turned to Mr. Gattie's speech and said, "You have stated that the cost of repairs of railway wagons amounts to £5,000,000 per annum, whereas the Blue Book shows that this figure covers repairs and renewals." Mr. Gattie then pointed out that the figure given by him included the repairs done to privatelyowned wagons as well as the railway-owned wagons, and that the Blue Book figure only referred to railway-owned wagons. You agreed and withdrew the objection. Mr. Gattie then asked you to query another figure, and you replied, "I do not dispute your figures for a moment,” nor did you say, at any time during the interview, a word about Mr. Gattie's figures being "based upon assumptions you were unable to check." Had you done so, Mr. Gattie would, I am quite sure, have at once asked you what figure and what assumption you referred to, and why you were unable to check the assumption. If you refer to the alleged 3 per cent. mobility of a railway wagon, the figure is based upon calculations made from the Board of Trade railway returns and other Blue Books. There are only two assumptions made in this calculation, the one being, that there are 311 working days in a year, and the other, that general merchandise trains do not travel at less than an average speed of twenty miles per hour. The first of these assumptions can be checked by reference to an ordinary calendar, and the second by reference to the railway working time-tables which you can get for the asking either from us or the railway companies. Again, your words in your letter imply a doubt as to the assumptions being reasonable. We can be no more reasonable than to base our assumptions on the facts before us. Your extreme hesitation in accepting and confirming our closely reasoned and fully detailed calculations is strangely at variance with the glib certificate of the excellence of railway methods, put forward by your predecessor without a shred of evidence to support it. Mr. Gattie then asked you whether you disputed the possibility of a reduction of 95 per cent. of the slow-going heavy traffic on London streets. You said you did not dispute, or find fault with the arguments contained in his lecture at the Royal Automobile Club. Mr. Gattie said, "I, myself, am astonished at the figures, but I cannot amend them; can you amend them ? You said you could not. You then asked Mr. Gattie what he intended to do about a Bill before Parliament. Mr. Gattie mentioned the failure of the Outer London Railway Bill, which had passed the House of Commons and which was thrown out by the House of Lords without any adequate reason being advanced. Mr. Gattie pointed out that such procedure was obvious waste of time and money, and that he did not intend to advise so foolish a course to the shareholders of the New Transport Company. He finished by saying, "A judicial enquiry such as I ask for is essential to the proving of my case, and it is palpably an urgent public necessity to investigate the whole field of railway administration. I ask the Board of Trade to say whether they still regard a judicial enquiry as unnecessary and undesirable, and if so, why unnecessary and why undesirable, and from whose point of view undesirable?" You then said you were wanted at the House of Commons, and the interview terminated. Yours faithfully, (Signed) JAMES CULVERWELL, Secretary. Copy.] BOARD OF TRADE. WHITEHALL GARDENS, S.W. JUNE 15, 1912. DEAR SIR, Referring to your letter of the 6th June, with regard to the interview which I had with Mr. Gattie on May 20th, I can only say that my recollection of that interview is as stated in my letter of the 3rd instant. THE SECRETARY, Yours faithfully, (Signed) W. F. MARWOOD. The New Transport Company, Limited. Copy.] JUNE 18, 1912. W. F. MARWOOD, ESQ., Board of Trade, Whitehall Gardens, S.W. DEAR SIR, In reply to yours of the 15th instant, will you kindly say to what figures you refer as being "largely based upon assumptions which you cannot check," what the assumptions are to which you refer, and why you are unable to check same. Will you also let me know what rejoinder, if any, Mr. Gattie made to your statement. As you are already aware, neither Mr. Gattie nor I have any recollection of your having used these words, or any like them, and we shall be much obliged will remind us of the terms of the context. if you Yours faithfully, (Signed) JAMES CULVERWELL, Secretary. Copy.] BOARD OF TRADE. (Railway Department.) 7, WHITEHALL GARDENS, LONDON, S.W. JUNE 19, 1912. CENTRAL RAILWAY GOODS CLEARING HOUSE FOR LONDON. SIR, I am directed by the Board of Trade to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 18th instant on the above subject. I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, (Signed) W. F. MARWOOD. THE SECRETARY, The New Transport Company, Ltd. Copy.] BOARD OF TRADE. DEAR SIR, WHITEHALL GARDENS, S.W. JUNE 24, 1912. In reply to your letter of the 18th instant, on the subject of my recent interview with Mr. Gattie, I made the statement which you and Mr. Gattie question at the beginning of the interview. Throughout Mr. Gattie's lectures, which I have read, he constantly and admittedly makes use of assumptions which may be near the mark, but which, as I say, I cannot check. I went on to point out an instance where it had struck me Mr. Gattie's figures were wrong, namely, the statement on page 5 of the paper of January 3rd, 1912, that a sum of £98,000,000 has to be sunk on wagons under existing conditions, at intervals of seventeen years, and an annual sum of between five and six millions spent in repairs. As you say in your letter of the 6th June, Mr. Gattie pointed out that these figures covered privately-owned wagons, as well as railway-owned wagons, and I withdrew my objection, but I am not in a position to check the figures. The exact words used at our interview are not, however, very material, as it will be for Parliament and not for the Board of Trade to decide on the merits of Mr. Gattie's scheme when it takes the form of a Bill. In our interview with you last year you will remember that in reply to a question from Mr. Gattie, with reference to certain figures given in his speech at the London Chamber of Commerce, you audibly stated that you" did not dispute his figures for a moment." You subsequently explained in writing that you "pointed out at the time" that your inability to dispute his figures was due to the fact that they were "largely based upon assumptions which you could not check." This qualification did not reach my ears or Mr. Gattie's ears at the interview, and we shall be very much obliged if you will be kind enough to inform us : I. What the assumptions you refer to may be ? 2. Why you are unable to check them? Yours faithfully, (Signed) JAMES CULVERWELL, Secretary. Copy.] BOARD OF TRADE. WHITEHALL GARDENS, S.W. DEAR SIR, I have received your letter of the 17th November with further reference to the interview which I had with yourself and Mr. Gattie in May of last year, but I do not think I have anything to add to my letter of the 24th June, 1912, on the subject. Yours faithfully, (Signed) W. F. MARWOOD. THE SECRETARY, New Transport Company, Limited. Copy.] NOVEMBER 25, 1913. W. F. MARWOOD, ESQ., Board of Trade, Whitehall, S.W. DEAR SIR, We are in receipt of yours of the 21st inst., which does not satisfy us. While we are anxious to act fairly towards you in every way, we cannot allow you to cast most unjustly a slur |