272 AGRICULTURAL DEPRESSION 



and 1892, except those which are open to objection on 

 the ground of undue preference. 



With this exception of undue preference, Parliament left 

 no remedy for unreasonable rates within the maximum, 

 except the conciliation section, (31), of the Act of 1888, 

 under which the Board of Trade has no power to enforce 

 any conclusion it may come to on the point in dispute. 



The situation was in fact this. Parliament in 1888 

 had created machinery for the benefit of traders who 

 were suffering from excessive charges. But the fixing 

 of maximum rates, with wide allowance for the future 

 expenditure of railways in carrying out their services, 

 and without any statutory check on the misuse of these 

 maxima to the detriment of traders, had enabled the 

 companies to carry out not merely a policy of complete 

 recoupment for reductions, but also to secure an increase 

 in their gross receipts. 



In view of the fact that some companies " may con- 

 tinue to enforce on certain traders grave additional 

 charges " to carry out this policy of recoupment, the 

 Committee recommended legislation " to protect traders 

 from unreasonable raisings of rates, even within the 

 maximum charges, and from such unreasonable condi- 

 tions of transport as cannot now be made the subject of 

 arbitration." 



The Act passed in 1894, in pursuance of these recom- 

 mendations, throws on the railway company the onus of 

 proof that any increase in a rate or charge made subse- 

 quently to 1892, whether directly or indirectly, is 

 reasonable even where such increase leaves the increased 

 rate within the authorised maximum. Complaints are 

 made in the first instance to the Board of Trade under 

 the conciliation section, and if not there adjusted, can 

 be carried before the Railway Commission, who have 

 jurisdiction. 



In my opinion the Act of 1894 is defective in principle 

 and in its procedure, and cannot be considered as any- 

 thing more than a temporary expedient. Objections were 

 taken, during its passing through the House of Commons, 

 (i) that by limiting complaints and jurisdiction to the 



