Railways and the State 259 



country a revolution the State was not itself disposed to 

 effect or to finance was powerfully to influence much of the 

 subsequent railway legislation, if, indeed, it has even to-day 

 entirely disappeared. 



At first it was assumed that competition in rail transport 

 would be assured, and the dangers in question proportionately 

 reduced, by different carriers using their own locomotives, 

 coaches and carriages on the railway lines, which alone, 

 it was thought, would be owned by the railway companies 

 constructing them. In some of the earlier railway Acts 

 there was even a provision that the railway companies could 

 lease their tolls, as turnpike trustees were doing. But the 

 apparent safeguard in the form of competition between rival 

 carriers disappeared when it was found (i) that, although a 

 railway company was required to allow a trader's own horse 

 or locomotive to use the line, it was under no obligation to 

 afford him access to stations and watering-places, or to 

 provide him with any other facilities, however indispensable 

 these might be to the carrier's business ; (2) that the tolls 

 charged by the railway companies were heavier than the 

 carriers could afford to pay ; (3) that the entire operation 

 of a line of railway worked by locomotives must necessarily 

 be under the control of the owning and responsible company ; 

 and (4) that railway companies would have to become carriers 

 of goods as well as owners of rails. 



A Parliamentary Committee which sat in 1840, and of 

 which Sir Robert Peel was a member, had reported in the 

 strongest terms that the form of competition originally 

 designed was both impracticable and undesirable, and that 

 monopoly upon the same line, at all events as regarded 

 passengers, must be looked upon as inevitable. " Your Com- 

 mittee," said the report, " deems it indispensable both for the 

 safety and convenience of the public, that as far as loco- 

 motive powers are concerned, the rivalry of competing parties 

 on the same line should be prohibited " ; though, as some 

 check to the consequent monopoly of the railway companies, 

 they suggested that the Board of Trade should act as a super- 

 vising authority, with power to hear complaints, consider 

 bye-laws, etc. 



A witness for the Grand Junction Railway Company, who 

 gave evidence before this Committee, said that any person 



