THE 1848 ENGINE DRIVERS’ DISPUTE IN THE NEWSPAPERS

The background to the dispute and the first week of industrial action

Though short-lived, lasting for less than a month, references to the London & North Western Railway Southern Division engine drivers’ dispute of 1848 can be found both in literature about the LNWR and more general discussion of the growth of railway trade unionism.¹ Much of the information about the dispute has been gleaned from LNWR Committee Books, but for the general public newspapers were the main source of information and as the Chairman of the LNWR Board, W. Carr Glyn, said to the 1848 Half-Yearly shareholders’ meeting, which took place while the dispute was in progress, it had “occupied the attention of the public very considerably”.^2]. Both the LNWR management and the enginemen used the newspapers to put their case and the growth of searchable newspaper databases allows this aspect of the dispute to be examined in more detail. The newspaper reports touch not only on industrial relations, but also on the practical issues the LNWR faced in maintaining services when most of its existing footplate staff were working out their notices. This article draws on three databases, those for The Times, The Observer/Guardian and nineteenth century British newspapers from the British Library.

Throughout the dispute the LNWR management sought to reassure potential travellers through letters in the press that travel remained safe, experienced replacement staff were being recruited and that disruption would be minimised. The enginemen held almost daily meetings throughout the dispute. At these, contributions by numerous named drivers and other staff, drawing on their own information and experiences, sought to highlight the alleged dangers of the management’s strategy. The press attended and reported on the proceedings. The press also attempted to be present at some meetings between the LNWR management and the enginemen, but were refused entry by the company.

Ostensibly the dispute was a culmination of a struggle between the enginemen and, particularly, the Superintendent of the Southern Division, James Edward McConnell, about a new wage structure. Previously drivers were paid 6s [30p] per day for the first six months in post, 6s 6d daily for the following six months, 7s for the next twelve months and pay then increased by 2d per day each year till a maximum wage of 8s per day was attained. Men promoted to driver from fireman had a slightly different incremental structure, with 8s daily again being the maximum payment. Length of service, therefore, was the main determinant of wages³.

McConnell wanted an alternative structure of grades which had limitations in number. Twenty drivers, paid 8s per day, would form the highest, special class. Forty drivers would be in the first class, paid 7s 6d daily. Only drivers in these two classes would take passenger trains. There would be thirty second class at 7s, 30 third class at 6s 6d daily and twenty fourth class promoted from firemen at 5s 6d daily rising to 6s after six months. The firemen would have a similarly structured wage scale. The nature of the driver’s work would determine which pay scale he was placed within and movement from one scale to the next would depend on seniority and suitability rather than actual length of service.³ The company claimed that the net effect of the new structure would be to raise the average weekly wage of both drivers and firemen: engine drivers from £1 18s 9d to £2 1s 9d and firemen from 19s 9d to £1 1s.³

The drivers’ main concern was not the wage structure itself but the power they felt it gave McConnell either to demote a driver to a lower rate as a disciplinary measure, or to manipulate the disciplinary system to bring wages down. According to Mr. Marshall, who acted as secretary to the enginemen, “this was no strike for increased wages. Instead of fining the men £1 or 10s, or any other sum, for misconduct, as was done by Mr. This echoed the views of Jonas Browne, who chaired the meetings of the enginemen, that McConnell’s planned structure “reserves the power to himself to reduce any man to the lowest scale, and leaving it to his discretion whether such man shall ever be allowed to rise again”. The drivers pointed to McConnell’s tenure as Superintendent of the Birmingham & Gloucester Railway, where he had “discharged every engineman and fireman, with the exception of two enginemen and two firemen who accepted his reduction at that time of 8d a day, the highest pay on that line being 6s 8d a day”.