railway network between 1850 and 1876 was accompanied by the massive rise in national alcohol consumption.[3] In 1831 nine Burton-upon-Trent breweries produced 50,000 barrels of beer. By 1868 twenty-six breweries produced 1,755,252 barrels and in 1888 thirty-one breweries produced 3,025,000 barrels.[4] Thus, given the increase in alcohol consumption, some railway workers formed temperance unions to promote the cause. Yet, prior to 1882 these organisations were small, uncoordinated and operating independently.

In 1882 thirty-two unknown railwaymen,[5] feeling that a ‘principal of cohesion and expansion’ was required,[6] formed the United Kingdom Railway Temperance Union (UKRTU) with backing from the Church of England Temperance Society. The CofE’s temperance union was particularly active at the time. In that year there were 339,687 members in the 20 national diocesan branches, as well as 14,352 individuals in the seamen’s temperance union. The formation of the ‘Railway Temperance union’ was simply part of a policy of expansion to spread the word of temperance.[7] However, the railway union always had the unique perspective in that abstinence from alcohol was always linked with the safe operation of the railways.

The first meeting of the UKRTU was held at Exeter Hall, on the Strand, on Wednesday 11th October 1882. The president of the new society was Rev. Cannon Ellison.[8] The growth of the railway temperance union had a difficult start. However, by 1908 there were 300 branches nationally with 37,947 members[9] and branches were established by workers from most main line railway companies.[10] Membership particularly expanded in the early twentieth century. For example, in 1905 the London and North Western Railway union’s membership was only 4,777, whereas in 1908 it stood at 17,536.[11]

Members could pledge allegiance to the union in two capacities, following the practice of the CofE’s own temperance society. Category A members pledged total abstinence from alcohol and promised ‘by example and effort’ to promote the union. Category B members had this similar aim, but for whatever reason chose not to abstain totally.[12]

The organisation was carried on by volunteers who ran activities that could be broadly split into two categories; spreading the message, and events. Spreading the message was a big part of the union’s purpose from the start and the union used a system of ‘catch-my-pal,’ where members would induce their friends and neighbours to join. He would ‘talk and argue and persuade until that object was achieved.’[13] Furthermore, branches held meetings daily at meal-times where individuals would listen and talk about temperance message. On the social side, concerts and lectures were held in winter time and excursions would be run to the seaside and resorts in the summer months. Additionally, by 1911 the union owned a number of halls which were used as reading rooms ‘or institutes where a game of billiards may be played.’ The union’s halls at Crewe could also boast of a rifle range. Competition between branches also occurred, whether through football or between branch choirs.[14] Lastly, the Great Western Railway temperance union members established the company’s staff magazine with the tag-line the ‘Temperance Union Record’ in 1888.[15] These practices continued up until the First World War and beyond.

Overall, the question that could be asked is whether work of the UKRTU actually reduced intemperance and ensured safety on the railway? But in reality that is not the issue. At the point of the union’s establishment no example was cited where alcohol had directly caused an accident. Furthermore, an expansive article in The Quiver from 1911 on the union did not cite one accident where an intoxicated individual had been involved. The truth was that temperance among railway workers, while not absolute, was well established by 1882 through the companies’ own rules and regulations. In January 1885 the South Western Gazette, the London and South Western Railway’s staff magazine, reported on the first meeting of that company’s Exeter branch. The Bishop of Exeter stated that the organisation was ‘very peculiar and very striking’ as ‘it could not be said that railway men as a general rule were tempted to drunkenness,’ and that they were ‘as a body were as temperate a body as could be found.’[16]

Thus, because generations of railway workers had had drilled into them the notion temperance by railway companies’ managements the UKRTU was in fact quite irrelevant to the issues of safety. This is re-enforced by the fact that the great concerns of safety campaigners rested not with the alcoholism of railway workers, but with matters of technology and railway worker’s lengthy and tiring hours. Therefore, the formation of the UKRTU was simply an extension of the national temperance movement, which was part of a religious groundswell at the time, and it only used the issue of ‘safety’ as a cover to push its own religious message of service to God through abstinence.

--------

[1] London School of Economics [LSE], HE 1 (42)/4391845, Rules for Enginemen and Firemen, 1845, Rule XXIV, p.20

[2] Author’s Collection, London and South Western Railway Rule Book, 1^st November 1912, Rules 9 and 12, p.8-9

[3] Simmons, Jack, ‘Temperance Movement,’ The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, (Oxford, 1997), p.503

[4] Goruvish, T.R. and Wilson, R.G., The British Brewing Industry: 1830-1980, (London, 1994), p.91

[5] Blyth, Gregory, ‘Temperance on the Line,’ The Quiver, Vol 46, No 6, (April 1911), p.581

[6] Jackson's Oxford Journal, Saturday, October 14, 1882; Issue 6761

[7] Daily News, Wednesday, April 26, 1882; Issue 11241

[8] Jackson's Oxford Journal, Saturday, October 14, 1882; Issue 6761

[9] Raynar, Wilson H., The safety of British railways; or, Railway accidents: how caused and how prevented, (London, 1909), p.92

[10] Blyth, ‘Temperance on the Line,’ p.582

[11] Raynar, The safety of British railways, p.92

[12] McKenna, Frank, The Railway Workers: 1840-1970, (London, 1980), p.47

[13] Blyth, ‘Temperance on the Line,’ p.584

[14] Blyth, ‘Temperance on the Line,’ p.582

[15] Great Western Magazine and Temperance Union Record, November 1888, p.1

[16] South Western Gazette, January 1885, p.6

English Shareholders, Scottish Passengers and Stopping Trains for God in 1846

Interestingly, the running of trains on Sunday in England and Wales was more common in the industry’s formative years. Indeed, Simmons stated that in 1887 20.1% of the nation’s railways were closed to passengers on Sunday, yet in 1847 this figure had only been 2.6%.[1] In 1847, the Board of Trade requested that every railway company in Britain submit a return detailing the number of Sunday trains that they ran. The result was that the 55 British railway companies (not including Irish companies) ran 530 scheduled services on ‘the Sabbath.’

However, within this sample there was a very distinct difference in practice between Scottish railway companies and those located south of the border. Of the 55 railway companies in the sample 38 were based in England and Wales (69%). However, these companies ran 514 of the Sunday trains listed (97%), leaving only 16 trains operating in Scotland. It could be argued that this was because many of the Scottish railway companies were smaller in size. Indeed, the Scottish companies that did run Sunday trains were amongst the largest in the country. For example, the North British railway company ran 6 trains. Yet, with such a small number of trains running, comparative to the size of the network, it can only be concluded that there was some unique reason for the difference in operating levels on Sundays in Scotland.[2]

The case of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway (E&GR), listed on parliamentary papers as running 4 mail trains only on Sunday, is an interesting case that perhaps reveals why in many cases trains were not run. When the line was opened in February 1842 the company immediately put on morning and evening trains on Sunday. These conveyed 1000s of passengers each day but were scheduled to avoid the hours when worship was undertaken.[3]

Yet, this policy, which was seemingly an unusual occurrence amongst the Scottish railway companies, soon displeased the shareholders of the company. Indeed, at the first shareholder’s meeting of the company after the line had opened on the 24^th February 1842, much of it was consumed by debate over the Sunday trains. Indeed, the chairman, Mr Leadbetter, stated that he had received 203 memorials against the running of trains on that day from reverends, church groups and private individuals.[4] Yet, for all their campaigning, the memorialists failed to change company policy on this occasion. Subsequently, at every meeting of the proprietors of the E&GR thereafter, those against Sunday trains proposed motions to stop them.

All of these motions failed. However, in 1846 the shareholders of the company took a different approach. The English shareholders forced out the directors of the company and replaced them with some of their number who approved of shutting the railway on Sundays.[5] As had become usual, at the January 1846 meeting one of the shareholders, Sir Andrew Agnew, proposed a motion: “That no work be done on this railway on the Lord’s Day according to the Fourth Commandment of the moral law.” This was supported after memorials were presented by many individuals, including a Mr Blackadder who presented two from the Scottish Observance Committee and the Free Church of Scotland.[6] Once again the vote failed.

However, between then and August E&GR shareholders opposed to Sabbath running mobilised. At a meeting at a company’s headquarters on August 24th, the holders of 2000 shares met to discuss the management and direction of the company. While there were many issues to deal with, such as failed amalgamation attempts with other companies and the profitability of the company, Sunday running was a key issue. The events of the meeting were summed up in the words of the Daily News after the event. The English shareholders had ‘crossed the border in person [having previously voted by proxy], attacked the directors in their city of Glasgow, overthrown the old dynasty and installed themselves on the vacant throne.’

To the dismay of the Daily News the first act of the new directors was not to improve the company’s operation, but to stop Sunday trains.[7] This, clearly had a detrimental effect on the company’s profits. In Parliament in 1849 Joseph Locke, the noted railway engineer and at that point M.P. for Honiton, stated that the ‘New directors came in… [and] closed the railway on Sunday. And thus the Sabbath party, though a small fraction of the entire proprietary, succeeded in their object, and those who obtained power had managed to reduce the dividends below what they were before.’[8]

Furthermore, the stopping of Sunday trains was against the wishes of the travelling public. The Liverpool Mercury reported that many of the people who used them ‘consider it the “unkindest cut of all” and that the public were ‘resolved to resist the resolution’ that ordered the trains to be abandoned. Indeed, it was stated by the paper that the Sunday running was of worth, in that it brought many individuals to church and that the trains’ use was not for recreation but the promotion of religious activity.[9] Indeed, in February 1847, the Earl of Lincoln presented a petition to the House of Commons from the people of Linlithgow against the ceasing of Sunday running.[10]But, this did not succeed, and the E&G had train-free Sundays for decades after.

The interesting thing about this case is that it was the English proprietors, who could use Sunday trains in their own country, who stopped them in Scotland. The reason for this hypocrisy was alluded to in the Railway Chronicle of January 1847. Discussing the E&GR case it stated that ‘the English public demands Sunday trains, the Scotch rejects them.’ Indeed, it suggested that the halting of Sunday trains was because of the fact that Scotland was ‘pre-eminently a religious nation.’[11] Indeed, the fact that this was a factor in the English delegation of E&GR shareholder’s decision was reinforced by a letter from them to the rest of the proprietors in March 1847.[12]

Therefore, this was a case of stereotyping combined with religious fervour, which had almost universally negative effect. A few very vocal and religiously active English shareholders forced on the Scottish travelling public a change which they thought they wanted. Yet, clearly the shareholders held a view of the Scottish passenger’s religiosity that wasn’t in line with reality, as the stoppage of Sunday trains was against the actual wishes of the E&GR customers. Furthermore, these shareholders allowed their religious fervour to override any considerations about the profitability and performance of the company, stopping the Sunday trains which were profitable. Indeed, it is quite possible that the English shareholders’ actions may even been borne of some frustration amongst the shareholders at not being able to change the state of Sunday trains in England and Wales.

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

[1] Simmons, Jack, The Victorian Railway, (London, 1991), p.286

[2] House of Commons Parliamentary Papers [HCCP] 1847 (167) Railways. Copy of all regulations of every railway company on the subject to travelling on Sunday.

[3] Hansard, HC Deb 25 April 1849 vol 104 cc831-48, http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1849/apr/25/sunday-travelling-on-railways

[4] Caledonian Mercury, Thursday, February 24, 1842; Issue 19053

[5] Liverpool Mercury, Friday, October 30, 1846; Issue 1852

[6] Caledonian Mercury, Thursday, February 26, 1846; Issue 19549

[7] Daily News, Wednesday, October 28, 1846; Issue 129

[8] Hansard, HC Deb 25 April 1849 vol 104 cc831-48, http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1849/apr/25/sunday-travelling-on-railways

[9] Liverpool Mercury, Friday, October 30, 1846; Issue 1852

[10] Dundee Courier, Tuesday, February 23, 1847; pg.1

[11]The Railway Chronicle, reprinted in, The Bury and Norwich Post, and East Anglian , Wednesday, January 13, 1847; Issue 3368

[12] Glasgow Herald, Monday, March 1, 1847; Issue 4600.

[13] Simmons, The Victorian Railway, p.287

Ministering to Navvies - Railways, Religion and Combating the Labourer's 'evils'

I have talked in the past about looking at the relationship between religion and the railways, as the way that religion interacts with society and the structures within it is something that fascinates me. Therefore, when I came across the government’s 1847 select committee report on Railway Labourers it didn’t surprise me that their religion, or lack thereof, was something that concerned the committee members.

The committee was formed to ‘inquire into the Condition of the Labourers employed on the construction of the railways and other public works, and into the remedies which may be calculated to lessen the peculiar evils, if any, of that condition.’ [1] Seemingly, the commons did not see the error of putting ‘if any’ [italics added] in the terms of reference, as there would have been no reason to form the committee if railway labourers were perceived to by sober, polite and pious. Indeed, as I have written in this blog previously, railway labourers and navvies had a reputation for being drunkards, brawlers and semi-criminal.[2] Thus, in a Christian country, where clean living was seen as highly important for the health of one’s body and soul, railway labourers were perceived as heathens. This is why the committee too such an interest in their religious activities.

The committee took evidence from many individuals, including such notables as Isambard Kingdom Brunel, the famous engineer, Samuel Morton Peto, the owner of one of the largest contracting firms in the country, and Captain Constantine Richard Moorsom, a director of many railway companies and later chairman of the London and North Western Railway. Furthermore, the committee also interviewed builders, other contractors, railway employees and clergy that dealt with railway labourers. Thus, when writing their final report they had evidence from many quarters.

The report stated generally that religious provision for labourers was ‘imperfect.’ Large communities of railway labourers were established very rapidly when a new line was under construction, putting a strain on local religious facilities. This problem was especially acute in areas where the population was sparse. As such, the committee concluded that this deficiency cooperated with other evils to ‘deprave the character and degrade the habits of the men.’ Therefore, it is unsurprising that many of the individuals who stood before the committee felt that some form of religious instruction was beneficial for reducing the ‘evils’ that the labourers engaged in.[3] To make up for the deficiencies some railway and contracting companies did provide out of their own pocket religious facilities for the labourers engaged on building works. However, the level of provision varied between them. Some companies provided religious personnel to minister to the labourers. The Caledonian and Liverpool and Bury Railways,[4] as well as the contractor Peto,[5] paid for a number of scripture readers. The South Devon and Caledonian Railways paid for chaplains.[6] However, some companies went further and provided their labourers with venues for religious activities. On the Chester and Holyhead railway the company ‘temporarily fitted up a church’ at Chester. The Lancashire and Carlisle and South Eastern Railways built temporary chapels at Penrith and Dover respectively. The most minimal provision was made by the Sheffield and Manchester Railway who provided their labourers with a ‘hut covered with a tarpaulin.’ Lastly, Peto’s contracting firm provided his employees with Bibles as standard.[7]

However, despite these companies’ efforts, the report itself stated that religious provision was ‘utterly neglected.’[8] Officials from the North British, Norwich and Brandon, and Manchester and Leeds Railways stated that while they were aware of places of worship near their building works, the companies themselves did not provide any religious facilities. Subsequently, the report concluded that where labourers only had local religious provision attendance was varied. Labourers on the Chester and Holyhead railway attended the churches and chapels in Conway greatly, while workers employed on the Manchester and Leeds Railway’s Oldham branch did not.

Furthermore, only in the cases of the South Devon and Caledonian Railways were full priests, vicars or ministers provided for the labourers.[9] Indeed, it seems that many of the companies relied on local clergymen or religious organisations to take an interesting the spiritual wellbeing of the labourers. In the case of the South Devon Railway it was the Reverend John Robert Thompson that approached the company to minister to them because of the disturbance they were causing amongst the local population.[10] The Croydon and Epsom Railway’s employees were ministered to by the local Pastoral Aid Society and the Leicester and Carlisle Railway’s labourers had a layman employed by the ‘Dissenters of Kendal.’ Furthermore, the Irish labourers from the Caledonian Railway actually paid for a Roman Catholic priest to visit themselves. However, this was presumably because of the lack of Roman Catholic clergy in the area.

Additionally, while only Peto provided Bibles as a matter of course to his employees, on the Chester and Holyhead and Lancaster and Carlisle Railways the workers could buy them, as well as hymn and prayer books.[11] Therefore, it seems that the religious instruction that was provided by the companies was variable and was possibly affected by who was in charge of the company.

Overall, while the committee concluded that access to religious provision did have a ‘most satisfactory’ result in combatting ‘evils’ amongst railway labourers,[12] it also stated that this was no substitute for companies addressing their underlying causes. These included the level of wages paid, the regularity of payment,[13] the housing provision for them and their families, the rapid movement and growth of labouring communities,[14] and the conditions in which they worked.[15] Thus, in the committee’s final report the lack of religious provision for workers was cited last as a cause of labourer’s disruptive behaviour. Indeed, the presence of religious instruction was seen only as bonus in solving the problems of labouring communities, rather than a cure. The report stated that ‘no teaching can be of much avail to counteract the ceaseless operation of such degrading and deteriorating influences,’ and that in trying to improve labourer’s behaviour employers had understandably improved other aspects of their lives.[16] Furthermore, amongst the statements provided to the committee the evidence that religious instruction had positive effect on labouring communities’ ‘evil’ habits is seemingly very weak.

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

[1] House of Commons Parliamentary Papers [HCPP], 1846 (530) Report from the Select Committee on railway labourers; together with the minutes of evidence and index.

[2] Coleman, Terry, The Railway Navvies, (London, 1968), p.19-35

[3] HCPP, 1846 (530) Report from the Select Committee on railway labourers., p.xi

[4] HCPP, 1846 (530) Report from the Select Committee on railway labourers., p.40

[5] HCPP, 1846 (530) Report from the Select Committee on railway labourers., p.43

[6] HCPP, 1846 (530) Report from the Select Committee on railway labourers., p.11

[7] HCPP, 1846 (530) Report from the Select Committee on railway labourers., p.40-41

[8] HCPP, 1846 (530) Report from the Select Committee on railway labourers., p.xi

[9] HCPP, 1846 (530) Report from the Select Committee on railway labourers., p.40-41

[10] HCPP, 1846 (530) Report from the Select Committee on railway labourers., Minute 179

[11] HCPP, 1846 (530) Report from the Select Committee on railway labourers., p.40-41

[12] HCPP, 1846 (530) Report from the Select Committee on railway labourers., p.xii

[13] HCPP, 1846 (530) Report from the Select Committee on railway labourers., p.iii

[14] HCPP, 1846 (530) Report from the Select Committee on railway labourers., p.vi

[15] HCPP, 1846 (530) Report from the Select Committee on railway labourers., p.viii

[16] HCPP, 1846 (530) Report from the Select Committee on railway labourers., p.xi

Religion and the Early Victorian Railway (a Research Black Hole)

For some reason, as an atheist, I have been increasingly interested in the way that religion interacts with society and how different people’s views are informed by its presence. Therefore, being a railway historian, it was almost inevitable that I would become interested in religion’s interactions with the railway industry. Indeed, because the new railways were the first big business it was almost inevitable that there would develop different types of relationships between the railways and, in the case of Britain, the Christian Church.

Early Victorian railways were clearly an environment where religion interacted with the industry in different ways. Therefore, while Francis Webb, the London and North Western Railway’s Locomotive Superintendent in the 1870s, coerced the men at the works at the Crewe works to go to,[1] there seemed to be nothing religious about the London and South Western Railway who refused to pay for a scripture reader for men building the Hampton Court branch.[2] On the Great Northern railway in 1854, the board asked the shareholders to vote £8000 for the building of a church, and encountered fierce resistance from them; while on the Taff Vale Railway in 1856, religious observance was woven into the employees’ lives by a rule which stated that the company ‘earnestly requested that each of its servants ‘on Sundays and holy days when he is not required on duty…will attend a place of worships; as it will be the means of promotion when vacancies occur.’[3] Thus, there seemed to be no uniform policy to religion adopted by railway managements.

Quite clearly, companies’ religiosity, or lack thereof, was dependent on the religious leanings of management or those sitting on the board. Channon argued that the board members of the Midland Railway shared ‘religious (non-conformist) and political (liberal)’ values.[4] But how this played out within the company is unknown. Contrastingly, from my research on the London and South Western Railway I have developed the impression that its board was never really concerned with religious matters. Yet, from the evidence above, it is clear that the Taff Vale board felt that church attendance was an indicator of an individual who was worthy of promotion, and, thus, there is no doubt that religion shaped the development of that companies’ management.[5] Further, Webb, cited above, had religious beliefs that shaped who the management class in the works were. While the staff was generally of liberal and nonconformist religious tendencies, a commentator stated that the foremen employed to supervise them were ordinarily conservative and adhered to the Church of England. Clearly, he was trying to engineer religious changes amongst the workers by promoting those who had similar views to him.[6] Thus, overall, it is clear that the religiosity of companies’ managements and board were not the same.

Evidently, from the lack of evidence presented here, more research on how religion shaped the early Victorian Railways needs to be done. I have shown that there are examples of how the religious views of individuals or groups may have impacted on policy. Yet, to what extent it shaped the industry’s development unknown. If I get time, I would to undertake research on this in the future.

---

[1] McKenna, Frank, The Railway Workers 1840-1970, (London, 1980) p.48

[2] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 411/2, Court of Directors Minute Book, 14^th April 1848, Minute No.989

[3] Simmons, Jack, ‘Religion,’ The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, (London, 1997), p.418

[4] Channon, Geoffrey, Railways in Britain and the United States 1830-1940, (Aldershot, 2001), p.102

[5] Simmons, Jack, ‘Religion,’ The Oxford Companion to British Railway History, (London, 1997), p.418

[6] McKenna, Frank, The Railway Workers 1840-1970, (London, 1980) p.48