greater matters had passed into other hands. The point is that these cities still kept the form of commonwealths, commonwealths that must have passed most of their lives in fear and trembling, but still commonwealths, even if in fetters, not mere municipalities, such as we are used to in modern times. In Eastern Europe and Western Asia this state of things is the direct and necessary consequence of those events of the Polybian age of which we spoke in a former article. The history of the Roman power in Western Europe is a wholly distinct subject. There Rome did not enslave or destroy, but created. The towns of the West looked forward, while the Greek commonwealths looked backward. The gradual extinction of these last was the necessary consequence of later changes, of changes which followed on the centralizing and despotic tendencies of the later Empire. Much of local independence had vanished between Strabo's day and Pliny's; the Lykian League itself was a thing of the past when Trajan respected the privileges of Amisos. How late any traces of freedom lingered we need not here inquire. My present object is to show the long abiding effects of the peculiar process by which the Roman dominion was definitely formed in that great determining period of the world's history which is marked by the second century before Christ.

EDWARD A. FREEMAN.

RAILWAY RATES AND BRITISH TRADE.

HERE is unquestionably a widely spread belief that railway companies fix the rates and charges for goods traffic in an arbitrary manner without any defined basis, that they are generally influenced by the desire to injure some particular district, and particularly to favour foreign as against English manufactures and produce of all kinds. This is no exaggeration of a statement made by a Cabinet Minister* in a recent discussion in the House of Lords. At the Social Science Congress at Birmingham, the charge of conspiring to injure certain districts in the Midland counties appears to have been broadly made against three of the largest English companies; and newspaper articles take up the cry and suggest sweeping and drastic, though possibly ill-considered, remedies.

It is not unnatural that, in the struggle for existence which nearly all our national industries are now sustaining, every element of cost should be most carefully scrutinized, and that the item of carriage should be closely investigated, and, if practicable, reduced; but the wild and absurd charges made against railway companies, and the threats of confiscatory legislation with which these are accompanied, can only have the effect of causing railway companies to combine for the protection of their common interests, and of inducing a feeling of distrust throughout the large body of railway shareholders who are preparing to organize themselves in defence of their property.

It should be remembered that during the last eighteen years three great national inquiries have been held into the administration of English railways, and that by each of these the railway companies have been acquitted of the principal charges brought against them.

The Earl of Kimberley in the debate on a new Standing Order moved by Lord Henniker, July 22, 1884.

Inasmuch as frequent reference to these investigations will occur, it may be desirable to mention them shortly.

In 1865 a Royal Commission, presided over by the Duke of Devonshire, was appointed to inquire into railway rates and charges for the conveyance of traffic and other matters connected with railway administration. Among the members of this Commission were Lords Belmore and Sherbrooke and the late Lord Wolverton, and Messrs. T. B. Horsfall, A. S. Ayrton, and Douglas Galton. Their Report was presented in May, 1867, and the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868, was framed upon the lines of its recommendations.

In 1872, a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament was appointed to consider certain Amalgamation Bills then pending, and made a full inquiry into railway management. This Committee was exceptionally strong, the peers upon it being the Marquesses of Salisbury and Ripon, Earls Derby, Cowper, and Redesdale, and the late Lord Belper, while the representatives of the House of Commons were Lord Carlingford (then Mr. Chichester Fortescue, President of the Board of Trade), Sir R. A. Cross, Mr. Childers, and Mr. Dodson, and the late Mr. G. Ward Hunt and Mr. S. Cave. The Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1873, under which the Court of Railway Commissioners was constituted, was based upon the Report of this Joint Committee.

The last investigation was made by the Select Committee of the House of Commons upon Railway Rates and Fares, which sat during the Sessions of 1881 and 1882. Its proceedings show how complete and exhaustive an inquiry was made into the whole subject committed to it. This Committee presented an elaborate Report, containing many valuable recommendations, and they expressly stated that," on the whole of the evidence, they acquit the railway companies of any grave dereliction of duty to the public."

While these Reports show that railway companies, having repeatedly proved their innocence, should not be assumed to be guilty, it may be freely admitted that the whole subject of railway rates and charges, both as regards the public and the railway companies, is in an unsatisfactory position, and that, by the exercise of fairness and moderation on both sides, it may be beneficially dealt with by legislation. But it is by no means free from complications and difficulties of detail, and these have hitherto prevented any reform..

It may be desirable to trace shortly the growth of the present system (if system it can be called) of the rate powers of the companies.

The earliest railways were authorized and constructed on the supposition that they would, like canals, be highways for the use of carriers. Hence, in framing the early Railway Acts, the precedents of the Canal Acts were followed, and a scale of maximum tolls was

prescribed in each Act, the classification of goods for this purpose being that adopted in Canal Acts. Each Act also contained a clause (also following the precedent of the Canals) authorizing the railway company to act as a carrier, and in that case to charge a reasonable sum in addition to the maximum tolls. Under these Acts several of our trunk lines were constructed and used, the goods station accommodation being either provided by the great firms which then controlled the carrying business, or provided by the company and leased to one or other of those firms at a rent. Even now, forty years after the companies have become the sole carriers upon their respective railways, some stations disclose evidences of this original design, and some veterans yet remain in the railway service who commenced their career as public carriers on railways.

The original scheme, therefore, was that railways should be limited in their tolls (using that term strictly), but that the charges for conveyance, whether paid by the public to railway companies or to the carrying firms, should be something beyond the tolls in order to cover carriers' services, risks, and profit-the amount of these charges being governed, not by any special enactment, but by competition between the railway companies and the carrying firms which used the railways.

As railways increased and the great systems began to grow up by amalgamation, a further limitation upon charges was imposed, and from about the year 1845 each Act prescribed a scale (calculated at per ton per mile) of maximum charges for conveyance. The scale was generally somewhat below the sum of the tolls chargeable under the earlier Acts for the use of the railway, for locomotive power, and for the use of waggons respectively. To these maximum rates the companies, or most of them, were still permitted to add a terminal charge for the services of loading, unloading, covering, collection and delivery, &c. This form of toll and maximum rate clauses has been followed from 1845 to the present time with few amendments or variations.

The most important part of the controversy now being carried on before the Railway Commissioners and in the courts of law between traders and railway companies depends upon the extent of the companies' powers with regard to the terminal charges. The question at issue may be shortly stated thus: "Does the service of loading and unloading include the provision of the stations, sheds, and sidings necessary for the loading and unloading to be performed, or is it limited to the actual labour required?" The companies maintain the former and the traders the latter contention, and the Railway Commissioners, to whom the determination of terminal charges is entrusted by the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, support the view

of the traders, and have recently decided that in the cases before them the remuneration to the companies for providing stations, however costly, was included in the authorized maximum rate per ton per mile. The question is one of the utmost importance as affecting railway dividends, and, unless dealt with by the Legislature, must come for decision before the highest courts of law.

But whatever decision the House of Lords may ultimately pronounce upon this question, it is clearly for the advantage of traders as well as of railway shareholders that the knot should be cut by legislation, and that the power should be conceded or confirmed to the companies to charge station terminals upon a reasonable scale. It must be borne in mind that these charges are not new, but have been included in railway rates for more than forty years, during which traders have paid them without question, so that the recent crusade opened against terminal charges by the traders' associations. seeks to disturb an existing state of things, and to enforce a reduction of charges which have always hitherto formed the basis of the relations between railways and their customers.

There appears to be no serious controversy that it is right and fair that companies should make their terminal charges; the only issue raised is whether they are within the language of the existing Acts. Upon this point the Royal Commission of 1867 reported as follows

:

"We recommend that terminal charges should be defined to be charges for all services rendered by the railway company beyond. conveyance from station to station, and that they should be based upon the expenses incurred in the receipt and delivery of goods on and from the line."

The Joint Committee of 1872 assumed the right of companies to charge terminals, and only discussed the question of fixing a maximum scale of terminal charges. The Rates Committee of 1882 reported that "Terminal charges should be recognized, but subject to the publication by companies and, in case of challenge, to sanction by Railway Commissioners."

It is obvious that in framing any system of railway charges the remuneration to companies for the conveyance of goods should be made reasonably proportionate to the cost of the services rendered. Whether goods are conveyed for ten miles or for one hundred miles over a railway the company has equally to provide stations, sidings, and machinery in and by means of which the traffic is received from, and delivered to, the public; a station staff for handling, checking, and marshalling the traffic, and clerks for booking and invoicing. All this terminal expenditure is necessarily independent of the distance for which traffic is carried. The other heads of cost are— (1) the cost of constructing, maintaining, and signalling the railway, and (2) the cost of haulage. The first of these may be taken as