If the explanation which has been given be not correct--if the great obstacle to the success of canals in this country be not their inferiority, as compared with railways, in the carriage of goods to answer the needs of trade--why have no new canals been made for some fourteen or fifteen years? They cost much less per mile than railways, and their maintenance expenses are not so heavy. That they are falling into decay in this country when left in private hands, is due, in the main, to the fact that this country is well supplied with railway accommodation, and that for most kinds of merchandise they are not such an efficient mode of transport as railways.[111] [111] There is a large mileage of canals belonging to canal companies, and considering the views expressed by some as to the use which could be made of the canals which belong to the railway companies, it would have been instructive if the proprietors of all the independent canals had shown by the manner in which they had maintained and worked them, that the railway companies’ canals could be more profitably and usefully worked than they now are. CONCLUSION. The chief complaints which have been discussed fall under two heads; first, the statements expressed in many forms that rates on the Continent are lower than rates here, that this difference injures our trade, and that English railway rates ought therefore, to be reduced; secondly, that rates are based on no principle, that a scientific system ought to be adopted, and that import, transit, and certain other special rates, as the greatest anomalies, ought to be prohibited. A few words remain to be said to summarise my arguments as to each of these statements. The facts and figures mentioned at pages 144-8, and elsewhere have shown, it is hoped, that for instance, the exportation of iron or coal--the articles more often mentioned in the controversy--is not prejudiced by the railway rates charged in England as compared with those charged abroad. There has been, undoubtedly, some loss of trade in particular markets. For instance, coal was formerly sent from this country to Antwerp, Rotterdam, and Amsterdam. It is now replaced by Belgian and German coal. Is this very surprising? Is it reasonable to expect that colliery proprietors on the Continent would not supply coal, or the Governments, the proprietors of the railways, not convey it at anything above cost price rather than allow foreign coal to be imported, their collieries to stand idle, and their people to be unemployed? Coal of superior quality can be shipped at Newport and Cardiff at from 6½d. to 1s. per ton. What abatement could reasonably be expected from rates based on such a very low scale? What effect, if a reduction were made, could it have upon the alleged foreign competition, and upon the depression in trade?