Chapter XV: 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]

[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

-----+-----+--------------+------------+--------+--------------------
| | | | Rate |
|Arti-| From | To | per | Remarks.
| cle.| | | ton. |
-----+-----+--------------+------------+--------+--------------------
| | | | s. d. |
ENG- |Coal |Cwmbran |Newport | 0 4⅜ |In owner’s wagons.
LAND | | | | |
| |Risca |Newport }| 0 6 |In owner’s wagons.
| | | (Old Dock)}| |
| | | | |
| |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 } |Cardiff | 1 0 |In owner’s wagons.
| | Ash } | | |
| | | | |
| |Felling |Monkwear- }| 1 0¾ |In Company’s wagons,
| | | mouth Dock}| | including cost of
| | | | | shipment.
| | | | |
| |Abertillery |Newport }| 1 1 |In owner’s wagons.
| | |(Old Dock) }| |
| |Londonderry } |Tyne Dock | 1 2½ |In Company’s wagons,
| | Colliery } | | | including cost of
| | | | | shipment.
| | | | |
| |Burradon | ” ” | 1 4¾ |In Company’s wagons,
| | | | | including cost of
| | | | | shipment.
| | | | |
| |Collieries in}| | |
| | St. Helen’s }|Garston | 1 5 |In owner’s wagons,
| | District }| | | including use of
| | | | | dock and tipping.
-----+-----+--------------+------------+--------+--------------------

COALFIELDS TO THE NEAREST PORTS IN ENGLAND, GERMANY.

-------+--------+-----------+------------+-----------------+---------
| | | | Rate per ton |
| | | | of 1000 |
| | | | Kilogrammes. |
|Article.| From | To +--------+--------+
| | | | 100 | 10 | Remarks.
| | | | tons. | tons. |
-------+--------+-----------+------------+--------+--------+---------
| | | | s. d. | s. d. |
BELGIUM|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- |Antwerp | 2 | 3 |
| | l’Evêque | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | 50 | 10 |
| | | | tons | tons |
| | | | | |
GERMANY|Coal |Piestag |Bremen | 3 5 | ... |
| | | | | |
| |Gelsenkir- |[84] | | |
| | chen | Amsterdam | 4 11 | 5 9 |For quan-
| | ” |[85]Antwerp | 5 3 | 6 6 |tities of
| | | | | |200 to 300
| |Gelsenkir- |Hamburg | 5 7 | 7 7 | tons
| | chen | | | |forwarded
| | | | | |day or by
| | | | | |one train,
| | | | | |the rate
| | | | | | from
| | | | | |Gelsen-
| | | | | |kirchen to
| | | | | |Amsterdam
| | | | | |is 4/6 per
| | | | | |ton, and
| | | | | |to Antwerp
| | | | | | 5/-
| | | | | | per ton.
| | | | | |
| | 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 | | |
| | &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

----+--------+--------------+------------+-------+--------------------
| | | | Rate |
|Article.| From | To | per | Remarks.
| | | | ton. |
----+--------+--------------+------------+-------+--------------------
| | | | s. d.|
ENG-|Iron |Workington |Whitehaven | 1 2 |In Company’s wagons.
LAND|(Class A.) | | |
| | | | |
| |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 }| 1 9⅛|In Owner’s wagons.
| | | (Old Dock)}| |
| | | | |
| |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.
----+--------+--------------+------------+-------+--------------------

IRON AND STEEL GOODS.

----+-----+-----------+-------+----------------------------------------+
| | | | Rate per Ton of 1,000 Kilogrammes. |
----+-----+-----------+-------+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+
|Art- | From | To | | 10 | 5 | >5 | | 10 | 5 | >5 |
|icle.| | | |tons|tons|tons| |tons|tons|tons|
| | | |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 | | | | | | |
| | 10% added if loaded in covered trucks | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |

O.= Open. C.= Covered.
-----------+-----------+----+---------+---------+---+---------+--------+
Steel in | | | 10 Tons.| 5 Tons. | | 10 Tons.| 5 Tons.|
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 |
| | |tons |tons | |tons |tons |
-------------+-------------------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
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 | |
|Article.| From | To |tons.|tons.|Under|
| | | +-----+-----+ 5 | REMARKS.
| | | |Open.|Open.|tons.|
-------+--------+-----------+------------+-----+-----+-----+------------
| | | |s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|
HOLLAND|Iron |Gouda |Rotterdam | ... |2 0 | ... |Excl loading
|Rails, | | | | | and unloading.
|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 ”
| | | | | | |
| | | | | |Under|
| | | | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| | | |tons.|tons.|tons.|
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| ... | ... |
FRANCE | No export traffic. | | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[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.
Places | | | | |Barrow.
of | | | | | |London.
Production. | | | | | | |Bristol.
| | | | | | | |Harwich.
-------------+----------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----------
| | | | Miles. | | | |
Hardware, |Birmingham| 97 | .. | .. | 112| .. | 111| 90 |
Cutlery, &c.|Sheffield | 73 | 58 | 69 | 36| .. | 161| |
| | | | | | | | |
Agricultural |Ipswich | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | .. | 21
Machinery | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
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.
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.
Places | | | | |Rouen.
of | | | | | |Dieppe.
Production. | | | | | | |Honfleur.
| | | | | | | |Calais.
| | | | | | | | |Bordeaux.
-------------+----------+----+----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---------
| | | | Miles. | | | | |
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.
| | | | |Stettin.
| | | | | |Antwerp.
| | | | | | |Amsterdam.
| | | | | | | |Rotterdam.
| Places | | | | | | | |Gust-
| of | | | | | | | |avs-
|Production.| | | | | | | |burg.
----------------------+-----------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---
| | 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 |
Description. |enger|Goods|enger|Goods|enger|Goods|
|Train|Train|Train|Train|Train|Train|
-------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--------------
| 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
| | | | | | | and delivery
Class 3a.--Ditto | 0·43| ... | 0·21| ... | 0·18| | The rates
| | | | | | | for classes
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.