Stuart "ideal of government by prerogative." Perhaps in time he may think even more kindly than he does at present of the Stuart Council. His present opinions are on the side of the seventeenthcentury squirearchy politically and against them socially. Not infrequently, I have noticed, the Whig "infection doth remain yea, in them that are," like Mr. Tawney (economically), "regenerated."

I have noted down a number of dubitanda which need not be dealt with here at any length, but which the author may care to consider for his second edition. P. 7, n. 2: "Hales was quite conversant with the effect on general prices of an increase in the supply of money." Did Hales get beyond the effect of debasement? Was not the idea of the result of simple increase introduced into his treatise in 1581 by W. S.? (See ed. Lamond, pp. xxxiii, 185, 187.) P. 126: is it quite certain that the rules as to succession in High Furness were really the work of "the whole village "_"the prudent men of High Furness"? "It is now ordered" sounds remarkably like a royal ordinance or regulation, especially when we notice the motive recited at the head of the document. P. 166: surely the explanation suggested for what is justly called "the strange statement of Hales "-viz., that the chief destruction of towns (i.e., villages) was before the reign of Henry VII.-that this "may well have been a curt summary of the impression produced by a century of gradual consolidation and piecemeal enclosures carried out by the smaller cultivators," is, on the face of it, very improbable. P. 258: does the narrative here quoted refer to any but freeholders? the text says nothing about "other tenants." P. 309: "the flooding of Europe with American silver" has, hitherto, been commonly supposed not to have affected prices in England till some time after the discovery of the Potosi mines in 1546—according to Adam Smith not till about 1570. P. 381: for further corroboration of "the view that the religious houses had been easier landlords than the new lay owners," reference may be made to the author's own citation from Becon, p. 7, n. 1; to the fears expressed by Starkey (England in the Reign of Henry VIII., p. lviii, seq.); to the last clause but one of the great act of secularisation, 1536; and to the complaint by Hales in 1548 as to its non-observance (Common Weal, p. xlix-1). A convenient catena of passages from contemporary writers will be found in Professor Cheyney's book. That the religious houses were "easier" is not to be attributed to their religious character, but to the conservatism of all corporations. Mr. Tawney's comparison with "fellows of Oxford colleges

(p. 383) tells in the same direction; for colleges were notoriously conservative, even in the nineteenth century, in the management of their estates.

Waterways

W. J. ASHLEY

versus Railways. By HAROLD G. MOULTON, Instructor in Political Economy in the University of Chicago. (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. 1912. Pp. 468. Price $2.)

The Lakes-to-the-Gulf Deep Waterway. By WILLIAM A. SHELTON, Graduate Student in Political Economy in the University of Chicago. (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. 1912. Pp. 130.)

MR. MOULTON's book is very interesting throughout. But the most interesting parts of it are the preface and the conclusion. In the preface he describes the attitude of his mind as it was when he began his study, and the change of opinion that was forced upon him as he became more and more familiar with the facts. In his last chapter he deals with what may be called the psychology of the waterway movement, and explains the causes which in his view account for the fact that the arguments which have convinced him have so far not convinced the man in the street.

Here is what the preface says:

"When this investigation was undertaken, the author shared in the common belief that traffic of certain kinds can be carried at substantially less cost by water than by rail. . . . A reading of the literature of the subject, however, soon made it evident that no adequate analysis of the cost of transportation by water had ever been made; that it was merely tacitly assumed that water transportation is cheaper than that by rail; and that the rate comparisons sometimes presented in support of this assumption were virtually meaningless. This discovery led to a shifting of emphasis to the cost aspect of the problem, the question of traffic assuming a secondary place. . When the author went to Europe he shared in the general belief that water transportation on the Continent was of undoubted economic advantage.

But to the surprise of the author it soon became apparent that in Europe, as in the United States, little consideration had ever been given to the inclusive cost of transport by water as compared with that by rail, and that the rate comparisons usually made proved nothing whatsoever."

Mr. Moulton's very careful and acute investigations of canals both in esse and in posse in the United States, and in all the principal countries of Europe, which led him to the change of view he has so frankly recorded in the preface, occupy the bulk of the book before us. They show in elaborately particularised and closely localised detail what not a few authorities on the subject, such as Colson in France, and Ulrich in Germany, have long ago asserted as a general proposition-that, in Mr. Moulton's own words, "there can no longer be any question that, so far at least as canals are concerned, the cost of transportation, all factors included, is almost universally much greater by water than by rail. . . . All attempts to make canals an integral part of a national transportation system, whether for the carriage of high class or low grade freight it matters not, is an attempt to turn backwards the clock of time. In the case of rivers, however, the situation may at times be somewhat different; but it is only in rare instances that river transportation can be made as economical as transportation by rail."

Mr. Moulton's case, which in the opinion of the present writer is absolutely conclusive, rests, of course, in the main on the fact that the ordinary estimates of transportation costs by rail and by canal include, in the case of the railway, all costs; in the case of the canal, only such costs (in France about one-half of the whole) as are borne by the trader himself. It is difficult to understand how so one-sided a basis of comparison can ever have been suffered to pass unchallenged. But apparently it has been so common as to be taken for granted. One striking instance nearer home than the United States may perhaps be given. Our own recent Royal Commission on Canals sat for several years, and published eleven volumes, and a Report containing 974 paragraphs. Not one of the 974 paragraphs discusses the question, which to an ordinary economist would surely have seemed fundamental, whether there are any, and, if so, what circumstances in which canals are a more economic means of transport than railways. Nor does the Report so much as allude to the very pertinent fact disclosed in the Report of their SubCommissioner, Mr. Lindley, that, whereas the total cost per ton kilometre on the railways of France for all traffic, high class and low class, small and large consignments, is 0.55d., the total cost on the waterways, for low-class bulk traffic only, is 0.57d. As, however, it also appears that only one-half of the canal cost is paid by the trader, while the other half is thrown on the shoulders of the taxpayer, it is easy to understand how the trader

comes to assert that canal carriage is cheaper. Why, however, a Royal Commission should take the truth of his statement for granted is not so clear.

The bulk of Mr. Moulton's book consists, as has been said, of a description and appreciation of the existing waterways and the schemes for new waterways in the principal countries in the world. Each individual waterway, however, has, generally speaking, no interest except for those whom it particularly concerns, and the cumulative effect of the argument is only reached as Mr. Moulton shows to us one waterway after another, points to the traffic it carries, and the total cost of carriage, and proves that in almost every case (the Rhine is the one conspicuous exception) the final balance is, not a profit, but a deficit. There is, therefore, nothing to be gained by an attempt to make a summary in a review. Two interesting points may, however, be noted in reference to Germany.

The first is that the official Prussian policy forces a very large and rapidly growing traffic in coal and iron in the Ruhr district on to the waterways; and that new waterways are being constructed to deal with this growing traffic, which, it is alleged, the railways are unable to cope with. Mr. Moulton points out, not only that railways both in England and America have no difficulty in dealing with much heavier traffic, but that practically the whole of the Ruhr traffic either originates or terminates on the railways of the district. Now, says he and it is difficult to see an answer to the objection-if railways can deal with the traffic at the focus of congestion, a fortiori they can deal with it nearer the circumference, more especially as the present policy keeps both the loading and the unloading within the congested area, whereas, if the railways were allowed to carry the traffic throughout, either the loading or the unloading would normally take place outside it.

The second point is this. Mr. Moulton asks if it is possible that "the German waterway officials and the German people in general can themselves be unaware of the economic losses involved in waterway expenditure. Is there something back of the scenes, some political interest, or some dominating force, which virtually compels the Government to continue the policy of subsidising the waterways, or are the German people simply in the dark as to the economic waste involved?"

He notes that German railway officials regretted at the International Railway Congress at Berne in 1910 their inability to take part in the discussion of the question whether

railways should be sufficiently extended to meet the increasing demands of commerce; that high officers of the Prussian railways have declared the official statement of the Prussian Government that waterway extension was required to cope with traffic for which the railways must be inadequate to have been made without their being consulted; and that twenty high dignitaries who voted in 1899 in the Prussian House of Lords against the ambitious Rhine-Weser Canal scheme were summarily removed from their posts. And he comes to the conclusion, which is, be it said, undoubtedly correct, that waterway schemes are being pushed forward in Prussia, not because they are economically sound, but because the German Emperor believes in them. If we may vary a famous saying of another Emperor five centuries earlier, Ego sum imperator Germanicus et supra economiam.

To Englishmen, the chapter on the Manchester Ship Canal has a more direct interest, especially as most people believe that the results have justified its construction. Mr. Moulton shows that the Canal was estimated to cost £8,000,000. It has cost more than double. It was estimated to pay a 5 per cent. dividend upon the whole share capital of £8,000,000 in the second year of operation. In fact, now, sixteen years after its opening, it has never even met the interest on its debt. It was estimated to earn in the second year of operation £479,000 net. In fact, it earned £137,000 gross. Further, as to its indirect effects: Manchester shows a growth of population during the decade 1891-1901 less than that of Liverpool and Birmingham, and not half that of Leeds; the reduction in railway rates between Liverpool and Manchester is "slight at best." One might perhaps add that, had the £17,000,000 been spent, not on making a canal, but as a free gift to the Lancashire railway companies, there can be no doubt that they would have agreed in return to carry cotton for nothing, and to give to manufacturers and operatives alike perpetual free passes between Manchester and the pleasure towns of the Lancashire coast.

One criticism should, I think, be made of Mr. Moulton's otherwise excellent work. In referring to railways, he does not seem to be on as sure ground as in dealing with canals. More than once he appears to compare some particular canal in reference to construction cost, actual traffic, or traffic capacity, not with its real analogue, some specific main line, but with some railway system as a whole.

A word as to Mr. Moulton's psychology of waterway supporters. He believes that the popular mind still retains a