The Occupations of 10 Railway Directors in 1847

Last week, I revealed that I had finished putting the names Britain's 1300 railway directors in 1848 into a database. Eventually, I hope to look at the networks between them, who was the most influential individual and their backgrounds. However, for a bit of fun I though I would see if I could find out the backgrounds of ten in the database. For easy searching I selected directors with unusual names, then began trawling the census returns to see what I could dig up.

I found that four individuals were merchants, the most interesting being James Arbouin, director of the Royston and Hitchen, East Lincolnshire and Great Northern Railways, who dealt in wine. It is not surprising that merchants dominated my sample, as most research shows that early railway directors got involved for the benefit of their own businesses. Thus, those in trade and commerce flocked to the boards of railway companies, given the possibility of new markets opening up.

This was possibly the motivation for joining a railway's board for the two directors whose principal income was from industry. Isaac Badger, who sat on the South Staffordshire Railway's board, was involved in nail, glass and iron manufacturing. Two directors were involved in finance. For example, George Braithwaite Crewdson, a Kendal and Windermere Railway director, was a  banker. It was logical for companies to have bankers on the board as this gave the companies a link to easy capital. One director was listed simply as a lawyer and another as just a 'Magistrate.' However, three others, in addition to their principal source of income, were also magistrates.

Actually,  I can easily say that the occupations of those chosen for my little bit of fun actually correlate with past studies with larger sample sizes. Ultimately, I hope to do this with all 1300 directors -  but that may be just a pipe dream.

"gentlemen residing at different points" - Railway Directors in the 1850s

In 1868 Herbert Spencer wrote an essay entitled 'Railway morals on railway policy.' Looking back on the thirty three years of railway history that had passed, he assessed who exactly were running these new corporations as it was a matter of interest to the public. After all, railway directors and managers at the time were the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of the mid-Victorian period, steering the destiny of the maturing railway industry. Spencer noted that up to the 1850s directors were mainly:

‘...gentlemen residing at different points throughout the country traversed by railways they control; some of them landowners; some of them merchants and manufacturers; some of them owners of mines and shipping. Those in close proximity to it gain either by the enhanced value of their lands or by increased facilities for transit for their commodities. Those at more remote parts of the main line, through less directly interested, are still frequently interested to some degree: for every extension opens up a new market for either produce or raw materials.’[1]

To what extent each of these economic groups sat on railway company boards in the 1850s is unclear. However, the economic character of different British regions clearly would have been evident in the business interests of the directors of the railway companies running through them.

---------

[1] Spencer, H., ‘Railway morals and railway policy’, in Essays: Scientific, Political and Speculative, II (1868), p.286-287, quoted in Cain, P.J., ‘Railways 1870-1914: The maturity of the private system’, in Freeman, Michael J. and Aldcroft, Derek H. (eds.) Transport in Victorian Britain (Manchester, 1988), p.113-114

Introducing: Ross D. Mangles - A 1840s Railway Director

I won't bore you with all the details, but currently I am using my spare time to establish whether certain individuals in the 1840s sat on more than one railway company's board, and, therefore, created a link between the businesses. This isn't an easy task, and involves transcribing the names of all railway company directors in 1848 from a directory. It is an understatement to say it is time-consuming.

So far, one director has stood out - Ross D. Mangles. In my work I have come across some famous directors from the period, such as George Carr Glyn. But I had never heard of Mangles. This said, I am sure I have encountered a relative of his, Charles Mangles, one of the directors of the London and South Western Railway, the company on which I am doing my PhD. In 1848 Ross on the following companies' boards:


Aylesbury Railway
Buckinghamshire Railway
Dunstable, and London and Birmingham Railway
East and West Docks and Birmingham Junction
London and North Western Railway

Central to Mangles' directorships was his position on the board of the London and North Western Railway, Britain's largest and most influential company at this time. Indeed, all the other companies listed were much smaller, but had links with the L&NWR through feeding into its business in some way. Therefore, it is very likley that he was on their boards to influence their policy in the L&NWR's favour.

Ultimately, this why determining the links that were established between railway companies via their directorates is important. Viewing railway companies in the Victorian period in isolation is erroneous, as informal bonds with neighbouring ones influenced corporate policies, such as take-overs, mergers, operations and train services. Thus, while the boundary of one company may seemingly end at its railhead, its influence through its directors may go even further.

The Size of a Railway Company Boards

The number of directors that Victorian railway companies had varied from company to company. The factors determining the size of boards were dependent on a range of factors, including the intensity of the company's operations, the area it served and the external interests represented at board level. 

For example, the Great Western (GWR) and London and South Western Railways (L&SWR) had very different board sizes between the 1830s and 1915. In 1834 the GWR board had fifteen directors. However, the number fluctuated between sixteen and twenty-eight until 1878, when it stabilised at nineteen until 1922.[1] Yet, the L&SWR stabilised its smaller board size earlier in its history. It started with fifteen members in 1833, but consistently had twelve from 1860 onwards. Thus, the L&SWR had fewer men sit on its board up until 1915. Between 1834 and 1915 seventy-seven  men were L&SWR directors,[2] whereas for the GWR the total was 128.[3] Why the boards were different sizes is not entirely clear. However, it is suspected this was because the companies served different geographical areas, the GWR's being larger, and there were more vested interests involved in the GWR that had to be accommodated.

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

[1] Channon, Geoffrey, Railways in Britain and the United States 1830-1940, p.165

[2] The National Archives [TNA], RAIL 1110/281, 283 and 284, London and South Western Railway Reports and Accounts 1831-1922

[3] Channon, Railways in Britain and the United States , p.180

PhD Snippet - Early Railway Directors

Bonavia argued the railway industry's early years that the boards of companies were formed from local individuals who had ‘a financial interest in better transport’. Indeed, he related how the formation of the Great Western Railway (GWR) was through a committee of Bristol-based businessmen representing various local bodies, such as the ‘Bristol Corporation, the Society of Merchant Venturers, the Bristol Dock Company, The Bristol Dock Company and the Bristol and Gloucestershire Railway.’ [1] Casson argued that these committees formed the basis of the early boards of directors, but those chosen for them were more likely to have some ‘practical business experience.’[2] Furthermore, Pollins stated that the directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway were ‘all important Liverpool and Manchester merchants, traders and civic figures.’[3]

I wrote a post on this topic in October 2010. - Commerce and Finance in Railway Promotion - To Bristol and Southampton we go!

---

[1] Bonavia, Michael, R. The Organisation of British Railways, (Shepperton, 1971), p.10-11

[2] Casson, The world’s first railway system, p.284

[3] Pollins, Harold ‘The Finances of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway’, The Economic History Review, New Series D (1952), p.90