Railways and the State 265 



The companies declared they were willing to render every 

 reasonable facility to the Post Office ; but they protested 

 most vigorously against what they called " the absurd and 

 tyrannical clauses " of the Bill. 



These were, nevertheless, defended in the Commons on 

 behalf of the Government, the Attorney-General saying 

 " he had no doubt if the prerogative of the Crown were put in 

 force, the Post Office and the troops and stores might be 

 transmitted along the railroads without the payment of any 

 tolls whatever ; though he thought the companies should 

 have a fair remuneration for the accommodation given." 



Sir James Graham, on the other hand, wanted to know 

 what were the Queen's rights on the Paddington Canal. He 

 understood that troops were frequently moved from Padding- 

 ton to Liverpool by canal, but were always paid for as passen- 

 gers. Lord Sandon, too, declared that the question was 

 whether the public interest conferred a right upon the Post 

 Office to take possession of railroads, and make use of them 

 without the slightest remuneration whatever. That the rail- 

 ways should be subject to control he readily admitted ; but 

 there was a wide difference between justifiable control and 

 absolute sway, between fair remuneration and robbery, for 

 such it would be to use the property of these companies with- 

 out paying for it. 



The companies, according to a statement in the " Railway 

 Magazine " for August, 1838, where a summary of the debate 

 will be found, had been " prepared not merely to petition 

 but to act " whatever this may mean. The Government, 

 however, adopted a more conciliatory attitude towards them 

 by either withdrawing or amending the clauses which had 

 evoked these protests, and an amicable settlement of the 

 future relations between the railways and the Post Office was 

 then effected. 



The rejection of Morrison's Bill and the withdrawal of the 

 Duke of Wellington's motion, following on their adverse 

 criticism by the railway interests, had committed the Govern- 

 ment still more to their policy of stimulating competition 

 between the railway companies themselves, thus, they con- 

 sidered, diminishing the risk of seeing any of them become 

 too prosperous a monopoly. It was in full accord with this 

 policy that encouragement was given to the creation of 



