Railways and the State 281 



" It would be impossible to deal with railways made since 

 1844 without dealing with railways made before that time, 

 since both form part of the same systems. 



" As regards the revision of rates, no Government would 

 undertake to try experiments in reducing rates on an inde- 

 pendent company whose income they must guarantee ; and 

 efficient or economical administration could scarcely be 

 expected from a railway company whose rates were cut down 

 and whose dividend at ten per cent was guaranteed by 

 Government. 



" Whatever value there may be in the notice given to the 

 companies by this Act of their liability to compulsory pur- 

 chase by the State, over and above the general right of 

 expropriation possessed by the latter in such cases, its terms 

 do not appear suited to the present condition of railway 

 property or likely to be adopted by Parliament in case of any 

 intention at any future time on the part of Parliament to 

 purchase the railways." 



The proposals contained in the Bill, and modified into the 

 Act of 1844, were, of course, simply a further development of 

 the then established policy of the State in taking precautions 

 against the evils that might result from railway monopoly. 



A greater degree of apparent success was, at first, to attend 

 those further precautionary measures which took the form 

 of encouraging the construction of competing lines, leading 

 both to new and to existing companies invading the so-called 

 " territory " of other companies, as distinct from the pro- 

 vision of lines in districts which had no railways at all. 



There was at this time much discussion as to the rights 

 of established companies. 



When the proposal for the appointment of the Committee 

 of 1840 was under discussion in the House of Commons, Sir 

 Robert Peel had contended that a material distinction was 

 to be drawn between new companies approaching Parliament 

 for the first time and companies which, relying on the faith 

 of Parliament, had invested their capital in the construction 

 of railways. " Parliament, it was true, might repent of the 

 indiscretion and levity with which it had granted those 

 powers . . . but he would advise Parliament to be very 

 cautious how it interfered with the profits or management 

 of companies which had been called into existence by the 



