such a pitch of perfection that there would be no difficulty whatever in making the examination and coming to a decision one way or the other. According to my lights the Board of Trade should say: "Here

is a brilliantly conceived and cleverly organised scheme which experts say will benefit the country to the tune of £365,000,000 a year: we must look into it at once: we are the agents for the British Empire and it will not do to let this system, invented by Mr. Gattie, an Englishman, be tried first of all in a foreign land.” But the Board of Trade does nothing of the kind; it merely says, in effect: "Here, you inventors and promoters, you have already gone to much trouble and expense and worked very hard-go on, work harder, and get a Bill through Parliament; we will not stir a finger to help you till you have secured an Act of Parliament." Now I think this is all very wrong and very mean. The appalling losses over the present railway system in this country and the NECESSITY of making some improvement will be quite apparent to anyone who takes the trouble to read this book. Take only one item of extravagance, viz., the 3 per cent. mobility of the 1,500,000 railway wagons and trucks in this country! Only think of it; it hardly seems conceivable that 97 per cent. of the time of a railway truck should be absolutely unproductive! With the 22,000 locomotives the case is not much better; for by far the greater part of their existence they are mere "cumberers of the earth."

The Board of Trade has all the figures, for the railway companies are bound to furnish any which may be asked for-and it does strike me as passing strange that, knowing all the failures and failings of the existing system, it should refuse to make a proper enquiry into the potentialities of a scientific scheme which aims at doing away with so much unnecessary waste of money.

We must never forget that the permanent official is human and that it is not in human nature to hold out open arms to an enormous and sudden accession of difficult work without any corresponding rise in salary. Possibly I may be hard on the permanent official, but on occasion I have certainly noticed that red tape and dust are more in his line than alacrity to take on fresh work, however attractive and good for the country.

I regret to observe that the opponents to the Clearing House system do not always stick to facts. Instead thereof they sometimes create a system out of their own imagination, attribute it to Mr. Gattie and the New Transport Company, pulverise it, and then, with very brazen hardihood, stand forward as the demolishers of the Goods Clearing House system! One gentleman, Mr. F. W. West, of the S.E. & C. Railway Company, says: "I have not yet found one who can see that either a central Clearing House or Mr. Gattie's machinery would be an improvement upon the present arrangements." This was written in Railway News of April 22, 1916, and it is hard to believe that Mr. West had not seen the letter of Mr. E. H. Farr in the same newspaper on April 8. A great many railwaymen of ability and distinction have spoken in the most eulogistic terms of Mr. Gattie's system; e.g., speaking of the railway outlook, Mr. E. H. Farr said, in a letter to Mr. Gattie, dated June 26, 1915: "Rates, never low, will certainly go up, and the whole outlook is certainly one which managers of railway companies cannot view with equanimity, and, as I said before, your system should be their salvation. . . . What struck me most was the distribution of the goods, and I think your system is the acme of mechanical skill in the handling of goods." In Mr. West's criticism I cannot help detecting a touch of the suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, and I would make the

ว

same remark with reference to Mr. Edwin A. Pratt's animadversions. In a little book entitled " A London Transport Trust," Mr. Pratt says the Goods Clearing House scheme has been before the country for seven or eight years and has been closely investigated and cannot possibly be regarded as coming within the range of "practical economics." How can this be regarded as a sincere statement? Mr. Pratt knows quite well that the railway companies have persistently refused to discuss the matter with Mr. Gattie. I had hoped that the opponents might be good sports and fight clean, but when I find them trying to bolster up their incorrect statements and assumptions with imaginary happenings I come to the conclusion that their case must be rather a poor one.

In conclusion I would say one word in refutation of that foolish remark one sometimes hears about "waiting till the war is over before starting any scheme." This is most mistaken. Now, now is the time to lay plans for big economic ventures to come into force as soon as possible on conclusion of the war.

HEADLEY,

M.I.C.E.I.; F.S.E.; M.R. San. Inst., etc., etc.

FOREWORD

THE object of this book is not to preach a crusade of pillage. The aim is the exact opposite. It is quite true that the railways may be made to pay for the war, but it is also true that in the process railway dividends will rise, and railway wages will increase. I make no apology for writing such a book at such a time.

The question of transport in relation to our country's economic position has been too long neglected. Parliamentary delay in pressing on reform in this direction has increased the stress of our difficulties during the present war almost to breaking-point.

I am convinced that the capacity of the nation to recover from this great wound of war will most largely depend on transport reform. I am convinced that it is impossible to compete with other nations on equal terms until our transport arrangements are put on a scientific basis and are honestly administered. I have given solid reasons for this point of view.

I have attempted to explain the enormous importance of the question, and its vital interest for every individual in the country.

In the course of my investigations I have been startled at the magnitude of this economic evil, which is a menace to our commercial existence.

I have dwelt upon the only radical scheme of treatment for this economic disease which, as far as I know, has yet been put forward. I make no excuse for this, supported as the scheme is by names which are almost classic in the engineering and economic worlds, and