HELPLESS POSITION OF TRADERS 267 



A fair allowance should be made for ease and con- 

 venience of handling and loading, but 5 to 1 5 per cent, 

 would be reasonable, whereas, even in the case of hay, 

 hops and fresh meat, as to which the traders were 

 successful in the Southampton rates case, the companies 

 under the present law were able to justify differences 

 in their charges of 300 to 400 per cent, on the ground of 

 services rendered. 



Mr Berry is strongly of opinion, and expresses the 

 opinion of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, that, 

 having regard to the results of the Southampton case 

 and the facts as to undue preference, that "no redress 

 whatever can be given to agriculturists until the law is 

 so altered as to put English produce on something like 

 all-fours with foreign, and that it was not the intention 

 of Parliament that all these differences should be 

 allowed. 



Several witnesses draw attention to the helplessness 

 of traders. " We have great difficulty in finding whether 

 railway charges are the legal rates or otherwise, or how 

 they compare with others." " It is quite impossible for 

 a single farmer, or even bodies of farmers to take any 

 case before the Railway Commissioners, we consider 

 there should be some cheap tribunal to which any farmer 

 or trader who had a grievance should be able to go at a 

 very moderate expense." There are great difficulties in 

 proving undue preferences. 



Mr Berry thinks it difficult to get redress. Every case 

 has to be fought, which means money, and that is what 

 agriculturists have not got. The conciliation clause is 

 useful, but in the congested state of business at the 

 Board of Trade means protracted delay, and after all is 

 done, the Board can only advise the companies, and has 

 no control. 



And although it will be seen from the review of 

 decided Cases under the Acts that the Courts have been 

 enabled to give a status to associations of traders to 

 obtain in some sense general redress as regards unreason- 

 able rates and preferences, it does not follow that in- 

 dividual agriculturists can share in these benefits without 



