SECTION XIV. HIGH RATES AND THEIR EFFECT ON TRADE.

It is not uncommon to attribute much of the existing depression of trade to rates charged by railways. Before the Royal Commission which lately investigated the subject, many statements to that effect were made. Against their accuracy there is a strong presumption in the fact that trade has been in recent years depressed elsewhere, and in countries supposed to enjoy lower rates than exist here. When particulars of the exact nature of these complaints are furnished—which is seldom done—it is found for the most part that there is no real connection of cause and effect between railway charges and depression in trade; that the latter revives or declines independently of the former; that for the most part, the evils complained of are beyond the power of railway companies to remove; and that the complaints are contradictory. Two of the forms which these complaints have taken may be noted. One is the statement that[81] differential rates operate in favour of the foreign producer, and that works are being removed from inland to seaboard towns to save carriage.[82] Obviously this grievance could be wholly abated only by free carriage; producers on the sea coast, near points of shipment, inevitably possess certain advantages. These again could only be materially reduced by differential rates somewhat lessening the inland producer’s geographical disadvantages; and to this remedy the persons loudest in their complaints most strongly object. Another form which such complaints take may be noted. The following extract is from a paper sent in by the Mining Association of Great Britain to the Royal Commission on Trade:—

“The heavy trades of coal and iron are also unduly burdened by the high rates and tolls charged by the Railway Companies. They are slowly but surely killing the trade of the country by their high charges and by the preference given to foreign countries.”[83]

Charges against Railway Companies are, generally, of a vague character. But this statement is sufficiently definite to make it possible to test its accuracy by comparing the rates charged for conveying the articles referred to, viz., iron and coal, to some of the chief ports in this country, with the corresponding rates of other neighbouring countries. The following is a comparison of a few of the rates charged for coal and iron in England with those to Belgian and German Ports:—

COMPARISON OF RAILWAY RATES CHARGED FROM VARIOUS COALFIELDS TO THE NEAREST PORTS IN ENGLAND, BELGIUM AND GERMANY.

Article. From To Rate per ton. Remarks

ENGLAND s. d.

Coal Cwmbran Newport 0 4⅜ In owner’s wagons.

Risca Newport (Old Dock) 0 6 In owner’s wagons.

Flimby Maryport 0 6⅔ In Company’s wagons, including tipping.

Camerton Workington 0 7 In owner’s wagons, including tipping.

Cockett Swansea 0 9 In owner’s wagons, including tipping.

Gilgarran Whitehaven 0 10 In Company’s wagons, including tipping.

Dynevor Swansea 0 10 In owner’s wagons, including cost of shipment.

Coedcae Cardiff 0 11½ In owner’s wagons.

Mountain Ash Cardiff 1 0 In owner’s wagons.

Felling Monkwearmouth} Dock } 1 0¾ In Company’s wagons, including cost of shipment.

Abertillery Newport (Old Dock) 1 1 In owner’s wagons.

Londonderry Colliery Tyne Dock 1 2½ In Company’s wagons, including cost of shipment.

Burradon ” ” 1 4¾ In Company’s wagons, including cost of shipment.

Collieries in St. Helen’s District Garston 1 5 In owner’s wagons, including use of dock and tipping.

Article. From To 100 tons. 10 tons. Remarks

BELGIUM s. d. s. d.

Coal Bascoup Antwerp 1 7¼ 2 1¼ including wagons.

” Ghent 1 7¼ 1 10

Jemappes Antwerp 1 11 2 5½

Mons Antwerp . . . 2 4

Charleroi Antwerp . . . 2 3

Fontaine- l’Evêque Antwerp . . . 2 3

GERMANY 50 tons. 10 tons.

Coal Piestag Bremen 3 5 . . .

Gelsenkirchen [84]Amsterdam 4 11 5 9

” [85]Antwerp 5 3 6 6

Gelsenkirchen Hamburg 5 7 7 7

Group I. Camen, &c. Bremen and Hamburg. 5 6 7 1

Group II. Bochum, &c. Bremen and Hamburg. 5 7 . . .

Group III. Meiderich Bremen and Hamburg. 5 8 . . .

FRANCE } HOLLAND } No Coal exported.

COMPARISON OF RATES FOR IRON AND STEEL GOODS.

Article. From To Rate per ton. Remarks

ENGLAND s. d.

Iron (Class A.) Workington Whitehaven 1 2 In Company’s wagons.

Cwmbran Newport 1 4 In Company’s wagons.

Merthyr Cardiff 2 2 In Company’s wagons.

Darlington Middlesboro’ 1 9 In Company’s wagons.

Ebbw Vale Newport (Old Dock) 1 9⅛ In Owner’s wagons.

Dowlais Cardiff 2 7½ In Company’s wagons.

Briton Ferry Swansea 2 6

Cwmbran Cardiff 2 10

Tondu Cardiff 3 4 In Company’s wagons.

Darlington Tyne Ports 3 4 (4-ton lots.) Ditto.

” Gateshead 3 9 In Company’s wagons.

Tondu Swansea 3 9 In Company’s wagons.

Briton Ferry Cardiff 3 9 In Company’s wagons.

Darlington Sunderland 3 9 In Company’s wagons.

COMPARISON OF RATES FOR IRON AND STEEL GOODS.

Rates per Ton of 1,000 Kilogrammes.

Article. From To 10 Tons 5 Tons Under 5 Tons 10 Tons 5 Tons Under 5 Tons

BELGIUM s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d.

Iron . . . La Louvière Antwerp 3 7 Ghent 3 5

Charleroi ” 3 8 5 1 8 9 ” 3 8

Liege ” 3 9 5 4 9 9 ”

Marcinelle ” 3 8 ”

10% added if loaded in covered trucks

10 Tons. 5 Tons. 10 Tons. 5 Tons.

Steel in bars and bundles. Iron in bars O = Open C = Closed O. C. O. C. O. C. O. C.

and sheets unpolished, Chatelineau Antwerp 3 8 4 4 5 2 6 9 Ghent 3 8 4 1 5 2 6 9

Bandages for wheels Marchienne ” 3 8 4 0 5 1 6 7 ” 3 7 4 0 5 1 6 6

Castings, Rails, Acoz ” 3 9 4 1 5 4 7 0 ” 3 9 4 2 5 4 7 0

Castiron Tubes, Seraing ” 3 10 4 3 5 5 7 3 ” 4 1 4 6 5 8 7 9

Nuts, Bolts, Thy-le-Chateau ” 3 9 4 2 5 4 7 2 ” 3 10 4 2 5 4 7 1

Fish-plates, &c. Athus ” 4 11 5 4 6 5 ” 4 11 5 6 6 7

10 Tons. 5 Tons. 10 Tons. 5 Tons.

Anchors and Cables, Clabeg ” 4 3 5 4 4 4 5 6

Carriage brakes, Tubize ” 4 3 5 4 ” 4 3 5 4

Springs, boilers, La Louvière ” 5 0 6 4 ” 4 8 5 11

Ironmongery, &c. &c. Monceau- sur-Sambre ” 5 0 6 6 ” 5 0 6 5

Marchienne ” 5 1 6 7 ” 5 1 6 6

Chatelineau ” 5 2 6 9 ” 5 2 6 9

Acoz ” 5 4 7 0 ” 5 4 7 0

Liege ” 5 4 7 0 ” 5 8 7 8

Angleur ” 5 5 7 2 ” 5 8 7 9

Seraing ” 5 5 7 3 ” 5 8 7 10

Thy-le-Chateau ” 5 5 7 2 ” 5 4 7 1

Tilleur ” 5 5 7 2 ” 5 8 7 9

COMPARISON OF RATES[86] FOR IRON AND STEEL GOODS.—_continued_.

Article. From To 10 Tons. 5 Tons. Under 5 Tons REMARKS.

Open. Open.

HOLLAND s. d. s. d. s. d.

Iron Rails, Bar, Steel, Gouda Rotterdam 2 0 Excl loading and unloading.

Iron, &c. ” ” 3 0 Incl ”

Haarlem Amsterdam 2 0 Excl ”

” ” 2 4 Incl ”

” Rotterdam 3 6 Excl ”

” ” 4 2 Incl ”

Utrecht Amsterdam 2 4 Excl ”

” ” 4 4 Incl ”

10 Tons. 5 Tons. Under Tons

GERMANY Iron Peine Bremen 6 8 9 1 19 5

(Bar, Sheet, Oberhausen Amsterdam 5 4 10 4 16 6

Coarse Iron Dortmund ” 6 4 11 0 20 11

and Steel ” Bremen 6 5 13 1 28 1

Goods) Oberhausen ” 6 11 14 0 30 2

Tin Plates, Dortmund Rotterdam 6 7

Galvanized Cologne Antwerp 7 6

Iron, Wire, Dusseldorf Antwerp 8 5

&c. Benrath ” 8 10

Duisbourg ” 9 4

Schwerte Bremen 6 6

Essen Antwerp 9 10

Schalke ” 10 0

Herdecke Bremen 6 8

Bochum Antwerp 10 4

Haspe Bremen 6 10

Herdecke Hamburg 9 1

Dortmund Antwerp 11 0

Schwerte Bremerhafen 7 11

Bochum ” 8 2

Schwerte Hamburg 8 11

Essen ” 9 2

Haspe ” 9 2

Osnabruck Antwerp 14 7

Dillingen Bremerhafen 15 3

Castrop Stettin 15 10

Burbach Bremerhafen 15 10

Brebach ” 16 0

Herdecke Stettin 16 2

Essen ” 16 4

Dillengen Hamburg 16 5

Duisbourg Stettin 16 8

Nerdingen ” 17 4

Hanover Antwerp 18 0

Rothe Erde Stettin 19 6

Neunkirchen ” 20 2

Burbach ” 20 8

Dillengen ” 21 4

FRANCE No export traffic.

Such figures are a conclusive answer to charges of the sweeping character we have quoted. They are a warning of the peril of generalizing from a few hastily collected local instances. The owners of some inland collieries and manufactories, not so favourably situated as their rivals, might have reason to complain—there would be plausibility in the statements we have quoted—if English coal and iron were inferior to foreign, and could not bear the same charges as foreign products, or if collieries and iron works, near the sea, were unable to supply more coal and iron than they now do. Neither supposition is true. The house and steam coal raised at some of the English collieries named in the foregoing tables is probably the best in the world. The iron and steel are equal, if not superior, to any produced; and the districts in which the collieries and works are situated can (if only there were the demand, which, unfortunately, there is not) produce much more than they do. In these circumstances, with rates so favourable as those which are quoted, there appears to be absolutely no ground for the crude allegation that railway rates are the cause of the diminished exportation of either coal, iron, or steel.[87]

As regards the conveyance of minerals and goods, there is no sign of decline of trade, far less that it is “slowly, but surely killed by high rates and tolls.” Taking three tests: receipts from minerals and goods, tonnage conveyed and amount produced—it will be seen that the figures stated in Appendix II. indicate no decline. The volume of trade is larger, lower prices may rule; but this will scarcely be attributed to the action of rates.

Even when foreign rates seem lower, the difference is often more apparent than real. With few exceptions the English rates for merchandise traffic include the charges for loading and unloading, collection and delivery, and all the other services connected with conveyance. On the other hand, the foreign rates are exclusive of collection and delivery, and of the various other services of booking, weighing, advising, stamping freight note, &c., and also of the cost of loading and unloading, except in the case of part loads in Belgium, where the rates include compulsory charges for loading and unloading.[88]

In judging of the effect of rates in encouraging foreign competition, one circumstance must not be lost sight of. If railways in this country do not carry all species of merchandise traffic at as low rates per ton per mile as some of those charged on railways in countries where, not only has the cost of construction been less than here, but where the lines are owned or subsidised by the State, such a fact is not conclusive. To determine how far rates charged in this country really affect the ability of manufacturers to compete with foreign rivals, the charges per ton per mile must not alone be considered. The gross rate per ton from the place of production to the port of export is important. A manufacturer cannot fairly say that he is prevented from competing with his foreign rivals by rates less in the aggregate than those paid by the latter. Otherwise one whose works were situated within 20 miles of a sea-port, and who paid 1¼d. per ton per mile for the conveyance of his goods, might with equal justice say that he could not compete with another manufacturer whose works were 50 miles from the port of shipment, and who paid only a 1d. per ton per mile. 2s. 1d. is less than 4s. 2d., however the sums may be made up. Now, such superiority of situation English manufacturers, as a rule, must from the nature of things enjoy. A glance at a map will show that in England no such distances have to be traversed to get to the seaboard as in Germany, France, and, in some instances, Belgium. In England there is no place 100 miles distant from the coast, and so numerous are the ports, and so near to them, relatively speaking, are the great coal districts and centres of other industries and manufactures, that producers of coal are more favourably situated, and other producers are, in general, more favourably situated than those on the Continent, especially as compared with those of France and Germany. To illustrate this fact, a few examples of various manufacturing centres may be given.

ENGLAND.

Ports.

Liverpool.

Hull.

Grimsby.

Goole.

Barrow.

London.

Places of Bristol.

Production. Harwich.

Miles

Hardware, Birmingham 97 112 111 90

Cutlery, &c. Sheffield 73 58 69 36 161

Agricultural Machinery Ipswich 21

Cotton, Manchester 31 90 68 88 183

Woollen, Leeds 75 51 90 38 94 186

Drapery, and Bradford 71 60 82 44 85 191

Cloth Goods Trowbridge 24

HOLLAND.

Ports.

Amsterdam. Rotterdam.

Places of Production. Miles.

Hardware Gouda 32 13

Manufactured Iron Goods Haarlem 14 42

and Machinery Utrecht 22 33

Tilburg 70 44

Cotton, Deventer 70 95

Woollen Goods, Hengelo 95 113

&c. Enschede 99 118

Almelo 97 120

Oldenzaal 161 120

Amersfoot 27 47

Leiden 32 24

Eindhoven 76 67

FRANCE.

Ports.

Treport.

Havre.

Dunkirk.

Boulogne.

Rouen.

Dieppe.

Honfleur.

Places of Calais.

Production. Bordeaux.

Miles

Cotton, Amiens 51 76

Woollen, Roubaix 56

Velveteen, Tourcoing 58

Drapery, Paris 142 189 156 83 103 143 184

and Fancy St. Quentin 106 125 131 140

Goods. Rheims 176

Elbeuf 55

BELGIUM.

Ports.

Antwerp. Ghent.

Places of Production. Miles.

Hardware, Acoz 73 74

Cutlery and Clabecq 44 45

Agricultural Chatelineau 69 69

M’chin’ry, Marchienne 65 64

&c. Angleur 76 97

Louvain 31 51

Liége 74 95

Tubize 44 44

Charleroi 66

Cotton, LaLouvière 61 53

Woollen Monceau-sur-Sambre 63 62

Drapery Goods, Verviers 90 110

&c.

Dinant 72 90

Loth 38 43

Courtrai 67 30

Alost 31 18

GERMANY.

Ports.

Bremen.

Hamburg.

Bremerhafen.

Stettin.

Antwerp.

Amsterdam.

Places of Rotterdam.

Production. Gustavsburg.

Miles

Hardware, Iron, Dortmund 147 217 186 381 164 143 153 191

Steel,Goods, Essen 158 227 196 403 147 124 133 180

Cutlery, &c. Solingen 190 259 229 424 144 156 165 154

Oberhausen 159 229 197 412 141 116 125 176

Dillingen 359 428 397 566 262 307 304 137

Agricultural Dusseldorf 179 248 217 425 124 136 145 157

Machinery Strasbourg 449 490 487 563 304 384 381 156

and other Vienna 632 619 670 496 745 759 759 300

Machinery Darmstadt 311 351 349 440 278 305 302 19

Cotton, Elberfield 176 245 214 409 142 152 161 160

Woollen Goods, Barmen 173 242 211 406 144 154 163 162

&c. Berlin 187 178 234 84 485 394 414 289

Crefeld 184 253 222 435 117 132 130 163

Such natural disadvantages foreign countries have, by special rates, sought to diminish, but they cannot be wholly effaced.

It is a curious circumstance that in the discussion of the problem of railway rates on the Continent, wholly different language is employed with reference to English railways. Here, it is common to hold up foreign railways as models of cheapness and efficiency; there, in the discussions which have taken place in France and Italy on the same subject, the opposite course has been pursued. English railways have been extolled as worthy of imitation; they have often been praised for the very qualities in which it has been alleged in recent discussions that they are wanting. Can both views be right? Is not this deprecation of home railways, this vague praise of foreign lines, sometimes an example of a common artifice of controversy? Is it not often an illustration of the tendency to treat omne ignotum pro magnifico? Very different from this loose, unverified deprecation is the opinion of those foreign observers who have carefully examined the question. This might be illustrated by many official documents; but the following quotation from a report of M. Richard Waddington to the Chamber of Deputies may suffice:—

“Comparison between the French and foreign rates has often been made in Parliament, and the defenders of our tariff have presented it as favourable to our French companies; but this comparison can only justly be made, provided the conditions of delay and distance are taken into consideration. Now, in England, the delays are extremely short, merchandise which leaves Manchester in the evening being delivered in London next day, slow goods trains hardly existing, and the consignee placed rapidly in possession of his goods, avoiding the loss of interest which, under the French system, tends to increase the amount of charges. On the other hand, in view of a well-known principle, the longer the distance the lower the charge per kilometre, but the average distance of 135 kilometres (84 miles) in the French system is greater than the average distance travelled on the railways of Great Britain, of Belgium, and of Alsace-Lorraine. From the figures which have been already quoted, and the documentary evidence which we attach, we are led to conclude that the conditions and rate of carriage of merchandise in France are less favourable than those by which our nearest neighbours are benefited; therefore, far from being able to share the optimist view to which we have already alluded, we fear that we can only report that the comparison is really unfavourable.”[89]

Such facts are familiar to foreign merchants and traders; and it might be well in future discussions of the comparative merits and efficiency of English and Continental railways, to gather information as to the latter from persons who are conversant with their working, and not from those who can know them only imperfectly and indirectly, and who may have an interest in praising them to the disadvantage of the former.

If high rates impede the progress of trade it must be by raising the prices of commodities, and so diminishing the demand for them, or by seriously reducing the profits of producers. Have those who complain of the effect of rates on prices established the existence of either of these results? They have had before them, as a rule, only a few special instances of unfavourable rates. They have ignored the mass of cases in which the charge for conveyance is a trifling element in price. They have not, as would be but fair, taken a large group of articles, and noted how insignificant is the cost of transport as compared with other charges, how small is the rate of profit of the railways as compared with the charges of the manufacturers and distributors. Here it is not right to stand merely on the defensive; we are well warranted in saying that if, fortunately, trade is not more depressed than it is, we owe this in no small degree to the efficiency of the railway system which has aided the manufacturer and producer in their difficulties. Economists are agreed that wages and salaries must bear some relation to cost of living, and must eventually rise if that becomes permanently dearer. Everywhere, but in great towns especially, railways have prevented the rise in the cost of provisions. They have made it possible for people to obtain food from great distances at low prices, and thus for employers to obtain labour at prices which might not have been possible but for the cheapness of provisions. The few figures given in the following table may be instructive:—

Fresh Meat is carried to London from:—

Distance. Miles. Rate per ton. Rate per stone of 8 lbs. Rate per lb.

Aylesbury 42 20/- C. & D. 0·857 ·107

Grimsby 154 40/- 1·714 ·214

Castle Cary 120 40/- 1·714 ·214

Norwich 115 40/- 1·714 ·214

Ipswich 70 29/2 1·250 ·156

York 188 55/- 2·357 ·295

Aberdeen 16 67/6 2·893 ·362

Stromness 76 90/- 3·857 ·482

Potatoes (Old), Carrots, Parsnips, Turnips, are carried to London from:—

Distance. Miles. Rate per ton, S to S. Rate per cwt. Rate per lb.

Banbury 76 8/9 5¼ ·047

York 188 15/- 9 ·080

Selby 174 13/4 8 ·071

Chippenham 94 10/10 6½ ·058

Aberdeen 516 30/- 1/6 ·160

Sunderland 269 18/4 11 ·098

Green Vegetables are carried from Cookham to London, 27 miles, at 11/8 per ton, C. & D. in one ton lots, or 7d. per cwt. Bacon is carried from Calne to London, 99 miles, in one ton lots at 22/6 per ton; 1/1½d. per cwt., or ·12d. per lb. Cheese is carried from Chippenham to London, 94 miles, at 27/6 per ton, ¼½ per cwt., or ·147d. per lb.; and from Cirencester to London, 95 miles, at 23/4 per ton, ½ per cwt., or ·125d. per lb. Milk is carried from Shrivenham to London, 72 miles } for 1d. per imperial ” Swindon ” 77 ” } gallon.

Fish is carried to London at the following rates (per lb.):— A = By Passenger Train B = By Goods Train.

Description. Wick. 749 Miles. Whitby. 244 Miles. Grimsby. 154 Miles.

A B A B A B

d. d. d. d. d. d.

Class 1.—Cured Cod, Ling and White Herrings in brine. 0·27 0·16 0·14 minimum 1 cwt.

Class 2. Cured Red Herrings and all other salted or dried fish (except Cod and Ling) 0·27 0·18 0·16

Class 3. Crabs, Fresh Cod, Ling, Haddocks, Whiting, Skate, Halibut, Mackerel, Plaice and Coal Fish; Eels, Flounders, Sprats in any state. 0·29 0·21 0·18 The rates for classes 1, 2, 3, and 4 include collection and delivery. The rates for classes 3a, 4a, and 5, are S. to S.

Class 3a.—Ditto ditto 0·43 0·21 0·18

Class 4.—Salmon(in boxes) and Soles, Oysters, Lobsters, and Shellfish, not otherwise classified. 0·40 0·29 0·25

Class 4a.—Ditto ditto 0·54 0·29 0·25

Class 5.—Fresh Fish of all descriptions, not otherwise classified. 0·70 0·29 0·25

We now touch a question which comprehends most of those already discussed. When it is stated, as it often is, that the rates charged by the railway companies in this country are generally too high, what exactly is meant? Is it contended that shareholders should be content with smaller dividends than they receive? Let us note the facts. The average dividend in the year 1884 was only 4¼ per cent.; in 1844 it was considered by the Legislature that, at least, 10 per cent. should be earned by the shareholders. In the United Kingdom the average rate of dividend paid during the last 14 years on the capital expended on the construction of railways—which, as already shown, was, at the end of 1884, £801,464,367, and in England and Wales £665,055,379—was only 4·38 per cent. For the year 1884, out of a total of £298,980,000 of ordinary capital, £48,000,000 paid no dividend at all. As an illustration of the moderate return on the shareholders’ capital, it may be mentioned that the Great Western Railway Company, which owns, or jointly owns, 2,496 miles of railway, has during the last 30 years only paid an average dividend of £3 15s. per cent. per annum.

The meaning of the statement cannot be that, as compared with the dividends of other industrial companies, those of railways are too high. The facts are all the other way.

If a comparison is made of the percentage on capital earned by Banks, Insurance, Gas and Water Companies, some of which possess monopolies in a strict legal sense, and not merely in the loose popular acceptation of the word, as applied to railways, it will be seen that these returns are far in excess of those derived from railway capital; that not only is the average dividend, but the maximum dividend higher, and that there are fewer instances of shareholders obtaining no returns. Upwards of sixty Banks pay dividends ranging from 10 to 15 per cent., and twenty from 15 to 20 per cent.; thirty-four Insurance Companies pay from 10 to 15 per cent., and twenty-three over 15 per cent.; and ninety-three Gas and Water Companies pay dividends ranging from 5 to 15 per cent. The average dividends of Banks are 11·83 per cent., of Insurance Companies 12·45 per cent., of Gas Companies 10 per cent., and of Water Companies 5·73 per cent. In face of the above figures, and of the prospects which were held out to those who invested the capital with which the railways have been constructed, it will probably not be directly contended that the present dividend of less than 4¼ per cent, is a sufficient return on railway property. Nor is such an income fixed. There is no inconsiderable uncertainty affecting the income and the net return from the working of railways.

It is alleged that the railway system is not properly managed, and that in some way—how it is rarely explained—the railways might be more profitably worked; that even if considerably reduced rates were charged, as good, or a better, dividend might be earned; or that as a consequence of reducing rates such additional traffic would be carried that the loss would be more than covered by the increased trade. Now, no doubt undue competition between companies exists. The largest possible amount of net revenue is not always obtained. But such an admission affords little encouragement. Here something more than vague general statements are needed; it is incumbent on those who call for a great change to produce facts justifying an expectation that, consistently with a reasonable dividend, a considerable reduction can be made in the rates for merchandise. No attempt has ever been made to show that this can be done, and experience is against it. The most plausible argument is, that by reducing rates the present trade would be considerably increased, that new sources of traffic would be created, and that the companies would be more than recouped the loss which they would sustain by any falling off in the receipts on their traffic. This prospect was held out by the late President of the Board of Trade in introducing the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill. He justified his expectations by stating that the companies who had adopted a cheap passenger system, had reaped great advantages therefrom. Few of them will consider this illustration to be fortunate. Even, however, if the result of the changes in passenger fares had been generally as beneficial as Mr. Mundella seems to have supposed, no comparison can be drawn between carrying a greater number of passengers in trains only partly filled, and conveying additional mineral and goods traffic by trains which must necessarily entail additional mileage and all the attendant expenses. Take, for instance, coal carried at ·50d. per ton per mile and that the rate is reduced to ·45d.; that is a reduction of 10 per cent. in the rate. Assume a train of 240 tons and 1s. 6d. per train mile each way—that is for the loaded and return empty wagons—as the average cost of haulage and maintenance of way, it would require an increase of 16·6 per cent. in the traffic, to leave a railway in the same position as it was before.

The result of such a course as is recommended would be, to say the least, problematical, as the suggested reasons for it are not unknown to the managers of railway companies, and have been carefully considered by them.