The history of some of the greater English companies taken a little in detail illustrates the situation. The London and North-Western Railway was first opened for traffic in 1837, about a month after the accession of Queen Victoria. In 1846 it consisted of a main line from London to Birmingham, with some insig nificant branches. In 1852 a writer on the posi tion of the company complains that it "fell a few years back into the error generally commit ted by railway companies of amalgamation with numerous other railway companies. From be ing a line from London to Birmingham, 112.4 miles, it has become a line or lines of 5395 mile long — five times its original length?) Since that time it has increased its mileage nearly fourfold, and has merged into its system the Chester and Holyhead lines on the west and the Lancashire and Carlisle on the north, be sides numerous smaller undertakings too nu merous to mention. The Great Western. Rail, way has been absorbing smaller independent lines in its territory for many years, and altogether considerably more than 100 have been so absorbed within the last 40 years. Since 1896 it has taken over about 20 such lines, adding thereby 260 miles to its system. Of its total capital expenditure from 1892 to 1901, amounting to about #15,500,000, nearly #5,000,000 represented amalgamations. The North-Eastern Railway is a consolidation of various small lines which has resulted in a vast network of railway in the northeast of England without a single intruder in the terri tory in the shape of a competitor. The report of the Select Committee on Railway Amalgama tion in 1872 contained the following reference to this line: The case of the North-Eastern is a Wiling illustration. That railway or system of railways is composed of 37 lines. several of formerly competed with each other. Before their amalgamation thehad. generally speaking, het rates and fares, and low dividends. The system is now the most complete monopoly in the United Kingdom; from the Tyne to the Humber with one local exception. it has the county to itself, and it has the lowest fares, and the highest divida4 of any large English railway. It has had little or no litigation with other companies. While complaints have been from Lancashire and Yorkshire, whore there are so-called competing lines, no witness has appeared to complain of the North-Eastern; and the general feeling in the district it serves appears favorable to its management.
The Great Central Railway, which was opened for all classes of traffic in April 1899, has a total mileage of 665 miles. Of this mile age 465 belongs to it and 200 are jointly owned with other companies. In addition the com pany owns 111 miles of canals and tramways. It is, therefore, a system essentially made up of joint lines and canals. It is also the newest, line in England and may stand for the most recent type of development in that country.
Working along essentially parallel lines all intramural transit in London which is wholly or partly underground, aggregating nearly 225 miles in length, has been in effect consolidated into two great substantially non-competing en terprises, dividing the territory in a way be tween them, upon a line (roughly speaking) which runs northwest and southeast through Piccadilly Circus, or dividing, along non-com petitive lines as much as possible, about Picca dilly Circus and converging severally therein. The Joint Parliamentary Committee of 1901 reported that it was desirable that the working of undergrpund railways in and around London should be put under the control of some one consolidated interest; and that has been the ulti mate solution.
The English courts commenced, about the middle of the last century, to break down the old common-law doctrines theretofore in vogue against monopolies, which were invoked in op position to railway consolidation. Gradually the whole legal theory upon which those doc trines were attempted to be sustained has been overthrown, until now there is in England no legal objection possible to be urged, and very little popular prejudice to the amalgamation of railway lines whenever and wherever it seems to be economically desirable. The legal argu
ments against these consolidations were always drawn from the old decisions against monop olies and restraint of trade, which more'than 50 years ago began to be repudiated in toto by the English judges. Thus in a leading case often referred to, which was decided in the House of Lords about 1850, Lord St. Leonards used the following notable language : My Lords, there are just a few remarks that I wish to make upon public policy. I will not add a word to what has been already said by my noble and learned friends, but I will call your attention to what fell from one of the learned (Mr. Justice Cresswell) as regards the restraint .of That learned judge that with regard to the restraint of trade, there is a maxim in common law, and he refers to a case in Year Books (2 Hen. V., p1. 26), to prove it; but the learned judge did not tell your lordship, upon what that maxim was founded. Nobody supposes that there was any statute upon the subject in theft times. Upon what. then. was that maxim founded? Why, upon public policy for the good of the realm. It was not good for the realm that men should be prevented from exercising their trades. Now, let us see what this particular case is; it lies in few words and remarkable consequences have resulted from it. It was an with a condition that if a man did not exercise his craft of a dyer, within a certain town, that is, where be carried on his business, for six months, then the obligation was to be void, and it was averred that he had used his art there within the time limited, upon which Mr. Justice Hull, being uncommonly angry at such a violation of all law, said, according to the book, ' Per Dieu, if he were here, to prison he should go until he made fine to the king, because he had dared to restrain the liberty of the subject. I wish to draw your lordships' attention to this ease. Angry as the learned judge was at that infraction of the law, what has been the result of that very rule without any statute intervening? That the common law, as it is called. has adapted itself, upon grounds of public policy, to a totally different and limited rule that would guide us at this day, and the condition which was then so strongly denounced is just as good a condition now as any that was ever inserted in a contract, because a partial restraint, created in that way, with a particular object, 15 now perfectly legal. Without any exclamation of the judge, and without any danger of pry, any subject of this realm may sue upon such a condition as Mr. Justice Hull was so very indignant at in that particular case. That shows, therefore, that the rule which the learned judge, whose opinion is now before the House, thought depended upon some rule of common law, regardless of policy, was founded upon public policy, and has been restrained and limited and qualified to this very hour. and beneficially so, by that very policy which it is supposed had no bearing at all upon the foundation of the rule. (Egerton v. Earl Brown:low. 4 H. L. Cas.. I, 237, 238.) It is now about 20 years ago that the notable consolidation of the London, Chatham and Dover and the London and South-Eastern lines was effected, which operated to merge two theretofore independent parallel and competing lines and to allot the whole southeastern section of England to the amalgamated company. This, as is usual in that country, was accomplished through special Parliamentary powers, which in this case were sought and obtained without arousing any great opposition, engendering any considerable heat, or provoking any declamation about a sacrifice of the rights of the public. In point of fact, nothing but good seems to have flowed from it.