The tolls and charges in the Companies’ Acts were fixed originally in the old belief (to which I have before alluded) that railway companies, like canal companies, would be mere owners of the route; and when they became carriers and provided stations, sidings, warehouses, cranes, and all the paraphernalia appertaining to the business of a carrier, the old form was not altered, the charging powers remained as originally expressed in subsequent Acts, and the same old model was followed. For several years prior to 1881 complaints by merchants, traders and public bodies against railway rates and fares had become very common. The cry was taken up by the public generally, and railway companies had a decidedly unpleasant time of it, which they bore with that good temper and equanimity which I (perhaps not altogether an unprejudiced witness) venture to affirm generally characterised them. The complaints increased in number and intensity and Members of Parliament and newspaper writers joined in the jeremiad.
Parliament, as Parliaments do, yielded to clamour, and in 1881 a Select Committee was appointed by the House of Commons to inquire into railway charges, into the laws and conditions affecting such charges, and specially into passenger fares. It was a big committee, consisted of 23 members, took 858 pages of evidence, and examined 80 witnesses. At the end of the session they reported that, although they had sat continuously, time had failed for consideration of the evidence, and recommended that the committee be re-appointed in the next session. This was done, and the committee, enlarged to 27 members, took further evidence, and submitted a report to Parliament.
The gravest issue was the right of the companies to charge terminals, and the committee found that the railways had made out their case, and recommended that the right of the companies to station terminals should be recognised by Parliament. Further, the committee, on the whole of the evidence, acquitted the railway companies of any grave dereliction of their duty to the public, and added: “It is remarkable that no witnesses have appeared to complain of ‘preferences’ given to individuals by railway
companies as acts of private favour or partiality.” As to passenger fares, the committee reported that the complaints submitted to them were rather local than general, and not of an important character, but thought that it might be well for the Railway Commissioners to have the same jurisdiction in respect to passengers as to goods traffic.
The railway companies thus emerged from this searching inquiry with credit, as they have done in the many investigations to which they have been subjected, and no high-minded and aspiring young railway novice need ever blush for the traditions of the service.
Before the committee Mr. James Grierson, General Manager of the Great Western, was the principal witness for the railway companies, and yeoman service he rendered. He presented the railway case with great ability, and his views were accepted on the important terminal question. In 1886 he published a book on Railway Rates, which was warmly welcomed by the Press and, in the words of Herepath’s Journal, was “an exhaustive, able, and dispassionate résumé of all the conflicting statements, claims, and interests verging round the much vexed question of railway rates.” Certainly he did much towards the ultimate settlement of the matter. Mr. Grierson was, perhaps, the ablest witness before Parliamentary Committees the railway service ever had, which is saying much. A leading counsel, during the luncheon interval, once said to him, “We feel small when we are cross-examining you. You know all about the business, and we can only touch the fringe of it.” The great secret of Mr. Grierson’s success was his mastery of, and scrupulous regard for, facts and his straightforwardness. Of his book he himself said, “My conclusions may be disputed, but no one shall dispute the facts on which they are based.”
The committee recommended that Parliament, when authorising new lines, or extending the powers of existing companies, should have its attention drawn by some public authority to the proposed, and in the case of existing companies, to the existing rates and fares. They also recommended that one uniform classification of merchandise be established by law; that the Court of Railway Commissioners be made permanent; and that the amalgamation of Irish Railways be promoted and facilitated. Thus the great inquiry ended; but public agitation did not cease. One or two attempts
at legislation followed, but from one cause or another, fell through; and it was not until 1888 that the subject was seriously tackled by Parliament. In that year the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, of which I shall later on have something to say, was passed.
On the appearance of the Report in 1882, it was recognised in railway circles that something must happen regarding the eternal rates question, and the companies began to prepare themselves as best they could. It fell upon me to examine the many Acts of Parliament of the Glasgow and South-Western Railway, to collate the provisions relating to tolls, charges and maximum powers, to compare those powers with actual rates, to work out cost of terminal service, and to draw up a revised proposed scale of maximum conveyance rates and terminal charges. Deeply interesting work it was, and led, not very many years afterwards, to unexpected promotion, which I valued much, and about which I shall have more to say.
In the year 1880 a Scotch branch of the Railway Benevolent Institution was established. Mr. Wainwright was made its chairman, and I was appointed secretary. He and I had for some time urged upon the Board in London the desirability of a local committee of management in Scotland. The Institution had a great membership in England, and was generously helped there in the matter of funds by the public. The subscription payable by members was small, and the benefits it bestowed were substantial; but railway men in Scotland looked at it askance: “the Board in London kenned little aboot Scotland and Scotch claims wouldna get vera much conseederation.” Well, all this was changed by what we did. Soon a numerous membership succeeded to the few who on Scottish railways had previously joined the Institution, and we had much satisfaction in finding that we were able to dispense substantial aid to many old and needy railwaymen and to their widows and orphans. Mr. Wainwright remained Chairman of the Branch till his death, and I continued Secretary until I left Scotland.