The life of George Stephenson, railway engineer - Lighthouse ...

472
EAILWAY SYSTEM AND ITS RESULTS.
means simply, that the property having previously been in what is
called a ring-fence, it becomes, by the passage of a railway through it,
less convenient for purposes of cultivation. Let it be observed,
that the depreciation upon which this claim is based, is ordinarily im-
aginary and ideal. It is utterly untrue, that an estate is necessarily
rendered less convenient for cultivation, by the passage through it of a
railway ;
indeed, in the majority of cases, it is capable of proof that the
result is the reverse. The Railway Companies are therefore mulcted
for an idea. No agent has yet been able to reduce to figures the prac-
tical value of this alleged inconvenience. Care is always taken that a
railway shall supply facilities of communication ; and when bridges and
crossings are constructed, severance ceases in reality to exist. No one
has ever been able to show, arithmetically, that, by the mere passage of
a railway through an estate, loss is sustained ; yet the practical result
of the legislation of Parliament is this, that whereas a railway takes land
from a landowner of the value of some £500 or £600, a claim for sev-
erance is often made and allowed to the extent of nearly as many thou-
sands. Agents of the highest respectability make the claim, on the
ground that it is customary, admitting that there is no substantial rea-
son whatever for it. In one recent case, a claim for compensation for
severance was made by the owner of some marsh land in Essex, whose
whole estate was taken by a Company, but who claimed for " severance,"
on the ground that the loss of his marsh land on the Thames
was injurious to an arable farm which he possessed many miles distant
This illustration will show the extent to which this doctrine is carried,
and how this system of spoliation, permitted by Parliament, has become
legalized by custom.
It may be asked. What is the proper remedy for the state of things
which has been thus described ? The remedy which has suggested
itself to some practical minds, is one which, it is to be feared, the Government
of our day is unlikely to grant. If, instead of leaving the decision
of these subjects to inexperienced tribunals, a mixed Commission
could be organized, of practical men, of acknowledged legal, commercial,
and mechanical abiHty, there might be hope for us. What
we want is a tribunal upon these subjects, competent to judge, and
willing to devote its attention to railway subjects only. We do not im-
pute to Parliament that it is dishonest ; but we impute that it is incom-
petent. Neither its practical experience, nor its time, nor its system
of procedure, are adapted for railway legislation. Both Houses, in-
deed, admit their incompetency', by referring the consideration of every
question to Select Committees. But go into a Select Committee, and
observe how it is composed. Observe the list of subjects committed to
!