compulsory acquisition of land
and property, should, in the public interest, impose restrictions on
their charging powers. No one could reasonably complain of this, and had
it been done from the beginning in a clear, logical way, and in language
free from doubt, all might have been well and much subsequent trouble
avoided. But this was not the case. Each company's charging powers were
contained in its own private Acts (which were usually very numerous) and
differed for different sections of the railway. It was often impossible
for the public to ascertain the rights of the companies, and well nigh
impossible for the companies themselves to know what they were. These
powers were in the form of tolls for the use of the railway; charges for
the use of carriages, wagons, and locomotive power, and total maximum
charges which were less than the sum of the several charges. In the Acts
no mention was made of terminals, though in some of them power to make a
charge for _services incidental to conveyance_ was authorised, and what
these words really meant was the subject of much legal argument and great
forensic expenditure.

In addition to the tolls and charges, the Acts usually contained a rough
classification of goods to which they applied. These were divided into
from three to five classes, and comprised some 50 to 60 articles. The
railway companies, however, had in existence, for practical everyday use,
a general classification called The Railway Clearing House
Classification, and this contained over 2,700 articles divided into seven
classes.

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