cutting me up; but I would have given them L14,000 to cut me up
more." (In this case, however, building value came in.) But the
disgraceful squabbling of companies, who "sell" any owner without
scruple when they come to terms among themselves, has disgusted
landlords from actively supporting railway schemes.

A great deal of the opposition between rival companies has been from
their point of view an error, as they have subsequently discovered
for themselves. When the Great Western Company first opened their
station at Basingstoke there was war between them and the South-
Western, who thought all their London West-End passengers would
transfer themselves to the Great Western at Basingstoke in order to
avoid a cab drive from Waterloo to Paddington. Some passengers do so
transfer themselves. But _via_ Basingstoke a fine trade sprang up
between the south of England and the Oxford and Leamington route,
which far more than compensated the South-Western Company for the
London passengers they lost at Basingstoke. So in a very few years
there was peace at Basingstoke, and a through-carriage daily from
Birkenhead to Southampton. I think it is impossible to estimate how
much one railway company profits by the facilities afforded by all
the surrounding companies. The loss at a limited number of competing
termini is seen; the gain in the local and cross-country traffic is
not.

I propose Free Trade in Railways. I mean that any person or company
shall be free to make a railway wherever they please. They will have,
before commencing the line, to lodge with the Board of Trade the cost
of the land they take as valued in the National Rate Book, with the
30 per cent for compulsory purchase. They will not have to lodge the
money where they have come to terms with the owner; and the Board of