especially as regards perishable goods, in the more rapid and regular conveyance of merchandise than is possible by water. Who would be the gainer? Not, certainly, the home producer, who would find foreign goods brought direct to London by sea; not the consumer, who wishes cheap goods rapidly conveyed, and to whom it is immaterial how they reach him. The fact is that differential rates have arisen in no small degree out of the same causes as have necessitated a classification of goods. Goods of small intrinsic value will not be conveyed at all unless at low rates; only on special terms can such goods produced at a great distance be brought to market.

Sometimes it is urged as an objection to differential rates, that by reason of them companies sustain, on long distance traffic, a loss which is made up by charges on short distance traffic. Repeated, as if it were an axiom, this statement is generally erroneous; though producing, no doubt, a lower percentage of profits than the latter, the former yields some profit, unless where undue competition operates.

To carry traffic at a rate yielding a small profit, is better for a railway company than to have its permanent way for many hours unused, and its plant not fully employed. It may be expedient to accept traffic producing only a small percentage of profit, if it can be got on no better terms; such traffic will at least help to defray the fixed charges, which must be incurred whether it is carried or not. But is a company bound to do all its business on such terms, or would it be desirable that it should do so? Can the senders of other traffic paying only reasonable rates, yielding the company what would otherwise be admitted to be only a fair profit, justly object? and if a company be deprived of this long distance traffic, will it not be forced to raise rates on other traffic in order to maintain its revenue?[20]

But, it is also objected, differential rates deprive the inhabitants of certain towns of the natural advantages of their geographical position. This argument would be more persuasive than it is if it were not generally expressed in the very language of Protectionists, if it were not so often a claim of an exclusive right to supply certain markets, and a scarcely concealed dislike to the intrusion of competition. Even supposing that low rates, which enable the produce of remote parts of England and Scotland to be conveyed throughout the length and breadth of the land may interfere with the trade of manufacturers nearer London and other great towns; so may the making of a railway. Places which have one, or districts which are left without any, may be injured by railway communication elsewhere being opened. The existence of any such right as is claimed is questionable. Preserving the natural advantages of one town means preventing the removal of the natural disadvantages of others. In truth, the abolition of differential rates would deprive many places of their natural advantages. That Liverpool is on the sea, and that Birmingham is not, that there is sea communication from the former to London, are circumstances which railways did not create, and to which they must accommodate themselves. Railway Companies are not answerable for the fact that certain kinds of traffic come from a point having the advantage of a sea route; that there is competition at one place and not at another; and that goods may be conveyed from New York to London all the way by sea, or partly by sea and partly by land.

If the rates for all traffic between intermediate places were either made the same as or less than those to terminal points, companies would be compelled to consider whether raising the export and import rates, or reducing those on local traffic, would result in the least loss. If the former course were adopted, as, in the majority of cases it would be, the facilities which manufacturers and merchants now enjoy would be withdrawn; it would be to their interest to ship at the nearest port. The railways would suffer some loss. The inhabitants of intermediate places and the port towns would derive no advantage except the removal of what generally is merely a sentimental grievance. What would a London draper gain if the Manchester and London Shipping rate were withdrawn, and if manufacturers shipped all their goods in Liverpool instead of a portion of them being shipped from London? What would it avail an Essex farmer if Dutch and Belgian produce were sent direct from Rotterdam and Antwerp to London, instead of through Harwich? Would farmers in the South of England be any better off if French eggs and butter were sent by sea to London instead of through Southampton or Newhaven?