Now, in practically every case the favorable treatment complained of, due or undue, as the case may be, is forced upon the railway company by competition in some shape or other. It may be competition of other carriers by sea or by land, or it may be the necessity for enabling one district to compete with another less favorably situated. Such consideration for the commercial needs of districts in relatively advantageous positions is permitted and encouraged when it is afforded by different railways, though rendered difficult when one railway serves the competing districts. What would State railways do? If the law of undue preference now operative within the limits of particular railway systems became, by reason of State ownership, applicable to all railways, there would be a stupendous disturbance of existing trading conditions. Instead of State purchase diminishing the complaints of undue preference, it would be the signal for the commencement of fierce conflicts between districts. It would be necessary to face the question whether and to what extent geographical advantage of position should be recognized in fixing railway rates. The centers of production and consumption in England have been fixed away back in commercial history, and from a railway point of view these have largely to be taken as facts beyond control. Facilities for reaching the populous centers of consumption are of vital importance to producers and importers. Would State railways be compelled by the pressure of interested landowners and others to fix rates for agricultural produce and manufactured articles and for import and export trade rigidly in proportion to distance? It is probable that a bitter controversy would arise on the question, and discontent with the railway arrangements which have gradually, and with very general approval, been established in England, instead of being lessened, would be greatly extended if we embarked on the experiment of State ownership. Would the management of railways by Government officials be, on the whole, better than management by the officers of private corporations working for profit? That is the question which lies at the root of the subject which we are discussing. So far as I am concerned, I have no inclination to jibe at the management of those enterprises which are conducted by the State and municipal bodies. I do not think that the postal services would be better managed if they were under private control, probably not so well. Municipal tramways show the weakness of public management, chiefly in the tendency towards fixing charges at figures which sacrifice the interests of ratepayers to the interests of the working classes who possess votes, but who generally occupy houses in respect of which they do not directly pay rates. That there would be very grave risks in substituting State management for commercial management of railways must, I think, be generally admitted.