Nanchang, Kuanghsin, and Hangchow, where it would join the projected Shanghai-Hangchow-Ningpo Railway. Neither of these schemes, however, matured, and they have now given place to a more comprehensive scheme, which, however, embodies both of them in principle.

In the winter of 1904 the Throne was memorialised to permit the official construction by Chinese themselves with Chinese capital of a railway from the Treaty Port of Kiukiang to Shaochau, in Kwangtung, in four sections-Kiukiang to Nanchang, Nanchang to Kian, Kian to Nanan, and Nanan to Shaochau, where it would connect with the projected Hankow-Canton Railway. At the same time the construction of branches between Nanchang and Changsha, and in a westerly direction to Kuanghsin, with the right of farther extension, was advocated. According to a later memorial, the funds were to be provided by raising share capital in the province and increasing the duty on salt.

The project in due course received the assent of the Throne, and it was subsequently announced that the local officials had decided on the construction, in the first instance, of the first section only, that between Kiukiang and Nanchang. No steps, however, appear to have been taken to give effect to this determination, and future developments will be closely followed. The project having had an official origin, it will be of interest to learn whether the movement represents a genuine awakening of the official consciousness to the advantages of development of the country by means of improved communication, or if it is simply one of those transient progressive ebullitions which result in the formulation of schemes which fail to pass beyond the stage of contemplation.

There is no reason why the proposed railway, if carefully managed, should not prove remunerative. The country is easy, and the line should therefore be susceptible of economical construction, while it would effectively open up one of the richest tea districts in the Yangtze, which is at present dependent on the Kan River and the Poyang Lake.

1 It will be remembered that in 1899 the British and Chinese Corporation unsuccessfully endeavoured to secure the right to construct the first section, i.e. that between Hangchow and Kuanghsin, of this railway. Ante, p. 131.

2 It was recently rumoured that in order to overcome the cause of the delay, namely, lack of funds, a loan for Taels 1,000,000 had been arranged with a certain foreign firm. The rumour, however, lacks official confirmation.

THE

CHAPTER XVIII

CONCLUSION

HE present stage of railway development in China may be most conveniently summarised in the form of tables showing the mileage of lines in operation, of lines under construction, and of projected lines, the construction of which either by Chinese or foreign capital has been sanctioned by the Chinese Government. The source, or rather for want of a better term the nationality, of the capital which has been or is to be employed in the various undertakings may, not without advantage perhaps, be also indicated.

In some instances the figures in these tables will be found to be somewhat inexact. It has not been possible in every case of a line already constructed, or of a line under construction, to verify its length or proposed length by personal reference to the Engineer-in-chief, so that error may not have been altogether avoided. In justice, however, it may be remarked that the figures have been obtained from what may fairly be regarded as almost equally reliable sources. Again, in the case of some of the projected lines, nothing but the roughest of surveys has been made, and the figures therefore are at times only approximate. It is believed, however, that they will be found in the main to represent correctly the position of affairs at the time of writing, and should at anyrate prove sufficient for our purpose.

These tables suggest a further table showing how China's railway system compares with that of other countries. It would be unreasonable, however, to take extreme instances of railway development such as those of Great Britain, the United States, and many countries of Europe. A fairer comparison would be one instituted between China, on the one hand, and Japan, India, and the Russian Empire, on the other. A table on these lines has accordingly been framed—in the case of China, railways under construction being included. The statistics of the other countries are taken as at the beginning of 1904.

Without a word of explanation these figures scarcely do justice to Russia, as they include Asiatic Russia, which, though it represents three-fourths of the area, accounts for less than one-seventh of the railway development of the Empire. The effect of this is to distract attention from the figures of European Russia, which, with an area of approximately two millions of square miles and one hundred and five millions of population, shows an advanced stage of railway development.

The figures in regard to China, on the other hand, err in the opposite direction, as they are given in regard to China Proper and Manchuria alone, and do not include the other outlying provinces of the Chinese Empire. Were these regions also included the figures in regard to area would be, at least, 50 per cent. more unfavourable than they are at present, though the increase in the number of inhabitants per mile of railway would not be considerable.

These observations tend to show that statistics of this kind, though interesting, form by no means reliable guides. Obviously the relative proportion of railway mileage to area forms no true criterion of development, unless the conditions of the countries to be compared are approximately the same. Similarly, the figures in regard to population are deceptive unless tempered by considerations of area. In a case of close comparisons such statistics might prove unsound premises.

In the above table, however, this danger does not arise, and the fact that the statistics of China's railways have been put in the most favourable light, while those of Russia have received the reverse treatment, only serves to emphasise the backwardness of the development of the Chinese system. It is true that China has excellent water communications; so also has Russia. But these cannot fill the place of railways, though they may supplement them and go far towards minimising the effects of their absence. To be brief, therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that railway enterprise in China is still in its infancy, and the interesting question presents itself as to the direction in which the development of the future will proceed.

Reviewing the history and analysing the present position, we see that a system which, in theory at least, is a system of State railways has been evolved. The circumstances of its evolution have been largely, if not entirely, fortuitous, though, on the other