tag="{http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml}a">190

   Conclusion 201
Appendix I.
 Comparison between English and Foreign Rates
i Appendix II.  Comparison of Railway receipts from merchandise        and mineral traffic ix Appendix III.  Tariffs and Conditions for the conveyance of       merchandise Traffic in Holland xii        ”    ”  Belgium xxvii        ”    ”  Germany xliv        ”    ”  France lv    Toll and maximum rate clauses in Railway Acts lxv

---

SECTION I.
INTRODUCTION.

For many reasons the failure to pass the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill ought not to be regretted even by those who are dissatisfied with railway companies, but who sincerely desire to benefit the trade of the country. In the discussion of that Bill, and in the debates on the subject of railway rates in recent sessions of Parliament, the existence of many misconceptions were disclosed. As to principles, there was little agreement; there was, if possible, still less as to details. Charges which had often been explained or refuted were repeated as if they were new, and as if they had never been answered. One of the greatest defects of the discussion was its fragmentary, one-sided character; it was carried on with far too little regard to the interests of many classes, districts, and ports which would have been seriously injured by some of the changes hastily proposed. Many of those who professed to represent traders ignored the interests of large sections of them; and what would benefit consumers was, to a remarkable degree, lost sight of. The delay may be useful; and it may be hoped that any future legislation will be shaped according to the interests of all traders, and not of a part of them only, and of the general public, to whom extended and not restricted trade, cheapness, and a wide area of supply are desirable.

The following observations do not attempt to correct or remove all the misconceptions in circulation, or to answer all the charges against English railway companies. Many of such charges are so vague as to elude refutation; they appear formidable, but only formidable because they are indefinite. Nor is this an attempt to show that, with regard to railway working and rates, all is done for the best by the companies. Considering the fact that the rates are numbered by millions, and the variety of interests which they affect—considering, too, the fact that this is an island with numerous ports, companies and trading interests, all competing with each other—it would be amazing if there were no anomalies and defects. The present purpose is only to show that of the charges brought against railway companies some are erroneous; that some are exaggerated; that many are of a contradictory character; that some are complaints of evils which railway companies did not create and cannot alter; and that other supposed grievances could not be removed without injury to the community. It has recently been stated in Parliament that “this is the first time that traders have had an opportunity of going before a tribunal and putting their views fairly before it.”[1] This betrays forgetfulness of the fact that, as lately as 1881 and 1882, during two sessions, a Select Committee heard the complaints of all persons who believed that they had grievances to relate. The statement, too, inadvertently ignores the fact that, when the companies submitted in the session of 1885 Bills to Parliament, and thus offered a further opportunity of inquiry, Chambers of Commerce and other persons professing to represent trades refused to avail themselves of the opportunity, and prevented the investigation taking place. English railway companies need not dread a thorough examination of their working, or a comparison with any foreign system. They need be apprehensive only of a vague uninstructed notion that “something must be done;” of legislation adopted, if not in a panic, in a time of greatly depressed trade; of crude one-sided proposals made on behalf of a part of the interests concerned by persons who have not sufficiently examined and considered all the consequences of their schemes; and of the application of a standard of perfection supposed to exist somewhere, but in truth nowhere realized.

The continued depression of trade, the necessary efforts to reduce the cost of production, jealousy of foreign competition, misapprehensions fostered by agitation, as to the commercial effects of “special,” “import,” and “transit” rates, have given birth to vague, ill-considered proposals, some of which would be certain to injure the cause which their authors have most at heart.

One point is at the outset very clear—the inconsistent nature of many of the charges made against railway companies. Within the last twenty years such complaints have been the subject of three elaborate inquiries before Royal Commissions or Parliamentary Committees[2]. Before all of them were submitted proposals completely at variance with each other. With equal emphasis railways are now asked to satisfy contradictory demands; and to a large extent the multifarious charges made against them answer or cancel each other. Many traders demand the very opposite of what is a necessity to others, and of what consumers, naturally anxious to enlarge the field of supply, earnestly desire. Some of the former complain, for example, in language which seems