My subject is not one which admits of discussion except on very general lines. Our views on it must necessarily be formed under the influence of the opinions we hold as to the legitimate functions of the State. It has been truly said that no country has ever adopted State ownership of railways from theoretical considerations. In each and every instance there were some practical reasons, based on military necessities or concrete and pressing economic conditions to meet which State ownership was accepted, not as a system desirable in itself, but as an expedient which, in the circumstances, was considered to be the best practical solution of difficulties which stood in the way of the satisfactory development of railways. But whilst agreeing with this as a true historical statement, I doubt whether theory can be entirely excluded from a statement of the genesis of national railway systems. In a country where Individualist opinions prevail, as I think at the present time they do in England, no temptations, no pressure of circumstances short of extreme national emergency, would induce people to face the evils which the Individualist knows must result from the intrusion of State action into matters of trade. This is theory, although those who are influenced by it may think that it is founded on practical experience. On the other hand, those persons who wish to secure trading profits for the State even at the cost of taking commercial risks, or who, when difficulties and obstacles arise in commercial development, resort to the powers of the State to overcome them, either by the imposition of taxes on the general community in the interests of a class, or by handing over to State officials the direction of an industry, instead of relying on the skill, self-reliance, enterprise, energy, and character of the people, are Socialists at heart, whether they know it or not, and are actuated by the radical theory of a creed which, perhaps, most of them would disavow. But, after all, the question is not whether State purchase would be a step in the Socialist direction, but whether it would be a step in the right direction. Why should we change? Are we suffering from intolerable evils from which there is no other way of escape, or is there some great national benefit to be derived from the change? The general case for nationalization, as put forward by its advocates, rests on very few arguments, and it is not, I think, unfair to describe these as being mainly assumptions, the accuracy of which it is impossible to verify. I may summarize a few of these:-- (1) Government management would be more efficient and less costly than private management.