CONFERENCE ON FRUIT GROWING. 



71 



and also drawn up a petition to the railway companies with respect to 

 the iniquitous charge of one penny a package, which has been removed, 

 But in the end we had to use force. I think the time has come for this 

 " owner's risk " business — especially in the flower line --to be abolished. 

 We should try to obtain further concessions from Parliament. 



The Chairman (Sir Albert Rollit, M.P.) : I should like to say, as 

 a member of the Council of the R.H.S., that I think if is doing a very 

 good work in holding these frequent shows, and these conferences in con- 

 nection with them. And certainly the debate which has taken place to-day, 

 so reasonable in tone, is an illustration of the value of which I have been 

 speaking. We have had a real conference — not a conference with the 

 railway companies to which reference has been made. I think the con- 

 ference will bear good fruit, if not in legislation, at any rate in some 

 rearrangement by which the undoubted grievances of the traders will, 

 I hope, be reduced. I am encouraged by Mr. Berry's remarks in reference 

 to myself. He has reminded me that in 1888 I took an active part in 

 connection with the railway legislation of that day. In fact I moved for 

 the committee in the House — and carried it— which was the pioneer of the 

 Act of 1888. That is now many years ago, and a great many things have 

 happened since then, and if any legislator believes that what we had fifteen 

 years ago suffices for to-day, he is misreading the history of our modern 

 business life. We have moved with the times, and I think the time has 

 arrived for further legislation. This conference will be of value, especially 

 to traders, but I hope that it may also be of advantage to the railway 

 companies themselves. I quite acknowledge the joint interest we have 

 with the railway companies. 



The motto of the trader in all forms should be " Live and let 

 live," and we want the railway companies to let us live. We are not the 

 natural enemies of the railway companies in any sense of the term. We 

 believe we have a joint interest, and that the joint interest should be on 

 the lines of progress and development, not of strangulation, restriction, 

 and want of facilities. I remember a railway representative saying in 

 a House of Lords Committee that " a reasonable rate was a rate which a 

 trade could bear without breaking." But those days are passed, and we 

 shall not be content to submit ourselves to similar conditions again. We 

 wish the railway companies to realise what greater facilities and greater 

 cheapness mean to the prosperity of the companies themselves, and the 

 sooner the railway companies realise that, the better it will be for 

 their shareholders. We hear a great deal of the want of facilities and 

 unpunctuality, and we hear also a great deal of grumbling against the 

 motor ; but the motor, whatever harm it may do in the suburban districts 

 to individuals, will teach the railway companies lessons. One thing, I 

 think, seems beyond question. As Mr. Boscawen has said, we need relief 

 from rates which undoubtedly are most excessive, and we have heard of a 

 barrel of fruit costing as much to send from London to Glasgow as to 

 bring it from New York to this country. As a shipowner I know that 

 water transit is not so expensive as land transit, but it is not one-fifteenth 

 less. Another thing which I think is clear is that a preference is given 

 to the foreigner. I am not going to deal with the fiscal question, but 

 there is one thing about which we all hold but one opinion, and that is that 



