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 classes of railway servants that were engaged in working traffic, viz., drivers, firemen, guards, signalmen, shunters, platelayers and porters, and had not dealt with other classes; 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.