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. Sheffield73 58 69 36 161
Agricultural
Machinery		 Ipswich 21
Cotton, Manchester31 90 68 88 183
 Woollen, Leeds75 51 90 38 94 186
 Drapery, and Bradford71 60 82 44 85 191
 Cloth Goods Trowbridge 24
 HOLLAND. 
     Ports.    
Amsterdam. Rotterdam.
   Places of Production.        Miles.    
Hardware Gouda32 13
Manufactured Iron Goods Haarlem14 42
and Machinery Utrecht22 33
Tilburg70 44

Cotton,
Deventer
70
95
Woollen Goods, Hengelo95 113
&c. Enschede99 118
Almelo97 120
Oldenzaal161 120
Amersfoot27 47
Leiden32 24
Eindhoven 76 67
 FRANCE. 
       Ports.      
Treport.
Havre.
Dunkirk.
Boulogne.
Rouen.
Dieppe.
Honfleur.
Places of Calais.
   Production.    Bordeaux.
Miles
Cotton, Amiens51 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