72 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



we do not intend to give a preference to foreigners in these matters. I 

 think some reform may be effected there. Fortunately for them, the 

 foreigners have advantages we do not enjoy. They have State railways, 

 and are not encumbered with the immense cost of construction and the 

 purchase of land at an excessive cost, nor have they to suffer from watered 

 capitals such as unfortunately exist in this country. Some twenty or thirty 

 years ago we had a statutory opportunity to make our railways State railways, 

 but we let the opportunity pass, and it may never recur, except at the cost 

 of upwards of a thousand millions, to which the taxpayer would never 

 submit. Rates and conditions, however, are the crux of our conference. 

 My friend Mr. Vincent Hill once said that Parliament fixes the rates. 

 Parliament does nothing of the sort. Parliament very roughly names the 

 maximum rates, and that is a very different thing. That is a general rule 

 which, if it were applied in every instance, would not last for a month. 

 It is a mere general rule, and within it there is room for great excesses. 

 Parliament does not fix the rates. Railway companies who have a 

 practical monopoly have fixed the rates, and unfortunately legislation 

 has been very much to the disadvantage of the trader. At first 

 railway companies, as carriers of goods, were common carriers with 

 all the obligations of common carriers even to the extent of assuring 

 perishable articles. Then the Railway and Canal Traffic Act was passed, 

 which required that all their conditions should be reasonable. And then 

 came a case in which it was decided that where there was an alternative 

 rate offered to the trader, he was bound by the special contract, even 

 though the conditions might be unreasonable, and that is the source of all 

 our difficulty to-day. The "owner's risk" contract, works the greatest 

 injustice to the trader. Five per cent, on the " owner's risk " would pro- 

 bably be enough to pay the company. 

 Mr. Berry : A great deal too much. 



Sir A. Rollit : We have known cases where fifty per cent, has been 

 charged. The railway companies could afford to carry at what is the 

 present " owner's risk " charge, plus five percent., but if in some cases they 

 get fifty per cent, they are getting an excess of forty-five per cent., and 

 that is monstrous. Take other conditions which have been made — non- 

 liability for loss of markets and injury to goods. I have seen conditions 

 by which the company's servants could eat perishable produce — [" So they 

 do "] — and the company not be liable ! How are we to try to meet that ? 

 My own opinion is that present legislation is incapable of meeting it. I 

 believe myself that in many cases you would be better off without even 

 the maximum rates. If you revert to the original common law, the con- 

 ditions and charges would have to be reasonable. Now you have got from 

 myself and others an extension of the County Court j urisdiction in all your 

 districts up to £100, it would be very easy for a tribunal to say whether a 

 particular rate or a particular condition is reasonable or not, and you could 

 test this at no great expense. 



There are other points, upon which it would be interesting to touch. 

 While we are discussing railway rates do not let us forget that there are 

 many other things which are very material in the conduct of our business. 

 If we are asking the companies to be up-to-date, let us take care that we 

 are so also. Let us take care, in dealing with the railway companies, 



