By the Census report, I learn that the average expense of the railways varies in different parts of the Union; those in the northern, or New England States, costing 9250l. per mile; those in the middle States, 8000l.; and those in the southern and western States, 4000l. per mile.  The railway from Charleston to Augusta, on the Savannah River, only cost 1350l. per mile.  From the above we see clearly that the expenses of their railways are materially affected by density of population and the consequent value of land, by the comparative absence of forest to supply material, and by the value of labour.  If these three causes produce such material differences in a country comparatively unoccupied like the United States, it is but natural to expect that they should be felt with infinitely more force in England.  Moreover, as it has been well observed by Captain D. Galton, R.E.,[BE] “railways originated in England, and therefore the experience which is always required to perfect a new system has been chiefly acquired in this country, and has increased the cost of our own railways for the benefit of our neighbours.”—­Some conception may be formed of the irregular nature of the expense on the lines in England from the statement subjoined, also taken from the same paper, viz.:—­

Name of Railway.   Land and                               Total Cost
Compensation.       Works.     Rails.     per Mile. 
L               L          L             L

London       }
and          }      113,500          98,000     1,000   253,000[BF]
Blackwall    }

  Leicester }
  and } 1,000 5,700 700 8,700[BF]
  Swannington }

From the table on the opposite page, it will be seen that the cost of construction and engineering expenses amounted to 35,526,535l. out of 45,051,217l.  Taking the railways quoted as representing a fair average of the whole, we ascertain that more than one-fourth of the expense of our railways is incurred for extras comparatively unknown in the United States.  At a general meeting of the London and North Western, in 1854, Mr. Glyn mentioned as a fact, that a chairman of a certain line, in giving evidence, had stated that a competition for the privilege of making 28 miles of railway had cost 250,000l.  Such an item of expenditure can hardly enter into the cost of a railway in a country as thinly populated as the Republic.  There are also two other important facts which are apt to be overlooked:  first, that a great portion of the railways in the United States are single lines; and secondly, that the labour performed is of a far less solid and enduring character.  A most competent civil engineer told me that the slovenly and insecure nature of many of the railway works in the United States was perfectly inconceivable, and most unquestionably would not stand the inspection required in England.  A friend of mine has travelled upon a railway in America, between Washington and Virginia, of which a great portion was composed of merely a wooden rail with a bar of iron screwed on to the surface.[BG] The carriages are also far less expensive and comfortable; a carriage in the United States, which carries fifty people, weighs twelve tons, and costs 450l.; in England it may be fairly asserted, that for every fifty people in a mixed train there is a carriage weight of eighteen tons, at a cost of 1500l.