This pamphlet has been printed and published with the assistance of friends who share my opinion that the scheme proposed will solve the railway problem—now at an acute stage.

A rough outline of the Scheme has been submitted to Sir Charles Cameron, Bart. (on whose initiative sixpenny telegrams were adopted), and while reserving his opinion as to the advantages of State ownership and the difficulties of purchase, he has been good enough to write that this scheme is the boldest and best reasoned plea for the Nationalisation of Railways that he has come across.

The scheme has also been submitted to, among others, Mr. Emil Davies, Chairman of the Railway Nationalisation Society, to Mr. L. G. Chiozza Money, M.P., and to Mr. Philip Snowden, M.P., all of whom have expressed their approval subject to the figures and estimates being correct. These figures and estimates are based on the Official Board of Trade returns for Railways of 1911 and 1912.

I also had the temerity to submit my draft to Mr. W. M. Acworth, the well-known Railway expert, who very courteously gave me his views generally, although refraining from any detailed criticism. I deal with his remarks at the end of Chapter IV., but may here mention that Mr. Acworth called my attention to an article by himself on Railways in “Palgrave’s EncyclopÆdia of Political Economy” published in 1899. In such article he referred to a suggestion which had then been made for uniform fares on the Postal system, and he dismissed the idea in a sentence as impracticable, because no one would pay for a short journey as much as 8d., then the average fare for the whole country.

It is therefore evident that the principle of a flat rate is not novel; yet I can find no reference in any books or pamphlets on railways to any practical scheme for carrying it into effect. Apparently it has been assumed that there can be only one uniform rate, equivalent to the average rate, and that therefore the proposal is quite impossible. The simple expedient of dividing the traffic into the two kinds of “Fast” and “Slow,” on the analogy of the Postal rate of one penny for letters and sixpence for telegrams, overcomes this difficulty. The scheme is in effect an extension to the Railway System of the principle upon which the existing Postal System is founded, and therefore involves Nationalisation.

As submitted to the above-named gentlemen, the draft did not include my remarks on the principles which in my opinion should govern all National and Municipal Trading, and which are now contained in Chapter IV. The attention of both opponents and advocates of Nationalisation is particularly called to these principles, which I have not found elsewhere, but which as laid down are believed to be absolutely sound, and of the highest importance, as removing most, if not all, of the objections of opponents, while retaining all the advantages claimed by advocates of National and Municipal Trading.

I do not pretend to be a railway expert, and have only been able to devote the small leisure time available from an exacting business to putting into writing the thoughts which have exercised my mind for many years past. But the well-known expert, Mr. Edwin A. Pratt, who is a strong opponent of Railway Nationalisation, admits in one of his books that “the greatest advances made by the Post Office have been due to the persistence of outside and far-seeing reformers, rather than to the Postal Officials themselves.” This admission and the conviction that the further advance now proposed is based upon sound principles and undisputed facts, encourages me to submit my scheme with confidence to the consideration of experts and the public.

W. C. A.

37, Norfolk Street,
Strand, London, W.C.

December, 1913.