duty on sea-borne coals will narrow the market of the Staffordshire coal trade. The railway may not only restore the balance, but incline it in favour of Staffordshire, whose mines lie nearest of any to the metropolis. But the superiority of railways is a question of fact; it must be decided by actual experiment; and it has been decided by experiment between Manchester and Liverpool. But it is said, the railway may be a good thing for the country; but what will it be for those who consume their capitals in forming it; what does it promise to its proprietors? In the first place, I would observe that the common expression,—it may be good for the country and bad for the proprietors,—expresses what never can be true: it never can be for the good of the country that any capital should be so invested as not to make an adequate return. This is a matter of calculation. Numberless railways have been constructed, (though the application of the locomotive engine is a comparatively recent improvement); and it must be possible to form some judgment of the capital required. It is true that in all great works this is difficult, and we are often reminded of the original estimate and ultimate expense of the Liverpool and Manchester railway. But are railways the only works in which estimates have been erroneous? Has it never happened in buildings, in roads, in bridges, in canals? And is it impossible for any care, and any caution, to avoid gross mistakes? Be assured that no care will be spared on this subject by those who are inviting the public to invest a capital of three millions; their calculations are founded, not on the estimate, but on the actual expenditure of the Liverpool and Manchester railway: they suppose theirs _will cost_ as much as the other actually _has cost_. Is that an objectionable basis to build upon? They pledge themselves to ascertain the probable expense, and will not rest on the judgment of any one man, however superior they may justly and confidently think him.