Some writers have gone so far as to suggest that all persons employed by Government should be disfranchised. Others suggest that special representatives of Government officials should be returned to Parliament. Others that all such officials should take the same oath of allegiance as soldiers, and, in short, become subject to military discipline. In two articles appearing recently in the “Westminster Gazette,” under the title of “Unrest in the Railway World, by an Expert,”[14] it is suggested that “unless some discipline of the military kind were introduced” (in the event of nationalisation), “there would be no available methods of dealing with a national strike of railwaymen, other than to concede to their demands.” The question of “Strikes” has already been dealt with above (page 36). As to the political difficulty, although it is true that the number of Civil servants would be greatly increased (and it has been estimated that the total number of postal and railway servants who would have the vote might be as many as 600,000), it must be remembered, as pointed out by Mr. Emil Davies, that this number is spread over the whole Country, and the percentages in each district, compared to the whole number of voters, would not be a large one, except in railway centres like Crewe, where they already have a preponderance of votes. In any case, the same considerations which, as above mentioned, would be likely to prevent strikes, would operate equally in the region of politics if the four rules mentioned are adhered to, especially under the proposed scheme, carried on with the primary object of the public benefit. Exactly the same conditions would obtain as with the Post Office now. Other grounds of objection to State ownership are:-- =1. The fear of inefficiency owing to lack of competition.= =2. The fear of difficulty in obtaining redress for loss or injury from a Government Department.= =3. The fear of officialism.= =As to competition=, it is now generally admitted that there is no effective competition on railways.[15] In most parts of the country there never has been any competition, as one company only is available. In others, where more than one company operates, working arrangements have been made not only as to the fares and rates but also as to time of trains, thus precluding any effective competition. In the very nature of things no competition can be effective in a system of railway transit. As to the questions of =officialism= and =difficulties of obtaining redress=, can anyone suggest that these are less in the case of private companies, responsible to no one but themselves, than in the case of a Government Department with a Cabinet Minister at the head who is responsible to Parliament? A vote of censure is one of the most powerful weapons in Constitutional countries against any serious abuse in a Government Department.