THE ACT OF 1888 225 



in inserting a proviso, by 69 votes to 63, forbidding any 

 difference of treatment as between British and foreign goods.* 

 Several amendments proposed by the Chambers were 

 incorporated, and the Council adopted a report from their 

 Committee, on 17th July, stating that although the traders 

 had not got all they wanted, yet their position must be con- 

 sidered more favourable than heretofore. Votes of thanks 

 to Lord Jersey, Sir R. Paget and to the Railway Committee 

 for their services were passed, and the Government was urged 

 to pass the Bill into law. The Bill became an Act this year, 

 and the Chambers felt some degree of satisfaction at the 

 result of their work. It was not long before they discovered 

 that the prohibition of " preference " was practically worth- 

 less as a safeguard to the traders. 



1889. 



The Railway Committee had a busy year in 1889, presenting 

 five reports to the Council. These dealt almost entirely with 

 the revision of railway rates under the Act passed in the 

 previous year. The work involved several letters to local 

 Chambers, and the collection from them of an extraordinary 

 mass of information as to rates and facilities. 



A public inquiry was held on behalf of the Board of Trade 

 by Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr. (afterwards Sir 

 Courtenay) Boyle for the purpose of hearing objections to 

 the proposed classifications and schedules of the railway 

 companies. Several conferences were arranged between some 

 of the larger objecting agricultural associations and railway 

 managers, and some concessions on points of classification 

 were thus secured, the most important of these being the 

 ' transfer of stable manure and stones for road repair to the 

 lowest class. 



The Board of Trade inquiry took place during 1889-90 ; 

 evidence was heard from 211 witnesses, of whom 178 were 



* Unfortunately when the Bill was before the Standing Committee 

 on Trade in the House of Commons this proviso was rendered ambigu- 

 ous, and almost worthless by the railway interest insisting upon adding 

 at the end the words, " in respect of the same or similar services." 



Q 



