might be to give access to districts in which the conditions of production were altogether easier and cheaper. Producers at A, B and C, might temporarily--the landowners at these points might permanently--suffer; but the public and other landowners would gain. They would gain indirectly and directly--directly in the increased volume of supply, indirectly by the increase of traffic enabling the company to keep down its general scale of charges; and manufacturers and landowners at points E and F would benefit. Such an illustration may serve to show how the interests of some landowners and certain traders may sometimes be on one side, and those of consumers, other landowners, the bulk of traders, and the railway companies on the other.[29] [29] NOTE.--The evidence of Sir Thomas Farrer, given in 1881, is very deserving of consideration. In answer to the question, “Now turning to the question of inequality of charges, of which the Committee have had many complaints--in fact, the bulk of the complaints have been with regard to the inequality of charges from one place to another--in your opinion, is this inequality productive of injury to the trade of the country?” He replies, “As far as I can judge, it is not.” He is asked:--“I suppose you would say that while on the one hand one portion of the country may be a loser, another portion of the country is a gainer, and that the one may be set against the other?”--He answers:--“I am not quite certain that I should say that one portion of the country is a loser, but I am quite certain that another portion is a gainer.” Again, in reply to question: “Then looking at the question also from the point of view of the public, the inland towns which are charged higher than towns on the sea-coast are merely paying the natural penalty of being inland towns, and not having an equally good geographical position?”--He states, “Quite so; on the whole I should think the inland towns were proportionately better off than before the railways existed, because, before the railways existed, sea-side towns had the water traffic to themselves, but now the railways afford a kind of competition with that traffic, and bring a great many places into communication with one another which could not have been brought into communication before.”