of trains running twenty miles without stopping; and another clause gave the companies power to cut down trees adjoining their line which might be dangerous.  Prior to 1868, although railways had then existed for three and forty years, the accounts of one company could not usefully be compared with those of another, for scarcely any two companies made up their accounts in the same way.  Variety may be charming, but uniformity has its advantages.

The Board of Trade, in 1871, was endowed with further powers.  By the Regulation of Railways Act of that year, they were given additional rights of inspection; authority to enquire into accidents, and further powers in regard to the opening of additional lines of railway, stations or junctions.  And by this statute the companies were required to furnish the Board of Trade with elaborate statistical documents, annually, in a form prescribed in a schedule to the Act.

The only other important Act down to the year 1875 is the Regulation of Railways Act of 1873.  This Act was passed for the purpose of making “better provision for carrying into effect the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1854, and for other purposes connected therewith.”  In 1872 a Joint Committee of both Houses sat and, following upon their report, this Act was passed.  It established a new tribunal, to be called the Railway and Canal Commission, to consist of three Commissioners, of whom—­one was to be experienced in the law, one in railway business, and it also authorised the appointment of not more than two assistant Commissioners.  As to the third Commissioner, no mention was made of qualifications.  This tribunal, though styled a Commission, conducted its work as if it were a court; and a regularly constituted court in time it became.  By the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, the section in the Act of 1873 appointing the Commission was repealed and a new Commission established consisting of two appointed and three ex officio Commissioners, such Commission to be “a Court of Record, and have an official seal, which shall be judicially noticed.”  One of the Commissioners must be experienced in railway business; and of the three ex officio Commissioners, one was to be nominated for England, one for Scotland and one for Ireland, and in each case such Commissioner was to be a Judge of the High Court of the land.  Under the Act of 1873, the chief functions of the Commissioners were:  To hear and decide upon complaints from the public in regard to undue preference, or to refusal of facilities; to hear and determine questions of through rates; and to settle differences between two railway companies or between a railway company and a canal company, upon the application of either party to the difference.  The Act of 1888 continued these and included some further powers.

In my humble opinion the Railway Commissioners have done much useful work and done it well.  For more than forty years I have read most if not all the cases they have dealt with.  On several occasions I have been engaged in proceedings before them, and not always on the winning side.