A writer in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_ remarks:—“The expenses, direct
and incidental, of obtaining an Act of Parliament have been in many cases
enormous, and generally are excessive. The adherence to useless and
expensive forms of Parliamentary Committees in what are called the
standing orders, or general regulations for the observance of promoters
of railway bills, on the one part, and the itching for opposition of
railway companies, to resist fancied inroads on vested rights, supposed
injurious competition, on the other part, have been amongst the sources
of excessive expenditure. Mr. Stephenson mentioned an instance showing
how Parliament has entailed expense upon railway companies by the system
complained of. The Trent Valley Railway was under other titles
originally proposed in 1836. It was, however, thrown out by the standing
orders committee, in consequence of a barn of the value of £10, which was
shown upon the general plan, not having been exhibited upon an enlarged
sheet. In 1840, the line again went before Parliament. It was opposed
by the Grand Junction Railway Company, now part of the London and
North-Western. No less than 450 allegations were made against it before
the standing orders subcommittee, which was engaged twenty-two days in
considering those objections. They ultimately reported that four or five
of the allegations were proved, but the committee nevertheless allowed
the bill to proceed. It was read a second time and then went into
committee, by whom it was under consideration for sixty-three days; and
ultimately Parliament was prorogued before the report could be made.
Such were the delays and consequent expenses which the forms of the House
occasioned in this case, that it may be doubted if the ultimate cost of
constructing the whole line was very much more than was expended in
obtaining permission from Parliament to make it. This example serves to
show the expensive formalities, the delays, and difficulties, with which
Parliament surround railway legislation. Another instance, quoted by the
same authority, will show not only the absurdity of the system of
legislation, but also the afflicting spirit of competition and opposition
with which railway bills are canvassed in Parliament, and the expensive
outlay incurred by companies themselves.
“In 1845, a bill for a line now existing went before Parliament with
eighteen competitors, each party relying on the wisdom of Parliament to
allow their bill at least to pass a second reading! Nineteen different
parties condemned to one scene of contentious litigation! They each and
all had to pay not only the costs of promoting their own line, but also
the costs of opposing eighteen other bills. And yet conscious as
government must have been of this fact, Parliament deliberately abandoned
the only step it ever took on any occasion of subjecting railway projects
to investigation by a preliminary tribunal. Parliamentary committees
generally satisfied themselves with looking on and watching the ruinous
game of competition for which the public are ultimately to pay. In fact,
railway legislation became a mere scramble, conducted on no system or
principle. Schemes of sound character were allowed to be defeated on
merely technical grounds, and others of very inferior character were
sanctioned by public act, after enormous Parliamentary expenses had been
incurred. Competing lines were granted, sometimes parallel lines through
the same district, and between the same towns.”