The Sun.
London, England, 1866-02-08 00:00:00

list exacts from the publicfor the use of only a frac-
tion of a train a sum exceeding by 200 per cent. the
whole cost of running entire trains. The past rail-
way administration has diminished the benefits de-
rivable from the element of increased speed avail-
able from railway communication, and now operates
as a serious obstruction, to the improvement
of the whole postal system, as well as to the
general inter-communication of the country. The
subject of wages was then noticed. He next consi-
dered those commercial principles, by a return to
which the great defaults committed might be re-
trieved. The chief defaults are first, those against
unity of management for efficiency as well as eco-
nomy ; secondly, exactions on necessities, by means
of monopolies, instead of payments, merely for ser-
vice, without profits ; thirdly, charges in disregard
of an economical principle of increasing ratios of
consumption with diminishing ratios of price by
means of monopolies. As to the administrative
principle of consolidation and unity of management,
the saving derivable from a general amalgamation
of all the railways had been estimated at 25 per
cent. But he doubted whether the gain on that
head would be considerable, and whatever it might
be it would be required for an increase of efficiency
by a reduction of the excessively dangerous long
daily hours of service, and by augmentations in
number and efficiency of the permanent working
staff of the railwaysthroughout the country, thereby
giving better accommodation to the public. In
cross traffic it has been alleged that the saving of
time by the avoidance of the obstructions from un-
necessary changes of carriages and stations, the non-
adjustment, often wilful, of the trains of one line to
those of another, maintained from mere spite—(hear,
hear)—to the disadvantage of the shareholders as
well as of the public, would amount to one-third
without any augmentation of the present irregular
and often slow rates of speed. Mr. Allport, the
general manager of the Midland Railway Company,
had been constrained to admit hisfailure to obtainby
agreement the great benefits derivable from unity.
But the disunity of management impedes the con-
struction of lines which would be economical for de-
fensive purposes, and in the event of war the disjointed
machine available is of farinferior efficiency and value
to what it might be. Disunity, disjointed organisa-
tion impedes administrative consolidation and pre-
vents the economy which is obtainable by the dis-
tribution of rents and establishment charges, ob-
structs other important public services of daily life
besides the conveyance of passengers and goods.
The original foundation on which commercial men
proposed railways, and on which new capital is con-
tinually obtained, is false in economical principle as
applied to such subjects, and is in itself a proof of
their incompetency to deal with it. The next eco-
nomical principle to which he would advert was
that of exactions under monopolies on necessities
instead of payment for services. There is a large
organic distinction between charges which have re-
lation solely to the services rendered, and payments
which are founded not on the consideration of these
services by the agent, but on the view and estimate
of the necessities, and on the power of exaction un-
der monopolies on the person's means of payment,
and necessities of travel. The system of charges for
the carriage of goods, not on account of any special
care required, or risk in any way of insurance
charges, but on account of their supposed value, or
the necessity of their conveyance—charging for iron
on some lines more than four times more than for
coal ; charging coals not for their carriage but for
their quality was a pernicious principle. It is a fact
established by railway testimony that whether a
railway train carries only 50 or 70 passengers (the
actual average), or 300, there is no difference in the
actual working expenses per train, whilst the distri-
bution of the establishment charges is a ratio prc-
portioned to the numbers. The effect of the stimu-
lus of
_cheap fares has, of course, its limits, but
these limits have not been tried or determined by
railway companies, and it is requisite that they
should be by an independent authority, and deter-
mined in the interests of the public. Looking at the
position of this country, and to the extreme parts of
the world from which it obtains the raw material,
and returns manufactured products, estimating the
vnrt importrwro of the cost of transit as an element
in competition and price, can we continue to allow
intercommunication to be shackled by a protec-
tionism of many millions ? It will be for merchants,
manufacturers, and the public generally who expe-
rience the continued and increasing evils to try to
rescue our chief means of internal communication
for the transit of goods as well as persons, from the
trammels imposed by false principles.
Mr. Mu. said the comparison by Mr. Chadwick of
English railways as 3 per cent. railways, against 7
per cent. foreign railways, was a most unjust one,
as it left out of view all the difficulties under which
railways had had to carry out their formation and
to raise capital. The Brighton Railway, for example,
were prohibited, on one occasion, from borrowing
money at 4 per cent., when it was to have been had

iu the market at that price, but they were not pro-
hibited from issuing preference shares at 6 per cent.
The interested opposition had been of no small
moment, as in consequence of it the public had now
to be continually carried round about, instead of by
more direct routes. Thus the circumstances of the
English railways were not paralleled by those abroad.
Mr. TEULON strongly urged the fallacies of Mr.
Chadwick's arguments, and alluded to the ex-
cessive taxation of railways as highly detrimental to
their dividends.

Dr. PANKII UR ST considered the continental system
of government not such as would be tolerated in
England. Ile thought shareholders might be left to
manage their own interests. What was wanted was
parliamentary control over the management, as fax
as the public safety and interests were concerned.
_ _

Mr. BOTLEY said that in the present year nearly
500 millions were invested in railways, and asked
what would be the monetary effect of the transfer
of such an enormous property into the possession of
Government. He thought no financier would at-

tempt to predict the deleterious effects upon corn
mercial interests of such a measure.

Another speaker said that in Australia the Vic-
torian Government were after some years of experi-
ence earnestly seeking to relieve themselves of the
responsibility of railway management.
Mr. ALLPORT said his evidence given before the
Parliamentary committee was quite the reverse of
what had been attributed to him by Mr. Chad-
wick. Uniformity of rates would be ruinous to a
company. The Midland Railway carried coals to
London at three-eighths of apenny per ton. It would
be ruinous to carry them at the same rate for

short distances under 30 or 40 miles. The object
of the railway manager was to develops the particular
traffic in each particular district; and the uniform

system which would be adopted under a Govern-

ment management would be fatal to all commer-

cial enterprise. The wonderful extension of our

.• _ _
foreign trade during the past 16 years had been
mainly due to the enterprise of railways ; and im-

portant trades, such as the iron trade of Wales, had
been entirely promoted by it. Who would like to

see £400,000,000 or £500,000,000 added to the na-

tional debt, and 150,000 servants to the Govern-

ment patronage?
Mr. WEBSTER, Q.C., made a few brief remarks.
Mr. HAWES replied to the objections raised against
his views. He added that in 1844 an act had been

passed to enable Government to purchase railways,
which act was not to take effect until after 21 years.
That period had expired last year, and the grounds
which bad induced hin► to bring forward the subject

were not therefore so chimerical as some had sup-
.

posed. They had been told that what had been
done by ocean steamers and packet steamers could
have been done by naval captains if Government
had given them the ships. Why then did not Go-

vernment give them the ships? On the contrary,

whenever anything most important had to be done
Government applied to private enterprise to do it.
The CHAIRMAN, in proposing a vote of thanks to
Mr. Chadwick for his paper, said that the four pre-

_ .
sidents of the Institute of Civil Engineers never had

been in favour of Government management, and
that although the railway system was not perfect
. _

he believed it to be better than it would be under

Government.

Ile thought, however, they were

fighting shadows, as no British Government would

seriously entertain such a notion as the acquirement
of the British railways.