Our last day was the eve of the Ramadan Fast.  At eight o’clock that night we left by train to journey homeward overland, for time demanded that we should go back much quicker than we came.

We broke our journey for two days at Buda-Pesth, and looked on the Danube; at Vienna we stayed a little longer, and found that gay city hard to leave.  We drove and rode in the Prater, and horseback exercise in such a place was, I need not say, delightful.  We stopped at Frankfort, enjoyed its opera and other things, then, via Ostend, wended our way to London.

“Will you undertake to report on the subject of Light Railways for the International Railway Congress at Paris?”  This question was put to me in the year 1899, and although I was busy enough, without shouldering additional work, I at once said “Yes,” and this was how I came to spend part of my 1900 annual holiday in the beautiful but crowded capital of France.  Crowded it was almost to suffocation, for 1900 was the Great Exhibition year, and all the world and his wife were there.  The Railway Congress took place in September.  The business part of the proceedings came first, and I did not stay for the festivities.  When my Report was made and discussed (a reporter was not allowed to read his paper, but was required to speak from notes), I made, with three railway friends from Dublin, tracks for Switzerland.  It had been a strenuous year and mountain air and exercise were needed to restore one’s physical strength and jaded faculties.

“Means of developing light railways.  What are the best means of encouraging the building of light railways?”  This was the text for my paper, as sent to me by the Congress, and my Report, I was told, should be confined to the United Kingdom, Mr. W. M. Acworth having undertaken a report on the subject for other countries.

Mr. Acworth did not tackle the question as affecting other countries.  He reported that he had no special knowledge which would entitle him to say how light railway enterprise could best be developed in countries other than his own, and that as my Report “sufficiently set out the present position of affairs in reference to light railways in the United Kingdom,” he thought the most useful contribution he could offer to the discussion of the question would be “a short criticism of the working, both from a legal or administrative and also from a practical point of view, of our English Act of 1896.”

According to an article in the Jubilee (1914) number of the Railway News, by Mr. Welby Everard, up to the end of the year 1912 (since the outbreak of the war figures are not obtainable) a total of 645 applications (including 111 applications for amending Orders) were made to the Commissioners, the total mileage represented being 4,861 miles.  Of these applications 418 were passed, comprising 2,115 miles, of which, 1,415 miles were in class A, i.e. light railways to be constructed on land acquired or “cross-country” lines, that is to say, lines which legitimately fulfilled the purposes of the Act.  But, up to October, 1913, only 45 of these lines, with a total length of 441 miles, had been constructed and opened for traffic.  The number of applications to the Commissioners seemed to show a considerable demand for greater facilities for transit in rural districts, but capital apparently was slow to respond to that demand.  Perhaps it will be different now, in these days of change and reconstruction.  The Government is pledged to tackle the whole question of Transport, and Light Railways will, of course, not be overlooked, though Motor Traction will run them a close race.

These figures indicate what Irish railways had accomplished in the decade ending with December, 1900, and betoken, I venture to affirm, a keen spirit of enterprise.  These ten years had witnessed the introduction of breakfast and dining cars on the trains, of parlour cars, long bogie corridor carriages, the lighting of carriages by electricity, the building of railway hotels in tourist districts, the establishment of numerous coach and steamboat tours, the quickening of tourist traffic generally, the adoption of larger locomotives of greatly increased power, the acceleration of the train service, the laying of heavier and smoother permanent way, and a widespread extension of cheap fares—tourist, excursion, week-end, etc.  It was a period of great activity and progress in the Irish railway world, with which I was proud and happy to be intimately connected.  But what a return for all this effort and enterprise the Irish railway companies received—£3 17s. 10d. per cent. on the whole capital expended, plus a liberal amount of abuse from the Press and politicians, neither of whom ever paused to consider what Ireland owed to her railways, which, perhaps, all things considered, was the best conducted business in the country.  It, however, became the vogue to decry Irish lines as inefficient and extortionate, and a fashion once started, however ridiculous, never lacks supporters.  The public, like sheep, are easily led.  In England the average return on capital expended was £4 0s. 5d., and in Scotland £4 2s. 2d.

On the first day of November, 1902, my good friend Walter Bailey and I started on a visit to Egypt.  It, like Constantinople and Spain and Portugal, occupied more than the usual month’s vacation, but as these extra long excursions were taken only every two or three years, and as it was never my habit to nibble at holidays by indulging in odd days or week-ends, my conscience was clear, especially as my Chairman and Directors cordially approved of my seeing a bit of the world, and readily granted the necessary leave of absence.  As for Bailey, he always declared this Egyptian tour was the holiday of his life.  To continue, we arrived in Cairo, via Trieste and Alexandria, on the 10th.  There we were met by Mr. Harrison, the general manager of Messrs. Thomas Cook and Son, and their principal dragoman, Selim, whom he placed during our stay in Cairo at our disposal.  Selim was a Syrian and the prince of dragomans; a handsome man, of Oriental dignity and gravity, arrayed in wonderful robes, which by contrast with our Occidental attire made Bailey and me feel drab and commonplace.  At Cairo we stayed for eight days at Shepheard’s Hotel, and under Selim’s guidance made good use of our time.  On the ninth day we began a delightful journey up the Nile.  Mr. Frank Cook had insisted upon our being the guests of his firm on their tourist steamer Amasis.

The great Dam at Assouan was just completed and we traversed its entire length on a trolley propelled by natives.  Assouan detained us for four days; then, time being important, we travelled back to Cairo by railway.  Three more interesting days were passed in the Babylonian city, then homewards we went by the quickest route attainable.

Whilst in Cairo and on our journey up the Nile, Bailey and I wrote, jointly, a series of seven articles on “Egypt and its Railways.”  These appeared in the Railway News in seven successive weeks during December and January.

Our last hours in the land of the Pharaohs were filled with regret at having to leave it so soon.  Said Bailey: “Cannot you, before we go, write a verse of Farewell?”  So I composed the following:—

The Royal visit to Ireland, on the whole, was an unqualified success, and there were many who hoped and believed that the King’s good will towards the country and its people, and his remarkable gifts as a peacemaker, would in some way help to a solution of the Irish question; but, alas! that question is with us still, and when and how it will be solved no man can tell.  For myself, I am one of those who indulge in hope, remembering that Time, in his healing course, has a way of adjusting human misunderstandings and of bringing about the seemingly impossible.

It was in this year (1903) that I first met Charles Dent, the present General Manager of the Great Northern Railway of England.  He had been appointed General Manager of the Great Southern and Western Railway in succession to R. G. Colhoun.  Dent and I often met.  We found we could do good work for our respective companies by reducing wasteful competition and adopting methods of friendly working.  In this we were very successful.  A man of few words, disdaining all unnecessary formalities, but getting quickly at the heart and essence of things, it was always a pleasure to do business with him.

In 1904 that fine old railway veteran, Sir Ralph Cusack, resigned his position of Chairman of the Midland and was succeeded by the Honourable Richard Nugent, youngest son of the ninth Earl of Westmeath; Major H. C. Cusack, Sir Ralph’s nephew and son-in-law, becoming Deputy Chairman—the first (excepting for a few brief months in 1903 when Mr. Nugent occupied the position) the Midland ever had.  With Sir Ralph’s vacation of the chair, autocratic rule on the Midland, which year by year, had steadily been growing less, disappeared entirely and for ever.  Well, Sir Ralph in his long period of office had served the Midland faithfully, with a single eye to its interests, and good wishes followed him in his retirement.  Mr. Nugent was a small man, that is physically, but intellectually was well endowed.  He had scholarly tastes and business ability in pretty equal parts.  Movement and activity he loved, and, as he often told me, preferred a holiday in Manchester or Birmingham to the Riviera or Italian Lakes.  He liked to be occupied, was fond of details, and possessed a lively curiosity.  Sometimes he was thought, as a chairman, to err in the direction of too rigid economy, but on a railway such as the Midland, and in a country such as Ireland, economy was and is an excellent thing, and if he erred, it was on the right side.  Truth, candour, courage and enthusiasm marked his character in a high degree.  Fearless in speech, the art of dissimulation he never learned.  I shall not readily forget a speech he once made at the Railway Companies’ Association in London.  It was on an occasion of great importance, when all the principal companies of the United Kingdom were present.  It was altogether unpremeditated, provoked by other speeches with which he disagreed, and its directness and courage—for it was a bold and frank expression of honest conviction, such as tells in any assembly—created some stir and considerable comment.  Of plain homely mother-wit he had an uncommon share, and his mind was stored with quotations which came out in his talk with wonderful ease and aptness.  A shrewd observer, his comments (always good-natured if critical) on his fellow men were worth listening to.

From 1903 to 1906 several Acts of Parliament affecting railways generally came into force, four of which were of sufficient importance to merit attention.  The first, the Railways (Electric Power) Act, 1903, was a measure to facilitate the introduction and use of electrical power on railways, and invested the Board of Trade with authority to make Orders for that purpose, which were to have the same effect as if enacted by Parliament.

The second, the Railway Fires Act, 1905, was an Act to give compensation for damage by fires caused by sparks or cinders from railway engines, and increased the liability of railway companies.  It inter alia, enacted that the fact that the offending engine was used under statutory powers should not affect liability in any action for damage.

Next came the Trades Disputes Act, 1906, a short measure of five clauses, but none the less of great importance; a democratic law with a vengeance!  It is one of the four Acts which A. A. Baumann, in his recent book, describes as being “in themselves a revolution,” and of this particular Act he says it “placed the Trade Unions beyond the reach of the laws of contract and of tort.”  It also legalised peaceful picketing, that particular form of persuasion with which a democratic age has become only too familiar.

In these years I had other holiday trips abroad; some with my family to France and Switzerland, and two with my friend, John Kilkelly.  One of these two was to Denmark and Germany; the other to Monte Carlo and the Riviera.  In Germany, at Altona, we saw the Kaiser “in shining armour,” fresh from the autumnal review of his troops, though indeed I should scarcely say fresh, for he looked tired and pale, altogether different to the stern bronzed warrior depicted in his authorised photographic presentments which confronted us at every turn.  Kilkelly was a busy, but never seemed an overworked man, due I suppose to some constitutional quality he enjoyed.  Added to a good professional business of his own, he was Solicitor to the Midland, Crown Solicitor for County Armagh, Solicitor to the Galway County Council, and, in his leisure hours, farmed successfully some seven or eight hundred acres.  He had a fine portly presence, and though modesty itself, could not help looking as if he were somebody, like the stranger in London, accosted by Theodore Hook in the Strand, who was of such imposing appearance that the wit stopped him and said: “I beg your pardon, sir, but, may I ask, are you anybody in particular?”

At Monte Carlo we both lost money but revelled in abundant sunshine, and contemplated phases of humanity that to us were new and strange.  Soon we grew tired of the gaming table and its glittering surroundings, bade it adieu, and explored other parts of the Riviera, moving at our ease from scene to scene and from place to place.

Kilkelly was an excellent travelling companion, readily pleased, and taking things as they came with easy philosophy.  But never more shall we travel together, at home or abroad.  A year ago, at the age of 82, he passed from among us on the last long journey which we all must take.

Requiescat in pace!

In previous pages I have spoken of the manner in which the railways of Ireland had long been abused.  This abuse, as the years went on, instead of diminishing grew in strength if not in grace.  The Companies were strangling the country, stifling industry, thwarting enterprise; were extortionate, grasping, greedy, inefficient.  These were the things that were said of them, and this in face of what the railways were accomplishing, of which I have previously spoken.  Politics were largely at the bottom of it all, I am sure, and certain newspapers joined in the noisy chorus.  At length the House of Commons, during the Session of 1905, rewarded the agitators by adopting the following resolution:—

“That in the opinion of this House, excessive railway rates and defective transit facilities, generally, constitute a serious bar to the advancement of Ireland and should receive immediate attention from the Government with a view to providing a remedy therefor.”

This Resolution bore fruit, for in the ensuing year (1906), in the month of July, a Vice-Regal Commission was appointed to inquire into the subject, and the Terms of Reference to the Commission included these words:—

As the newspapers said, the Irish Railway Companies were put upon their trial.  As soon as the Commission was appointed the Companies (19 in number) assembled at the Railway Clearing House in Dublin to discuss the situation, and decide upon a course of action.  Unanimously it was resolved to act together and to make a common defence.  A Committee, consisting of the Chairman and General Managers of the seven principal companies, was appointed and invested with full power to act in the interest of all, as they should find desirable.  The Right Honourable Sir William (then Sir William) Goulding, Baronet, Chairman of the Great Southern and Western Railway, was appointed Chairman of the Committee.  I was appointed its Secretary, and Mr. Croker Barrington its Solicitor.  It was further decided that one general case for the associated railways should be prepared and presented to the Commission by one person, who should also (under the direction of the Committee) have charge of all proceedings connected with the Inquiry.  I, to my delight, was unanimously selected as that person, and to enable me to do the work properly, I was allowed to select three assistants.  My choice fell upon G. E. Smyth, John Quirey, and Joseph Ingram, and I could not have chosen better.  We were allotted an office in the Railway Clearing House; my assistants gave their whole time to the work, and I gravitated between Broadstone and Kildare Street, for of course I had to look after the Midland Great Western as well as the Commission business.  That I could not, like Sir Boyle Roche’s bird, be in two places at once, was my greatest disappointment.  I may record here that each of my assistants has since, to borrow an Americanism, “made good.”  Smyth is now Traffic Manager of the Great Southern and Western Railway; Quirey is Chief Accountant of the Midland Railway of England, and Ingram became Secretary of the Irish Clearing House, from which be has been recently promoted to an important position under the Ministry of Transport (Ireland).

Sir Charles Scotter was appointed Chairman of the Commission.  He was Chairman of the London and South Western Railway; had risen from the ranks in the railway service; had been a general manager, and was unquestionably a man of great ability; but he was handicapped by his age, which even then exceeded the Psalmist’s allotted span.  His health moreover was not good, and in less than six months after the completion of the work of the Commission, he departed this life at the age of 75.

Mr. George Shanahan, Assistant Secretary of the Board of Works, was the capable Secretary of the Commission.  He had the advantage of being a railwayman.  From the service of the Great Northern Railway, Robertson took him with him to the Board of Works in the year 1896.

Before the Commission began its public sittings it issued and freely circulated a printed paper entitled “Draft Heads of Evidence for Traders, Industrial Associations, Commercial and Public Bodies, etc.”  This paper invited complaints under various set headings and concluded with these words:—

The italics are mine.  We, rightly or wrongly, looked upon this paragraph as assuming the case against the Companies to have some foundation in fact and likely to bias neutral opinion against us, and when (after the hearing was concluded) three of the seven Commissioners reported that the evidence “led them to doubt whether expansion of traffic had been retarded,” we felt that our view was not without justification.  But I am anticipating the findings of the Commission, and perhaps, after all, the peculiar Terms of the Reference largely dictated the course of procedure which the Commission adopted.

The first public sitting was held in Dublin on the 12th of October, 1906, and the last in the same city on the 29th of January, 1909.  There were 95 public sittings in all; and 293 witnesses were examined, 29 of whom appeared on behalf of the Railway Companies.  The Reports of the Commissioners (for there were two—a Majority and a Minority Report) did not appear till the 4th of July, 1910, so from the time of its appointment until the conclusion of its work the Commission covered a period of four years, all but fourteen days.

To return to the Majority Report.  The Commissioners who signed it were of opinion that Ireland needed special treatment in regard to her railways and that public acquisition (not State acquisition) and public control of a unified railway system was the consummation to be desired.  In their view, if only this were accomplished blessings innumerable would ensue and all complaints would for ever cease.  As to the way in which this unification and public control were to be carried out, they recommended that an Irish Authority should be instituted to acquire the Irish Railways and work them as a single system, that this Authority should be a railway Board of twenty Directors, four nominated and sixteen elected; that the general terms of purchase be those prescribed by the Regulation of Railways Act of 1844; that the financial medium be a Railway Stock; and that such Stock be charged upon (1) The Consolidated Fund; (2) the net revenues of the unified railway system; (3) an annual grant from the Imperial Exchequer; and (4) a general rate to be struck by the Irish Railway Authority if and when required.

On the question of reductions in rates (reductions which the Majority Report strongly urged as necessary), they did not think that reductions were more likely to occur under public than under private ownership.  They suggested, further, that the official statistics of various countries showed that the fall in the average rate had been much greater on the privately owned railways of France and the United States than on the State-owned railways of Prussia, which were universally accepted as the most favourable example of State managed railways in the world.  They came to the conclusion, after hearing all the evidence, that the management of the principal Irish Companies was not inferior to that of similar companies in England and Scotland.  They narrated the many improvements (with which they seemed much impressed) that Irish Companies had in recent years effected for the benefit of the public and the good of the country, and said “they had spent money, and not always profitably, in endeavouring to promote the development of new industries.”  They considered the principle of private ownership should be maintained, believing that railways are better and more economically managed by directors responsible to their own shareholders than they would be under any form of State or popular control, and that administration on commercial principles was the best in the public interest.

In their opinion, however, the Irish railway system was faulty by reason of its sub-division into so many independent companies, and they recommended a policy of amalgamation, with the ultimate object of including the principal railways in one single system, and also, that certain lines classed as railways, but which were really tramways serving purely local interests, need not be incorporated with the general railway system.  Such amalgamation, they considered, need not be effected at one time, but should be accomplished gradually.  Failing amalgamation by voluntary effort within three years, compulsion should be resorted to.

Of the two I much preferred the Minority Report.  The working of the Irish railways (in accordance with its Recommendations) as business concerns on commercial principles, seemed to me both sound and sensible and the policy best calculated to serve the interests of the country.  I cannot, however, say that I concurred in that part of the Minority Report which proposed the welding of all the railways of Ireland into one great system.  In my humble opinion, the formation of three large systems—a Northern, a Midland and a Southern—was the desirable course to adopt.  This course would, at any rate, keep alive the spirit of emulation which, in itself, is a wholesome stimulant to enterprise and endeavour, as well as to economy.

The Majority Report, which amongst other things said, “We consider it obvious that Irish development will not be fully served by the railways until they cease to be commercial undertakings,” found favour mostly, I think, with those who looked upon Ireland as an exceptional country requiring eleemosynary treatment, and whose railways ought, in their view, to be placed beyond the ordinary healthy necessity of paying their way.  Our Chairman, the Honourable Richard Nugent, addressing his shareholders at the time, put the matter rather neatly.  He said: “The case, as recommended by the Majority Report, stands thus—the Government to find the money for purchasing the railways; the Government to guarantee the interest on the capital cost; the County Councils to work the railways on uncommercial lines; the Government to pay to the extent of £250,000 a year any deficiency incurred by uncommercial management; and any further annual losses to be paid by the County Councils striking a general rate, which you and I and all of us would be required to pay.”  He added, “Does this seem a businesslike proposal?”

Were we living in ordinary times, had there been no world-wide war, with its vast upheavals and colossal changes, it would be both interesting and profitable to further discuss the Reports, their conclusions and recommendations; but the war has altered the whole railway situation, and it would be idle to do so now.  Victor Hugo says: “Great events have incalculable consequences,” which is unquestionably true in respect of the railways and the war.  The vital question now in regard, not only to the railways of Ireland, but to the railways of the whole United Kingdom, is as to their future.  It is, however, with the Irish railways I am specially concerned, and of them I may pretend to have a little knowledge, which must be my excuse for saying a few words more on the subject.

In England the opinion is held that a proper balance between receipts and expenditure can be restored by increased charges and reduced expenditure.  This may be so in England, with its teeming population and its almost illimitable industrial resources.  As to that I venture no opinion, but Ireland is very differently situated.  It is mainly an agricultural country, and for most of its railways no such promising prospect can, it seems to me, be discerned.  To unduly increase rates would diminish traffic and induce competition by road and sea.  Past experience teaches this.

It used to be said that railway companies asserted, in justification of their rates, that they were fixed on the principle of “what the traffic could bear,” and the companies were reproached on the ground that the principle involved an injustice, but a principle which involved the imposition of rates beyond what the traffic could bear, could hardly be said to be either sound or just.  However that may be, the Government have imposed upon the Irish railways a burden of working expenses which they cannot bear.  What is the remedy?  Whatever course is adopted, it is devoutly to be hoped that it will be fair and just to the proprietors of a railway system, which has done so much for Ireland, and in respect of which the proprietors have received on their capital an annual return averaging less than 4 per cent.!  No bloated capitalists these.  Irish railway shareholders largely consist of people of moderate means, and their individual holdings, on the Midland Great-Western, for example, average only £570 per shareholder.

Soon after the Vice-Regal Commission had concluded its public sittings, and long before its Reports were issued, I had the pleasure of receiving from the associated companies a cordial minute of appreciation of the work I had done, accompanied by a handsome cheque.  Nor was this mark of appreciation confined to me.  My friend, Croker Barrington, Solicitor to the Committee, who had given yeoman service, and my capable assistants, were not overlooked.

Sir William Goulding was proud of his chairmanship, and well he might be, for during the long and trying period of the Inquiry he kept his team well together and (no easy task) discharged the duties of Chairman with admirable tact and ability.  He was well entitled to the Resolution of cordial thanks which the associated companies accorded to him.  I should, I feel, be lacking in gratitude if I failed to acknowledge also the invaluable help afforded me by my brother managers, help ungrudgingly and unstintingly given.

The Irish railways did not stand still.  Their march along the path of progress and improvement continued sans interruption.  From 1906 to 1910 (the Commission period) railway business, measured by receipts, advanced in Ireland by seven per cent., compared with six per cent. in England and three per cent. in Scotland!

The Conference consists of the General Managers of all railways who are parties to the London Clearing House, which means all the principal railways of the United Kingdom.  Other Conferences there were such as the Goods Managers’, the Superintendents’, the Claims Conference, etc., but it was the General Managers’ Conference that dealt with the most important matters.

I remember that, in returning thanks for my election, I ventured on a few remarks which I thought appropriate to the occasion.  Amongst other things I said it was breaking new ground for the Conference to look to Ireland for a Pope, but that in doing so they exhibited a catholicity of outlook which did them honor; and I added that, in filling the high office to which they had elected me, though I should certainly never pretend to the infallibility of His Holiness, I should no doubt find it necessary at times to exercise his authority.  At ten o’clock in the morning this little attempt at pleasantry seemed to be rather unexpected, but it raised a laugh, which, of course, was something to the good.  The Conference was a businesslike assembly that prided itself on getting through much work with little talk—an accomplishment uncommon at any time, and particularly uncommon in these latter days.  In these restless days when—

“What this troubled old world needs,
Is fewer words and better deeds.”

My year of office quickly passed and I got through it without discredit, indeed my successor to the chair, Sir (then Mr.) Sam Fay, writing me just after his election, said that I “had won golden opinions,” and expressed the hope that he would do as well.  Of course he did better, for he was far more experienced than I in British railway affairs, and this was only his modesty.  My friend Sir William (then Mr.) Forbes was my immediate predecessor as Chairman, and to him I was indebted for the suggestion to the Conference that I should succeed him in the occupancy of the chair.

In the autumn of 1910 I visited the English Lakes and spent a fortnight in that beautiful district, in the company, for the first few days, of Walter Bailey; and during the latter part of the fortnight, with E. A. Pratt as a companion.  It was the last holiday Bailey and I spent together, though happily at various intervals we afterwards met and dined together in London, and our letters to each other only ended with his lamented death.

In the year 1913 a new form of Railway Accounts came into operation.  This new form became compulsory for all railways by the passing, in 1911, of the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act.  This Act is the last general railway enactment that I shall have to mention, for no legislation of importance affecting railways was passed between 1911 and 1913; and since the war began no such legislation has even been attempted, excepting always the Ways and Communications Bill which, as I write, is pursuing its course through the House of Commons.

(1) All information relating to the subsidiary enterprises of a company to be shown separately to that relating to the railway itself

(2) A strict separation to be made of the financial statements from those which were of a purely statistical character

The first of these alterations had become desirable from the fact that practically all the larger railway companies had, in the course of years, added to their railway business proper such outside enterprises as steamships, docks, wharves, harbours, hotels, etc.

One bright morning, in the autumn of 1911, I was summoned to the telephone by my friend the Right Honorable Laurence A. Waldron, then a Director of the Dublin and Kingstown Railway, and now its Chairman.  He said there was a vacancy on the Kingstown Board; and, supposing the seat was offered to me, would I be free to accept it?  As everybody knows, it is not usual for a railway manager, so long as he remains a manager, to be a director of his own or of any other company; so, “I must consult my Chairman,” said I.  The Dublin and Kingstown being a worked, not a working line, the duties of its directors, though important are not onerous, and my Chairman and Board readily accorded their consent.  Such was my first happy start as a railway director.

The atmospheric system of working railways found favour for a time, and was tried on the West London Railway, on the South Devon system, and in other parts of Great Britain, also in France, but nowhere was it permanently successful.  The reason of the failure of the system on the Dalkey extension, Mr. Waldron tells me (and he knows all about his railway, as a Chairman should) was due to the impossibility of keeping the metal disc airtight.  The disc, shaped like a griddle, was edged with leather which had to be heavily greased to enable it to be drawn through the pipe from which the air was pumped out, in order to create a vacuum, and the rats, like nature, abhorring a vacuum, gnawed the greasy leather, letting in the air, and bringing the train to a standstill!

The Kingstown Railway was also interesting in another respect, as illustrating the opposition which confronted railways in those early days.  There was a Mr. Thomas Michael Gresham, who was the owner of the well-known Gresham Hotel in Dublin, and largely interested in house property in Kingstown—Gresham Terrace there is called after him.  He organised a successful opposition to the Dublin and Kingstown Railway being allowed—though authorised by Parliament—to go into Kingstown, and its terminus was for some years Salthill Station (Monkstown) a mile away.  Mr. Gresham’s action was so highly appreciated—incredible as it now appears—that he was presented with a testimonial and a piece of plate for his “spirited and patriotic action.”  I have adorned this book with a photograph of the salver which, with the inscription it bears, will I think, in these days, be not uninteresting.