that our railway superiority (to France, Germany, etc.) has done much
also. Probably no one who has not _resided_ some time in a French
town (say a station on a main railway 150 miles from Paris as the
least favourable case for my argument) can realise the enormous
disadvantage by loss of time that a French business man is under, as
compared with the Englishman. To get some necessary manufactured
article from Paris is a matter of days; during which his machinery
may all stand still. The communication with Paris, however, is where
the Frenchman suffers least: the number of trains is so small, and
the slowness of all (but the express) is such that the "local"
traffic is nothing: unless a man intends to go a good many miles he
would ride or even walk rather than go by train. He does not mind
getting up at 2 a.m. to go to Paris; but he will not get up at that
hour to go six or eight miles, especially if he is given no choice as
to the hour at which he must return.

But the usual remark about the French railways is, "See how much
better they manage these things in France. While our railway
companies are all spending their money in fighting and in
competition, and pay dividends of 4 or 5 per cent, the French
railways have their routes settled by Government engineers, and pay 8
or 10 per cent." I am going to propose a plan for stopping all
company fighting in England for ever: but--as to the dividend--it can
only mean that, like any other Government monopoly, the French public
are being made to pay more for travelling than they need.

As regards the interest of the public, the rate of dividend paid by a
great railway company is of very small importance. For many years the
South-Western Company paid double the dividend the Great Western did.
How did this affect the work each did for the public--the conveyance