SECTION XIV._Railway Rates: English and Foreign

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]

[81] Mr. L. Cohen--Debate on Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, 6th

May, 1886.--Hansard, vol. cccv., 428.

[82] See Second Report, Minutes of Evidence, Mr. Muller, page 38, Q.

1889.

[83] Compare Sir Lowthian Bell’s statement. “The results of my

enquiry on the continent of Europe, and in the United States,

justify the assertion that foreign iron manufacturers as a rule

possess no advantage over ourselves in these respects ... That

railway accommodation for the transport of fuel, ore, and limestone

is afforded on terms somewhat cheaper in Great Britain than those

charged on the Continent for like distances.” (_Appendix to part 1

of Second Report of the Royal Commission on Depression of Trade,

pages 345-361._)

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 BELGIUM AND

-----+-----+--------------+------------+--------+--------------------

| cle.| | | ton. |

-----+-----+--------------+------------+--------+--------------------

| | | | s. d. |

| |Risca |Newport }| 0 6 |In owner’s wagons.

| | | (Old Dock)}| |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| |Mountain } |Cardiff | 1 0 |In owner’s wagons.

| | Ash } | | |

| | | | |

| |Felling |Monkwear- }| 1 0¾ |In Company’s wagons,

| | | mouth Dock}| | including cost of

| | | | |

| |Abertillery |Newport }| 1 1 |In owner’s wagons.

| | |(Old Dock) }| |

| |Londonderry } |Tyne Dock | 1 2½ |In Company’s wagons,

| | Colliery } | | | including cost of

| | | | |

| |Burradon | ” ” | 1 4¾ |In Company’s wagons,

| | | | |

| |Collieries in}| | |

| | St. Helen’s }|Garston | 1 5 |In owner’s wagons,

| | District }| | | including use of

-----+-----+--------------+------------+--------+--------------------

COALFIELDS TO THE NEAREST PORTS IN ENGLAND, GERMANY.

-------+--------+-----------+------------+-----------------+---------

| | | | of 1000 |

|Article.| From | To +--------+--------+

| | | | 100 | 10 | Remarks.

-------+--------+-----------+------------+--------+--------+---------

| | | | s. d. | s. d. |

| | | | | |

| | ” |Ghent | 1 7¼ | 1 10 |

| | | | | |

| |Jemappes |Antwerp | 1 11 | 2 5½ |

| | | | | |

| |Mons |Antwerp | ... | 2 4 |

| | | | | |

| |Charleroi |Antwerp | ... | 2 3 |

| | | | | |

| |Fontaine- |Antwerp | 2 | 3 |

| | | | | |

| | | | 50 | 10 |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| |Gelsenkir- |[84] | | |

| | ” |[85]Antwerp | 5 3 | 6 6 |tities of

| | | | | |200 to 300

| | | | | | 5/-

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | Hamburg. | 5 6 | 7 1 |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | Hamburg. | 5 7 | ... |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | &c. | Hamburg. | 5 8 | ... |

| | | | | |

FRANCE |} | | | | |

HOLLAND|} No Coal exported. | | |

-------+--------+-----------+------------+--------+--------+--------

[84] For quantities of 200 to 300 tons forwarded day or by one

train, the rate from Gelsenkirchen to Amsterdam is 4/6 per ton, and

to Antwerp 5/-per ton.

[85] For quantities of 200 to 300 tons forwarded day or by one

train, the rate from Gelsenkirchen to Amsterdam is 4/6 per ton, and

to Antwerp 5/-per ton.

COMPARISON OF RATES FOR

----+--------+--------------+------------+-------+--------------------

| | | | ton. |

----+--------+--------------+------------+-------+--------------------

| | | | s. d.|

LAND|(Class A.) | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| |Ebbw Vale |Newport }| 1 9⅛|In Owner’s wagons.

| | | (Old Dock)}| |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | ” |Gateshead | 3 9 |In Company’s wagons.

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

----+--------+--------------+------------+-------+--------------------

IRON AND STEEL GOODS.

----+-----+-----------+-------+----------------------------------------+

----+-----+-----------+-------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+

|Art- | From | To | | 10 | 5 | >5 | | 10 | 5 | >5 |

| | | |s.d.|s.d.|s.d.|s.d.| |s.d.|s.d.|s.d.|

----+-----+-----------+-------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+

BEL-|Iron |La Louvière|Antwerp| |3 7 | | |Ghent|3 5 | | |

GIUM| |Charleroi | ” | |3 8 |5 1 |8 9 | ” |3 8 | | |

| |Liege | ” | |3 9 |5 4 |9 9 | ” | | | |

| |Marcinelle | ” | |3 8 | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | | |

O.= Open. C.= Covered.

-----------+-----------+----+---------+---------+---+---------+--------+

bars and | | | O.| C.| O.| C.| | O.| C.| O.| C.|

bundles. +-----------+----+----+----+----+----+---+----+----+----+---+

Iron in | |Ant-| | | | | | | | | |

in bars |Chatelineau|werp|3 8|4 4|5 2|6 9| ” |3 8|4 1|5 2|6 9|

and sheets|Marchienne | ” |3 8|4 0|5 1|6 7| ” |3 7|4 0|5 1|6 6|

unpolished,|Acoz | ” |3 9|4 1|5 4|7 0| ” |3 9|4 2|5 4|7 0|

Bandages |Seraing | ” |3 10|4 3|5 5|7 3| ” |4 1|4 6|5 8|7 9|

for wheels|Thy-le-Chateau ”|3 9|4 2|5 4|7 2| ” |3 10|4 2|5 4|7 1|

Castings, |Athus | ” |4 11|5 4|6 5| | ” |4 11|5 6|6 7| |

Rails,

Castiron Tubes,

Nuts, Bolts,

Fish-plates, &c.

-------------+-------------------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

| From | To | 10 | 5 | | 10 | 5 |

-------------+-------------------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

Anchors and |Clabeg |Antwerp|4 3 |5 4 |Ghent|4 4 |5 6 |

Cables, |Tubize | ” |4 3 |5 4 | ” |4 3 |5 4 |

Carriage |La Louvière | ” |5 0 |6 4 | ” |4 8 |5 11 |

brakes, |Monceau-sur-Sambre | ” |5 0 |6 6 | ” |5 0 |6 5 |

Springs, |Marchienne | ” |5 1 |6 7 | ” |5 1 |6 6 |

boilers, |Chatelineau | ” |5 2 |6 9 | ” |5 2 |6 9 |

Ironmongery,|Acoz | ” |5 4 |7 0 | ” |5 4 |7 0 |

&c. &c. |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_.

-------+--------+-----------+------------+-----+-----+-----+------------

| | | | 10 | 5 | |

| | | +-----+-----+ 5 | REMARKS.

-------+--------+-----------+------------+-----+-----+-----+------------

| | | |s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|

|Bar, | ” | ” | ... | ... |3 0 |Incl ”

|Steel, |Haarlem |Amsterdam | ... |2 0 | ... |Excl ”

|Iron, | ” | ” | ... | ... |2 4 |Incl ”

| &c. | ” |Rotterdam | ... |3 6 | ... |Excl ”

| | ” | ” | ... | ... |4 2 |Incl ”

| |Utrecht |Amsterdam | ... |2 4 | ... |Excl ”

| | ” | ” | ... | ... |4 4 |Incl ”

| | | | | | |

| | | | 10 | 5 | 5 |

GERMANY|Iron |Peine |Bremen | 6 8| 9 1|19 5|

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

|Sheet, |Dortmund | ” | 6 4|11 0|20 11|

|Coarse | ” |Bremen | 6 5|13 1|28 1|

|Iron and|Oberhausen | ” | 6 11|14 0|30 2|

|Steel |Dortmund |Rotterdam | 6 7| ... | ... |

|Goods |Cologne |Antwerp | 7 6| ... | ... |

|Tin |Dusseldorf |Antwerp | 8 5| ... | ... |

|Plates, |Benrath | ” | 8 10| ... | ... |

|Galvan- |Duisbourg | ” | 9 4| ... | ... |

|ized |Schwerte |Bremen | 6 6| ... | ... |

|Iron |Essen |Antwerp | 9 10| ... | ... |

|Wire, |Schalke | ” |10 0| ... | ... |

|&c. |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| ... | ... |

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[86] NOTE. The truck load rates are for open trucks. Extra is

charged for tarpaulins if the goods are required to be covered.

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]

[87] The inflated prices charged in 1873-4 led to the establishment

of new collieries in Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire, which raise

about 6,000,000 tons per annum; this, with the increased output of

the then existing collieries, is equal to an increase of about 50

per cent. of the previous tonnage raised in these counties which,

with about 30 per cent. increase in other parts of the country, has

prevented colliery proprietors obtaining a reasonable profit since

1875, and probably will do so until the demand overtakes the supply.

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]

[88] See Appendix I., page vii.

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.

of | | | | | |London.

-------------+----------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----------

Hardware, |Birmingham| 97 | .. | .. | 112| .. | 111| 90 |

Cutlery, &c.|Sheffield | 73 | 58 | 69 | 36| .. | 161| |

| | | | | | | | |

Agricultural |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| |

-------------+----------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----------

------------------------+---------------

| HOLLAND.

+---------------

| PORTS.

Places +---------------

of |Amsterdam.

Production. | |Rotterdam.

-------------+----------+----+----------

| | Miles.

Hardware |Gouda | 32 | 13

Manufactured |Haarlem | 14 | 42

Iron |Utrecht | 22 | 33

Goods and |Tilburg | 70 | 44

Machinery | | |

| | |

Cotton, |Deventer | 70 | 95

Woollen |Hengelo | 94 | 113

Goods, &c. |Enschede | 99 | 118

|Almelo | 97 | 116

|Oldenzaal |161 | 120

|Amersfoot | 27 | 47

|Leiden | 32 | 24

|Eindhoven | 76 | 67

-------------+----------+----+----------

------------------------+---------------------------------------------

| FRANCE.

+---------------------------------------------

| PORTS.

+---------------------------------------------

|Treport.

| |Havre.

| | |Dunkirk.

| | | |Boulogne.

of | | | | | |Dieppe.

-------------+----------+----+----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---------

Cotton, |Amiens | 51 | .. | .. | 76 | | | | |

Woollen, |Roubaix | .. | .. | 56 | | | | | |

Velveteen, |Tourcoing | .. | .. | 58 | | | | | |

Drapery, |Paris | .. |142 |189 |156 | 83|103|143|184|

and Fancy |St. | | | | | | | | |

Goods. | Quentin |106 | .. |125 |131 | ..| ..| ..| ..|140

|Rheims | .. | .. | .. |176 | | | | |

|Elbeuf | .. | 55 | | | | | | |

-------------+----------+----+----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---------

------------------------+---------------

| BELGIUM.

+---------------

| PORTS.

Places +---------------

of |Antwerp.

Production. | |Ghent.

-------------+----------+----+----------

| | Miles.

Hardware, |Acoz | 73 | 74

Cutlery and |Clabecq | 44 | 45

Agricultural |Chatelin- | |

M’chin’ry, | eau | 69 | 69

&c. |Marchienne| 65 | 64

|Angleur | 76 | 97

|Louvain | 31 | 51

|Liége | 74 | 95

|Tubize | 44 | 44

|Charleroi | 66 |

Cotton, |LaLouvière| 61 | 53

Woollen |Monceau- | |

Drapery | sur- | |

Goods, &c. | Sambre | 63 | 62

|Verviers | 90 |110

|Dinant | 72 | 90

|Loth | 38 | 43

|Courtrai | 67 | 30

|Alost | 31 | 18

-------------+----------+----+----------

----------------------+-----------+----------------------------------

| | GERMANY.

| +----------------------------------

| | PORTS.

| +----------------------------------

| |Bremen.

| | |Hamburg.

| | | |Bremerhafen.

| of | | | | | | | |avs-

----------------------+-----------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---

| | Miles.

| +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---

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

Goods, Cutlery, &c. |Essen |158|227|196|403|147|124|133|180

|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 Machinery|Dusseldorf |179|248|217|425|124|136|145|157

and other Machinery |Strasbourg |449|490|487|563|304|384|381|156

|Vienna |632|619|670|496|745|759|759|300

|Darmstadt |311|351|349|440|278|305|302| 19

| |

Cotton, Woollen Goods,|Elberfield |176|245|214|409|142|152|161|160

&c. |Barmen |173|242|211|406|144|154|163|162

|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]

[89] _Appendix 31 to Report from Select Committee on Railways (Rates

and Fares), 1881-2, Vol. II._

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. Rate per Rate per Rate per

Miles. ton. stone of 8 lbs. lb.

d. d.

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 516 67/6 2·893 ·362

Stromness 776 90/- 3·857 ·482

POTATOES (Old), CARROTS, PARSNIPS, TURNIPS, are carried to London

from:--

Distance. Rate per ton, Rate per Rate per

Miles. S to S. cwt. lb.

d. d.

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, 1/4½ per cwt., or ·147d. per lb.; and from

Cirencester to London, 95 miles, at 23/4 per ton, 1/2 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.):--

-------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------------

| WICK. | WHITBY. | GRIMSBY. |

| 749 Miles.| 244 Miles.| 154 Miles.|

|-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------------

| By | | By | | By | |

|Pass-| By |Pass-| By |Pass-| By |

-------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------------

| d. | d. | d. | d. | d. | d. |

Class 1. Cured }| | | | | | |

Cod, Ling and }| | | | | | |

White Herrings }| ... | 0·27| ... | 0·16| ... | 0·14|minimum 1 cwt.

in brine }| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

Class 2. Cured }| | | | | | |

Red Herrings and}| | | | | | |

all other salted}| | | | | | |

or dried fish }| ... | 0·27| ... | 0·18| ... | 0·16|

(except Cod }| | | | | | |

and Ling) }| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

Class 3. Crabs, }| | | | | | |

Fresh Cod, Ling,}| | | | | | |

Haddocks, }| | | | | | |

Whiting, Skate, }| | | | | | |

Halibut, }| | | | | | |

Mackerel, Plaice}| ... | 0·29| ... | 0·21| ... | 0·18|The rates for

and Coal Fish; }| | | | | | | classes 1,

Eels, Flounders,}| | | | | | | 2, 3, and

Sprats in any }| | | | | | | 4 include

state }| | | | | | | collection

Class 3a.--Ditto | 0·43| ... | 0·21| ... | 0·18| | The rates

Class 4.--Salmon }| | | | | | | 3a, 4a, and

(in boxes) and }| | | | | | | 5, are S.

Soles, Oysters, }| | | | | | | to S.

Lobsters, and }| ... | 0·40| ... | 0·29| ... | 0·25|

Shellfish, not }| | | | | | |

otherwise }| | | | | | |

classified }| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

Class 4a.--Ditto | 0·54| ... | 0·29| ... | 0·25| ... |

| | | | | | |

Class 5.--Fresh }| | | | | | |

Fish of all }| | | | | | |

descriptions, }| 0·70| ... | 0·29| ... | 0·25| ... |

not otherwise }| | | | | | |

classified }| | | | | | |

-------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------------

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.