576 TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION F. 
their organisations to press the recommendations on Parliament and the Govern- 
ment, in the form of step-by-step improvement—first, the formation of the 
Waterway Board; secondly, unification; and, thirdly, the first instalment of 
improvement of one or two of the main routes of waterways. To answer 
doubts, he pointed to the present obsolete condition of our canals, and the un- 
developed state of our rivers, as well as the fact that we have a fine network 
of connected waterways in England, but remaining unimproved since 1830, in 
contrast with those in Northern France and Southern Belgium, where the results 
of unification and improvement, during recent years, should be visited and 
studied, as well as the statistics of increase of waterway traffic, accompanied by 
simultaneous increase of railway traffic also. In England, not only would the 
railway traffic be similarly increased by the development of the output of 
inland factories, thanks to a cheaper transport of raw materials, &c., but the 
transfer of industries to the coast and subsequent loss of railway rates would 
be arrested. 
After quoting from the anticipations of the Commission of indirect return 
on the probable cost of unification and improvement, in the shape of benefit to 
trade, he pointed out that the perseverance of France, Belgium and Germany 
year by year in the policy of waterway improvement proved that experience 
had convinced foreign Governments of the benefit to trade resulting from 
waterway reform and extension. 
(u) Some Reasons why the State should improve the Canals and 
Waterways of the United Kingdom. By Sir Joun Purser 
GrirFitH, M.Inst.C.H. 
The object of this paper was to encourage discussion on some of the 
economic reasons which appeared to the writer to warrant State interference for 
the purpose of improving the canals and waterways of this country. The 
writer, as an engineering member of the Royal Commission on Canals and 
Waterways, signed the majority report without reservation, because from an 
engineering point of view he was satisfied that the proposals were reasonable 
and practicable, and also because on economic grounds the proposals appeared to 
him sound. He thought it would scarcely be reasonable for him to take up time 
by entering into detailed descriptions of the engineering difficulties to be over- 
come, but he wished to say that many of the objections which have appeared in 
print to the proposals to develop the waterways of Great Britain were difficulties 
conjured up by the writers, and have no foundation in the proposals of the Royal 
Commission. 
While aiming at the formation of trunk waterways of the 100 tons and 300 
tons standard, the aim was ever present in the minds of the Commissioners that 
the existing type of canal boat and barge must be provided for, and that the 
new locks and lifts should be designed so as to allow the passage of trains of 
these boats and barges, and permit of the economic introduction of mechanical 
haulage. ‘There would be no scrapping of canal plant,’ to use the expressive 
words of the explanatory pamphlet issued by the Waterways Association. 
The writer has been impressed with the future possibilities of our water- 
ways, because an extensive system of inland navigation exists in the country, 
represented in Great Britain and Ireland by 4,670 miles of canals and naviga- 
tions, which were constructed as independent concerns without any idea of 
forming a united scheme or system of inland navigation, and which generally 
speaking are in no better condition than they were eighty years ago; yet in the 
face of such hindrances many of these waterways are still worked with advantage 
to certain districts and trades. 
The principal opposition to the revival of inland navigation by the aid of 
public funds comes from those who profess to speak in the interests of the 
railway companies, or from economists who believe that public money should 
not be used in aid of waterways in competition with railways constructed by 
private enterprise. ' 
There exists, however, a class of railway proprietors who believe that rail- 
ways would be benefited by a transfer of a large volume of low-class traftic 
from rails to water, and that the present inflated railway capital might be used 
