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 4220/- C. & D.0·857·107
Grimsby15440/-1·714·214
Castle Cary12040/-1·714·214
Norwich11540/-1·714·214
Ipswich 7029/21·250·156
York18855/-2·357·295
Aberdeen1667/62·893·362
Stromness7690/-3·857·482

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