renders the monopoly of the company of the entire mode of communication almost unavoidable.

The Committee show how the company and the public may have conflicting interests,-as the main object of the former must be to obtain a good return for the capital expended, and of the latter, that the intercourse should be regularly maintained with the greatest safety, speed and economy. This opposition of interests is clearly proved to exist, by the evidence of Mr. Gott. He states that when the Leeds and Selby Railway Company raised the fares and diminished the number of passengers by 12,000, the income of the company was improved by 1300l. Mr. Ritson's evidence also shows that a larger revenue was produced to the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Railway Company by the conveyance of a fewer number of passengers at increased fares; and a like result appears from the accounts supplied by the Dundee and Newtyle Railway Company. It is therefore apparent, that the duty of the directors to maintain the fares at the point which will prove most beneficial to the pecuniary interests of the company, may operate injuriously upon the public, and especially upon the poorest class of passengers. On this subject Mr. Bury observes, "The railways have de"stroyed or they will destroy all other means of communica"tion whatever; the stage-waggons and conveyances of that "description, which have afforded those persons accommoda❝tion, will in the end be taken off, and the companies must provide in the same way a kind of conveyance suitable to "the means of those passengers." Besides the pecuniary interests of the public concerned in this question, their safety is an essential part of the consideration. We believe that the greatest number of accidents that have occurred on railways have arisen from the insecurity of the fences. Every one who has travelled on them must have remarked what inadequate provision there is made for guarding against the trespass of cattle on the lines. The proprietors and occupiers of the adjoining lands, whose property is at stake, have power to oblige a company to make good its fences; but the public, whose lives depend on the exact fulfilment of this duty, have no means to enforce it. Crossing a public way, and some

attention to the switches or points by which two lines of railways are connected, is constantly attended with risk, and occasionally with accidents; while the power of making bylaws for regulating the conduct of passengers, possessed by the company, sometimes without the sanction of any legal authority, may prove highly injurious to the liberty of the subject. The Committee therefore recommend the appointment of a Board to protect the public against the abuse of the extensive powers vested in railway companies by their respective Acts, and to control all the arrangements by which the general interests of the community may be affected. The important evidence given before this Committee deserves the most serious attention of the Legislature during the ensuing session, when the general introduction into Ireland of this new means of communication will be under their consideration. It fully confirms our impression, that a well-combined and judicious system of railroads, which will ensure to the public all the advantages that can be derived from this mode of conveyance at the cheapest possible rate, can only be effected by government construction.

In all other undertakings into which free competition can enter, society enjoys from the legitimate exertions of private interests all the advantages derivable from them; but in a line of railway, the rivalry of competing parties would be prejudicial to the safety of the public, and a monopoly is inevitable. Some companies have already engrossed the entire of the carrying trade. The Grand Junction Company have retained to themselves the conveyance of all Birmingham and Lancashire goods. The Liverpool and Manchester Company have always been the exclusive carriers on their line. The Newcastle and Carlisle and the Leeds and Selby Companies are also the sole carriers on their line. The Bolton and Leigh Railway, communicating with the Liverpool and Manchester, have let the carrying trade to one single carrier! What powerful influence may not a monopoly so gigantic exercise in a great commercial country like this!

We have before stated the points in which we differ from the Irish Railway Commissioners: we think they underrated the profits likely to be derived from the investment of capital in these undertakings, and condemn their exclusion of the

renders the monopoly of the company of the entire mode of communication almost unavoidable.

The Committee show how the company and the public may have conflicting interests, -as the main object of the former must be to obtain a good return for the capital expended, and of the latter, that the intercourse should be regularly maintained with the greatest safety, speed and economy. This opposition of interests is clearly proved to exist, by the evidence of Mr. Gott. He states that when the Leeds and Selby Railway Company raised the fares and diminished the number of passengers by 12,000, the income of the company was improved by 1300l. Mr. Ritson's evidence also shows that a larger revenue was produced to the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Railway Company by the conveyance of a fewer number of passengers at increased fares; and a like result appears from the accounts supplied by the Dundee and Newtyle Railway Company. It is therefore apparent, that the duty of the directors to maintain the fares at the point which will prove most beneficial to the pecuniary interests of the company, may operate injuriously upon the public, and especially upon the poorest class of passengers. On this subject Mr. Bury observes, "The railways have de"stroyed or they will destroy all other means of communica❝tion whatever; the stage-waggons and conveyances of that "description, which have afforded those persons accommoda❝tion, will in the end be taken off, and the companies must "provide in the same way a kind of conveyance suitable to "the means of those passengers." Besides the pecuniary interests of the public concerned in this question, their safety is an essential part of the consideration. We believe that the greatest number of accidents that have occurred on railways have arisen from the insecurity of the fences. Every one who has travelled on them must have remarked what inadequate provision there is made for guarding against the trespass of cattle on the lines. The proprietors and occupiers of the adjoining lands, whose property is at stake, have power to oblige a company to make good its fences; but the public, whose lives depend on the exact fulfilment of this duty, have no means to enforce it. Crossing a public way, and some

attention to the switches or points by which two lines of railways are connected, is constantly attended with risk, and occasionally with accidents; while the power of making bylaws for regulating the conduct of passengers, possessed by the company, sometimes without the sanction of any legal authority, may prove highly injurious to the liberty of the subject. The Committee therefore recommend the appointment of a Board to protect the public against the abuse of the extensive powers vested in railway companies by their respective Acts, and to control all the arrangements by which the general interests of the community may be affected. The important evidence given before this Committee deserves the most serious attention of the Legislature during the ensuing session, when the general introduction into Ireland of this new means of communication will be under their consideration. It fully confirms our impression, that a well-combined and judicious system of railroads, which will ensure to the public all the advantages that can be derived from this mode of conveyance at the cheapest possible rate, can only be effected by government construction.

In all other undertakings into which free competition can enter, society enjoys from the legitimate exertions of private interests all the advantages derivable from them; but in a line of railway, the rivalry of competing parties would be prejudicial to the safety of the public, and a monopoly is inevitable. Some companies have already engrossed the entire of the carrying trade. The Grand Junction Company have retained to themselves the conveyance of all Birmingham and Lancashire goods. The Liverpool and Manchester Company have always been the exclusive carriers on their line. The Newcastle and Carlisle and the Leeds and Selby Companies are also the sole carriers on their line. The Bolton and Leigh Railway, communicating with the Liverpool and Manchester, have let the carrying trade to one single carrier! What powerful influence may not a monopoly so gigantic exercise in a great commercial country like this!

We have before stated the points in which we differ from the Irish Railway Commissioners: we think they underrated the profits likely to be derived from the investment of capital in these undertakings, and condemn their exclusion of the

renders the monopoly of the company of the entire mode of communication almost unavoidable.

The Committee show how the company and the public may have conflicting interests,-as the main object of the former must be to obtain a good return for the capital expended, and of the latter, that the intercourse should be regularly maintained with the greatest safety, speed and economy. This opposition of interests is clearly proved to exist, by the evidence of Mr. Gott. He states that when the Leeds and Selby Railway Company raised the fares and diminished the number of passengers by 12,000, the income of the company was improved by 1300l. Mr. Ritson's evidence also shows that a larger revenue was produced to the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Railway Company by the conveyance of a fewer number of passengers at increased fares; and a like result appears from the accounts supplied by the Dundee and Newtyle Railway Company. It is therefore apparent, that the duty of the directors to maintain the fares at the point which will prove most beneficial to the pecuniary interests of the company, may operate injuriously upon the public, and especially upon the poorest class of passengers. On this subject Mr. Bury observes, "The railways have destroyed or they will destroy all other means of communica❝tion whatever; the stage-waggons and conveyances of that "description, which have afforded those persons accommoda❝tion, will in the end be taken off, and the companies must "provide in the same way a kind of conveyance suitable to "the means of those passengers." Besides the pecuniary interests of the public concerned in this question, their safety is an essential part of the consideration. We believe that the greatest number of accidents that have occurred on railways have arisen from the insecurity of the fences. Every one who has travelled on them must have remarked what inadequate provision there is made for guarding against the trespass of cattle on the lines. The proprietors and occupiers of the adjoining lands, whose property is at stake, have power to oblige a company to make good its fences; but the public, whose lives depend on the exact fulfilment of this duty, have no means to enforce it. Crossing a public way, and some