lines, _i.e._, _more susceptible of
cheap and expeditious working_, than others which have nothing steeper
than 1 in 100 or 1 in 120!" They concluded by reporting in favour of the
line which exhibited the worst gradients and the sharpest curves, chiefly
on the ground that it could be constructed for less money.

Sir Robert Peel took occasion to advert to this Report in the House of
Commons on the 4th of March following, as containing "a novel and highly
important view on the subject of gradients, which, he was certain, never
could have been taken by any Committee of the House of Commons, however
intelligent;" and he might have added, that the more intelligent, the
less likely they were to arrive at any such conclusion. When Mr.
Stephenson saw this report of the Premier's speech in the newspapers of
the following morning, he went forthwith to his son, and asked him to
write a letter to Sir Robert Peel on the subject. He saw clearly that if
these views were adopted, the utility and economy of railways would be
seriously curtailed. "These members of Parliament," said he, "are now as
much disposed to exaggerate the powers of the locomotive, as they were to
under-estimate them but a few years ago." Robert accordingly wrote a
letter for his father's signature, embodying the views which he so
strongly entertained as to the importance of flat gradients, and
referring to the experiments conducted by him many years before, in proof
of the great loss of working power which was incurred on a line of steep
as compared with easy gradients. It was clear, from the tone of Sir
Robert Peel's speech in a subsequent debate, that he had carefully read
and considered Mr. Stephenson's practical observations on the subject;
though it did not appear that he had come to any definite conclusion
thereon, further than that he strongly approved of the Trent Valley
Railway, by which Tamworth would be placed upon a direct main line of
communication.

The result of the labours of Parliament was a tissue of legislative
bungling, involving enormous loss to the public. Railway Bills were
granted in heaps. Two hundred and seventy-two additional Acts were
passed in 1846. Some authorised the construction of lines running almost
parallel to existing railways, in order to afford the public "the
benefits of unrestricted competition." Locomotive and atmospheric lines,
broad-gauge and narrow-gauge lines, were granted without hesitation.
Committees deci