66 



JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



booking clerk, that the booking clerk should advance to the higher 

 positions, and so on. That is not always the best way of producing the 

 best manager. Of course there are cases where men have risen from 

 the lowest grades — from the bottom of the ladder to the top. But there 

 are too many failures for one success, and even a success is qualified ; so 

 it is fortunate this is being changed. Two of the best instances of the 

 change are the appointment of professional men in Sir George S. Gibb, 

 and Mr. Inglis. 



Many people might say, Why don't we see improvements come 

 quicker ? And now I will specify some of the points where there is 

 difficulty. One is the unfortunate concerted action of the railway com- 

 panies, which tends to bring every good company down to the level of 

 the worst in management, and when a good man gets to the top he is 

 hampered by the groove-like lines of the past, and this at a time when it 

 requires a very great genius to clean the Augean stable. Another trouble 

 arises from the fact that Parliament started railway companies straight 

 off as a monopoly, but it was not recognised at the time what it might 

 mean. That monopoly was founded very much on the idea of coach- 

 roads, for it was thought there would be plenty of competition and that 

 traveller and trader would always have the alternative of two routes. But 

 the idea of competition has come to an end because railway companies 

 have said " We will all work together." 



Another cause is that railway companies, in matters of litigation, have 

 always been sure of special advantages. They have the most expert 

 counsel with great reputations, and you have to employ the very best 

 counsel to meet them. This has always been practically prohibitive, 

 except perhaps in the cases of public-spirited traders, who feel they would 

 rather be ruined than unjustly treated. Except in these cases the good 

 results of litigation have been very slight, and you must consequently 

 seek some other remedy. Then there is the question of carriers' liability, 

 complicated as it is by the decisions of the House of Lords, which leave 

 us still without a final decision as to what the law really is. 



Now as to the remedies. Conferences with the railway companies 

 are of no use. If I were advising a railway company I would tell 

 them to confer till the day of judgment ! You will never educate 

 public opinion by conferences with railway companies. Such conferences 

 are merely games of "bumble puppy." As to legislation, we have not got 

 a clear law for the courts to decide upon. That is the trouble. There 

 are points after points upon which we want to advise our clients, and to 

 tell them what is law ; for the Acts are so vague, and have become so con- 

 fused by decisions thereon, that Parliament ought to take up this question, 

 which is of real and practical importance to everybody in this country. 

 It should not be a troublesome matter. I would suggest that they should 

 draft some Bill in short form to meet the precise points. The first things 

 you want are reasonable rates. I contend that it is not clear in law, 

 and the general opinion is that there is no power in the courts to order 

 a company to give reasonable rates. Then you want reasonable conditions 

 of carriage. In the present state of the law as to owner's risk, you cannot 

 really tell what those conditions may be. Then you want reasonable 

 facilities — about that there cannot be the slightest doubt, Then there 



