Rambles on Railways

by Sir Cusack P. Roney

“We think that there is a plain and obvious distinction between the service rendered by the Post Office in the conveyance of letters and printed matter, and that rendered by railway companies in conveyance of parcels. The Postmaster-General not only enjoys by law an exclusive monopoly of the conveyance of all letters, but he is also entirely protected from all responsibility for any default in the service which the Post Office undertakes to render to the public, and correspondents are left to rely, in the last resort, on the protection of the severe penal laws against the servants of the Post Office.

“We do not think it would be possible to apply this principle to the conveyance of parcels throughout the country.

“There is this further consideration, that the weight of letters received and delivered in each separate packet is exceedingly small, both in weight and bulk, as compared with the bulk and weight of railway parcels, which extend up to 112 lbs., and require, therefore a different organisation for receipt, delivery, and forwarding.

“So long as a railway company is paid a reasonable rate for the transmission of mails, they have no reason to complain of the extension of Post Office service.

“The expense lies in the collection and delivery, and it is quite competent to railway companies to organise a system of collection and delivery, and to compete with the Post Office by carrying parcels on the same terms.

“It is, moreover, to be remarked, that railway companies are not bound to carry parcels, nor is there any tariff for parcels, fixing charges for collection and delivery, in Acts of Parliament. The public is, therefore, at their mercy. We consider that a separate tariff should be laid down and published to govern the conveyance as distinguished from the collection and delivery of parcels, so as to enable the rates of charge to be kept down by the free action of individuals acting as carriers by railway.

“It is, however, apparent that the parcel service so far as interchange is concerned, can never be efficiently performed for the public until railway companies co-operate through the clearing house, to improve their arrangements for parcel traffic. Looking at the extent to which the railway system has now reached, we consider that the time has arrived when railway companies should combine to devise some rapid and efficient system for the delivery of parcels. We do not feel called upon to suggest the precise manner in which this may be carried into effect; but the employment of a uniform system of adhesive labels for parcels, somewhat similar to that now in use on some of the northern lines for the conveyance of newspapers, is one of the most obvious methods for facilitating payment and accounting. If the railway companies do not combine voluntarily, it may be necessary at some future time for Parliament to interfere to make the obligation to carry parcels compulsory, at a rate to be prescribed by law.

“On the companies effecting such an arrangement, we recommend that a general Act should be passed limiting their liability for each parcel to a certain amount, unless a greater value be declared and paid for, according to a settled scale, at the time of transmission, and that such further provisions should be made as may be found necessary to enable the companies to carry out their arrangements.”