throw dust in the eyes of almost any Parliamentary five. Mr Home's
evidence was: "I understand railway traffic as well as anybody; the
public are deluded in thinking they would gain by competition: the
two companies might fight for a week or two, then they would more
wisely agree, and put up their fares above the present North-Western
fares, till they had recouped themselves out of the public all they
had lost by their fight." This did very well for the Parliamentary
Committee; but it is a fallacy. At present the North-Western Railway,
though empowered by law to charge three-pence a mile first-class,
charge twopence a mile only: why?--because twopence a mile they find
to be on the whole the most paying rate. Ergo, after the fight with
their directly competing brother was over, they would settle down to
twopence a mile again. The public could not lose by the competition;
they might gain. All experience shows that they invariably do gain.

In France, Government has restricted the construction of railways very
greatly, and protected the monopoly of each existing company closely.
The mileage of railway open in France, in proportion to area and
population, is very small in comparison with that in England.
Moreover, the French lines are worked by quasi-Government officials,
whose object is to avoid work, and still more to avoid responsibility,
and who will not make the slightest effort to accommodate the public:
they do not wish the trade at their station increased. Under this
system the traffic on the French railways is low; especially when we
consider how little each is interfered with by other lines, and what a
broad band of country it has to drain.

The immense progress made by England since 1846, as compared with the
progress of France or of Germany, is often attributed _solely_ to
Free Trade. I believe Free Trade has done much for us: but I am sure