An Early Railway Accident and An Early Railway Policeman

A Modern View: Looking Towards the Scene of the Accident: Photo Chris West

  

 

I often lament that that we fail to preserve the present for the future.  If only a few officers (and former officers) who were involved in the major incidents touching the railways over the last 40 years were to set down what they saw and what they did we would be handing on a wonderful gift to future historians.  In this regard I was disappointed that suggestions for a project to capture the experience of BTP officers (and staff) during the pandemic did not get off the ground.  The history of policing the railways and docks of the UK is a fragile thing.  If it is not preserved it will be suffocated by the histories of bigger organisations.

With this at the back of mind I have been looking at some of the early railway accidents.  The reports of HM Railway Inspectorate provide an invaluable source.  The very first report for the Board of Trade by an Inspector was produced in 1840 by Sir Frederic SMITH in the aftermath of an accident at Howden on the Hull and Selby Railway. (1)

The accident can be described simply.  A large ‘metal casting’, part of a weighing machine that was to be installed at Hull Station, was being moved on a wagon on a train that was hauling both freight and passengers.  The casting was too big for the wagon and overhung the edge.  It was secured by ropes when it fell off the train derailing the carriages that were behind it.  Five people were killed (3 instantly), several more injured, and considerable damage caused to the rolling stock.

One of the witnesses that gave evidence to Sir Frederic was Pc Jonathan DUNN of the Hull and Selby railway police. 

Two inquests were held – one for the three passengers who died at the scene and the second for two who died later. 

Police officers, especially railway police officers, are familiar with the Inquest process and with the role of the Coroner.  However things have changed a lot in the last 170 years. Until the end of the nineteenth century most inquests were held in pubs.  They normally took place within a few days of the death and until the 1920s they took place ‘on the view of the body’ – in other words members of the jury had to see the remains as part of their jury duties.  All inquests were conducted with juries.  Indeed well into this century inquests into deaths on the railway required a jury long after the requirement had been relaxed in other circumstances (2).

Old inquest records are hard to find, but, luckily for historians, newspapers often produced near verbatim reports.  We are therefore able to ‘hear’ the voices of several witnesses who were also to give evidence to SMITH’s inquiry. 

The newspapers described the problem of coronial jurisdiction.  The bodies had been moved to a public house for the inquest but it was found that the pub was located in the area of a neighbouring coroner so the bodies were moved so that they could be viewed on the railway near “a small rivulet” that was the boundary between the two coronial districts.  The inquest  venue was moved to a local farmhouse.  Modern sensitivities would have been shocked by the journalistic description of the viewing:

“…..the coroner and the jury took view of the bodies.  The presented a most awful and terrific spectacle, every feature being disfigured or obliterated either by wounds or blood; the bones, especially of the female, almost all crushed into atoms”. (3)

 

The coroner heard from a number of witnesses and took evidence of identification. A large part of the witness evidence was the same as that was heard by Sir Frederic SMITH.  One of those witnesses was Pc 21 Johnathan DUNN.  He stated:

 

“On duty at half past eight on Friday morning, 500 yards west of the place of the accident.  On the north side and all was then right.  When the train passed went to the south side and saw something hanging over the side of the truck.  Noticed this to a man named BLANCHARD, who was close by repairing the road.  Had no sooner done so than heard a great crash and they ran to the spot.  First, saw two people under the wagon, whom they got out alive; one with his leg broken; next they saw the woman lying on the line quite dead; also two gentlemen between the rails with an overturned carriage upon them; seven carriages were all passenger carriages.  Got the bodies out and saw a large iron casting laid cross corners on the north and south line, over which the wheels of the carriages had gone……………..not one of the three bodies breathed or stirred…..saw a rope over the casting but no chain.  The rope seemed severed and cut into pieces by the friction of the metal, it was half an inch in diameter.  Articles found on the deceased parties produced sealed up………”(4)

 

Thus Pc DUNN was able to provide witness evidence of the actual incident, the aftermath, including rescue, and evidence of the friction worn ropes that had failed allowing the casting to fall from the wagon.  He could also attest to the property that was to be an essential part of the identification evidence.

There is no mention in the inquest proceeding about the role of the new inspectorate.  For many years a certain tension existed between the HMRI and some coroners (who were often quite prickly individuals). 

Not surprisingly the jury delivered a verdict of ‘accidental death’, but they did so in terms that were highly critical of the railway companies (5)

 

Accidental death, caused by a piece of iron casting off a track in the train, on 7^th August 1840 instant, which iron casting overturned six carriages: with a deodand of 50 guineas. And in giving this verdict the jury think that sum by no means sufficient to express their indignation, and they consider it their duty to observe that great and inexcusable negligence has been manifested in the packing of this casting; and the jury think it consistent, in connection with this awful event, to state their deep regret that the Directors of the Leeds and Selby Railway and the Hull and Selby Railway should, by their conduct sanction the violation of the Sabbath” (6)

 

The latter comment relates to the practice of running trains on a Sunday so is a tad wide of their remit.  The accident actually occurred on a Friday.

We don’t know much about Pc Jonathan DUNN and researching him in the censuses has not provided any certain leads.  Being involved in this incident is likely to have stayed with him for the rest of his life.  It is likely that he was sworn as a constable under the provisions of the Hull and Selby Railway Act 1836 ( William IV Cap lxxx). 

S180 of that Act provided:

 

“That is shall be lawful for any two or more justices of the peace for the County, Riding, or place within which the said railway shall be situate within their respective jurisdictions, and they are hereby respectively required from time to time upon the application of any two or more directors of the said company or their clerk, to appoint such as so many fit and proper persons as they shall deem necessary to be special constables upon and within the said railway, and the works and premises of the said company, and every or any part thereof; and every such person so appointed shall take an oath (to be administered by the same or any other Justice within his jurisdiction) duly to execute the office of such a constable; and every other person so appointed and sworn as aforesaid shall have and exercise all such powers and authorities, and shall have and enjoy all such immunities and privileges and may do all such acts, matters and things as other constables duly appointed have use, exercise for the time being………………” (7)

 

The Hull and Selby Act is one of the first to allow for the appointment of railway constables.  It largely following the pattern set by the Great Western Railway Act of the previous year, although it required only two directors to nominate whereas the GWR needed three.  The jurisdiction described is not too dissimilar to that of the modern British Transport Police.  We know that railway constables at this time dealt with offenders but also had duties in directing railway traffic.  Pc DUNN could have been carrying out either duty at the time of the accident but he makes no mention of any railway duties so he may have been patrolling the line.  Trespass was a considerable problem at the time – indeed it is an issue directly address in the 1836 Act, as was obstruction of the line.

Pc DUNN may be the first recorded railway policeman to witness and give evidence about an accident.  He was not the last. Within months other officers were exposed to serious railway incidents (see future blogs).  Railway police officers of all ranks have, from time to time, found themselves in the middle of railway accidents – the most recent that springs to mind is the Hatfield crash of 2000.   The early railway and dock police had a tough life.  Their jobs were dangerous and poorly paid.  We do well to remember our professional ancestors with respect.

Of course it would be useful if current and retired officers recorded their memories of major incidents.  The BTPHG would, I am sure, be happy to act as custodians of such documents.

 

Philip Trendall

February 2026

 

Notes

(1)    Report and Returns etc to the Board of Trade: Report of Sir Frederic SMITH on the Hull and Selby Accident 7^th August 1840.  Downloaded from the Railways Archive (08/02/2026):

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=371

(2)    The requirement of having a jury for all railway related inquests, including apparent suicides, created delays that were inconvenient for everybody and painful for the loved ones of the deceased.  In the 20^th and 21^st centuries the jury requirement was based on the fact that all railway accidents are reportable.  The position regarding juries was unclear even after the passing of the Coroners and  Justice Act 2009.  It was resolved by clear guidance from the Chief Coroner in 2015.  This guidance is now incorporated into the Coroners’ Bench Book.  A jury is only required if the incident meets the criteria laid done in the 2009 Act.  This includes deaths in the workplace, deaths in police custody and what we might think of as major incidents.  If the Howden accident were to happen again it would require a jury inquest.

(3)    The Leeds Intelligencer 15 August 1840 p7.  Downloaded from Find My Past (BNA) (08/02/2026)

(4)    Ibid

(5)    Much has changed in the world of inquests.  Inquests are an inquisitorial process and neither the coroner or a jury can now make any finding that apportions blame or indicates any criminal or civil liability – although the facts and the findings often speak for themselves. 

(6)    The Leeds Intelligencer 15 August 1840 p5.  Downloaded from Find My Past (BNA) (02/02/2026).  The concept of the Deodand goes back to Middle Ages.  The idea being that the thing that caused the death of an individual, if unlawful, would be forfeit to the Crown.  Thus items such as swords, daggers and carts could be sold and the funds were often used to compensate the family of the deceased.  By the nineteenth century deodands were rare.  In practice they became a form of fine levied by outraged inquest juries (as in this case).  They were finally abolished by the Deodands Act 1846, the promotion of which was much encouraged by the railway companies.

(7)    Hull and Selby Railway Act 1836 s180.  Anno Sexto:  Gulielmi IV Regius Cap. Lxxx. An Act for Making a Railway from Kingston-upon-Hull to Selby [21^st June 1836]