We now come to a class of criticisms and proposals wholly different from those which have hitherto been considered. In the report by Sir Bernhard Samuelson (page 22) is a recommendation that railway companies should either amalgamate, or make agreements between themselves, for the division of the receipts from competitive traffic, so as to reduce the working expenses.[102] Probably for the first time has this suggestion come from such a quarter. Manifestly it is beginning to be understood that undue competition between railways is injurious to the companies without being beneficial to the public, and that, in the interests of both, it should be moderated. [102] “The loss arising from the unnecessary multiplication of train services, as well for the passengers as for the goods, the avoidance of which was one of the principal motives which decided the Prussian Government to purchase their railways, may be obviated in this country, by a more intimate fusion of the interests of the various railways, either by amalgamation or by the consolidation of their interests in some other way, under the sanction of Parliament; care being taken that the interests of the public in regard to accommodation and charges are duly safeguarded. I have reason to believe that, so far as the railways north of the Thames and west of the metropolis are concerned, the more active and enlightened directors are by no means unprepared for a step of the kind.” Hitherto, the public and Parliament have looked with jealousy on arrangements between railway companies intended to lessen the waste caused by undue competition. The statements so often put forward by companies that the expenditure of capital in the construction and working of unnecessary competing lines is not beneficial to the public, have been disregarded. Any scheme which professed to meet “public requirements,” and promised multiplication of trains and the carriage of railway traffic at a high rate of speed, has met with favour in and out of Parliament.