FRANCE.

There is no uniform scale of rates in France; each railway has its own tariff and classification. The following tables, however, are illustrations of the basis of the old tariff in force on the Western of France Railway, and of the reformed tariff adopted by the Paris, Lyons and Mediterranean Railway.

WESTERN OF FRANCE RAILWAY.
	Classes.
Distances, Kilometres.	I.	II.	III.	IV.	V.	VI.
	Rate per 1,000 Kilos. per Kilometre.
	Cents.	Cents.	Cents.	Cents.	Cents.	Cents.
Up to 100 Kilometres	16	14	12	10	8	8
” 300 ”						5
Above 300 ”						4
Miles.	Rate per ton per Mile.
Up to 62 miles	2d.50	2d.19	1d.88	1d.56	1d.25	1d.25
” 186 ”						0d.78
Above 186 ”						0d.62

PARIS, LYONS, AND MEDITERRANEAN RAILWAY.
	Rate per 1,000 Kilos. per Kilometre.
Distances.	Classes.
Kilometres.	I.	II.	III.	IV.	A.	V.	B.	C.	D.	VI.	E.	F.
	Cents.	Cents.	Cents.	Cents.	Cents.	Cents.	Cents.	Cents.	Cents.	Cents.	Cents.	Cents.
Up to 25	0.16	0.14	0.12	0.10	0.09	0.08	0.08	0.08	0.08	0.08	0.08	0.08
26 ” 30	0.16	0.14	0.12	0.10	0.09	0.08	0.08	0.08	0.05	0.04	0.04	0.04
31 ” 50	0.16	0.14	0.12	0.10	0.09	0.08	0.08	0.08	0.0425	0.04	0.04	0.04
51 ” 100	0.16	0.14	0.12	0.10	0.09	0.080	0.06	0.045	0.0425	0.04	0.03	0.02
101 ” 150	0.15	0.13	0.11	0.09	0.08	0.08	0.06	0.045	0.0425	0.035	0.025	0.02
151 ” 200	0.15	0.13	0.11	0.09	0.08	0.07	0.06	0.045	0.0425	0.035	0.025	0.02
201 ” 300	0.15	0.13	0.11	0.09	0.065	0.04	0.04	0.0375	0.04	0.035	0.025	0.02
301 ” 400	0.14	0.12	0.10	0.08	0.065	0.04	0.035	0.0325	0.0325	0.03	0.025	0.02
401 ” 500	0.14	0.12	0.10	0.08	0.05	0.04	0.035	0.0325	0.0325	0.03	0.025	0.02
501 ” 600	0.13	0.11	0.09	0.07	0.05	0.04	0.035	0.0325	0.0325	0.03	0.025	0.02
601 ” 700	0.12	0.10	0.08	0.06	0.05	0.04	0.035	0.0325	0.0325	0.025	0.025	0.02
701 ” 800	0.11	0.09	0.07	0.05	0.04	0.04	0.035	0.03	0.03	0.025	0.025	0.02
801 ” 900	0.10	0.08	0.06	0.04	0.04	0.04	0.035	0.025	0.025	0.025	0.02	0.02
901 ” 1000	0.09	0.07	0.05	0.04	0.04	0.04	0.03	0.025	0.025	0.02	0.02	0.02
1001 ” 1100	0.08	0.06	0.05	0.04	0.04	0.04	0.03	0.025	0.025	0.02	0.02	0.02

PARIS, LYONS, AND MEDITERRANEAN RAILWAY.
	BASIS OF TARIFF PER TON PER MILE.
Distances.	Classes.
Miles.	I.	II.	III.	IV.	A.	V.	B.	C.	D.	VI.	E.	F.
Up to 15 miles	2d.50	2d.19	1d.88	1d.56	1d.41	1d.25	1d.25	1d.25	1d.25	1d.25	1d.25	1d.25
16 ” 18 ”	2d.50	2d.19	1d.88	1d.56	1d.41	1d.25	1d.25	1d.25	0d.78	0d.62	0d.2	0d.62
19 ” 31 ”	2d.50	2d.19	1d.88	1d.56	1d.41	1d.25	1d.25	1d.25	0d.66	0d.62	0d.62	0d.62
32 ” 62 ”	2d.50	2d.19	1d.88	1d.56	1d.41	1d.25	0d.94	0d.70	0d.66	0d.62	0d.47	0d.31
63 ” 93 ”	2d.35	2d.04	1d.72	1d.41	1d.25	1d.25	0d.94	0d.70	0d.66	0d.54	0d.39	0d.31
94 ” 124 ”	2d.35	2d.04	1d.72	1d.41	1d.25	1d.10	0d.94	0d.70	0d.66	0d.54	0d.39	0d.31
125 ” 186 ”	2d.35	2d.04	1d.72	1d.41	1d.02	0d.62	0d.62	0d.58	0d.62	0d.54	0d.39	0d.31
187 ” 248 ”	2d.19	1d.88	1d.56	1d.25	1d.02	0d.62	0d.54	0d.51	0d.51	0d.47	0d.39	0d.31
249 ” 310 ”	2d.19	1d.88	1d.56	1d.25	0d.78	0d.62	0d.54	0d.51	0d.51	0d.47	0d.39	0d.31
311 ” 372 ”	2d.04	1d.72	1d.41	1d.10	0d.78	0d.62	0d.54	0d.51	0d.51	0d.47	0d.39	0d.31
373 ” 435 ”	1d.88	1d.56	1d.25	0d.94	0d.78	0d.62	0d.54	0d.51	0d.51	0d.39	0d.39	0d.31
436 ” 497 ”	1d.72	1d.41	1d.10	0d.78	0d.62	0d.62	0d.54	0d.47	0d.47	0d.39	0d.39	0d.31
498 ” 559 ”	1d.56	1d.25	0d.94	0d.62	0d.62	0d.62	0d.54	0d.39	0d.39	0d.39	0d.31	0d.31
560 ” 621 ”	1d.41	1d.10	0d.78	0d.62	0d.62	0d.62	0d.47	0d.39	0d.39	0d.31	0d.31	0d.31
622 ” 683 ”	1d.25	0d.94	0d.78	0d.62	0d.62	0d.62	0d.47	0d.39	0d.39	0d.31	0d.31	0d.31

Classes A, B, C, D, E, F, apply generally to full truck loads only, and for Classes I, II, III, IV, V, and VI. The minimum charge is as for 40 kilos. (88 lbs.), fractions of 10 kilos. being charged as 10 kilos. For consignments under 40 kilos. the rate charged is 25 cents. per 1,000 kilos. per kilometre, including terminals, irrespective of distance, equal to 3d.92 per ton per mile; but the charge so calculated must not exceed what would be charged for 40 kilos. at the ordinary Class rates. The minimum charge for consignments up to 40 kilos. is 25 cents. (2½d.), and above 40 kilos. 40 cents. (4d.), inclusive of loading and unloading and station terminals.

Plated Goods, Quicksilver, Embroidery, Lace, Articles of Art (Statues, Paintings, Bronze Figures) are charged at the highest Class rates, plus 50 per cent.

Explosives, Inflammable and Dangerous Articles, for the conveyance of which special precautions have to be taken, are charged the highest Class rate plus 50 per cent.

Bulky Goods, specified in the Classification, which do not weigh 200 kilos. (4 cwt.) per cubic metre (1.308 cubic yard), are charged 50 per cent. in addition to the ordinary Class rates. The carriage so calculated must not, however, exceed the amount chargeable at a computed weight of 200 kilos. per cubic metre.

Packages of extraordinary Size or Weight.—The Class rates are increased by 50 per cent. for packages weighing from 3 to 5 tons, and by 100 per cent. for packages weighing over 5 tons, but not exceeding 10 tons, with a minimum in the latter case of 25 cents. per 1,000 kilos. per kilometre (3d.92 per ton per mile). Packages which weigh over 10 tons, or the dimensions of which exceed those of the ordinary rolling stock, are not carried except under special contract.

The loading or unloading of packages weighing over 5 tons must be performed by the sender or consignee respectively, and at their own risk and expense at stations which are not provided with hoisting gear.

Terminals.—The charges for the two services of loading and unloading and station terminals are:—

	Goods carried in Truck Loads.		In less quantities.
	Per 1000 kilos.	Per ton.	Per 1000 kilos.	Per ton.
	cts.	s. d.	cts.	s. d.
Loading at sending station	30	0 3	40	0 4
Unloading at destination	30	0 3	40	0 4
Station terminals at sending station.	20	0 2	35	0 3¼
Station terminals at destination station.	20	0 2	35	0 3¼
Per 1000 kilos.	fcs. 1·0	10d.	fcs. 1·50	1 2½

Fractions of 10 kilos. are charged as 10 kilos.

Full truck loads may be loaded or unloaded by sender and consignee respectively at their option, risk and expense; in which case a reduction is made in the terminal charges of 30 cents. per ton, for each service, either loading or unloading. The station dues are charged in any case, viz.: 20 cents. per ton at sending station, and 20 cents. at destination station.

If the traffic passes over different lines a further charge of 40 cents. per ton is made for transfer at the junction, which amount is apportioned in equal proportions to the two Companies between which the traffic is exchanged.

Booking.—A charge of 1d. is made for each consignment.

Weighing.—Goods, which at the request of sender or consignee have to be weighed in addition to, and irrespective of the weighing by the railway company for the purpose of calculating the carriage, are subjected to a charge of 10 cents. (1d.) per 100 kilos. (2 cwt.) or part thereof. If weighed over the weigh-bridge, the charge is 30 cents. (3d.) per ton with a minimum of frs. 1·50 (1s. 2½d.) per truck or cart. If the re-weighing proves that an error in the invoiced weight was committed by the railway company to the prejudice of sender or consignee, the above charges are not made.

Warehousing.—For the Warehousing of Goods, consigned to wait orders at the station, the delivery of which for some cause or other is not taken within 48 hours from the time the advice note is posted, the following charges are made:—5 cents. (one halfpenny) per 100 kilos. (2 cwt.) or part of 100 kilos. per day for the first three days after the expiration of the time fixed above, minimum charge 10 cents. (1d.), and for every subsequent day 10 cents. (1d.) per 100 kilos. or part of 100 kilos. per day.

Goods consigned to “domicile,” and which are not delivered in consequence of consignee being absent or unknown or refusing to accept delivery, are subject to the same warehouse charges, provided an advice of the cause of the non-delivery is immediately addressed by the railway company to the sender. In this case the company are entitled to charge return cartage of the goods to the station.

The same warehouse charges are made at sending stations if the goods for some cause or other cannot be despatched within 24 hours after delivery to the station; besides which, the Railway Company can decline to receive goods at their stations or quays unless they are ready for immediate dispatch.

Demurrage.—For truck loads, which may be loaded or unloaded by sender and consignee respectively at their option, the following regulations apply:—At sending stations the trucks must be loaded within 24 hours from the time they are held at the disposal of sender, after which 10 frs. (8s.) per truck per day is charged. At destination stations, the trucks must be released during the day following the date of the advice sent by the railway company to consignee, provided such advice can be delivered before 5.30 p.m. on the day it is sent, failing which one day more is allowed. After the time allowed has elapsed, the railway company can at their discretion unload the trucks, and make a charge of 30 cents. (3d.) per ton, the goods unloaded being subject to the general regulations and warehouse charges; or the goods may be allowed to remain in the trucks and a charge made, after the stipulated time allowed, of 10 frs. (8s.) per truck per day. Sundays and fête days are not taken into account in the time allowed for the loading or unloading of the trucks.

Carriages.—The rates charged for the conveyance of carriages are as follows:—

	Per carriage. Per kilometre.	Per mile.
Carriages with 2 or 4 wheels, and one seat in the interior	0·25 cents.	(3d.85.)
Carriages with 2 seats in the interior, omnibuses, stage coaches, &c.	0·32 ”	(4d.94.)
Furniture vans empty are charged at the rate of	0·20 ”	(3d.08.)

If loaded, an additional charge is made of 14 cents. per 1,000 kilos. per kilometre (2·16d. per ton per mile) for the contents of the van.

Horses and Cattle.—The following rates apply to the conveyance of horses and cattle by goods train:—

	Per head. Per kilometre.	Per mile.
Oxen, cows, bulls, horses, mules, donkeys, and ponies	10 cents.	(1d.54.)
Calves and pigs	04 ”	(0d.61.)
Sheep, ewes, lambs, and goats	02 ”	(0d.30.)

Drovers, who accompany the cattle, pay the ordinary 3rd class fare.

Animals, the declared value of which is over 5,000 frs. (£200), are charged 50 per cent. in addition to the ordinary rates.

In case of any accident the Company’s liability is limited to 5,000 frs. (£200) per head, unless a higher value is declared on the consignment note.

Small animals such as Sucking Pigs, Cats, Rabbits, &c., packed in crates or baskets, are charged at 1st
class rate calculated on double the actual weight.

Dogs, even if in crates, are carried by Passenger Train only.

For Carriages, Horses, and Cattle the following terminals are charged:—

Booking 10 cents. (1d.) per consignment.

Loading and unloading, for carriages, frs. 2 (1s. 7d.) each.

For Oxen, Cows, Bulls, Horses, Mules, Donkeys, and Ponies, fr. 1 (10d.) each.

For Calves and Pigs, 40 cents. (4d.) each.

For Sheep, Lambs and Goats, 20 cents. (2d.) each.

No charge is made for station dues.

For carriages, which for some cause or other are not taken delivery of within 48 hours from the time of the advice being posted by the Railway Company, a charge of fr. 1 (10d.), per carriage per day is made for warehousing.

Cattle and horses, which cannot be delivered on arrival at the destination, are fed and taken care of by the Railway Company at the risk and expense of the Owner.

The time allowed for the conveyance of traffic by Goods Train on French Railways is calculated at the rate of 24 hours for every 125 kilometres (77½ miles), or a fraction thereof. Any fraction of and including 25 kilometres (15½ miles) in excess of this distance (125 kilometres), is not taken into account. Thus 150 kilometres are calculated as 125 kilometres, as shewn hereafter.

Distances.		Time allowed for loading and dispatch.	Time allowed for conveyance by rail.	Total number of days, station to station, exclusive of day of delivery.
Kilometres.	Miles.	Days.	Days.	Days.
1 to 150 =	1 to 93	1	1	2
151 ” 275 =	94 ” 170	1	2	3
276 ” 400 =	171 ” 248	1	3	4
401 ” 525 =	249 ” 326	1	4	5
526 ” 650 =	327 ” 403	1	5	6
651 ” 775 =	404 ” 481	1	6	7
776 ” 900 =	482 ” 559	1	7	8
901 ” 1,025 =	560 ” 637	1	8	9
1,026 ” 1,150 =	638 ” 714	1	9	10
1,151 ” 1,275 =	715 ” 792	1	11	10
1,276 ” 1,400 =	793 ” 870	1	11	12
1,401 ” 1,525 =	871 ” 947	1	12	13
1,526 ” 1,650 =	948 ” 1,025	1	13	14

For the conveyance of animals and goods paying the two highest class rates to stations on the main lines, the time of transit is fixed as follows:—

Distances.		Time allowed for loading and dispatch.	Time allowed for conveyance by rail.	Total number of days, station to station, exclusive of day of delivery.
Kilometres.	Miles.	Days.	Days.	Days.
1 to 200 =	1 to 124	1	1	2
201 ” 400 =	125 ” 248	1	2	3
401 ” 600 =	249 ” 372	1	3	4
601 ” 800 =	373 ” 497	1	4	5
801 ” 1,000 =	498 ” 621	1	5	6
1,001 ” 1,200 =	622 ” 745	1	6	7
1,201 ” 1,400 =	746 ” 869	1	7	8
1,401 ” 1,600 =	870 ” 994	1	8	9
1,601 ” 1,800 =	995 ” 1,110	1	9	10

For traffic which has to pass from one line to another one day in addition to the time specified above is allowed for transfer if the transfer station is a joint station, and two days if the transfer stations are apart from each other.[141]

TOLL AND MAXIMUM RATE CLAUSES IN RAILWAY ACTS.

The following are illustrations of the Tolls and Rates which Railway Companies have been authorised to charge in this country:—

Tolls authorised by the Stockton and Darlington Railway Act, 1821—1 and 2 Geo. IV., cap. 44, s. 62.

“And in consideration of the great Charge and Expense which the said Company of Proprietors must incur and sustain in making and maintaining the said Railways or Tramroads, and other the works hereby authorised to be made and maintained: be it further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for the said Company of Proprietors, from time to time, and at all Times hereafter, to ask, demand, take, recover, and receive, to and for the Use and Benefit of the said Company of Proprietors for the Tonnage of all Goods, Wares, and Merchandise, and other Things which shall be carried or conveyed upon the said Railways or Tramroads, or upon any part thereof, the Rates, Tolls, and Duties hereinafter mentioned: (that is to say),

“For all Limestone, Materials for the Repair of Turnpike Roads or Highways, and all Dung, Compost, and all sorts of Manure, except Lime, which shall be carried or conveyed upon the said Railways or Tramroads, such sum as the said Company of Proprietors shall from time to time direct or appoint, not exceeding the Sum of Fourpence per Ton per Mile.

“For all Coal, Coke, Culm, Cinders, Stone, Marl, Sand, Lime, Clay, Ironstone, and other Minerals, Building Stone, Pitching and Paving Stone, Bricks, Tiles, Slates, and all gross and unmanufactured Articles, and Building Materials, such sum as the said Company of Proprietors shall from time to time direct and appoint, not exceeding the Sum of Fourpence per Ton per Mile.

“For all Lead in Pigs or Sheets, Bar Iron, Wagon Tire, Timber, Staves, and Deals, and all other Goods, Commodities, Wares and Merchandises, such Sum as the said Company of Proprietors shall from time to time direct and appoint, not exceeding the Sum of Sixpence per Ton per Mile.

“For all the Articles, Matters, and Things for which a Tonnage is hereinbefore directed to be paid, which shall pass the Inclined Planes upon the said Hail ways or Tramroads, such Sum as the said Company of Proprietors shall appoint, not exceeding the Sum of One Shilling per Ton.

“And for all Coal which shall be shipped on board of any vessel or vessels in the Port of Stockton-upon-Tees aforesaid, for the purpose of exportation, such Sum as the said Company of Proprietors shall appoint, not exceeding the Sum of One Halfpenny per Ton per Mile.”

By the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Act, 1826, that Company were empowered to charge maximum rates for the whole distance, 31 miles 6 chains, viz.:—

“For all Lime, Limestone, and all sorts of Dung, Compost, and Manure, and all materials for the repair of the public roads and all Stone, Sand, Clay, Building, Pitching and Paving Stones, Tiles and Slates, and also for all Timber, Staves and Deals not exceeding Eight Shillings per Ton.

“For all Sugar, Corn, Grain and Flour, Dyewoods, Lead, Iron, and other metals not exceeding Nine Shillings per Ton.

“For all Cotton and other Wool, Hides, Drugs, Groceries and, manufactured goods not exceeding Eleven Shillings per Ton.

“For all Wines, Spirits, Vitriol, Glass, and other hazardous goods not exceeding Fourteen Shillings per Ton.

“And for any distance short of the whole length, not exceeding a rateable proportion of such several sums according to distance.

“And for all Coals, Coke, Culm, Charcoal and Cinders carried or conveyed along the same or any part thereof any sum not exceeding Twopence Halfpenny per Ton per Mile.

“And for all Persons, Cattle and other Animals, such reasonable charge as shall from time to time he determined by the said Company.”

In 1835 the Toll Clauses sanctioned by Parliament were generally as follows:—

Great Western Railway Act, 1835, 5 and 6 William IV., cap. 107, s. 164, 166, 167.

“And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the said Company to demand, receive, and recover, to and for the Use and Benefit of the said Company, for the Tonnage of all Articles, Matters and Things which shall be conveyed upon or along the said Railway, any Rates or Tolls not exceeding the following: (that is to say,)

“For all Dung, Compost, and all sorts of Manure, Lime, and Limestone, and Salt, and all undressed materials for the Repair of Public Roads or Highways, the Sum of One Penny per Ton per mile;

“For all Coals, Coke, Culm, Charcoal, Cinders, Building, Pitching, and Paving Stones Dressed, Bricks, Tiles, Slates, Clay, Sand, Ironstone, Iron Ore, Pig, Bar, Rod, Hoop, Sheet, and all other similar Descriptions of wrought Iron and Castings not manufactured into utensils or other Articles of Merchandise, the Sum of Three Halfpence per Ton per Mile;

“For all Sugar, Grain, Corn, Flour, Dyewoods, Earthenware, Timber, Staves, and Deals, Metals (except Iron), Nails, Anvils, Vices, and Chains, the Sum of Twopence per Ton per Mile;

“For all Cotton and other Wools, Hides, Drugs, manufactured Goods, and all other Wares, Merchandise, Articles, Matters, or things, the Sum of Threepence per ton per Mile.

“And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the said Company, and they are hereby empowered to provide Locomotive or Stationary Engines or other Power for the drawing or propelling of any Articles, Matters, or Things, Persons, Cattle, or Animals, upon the said Railway, and also along and upon any other Railway communicating therewith, and to receive, demand, and recover such Sums of Money for the Use of such Engines or other Power as the said Company shall think proper, in addition to the several other Rates, Tolls, or Sums by this Act authorised to be taken.

“And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the said Company, and they are hereby authorised, if they shall think proper, to use and Employ Locomotive Engines or other Moving Power, and in Carriages or Wagons drawn or propelled thereby to Convey upon the said Railway and also along and upon any other Railway communicating therewith, all such Passengers, Cattle and other Animals Goods, Wares, and Merchandise, Articles, Matters and Things, as shall be offered to them for that Purpose, and to make such reasonable Charges for such Conveyance as they may from Time to Time determine upon, in addition to the several Rates or Tolls by this Act authorised to be taken: Provided always, that it shall not be lawful for the said Company or for any Person using the said Railway as carriers to charge for the Conveyance of any Passenger upon the said Railway any greater Sum than the Sum of Threepence Halfpenny per Mile, including the Toll or Rate hereinbefore granted.”

By the Great Western Railway Company’s Act, 1847, the power of the Company in regard to rates and charges was reduced and limited,

“For all Coals, Coke, Culm, Cannel, Ironstone, Iron Ore, Pig Iron, Bar Iron, Rod Iron, Sheet Iron, Hoop Iron, Plates of Iron, Slabs, Billets and Rolled Iron, Limestone, Lime, Bricks, Salt, Sand, Fire-clay, Cinders, Slag and Stone, per ton per mile One Halfpenny; and if conveyed in carriages belonging to the Company an additional sum per ton per mile not exceeding One Farthing.

“For all Dung, Compost, and all sorts of Manure, and all undressed materials for the Repair of Public Roads or Highways, Charcoal, Stones for building, pitching, and paving, Tiles, Slates, and Clay (except Fire-clay), and for Wrought Iron not otherwise specifically classified herein, and for heavy Iron Castings, including Railway Chairs per ton per mile, not exceeding One Penny; and if conveyed in carriages belonging to the Company an additional sum per ton per mile not exceeding One Farthing.

“For all Sugar, Grain, Corn, Flour, Hides, Dyewoods, Earthenware, Timber, Staves, Deals and Metals (except Iron), Nails, Anvils, Vices and Chains, and for light Iron Castings per ton per mile Twopence; and if conveyed in carriages belonging to the Company an additional sum per ton per mile not exceeding One Halfpenny.

“For Cotton and other Wools, Drugs and Manufactured Goods, the sum of Twopence Halfpenny per ton per mile; and if conveyed in carriages belonging to the Company an additional sum per ton per mile not exceeding One Halfpenny.

“For Fish and all other Wares, Merchandise, Articles, Matters or Things, per ton per mile not exceeding Threepence; and if conveyed in carriages belonging to the Company an additional sum per ton per mile not exceeding One Halfpenny.

“And be it enacted, That the Toll which the Company may demand for the use of Engines for propelling the Carriages of other parties on the said Railways shall not exceed One Penny per mile for each Passenger or Animal or for each Ton of Goods or other Articles, in addition to the several other tolls or sums by this Act authorised to be taken for the use of the said Railways.

“And with respect to the conveyance of Goods, the maximum rates of charge to be made by the Company for the conveyance thereof along the said Railways, including the Tolls for the use of the said Railways, and Wagons or Trucks, and Locomotive Power, and every expense incidental to such conveyance, except a reasonable sum for loading, covering and unloading of Goods, and for Delivery and Collection, and any other services incidental to the Business or Duty of a Carrier, where such services or any of them are or is performed by the Company, shall not exceed the following sums (that is to say):—

“For every Horse, Mule, and other Beast of Draught or Burden, Threepence per mile.

“For Horned Cattle, the sum of One Penny Three Farthings per Head per Mile.

“For Calves, Pigs, Sheep and small Animals, One Halfpenny each per Mile.

“For every Private Carriage, Fourpence per mile.

“For all Coal, Coke, Ironstone and other Articles hereinbefore classed therewith, conveyed any distance not exceeding Fifty Miles, the sum of One Penny and One-eighth per ton per mile; and the sum of Seven-eighths of a Penny per Ton per Mile for the whole distance travelled, if conveyed a Distance exceeding Fifty Miles.

“For all Dung, Compost and other Articles hereinbefore classed therewith, conveyed any distance not exceeding Fifteen miles, the sum of One Penny Halfpenny per Ton per Mile, and the sum of One Penny and One-eighth per Ton per Mile for the whole distance travelled, if conveyed a distance exceeding Fifteen Miles.

“For all Sugar, Grain, and other Articles hereinbefore classified therewith, conveyed any distance not exceeding fifty Miles, the Sum of Twopence Halfpenny per Ton per Mile, and the Sum of Twopence per Ton per Mile for the whole distance travelled, if conveyed a distance exceeding Fifty Miles.

“For all Cotton and other Articles hereinbefore classified therewith, conveyed any distance not exceeding Fifty Miles, the Sum of Threepence per Ton per Mile; and the Sum of Twopence Halfpenny per Ton per Mile for the whole distance travelled, if conveyed a distance exceeding Fifty Miles.

“For Fish and all other Wares, Merchandise, Articles, Matters and Things conveyed any distance not exceeding Fifty Miles, the Sum of Threepence Halfpenny per Ton per Mile; and the Sum of Threepence per Ton per Mile for the whole distance travelled, if conveyed a distance exceeding Fifty Miles.”

By the Regulation of Railways Act, 1844 (7 and 8 Vic. cap. 85), the Government were given the right, on certain conditions, to revise the scale of Tolls, Rates and Charges as follows:—

“Be it enacted, by the Queen’s most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, spiritual and temporal, and Commons in this Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That if at any time after the end of twenty-one years from and after the first day of January next, after the passing of any Act of the present, or any future Session of Parliament for the construction of any New Line of Passenger Railway, whether such New Line be a Trunk, Branch, or Junction Line, and whether such New Line be constructed by a New Company, incorporated for the purpose, or by any existing Company, the clear annual profits divisible upon the subscribed and paid-up Capital Stock of the said Railway upon the average of the three then last preceding years shall equal or exceed the rate of Ten Pounds for every Hundred Pounds of such paid-up Capital Stock, it shall be lawful for the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, upon giving to the said Company three calendar months’ notice in writing of their intention to do so, to revise the scale of tolls, fares and charges, limited by the Act or Acts relating to the said Railway, and to fix such new scale of tolls, fares and charges, applicable to such different classes and kinds of Passengers, Goods, and other Traffic on such Railway as in the judgment of the said Lords Commissioners, assuming the same quantities and kinds of traffic to continue, shall be likely to reduce the said divisible profits to the said rate of Ten Pounds in the Hundred: provided always that no such revised scale shall take effect, unless accompanied by a guarantee to subsist as long as any such revised scale of tolls, fares, and charges shall be in force, that the said divisible profits, in case of any deficiency therein shall be annually made good to the said rate of Ten Pounds for every Hundred Pounds of such Capital Stock, provided also that such revised scale shall not be again revised or such guarantee withdrawn otherwise than with the consent of the Company for the further period of twenty-one years.”

When the earlier Railway Acts were passed, Parliament provided that the rates were to be charged equally throughout the railway.

The following is a copy of one of the Clauses that were inserted:—

“Provided always, and be it further enacted, that the aforesaid rates and tolls to be taken by virtue of this Act shall at all times be charged equally, and after the same rate per ton per mile throughout the whole of the said Railway in respect of the same description of articles, matters or things, and that no reduction or advance in the said rates and tolls shall, either directly or indirectly, be made partially or in favour of or against any particular person or Company, or be confined to any particular part of the said Railway, but that every such reduction or advance of rates and tolls upon any particular kind or description of articles, matters or things, shall extend to and take place throughout the whole and every part of the said Railway, upon, and in respect of the same description of articles, matters and things so reduced or advanced, and shall extend to all persons whomsoever using the same or carrying the same description of articles, matters and things thereon, anything to the contrary thereof in anywise notwithstanding.”

In the year 1845, however, Parliament by a Public Act cancelled the prohibition against differential rates by the following Clause.

“And whereas it is expedient that the Company should be enabled to vary the tolls upon the Railway, so as to accommodate them to the circumstances of the traffic, but that such power of varying should not be used for the purpose of prejudicing or favouring particular parties, or for the purpose of collusively and unfairly creating a monopoly, either in the hands of the Company or of particular parties; it shall be lawful, therefore, for the Company, subject to the provisions and limitations herein and in the special Act contained, from time to time, to alter or vary the tolls by the special Act authorised to be taken, either upon the whole or upon any particular portions of the Railway as they shall think fit: provided that all such tolls be at all times charged equally to all persons and after the same rate, whether per ton, per mile or otherwise, in respect of all passengers, and of all goods or carriages of the same description, and conveyed or propelled by a like carriage or engine, passing only over the same portion of the line of Railway under the same circumstances; and no reduction or advance in any such tolls shall be made either directly or indirectly in favour of or against any particular Company or person travelling upon or using the Railway.”

By Clause 15 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1873, it was provided that:—

“The Commissioners shall have power to hear and determine any question or dispute which may arise with respect to the terminal charges of any Railway Company, where such charges have not been fixed by any Act of Parliament, and to decide what is a reasonable sum to be paid to any Company for loading and unloading, covering, collection, delivery and other services of a like nature; any decision of the Commissioners under this section shall be binding on all Courts and in all legal proceedings whatsoever.”

RAILWAY RATES:

ENGLISH AND FOREIGN.

J. GRIERSON,

GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.

SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS.

Introduction.—The principle upon which Rates should be based—Cost of Service—Equal Mileage Rates—Differential Rates—Grouping, here and on the Continent—Differential Rates on the Continent—The Interest of Consumers in Rates—The real Basis of Rates—New Classification—Terminal Charges—The Construction of Railways in England and on the Continent—Working of English and Continental Railways—Comparative facilities afforded by them—High Rates and their effect on Trade—Proposals for fixing Rates by Railway Commission—Conciliation Courts—Railway Amalgamation—Railways and Canals—Conclusion—Appendices—Comparison between English and Foreign Rates—Comparison of Railway receipts from Merchandise and Mineral traffic—Tariffs and Conditions for the conveyance of Merchandise traffic in Holland, Belgium, Germany and France—Toll and maximum rate clauses in Railway Acts.

LONDON:
EDWARD STANFORD, 55, CHARING CROSS, S.W.

1886.

PRICE 5s.

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.

“There may be a difference of opinion as to some of the conclusions expressed in Mr. Grierson’s interesting book; there can be but one opinion as to its value and its opportuneness.... The vast foreign literature relating to railways, of which too little is known in this country, has been made use of. Obviously, the volume is by far the best statement of one side of the railway problem; it is in every respect the clearest and ablest exposition of the railway companies’ case.... To members of Parliament and others interested in this subject the volume will be very valuable. It may not alter their present opinions; but henceforth the subject must be discussed with somewhat new arguments and in the light of new facts.... It is enough to say that the book will probably be consulted by all persons claiming a right to speak on these questions; that the critics of railway administration in England will be ready to own that they have profited by it; and that the case of the railway companies has never before been stated so clearly, consecutively, and reasonably.”—Times, December 14th, 1886.

“To an economic question which yields to few in its pressing importance, a valuable contribution has been made in a work by Mr. Grierson, General Manager of the Great Western Railway Company, entitled ‘Railway Rates: English and Foreign.’ (Edward Stanford.) ... Whether in regard to argument or statistics the volume is one which no railway reformer can afford to neglect.”—Daily Telegraph, December 10th, 1886.

“Certainly no better contribution could be readily made from the side of the Railways, so clear is the writing of this little book, and so well arranged are the facts.... On the whole, the book will no doubt serve its purpose of hastening a reasonable settlement. The sooner the public understand that the point of view of the directors is tenable, the sooner will the inevitable compromise be sanctioned.”—Daily News, December 15th, 1886.

“It would be an advantage if, before the question of railway rates is again brought before Parliament, as it will be in the course of next session, all who are to take part in its discussion would read with care the case for the railway companies as it has been presented by Mr. Grierson in the book now before us.... Mr. Grierson writes with such an abundant knowledge of his subjects, and sets forth so clearly the difficulties attending any attempt to regulate rates, that no one who reads it intelligently can fail to rise from the study of his book with a better understanding of the complex problem with which it deals, and better able to assist in its solution.... Of Mr. Grierson’s book as a whole, it may be said that, although it is not a vindication of the railway companies, it shows that, in the main, they are serving the country well, and abundantly proves that any active interference by outside authorities in the details of their management is far more likely to prove harmful than beneficial.”—Economist, 18th December, 1886.

“As the best that can be said on behalf of the Companies, this volume is invaluable: it is the ablest statement of the case which we have seen.... It is full of useful information, and by reason of its facts, figures, and appendices, it is a volume which we cannot too highly esteem.”—Bullionist, 25th December, 1886.

“Mr. Grierson’s book on ‘Railway Rates: English and Foreign,’ cannot be regarded as other than a valuable contribution to a most important subject. The book bristles with facts and figures, that are of unquestionable interest.”—Scotsman, December 20th, 1886.

The much vexed question of terminals, mileage and uniform rates, differential and other charges in connection with railway management are discussed from a thoroughly practical point of view, and the facts and conclusions brought forward cannot but have a most salutary effect in removing unfounded prejudice, and creating a sounder public opinion with respect to the railways of the United Kingdom.... The work now before us will, at all events, leave the critics without excuse if they are not better informed on the subject upon which they speak and write with such copious fluency and limited knowledge.”—Railway News, December 11th, 1886.

“In the mass of publications on the subject of railways, both at home and abroad—the magnitude and character of which tend to bewilder rather than enlighten—this book of Mr. Grierson’s, although conceived in a spirit of defence simply, has developed into a powerful instrument in the cause of justice—a careful compilation of facts, many of which have hitherto been inaccessible, and an exponent of opinions which cannot fail to carry weight, even though it may be said that they emanate from an interested source. Such is the wide survey which the author makes of the situation, that although he disclaims any idea of removing the many misconceptions in circulation, or of affording an answer to all the charges which have been made against railway companies, he has taken a step which will go far towards accomplishing both these objects.... We may commend the work with its appendix to the careful reading of all who are desirous of arriving at a sound and equitable solution of the great railway problem, which at this moment is a matter of importance and interest to all sections of society.”—Railway Times, December 18th, 1886.

“The publication of a volume entitled ‘Railway Rates: English and Foreign,’ by Mr. J. Grierson, the General Manager of the Great Western Railway, in which the case for the Railway Companies is fully and ably stated, is a matter for genuine satisfaction.”—Manchester Guardian, December 21st, 1886.

“On all such points as terminal charges, high rates, and their effect on trade, railway amalgamation, equal mileage rates, grouping here and on the continent, Mr. Grierson’s volume will be found of much value, while it will undoubtedly help to clear up certain misconceptions, and ought to prevent the adoption of theories as to the fixing of rates, which could only be injurious to trade, as well as contribute to an equitable and satisfactory settlement of many railway questions now much discussed.”—Liverpool Mercury, December 25th, 1886.

“Mr. J. Grierson, General Manager of the Great Western Railway, has just rendered a really excellent service to the mercantile community and to those outside that category—if there be any such—who are interested in the question of railway rates and charges and the numerous cognate subjects which evolve out of that vastly important question.... To appreciate the work that the author has accomplished, the book requires to be studied in its entirety, especially by all who aim at thoroughly comprehending one of the most important subjects of the day.”—Glasgow Herald, December 17th, 1886.

“Mr. Grierson’s book will be useful to all who desire to understand what can be said in favour of the existing system,”—Bristol Evening News, December 10th, 1886.

“Under this title Mr. Grierson publishes an exhaustive, able and dispassionate resumé of all the conflicting statements, claims, and interests verging round the much vexed question of Railway Rates.... We have drawn freely on the materials which Mr Grierson has so seasonably brought together, and we can only hope that the many who take an interest in the question will thereby be tempted to seek the further information at first hand.”—Herapath’s Journal, December 11th, 1886.

“No doubt he will fail to satisfy all who believe that the present rates require revision, but he must convince every reasonable person—everybody who is not blinded by ignorant prejudice—that there is a great deal to be said on behalf of the railway companies.”—Figaro, December 25th, 1886.

“This is not an attempt to prove that all is for the best in the best possible of railway systems; but simply to shew that some of the charges brought against the companies are erroneous, others exaggerated, and many of a contradictory character. We are further reminded that the question of reform is extremely complicated, and warned against that ‘vague, uninstructed notion’ that ‘something must be done,’ which has been the bugbear of statesmen as well as directors. Hasty legislation should the more be deprecated that there is ‘a fashion in so-called railway reform’.... As to details, Mr. Grierson certainly brings out a number of facts which make for caution in drawing conclusions. Thus the figures quoted on pp. 144-48 seem to offer reasonable evidence that the exportation of iron and coal is not prejudiced by the railway rates charged in England as compared with those charged abroad.... Another fact to be borne in mind: the average dividend on English railways amounts to no more than 4·02 per cent., or two-fifths of the dividend which in 1844 it was considered the railways should pay.”—St. James’s Gazette, January 1st, 1887.

“His figures have been procured from many sources at home and abroad, and they are so handled as to afford very material support to the case of the British Companies. As a defence of these companies Mr. Grierson’s book is by far the best statement of that side of the question which has appeared, consequently it is entitled to respectful and serious consideration at the hands of those who are not counted amongst the thick-and-thin partisans of such companies as at present managed. In saying this, we do not desire to convey the impression that Mr. Grierson’s facts and figures represent solely ex parte advocacy of the companies; on the contrary, the book contains a large amount of information as to foreign rates, which has not previously been succinctly presented to English readers.”—Ironmonger, December 26th, 1886.

“In his able and exhaustive work just issued Mr. Grierson has stated the case for the companies completely, though concisely. He has, in fact, produced a book which must take rank as an authority upon the subject, and one with which it behoves everyone who pretends to an opinion upon the matter to be well acquainted.... There are in this book arguments which must be answered, and facts and figures that will have to be faced by those who urgently call for measures of railway reform and reduction of railway rates. The work, indeed, though full is fair, and its publication should and will do much towards settling a long-vexed question upon some reasonable terms of compromise.”—Liverpool Guardian Society’s Weekly Circular, December 31st, 1886.

“The work which Mr. Grierson, the General Manager of the Great Western Railway Company, has just published on railway rates is a particularly able production, and its appearance now is very opportune.... Mr. Grierson’s contribution to the discussion of the question abounds in facts and arguments, stated with a clearness and fairness which do much to prepossess the reader in favour of the cause which is so ably and reasonably represented. Many people will on reading this book obtain for the first time something like a correct view of the position really taken up by Railway Companies, and the arguments with which they are prepared to support it. Many misconceptions will be removed, and the most energetic opponent of the present policy of the Companies will feel that there are, at any rate, two sides to many phases of the controversy.... On the whole a strong case for the Railway Companies is made out.”—British Trade Journal, 1st January, 1887.

“The most effective contribution to the controversy that has yet been made from the Railway Managers’ point of view, is a work on ‘Railway Rates, English and Foreign,’ by Mr. James Grierson, the General Manager of the Great Western Railway, recently issued by Mr. Stanford. Mr. Grierson, it is needless to say, is a skilled exponent of official views, and he has fortified himself with an immense mass of information drawn from Germany, France, Belgium and Holland, which he marshals in the most effective manner possible, with a view to rebutting the arguments of those who hold up the continental systems as models for England to copy, or who contrast continental railway rates with British rates to show under how much more favourable conditions continental manufacturers work than their competitors in England. It may be frankly confessed that Mr. Grierson shows that no close comparison can with justice be made between the charges upon railway systems that have been brought into existence, and are worked under conditions differing widely in every respect from those that have prevailed in England.... Mr. Grierson’s comments and criticisms are weighty and practical, and in the matter of differential rates and terminal charges, those who dissent from his opinions will not find his arguments easy to meet.”—Liverpool Daily Post, 8th January, 1887.

“This is a very fine work by Mr. J. Grierson, General Manager of the Great Western Railway. It is essentially a merchant’s and shipowner’s book, and a copy of it should be in every counting house. If such works were studied by merchants and merchants’ clerks a little more, a good deal of ignorance which prevails on the subject of British and Foreign Railway rates would be cleared away.... We cannot too highly commend this work to the mercantile community.”—Hull Times, 8th January, 1887.

“Now the public have the opportunity of hearing the Railway Companies’ counsel. Mr. Grierson’s position enables him to back his arguments with a copious array of facts.... On the audi alteram partem principle all the assailants of the present rates and working should make it a point of duty to read what Mr. Grierson has to say, for those who undertake to judge a righteous judgment it is absolutely essential to be acquainted with his facts and references, and even for those who prejudge, it is convenient to know what is the line of defence.”—Birmingham Daily Post, 7th January, 1887.

“Quite worthy of the position and traditions of the line he manages is Mr. Grierson’s recent book on ‘Railway Rates, English and Foreign,’ which from its admirable arrangement, lucid language and courteous if vigorous tone of controversy, deserves to become a commercial classic.”— Birmingham Daily Gazette, 10th January, 1887.

“To an economic question which yields to few in its pressing importance a valuable contribution has just been made by Mr. Grierson, General Manager of the Great Western Railway, entitled ‘Railway Rates, English and Foreign.’”—Wednesbury Herald, 18th December, 1886.

“Mr. Grierson now comes forward in a new character, the literary champion of British Railway Companies in reply to the severe criticisms on our own Railway Rates, in comparison with those prevailing on the Continent.... He has said much and said it well; and indeed he has shewn himself an able advocate for the great interest he represents. The volume is a complete storehouse of facts and figures.... He has clearly defined the lines of the controversy, he has told with admirable effect what the Companies have to say.”—Weekly Bulletin, 25th December, 1886.

“Mr. Grierson’s contribution to the controversy respecting Railway Rates is of a valuable character, stating the case on behalf of the Companies plainly and clearly, and adducing very strong arguments and a vast array of facts and figures in support of the position they have taken up.... The subject of differential rates is treated most exhaustively.... The question of Terminal Charges is exhaustively discussed by Mr. Grierson.”—Bristol Mercury, 8th January, 1887.

Mr. J. Grierson has written a most interesting defence of the present system of Railway Management.... It is seldom that so readable a work is issued on a subject so apparently dry.... There are many other interesting features in this work, and none more so than the comparisons of the workings of English and Foreign Railways.”— Bristol Times and Mirror, 6th January, 1887.

“I should advise all who can to obtain this little work and read it. It is quite a text book of railway management, and I must say that while I sat down to read it with a strong prejudice against the railways, I found it had gone long before I had finished it. It gives, in very fair style, that ‘other side’ which Englishmen always like to hear.”—“H. F. M. Farmer’s Column,” Bristol Times and Mirror, 15th January, 1887.

“Mr. Grierson has done excellent service to the railway interest as well as to the public, by the preparation of this very useful and complete work.... The opinions expressed as to the principle upon which railway rates should be based are indisputably sound.... For more complete information and facts upon other matters of great importance to the railway companies and the public generally, we commend to our readers—notably to those who profess to be dissatisfied with the present state of affairs—a careful study of this work. Some chapters on the comparison of the working of English and Continental railways are specially deserving of attention, and the facts given are well calculated to remove much misapprehension which appears to exist on the subject.”— Railway Record, 15th December, 1886.

“Mr. James Grierson has laid the railway world under a deep obligation by the publication of ‘Railway Rates, English and Foreign.’ ... The facts and arguments, presented in clear, firm, incisive language, cannot fail to impress, instruct, and interest whoever this vast question in any way affects.”—Railway Official Gazette, January, 1887.

Footnotes

[ [1] Mr. Forwood. Debate on second reading of Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 6th May, 1886. Hansard, vol. cccv. 446.

[ [2] See Report of Royal Commission, 1867; Report of Joint Select Committee of House of Lords and Commons, 1872; Report of Select Committee, 1881-2.

[ [3] Gustav Cohn, the well known German writer on English railways, while advocating many changes, complains of the limited, one-sided knowledge of the subject shown by the chief English critics of railways.—Die Englische Eisenbahnpolitik (1883), p.88 and elsewhere.

[ [4] Note.—See illustration of cubical contents in proportion to weight, page 83.

[ [5] For attempts to calculate cost of service, see A. Fink on “Cost of Railway Transportation,” New York (1882); Hadley on “Railway Transportation,” p. 261; Sax’s Die Eisenbahnen 1.60 and 2.361; Lardner’s Railway Economy; and the Italian Parliamentary Inquiry (Atti della Commissione d’Inchiesta sull’ Esercizio delle Ferrovie Italiane) part II., vol. II., 962.

[ [6] See the unqualified condemnation of the system in the Italian Parliamentary Report already quoted: “The natural system was a system eminently theoretical. To-day all doubt on the subject is removed; this system was tried for five years, and it proved very unsatisfactory.” Parte II., Vol. III., p. 954. It is pointed out with truth that the so-called “natural system” is injurious to small industries and small towns.

See also page 18.

[ [7] The late Member for West Wolverhampton, in comparing the rates for Coke between Staveley and Northamptonshire and Staveley and Wolverhampton, practically advocated mileage rates, although, probably, not intending to do so. (See debate on the second reading of the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, May 6th, 1886.)

[ [8] If an engine and tender weighing together 56 tons is capable of drawing a maximum load of say forty loaded wagons weighing 560 tons at 25 miles per hour on the level, it will only take the following loads over the gradients named below, and, in addition to the reduction in the load, the speed would also be considerably reduced.

Level.		40 wagons weighing 560 tons.
Incline	1 in 100	20 ” ” 280 ”
”	1 ” 50	10 ” ” 140 ”
”	1 ” 30	6 ” ” 84 ”

See also Spon’s Dictionary of Engineering; Encyclopedia Britannica “Railways,” and the elaborate work Des Pentes Economiques en Chemins, par M. Charles de Freycinet.

[ [9] Before Mr. Cardwell’s Committee (23rd February, 1853) the late Mr. Robert Stephenson, the eminent engineer, gave the following illustration, which is not yet antiquated:—

“I referred to that in order to shew the Committee the great impropriety of attempting anything like an equal mileage rate on railways. I can elucidate that in a very remarkable manner, and shew the injustice that the carrying out of the principle would inflict upon some railway companies, especially where goods are concerned. I will take the case of the Great North of England Railway, from Newcastle coal-field towards York, and towards the rivers Tees and Tyne. In one direction there were 5,450,000 tons of coals carried over one mile, which was equal to 320,588 over one mile for each engine; there having been employed by the York, Newcastle and Berwick Company for the performance of that duty 17 engines. Towards York, where the distance was greater, and the gradients were better, and the loads heavier, and the work more uniform, 13 engines took 14,435,000 tons over one mile, which was equal to 1,110,000 tons for each engine over a mile; in the other case, the duty that one engine performed was carrying 320,588 tons over a mile; therefore in this case one engine has done 3·466 more work than the other engine, so that on the first line it cost the Company nearly four times as much as it cost them for doing the same duty on the other line. On the one line there are a number of collieries; the engines have to stop and pick up the traffic, and the railway wagons do not average perhaps more than seven or eight miles per day, whereas in the other case they work for hours continuously, and with heavier loads and no stoppages.”

[ [10] See preface to Smiles’ Life of Stephenson, and, as to the provisioning of Paris by means of railways, interesting details in La Transformation Des Moyens de Transport, par Alfred de Foville, Chef de Bureau au Ministère des Finances, p. 256.

[ [11] About thirty years ago, when the iron works at Westbury in Wiltshire were constructed, it was anticipated that fuel would be obtained from the Badstock district, about 14 miles distant. But after sinking collieries it was found that the coke was not suitable; so that it has now to be obtained from South Wales, a distance of about 130 miles. The pig iron is sent to South Wales in the return coke wagons, and also to South Staffordshire, a distance of 140 miles. The coke and pig iron are carried at special low rates below those in force for traffic to intermediate places. Without such special rates, or if mileage rates were charged, the works would have to be closed.

[ [12] An American writer points out that the following would be the result of applying the principle of equal mileage rates, or of basing rates on cost of service:—

1. “There would be little or no classification of freights. Grain, lumber, coal, iron, shoes, dry goods, groceries, drugs and chemicals, would all have to pay near about the same rate per 100 pounds per mile, and that rate would have to be something like an average of the present rates charged upon the different classes of freight. The higher classes of freight would be a good deal lowered, and the lower classes would be materially raised. The result would be that cheap and heavy products could be no longer transported over the distances that are now carried.

2. “The rates on through freight would have to be proportioned very nearly to the distance hauled. The rate from Chicago to Boston for instance, would be materially higher, and the rate from Chicago to Baltimore materially lower than the rates from Chicago to New York.

3. “Roads having the lowest grades, and most favourable alignment would have lower rates than their competitors, and would monopolise the business, to the entire exclusion of those lines which traverse more difficult and expensive territory, and upon which the cost of transportation was greater. And the tide once turned, the evil would multiply itself; for the rates would decrease rapidly on the favoured roads, with the increase of business, and would increase on the unfortunately located roads, with the decrease in volume of their freight, until the latter would be left with nothing but their local business to support them, which would then have to be advanced to the highest figures possible.”—Railroad Transportation, by E. P. Alexander, Vice-President of the Louisville and Nashville Railway Company.

[ [13] Very recently the fishermen in the North of Scotland have been asking that the same gross rates shall be charged from Wick to large towns in the South as are charged from the fishing ports, such as Grimsby, on the East Coast of England. What would they, or most consumers of fish, say to equal mileage rates?

[ [14] “We have nothing to do here with the study of the tariff systems adopted on the Alsace-Lorraine lines, and extended with some modifications to the generality of German lines. Seductive by its simplicity, the principle of fixing the rate according to the weight only, and without regard to the value of the object carried, has not found numerous partisans in France. Such a radical reform would overthrow our commercial habits, and would occasion results, in a financial point of view, which would be impossible for us to estimate.” Report of the French Commission of the Third System on Railway Tariffs, by M. Richard Waddington. (Appendix 31 to Report from the Select Committee on Railways (Rates and Fares), 1881-2, Vol. 11. p. 449).

[ [15] The rate for the carriage of flour from Minneapolis for consumption at Milwaukee or Chicago is one-third higher than the rate for flour for shipment.

[ [16] In the evidence given before the Select Committee in 1881, the rates for foreign hops from Boulogne to London were compared with the rates charged for home grown hops from the Ashford and Canterbury districts to London. The former were complained of as being an undue preference in favour of foreign produce. No doubt there was a considerable difference. The rate from Boulogne to London was 17s. 6d., and that from Ashford to London, 38s. It was, however, shewn that the rate of 17s. 6d. per ton for foreign hops from Boulogne to London was a station to station rate, while the rate of 38s. per ton from Ashford to London included delivery and all station services, and that owing to the difference in the mode of packing the hops, 73 per cent. more foreign hops than English hops could be loaded in a truck. The railway companies concerned urged that the home producer was not prejudiced by the transit rate complained of. While it enabled the railway companies to obtain the conveyance of a portion of the foreign hops, an increase of the rate from Boulogne would not be of any benefit to the English grower. The foreign hops would still find their way to London direct by sea. The rate of 17s. 6d. per ton from Boulogne to London was cancelled in deference to the complaints. What is the result? The foreign hops are imported as before; but they are now carried by the General Steam Navigation Company. The railway companies have to some extent suffered; the English producer has gained nothing.

[ [17] Lines of steamers carrying Belgian, Dutch, German, and French goods and produce, run between Antwerp, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Boulogne, Havre and London. In competition with them the Great Eastern, South Eastern, and London Chatham and Dover Companies carry viâ Harwich, Folkestone and Dover respectively, at such rates as they can obtain in competition with those charged by steamer direct. It has been a subject of complaint that these goods are conveyed at lower rates than similar merchandise from places in Essex or Kent, past which they are carried by rail. No doubt the regular and quick services provided by the railway companies are of great advantage to the senders and consumers. But so far as London is concerned, a great part, if not the whole of the goods, not requiring quick transit could be sent by sea direct, if the Harwich, Dover, and other services were discontinued.

There are import rates to towns in the interior to which there is no direct sea competition. If such rates are not based on the rates to places to which there is such competition, plus the local rates, they may be open to question to an extent not applicable to the rates to and from ports.

[ [18] Many of the rates from Hull are affected by inland water competition, or by those charged from Liverpool. On the other hand, the rates from Hull govern those from Grimsby (as a competing port), Harwich, West Hartlepool, Newcastle, Sunderland and Shields. In fact, a large portion of the anomalies in railway rates arise from the competition between ports. Although improvements in detail as to such rates, no doubt, are possible, the interests of some ports would be seriously affected by any change in the principle on which railway rates are fixed.

[ [19] See as to this Dr. Otto Michaelis’s Differenzialtarife der Eisenbahnen, in which the natural and necessary rise of differential rates in Germany is explained.

[ [20] Note.—See Extract from Sir T. Farrer’s Evidence at page 66.

[ [21] “I think that even if it were distinctly found that the differences in the charges actually made were so disproportioned to the differences in the cost as to be undue and unreasonable, it would not impose an obligation to charge equally.”—Lord Blackburn, p. 122.

[ [22] See décret of April 26, 1862, quoted by M. A. de Foville in La Transformation des moyens de Transport p. 68.

[ [23] The following are some of the opinions of French statesmen and economists on the subject:—“Dans ma conviction le tarif différentiel est à la fois juste, conforme aux vèritables intérêts économiques et nécessaires à la concurrence.” M. Rouher.

“Les industries de transport par eau, par terre ou par chemin de fer ne vivent et ne prospèrent que par les tarifs différentiels. C’est en différenciant sagement leurs tarifs qu’elle attirent les marchandises et les voyageurs.” M. Legrand, sous-secrétaire d’état au Ministère des travaux publics:

“L’expérience a démontré aux compagnies la nécessité de superposer au tarif réglementaire de nombreux tarifs à prix reduits.^*** Il a été reconnu que ceux là mêmes qui se plaignaient, le plus vivement des tarifs différentiels en recueillaient indirectement le bénéfice. Ce sont, en effet, ces tarifs qui fournissent au trafic des grandes compagnies les masses de marchandises les plus considérables, et ce sont ces masses qui rendent possible la réduction, au profit de tous, des tarifs généraux.” M. de Foville. La Transformation des moyens de Transport pp. 66, 67.

In a report to the French Chamber of Deputies by a Railway Commission in 1880, the Commissioners approved of special tariffs, and added: “We are even inclined to suggest the development of traffic of this nature, the importance of which is not at all in proportion to the natural advantages which France derives from her geographical position and her numerous ports.” Appendix 31 to Report from the Select Committee on Railways (Rates and Fares), 1882, Vol. II.

[ [24] Until recently, the classification of imported and exported goods, in force on the Northern of France Railway, was composed of six classes. A new tariff is now in force, the rates for such traffic varying from frs. 8 to frs. 30 per 1000 kilogrammes.

For the purpose of comparison, the rates charged for imported and exported goods are shewn under the respective classes in which the same articles are generally included when charged at the ordinary class rates.

[ [25] These rates are exclusive of cartage and of the extra charges referred to in Appendix I. Page vii.

[ [26] Parte II., Vol. II., Sec. 32.

[ [27] Note—The Montreal Gazette, 1st April, 1886, writes thus on the subject of the Railway Commission Bill:—“These rates are fixed and determined by the Great American Trunk Lines, in competition with which the Tariff of the Canadian roads is necessarily regulated; to interfere with these rates would be to take away from the Canadian Companies a large amount of the gross earnings derived from a source which increases the volume of business in Canada.... The discrimination which is complained of in particular localities arises wholly out of an established competition between lines reaching a favoured point. Destroy the natural consequences and natural advantages of competition—lower rates—and you remove all inducement to the provision of rival routes; put an end to competition, and at once an increase in rates all round will be established. The Railway Act prohibits interference by the Government in the regulation of rates until a Company is proved to earn 15 per cent. upon its invested capital. What Railway Company in the Dominion to-day is earning that profit?... If competition is to be made a positive disadvantage, if every inducement to particular localities to promote rival enterprises is to be swept away, the rates of existing lines will be run up in all directions to the injury not only of every locality now favoured by competition, but of those localities which consider themselves aggrieved by reason of the absence of the low rates which competition enforces.”

It may be mentioned that one of the fiercest enemies of differential rates, in a work recently published, declares that the only remedy is to “restore the character of public highways to the railways by securing to all persons the right to run trains over their tracks under proper regulation!” “The Railways and the Republic” (1886), p. 372, by James T. Hudson.

[ [28] Vol. 5, p. 376.

[ [29] Note.—The evidence of Sir Thomas Farrer, given in 1881, is very deserving of consideration. In answer to the question, “Now turning to the question of inequality of charges, of which the Committee have had many complaints—in fact, the bulk of the complaints have been with regard to the inequality of charges from one place to another—in your opinion, is this inequality productive of injury to the trade of the country?” He replies, “As far as I can judge, it is not.” He is asked:—“I suppose you would say that while on the one hand one portion of the country may be a loser, another portion of the country is a gainer, and that the one may be set against the other?”—He answers:—“I am not quite certain that I should say that one portion of the country is a loser, but I am quite certain that another portion is a gainer.”

Again, in reply to question: “Then looking at the question also from the point of view of the public, the inland towns which are charged higher than towns on the sea-coast are merely paying the natural penalty of being inland towns, and not having an equally good geographical position?”—He states, “Quite so; on the whole I should think the inland towns were proportionately better off than before the railways existed, because, before the railways existed, sea-side towns had the water traffic to themselves, but now the railways afford a kind of competition with that traffic, and bring a great many places into communication with one another which could not have been brought into communication before.”

In reply to the question, “On the whole, do you think the country gains by these rival routes to the outports?” He says, “I do distinctly.” And again, in answer to the question, “According to your view, then, as far as the public is concerned, it is of no consequence that a railway company should so destroy the natural advantages of one place?” He replies:—“I think it is one purpose of the railway companies to annihilate distance as far as they can; I would certainly encourage the railway companies in bringing Shetland fish to the London market, even although the effect of it were to lower the price of the Grimsby fish.” Further, in reply to the question, “As far as that is concerned, you would allow the Railway Companies to make any differential charges they may please for or against other localities?” He replies:—“I would certainly not compel them to charge upon fish from Thurso and fish from Grimsby in proportion to the distances of those two places. I have been accustomed, as a free trader, to consider the interest of the consumer very largely; but it seems to me that this claim for regular mileage has proceeded upon the interest of one special class of producers; but it is very much to the interest of the consumer as well as to one class of producers, that the people at a distance should be able to send to the consuming market.”

[ [30] In the Report made by M. Richard Waddington in the name of the Commission of the Third System of Railway Tariffs, special or differential rates are thus referred to. “These Tariffs are established in compliance with a trade demand which varies, as one can easily understand, according to the locality and district concerned. Like intelligent merchants the administrators of the railway companies have based their rate of charges on the law of Supply and Demand....” The celebrated expression of M. Solacroup, director of the Orleans Company, sums up the considerations which led to the compilation of special tariffs. “In the matter of Transport Tariffs there is only one rational rule, viz., to ask of merchandise all it can pay; any other principle is no principle.”

[ [31] It may be objected that under such a system companies might extort exorbitant sums from traders who must send their goods. But (1) the figures and returns referred to later on show that in fact the companies have not made such charges, but have benefited every industry as well as themselves; (2) the statutory maxima cannot be exceeded; (3) at many points there is effective sea and canal competition; (4) the result of increasing the rates to a height which prevents the producer from earning a fair profit must, in the long run, be to diminish the traffic of the railway; (5) there is always a liability when, high rates exist that Parliament will sanction a new line, even if the chances of its financial success be not great.

[ [32] See Ricardo (Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, 3rd Section, page 144): “Of all commodities none are perhaps so proper for taxation as those which, either by the aid of nature or art, are produced with peculiar facility. Taxes on luxuries have some advantage over taxes on necessaries, they are generally paid from income, and therefore do not diminish the productive capital of the country.”

See also Leroy Beaulieu, Science des Finances, vol. i.

[ [33] “A tax upon carriages in proportion to their weight, though a very equal tax when applied to the sole purpose of repairing the roads is a very unequal one when applied to any other purpose, or to supply the common exigencies of the State. When it is applied to the sole purpose above mentioned, each carriage is supposed to pay exactly for the wear and tear which that carriage occasions of the roads. But when it is applied to any other purpose, each carriage is supposed to pay for more than that wear and tear and contributes to the supply of some other exigency of the State. But as the turnpike toll raises the price of goods in proportion to their weight, and not to their value, it is chiefly paid by the consumers of coarse and bulky, not by those of precious and light, commodities. Whatever exigency of the State, therefore, this tax might be intended to supply, that exigency would be chiefly supplied at the expense of the poor, not of the rich; at the expense of those who are least able to supply it, not of those who are most able.”—(Wealth of Nations. Book 5 part 3.)

[ [34] In the same year a Statute (8 & 9 Vict. c. 28) was passed giving canal companies powers to vary tolls in the same manner as railway companies might. By 8 & 9 Vict. c. 42, which was passed the same session, canal companies were authorised to become carriers on their canals and “to make such reasonable charges for conveying, warehousing, collection and delivery as they might respectively from time to time determine upon, in addition to the several tolls or dues which any such company or undertakers were then authorised to take for the use of the said canals, navigations or railways.” Two years later canal companies were authorised to borrow money for the purpose of becoming carriers on their own waterways. (10 & 11 Vict. c. 94.)

[ [35] Earl of Selborne in Denaby Main Colliery Company v. Manchester Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Company.—L.R. 11 A.C. p. 113.

Consumers may profitably bear in mind the report of the Select Committee on Railways (Rates and Fares), of 1881-2. Whilst stating “Your Committee cannot recommend any new legislative interference for the purpose of enforcing upon Railway Companies equality of charge.” They add: “Some of the inequalities of charges complained of are to the advantage rather than to the disadvantage of the public, where there is an undue preference the law now gives a remedy.” They also give the following illustration:—

“That Greenock sugar refiners should be in the same markets as the sugar refiners of London, while it may be a grievance to London refiners, must be an advantage to Greenock refiners, and cannot be a disadvantage to buyers of sugar.”

It is added that the effect of interference with the freedom to fix rates according to special circumstances would in this instance be “to give a practical monopoly to the London sugar refiners who would be the real gainers by the transaction. It does not appear to your Committee that such a result would be either just or reasonable.”

[ [36] “What is complained of by the traders is not so much the high scale of the rates as their inconsistency and want of classification, as well as the want of facilities given by the railway companies for the development of the trade in a particular locality. That before the Royal Commission on Depression of Trade, not a single witness, except in the shipping interest, was examined in reference to railway rates who did not complain of some act of injustice on the part of the railway companies, not so much in regard to the rates, although they were onerous and prohibitory in some cases, as to the inconsistency of such rates.”—Mr. L. Cohen, House of Commons Debate, 6th May, 1886. Hansard, vol. cccv., pages 428-9.

[ [37] Note.—The New Zealand correspondent of the “Economist” (Oct. 23, 1886), writes from Wellington as follows: “The fact of the railways being in the hands of Government is by no means an unmixed good. A uniform system of rates is demanded everywhere. If a concession is made to one district, the rest of the colony naturally demand to be placed on the same footing, so that the Railway Department rarely meet the wishes of the public. A private Company, if it found that the freight could be got by lowering the tariff on some particular item, would do so at once, and if it paid, continue it. The cost probably would be merely a few tons of coals, and a small amount for wear and tear. Many trades, notably the timber trade, are very much hampered by the Government tariff which does not admit of differential rates.”

This is a sample of the inconveniences attending uniformity.

[ [38] Grande Vitesse goods are not always carried by passenger train. They can be carried by any train the railway company may determine, provided the time allowed by law, which is half the time for ordinary goods, is not exceeded.

[ [39] The first class in France corresponds with the highest or fifth class in England.

[ [40] Mr. Justice Manisty delivered a separate Judgment. See note at foot of page 99.

[ [41] Wills, J., in Hall v. London Brighton and South Coast Railway Company, p. 536. See also Field J. in Brown v. Great Western Railway Company, L. R. 9 Q. B. D., p. 751.

[ [42] Mr. William Pierssene, Manager to Messrs. Pickford & Co., stated in his evidence before the Railway Commissioners in the case of Kempson v. The G. W. R. (4 N & M 426), that in addition to the amount of the railway companies’ tolls, a sum varying from twelve to eighteen shillings a ton was paid by the customer for the services which now form the subject of terminal and cartage charges.

[ [43] Hall v. L. B. & S. C. Railway. Manisty, J., L. R., 15 Q. B. D. p. 544.

[ [44] Report to Associated Chambers of Commerce.

[ [45] “The claim of railways to charge terminals would have to be considered if mileage rates are adopted in principle. That charge could in no wise be left to the discretion of the railways themselves, as was proposed in the Bills of last Session.”—Sir B. Samuelson.

[ [46] Note.—The terminals authorised and charged in these countries will be found fully set out in a tabular form in the Appendix III.

[ [47] There are some cases in Ireland in which Baronial Guarantees in respect of portions of the capital of railways have been given.

[ [48] This capital relates to the principal lines only.

[ [49] The Report of the French railway Commission of Inquiry appointed in 1880 states: “Our railway companies have been largely subventioned for the construction of their lines, almost all receive annual subsidies, without which they could not meet the charges of their working expenses; all enjoy a monopoly which shelters them from internal competition; we have the right to demand from them, to force upon them, reforms that public and parliamentary opinion deem indispensable.” And again—“* * * * In certain countries, England for example, where the system of liberty and commercial competition is largely in vogue, it is right that the railway companies, who have received nothing and from whom nothing is demanded by the State, and who may be considered only as belonging to the category of private merchants and manufacturers, should have greater freedom in dealing with their traffic and tariffs than is enjoyed in this country (France).”

But it is added: “It is not the same with Continental European nations. The Governments of Belgium, Holland, Bavaria, the Grand Duchy of Baden, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Russia, Sweden, and Norway are wholly or in part proprietors of the railway system.”—Appendix 31 to Report from the Select Committee on Railways (Rates and Fares) 1882, Vol. II., pages 453-4.

[ [50] “La dépense tout à fait stérile des 500 millions pour racheter des lignes ferrées improductives, les exagerations du projet Freycinet lors de sa naissance et les extravagances de développements posterieurs qu’on lui a donnés, des sommes énormes dépensées en des canals de transport, qui, pour beaucoup du moins, font double emploi et jouissent d’aucun trafic, toute cette mauvaise direction a absorbé les resources de l’État en sacrifices inutiles et ne lui a pas laissé le loisir de supprimer l’impôt sur la grande vitesse, les timbres sur les récepissés des chemins de fer, et d’obtenir, par un juste retour, des réductions de tarifs qui n’auraient été accompagnées d’aucune augmentation d’impôt.”—M. Leroy-Beaulieu in L’Économiste Francais, February 27th, 1886.

[ [51] It is generally assumed that the railways in Germany were purchased with the view of more effectually utilising them, and the rolling stock for military purposes. The Government in this country are under no necessity to undertake the liability of acquiring the railways and guaranteeing the dividends for such a reason; the number of lines of railway and routes are so ample, and the number of engines, carriages, and wagons so great, that any movement required for the defence of the country can be carried out within any reasonable time, while under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, Her Majesty, by Order in Council, may empower any person or persons, named in such warrant, to take possession of any railroad and of the plant belonging thereto, and to use the same for Her Majesty’s Service at such times and in such manner as the Secretary of State may direct; and the directors, officers, and servants of any such railroad, shall obey the directions of the Secretary of State.

[ [52] See note, page 118.

[ [53] In the Report of May 3, 1882, made by Sir H. Barron to the then Minister for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) (part 4 of the “Reports by Her Majesty’s Secretaries of Embassy and Legation on Manufactures, Commerce, &c.,”) on the subject of the Belgian Budget, the former stated that “The 5 years from 1876 each closed with a deficit rising in 1881 to 6¼ million francs (£250,000), the main explanation being the ever-increasing burden thrown on the Treasury by the extension of the railway, which undertaking has ceased to cover its charges and completely disturbed the financial equilibrium of the State. The first lines constructed and worked by the State, being great trunk lines, gave every year an increasing return which enriched the Treasury. To these were first added conceded lines, which had to be purchased from companies at high prices; then secondary lines, whose traffic was unremunerative. After many previous experiments, the accounts of the railway have been since 1878 drawn up on a new and presumedly more accurate principle. The Treasury is now considered as the bankers of the railway; it is assumed that all funds advanced by the former are chargeable with an interest of 4 per cent., and repayable within ninety years. According to this new method of book-keeping, it appears that the railway contributed largely to the revenue until 1872 inclusively, but that since that year it has, on the contrary, entailed an annual loss. Thus, the deficit of 1881 is for the greater part (4,861,725 fr.) due to the insufficiency of the railway revenue. Fortunately Belgium has a resource at hand.”

“The Minister of Finance in the debate on the Budget of Public Works, points to that resource in the following pregnant words: It is proved that the railway fails to cover its charges by about five millions (£200,000). We are informed that this year the deficiency may be seven millions; in 1883, possibly even ten millions. What will it be in 1884? No one knows, but the progression is ascending. Must we follow it without counting the cost? Must we raise the tariffs or throw on the Treasury the burden caused by the insufficiency of the railway receipts? Either the railway must be worked on a principle which shall allow it to cover its charges or the taxpayers must make up the difference.”

He further added that in his report of 1876 he recommended “a raising of the tariff.” Sir H. Barron goes on to state “that the inferior productiveness of the Belgian Railway was due to the inadequate tariff, which, for passengers and merchandise, was much lower than those prevailing in the rest of Europe.” He further remarks, however, that “notwithstanding all this it has been held that the experiment is a great success, and bears evidence in favour of State ownership, because, as the railway is worked in the interest of trade, &c., it is considered that the benefit thus indirectly accruing to the public at large, is greater than that which might be realised by aiming at a commercial profit for the direct and immediate benefit of the taxpayers.”

The construction of railways in Belgium has, no doubt, developed the commerce and industry of the country to a remarkable extent. It was stated by Sir Bernhard Samuelson (page 9 of Report) that the receipts of railways had increased from £1,815,000 in 1870 to £4,880,000 in 1883, or 168 per cent.; but he omitted to point out that the length of the railways had increased by more than 250 per cent.

See the observation of M. Leon Say as to the tendency to reduce railway tariffs to an unremunerative point when the State is the owner.—Le Rachat des Chemins de Fer, Journal des Economistes, 1881, p. 343.

[ [54] Note.—The figures relating to the capital, revenue and working expenses of the German Railways have been taken from the “Statistische Nachrichten von den Eisenbahnen des Vereins Deutscher Eisenbahn-Verwaltungen,” which differ in some respects from those contained in statements obtained after going to press from the Department of the German State Railways; the latter giving the revenue for the working year 1884-5 as £50,735,165, the expenses as £29,057,889, or 57·27 per cent. of the receipts. The balance would yield a return of 4·51 per cent.

[ [55] For further particulars see Appendix III.

[ [56] For particulars see Appendix III.

[ [57] In Germany and France the law as regards liability is practically the same as in this country.

[ [58] Including 90 miles on German and Belgian Frontier.

[ [59] The mixed train mileage introduces a disturbing element, but the calculations have been made as accurately as possible.

[ [60] See page 5 of Sir B. Samuelson’s report. It is not known to what the observation as to charges to capital can refer. The larger (if not all) companies in this country charge to revenue portions of the cost of improvements to stations, sidings, &c., which might strictly be charged to capital. In the published returns of the working of German railways, there is nothing to show to what extent, if any, the cost of new works is charged to capital.

[ [61] The number of passengers, or tons of goods are not reliable for the purpose of comparison, inasmuch as a passenger or a ton of goods carried over two railways appears as two passengers or two tons, and therefore after various lines are amalgamated, the returns may show an apparent decrease when in fact there may have been an actual increase in traffic.

[ [62] It is assumed that some receipts for cattle traffic are included in this item.

[ [63] In calculating these per centages, the “Miscellaneous” receipts have been included in the gross receipts.

[ [64] Coaching receipts embrace receipts from passenger and such other traffic as is carried by passenger trains, as nearly as can be classified.

[ [65] Coaching receipts embrace receipts from passenger and such other traffic as is carried by passenger trains, as nearly as can be classified.

[ [66] Coaching receipts embrace receipts from passenger and such other traffic as is carried by passenger trains, as nearly as can be classified.

[ [67] The passenger fares, excluding and including the charges for luggage, are:—

Scale per Mile of Passenger Fares,
Excluding charge for luggage.

Distances.	France.			Belgium.
				Express.			Ordinary.
	1st	2nd	3rd	1st	2nd	3rd	1st	2nd	3rd
10 Miles	1·91	1·43	1·05	1·50	1·10	0·80	1·17	0·95	0·65
50 Miles	1·91	1·43	1·05	1·48	1·09	0·73	1·16	0·88	0·59
100 Miles	1·91	1·43	1·05	1·47	1·09	0·73	1·16	0·87	0·58

Excluding charge for luggage.

Distances.	Holland.			Germany.
				Express.			Ordinary.
	1st	2nd	3rd	1st	2nd	3rd	1st	2nd	3rd	4th
10 Miles	1·60	1·30	0·80	1·76	1·29	0·91	1·53	1·17	0·82	0·17
50 Miles	1·60	1·30	0·80	1·69	1·27	0·89	1·50	1·13	0·75	0·38
100 Miles	1·60	1·30	0·80	1·69	1·27	0·89	1·50	1·13	0·75	0·38

Including charge for luggage.

Distances.	France.			Belgium.
				Express.			Ordinary.
	1st	2nd	3rd	1st	2nd	3rd	1st	2nd	3rd
10 Miles	2·25	1·77	1·05	1·97	1·57	1·27	1·65	1·42	1·12
50 Miles	2·16	1·60	1·05	1·76	1·29	0·83	1·45	1·07	0·69
100 Miles	2·15	1·59	1·0	1·75	1·29	0·78	1·45	10·7	0·63

Including charge for luggage.

Distances.	Holland.			Germany.
				Express.			Ordinary.
	1st	2nd	3rd	1st	2nd	3rd	1st	2nd	3rd	4th
10 Miles	2·20	1·80	1·10	2·04	1·48	0·94	1·81	1·36	0·82	0·47
50 Miles	2·02	1·65	1·01	1·97	1·46	0·89	1·79	1·32	0·75	0·38
100 Miles	2·02	1·65	1·01	1·97	1·46	0·89	1·78	1·32	0·75	0·38

[ [68] Germany.—The “Statistische Nachrichten Von den Eisenbahnen” shows the expenses for salaries and wages paid by the German railways (exclusive of 38,166,114 marks under the heading of shunting expenses, as it is not known whether this item includes anything for wages) to be 48·46 per cent. of the gross working expenses, but as this information differs from that otherwise obtained, and it is not known whether the latter includes any staff expenses in respect of new works, it is not considered desirable to base any conclusions on either set of figures until they are verified.

[ [69] These figures may not be absolutely accurate, but every effort has been made to make a fair comparison. To obtain them, each of the twelve largest companies, owning in the aggregate 11,538 miles, have supplied the information.

[ [70] The six great companies.

[ [71] The State railways, from the published report.

[ [72] The State, Holland and Dutch Rhenish railways, from information kindly supplied by them.

[ [73] See Note on page 136.

[ [74] Note.—There is a difference between the statements of revenue receipts and working expenses given in the “Statistische Nachrichten Von den Eisenbahnen” and those otherwise obtained, but not of a material character for the present purpose.

[ [75] Shunting Masters 20/0 to 26/0.

[ [76] Includes Foremen.

[ [77] Note.—England—On some railways the 1st Class drivers are allowed a premium of £10 a year for good conduct, and both drivers and firemen are allowed lodging money, and also Sunday labour at the rate of 8 hours per day. Signalmen are allowed bonuses for good conduct from £1 to £5 per annum, and guards are allowed travelling expenses from 1/6 to 2/6 per day and night.

France—Premiums to drivers and firemen are allowed for economy of fuel, regularity of service, and lodging expenses. Guards receive lodging money when they have to sleep out and a percentage on the excess fares collected, amounting together to about £4 15s. a year. Sums varying from £2 to £10 per annum are allowed to the inferior grades of staff who have to reside in Paris and other large towns where living is dear.

Germany—The staff are classified into 5 divisions, all of which (except Class 1, which includes Ministers, Presidents, &c., who do not receive allowances), in addition to their fixed wages, receive allowances for house rent, which vary according to the town in which they reside. The towns are also classified into six divisions as under:—

	A	1	2	3	4	5
Staff in Class	£	£ s. d.	£ s.	£ s.	£ s.	£
Do. 2	60	45 0 0	36 0	30 0	27 0	27
Do. 3	45	33 0 0	27 0	24 0	21 0	18
Do. 4	27	21 12 0	18 0	15 0	10 16	9
Do. 5	12	9 0 0	7 4	5 8	3 12	3

Head guards are in the 4th Class, under guards 5th, 1st Class Signalmen 4th, and Porters and shunters 5th. Engine drivers, firemen and guards are allowed expenses when away from home. Porters are not paid by the railway companies, but are allowed to charge the passengers fixed fees.

Belgium—Engine Drivers and firemen are allowed premiums for economy of fuel and regularity of working, amounting to as much as £20 a year for drivers and £10 for firemen. Guards are also allowed bonuses for regularity of working.

Holland—Enginemen and firemen are allowed premiums for economy in fuel, varying from 3d. to 2/-per day; and a mileage allowance in addition. Guards also receive an allowance over a certain number of miles travelled. Porters are not employed by the companies; but in return for the privilege of being allowed on the stations, they clean windows, sweep offices, &c., and perform other services for the companies.

[ [78] The “Statistische Nachrichten Von den Eisenbahnen” shows an average of £39 6s. 5d. per person on the German railways, whereas the other information, referred to at foot of page 133, gives the following average per person:—

Traffic and General Services.	£	s.	d.
Superintendence, Clerks, &c.	76	18	0
Workmen	34	4	0
Workshops.
Superintendence, Clerks, &c.;	95	0	0
Workmen	45	12	0
An average of £53 8s. 0d. per person.

Note.—In Great Britain the costly systems of interlocking and signalling, and the block working, so as to interpose between trains an interval of space instead of time, are in operation to a very much greater extent than on the Continent, thus involving a larger staff of trained men.

[ [79] See “Aucoc, Cours d’Administration,” vol. 3, p. 345.

[ [80] The taxes in France consist of:—

1.	A duty of frs. 23·20 per cent. on passenger fares and grande vitesse traffic, added to the railway charges, amounting to £3,436,164.
2.	A stamp duty of 35 cents. on “recépissés” and 70 cents. on consignment notes, also charged in addition to the rates, amounting to £1,116,588.
3.	A stamp duty of 10 cents, for every receipt of 10 frs. and above, amounting to £60,328.
4.	A charge of 15 cents. for postage of advice note of arrival of goods, amounting to £70,857.
5.	A tax of 10 frs. per kilometre for double lines and 5 frs. per kilometre for single lines, plus 5 per cent. on the value of the premises occupied by Agents, and 2 per cent. on warehouses, workshops, &c.
6.	License, excise, stamp, customs, and bond duties.
7.	A tax of 120 to 150 frs. per kilometre worked, for the expense of auditing and superintendence.
8.	A stamp duty on shares and bonds of 1 per cent. of the nominal capital.
9.	An income tax of 3 per cent. on interest and dividends.

[ [81] Mr. L. Cohen—Debate on Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 6th May, 1886.—Hansard, vol. cccv., 428.

[ [82] See Second Report, Minutes of Evidence, Mr. Muller, page 38, Q. 1889.

[ [83] Compare Sir Lowthian Bell’s statement. “The results of my enquiry on the continent of Europe, and in the United States, justify the assertion that foreign iron manufacturers as a rule possess no advantage over ourselves in these respects ... That railway accommodation for the transport of fuel, ore, and limestone is afforded on terms somewhat cheaper in Great Britain than those charged on the Continent for like distances.” (Appendix to part 1 of Second Report of the Royal Commission on Depression of Trade, pages 345-361.)

[ [84] For quantities of 200 to 300 tons forwarded day or by one train, the rate from Gelsenkirchen to Amsterdam is 4/6 per ton, and to Antwerp 5/-per ton.

[ [85] For quantities of 200 to 300 tons forwarded day or by one train, the rate from Gelsenkirchen to Amsterdam is 4/6 per ton, and to Antwerp 5/-per ton.

[ [86] Note. The truck load rates are for open trucks. Extra is charged for tarpaulins if the goods are required to be covered.

[ [87] The inflated prices charged in 1873-4 led to the establishment of new collieries in Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire, which raise about 6,000,000 tons per annum; this, with the increased output of the then existing collieries, is equal to an increase of about 50 per cent. of the previous tonnage raised in these counties which, with about 30 per cent. increase in other parts of the country, has prevented colliery proprietors obtaining a reasonable profit since 1875, and probably will do so until the demand overtakes the supply.

[ [88] See Appendix I., page vii.

[ [89] Appendix 31 to Report from Select Committee on Railways (Rates and Fares), 1881-2, Vol. II.

[ [90] Note.—The following remarks, contained in the report of the Joint Committee of 1872, on the subject of periodical revision of rates, are worth reading—

“The difficulty has been felt by many of the witnesses, and they have accordingly suggested that there should be a periodical revision of rates and fares.

“Here, again, we are met in the first instance by the same difficulty as before. The companies will, if experience is any guide, constantly, for their own sakes, charge less than their legal maxima. Is this revision to take effect on their legal maxima, or on the actual rates as they voluntarily reduce them? If the former, its results will be small; if the latter, it will be difficult to effect, and may bear hardly upon the companies in stereotyping a temporary or experimental reduction. In fact, the proposals for revision of rates, if they are to be effectual, really presuppose some such determination of rates according to a fixed standard as we have considered above. If there are no special rates, it is a comparatively simple thing to make a general reduction. If there are special rates it becomes a very difficult task. But a still more serious question with respect to periodical revision is the question—On what principle is it to be performed, and by whom? If it is to be purely arbitrary, if no rule is to be laid down to guide the revisers, the power of revision will amount to a power to confiscate the property of the companies. It is not likely that Parliament would attempt to exercise any such power itself, still less that it would confer such a power on any subordinate authority. Accordingly the witnesses have suggested that the revision should take effect under conditions which would reserve to the companies a reasonable amount of profit, and to some revision founded on this principle, it appears from the evidence that some, at least, of the principal railway companies would not object.

“This leads to the further consideration of the important question, whether it is possible or desirable to fix by law a maximum of profit, or dividend. If it is not possible or desirable to do so, any periodical or systematic revision of charges by any authority subordinate to Parliament, may be pronounced impracticable.”

[ [91] See the language of Lord Penzance in Pryce v. Monmouthshire Canal and Railway Company, L. R. 4 A. C., p. 206.

[ [92] In the case of the application of the North Wales Colliery proprietors to the Railway Commissioners against the Great Western Railway Company, on the ground that they charged coal from South Wales to Birkenhead, 159 miles, at the rate of ·454d. per ton per mile, as against ·893d. per ton per mile for their coal for 28 miles, the expense incurred by the Great Western Company, exclusive of the time occupied by their own staff, was £1,433; and the time which was taken up in preparing for, and in attending, the hearing was very serious.

[ [93] The rates for “interstate” traffic in the United States are not at present subject to any Government control, but are made at the discretion of the companies to meet the requirements of trade, competition by rail and water, and of cities. Two Bills for the regulation of the interstate traffic of railways have recently been before Congress; one, the “Reagan” Bill, which proposes to fix the charges, to prohibit any discrimination, and to make it illegal for railway companies “to combine or to pool” their receipts without stringent provisions and penalties. The other Bill, entitled the “Cullom” Bill, proposed the appointment of an Interstate Commission consisting of five members, but did not provide for any specific or maximum rates for the transportation of passengers or merchandise, except that they should be reasonable and that there should be no unfair discrimination; while laying down the principle that the rates should be in proportion to the distance carried, it proposed to give to the Commissioners power, in their discretion, to allow lower rates to be charged for long, as compared with short distance traffic. The former Bill passed the House of Representatives and was rejected by the Senate; the “Cullom” Bill passed the Senate, and was rejected by the House of Representatives.

[ [94] Report of the Committee of Commerce, House of Representatives of the United States, March 8th, 1886.

“The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bills (H. R. 309) to establish a Board of Commissioners of interstate commerce, and for other purposes; (H. R. 770) to regulate interstate commerce through a national court of arbitration (H. R. 1,572) to create an interstate commerce commission, and to regulate its powers and duties; (H. R. 1,669) to establish a bureau of transportation in the Department of the Interior; (H. R. 2,412) to regulate interstate commerce and to prevent unjust discriminations by common carriers; and (H. R. 3,929) to establish a Board of Commissioners of interstate commerce, and to regulate such commerce, beg leave to report said bills back to the House, and ask that they be laid on the table, and to report the accompanying bill as a substitute for H. R. 2,412, and recommend its passage.

“The subject matter of these bills has been so fully and elaborately discussed for several years past, that it is not deemed necessary in this report to enter into an elaborate explanation of the provisions of the bill reported to the House. Your committee may state, however, that the several bills referred to them rest upon three different theories.

“House bills 309, 1,572, 1,669 and 3,929 are framed upon the idea of providing a governmental commission, and of making detailed regulations of freight rates. The theory of these bills did not need the approval of the committee.

“House bill 770, ‘To Regulate Interstate Commerce through a National Court of ‘Arbitration,’ looks to the establishment of a court with power extending in some measure to the regulation of commerce between States, with provisions extending to the regulation of subjects not believed to be within the jurisdiction of Congress, and not embracing in its provisions matters of regulation believed to be necessary in a bill of this kind; and a single court to be held at Washington City, as provided in this bill, would not be sufficiently convenient to the people.

“The bill which we report to the House, and which is an amendment of House bill 2,412, is based upon the theory of furnishing civil remedies in the courts of ordinary jurisdiction to parties for the most conspicuous grievances complained of in railroad management, prohibiting what should not be done, and commanding what should be done; proposing remedies for the violation of its provisions, and avoiding any attempt at detailed regulation of freight rates. This was deemed best as the first effort at legislation upon this subject. The interests involved are so large, and their successful management so important to the country, that it was not deemed advisable to run any risk of embarrassing the management of the railroads of the country, and at the same time it was deemed necessary for the protection of the interests of the people to control and circumscribe the exercise of the monopoly powers of these corporations, to prevent them from making extortionate charges and unlawful exactions upon the people.

“The examination of this subject will show that the attempt to establish a system of legislative rates is impracticable, for the reason that what would be a reasonable rate for one road would be ruinous, perhaps, to others, as the charges for the transportation of freights are largely controlled by the amount of business done by the several roads.

“For instance, what would be a reasonable rate of charges on the Pennsylvania Railroad would not be a reasonable rate upon a road in the new States and in a sparsely settled portion of the country.

“The same difficulty lies in the way of attempting to protect the people by the adoption of maximum rates. What would be a reasonable maximum upon one road would not be reasonable upon others. A maximum high enough to protect the railroads against harm would be too high to benefit the people on most of the roads, and a maximum low enough to protect the people on some roads would be ruinous to the interests of many other roads, so that it is not believed best to attempt to protect the interests of the public by the legislative rates or by the maximum rates.

“The bill which we report to the House, instead of adopting either of these plans, provides that the charges of the railroads shall be reasonable; that persons engaged in the transportation of interstate commerce by railroads shall furnish without discrimination the same facilities for the carriage, receiving, delivery, storage and handling of property of a like character, and shall perform with equal expedition the same kind of services connected with contemporaneous transportation.

“These constitute a portion of the leading features of the bill which we report to the House. It is believed that the enactment and enforcement of such a law will provide for the just and necessary abridgment of the monopoly powers of these corporations, and protect the people against unreasonable charges and extortionate exactions, and will at the same time not interfere with or embarrass the management of railroad corporations in anything which it is reasonable and just they should do. And the Committee believe it wiser and better to provide for the enforcement of the provisions of such a law through the instrumentality of the ordinary courts of justice, and by the judges and juries of the country than by the orders of a commission. The machinery of the courts is already in existence, and will require no additional expense, and is within convenient reach of the people everywhere, and is fully able to adjudicate all cases which may arise under this bill and by methods with which the people are familiar, while no plan of a commission which has been proposed could be conveniently accessible to all the people, and if a plan should be presented which would provide a jurisdiction convenient to all the people it would necessarily be cumbrous and very expensive. In this view a commission is unnecessary, unless it is the purpose of Congress to enter upon the detailed regulation of freight rates.”

[ [95] Poor’s Manual of Railroads for 1885 (page xv.) gives a list of Railroads of the United States sold under foreclosure. The following is a brief summary:—

	Mileage m.	Capital Stock. $	Funded Debt. $	Floating Debt $
1882	668	20,751,457	23,999,065	10,073,769
1883	1,190	24,587,704	38,197,926	2,481,608
1884	714	12,894,000	13,061,000	422,533

[ [96] The railways in this country are governed by directors who have shares in the respective undertakings, and represent the shareholders (assumed to be about 500,000), but generally their interest in the railways is relatively small compared with that which they possess in land, manufactories, collieries, ironworks, and commerce &c., besides which from their local connections, and as public men, they are keenly alive to the requirements of agriculture, trade and commerce, and in reality represent those interests to a much greater extent than is sometimes assumed to be the case.

[ [97] In a case of the kind referred to, which was brought before the Board of Trade when the Bill was before Parliament, as a skilled officer of the company was occupied 150 hours, in preparing the information alone to reply to the Board of Trade, irrespective of the time occupied by others in analysing the information, and in corresponding with the Board of Trade on the subject, all of which had no practical result.

[ [98] In Lees v. Lancashire & Yorkshire, 1 N. & M. 352, the Commissioners relied to some extent upon a principle which they do not appear to have since put in force. The question was whether the company gave an undue and unreasonable preference to the Corporation. The Commissioners said that undoubtedly a preference had been given, but they declined to say it was unreasonable (1) because the Corporation did not compete with the complainants; (2) because the preference was for the public benefit and convenience (p. 367); (3) because of the nature and magnitude of the coal traffic of the Corporation.

[ [99] 2 N. & M. 39.

[ [100] See the head note on the case, and the language of Williams, J.; also the observations of Cockburn, C. J. in Harris v. Cockermouth and Workington Railway Company, I. N. and M., p. 703. The latter judge, referring to “fair and sufficient reasons” for differences in rates, says, “As, for instance, in respect of terminal traffic, there might be competition with another railway.”

[ [101] The reporters append the following note to the case.

“It appears that competition between two railways, or by sea or canal, is sufficient justification for a railway company reducing its fares to the public, who are affected by such competitions, and can take advantage; but that a railway company cannot, merely for the sake of increasing their traffic, reduce their rates in favour of individuals unless there is a sufficient consideration for such reduction, which shall lessen the cost to the company of conveyance or other services rendered to them by such individuals,” vol. 2, p. 121. Probably this represented the general opinion of the legal profession in 1875.

In the report for 1883 the Commissioners refer to “the fair pecuniary interests generally of the company carrying” (p. 1.) as if they might be taken into account.

[ [102] “The loss arising from the unnecessary multiplication of train services, as well for the passengers as for the goods, the avoidance of which was one of the principal motives which decided the Prussian Government to purchase their railways, may be obviated in this country, by a more intimate fusion of the interests of the various railways, either by amalgamation or by the consolidation of their interests in some other way, under the sanction of Parliament; care being taken that the interests of the public in regard to accommodation and charges are duly safeguarded. I have reason to believe that, so far as the railways north of the Thames and west of the metropolis are concerned, the more active and enlightened directors are by no means unprepared for a step of the kind.”

[ [103] See the late Mr. R. Stephenson’s evidence before Mr. Cardwell’s Committee, 25th February, 1853. Q. 987-9.

[ [104] The General Prussian Railway Law of 1838 (S. 44) under which many of the Prussian railways were constructed, expressly declared that “no railway running in the same direction as the first one between the same principal points shall be allowed to be constructed by any undertakers other than the undertakers of the first railway, within a space of 30 years from the opening of such railway, provided that improvements of the communications between the points and in the same direction by other means shall not be interfered with.”

[ [105] Mr. Mundella, Debate on Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 6th May, 1886. Hansard, vol. cccv., page 461.

[ [106] Sir B. Samuelson, Debate on Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 1886. Hansard, vol. cccv., page 441.

[ [107] The Clause in the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, as to the maintenance of canals is as follows:—

Every Railway Company owning or having the management of any canal or part of a canal shall at all times keep and maintain such canal or part, and all the reservoirs, works and conveniences thereto belonging, thoroughly repaired and dredged, and in good working condition, and shall preserve the supplies of water to the same so that the whole of such canal or part, may be at all times kept open and navigable for the use of all persons desirous to use and navigate the same without any unnecessary hindrance, interruption, or delay.

[ [108] Appendix to Report of Select Committee on Canals, page 214, “These lengths are exclusive of the River Thames, Severn, Wye, Humber, Wear, and Tyne in England; the Rivers Clyde, Forth, Tay, and the Caledonian Ship Canal in Scotland; the Shannon and other navigations in Ireland.” According to Mr. Taunton’s Report, the canals and navigable rivers in England, Wales, and Scotland under control of railways are 1,447 miles as against 2,335, which are independent of railway companies (Appendix 228.)

[ [109] See evidence before the Select Committee on Canals, in 1883.

[ [110] M. de Foville says (1880) “Sur les canaux de l’Etat, la suppression totale des droits de navigation sera peut être bientôt un fait accompli” p 134.

[ [111] There is a large mileage of canals belonging to canal companies, and considering the views expressed by some as to the use which could be made of the canals which belong to the railway companies, it would have been instructive if the proprietors of all the independent canals had shown by the manner in which they had maintained and worked them, that the railway companies’ canals could be more profitably and usefully worked than they now are.

[ [112] “Monopoly” is at present the favourite word of the adversaries of railways; everything is permissible because railway companies have a “monopoly.” This word has at least three senses. Monopoly in the strict legal sense in which the Bank of England is guaranteed by statute, the exclusive right of issuing notes within a certain area; monopoly in the sense of being able to exclude other competitors, because in a commercial point of view there is no room for competition, or because the work could not be done more cheaply or better by others. Messrs. W. H. Smith may be said to possess a monopoly in this sense; monopoly is equivalent to property. No railway company possesses a monopoly in the first sense. No company is guaranteed against competition within any area, as many of them know to their cost. Most attacks against railways are justified by using the word, true in the second or third sense, as if true in the first; and persons in eminent positions occasionally condescend to sanction the use of this fallacy.

[ [113] Some difficulty has been experienced in checking the rates contained in Sir B. Samuelson’s report owing to the distances not being given, and from the name of the district being used instead of the names of the places between which the rates are shewn. For instance, although the South Wales Coalfields extend over a very large area, a rate of 7s. 3d. per ton for coke is referred to as from “South Wales to Darlaston,” on page 24 of the report; and in like manner on pages 27 and 28 the rates for pig iron are given as from “Cleveland and Northamptonshire.”

[ [114] Collection in Banbury, and delivery alongside ship in Liverpool in 10 ton lots.

[ [115] Collection in Banbury, and delivery alongside ship in Liverpool in 10 ton lots.

[ [116] Collection in Banbury, and delivery alongside ship in Liverpool in 10 ton lots.

[ [117] The observation made in the report that the higher rates in Germany are avoided by the intervention of forwarding agents, who collect from small consignees, and make up the minimum load, charging somewhat higher rates than for 5 or 10 ton lots, shows that it was seen that, although the comparison of British rates is made with them, the general public cannot obtain the advantage of the low rates, because of the heavy minimum quantities.

[ [118] The following are the charges authorised to be made for such services in addition to the mileage rate and terminals in Germany, Holland, and Belgium:—

	Germany.	Holland.	Belgium.
Counting	{ 1·2d. per 20 pieces. { 1s. 0d. per truck { minimum. { 3s. 0d. per truck { maximum.	0·2d. per packge.	1d. per ton.
Weighing	{ Stückgut 0·6d. per { 2 cwt. {Wagon Loads 0·48d. { per 2 cwt. if each { piece is weighed {separately; 1s.0d. {per truck.	from 0·2d. to 0·6d. per 2 cwt.	5d. per ton.
Booking	. . .	. . .	2d. per consignment.
Labelling	0·6d. per piece.	0·6d. per packge.	2d.
Stamping	. . .	1·2d. each note.	. . .
Use of Cranes	0·36d. per 2 cwt. 9d. minimum.	10d. to 1s. 8d. per ton.	3d. per ton.
Advice of Goods	About 1/2d.	1d.	1d.
Tarpaulins	2s. 0d. each.	2s. 8d. each.	1s. 7d. each.
Disinfecting	1s. per truck.	1s. per truck.	1s. per truck.

[ [119] Note.—By agreement the Holland Railway Company are bound to adopt the same basis as the local rates on the States Railway, unless their own scale is lower.

[ [120] The terminals for Fast, and General Goods Classes 1 and 2, include loading and unloading.

[ [121] The terminals for Fast, and General Goods Classes 1 and 2, include loading and unloading.

The tariff of the Dutch Rhenish Railway is divided into the following classes:—

[ [122] The charge for delivery to domicile is compulsory, and amounts to 3 francs per 100 Kilog.

[ [123] The charge for delivery to domicile is compulsory, and amounts to 30 cents. per 100 Kilog.

[ [124] The rates for Furniture Vans belonging to private parties represent the charge for 6,000 kilog. at 1st Class. In the case of Furniture Vans provided by the Railway Company, the above mentioned prices are increased by 17 per cent.

[ [125] The Rates for these services do not apply to packages weighing more than 500 kilos. (10 cwt.) each.

[ [126] The Rates for these services do not apply to packages weighing more than 500 kilos. (10 cwt.) each.

[ [127] The Rates for these services do not apply to packages weighing more than 500 kilos. (10 cwt.) each.

[ [128] These Charges must be paid direct to the Carman.

[ [129] These Charges must be paid direct to the Carman.

[ [130] The Rates for these services do not apply to packages weighing more than 500 kilos. (10 cwt.) each.

[ [131] The bottom floor of a Belgian Cattle Truck generally measures 14 square metres, equal to 16·75 square yards.

[ [132] See Note on pp. xl and xli.

[ [133] See Note on pp. xl and xli.

[ [134] See Note on pp. xl and xli.

[ [135] The bases for 4th Class, General Standard Scale, 1867, are as follows:—

1 to 25 kilometres, terminal charge franc 0.50, mileage rate franc 0.60 per kilometre.

26 to 50 kilometres, terminal charge 1 franc, mileage rate franc 0.04 per kilometre extra.

51 to 76 kilometres, terminal charge 1 franc, mileage rate franc 0.03 per kilometre extra.

76 and over, terminal charge 1 franc, mileage rate franc 0.01 per kilometre extra.

[ [136] The bases for 4th Class, General Standard Scale, 1867, are as follows:—

1 to 25 kilometres, terminal charge franc 0.50, mileage rate franc 0.60 per kilometre.

26 to 50 kilometres, terminal charge 1 franc, mileage rate franc 0.04 per kilometre extra.

51 to 76 kilometres, terminal charge 1 franc, mileage rate franc 0.03 per kilometre extra.

76 and over, terminal charge 1 franc, mileage rate franc 0.01 per kilometre extra.

[ [137] Note— Up to 100 Kilometres

[ [138] Note— 101 Kilometres and more.

[ [139] Note— Up to 100 Kilometres

[ [140] Note—101 Kilometres and more.

[ [141] Note.—In converting Foreign money and distances into English money and miles, the following have been taken, viz.:—

25 francs	£1
1 mark	1s.
100 pfenning	1s.
1 florin	1s. 8d.
1 kilometre	·621 of a mile.
1,000 kilogrammes	2,200 lbs.