The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-31 00:00:00

Mr. Robert Stephenson states it as his belief, that re-
ductions of fares are not carried to the extent that rail-
way companies, as they go on and gain experience, will
carry them. It is possible that ultimately the conviction
may gain ground that farther reductions to a great ex-
tent are indispensable; but your Committee cannot shut
their eyes to the danger of placing the community at
the mercy of companie‹, who may or may not take views
of their interests in accordance with the interests of the
public. The railway companies have either driven, or
must ultimately drive all competition from other quar•
ters out of the field. Even the canals, which it was
thought with proper management might maintain a suc-
cessful competition with railways in the case of heavy
goods, in many instances, as has already been observed,
hew been beaten by them, and the report of the Com-
mittee on Railway and Canal Amalgamation Bills shows
but too clearly that we must prepare ourselves for seeing
the canal interest come still more extensively under the
influence and control of railway companies. This has
resulted not merely from the power which the passenger
traffic gives the railways of conveying goods at rates
at which the canals cannot afford to carry them, but
from their obtaining the command of portions of the
lines of canals, and raising the tolls of that portion
to the utmost limit allowed by law, so that the com-
panies in possession of the remainder of the lines are
thereby disabled from maintaining a successful competi-
tion. On no subject is there a more general agreement
among all the intelligent witnesses recently examined
by Committees of th Houses of the *Legislature
than that railways either now are, or from the nature
of things must soon be, in possession of a complete mo-
nopoly of all the internal traffic of the country. The
system, which has been carried to so great an extent by
some companies, of creating nominal capitals, amounting
to twice and even three times the actual outlay, had no
doubt mainly for its object to enable them to exclude the
interference of Parliament, and maintain extravagant
fares. Under such circumstances, it becomes of para-
mount importance that a vigilant superintendence should
be exercised over the different railway companies, in
order to defeat any attempts on the part of those com-
panies, from whatever motives, whether mistaken views
of their interest, or the supposed necessity of their posi-
sition, from exacting higher fares, either for goods or
passengers, than the interests of the community will al.
low. Without interfering with the details of the ma-
nagement on railways farther than the necessity of the
case may occasionally demand, they ought, as in every
other country, to be compelled to furnish all the informa-
tion necessary to the thorough understanding of what-
ever relates to the working of the lines, and in particu-
lar to furnish:complete and intslligible accounts of re-
ceipts and expenditure from time to time.
By the exercise of such a control alone can a hope be
entertained that the interests of the public will he safe
tinder the existing railway system. The general rule
may be exceedingly good, that the utmost scope should
be given to private enterprise, but in the case of railways
the most important interests of the country are at stake,
and a monopoly, embracing all its communications, and
consequently possessing power in the absence of control,
of inflicting irreparable injury on its trade and industry,
from the very nature of things, ought to be exercised
under proper regulation and supervision. Most of the
witnesses representing railway interests, examined by
your Committee, deprecate all attempts to regulate with
exactness the scale of fares, and contend that the Legis-
lature should content itself with fixing a minimum. It
is proper, no doubt, that maximum fares should be fixed
in Railway Acts ; but though they may be fixed with
care, and may sometimes approximate to fair rates at a
given time, they can never meet all future exigencies.
Continual improvements are made, both in the modes of
constructing and maintaining lines, and in the mechanical
means by which they are worked, and the public ought
not to be excluded from participation in these ad-
vantages. The maximum rates are, however, almost
always extravagantly high. In the Acts passed so
late as the session of 1845, the maximum rates for
passengers are almost always thrice as much as on the
Belgian lines, and the charges for goods usu illy exceed
those in Belgium in nearly the same proportion, though
sometimes in a much greater. Thus, while in Belgium
twenty sheep may be carried a mile for less than 611,
and in France ants sheep for 0.34 d., the maximum rate
for sheep in not a few of the English Acts of 1845 is 2d.
per head per mile, more than six times the Belgian and
French rates. Such is the extent of the arbitrary power
possessed by companies. Bat because the Legislature was
at first taken by surprise, and from inability to foresee the
results to which railways have led, omitted to take suit-
able precautions against the übuse of the powers
entrusted to companies, that can be no reason why we
should not avail ourselves of subsequent experience to
turn to due account such opportunities for protecting the
public as are afforded under the Acts passed during the
last two years, and as will be afforded under future Acts.
Your Committee conceive that though the occasion, which
was carefully seized by the Belgian and some other
Governments, of placing the management of railways in
accordance with the interests of the community, has
been neglected, yet that we should never lose sight
of the fact that railways aro a public concern, and that
the most perfect system in the abstract is that
which regulates the fares by such scales as will produce
the utmost amount of convenience to individuals and
give the utmost possible development to the trade and
interest of the country. We cannot, as in Belgium, ob-
tain all the benefit which an increased traffic on railway
lines might give, because the first adventurers in the
great lines, which were undertaken before the practica-
bility and profitableness of railways were established,
are entitled to large profits as the legitimate rewards of
their enterprise and sagacity, but there is a point beyond
which the sacrifice or the public interests ought not to be
carried, and, therefore, every available occasion should
be seized for reducing fares. Your Committee, enter.
taining such views of the legitimate demands of the pub-
lic on railway companies, cannot admit that we should
be content with the maximum fares imposed in the Acts,
and leave the reduction of them exclusively to the dis-
cretion of companies.
Much of the evidence received by your Committee
bears upon the defects of the existing system of legis-
lation in the so-called private Bills, which are often
private only in name, and in which class Railway Bills
arc comprehended. The objections to the mode of pro-
ceeding in these Bills are of extensive application ;
and your Committee have seen with satisfaction the
report of a Select Committee on the subject of Private
Bills, recommending a decided alteration with regard
to them. Of one of the suggestions in that report,
your Committee cordially approve—the appointment of
a public board or department to which all applications
for Private Bills affecting public interests should be re-
ferred. Such a board, if properly constituted might re-
lieve Committees of the House from much waste of time
and companies applying for lines, as well as the public
at large, from much needless trouble and expense. The
example of foreign countries has shown that many in-
quiries with regard to railways can best be conducted on
the spot. But, besi les the advantage from substituting
a cheap and natural mode of conducting inquiries for
the present cumbrous and most expensive mode before
Committees, under which, too, the y are entirely de-
pendent for information on interested parties, the public
might hope that a properly qualified board, entrusted
obtain t h
emboerset
mknowledge u
po.f
thewit hwarl railwayt, of
tahffea icountry,rs,
would
and
oplying them, than committees under the present system,
can possibly possess. Your Committee, are, therefore,
of opinion, that the functions of the board may, with
safety, be extended to the supervision of ex-
isting railways, awl the determining, in the
first instance, subject, of course, to the con-
trol of the Legislature, where lines should be con-
structed, and what projects should be entertained. It so
happens that existing companies have an interest, in
common with the public, in preventing wild and unne-
cessary projects for the construction of new lines from
being put forward; and your Committee therefore anti-
cipate from them no opposition to the confiding such
powers to the board as may be necessary to enable it to
interpose with effect in defeating foolish or fraudulent
schemes in the outset. The receipts of those companies
are always diminished by the construction of rival lines;
and they arc often put to heavy expense in purchasing
them, and in buying off threatened opposition.
Mr. Robert Stephenson thinks the fact of the pre-
liminary steps in railway schemes being subject to no
control, is the root of all the mischief now existing in
the railway world, and is of opinion that no project
for the construction of a now railway should be allowed
to be brought forsvard till it has been taken into con-
sideration by a Government board. Mr. William Reed,
who acted for about five years in the capacity of secre-
tary to the South-Western Railway, and who is now a
director of two French railways, the Paris and Rouen
and the Rouen and Havre, is of opinion, from his ex-
perience in both countries, that the greatest benefit
would result from the appointment of a Government
board, to which should be committed the examination of
all projects for the construction of railways, with power
to veto them if disapproved.
In France all schemes must first be submitted to and
approved of by a Government board; but, notwithstand-
ing their having obtained the sanction of such a board,
they are still, as in England, referred to a Parliamentary
Committee; but that Committee does not, as in England,
hear counsel and receive evidence on all manner of de-
tails, but merely decides on the materials submitted to
it; and it is only when any difficulty occurs, or explana-
tion is required, that a member of the Government
Board is called before it, or some superior person in the
confidence of the promote! s of the project, who supplies
the additional information required, in order to enable i

to arrive at a correct decision. This part of Mr. Reed's
evidence is not materially contradicted by another wit-
ness, Mr. D.-Salomons, who states that the Cammission
of the Chambers may alter and modify a project, and
that " it does hear evidence in one way or other." What
Mr. Reed wished more particularly to convey was merely
that the inquiries, which are conducted at so much ex-
pense, and occupy so much time before Committees of the
Houses of Parliament in this couctry, are unknown in
France; and that the Commission of the Government
Board of that country, though it does not decide finally
whether a particular project shall be adopted or re-
jected, is invested with the power of determining, after
due inquiry, whether or not it shall be submitted at all
to the Chambers. In the one case the State wishes
only to understand the merits of a project before allow-
ing it to be brought forward, and adopts the means
believed to be most conducive to the attainment of that
end ; in the other a project is at once suffered to be
brought forward, without having been subjected to the
ordeal of an examination before a department of the
Executive entrusted with the cart) of the public interests,
which, shr old no opposition be off..red on the part of
existing companies, the owners of property, or the pro-
moters of rival projects, are here but little regarded ;
while, on the other hand, parties can only hope to suc-
ceed in their opposition by the employment of counsel
of eminence, and by bringing forward witnesses, often
from a distance, and maintained in London for weeks at
a heavy expense.
Some idea may be formed of the magnitude of' the
sums absolutely wasted in this country, before Bills
can pass through Committees, fryin a return just made

by the Eastern Counties Railway to an order of the
House. The line, which is 51 miles in length, cost
45,1991. in Parliamentary expenses. The other prelimi-
nary expenses, such as cost of engineering, &c., amount-
ing to 48,6501., are separately stated, The Parliament-
ary expenses of the London and Birmingham have
been stated at 6501. per mile ; of the Great Western at
1,0001. per mile. No wonder that foreigners hold up
their hands in astonishment when they hear of this
enormous waste. The sums paid for land by the Eastern
Counties amounted to 809,950/, or about 12,0001. per
mile, alone, exceeding the whole cost per mile on most
of the German lines, and on several of the Belgian.
The London and Birmingham and the Great Western
paid 6,300/ each per mile for lands. In the case of the
Rouen and Havre line, Mr. Reed states that 6,000/. was
paid to three gentlemen who made considerable ex-
ertions to obtain the Act, but that the expenses incurred
in the inquiry before the board, and up to the time the
Act was obtained, amounted in all only to 700/.
The allowing, as an affair of course, the projectors of
a railway, on giving the prescribed notices to drag ex-
isting companies or owners of property on the proposed
line before a Committee of the House of Commons, is
an evil the magnitude of which can hardly be over-rated.
Many of the schemes lately brought forward were, on
the face of them, quite unworthy of being entertained ;
some were started for gambling purposes, and not a few
with the object of compelling existing companies to come
to terms in order to avoid a troublesome and expensive
contest. Mr. Peto mentions one instance within his own
knowledge, where, though the line was utterly imprac
ticable, and the Bill never went beyond the -Standing
Orders' Committee of the House of Commons, the solici•
tor's account, which did not include the expenses of
engineers and various other outlays, amounted to no less
a sum than 82,000/.
Your Committee are happy to perceive that the causes
of the failure of the Committee of the Board of Trade
to answer the ends for which it was appointed, are satis-
factorily explained by many of the witnesses whom they
have examined. Mr. Robert Stephenson attributes the
failure not to any incompet‘ncy on the part of that Com-
mittee, but to the faulty system pursued by them in re-
ceiving evidence in private. Without entering on the
question whether, if that Committee had been properly
supported by the Government, a different result might
have been expected, it is sufficient to state that no con-
clusion against the placing railways under the super-
vision of a department of the Executive can be fairly
drawn from that failure. The Cemmittee of the Board
of Trade took more enlarged views of the object for
which they were appointed than the Legislature and the
public in general were then prepared for; but after the
experience of the last two years, the conviction has be-
come general that something more is required than
merely to decide between the conflicting claims of con-
tending parties, and that railways are of too much im-
portance to the community to allow of their being
any longer viewed as subordinate to the interests of
individuals. Objectionable as the mode of proceeding
before Committees confessedly is, and erroneous as
their decisions may sometimes have been, this evil,
great as it is, sinks into insignificance in comparison with
that to which the country has been exposed from the
want of a board of high character connected with the
Executive Government to watch over the public interests
in railway affairs. Such a board, pursuing an enlightened
system in sanctioning or rejecting proposed lines,
keeping constantly in view the necessities of the country
and the protection of the public from excessive exactions
for the conveyance of goods and passengers,!and taking due
advantage of every suitable opportunity that may present
itself for obtaining a reduction of fares and charges, and
uniformity both with reference to prices and classifica-
tion, would soon obtain the confidence of the public, and
command the respect of the Legislature. Though Par-
liament would still have the power of deciding in the
last resort, it would no longer be forced to encumber
itself with preliminary inquiries which might be so
much more advantae,eausly conducted before a tribunal
proceeding according to a more judicious system,
thoroughly acquainted with railway affairs, and there-
fore peculiarly qualified for the task confided to it. The
hopelessness of shaking the confidence of Parliament in
the Beard, which would result from unsuccessful at-
tempts could not fail to induce a. disposition to acquiesce
in its decisions, and thus the spirit of gambling which is
so much fostered by decisions varying with each other in
principle, would experience a serious check.
That part of the functions of the proposed Govern-
ment Board which relates to the supervision or existing
railways, in order to secure the public against a capri-
cious exercise of their powers, and unreasonable fares
and charges, might not be so palatable to companies as
the power to interfere in the origination of new schemes.
Your Committee are, therefore, thoroughly persuaded
that a due regard to the public interests essentially re-
quires that companies, in the exercise of their powers.
should be placed under a vigilant supervision. A board
of high character and influence, possessing an extensive
knowledge of the wants of the different parts of the
kingdom, might resolve on doing so of their own accord.
Mr. Smith, of Deanston, for instance, states that the
greatest benefit may be expected from the conveyance
of fat cattle on railways, as they can only be driven for
a very short distance. Now on many of the railways
the directors have from the first maintained, and still
maintain, a scale of charges for cattle which utterly
excludes them from railways. Captain Laws, a direc•
tor on two or three railways, and who has the manage-
ment of the traffic on the Manchester and Leeds
Railway, recently stated before another Committee that
railway companies, by fixing their fares for cattle and
sheep too high, deprived the public of the benefit of the
conveyance by railways ; that though the present rates
are only about a third of those with which they started,
and though the reduction has greatly increased the
traffic, the majority of the cattle and sheep are still
driven, to their great detriment. An intelligent su-
pervision would have led to the correction of this evil
long before this, and prevented the ignorance or obsti-
nacy of directors from inflicting so serious an injury on
the public.
A pretext has been set up by companies, that the
great outlay by them on their lines ought to secure them
from all interference with a view to a reduction of fares,
so long as the profits of the undertakings do not allow
such dividends as would constitute a fair return on their
capital. Though fares so high as to interfere with
the interests of the country ought in no case to be
allowed, and the principle of determining fares by
the returns which capital ought to obtain is not to
be recognised, yet it may not be irrelevant to observe
that even if the amount of capital sunk in a line
were to be taken as a criterion, it would be necessary to
distinguish between the original outlay on a line,
and the amount to which the capital of the company
has been swelled by the mode adopted in purchasing
and amalgamating with other lines, and in providing for
extension and branch lines. It is quite clear that the
original outlay on lines, including all the extravagant
purchases of land, and the wasteful expenses incurred in
surveys, and the proceedings before the Parliamentary
Committees, falls far short of the amount of stock which
has been created. Your Committee are unable to state
with exactness the amount of money divided, or to be
divided, in this country, among proprietors, as premiums
on new shares, but they conceive it cannot tall much
short of fifty millions. The payment of large sums to
obtain the consent of competing lines to amalgamations,
which at one time excited so much sensation, was not so
objectionable in itself as in the use that was made of
such amalgamations, and of the power to raise money
for the extension of old, and the construction of branch
lines. By issuing shares representing capital to an
amount far beyond that of the money required, in order
to enable proprietors to divide among themselves large
premiums, sums were pocketed by proprietors, which,
if applied to the purposes of the lines, would have
rendered a corresponding issue of shares unneces-
sary, and in so far diminished the amount of stock
created. Of these practices a striking illustration has
already been given by your Committee from the report
from the Select Committee on Group (58) of Railway
Bills, relating to the Hull and Selby Railway Purelia.e
Bill. Were an account taken of the sums already
divided and to be hereafter divided among proprietors in
this objectionable way, and of the expenditure incurred
in bu ving off parties supposed to possess powerful interest,
and in proceedings belbre Committees, which at a low
estimate alone must have exceeded twenty-five millions,
they would have been found sufficient for the construction
of trunk lines for the whole country.
The whole of the State lines of Belgium, of which
145 miles were double, and 202 miles single, cost only
5,945,148/.
The whole of the capital required for the magnificent
system of railways executed and in the course of execu-
tion, and projected in France, down to the autumn of
1845, by which the commercial wants and military de-
fence of that great kingdom were provided for, does not
exceed the sums divided and to be divided by a few
English companies among the proprietors in the shape
of premiums.

The capital for the lines conceded and executed in
France, down to the 31st of July, 1835, amounted to
8,576,0001.; and among these lines are those from An-
dr( zieux to Roanne, from Bordeaux to La Teste, from
Montpellier to Cette, from Mulhausen to Thann, from
Paris to Orleans, from Paris to Rouen, foom Paris to

St. Germain, from Paris to Versailles, from St. Etienne
to Lyons, from Strasbourg to Basle, the line of the Gard
ar.d the mines of La Grande Combe. The capital for
the lines in the course of execution at the above period
amounted to 14,000,0001. The capital for the lines and
branches to be conceded in 1845-6, voted in the session
of 1845, amounted to 32,360,0001. The capital required
for the lines remaining in the state of report at the
close of the session- of 1845, excluding a few branches
not finally decided on, amounted to 9,520,0001. All
these sums taken together amount only to 64,566,000/.
This was the estimated amount of the capital necessary
to cDmplete the French railways at the period alluded
to, though, indeed, additions have been subsequently
made. Such is the manner in la hich sums have been
withdrawn from the purposes of the public deemed suffi-
cient for the construction of railways, on a magnificent
scale, for the greatest continental kingdom, where local
difficulties are often formidable, and where the outlay
for earthwork, masonry, and iron work is as high as
in England, and which, if applied to their legitimate
purposes, would have left no part of Great Britain with-
out the benefit of railways.
If we assume the average cost of the construction of
railways in Prussia to be 12,000/. per mile, which,
judging from those already executed, is rather above
than below the mark, the whole expenditure on 3,200
miles of railway by which the surface of a kingdom con-
taining a population nearly equal to that of England
will be covered as with a network, will not exceed
36,000,000/., a fraction only of the money withdrawn
here from its legitimate purposes.
Part of the evidence taken by your Committee has
reference to consequences with which the establishment
of railways has been attended, to a branch of the public
revenue intimately connected with the convenience and
welfare of the great body of the people. Before the
.establishment of railways the Post-office, according to
Mr. Stow, paid for the carriage of the mails, including
the coaches, something under 2d. a mile, but the charges