the network would feed. It is true that there would soon be a second
line to Brighton; the present Brighton Company would possibly pay as
good a dividend then as they do now. But if they did not, it would
only show how they tax the public now as well as hinder trade. I am
not bound to show that the monopolists would profit by Free Trade; I
deny that the monopolists have any vested interest in their monopoly,
or that Parliament, i.e. the nation, has made any covenant with them
that their monopoly shall never be invaded.

I have suggested three great changes: (1) Perfect Free Trade at all
our ports; (2) The exploitation of the land through the National Rate
Book machinery; (3) Free Trade in Railways. Of these the last is
clearly advisable, nor is there anything (in my opinion) to be urged
on the other side. At the same time it is not less important than
either of the two other suggestions. But the three would work best
together--each aiding and reacting on the other; they would thus
provide "progress" (which means comfort to all classes) in England
for at least two generations of men. If there was no National Rate
Book, the new railways would have to pay exorbitantly for the land
they took up under the existing arbitration system; they would be
relieved merely from the parliamentary opposition of other companies
and of private individuals. The private owner must be deprived of his
present privilege of parliamentary opposition, which gives him the
power to extort an exorbitant price for his land--because a company
can always oppose in the garb of some private owner whom they have
hired.

A less but important branch of this reform is the narrowing of
Government interference under pretence of protecting the public.
Great expenses are thus thrown on railway companies. The companies