gineer and the contractor, and any one who dreamed of setting bounds to their efforts was set down as a reactionary dreamer. Financial embarrassments have at length given the objector a chance of being listened to. Amidst the disgust which accompanies bad investments, the position that a given district is not of necessity the happier for the possession of a railroad no longer seems a patent absurdity. It must be admitted, indeed, that the prima facie argument is always on the side of railways. The villagers of the district, through which it is proposed to carry one, will dispose of their produce to greater advantage, by reason both of the increased facilities for sending it to market, and of the increase in the number of those who will consume it on the spot. If, in addition to this new kinds of industry are developed, and mines or factories spring up on the mountain-side or along the course of the streams, still larger commercial gains may be gathered in. Are there any considerations of sufficient force to outweigh these?
In answer to this there are two things to be said. In the first place, the welfare of the particular district concerned is not the only point to be kept in view. It might conceivably be highly convenient to the inhabitants of Queen's Gate and Lancaster Gate to have a railway carried across the centre of Kensington Gardens. Mutual visits would be promoted, especially
