Fifty Years of Railway Life in England, Scotland and Ireland Part 10

Between the London and North-Western and the Midland Great-Western much good feeling existed. They were natural allies, both greatly interested in the trade and prosperity of Ireland, and of the port of Dublin in particular. As time went on many matters of mutual interest brought me into close relation with the North-Western general manager and other prominent officers of the company.

CHAPTER XXII.

A RAILWAY CONTEST, THE PARCEL POST, AND THE BOARD OF TRADE

The long-looked for fight in the Committee Rooms at Westminster came at last, as most things that are eagerly looked and longed for do. In May, 1892, a Bill, promoted jointly by the Midland Great-Western and Athenry and Ennis Railway Companies, was considered by a Select Committee of the House of Lords. It was a Bill for the acquisition by the Midland of the Ennis Railway (a line from Athenry to Ennis, 36 miles long), worked but not owned by the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company. The Midland were anxious to buy and the Ennis were willing to sell, but Parliament alone could legalise the bargain. To the Waterford and Limerick, the bare idea of giving up possession of the fair Ennis to their rival the Midland was gall and wormwood; and so they opposed the project with might and main, and they were a.s.sisted in their opposition by certain public bodies, some thought as much for the excitement of a skirmish in the Committee Rooms as anything else. The working agreement between the Waterford and Limerick and the Ennis Companies, which had lasted for ten years or so, was expiring; the Ennis Company had grown tired of the union; the Midland had held out to her certain glowing prospects, which had captivated her maiden fancy, and so she was a consenting party to the Midland scheme. The Ennis line, in the Midland eyes, was a prize worth fighting for, forming, as it did, part of a route from Dublin to Limerick in compet.i.tion with the Great Southern and Western, a company between which and the Midland, at that time, little love was lost. Those were the days when compet.i.tive traffic, gained almost at any cost, was sweet as stolen kisses are said to be.

The proceedings opened on Monday, 16th May. _Ennis_ was as familiar to the Committee Rooms as the suit of _Jarndyce and Jarndyce_ was to the Court of Chancery. In 1880 the Midland had also sought by Bill to obtain the fair Ennis (with her consent) but had failed; in 1890 the Waterford and Limerick (against her wishes) had essayed to do the same and failed also, and in years long prior to these, other attempts had been made with the like result. But to proceed: our leading counsel were Sir Ralph (then Mr.) Littler; Mr. Pember, Mr. Pope and other leaders, and a host of juniors being arrayed against us. The straitened circ.u.mstances of the Waterford and Limerick; its dearth of rolling stock; its inefficient ways; its failure to satisfy the public; the admitted superiority of the Midland and all its works; the splendid results which would "follow as the night the day," if only Parliament would be wise enough to sanction a union which the public interest demanded and commonsense approved--these were the points on which our counsel exercised their forensic skill, expended their eloquence, and to which they directed the evidence.

Amongst our supporters we had some excellent witnesses, one, a well-known cattle dealer, named Martin Ryan. The question of _running powers_ was prominent throughout the case and had been much debated and discussed.

Ryan's evidence was not, however, concerned with this, but in his cross- examination, relative to something he had stated in his evidence-in-chief, he was asked this question: "If a beast got on to the line as a train came along, what would happen to the beast?" "It would exercise its running powers," answered Mr. Ryan, amidst great laughter.

As good as Stephenson's answer about the "coo," said Mr. Pope.

On the fourth day of the proceedings I made my _debut_ as a Parliamentary witness. In the preparation of my evidence I had expended much time and trouble, keeping well in mind the way in which Mr. Wainwright used to prepare his. Before my examination-in-chief concluded, a short adjournment for lunch took place--a scramble at the refreshment bars in the lobbies, where wig and gown elbowed with all and sundry; where cold beef, cold tongue, cold pie, and, coldest of all cold comestibles, cold custard, were swallowed in hot haste, washed down with milk and soda, or perhaps with something stronger. "Quick lunches" they were with a vengeance. Time was money, and in the brief interval allowed, more than lunch had to be discussed. Sir Ralph, Mr. Findlay (who was helping us) and I, had our hasty lunch together. When it was over we discussed the morning's proceedings, and Mr. Findlay, to my great satisfaction, said I was doing well--very well indeed, for a first appearance. Then, in a kind and fatherly way, he gave me some good advice: Don't show too much eagerness, he said: don't go quite so much into detail; keep on broader lines; speak deliberately and very distinctly; make your points as plain as a pikestaff; rub them well in; don't try to make too many points, but stick fast to the important ones. You've a good manner in the box, he said; remember these things and you'll make an excellent witness. Then he added: above all, whilst giving your leading evidence never forget the _cross_ that has to follow. Be always as frank as you can, and never lose command of your temper. These were not his very words. I do not pretend that he expressed himself with such sententious brevity, though he never wasted speech, but they are the pith and marrow of his admonitions. For twenty years or so from then nearly every session saw me in the Committee Rooms, not always on the business of my own company, as other Irish railway companies on several occasions sought my help in their Parliamentary projects. Mr. Findlay's advice I never forgot.

In the afternoon my cross-examination began. The final question put to me by our counsel was: "Lastly, if this amalgamation is carried out, do you think the public would be served by it, and if so, how?" This appeared to me a great chance for a little speech, so I summed up as forcibly and graphically as I could all the advantages that would follow if the Bill were pa.s.sed. Then my cross-examination commenced, and the first words addressed to me, by Mr. Pembroke Stephens, were: "I do not think that one could have made a better speech oneself, if one had been on your side." "Not half so good," said Mr. Littler in a stage whisper.

I thought Mr. Stephens spoke satirically, but remembered Mr. Findlay's advice, and if I flushed inwardly, as I believe I did, no outward sign escaped me. After Mr. Stephens, three other opposing counsel fired their guns, but I withstood their shot and sh.e.l.l, and when I came out of the box Mr. Findlay said I had done well. This was praise enough for me.

Then he gave his evidence in his usual masterly convincing way and I listened in admiration.

We made a good fight I know, the odds were in our favour and success seemed a.s.sured. Our opponents then presented their case, and still we felt no doubt; but Fortune is a fickle jade and at the last she left us in the lurch. On the eighth day of the proceedings the Chairman announced: "The Committee are of opinion that it is not expedient to proceed with the Bill." This was the _coup de grace_. No reasons are ever given by a Committee for their decision and the contending parties are left to imagine them. The losing side sometimes has the hardihood to think a decision is wrong. I believe we thought so; and I know that _Ennis_, who was thus doomed to a further period of single blessedness, thought the same.

In a previous chapter I have spoken of the _Parcel Post Act_ of 1882, and mentioned the share of the receipts apportioned to the railway companies of the United Kingdom. The Act also prescribed the manner in which this share was to be divided amongst the respective railways. When it was devised the method seemed fair to all, and had the consent of all. But the best of theories do not always stand the test of practice and so it was found in this case. It did not suit Ireland. We discovered that the Irish railways were, in equity, ent.i.tled to more than the scheme awarded them, and Mr. Alcorn, the Accountant of the Great Southern and Western Railway, discovered the way to set the matter right; but it could not be righted without the consent of the Parcel Post Conference, a body which sat at the Railway Clearing House in London, and was composed of the managers of all the railways parties to the parcel post scheme, some eighty or so in number. On the 10th November, 1892, we brought our case before that body, and Colhoun, Robertson and I were the spokesmen for the Irish Railways. On the previous day we had met Sir George Findlay (he had been knighted this year) and had satisfied him of the justice of our claim. He promised to support us. The meeting commenced at 10 o'clock.

We made our speeches, which were not long, for our printed statement had been in each member's hands for some time. Clear as our case was to us the Conference seemed unconvinced, and we began to fear an adverse vote.

Sir George was not present, something had happened, for he was not the man to disappoint his friends without grave cause. Voting seemed imminent. Robertson whispered to me, "For heaven's sake, Tatlow, get on your legs again and keep the thing going; Findlay may be here any moment." I was supposed to be the glibbest of speech of our party, and up I got. But Mr. Thompson (afterwards Sir James), the _beau_, was in the chair, and thought there had been talking enough. However, like the Irishman I was not, I went on, and--at that moment entered Sir George!

The scene was changed; the day was won! A Sub-Committee of seven, three of whom were Colhoun, Robertson and myself, was appointed to follow up the matter, and ultimately the Irish proposal was adopted.

It was a very busy period, this year of 1892, and as interesting as busy.

On the 20th June the _Railway Rates and Charges (Athenry and Ennis Junction Railways) Order Confirmation Act_, 1892, received the Royal a.s.sent. It applied to all the railways in Ireland and contained the Revised Cla.s.sification and Maximum Rates and Charges settled after long inquiries under the _Railway and Ca.n.a.l Traffic Act_, 1888, and which were to control the future rates to be charged by the companies. Only six months were allowed in which to revise all rates and bring them into conformity with the new cla.s.sification and the new conditions--an absurdly short time, for the work involved was colossal. But it had to be done. Robert Morrison, Michael O'Neill and I, took off our coats and worked night and day. We had the satisfaction of accomplishing the task in the allotted time, which not every company was able to do. Generous, as always, Sir Ralph in his speech to the shareholders in February, 1893, said: "I wish to express that we are greatly indebted to Mr. Tatlow for the care and anxiety with which he has endeavoured to arrange this important rates matter. He has worked most energetically; has attended the Committees of the Board of Trade, and the Parliamentary Committee, and he is now seeing traders constantly. I may tell you that I and my brother directors place the most implicit reliance on our manager, and I am satisfied that anything he has done has been reasonable to the traders and for the benefit of the shareholders." This was warm praise, and the more welcome, being, as it was, the spontaneous expression of what I knew he felt.

My meetings with the traders usually, but not invariably, resulted in friendly settlements. The great firm of Guinness and Company were not so easily satisfied, and offered a _stout_ resistance which correspondence and conference failed to overcome. Under the Railway and Ca.n.a.l Traffic Act a mode of dealing with the _impa.s.se_ was provided by conciliation proceedings presided over by the Board of Trade. This we took advantage of, and after several meetings in London a compromise was effected. It was then that I met for the first time Mr. Francis Hopwood, who had just been appointed Secretary to the Railway Department of the Board of Trade.

I liked his way and thought that conciliation could not be in better hands than his.

The Board of Trade is more or less a mythical body, but very practical I found it on these and all other occasions. Its proper designation is, I believe, "Committee of Privy Council for Trade." This Committee was first appointed in Cromwell's time, and was revised under Charles II., as "Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Foreign Plantations," under which t.i.tle it administered the Colonies. When the United States became independent, Burke in a scathing speech, moved and carried the abolition of this paid Committee, which included Gibbon as its Secretary. However, the Board of Trade could not be spared, and so it was restored by Order in Council in 1786. Under that order the princ.i.p.al officers of State, and certain members of the Privy Council, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, have, _ex officio_, seats on the Committee, although no record exists of His Grace having ever left his arduous duties at Lambeth to attend the Committee. Its jurisdiction extended as trade and commerce developed and railways appeared on the scene, and gradually it was divided into departments, and so the _Board of Trade_ came into being.

Like Topsy it "grow'd." The Board of Trade is, in fact, a mere name, the president being practically the secretary for trade, the vice-president having, for 50 years past, been a Parliamentary secretary with duties similar to those of an under-secretary of State. At present, besides the president (who has usually a seat in the Cabinet), the Parliamentary secretary and a permanent secretary, there are six a.s.sistant secretaries (in late war time many more), each in charge of a department.

In charge of the railway department in 1893 was, as I have said, Mr.

Francis Hopwood. He became Sir Francis in 1906, and from then onwards advanced from office to office and from honour to honour, until, during his secretaryship of the Irish Convention in 1917, his public services were rewarded with a peerage. As railway secretary of the Board of Trade he was particularly distinguished for tact, strength and moderation.

Singularly courteous and obliging on all occasions, I, personally, have been much indebted to him for help and advice.

But all was not sunshine and happiness in this busy year of 1892. A dark cloud of sorrow overshadowed it. On a fateful day in January I lost, with tragic suddenness, the younger of my two sons, a bright amiable boy, of a sunny nature and gentle disposition. He was accidentally killed on the railway.

CHAPTER XXIII.

THE "RAILWAY NEWS," THE INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY CONGRESS, AND A TRIP TO SPAIN AND PORTUGAL

In Chapter XX I recorded the death of my old friend W. F. Mills, which took place whilst I was writing that chapter. Now, as I pen these lines, I hear of the loss of another old familiar railway friend; not indeed a sentient being like you, dear reader, or him or me, yet a friend that lacked neither perception nor feeling.

The _Railway News_ on Sat.u.r.day, the 30th day of November, 1918, issued its last number, and, as a separate ent.i.ty, ceased to be, its existence then merging into that of the _Railway Gazette_. I am sad and sorry for I knew it well. For forty years it was my week-end companion; for ten years or more, in the April of life, I contributed regularly to its pages; and never, during all the years, have its columns been closed to my pen. One of its editors, F. McDermott, has long been my friend, and its first editor, Edward McDermott, his father, a grand old man, was kind to me in my salad days and encouraged my budding scribbling proclivities.

He and Samuel Smiles, the author of _Self Help_ (then Secretary of the South Eastern Railway), were, in 1864, its joint founders.

"Death," the Psalmist saith, "is certain to all." In 1893, the railway world lost one whom it could ill spare. In the month of March, after a short illness, Sir George Findlay died at the early age of 63. Gifted of the G.o.ds, in the midst of his work, young in mind and spirit, his faculties in full vigour, he was suddenly called away. His funeral, I need not say, was attended by railway men from all parts of the kingdom.

I was one of those who travelled to London to follow his remains to their resting place.

Further public railway legislation was enacted in 1893 and 1894, and four important Acts were pa.s.sed. The first was the _Railway Regulation Act_, 1893. It dealt with the hours of labour of railway servants, a subject which for some time previously had been enjoying the attention of the Press. It culminated in the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee. In February, 1891, a Select Committee, consisting of 24 members, with Sir Michael Hicks Beach as chairman, was formed, "To inquire whether, and if so, in what way, the hours of railway servants should be restricted by legislation." The Committee examined numerous railway servants and officials, and reported to Parliament, in June, 1892. I was summoned by the Committee to give evidence and appeared before them in London on 24th March of that year. My business was to furnish facts concerning the hours of duty of the employees on my own railway and the conditions of their work. This I did pretty fully and embraced the opportunity of showing how different were the circ.u.mstances of Irish railways compared with English, and how legislation suitable to one country might be very unsuitable to the other. It scarcely needed saying that England was an industrial country whilst Ireland was agricultural; that England, with 620 people to the square mile, was thickly populated and Ireland with 135 spa.r.s.ely; that population meant trains and traffic; that in England railway traffic amounted to about 7,000 pounds per mile per annum and in Ireland a little over 1,000 pounds; that in Ireland on many lines not more than five or six trains ran each way daily, and on others only three or four, whilst in England, on most lines, the _hourly_ number exceeded these. When the Committee rose Sir Michael engaged me, informally, in conversation for a little while. He was curious concerning some of the facts I had adduced, particularly as to the Midland line and the country it served.

In their report the Committee stated they had confined their inquiry to the hours of duty of those cla.s.ses of railway servants that were engaged in working traffic, viz., drivers, firemen, guards, signalmen, shunters, platelayers and porters, and had not dealt with other cla.s.ses; a wise distinction I thought. It was much easier, they said, to regulate the hours of persons occupying fixed posts of duty within reasonable limits, than those of the running staff on railways, on account of the variety in the nature of the work. They reported also that they were unable to recommend a "legal day," as they considered it would be found impracticable owing to the number of cases which must necessarily be admitted as exceptions to any fixed limit of hours, adding that the hours of railway servants engaged in working traffic cannot be regulated like those in a factory, which, I may add, experience has abundantly shown. I believe, and have always believed, in reasonable working hours, and have often worked unreasonably long hours myself in endeavouring to arrange them for others; and more than once when I have re-arranged a rota for drivers, firemen and guards, to my own satisfaction, I have been begged by the men concerned not to make any change and to let well alone; not, of course, because the new rota gave shorter hours, but because it prevented the men from getting to their homes or interfered with something else that suited them. Sometimes I gave way to the men and sometimes I stuck to my revised rota. Every case varied and required special consideration. The Committee also said: "It is universally admitted that the railway service is very popular under existing conditions; and several railway servants who appeared as witnesses protested vigorously against any interference by Government or the Legislature." State interference, I know, is the fashion now; but the blind worship of _any fashion_ is but weakness and folly.

The Act of 1893 was the outcome of the Report. It provided that on representation being made to the Board of Trade that the hours of any railway servants were excessive, the Board might inquire into the complaint, and order the company concerned to submit an amended schedule of time and duty for such servants, and if the railway company failed to comply with the order the matter might then be referred to the Railway Commisioners whose order the company must obey under a penalty of 100 pounds a day. I do not think any company was ever fined; nor do I, indeed, remember the Commissioners services being required. If they were, the occasions were few and far between, as the companies generally loyally carried out the provisions of the Act.

In 1894 was pa.s.sed the _Notice of Accidents Act_. Where any person employed in the construction, use, working or repair of any railway, tramroad, tramway, gas works, ca.n.a.l bridge, tunnel, harbour, dock or other work authorised by Parliament, suffered (it said) an accident causing loss of life or bodily injury, the employer must notify the Board of Trade, and if the Board of Trade considered the case of sufficient importance, they may (it provided) direct the holding of a formal inquiry; a report of such inquiry to be presented to the Board of Trade, which may (it stated) be made public in such manner as they think fit. As far as accidents to railway servants were concerned, I can vouch that these inquiries were pretty often held, and the companies, concerned always for the safety of their employees, never did other than welcome them.

The _Railway and Ca.n.a.l Traffic Act_, 1894, was an Act to _amend_ (save the mark!) _The Railway and Ca.n.a.l Traffic Act_, 1888. Its effect, in fact, was to embitter instead of amend. It was, as I have previously indicated, panic legislation yielded in haste to unreasonable clamour, unfair to the railways, and of doubtful advantage to traders. I will say no more lest I say too much.

The fourth of these enactments was the _Diseases of Animals Act_, 1894.

It invested the Board of Agriculture with further powers to make orders and regulations respecting animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia or foot- and-mouth disease, particularly with regard to markets, fairs, transit and slaughter houses; for securing the providing of water and food; and for cleansing and disinfecting vessels, vehicles and pens. As regards Ireland the powers were vested in the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council, and on the establishment of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland, in the year 1899, were transferred to that body.

The International Railway Congress a.s.sociation is an interesting if not an ancient body. It dates back to the year 1885. Gallant little Belgium was its parent. In 1885, the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the first public railway on the Continent of Europe (the line between Brussels and Malines) was celebrated at Brussels by a Congress convened on the invitation of the Belgian Government, and this meeting was the beginning of the now worldwide a.s.sociation. At the first a.s.sembly at Brussels "the study of technical and administrative questions for railways" was the avowed object in view; and it has been the serious purpose of every Congress since. But gradually pleasant relaxations, such as lunches, dinners, dances and excursions, for wives and daughters accompanying husbands and fathers graced these gatherings of railway wisdom. During the first ten years the sessions were bi-annual, but since 1895 have been held every five years. Brussels, Milan, Paris, St.

Petersburg, London, Washington and Berne have each been the scene of their celebration, and Paris has been favoured twice. For 1915 Berlin was the capital selected, but the war decided against that; and when Berlin shall see the world's railway representatives a.s.sembled within her gates only a very bold man will venture to prophesy.

The Congress is composed of some 420 railway systems represented by nearly 1,500 delegates; and any railway company, the wide world over, that possesses a mileage of 62 miles or more is competent for membership.

In addition to holding Sessions the Congress publishes a monthly Bulletin (or did prior to the war), containing, besides original articles on all questions relating to the construction, operation, and organisation of railways, reproductions of interesting articles published in the railway and engineering papers of any nation, as well as notices of books and pamphlets on railway questions. The Bulletin contains also all reports prepared for the various Sessions of the Congress and minutes of the discussions. It was a great gathering that the late King Edward (then Prince of Wales) opened on June the 26th, 1895, when the Congress was in London. The scene was the Imperial Inst.i.tute, and the meetings lasted till July the 9th. From all parts of the globe delegates came. All was not dull routine for British hospitality abounded and the companies vied with each other in worthy entertainments, and Her Majesty the Queen saw fit to signalise the occasion by giving a garden party in its honour.

Mr. W. M. Acworth, the well-known writer on railway economics, and a keen but friendly critic of railway affairs, was appointed Secretary to the English Section of the Congress, and to him fell the princ.i.p.al work connected with the Session. His scholarly and linguistic attainments and his varied travels, fitted him well for the task. My eldest son, then a youth of 18, just entered the railway service, had the good fortune to be selected as one of Mr. Acworth's a.s.sistants. He had not long finished his education in France, and spoke the language fluently, which, of course, was a recommendation. It was valuable experience to him as well as delightful work. He conducted several parties of delegates through various parts of England and Ireland in connection with the many excursions that were arranged for their pleasure and profit. The weather was very hot, and railway travelling at times oppressive, even to delegates from the sunny land of France, and _shandy-gaff_, a beverage new to most of the visitors, was in great request. Said a French delegate one day to my son, as the train was approaching Rugby: "Oh!

M'sieu Tatlow, the weather it is so hot; will you not at Rugby give us some of your beautiful _char-a-banc_?" On another occasion he was asked if he would "be so kind as to give the _recipe_ for making that beautiful toast."

At the close of the session in London, a number of the foreign delegates, at the invitation of the Irish Railway Companies, visited Ireland, and were shown its railways, and its beauty spots from east to west, from north to south. It is not too much to say they were greatly impressed.

The splendid scenery that surrounds the island like a beautiful frame, delighted them, and the excellence of the Irish railways was no little surprise. They did not expect to see such fine carriages, such handsome dining saloons, nor such permanent way and stations. Of course we showed them our best and the best was very good. Ireland is often accused of neglecting her opportunities, but never her hospitality. On this occasion, personified by her railway companies, she neglected neither, and in the latter surpa.s.sed herself.

In the autumn of this year I was able to gratify my taste for travel by a longer excursion than usual. Hitherto my furthest flights had been to Paris, Belgium, and Holland, but now I went as far as Spain and Portugal.

F. K. was my pleasant companion and we travelled, _via_ Paris, straight through to Madrid, where we stayed for a week at the Hotel de la Paix, in the bright and busy and sunny Puerto del Sol. In Madrid we visited the Royal Palace (or so much of it as was shown to the public--princ.i.p.ally the Royal stables); the Escurial; the Art Galleries and Museums; drove in the Buen Retiro; witnessed a bull fight, which rather sickened us when the horses, which never stood a chance in the contest, were ripped up by the bull; admired dark-eyed senoritas, their mantillas and coquettish fans, enjoyed the southern sunshine and the Spanish wines; and then left for Lisbon by an _express_ train that stopped at nearly every station. At Lisbon three or four days were pleasantly pa.s.sed, though we were annoyed sometimes by the crowd of persistent beggars that thronged the streets, and who, we were told, pursued their calling by license from the authorities. This was a small matter, however. He who travels should be proof against such minor annoyances. Then Oporto was visited, and the Douro valley, the very centre of the port wine industry. A young Englishman, a wine merchant, accompanied us in our journey through this sultry valley and was our cicerone. Under his guidance we visited many famous "wine lodges," sampled wonderful vintages in most generous gla.s.ses, drank old port, green port, tawny port, and I am sure too much port, and when, at last, we reached the port of Biarritz, where we stayed for several days, we blessed its lighter wines and refreshing breezes.

After Biarritz Bordeaux detained us for a day or two, and so did Paris, which we found very attractive and refreshing in early November.

This year also had for me a delightful week's interlude, in the month of June, in the Committee Rooms at Westminster. A certain Bill was promoted by an Irish railway company, which we considered an aggressive attempt to invade our territory, and, of course, we vigorously opposed it. Again I had the pleasure of giving evidence and of being crossed-examined by Mr.

Pembroke Stephens; but the Bill was pa.s.sed and became an Act. Further sign of vitality it never showed as the line was never made. It is one thing, by the grace of Parliament to obtain an Act, but quite another by the favour of the public to obtain capital. Parliament is often more easily persuaded than the shrewd investor, as many a too sanguine promoter knows.

CHAPTER XXIV.

TOM ROBERTSON, MORE ABOUT LIGHT RAILWAYS, AND THE INLAND TRANSIT OF CATTLE

By his friends and intimates he was called _Tom_, and mere acquaintances even usually spoke of him as _Tom Robertson_. Rarely was he designated _Thomas_. A man who is known so familiarly is generally a good fellow, and Tom Robertson was no exception, though he possessed some pretty strong qualities, and was particularly fond of getting his own way.