cannot, therefore, charge increased fares, but such expenses diminish
the number of new railway schemes brought forward. Nor do Government
rules protect the public so well as the old plan (abolished by Chief-
Justice Cockburn) of making the railway company pay for killing or
injuring people. Now, after a great railway smash, the company comes
forward and shows that there was no negligence on their part; that in
the signals, breaks, etc., they had satisfied all the Board of Trade
regulations, and the injured passengers can get nothing. The real way
to protect the passengers is to allow the company to make their own
arrangements, and to compel them to pay heavily for killing and
maiming passengers. This is quite defensible in theory, as in the
case of manslaughter by an individual we give him some punishment out
of our civilised respect for human life, though he may have been
little to blame. Great cost is thrown on railway companies (i.e. much
injury is done the public) by standing orders (cast-iron orders)
about gradients, etc. The company's solicitors order the company's
engineer to comply with standing orders at all costs rather than
introduce any special clause. The consequence is that we see much
money spent and a most inconvenient level-crossing placed at the
entrance to some large town, where a steep gradient for two hundred
yards on a straight piece of road (to which there is no objection)
would have avoided all difficulty. The responsibility in all such
cases should be thrown on the company, and Government interference
abolished.



7. REFORM IN LAND LAW.

The transfer of stock in the name of two trustees in the funds is