phenson saw this report of the premier's speech in the newspapers of the following morning, he went forthwith to his son, and asked him to write a letter to Sir Robert Peel on the subject. He saw clearly that if these views were adopted, the utility and economy of railways would be seriously curtailed. "These members of parliament," said he, "are now as much disposed to exaggerate the powers of the locomotive, as they were to under-estimate them but a few years ago." Mr. Robert Stephenson wrote a letter for his father's signature, embodying the views which he so strongly entertained as to the importance of flat gradients, and referring to the experiments conducted by him many years before, in proof of the great loss of working power which was incurred on a line of steep as compared with easy gradients. It was clear, from the tone of Sir Robert Peel's speech in a subsequent debate *, that he had carefully read and considered Mr. Stephenson's practical observations on the subject; for he then took the opportunity of observing that he thought there was too great a tendency to adopt the shortest lines, without reference to gradients. Though, in recent instances, unfavourable gradients had been overcome by the construction of new engines, he doubted whether there was not an unprofitable expenditure of power in such cases, whether the mechanical action of locomotive engines was not materially interfered with by unfavourable gradients, -and whether the exertions made to diminish the gradients, and to run as nearly as possible on a level, would not be amply repaid. He was alluding, not to the shortest lines merely with regard to distance, but to the shortest lines in point of time." On the whole, however, he declared himself favourable to direct lines, and cited the case of the Trent Valley Railway (which placed Tamworth on a main line) as one that "was about to be established by universal consent."

* Debate on Mr. Morison's resolutions, March 20th, 1845.

Sir Robert's conclusions were not very decisive on the question; and it was not quite clear whether he was in favour of direct lines of unfavourable gradients, or somewhat longer lines of flat gradients. There was doubtless "much to be said on both sides; " and the committees were left to decide as they thought proper. Direct lines were very much in There were vogue at the time. "Direct Manchester," "Direct Exeter," "Direct York," and, indeed, new direct lines between most of the large towns. The Marquis of Bristol, speaking in favour of the "Direct Norwich and London" project, at a public meeting at Haverhill, said, “if necessary, they might make a tunnel beneath his very drawingroom, rather than be defeated in their undertaking!" And the Rev. F. Litchfield, at a meeting in Banbury, on the subject of a line to that town, said "he had laid down for himself a limit to his approbation of railways,—that is, of such as approached the neighbourhood with which he was connected, and that limit was, that he did not wish them to approach any nearer to him than to run through his bedroom, with the bedposts for a station!" How different was the spirit which influenced these noble lords and gentlemen but a few years before!

The Board of Trade, seeing clearly the disadvantages of the difference of gauge between the Great Western and the adjacent lines, recommended uniformity, and that the narrow gauge should be adopted as the national one. Again the House of Commons disregarded their advice. The Committee passed both broad and narrow-gauge bills indiscriminately. The Board also reported against the atmospheric system of working. But Sir Robert Peel and other amateur railway men declared themselves strongly in its favour*; and numerous

* In the debate on Mr. Shaw's motion for a committee to inquire into the practicability of the atmospheric system, Sir Robert Peel, in supporting the resolution, said, “You will observe that my impression is strongly in favour of

acts empowering the construction of atmospheric lines were passed during the session. The result of the whole was, a tissue of legislative bungling, involving enormous loss to the public. Railway bills were granted in heaps. Two hundred and seventy-two additional acts were passed in 1846.* Some authorised the construction of lines running almost parallel to existing railways, in order to afford the public "the benefits of unrestricted competition." Locomotive and atmospheric lines, broad-gauge and narrow-gauge lines, were granted without hesitation. One of the grand points with the redtapists was compliance with standing orders. The real merits of the lines applied for were of comparatively little moment. Committees decided without judgment, and without discrimination; it was a scramble for bills, in which the most unscrupulous were the most successful. As an illustration of the legislative folly of the period, Mr. Robert Stephenson, speaking at Toronto, in Upper Canada, some years later, adduced the following instances: "There was one district through which it was proposed to run two lines, and there was no other difficulty between them than the

the atmospheric system. I deeply lament the loss of one of the gentlemen (Mr. Jacob Samuda) who were the patentees of this system, for his great acuteness tended much to the success of this very ingenious invention." March 14th, 1845.

The following is a summary of the railway acts passed in the three sessions of 1844, 1845, and 1846:

simple rivalry that, if one got a charter, the other might also. But here, where the Committee might have given both, they gave neither. In another instance, two lines were projected through a barren country, and the Committee gave the one which afforded the least accommodation to the public. In another, where two lines were projected to run, merely to shorten the time by a few minutes, leading through a mountainous country, the Committee gave both. So that, where the Committee might have given both, they gave neither, and where they should have given neither, they gave both."

The frightful waste of money in conducting railway proceedings, before and after they reached the parliamentary committees, was matter of notoriety. An instance has been mentioned of an utterly impracticable line, which never got so far as the House of Commons, where the solicitor's bill for projecting and conducting the scheme amounted to 82,000l. It was estimated by Mr. Laing of the Board of Trade, and the estimate was confirmed by Mr. Stephenson, that the competition for new lines, many of which were sanctioned by Parliament under the delusion that railway travelling would be thereby cheapened, had led to the expenditure of about three hundred millions sterling, of which seventy millions had been completely thrown away in constructing unnecessary duplicate lines. But Mr. Stephenson further expressed himself of opinion, that this loss of seventy millions very inadequately represented the actual loss in point of convenience, economy, and other circumstances connected with traffic, which the public has sustained from the carelessness of Parliament in railway legislation.

The total cost of obtaining one act amounted to 436,2231. Another company expended 480,0007. on parliamentary contests in nine years. In another case, 57,000l. was expended in one session upon six counsel and twenty solicitors. One

barrister, in good practice before the committees, pocketed 38,000l. in a single session.

Amongst the many ill effects of the mania, one of the worst was that it introduced a low tone of morality into railway transactions. The bad spirit which had been evoked by it unhappily extended to the commercial classes; and many of the most flagrant swindles of recent times had their origin in the year 1845. Those who had suddenly gained large sums without labour, and also without honour, were too ready to enter upon courses of the wildest extravagance; and a false style of living shortly arose, the poisonous influence of which extended through all classes. Men began to look upon railways as instruments to job with; and they soon became as overrun with jobbers as London charities. Persons, sometimes possessing information respecting railways, but more frequently possessing none, got upon boards for the purpose of promoting their individual objects, often in a very unscrupulous manner; landowners, to promote branch lines through their property; speculators in shares, to trade upon the exclusive information which they obtained; whilst some directors were appointed through the influence mainly of solicitors, contractors, or engineers, who used them as tools to serve their own ends. In this way the unfortunate proprietors were, in many cases, betrayed, and their property was shamefully squandered, greatly to the discredit of the railway system.