Taking into consideration all the facts and arguments here presented, I may summarise as follows the conclusions at which I have arrived:—

(1) That, alike from a geographical, physical, and economic point of view, there is no basis for fair comparison between British and Continental conditions; consequently our own position must be judged on its own merits or demerits.

(2) That, owing to the great changes in British trade, manufacture, and commerce, giving rise to widespread and still increasing demands for speedy delivery of comparatively small consignments for a great number of traders of every possible type, canal transport in Great Britain is no longer suited to the general circumstances of the day.

(3) That although a comparatively small number of traders, located in the immediate neighbourhood of the canals, might benefit from a canal-resuscitation scheme, the carrying out of such scheme at the risk, if not at the cost, of the taxpayers, would virtually amount to subsidising one section of the community to the pecuniary disadvantage of other sections.

(4) That the nationalisation or the municipalisation of British canals would introduce a new principle inconsistent with the "private enterprise" hitherto recognised in the case of railways, in which such large sums have been sunk by investors, but with which State-aided canals would compete.

(5) That, in view both of the physical conditions of our land (necessitating an extensive resort to locks, etc., to overcome great differences in level) and of the fact that many of the most important of the canals are now hemmed in by works, houses, or buildings, any general scheme of purchase and improvement, in regard even to main routes (apart from hopeless derelicts), would be extremely costly, and, in most instances, entirely outside the scope of practicability.

(6) That such a scheme, involving an expenditure of many millions, could not fail to affect our national finances.

(7) That there is no ground for expecting so large an outlay could be recouped by increased receipts from the canals, and that the cost would thus inevitably fall upon the community.

(8) That the allegation as to the chief canals of the country, or sections thereof, having been "captured" and "strangled" by the railway companies, in the interests of their own traffic, is entirely unsupported by evidence, the facts being, rather, that in most cases the canals were more or less forced upon the railway companies, who have spent money liberally on such of them as offered reasonable prospect of traffic, and, in that way, have kept alive and in active working condition canals that would inevitably have been added to the number of derelicts had they remained in the hands of canal companies possessed of inadequate capital for the purposes of their efficient maintenance.

(9) That certain of these canals (as, for example, the Birmingham and the Shropshire Union Canals) are still offering to traders all reasonable facilities within the limitations of their surroundings and physical possibilities; and that if such canals were required to bear the expense of extremely costly widenings, of lock reconstruction, of increased water supply, and of general improvements, the tolls and charges would have to be raised to such a point that the use of the canals would become prohibitive even to those local traders who now fully appreciate the convenience they still afford.

(10) That, in effect, whatever may be done in the case of navigable rivers, any scheme which aimed at a general resuscitation of canals in this country, at the risk, if not at the expense, of the community, is altogether impracticable; and that, inasmuch as the only desire of the traders, in this connection, is to secure cheaper transport, it is desirable to see whether the same results could not be more effectively, more generally, and more economically obtained in other directions.

Following up this last conclusion, I beg to recommend:—

(a) The desirability of increasing the usefulness of the railway system, which can go anywhere, serve everybody, and carry and deliver consignments, great and small, with that promptness and despatch which are all-important to the welfare of the vast majority of industries and enterprises, as conducted under the trading conditions of to-day. This usefulness, some of the traders allege, is marred by rates and charges which they consider unduly heavy, especially in the case of certain commodities calling for exceptionally low freight, and canal transport is now asked for by them, as against rail transport, just as the traders of 1825 wanted the railways as a relief from the waterways. The rates and charges, say the railway companies, are not unreasonable in themselves, considering all the circumstances of the case and the nature of the various services represented, while the actual amount thereof is due, to a certain extent, not so much to any seeking on the part of the companies to pay dividends of abnormal proportions, akin to those of the canal companies of old (the average railway dividend to-day, on over one thousand millions of actual capital, being only about 3½ per cent.), but to a combination of causes which have increased unduly capital outlay and working expenses, only to be met out of the rates, fares, and charges that are imposed on traders and travellers. Among these causes may be mentioned the heavy price the companies have had to pay for their land; the cost of Parliamentary proceedings; various requirements imposed by Parliament or by Government departments; and the heavy burden of the contribution that railway companies make to local rates. (See p. 10.) These various conditions must necessarily influence the rates and charges to be paid by traders. Some of them—such as cost of land—belong to the past; others—like the payments for local taxation—still continue, and tend to increase rather than decrease. In any case, the power of the railway companies to concede to the traders cheaper transport is obviously handicapped. But if, to obtain such cheaper transport, the country is prepared to risk (at least) from £20,000,000 to £50,000,000 on a scheme of canal reconstruction which, as I have shown, is of doubtful utility and practicability, would it not be much more sensible, and much more economical, if the weight of the obligations now cast upon railways were reduced, thus enabling the companies to make concessions in the interests of traders in general, and especially in the interests of those consigning goods to ports for shipment abroad, for whose benefit the canal revival is more particularly sought?

(b) My second recommendation is addressed to the general trader. His policy of ordering frequent small consignments to meet immediate requirements, and of having, in very many instances, practically no warehouse or store-rooms except the railway goods depÔts, is one that suits him admirably. It enables him either to spend less capital or else to distribute his capital over a larger area. He is also spared expense in regard to the provision of warehouse accommodation of his own. But to the railway companies the general adoption of this policy has meant greater difficulty in the making up of "paying loads." To suit the exigencies of present-day trade, they have reduced their minima to as low, for some commodities, as 2-ton lots, and it is assumed by many of the traders that all they need do is to work up to such minima. But a 2-ton lot for even an 8-ton waggon is hardly a paying load. Still less is a 10-cwt. consignment a paying load for a similarly sized waggon. Where, however, no other consignments for the same point are available, the waggon goes through all the same. In Continental countries consignments would be kept back, if necessary, for a certain number of days, in order that the "paying load" might be made up. But in Great Britain the average trader relies absolutely on prompt delivery, however small the consignment, or whatever the amount of "working expenses" incurred by the railway in handling it. If, however, the trader would show a little more consideration for the railway companies—whom he expects to display so much consideration for him—he might often arrange to send or to receive his consignments in such quantities (at less frequent intervals, perhaps) as would offer better loading for the railway waggons, with a consequent decrease of working expenses, and a corresponding increase in the ability of the railway company to make better terms with him in other directions. Much has been done of late years by the railway companies to effect various economies in operation, and excellent results have been secured, especially through the organisation of transhipping centres for goods traffic, and through reductions in train mileage; but still more could be done, in the way of keeping down working expenses and improving the position of the companies in regard to concessions to traders, if the traders themselves would co-operate more with the railways to avoid the disadvantages of unremunerative "light-loading."

(c) My third and last recommendation is to the agriculturists. I have seen repeated assertions to the effect that improved canals would be of great advantage to the British farmer; and in this connection it may interest the reader if I reproduce the following extract from the pamphlet, issued in 1824, by Mr T. G. Cumming, under the title of "Illustrations of the Origin and Progress of Rail and Tram Roads and Steam Carriages," as already mentioned on p. 21:—

If railways were desirable in 1824 in the interests of agriculture, they must be still more so in 1906, and the reversion now to the canal transport of former days would be a curious commentary on the views entertained at the earlier date. As regards perishables, consigned for sale on markets, growers obviously now want the quickest transport they can secure, and special fruit and vegetable trains are run daily in the summer season for their accommodation. The trader in the North who ordered some strawberries from Kent, and got word that they were being sent on by canal, would probably use language not fit for even a fruit and vegetable market to hear. As for non-perishable commodities, consigned to or by agriculturists, the railway is a much better distributer than the canal, and, unless a particular farm were alongside a canal, the extra cost of cartage therefrom might more than outweigh any saving in freight. If greater facilities than the ordinary railway are needed by agriculturists, they will be met far better by light railways, or by railway road-motors of the kind adopted first by the North-Eastern Railway Company at Brandsby, than by any possible extension of canals. These road-motors, operated between lines of railway and recognised depÔts at centres some distance therefrom, are calculated to confer on agriculturists a degree of practical advantage, in the matter of cheaper transport, limited only by the present unfortunate inability of many country roads to bear so heavy a traffic, and the equally unfortunate inability of the local residents to bear the expense of adapting the roads thereto. If, instead of spending a large sum of money on reconstructing canals, the Government devoted some of it to grants to County Councils for the reconstruction of rural highways, they would do far more good for agriculture, at least. As for cheaper rail transport for agricultural commodities in general, I have said so much elsewhere as to how these results can be obtained by means of combination that I need not enlarge on that branch of the subject now, further than to commend it to the attention of the British farmer, to whom combination in its various phases will afford a much more substantial advantage than any possible resort to inland navigation.

These are the alternatives I offer to proposals which I feel bound to regard as more or less quixotic, and I leave the reader to decide whether, in view of the actualities of the situation, as set forth in the present volume, they are not much more practical than the schemes of canal reconstruction for which public favour is now being sought.