These are not fanciful dangers. They are the results which we may feel sure would inevitably follow the nationalization of our railways, and the advantages to be gained from State management would need to be very great to compensate for these burdens. Another aspect of the question which requires the gravest consideration is that which concerns the position of the State as an employer of labor. There are upwards of 620,000 railway officers and servants. The State would become the direct employer of that huge army, and would have to settle all questions relating to hours, wages, and other conditions of service. If a railway company is unable to settle differences with its men the ultimate resort of the men is the withdrawal of their labor, whilst the company are free to employ other men who are willing to accept their conditions of employment. Any railway strike on a large scale is a dire calamity to trade and to the public, but if one were compelled to consider the possibility of a general strike on a national railway system, even the deplorable results which accompany strikes on privately-owned railways would seem comparatively insignificant. Probably a railway department of Government would not urge the adoption of compulsory arbitration, if they were themselves concerned, with as much equanimity as they do in the case of strikes on private railways. It is true that in this matter the advocates of State railways can point to the comparative absence of labor conflicts in connection with the services now under Government control, but municipal undertakings have not been so successful in avoiding labor disputes, and in many cases have secured even the degree of immunity from such conflicts which they enjoy by the concession of terms of employment which constitute heavy burdens on the ratepayers. It seems to me that the danger of serious labor disputes cannot be put aside, and I confess that I am unable to see any safe way of meeting the objection to State ownership on the ground that the State ought to limit, as far as possible, its liability to become directly concerned in such disputes. In conclusion, I would say that I have felt unable to take up a partisan attitude on the question. For many years past both my studies on railway subjects and my practical experience have led me to a convinced belief in the advantages of well-regulated monopoly, and I am unable wholly to disapprove of a scheme which would secure for the country the advantages of a system of well-regulated monopoly in which I believe, even although it should come in the guise of State ownership. Competition, in my judgment, creates more evils than it cures, especially the half-hearted and imperfect competition which exists in England so far as railways are concerned, which cannot be regarded as free competition on a commercial basis.