Against the “Sootbag System” and Treatment of Third Class Passengers

EPEATEDLY have we denounced the ‘sootbag’ system which certain Railway Managements, with the view avowedly of disgusting the public with their third-class conveyances and driving them into the higher priced vehicles, seem desirous to introduce, and we have done so as well from regard to the character of the Companies generally as from a feeling of what is due to the parties so contemptuously, so unjustifiably, treated. To the credit of Railway Boards be it said, the animus that would prompt to the suggestion—even though it were but in “joke”—of so cruel a remedy for an admitted grievance is very rarely displayed, and we believe very rarely exists. By far the larger number participate in the sentiments expressed by one of the Directors of the London and Birmingham Railway Company, when it was formally determined to run third-class trains upon that line, namely, that it is the duty of the Companies to extend, as far as they can, the accommodation of the poorer classes of society, even should little or no profit accrue from that branch of their business; and acting in this spirit several of the Managements have recently, we rejoice to say, voluntarily added to the comforts of the humbler class of their customers. It may chance that their kindness is occasionally abused, but better that it should be thus—better that one rich curmudgeon should descend from the first-class carriage to the third than that twenty third-class passengers should be subjected to unnecessary suffering and unmerited contumely in the hope of driving two of them into a vehicle of a somewhat higher fare.

While, however, we advocate the adoption of a system of decent — nay, liberal — treatment of those whose circumstances compel them to travel at the lowest possible charge, we are far from joining in the outcry which is raised in some quarters against the inferior accommodation of third-class trains upon each and every line of railway in the kingdom. The third-class carriages (and for that matter, the second-class carriages too) are much less comfortable than the first class. Granted; but is the disproportion greater between the conveniences of the two than between the charges made for them respectively 2 We unhesitatingly answer “No.” If the first-class passenger ride more at his ease than his second-class neighbour, he pays amply for the added luxury. The rich man's mansion is a more desirable dómicile than the poor man's hut, but who would be mad enough to maintain that the occupant of the latter had good ground to complain of the difference. If those who now are compelled to ride in third class carriages ought under a better arrangement of society to be able to travel by the second class, the fault does not rest with the Railway Companies that it is not so. The Companies have a commodity to dispose of, which costs them money; and in the locomotive market, as in all others, the quality of the article must be measured by the pockets of the customers. It would be well if third-class carriages could be rendered equally commodious and equally comfortable as the first-class now in existence (the latter being, if possible, still further improved), but the short and sufficient answer is, that the Companies cannot afford it—just as it would be preposterous to expect that the worthy landlord of the London tavern should supply refreshment on the same terms as mine host of the “Pig and Whistle.” When Railway Companies are reaping immense profits (we wish we could see even the shadow of the coming event) the public will have a right to call upon them to supply a better article at the price, or to take the matter into their own hands, and patronise rival establishments, but so long as it is shown that money's worth is given for the money that in justice to themselves the Companies cannot, as we said before, afford to give more, and above all that from no other quarter can the public be supplied on more favourable terms, we do think that it ought not to be numbered among the transgressions of Railway Boards that they are niggardly in their arrangements for the general convenience.

We have been led to a reiteration of these truisms—for how self-evident soever may be a series of generally admitted truths, they are too frequently overlooked in practice—we have been led, we say, to these remarks from the perusal of a petition recently presented to the House of Commons by “SAMUEL COBHAM” and thirteen others, complaining of the regulations at present adopted on railways, and praying for the adoption of certain specified provisions in the general measure now before the House. The petitioners represent that, as frequent travellers by second and third-class trains, they are subjected to “various and unnecessary losses, injuries, and annoyances,” and in some of their representations we feel disposed to agree; but they have mixed up their real grievances with an exaggeration of statement which, in our opinion, is neither just towards the Companies, nor likely to prove useful to those in whose behalf the appeal to the consideration of the legislature is professedly made. For example, what can be in worse taste, or more opposed to fact, than the reiterated assertion that the Companies are anxious to “wring as much money as possible” out of the pockets of the second and third-class passengers—that they expose this class “unnecessarily and purposely to the inclemency of the weather”—that “the engine-drivers are desired to loiter on the journey in order to keep” such passengers “the longer exposed to the cold and wet,” these things being done “for no other purpose than but purposely to make the journey as tedious and annoying as possible,” and to make the passengers “as wretched and as miserable as possible, and they [the Companies] heap upon us [the second and third-class passengers] all the contumely and neglect that they can, in order to degrade us as much as possible.” Who but the petitioners does not see that if Railway Directors were guilty of such practices as are here imputed to them, they would be taking the most direct course to injure their own interests And for what purpose, except for the sake of exciting the prejudices of one class of society against another, is allusion made to “those by whose severe and persevering labour all the railways have been made, and by whose toil, and unrequited toil too, everything which the rich enjoy is produced. What has the “unrequited toil” of the great mass of society — if unrequited, or inadequately requited it be — to do with the arrangements of Railway Companies? The feeling which these tirades display, and the charge of “ignoble and low cunning displayed by the Railway Companies,” are most reprehensible. The petitioners and other parties who indulge in such misrepresentations are, in truth, the worst enemies which the humbler classes of the community could have. The whole petition is pervaded by similar exhibitions of fretful and unfounded fault-finding, but the specimens given above will suffice.

And then, mark the “lame and impotent conclusions” at which the petitioners arrive! They pray the House to introduce into the Bill now pending such measures as may remove the grievances complained of, and they suggest the following propositions, which they think would “nearly remove” such complaints, and benefit the Companies besides

“1st. That no Railway Company, or other persons or person, should be allowed to carry passengers by railway, except in inclosed carriages.

“2nd. That two out of every three trains should carry all classes of passengers which are conveyed by such Railway Companies.

“3rd. That no train should be allowed to be called and denominated a mixed train, except such as carried all classes of passengers.

“4th. That the time and fare bills of such Railway Companies should be as full and as explicit as possible.”

As regards the first proposition, it would have been much more complete had the petitioners suggested to the House that no coach proprietor or steam-boat owner should be allowed to carry outside or deck passengers; and as to the second, if the Companies were compelled to “carry all classes of passengers” by every train, or by “two out of every three trains,” what is to prevent them, we ask, from charging as much for the third-class carriages on these occasions as otherwise would be charged for the second, and for the second, the same, or nearly the same, fare as for the first? Then with respect to the third proposition, what matters it how a train is “called and denominated,” so that there be a specified amount of accommodation supplied ? As for the fourth suggestion, we daresay there are few Railway Companies that do not consider their time and fare-bills already “as full and as explicit as possible;” but if not, the petitioners have somewhat miscalculated the fitting time for their present application. Had the proposition been made during the predominance of the late Administration, we might have looked for the appointment of a roving commission to settle the weighty matters of time-tables and fare bills; but under the PEEL rule, we fear the Companies must in these respects be left to manage their own affairs in their own way, and as in common with every other class of persons connected with commercial pursuits, their pe. cuniary success must mainly depend upon the mode in which they conduct their business, some persons will be inclined to think that such arrangements could not be left in more competent or more interested hands. How loudly does it speak in favour of the Companies when, after all the charges brought against them, the only points upon which legislation can be suggested are those upon which legislation is manifestly impracticable! [357-58]

Related material

Bibliography

Railway Times. 5 (1842): 357-58. Hathi Trust online version of a copy in the University of Michigan Library. Web. 3 September 2018.

Last modified 3 September 2018