Personal preferences were forbidden. But the companies were to accommodate their rates to the circumstances of the traffic, the Legislature’s mode of expressing the rule that the traffic should pay what it could bear; and within the statutory maxima, the companies were to be free to alter their tolls as they thought fit. How far this was altered by s. 2 of the “Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854,” need not here be considered. It is enough to say here that, so far as s. 90 was concerned, differential rates were not only not prohibited, but distinctly sanctioned. S.90 required equality only in regard to traffic “passing between the same points of departure and arrival, and passing over no other part of the line.”[35] [35] Earl of Selborne in _Denaby Main Colliery Company_ v. _Manchester Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Company_.--L.R. 11 A.C. p. 113. Consumers may profitably bear in mind the report of the Select Committee on Railways (Rates and Fares), of 1881-2. Whilst stating “Your Committee cannot recommend any new legislative interference for the purpose of enforcing upon Railway Companies equality of charge.” They add: “Some of the inequalities of charges complained of are to the advantage rather than to the disadvantage of the public, where there is an _undue preference_ the law now gives a remedy.” They also give the following illustration:-- “That Greenock sugar refiners should be in the same markets as the sugar refiners of London, while it may be a grievance to London refiners, must be an advantage to Greenock refiners, and cannot be a disadvantage to buyers of sugar.” It is added that the effect of interference with the freedom to fix rates according to special circumstances would in this instance be “to give a practical monopoly to the London sugar refiners who would be the real gainers by the transaction. It does not appear to your Committee that such a result would be either just or reasonable.” For more than forty years railway companies have been conforming to these principles. They have been developing long as well as short distance traffic, and aiding the opening of new industries. They have done so to their own advantage, for though the return on the capital expended on railways has been small, it has been obtained on a large volume of traffic. They have been able to benefit the commerce of the country to a degree which would have been impracticable if, instead of rates being elastic and freely accommodated to traffic, the traffic had been forced to adapt itself to the rates. Producers pay what they find it worth while to pay; they pay no more. In framing the statutory classification, the Legislature assumed that producers would probably find it worth while to pay the authorised charges. The companies find out what such producers can in fact pay, and what rates will best promote traffic. What preferable rule could be substituted? SECTION X. NEW CLASSIFICATION.