When the present system of railway travelling was about to be introduced into Europe, it of course became necessary for Parliament and for His Majesty’s Government seriously to consider and eventually to determine whether these great national thoroughfares should be scientifically formed, regulated, and directed by the State, under a Board competently organized for the purpose, or whether the conveyance of the public should be committed to the inexperienced and self-interested management of an infinite number of Joint-stock Companies. Without referring to by-gone arguments in favour of each of these two systems, and, above all, without offering a word against the decision of Parliament on the subject, we have simply to state that the joint-stock system was adopted, and that accordingly capitalists and speculators of all descriptions--men of substance and men of straw--were authorized at their own cost to create and govern the iron thoroughfares of the greatest commercial country in the world. The first result was what might naturally have been expected, for no sooner was it ascertained that a railway connecting, or, as it may be more properly termed, tapping immense masses of population--such, for instance, as are contained in London, Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, &c.--was productive of profit, than, just as, when one lucky man finds a rich lode, hundreds of ignorant, foolish people immediately embark, or, as it is too truly termed, _sink_ their capital in “_mining_,” so it was generally believed that any “_railway_”--whether it connected cities or villages it mattered not a straw--would be equally productive. The competition thus first irrationally and then insanely created was productive of good and evil. The undertakings were commenced with great vigour. On the other hand, as engineering talent cannot all of a sudden be produced as easily as capital, many important works were constructed under very imperfect superintendence; and as iron, timber, and every article necessary for the construction of a railway simultaneously rose in value, the result was that the expense of these new thoroughfares, which by the exaction of fares proportionate to their outlay must, as we have shown,[A] eventually be paid for by the public, very greatly exceeded what, under a calm, well-regulated system, would have been their cost. Nevertheless, in spite of all difficulties and expenses, foreseen as well as unforeseen, our great arterial railways were very rapidly constructed. [A] See Chapter I. page 17. Their managers, however, had scarcely concluded their “song of triumph,” when they found themselves seriously embarrassed by a demand on the part of the public for what has been rather indefinitely termed “cheap travelling;” and as this question involves most serious considerations, we will venture to offer a very few observations respecting it.