Courtenay Boyle, in which they stated that 'the railway companies have built up a traffic remunerative to themselves at rates, generally speaking, much lower than those at present authorized by Parliament, and consequently we believe that it is equitable to make a reduction in their present powers, and to fix rates based to a great extent on existing rates, but with a reasonable margin of profit for possible changes of circumstances injuriously affecting the cost of or returns from the carriage of merchandise by railways.' The Normanton scale rates—the standard of through rates recognized by the majority of English companies were taken as the basis; but the representatives of the Board of Trade pointed out 'First, that between those scale rates, and the actual rates at present charged, there is in many cases a wide margin. Secondly, that the actual rates themselves differ very widely on the same railway, and sometimes in the same district.' In other words, actual rates, and sometimes the lowest of actual rates, were made the basis of the new classification and rates.
No one was satisfied with the proposals. Companies and traders appealed to Parliament. Accordingly the Bills proposed by the Board of Trade were referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses. For forty-five days it sat, going over the whole ground again, and making changes in regard both to classification and terminal charges. The result of this second inquiry was not much more satisfactory than that of the first. By the representatives of certain trades supposed to be aggrieved an attempt was made to reopen the Committee's decisions. The House of Commons refused to do so, more perhaps from a fear that the discussion would be interminable than from a conviction that the proposed charges were unobjectionable. Altogether unique in this country, the process of revision is not unlike what has elsewhere been seen in controversies as to customs tariffs. Comparing the discussion which has gone on since 1881-82—the discussion before the Rates Committee, in Parliament over the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, before Lord Balfour and Mr. Courtenay Boyle, and before the Joint Committee—with the discussions which preceded the passing of the McKinley Tariff Act, as reported in The Congressional Globe and other official records, one must be struck with the similarity; the same pushing of the interests of particular trades and localities, the same higgling for better terms by particular classes of manufacturers, each interest with advocates fully heard, each interest not so represented in danger of being lost sight of, the community of consumers most of all neglected.
From the very nature of things the outcome must be un-
