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._)