Facsimile PDF - Online Library of Liberty

362 METHODS OF SOCfdL REFORM
of railway property, bnt shall itself work the traffic, in the
same nmnner as the telegraphs are now worked under the
Postmaster-General.
It is remarkable that not one of the witnesses examined
before the Railway Commission, intimately acquainted as they
most of them were with railway traffic, would undertake to
recommend thc second scheme, though several of them held
that great advantages would arise from the plan of leasing bhe
lines in groups. It is especially worthy of notice that an
elaborate sc’herne of the first. kind was put forward by Mr.
Frccleric IIill, of the Post Office Department, in his evidence
before the Itrrilwny Commission, and it was carefully considered
nncl ndvcwatcd 1 1 his ~ brother Sir Rowlnnd LEiII, in his separate
report ns IL member of that Commission. Mr. Frederic Hill
lms further stated his views in n. paper communicated to the
~nectitlg of the Social Science Association at h’m-castle-upon-
‘i‘ync, when they were fully discussed. The details of the
schcme are too elaborate to be described here, and must be
sought in thc: Reports of the Comn~ission and of the Social
Science Association (p. 450). Altllough there is rnuch that
is valuablc it1 the proposals of these gentlemen, few have
11rcn fouud to concur in their principal suggestions, and
the other rncmbcrs of the Comnlission dcclined to accept
them. TVhat chiefly strikes me in their opinions is the
very distinct way in which Sir Ilowlnnd Hill and his brother,
Luth possessing the most intimate acqunintancc with the
working of tl~c postal system, decline t.o recommend that
tho Goreln~~~cnt shoultl itsclf manngc the traffic. Sir ROWland
says : ‘‘ I do not ~nenll to recommend that any Government
Board should take upon itself, in the gross, the duty nom
performcd by railway directors. For tho direct management
of the lines I propose to provide by leasing them out, in
convenient groups, to companies, partnerships, or individuals,
as tho case nmy be.” Nr. Frederic Hill unequivocally asserts,
that it is expedient that the State should purchase the
rnilwnys, but t’llat it is not expedient that it should undertake
their management.” IVhile entirely accepting their opinion
against Go~ernment management, I fail to perceive how their