Not exceeding 40 shillings

[Rescars]

A thread elsewhere on the forum about trespassing on platform ramps has noted pre-amalgamation era signs indicating a penalty of 40/- (aka £2). IIRC there were quite a range of signs scattered fairly liberally across the network relating to trespass and similar transgressions of byelaws which threatened a penalty "not exceeding 40/-". Many of us must have seen these signs whilst waiting for something more interesting to happen! Does anyone know any of the background to these signs? Why was the penalty limited to a maximum of 40/-? Was anything other than the full penalty ever levied? What might have been mitigating circumstances which would have warranted a lower penalty? Who decided on the size of the penalty? What happened if the transgressor refused to pay up? All insights welcome!

 

[Gloster]

I have always believed that that was what was laid down in legislation made by Parliament and was very much the same as they do now when they send letters threatening fines of up to £1000 to those who have been caught without a valid ticket (see Disputes & Prosecutions Forum passim ad nauseam). I presume that the malefactor would be taken to court in the normal way and it was up to the magistrates to decide the action and fine. Things then proceeded as with any other civil fine, but more robustly than nowadays. (Won’t pay: fourteen days in clink.)

EDIT: underlined words added.

 

[John Webb]

At the St Albans South box we have a number of signs displayed around the garden, many also having a similar amount for doing something you ought not to have done (or in the case of closing a gate, for not doing something you should have done!). We've chatted amongst ourselves and think that possibly the sum is derived from the average monthly wage of a labourer at the time the sign was erected. But have no positive evidence of this.

 

[AlterEgo]

Would Hansard be able to shed any light?

 

[Gloster]

Looking at various railways’ notices, all that give a figure quote 40/- and some add that a months’ imprisonment is the alternative. A few refer to specific acts: Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway 1884; Caledonian Railway 1898; South Eastern & Chatham Railway 1901; London, Midland & Scottish Railway 1924 and Southern Railway 1924. The Midland refers to 7 Vict. Cap. 18 Sec. 238. These may be the equivalent of the later British Railways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts. Others just give warning, sometimes with no reference to penalties: it could just be Trespassers will be prosecuted.

My guess is that the railway had to go to Parliament to gain the authority to prosecute and each railway’s act just followed a standard pattern. It is possible that the railway could make the initial demand for 40/- from the offender without further ado, but if it wasn’t paid they presumably had to send it to the magistrates.

 

[oldman]

The Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 allowed railways to make byelaws with a maximum fine of £5. However the same act also sets 40/- as the maximum for non-payment of fares and for not fastening gates. I guess £2 was considered to be a reasonable penalty for a lot of offences.

Railways were also required to put up notices 'to be painted on a Board, or printed upon Paper and pasted thereon' to be affixed in some 'conspicuous place in the immediate neighbourhood' of where the penalty applied. So lots of signs. Changing the fine would have involved changing the signs, so 40/- stuck.

Edit to add Clauses.

 

[Gloster]

It is the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 and I think the basic law was Clause CXXXIX, but this was repealed by the Transport Act 1962. 40/- was laid down as the penalty for failing to fasten a gate and also for general fiddles. I suspect that the various companies had acts for specific purposes and included their penalties in them, but keeping to the standard of 40/-. The 1845 Act did not apply to Scotland.

 

[John Webb]

......Railways were also required to put up notices 'to be painted on a Board, or printed upon Paper and pasted thereon' to be affixed in some 'conspicuous place in the immediate neighbourhood' of where the penalty applied. So lots of signs. Changing the fine would have involved changing the signs, so 40/- stuck.

Interesting. I wonder at what point enamelled or cast-iron signs were adopted for more permanent displays than 'painted on a board or printed upon Paper'?

 

[Rescars]

Thanks all for your comments. I see that the Railway Regulation Act 1840 contains a tariff for trespass or obstructing the officers of a Railway Company of a maximum penalty of £5 or two months in prison at the discretion of the JP. AIUI this clause remains in force today, albeit with modified penalties. The 1845 Act obviously added clarity over a range of other offences. And yes, it would have cost a lot to recast all the signs to indicate a revised penalty, especially since all the 40/- were forfeited to Her Majesty, so not a nice little earner for the Companies! I wonder why the provisions of the 1845 Act did not apply in Scotland. And how did this apply to cross border lines? What legislation would have applied if you transgressed on the Caledonian somewhere between Carlisle and Gretna for example?

 

[30907]

"Penalty for improper use £5" in the case of the communication cord, though

 

[The exile]

FWIW, although the cost of living fluctuated throughout the 19th century, net inflation over the century was near 0%. The multiplier (figure you need to multiply the “then” price to get to “in today’s terms”) for 1799 is 173; for 1899 it’s 175.

 

[oldman]

I suspect that the various companies had acts for specific purposes and included their penalties in them, but keeping to the standard of 40/-.

I think that would be unusual, especially for the mundane offences covered by the 40/- notices, given they had the power to make byelaws with fines.

There was a separate 1845 act for Scotland with similar provisions for byelaws and notices, with different court systems for enforcement. Both acts make it an offence to deface a notice, though I assume they didn't have to put up a notice to say so.

 

[32475]

An interesting topic. These two SECR and BR signs in the 32475 Collection dating from 1901 and 1950s demonstrate just how long the 40 shilling fine perpetrated.

 

[Mat17]

"Penalty for improper use £5" in the case of the communication cord, though

I always remember that as £50 by the 1980s/90s!

 

[Chrius56000]

. . .Any examples of that B.R. Southern Region Trespass Warning Sign in the other five Regional Colours?

. . .(Note the Southern sign was the Experimental "Transport" type font rather than "Gill Sans".)

Chris Williams

 

[Rescars]

To add weight to the comments above about the longevity of the 40/- penalty, it may be worth noting the LNWR Rules and Regulations of 1849 appended to "Stokers and Pokers". The LNWR Byelaws provide for 40/- penalties for passengers attempting fare evasion, boarding or alighting from a moving train, smoking in a train or on company premises and obstructing staff. Damaging rolling stock carried the heavier penalty of £5 plus the cost of the damage. This included removing or defacing number plates - souvenir hunters appear to have been around for a long while it seems! In addition, all officers and men are expected to carry a copy of the Rules "on his person" - penalty for not doing so a mere 5/-.

 

[Lloyds siding]

As I understand it, the maximum fine of 40 shillings was the maximum that a magistrates' court could impose without an alternative penalty (i.e. imprisonment). It remained at this level for a very long time.

 

[Snow1964]

To put it in perspective at the time labourers would earn 3-4 shillings per 10 hour day, skilled and craftsmen about 6-7 shillings per day.

So 40 Shillings was equivalent to about 1-2 weeks work.

For comparison today's UK median salary is £31,602 (full and part time), with average full time salary of £45,836, so a £1000 penalty is currently also about 1-2 weeks income.

 

[Ken H]

Maybe 40/- was a general thing and not just railways. A village in Ribblesdale has a sign listing byelaws for the village green. Taking wheeled vehicles on the green is still a 40/- fine. (Unless the sign is not legal still)

 

[Rescars]

To put it in perspective at the time labourers would earn 3-4 shillings per 10 hour day, skilled and craftsmen about 6-7 shillings per day.

So 40 Shillings was equivalent to about 1-2 weeks work.

For comparison today's UK median salary is £31,602 (full and part time), with average full time salary of £45,836, so a £1000 penalty is currently also about 1-2 weeks income.

Thanks for these figures. So the 5/- fine for not having the LNWR Rules in your pocket works out at approximately a day's pay.

 

[32475]

. . .Any examples of that B.R. Southern Region Trespass Warning Sign in the other five Regional Colours?

. . .(Note the Southern sign was the Experimental "Transport" type font rather than "Gill Sans".)

Chris Williams

A good observation Chris about the transport type font and which therefore dates my BR(S) example to circa 1963/64.
Meanwhile I’ve just come across this British Transport Commission example which is currently up for auction with GWRA. I imagine it’s either late ‘40s / early-mid ‘50s

 

[Dr_Paul]

I've long thought it odd that the fine was shown as 40 shillings and not as two pounds. My memory of the old money was that round pounds were called that and not turned into shillings -- that is, 'one pound', 'two pound', 'five quid', 'ten nicker' -- that shillings were used colloquially up to about one pound ten shillings -- 'thirty bob' -- but after then a combination of pounds and shillings -- 'three pound ten'. Pounds were usually referred to in the singular. These permutations might, of course, have differed from one part of the country to another.

 

[NER1621]

I've long thought it odd that the fine was shown as 40 shillings and not as two pounds. My memory of the old money was that round pounds were called that and not turned into shillings -- that is, 'one pound', 'two pound', 'five quid', 'ten nicker' -- that shillings were used colloquially up to about one pound ten shillings -- 'thirty bob' -- but after then a combination of pounds and shillings -- 'three pound ten'. Pounds were usually referred to in the singular. These permutations might, of course, have differed from one part of the country to another.

I think it was quite common usage. Looking at advertisements in pre-decimal magazines and newspapers, a lot of prices are given only in shillings, including for quite pricy consumer goods costing several pounds. And types of traditional beer in Scotland were often referred to as 40/-, 60/- or 80/- not £2, £3 or £4. (Related to strength, derived IIRC from the duty levels per barrel)

Perhaps dating from a time when a pound was an unimaginably large sum of money for most people, who thought of their wages in weekly terms of shillings and pence, not pounds.

 

[Rescars]

I think it was quite common usage. Looking at advertisements in pre-decimal magazines and newspapers, a lot of prices are given only in shillings, including for quite pricy consumer goods costing several pounds. And types of traditional beer in Scotland were often referred to as 40/-, 60/- or 80/- not £2, £3 or £4. (Related to strength, derived IIRC from the duty levels per barrel)

Perhaps dating from a time when a pound was an unimaginably large sum of money for most people, who thought of their wages in weekly terms of shillings and pence, not pounds.

Of course, if you retained the services of a lawyer to assist you to contest a 40/- fine (or anything else for that matter), the fee note would be most likely to have been priced in guineas.

 

[4069]

It was actually section 75 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. The whole Act is at https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/HMG_ActRailwaysClauses1845.pdf.

Section 75 says:

If any person omit to shut and fasten any gate set up at either side af the railway, for the accommodation of the owners or occupiers of the adjoining lands, as soon as he, and the carriage, cattle or other animals under his care, have passed through the same, he shall forfeit for every such offence any sum not exceeding forty shillings.

 

[TimSpencer]

I always remember that as £50 by the 1980s/90s!

That seemed like a fair price to me. Although quite a lot for a single student to pay, if enough of you clubbed together, you could all chip in and draw lots to see who had the honour of pulling the chain. I never did it but I thought it. Also, I remember the £50 was a maximum. So did that mean that when the guard came round , you could just tender the £50 in cash in return for pulling the chord?

 

[Lloyds siding]

I've long thought it odd that the fine was shown as 40 shillings and not as two pounds. My memory of the old money was that round pounds were called that and not turned into shillings -- that is, 'one pound', 'two pound', 'five quid', 'ten nicker' -- that shillings were used colloquially up to about one pound ten shillings -- 'thirty bob' -- but after then a combination of pounds and shillings -- 'three pound ten'. Pounds were usually referred to in the singular. These permutations might, of course, have differed from one part of the country to another.

Whilst pounds were the denomination, for much of the nineteenth century they were not readily available as a piece of currency. Bank notes were essentially cheques, in the early days payable to a specific named recipient. It was 1855 before bank notes were machine printed and payable to 'the bearer', and therefore available to everyone. However issues of bank notes were limited because of a lack of gold to back up their value. In 1826 notes of less than five pounds were banned, it was probably 1844 before lesser notes were issued. The wording on the note says that the 'Chief Cashier of the Bank of England (other banks are available) promises to pay the bearer the sum of one pound', in other words, they will let you have enough gold equal to the sum of one pound. The coin which reprented this value was the gold sovereign.....These became generally available after 1821 when they were issued to represent a coin valued at a pound, rather than the guinea (£1, 1shilling in value), that had been in circulation before that time (guineas were intended to be withdrawn). Whilst these were useful coins there was some unwillingness to receive them...they were often 'clipped', i.e. shavings of gold were taken off the coins to get some cash for the gold scrap. People (and banks) went to the trouble of weighing every sovereign to check it was the correct weight. Short weight meant that the payer had to make up the shortage with other coins to pay the bill.
Sovereigns continued in circulation until the first world war when they started to be withdrawn to bolster our gold reserves, and many more notes were put into circulation.
The rest of the UK coinage was silver (sterling silver of course! This dropped to 50% silver after 1920, and none after 1947 when coins became cupro-nickel.), and the small change in copper (brass after 1860), these were less prone to clipping.

 

[Rescars]

Going further back, AIUI, in medieval times 240 silver pennies actually weighed one pound. The value of the shilling equalling twelve pence was established by the Normans following the Conquest in 1066, long before shilling coins were actually minted. Some serious history here - the 1845 Act is but as yesterday!

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Going further back, AIUI, in medieval times 240 silver pennies actually weighed one pound.

Albeit it was a different weight of "pound", though, to the one still commonly in use nowadays (~ 350g vs 454g). Or even a Troy pound (~ 373g). Anyone know when (rather small) silver penny pieces were last issued or generally used in England/Wales, other than as Maundy money or as special limited editions?

 

[Ken H]

Whilst pounds were the denomination, for much of the nineteenth century they were not readily available as a piece of currency. Bank notes were essentially cheques, in the early days payable to a specific named recipient. It was 1855 before bank notes were machine printed and payable to 'the bearer', and therefore available to everyone. However issues of bank notes were limited because of a lack of gold to back up their value. In 1826 notes of less than five pounds were banned, it was probably 1844 before lesser notes were issued. The wording on the note says that the 'Chief Cashier of the Bank of England (other banks are available) promises to pay the bearer the sum of one pound', in other words, they will let you have enough gold equal to the sum of one pound. The coin which reprented this value was the gold sovereign.....These became generally available after 1821 when they were issued to represent a coin valued at a pound, rather than the guinea (£1, 1shilling in value), that had been in circulation before that time (guineas were intended to be withdrawn). Whilst these were useful coins there was some unwillingness to receive them...they were often 'clipped', i.e. shavings of gold were taken off the coins to get some cash for the gold scrap. People (and banks) went to the trouble of weighing every sovereign to check it was the correct weight. Short weight meant that the payer had to make up the shortage with other coins to pay the bill.
Sovereigns continued in circulation until the first world war when they started to be withdrawn to bolster our gold reserves, and many more notes were put into circulation.
The rest of the UK coinage was silver (sterling silver of course! This dropped to 50% silver after 1920, and none after 1947 when coins became cupro-nickel.), and the small change in copper (brass after 1860), these were less prone to clipping.

The ridges round the edges of higher value coins, called milling, was to stop clipping. You could see if the coin had been clipped. Coins of 5p and above still have a milled edge today. And sovreigns and half sovreigns.