462 History of Inland Transport 



tramways may have been already noticed by the reader. Just 

 as the one was primarily based on suspicion and distrust due 

 to the earlier action of the canal companies, so was the other 

 inspired by what were regarded as the shortcomings of gas 

 and water companies. Just, also, as the local authorities, while 

 not aiding the railways at all, were given authority to levy 

 an abnormal taxation on them, so have they been given a free 

 hand to exploit the tramway companies in making them pay 

 a heavy price for assents to their enterprises. The story of 

 tramways, again, like that not only of railways but of canals 

 and of turnpike roads, shows the same early lack of centralised 

 effort with a view to securing a national system ; and this 

 piecemeal growth of tramways, rather than of a tramway 

 system, was, undoubtedly, fostered in proportion as (i) dis- 

 couragement was given to private companies, which could 

 have operated without respect to borough boundaries and 

 county areas, and (2) tramway construction drifted more 

 into the hands of local authorities, whose powers did not go 

 beyond the borders of their own particular districts. 



While recognising these resemblances, one must admit that 

 the handicapping of the tramway companies has been far 

 more severe than that of the railway companies, by reason of 

 the power of absolute veto possessed by local authorities in 

 regard to tramway schemes, and the use they have made of it. 

 Parliament certainly never foresaw the extent of such use, or 

 abuse, when it granted the said power of veto ; and the 

 practices in question, like the operation of tramways by the 

 local authorities themselves, were due to a policy of drift and 

 " leave alone " rather than to deliberate intention or ex- 

 pressed approval on the part of the Legislature. The misfor- 

 tune is that when the new developments in tramways occurred, 

 or that when the abuses arose and the innovations were intro- 

 duced, Parliament did not revise its legislation to meet the 

 new conditions. The Royal Commission on London Traffic 

 reported in 1905 in favour of the abolition of the power of veto, 

 saying : " We consider it unreasonable that any one portion 

 of a district should be in a position to put a stop to the con- 

 struction of a general system of tramways required for the 

 public benefit, without even allowing the case to be presented 

 for the consideration of Parliament. ... It appears to us 

 that instead of a ' veto ' it would be sufficient that local and 



