March 17, 19 10] 



NATURE 



The Commission held io6 sittings, and examined 

 266 canal experts, traders, and others interested in 

 the subject. They personally inspected the most im- 

 portant waterways in this country, and some of those 

 in France^ Belgium, Germany, and Holland, and 

 obtained a report from an assistant commissioner on 

 the inland waterways of the Continent. 



The final report now issued covers 234 folio pages. 

 It commences with an interesting history of British 

 waterways, and then, seriatim, deals with the different 

 questions submitted for consideration, and concludes 

 with the recommendations at which the commissioners 

 have arrived. These are not unanimous, the minority 

 reports being also given. 



Briefly, these recommendations are : — 



The formation of a Central Waterway Board, and j 

 the transfer to this board of four central lines of canals | 

 connecting Birmingham, as the most central trading 

 town of the Midland district, with London, Hull, 

 Bristol, and Liverpool. 



If this waterway board, after further investigation, 

 and if satisfied that with regard to general benefit to 

 trade and financial considerations such a course is 

 desirable, it should be empowered to enlarge and 

 improve the existing waterways so as to afford 

 through communication for barges, of 100 tons, 

 between the Midland district and the sea-ports. 



The estimate given in the report for constructional 

 works for these four waterways is 17^ millions, the 

 money required for the purpose to be guaranteed by 

 the State. The cost of maintenance, interest, and 

 sinking fund is put at one million. 



As already stated, the report is not unanimous. 

 Five of the members sign it with certain reserva- 

 tions, and three members have given separate 

 reports. 



The reservations of the five members express their 

 disagreement practically with all the recommend- 

 ations, their agreement extending only to the 

 historical part, the Scotch scheme, and certain minor 

 matters. 



The majority do not appear to have much faith in 

 the scheme they recommend, as they only advise that 

 it shall be carried out if the proposed waterway board 

 is satisfied, after further inquir}', that this would 

 be desirable. They admit that it would not be 

 remunerative, and that the loss would have to be met 

 by the State; that it would be of no benefit to the 

 traders in other parts of England, and that the outlay 

 could only be justified by the advantage it might be 

 to the commerce of the country generally. It is also 

 admitted that even with an improved system of 

 internal waterways a large part of the traffic in goods 

 and minerals must still be carried by the railways, 

 that the system of trade in this country is now so 

 carried on that the traders no longer keep stores of 

 merchandise, but rely on quick and certain delivery 

 of minerals and heavy goods in small consignments, 

 conditions which the canals cannot comply with, and 

 that, owing to this, the introduction of large trucks, 

 which are used for the long distances traversed in the 

 United States, has not been a success here, and this 

 objection would apply with even greater force to 

 barges carrying loads of 100 tons. It is also admitted 

 that if improved waterways were really wanted there 

 would not have been any difficulty in this being carried 

 out by private enterprise. 



As to the estimate for carrying out the scheme, this 

 does not include the purchase of the existing water- 

 ways, nor the cost of several items such as wharves, 

 warehouses, terminal accommodation, Parliamentary 

 and legal and engineering expenses. In one of 

 the minority reports, the cost of construction and 



NO. 2107, VOL. 83] 



other matters included in the majority report is put 

 at about one-third more than that given. 



The evidence given also clearly shows that there is 

 not any analogy between the conditions attaching to 

 the waterways of this country and those on the 

 Continent, which have been developed and improved 

 by State aid, due to the different geographical condi- 

 tions and the much longer distances over which 

 inland transport extends. 



Of the minority reports, that of Mr. Inglis, the 

 present president of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 

 and formerly chief engineer, and now general manager, 

 of the Great Western Railway Company, is a very 

 able defence of the railway companies and their deal- 

 ings with canals. He points out the injustice of any 

 State-aided effort to revive an obsolete and unsuitable 

 mode of transit, to the detriment of the railways, 

 which have been constructed entirely by private enter- 

 prise, and the shareholders of which receive less than 

 three per cent, on the capital expended. 



Mr. Remnant, who is a barrister, states his disa- 

 greement to the recommendations of the majority' of 

 the commissioners on the ground that these are in- 

 conclusive and left for future consideration by the pro- 

 posed waterway board, and that the evidence does not 

 warrant the conclusions arrived at on economic 

 grounds. 



Mr. Davison, who is a civil engineer, criticises the 

 findings as to the transport and financial features, and 

 his report contains in a brief form the substance of 

 all the arguments that can be brought against the 

 policy of State acquisition of the waterways. He is of 

 •opinion that it is extremely improbable that the traffic 

 estimated for the proposed improved canals would be 

 forthcoming, and that the estimate of the cost for 

 these does not include important charges, and that no 

 attempt is made to arrive at the ultimate cost. 



I>R. E. PERCEVAL WRIGHT. 



WITH the death of Edward Perceval Wright one of 

 the links connecting the old school of natu- 

 ralists with the modern students of biology is severed. 

 Wright was bom in Dublin in 1834, where his father 

 was a barrister. He early evinced a keen interest in 

 natural history, and his enthusiasm in forwarding its 

 study led him to commence to publish, in 1854, the 

 year after his matriculation in Dublin University, a 

 quarterly journal devoted to natural science. It was 

 called the Natural History Review, and its publication 

 was continued until i86i5. In this journal, in the 

 Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, in the 

 Transactions of the Linnean Society, the Journal 

 of Botany, and in the British Association Reports, 

 he published during the next twelve years a series 

 of papers on the fauna of the south and west 

 coasts of Ireland. His undergraduate studies in 

 botany were pursued under the giaidance of Prof. 

 G. J. Allman, and as a student he came into 

 contact with W. H. Harvey, who was then keeper 

 of the Herbarium in Trinity College, and of whom 

 Wright always spoke with the warmest appre- 

 ciation. In 1858 Wright was appointed lecturer in 

 zoology and director of the Natural History Museum 

 of Trinity College. About the same time he was 

 appointed lecturer in botany in the medical school at- 

 tached to Dr. Steevens's Hospital. It is surprising to 

 find that while he was thus engaged actively in 

 research and teaching, he also found time to prosecute 

 medical studies with such success that by 1865 he had 

 begun to establish a position for himself among Dublin 

 oculists. But he did not remain in practice long, and. 



