Railway Rates and Charges 353 



the purchaser of only a very small quantity. Here, in each 

 instance, we have " preference " strictly in accord with 

 commercial principles. 



The question really at issue turns upon the consideration 

 whether there is undue or unfair preference. It is thus dealt 

 with in a proviso to sub-section 2, section 27 of the Railway 

 and Canal Traffic Act of 1888 : 



" Provided that no railway company shall make, nor shall 

 the Court, or the Commissioners, sanction any difference 

 in the tolls, rates or charges made for, or any difference in the 

 treatment of home and foreign merchandise, in respect of the 

 same or similar circumstances." 



The position is thus controlled by the words " same or 

 similar circumstances." In what is known as the " South- 

 ampton case," decided by the Railway and Canal Commission 

 in 1895, the fact that foreign produce was being carried at 

 lower rates by the London and South - Western Railway 

 Company from Southampton to London than were being 

 charged for English produce was not disputed ; but it was 

 successfully argued (i) that lower rates might reasonably be 

 granted for train-loads of produce capable of being loaded 

 into the waggons at the docks and carried through, under the 

 best transport conditions, direct to London than for small 

 eonsignments, picked up at wayside stations, and loaded and 

 carried under far less favourable traffic conditions ; (2) that 

 there was no real detriment to local producers, since the towns 

 concerned were importing more than they were sending away ; 

 and (3) that in no respect were the circumstances " the same 

 or similar." There was, said Sir Frederick Peel, one of the 

 Commissioners, " no concurrence between the two classes of 

 traffic, and the greater economy of transport in the dock 

 traffic justified the lower rate." 



The principle here involved disposes of, probably, most of 

 the complaints which have been made from time to time on 

 the subject of undue preference ; but as these complaints 

 were especially rife in 1904, a Departmental Committee, pre- 

 sided over by Lord Jersey, was appointed by the Board of 

 Trade to inquire whether or not the railway companies were 

 according preferential treatment to foreign and colonial farm, 

 dairy and market-garden produce from ports to urban centres 

 as compared with home produce. The Committee declared 



2 A 



