Judging from remarks which have been made[36] as to the “inconsistency and want of classification,” it appears to be the view of some persons that this classification has been framed by the companies in an arbitrary manner and without regard to the necessities of trade. Nothing could be more erroneous than this assumption. Of necessity it is from the traders themselves that the railway managers have primarily obtained the information by which they have been guided in framing the classification. The questions to be determined in fixing rates are not simple; the elements to be taken into account are many. Whether the traffic is considerable, whether the cubical contents are large or small in proportion to the weight whether it is carried in large or small quantities, whether the merchandise consists of raw materials or manufactured goods, articles of necessity or luxury, must be considered. The requirements of traders with conflicting interests, the different views taken by the companies, and the desire to encourage special industries must be studied. In practice what takes place is this. When a new article of commerce or of manufacture is introduced, the merchant or manufacturer calls on the railway company immediately interested to have it classified and to fix the rates. Of course, there is an endeavour to get it placed in the lowest possible class. Such applications are carefully considered; and they are from time to time discussed by the managers at their conferences. Thus the classification is continually under consideration and revision; there is a constant process of re-adjustment to the changing circumstances of trade. So-called anomalies there no doubt are, and departures from the basis on which a classification should be framed. But the Railway Clearing House Classification, which is the result of this continual effort to adapt charges to new conditions, answers reasonably, if not perfectly, the requirements of trade.[37]

It must be borne in mind, in framing a new standard classification, that it will be the maximum beyond which the companies must not go. If adopted generally over all railways, the scales of maximum rates must allow scope for the local necessities and peculiarities of different districts of the country. Inverness-shire and Cornwall, as well as Staffordshire, Lancashire, and Yorkshire, agricultural, manufacturing, and mining districts, must all be considered. There must be sufficient elasticity in the scale of maximum rates to allow of the charges being remunerative on short distance traffic. Goods coming under the same generic name often vary considerably in cubical contents in proportion to weight, value, and risk of damage, as well as in the extent to which they are carried; all considerations not to be forgotten in constructing a uniform classification. The following few examples, taken casually from consignments actually carried, illustrate the remarkable variations in the weights and bulk of some of the traffic:—

Cubic feet to
the ton. 
Agricultural Implements vary from  70 to 1316
Boots and Shoes 75” 108
Coal 34” 48
Copper 10” 165
Carpets 68” 159
Drain Pipes 99” 205
Furniture 142” 3501
Hay 364” 630
Holloware 106” 214
Hats 529” 1719
Iron (Bar) 7” 39
”  (Scrap) 24” 165
Luggage 95” 971
Millinery 315” 986
Sewing Machines 104” 350
Straw 788” 1256
Tobacco 53” 165
Wool 266” 747
 ”  (Australian pressed) 93” 282

The value of goods coming under the same description, and the risk in conveying them, frequently vary as much as the cubical contents. No matter what pains are taken to frame a fair classification, it is to be feared that any classification based on a careful consideration of the nature and value of the articles carried, and all the varying circumstances of trade—and an omission to consider any such element would work injustice—must appear to some traders to be more or less anomalous. Some will still consider they have a grievance to lay before Chambers of Commerce.

It may be well to state how the problem has been dealt with on the Continent. The particulars given may be instructive to those who hastily recommend an adoption of the systems in force abroad.

In France the classification of goods and rates is in a transition state; and a large portion of the trading and manufacturing classes are discontented with the charges at present made by the railway companies. With a view of simplifying the tariff, in 1879 the Minister of Public Works took steps to frame for adoption on all the French Railways a classification divided into six classes. Subsequently an attempt was made to prepare a uniform scale of railway rates diminishing according to distance. But after a long enquiry, and full consideration, the proposal was abandoned. In 1883, the Paris, Lyons, and Mediterranean Railway Company proposed the adoption of a revised tariff, which professes to afford, on the whole, a reduction in the rates as compared with the former tariff. It was sanctioned by the Minister of Public Works in August, 1885. It consisted of six classes for general goods in any quantities, and six for goods of the special classes, which are generally carried in lots of one and five tons. The latter six classes were in substitution for the many special tariffs formerly existing. The Eastern of France Railway Company also revised their tariff, re-adjusting the classification, and reducing the number of their special tariffs to 28. An article formerly carried at a special tariff between certain specified stations is now charged at the fourth class rate. But when carried generally, and not between particular stations, such an article remains, as before, in the second class. The Northern of France Railway Company have also revised their tariffs on a somewhat similar basis.

Long debates on the subject of the charges under the new tariffs, and on the railways generally, took place in the Chamber of Deputies, in February and March last. There were complaints that the “reformed tariff,” and particularly that of the Paris, Lyons, and Mediterranean Company, had not brought about the anticipated reductions, and that, while in some cases lower rates for certain goods carried in large quantities had been conceded, higher rates had been fixed for similar goods sent in small quantities. The rate for 5 ton lots, for instance, is lower; but that for lots under 5 tons is generally higher. The larger traders had derived a benefit from the change; but the small traders and consumers compared with what they were, are placed at a disadvantage. So far the other companies have not made any alteration in their tariffs.

Thus it will be seen that in France there is no uniform classification. The tariffs of the companies, with the exception of the Ouest, Nord and Est, are composed of a different number of classes, and the number of articles enumerated in the classification also varies. Articles, too, are not included in the same classes on all lines. For instance, the Ouest enumerates 1686, the Nord 1519, and the Paris, Lyons, and Méditerranée, 1425. The tariffs are divided—

by the Compagnie de l’Ouest  into  6 classes.
” ”  ”l’Est”6  ”
” ”  ”du Nord”6  ”
” ”  ”Paris, Lyons, }”6 general tariff classes.
Méditerranée }”6 special  ”  ”
” ”  ”d’Orleans”4 classes.
” ”  ”du Midi”5  ”
” ”  ”de l’Etat”9  ”

The following examples show how the classifications vary:—