Being still the consulting engineer of several of the older companies, he necessarily appeared before Parliament in support of their branches and extensions. In 1845 his name was associated with that of his son as the engineer of the Southport and Preston Junction. In the same session he gave evidence in favor of the Syston and Peterborough branch of the Midland Railway; but his principal attention was confined to the promotion of the line from Newcastle to Berwick, in which he had never ceased to take the deepest interest.
Powers were granted by Parliament in 1845 to construct not less than 2883 miles of new railways in Britain, at an expenditure of about forty-four millions sterling! Yet the mania was not appeased; for in the following session of 1846, applications were made to Parliament for powers to raise £389,000,000 sterling for the construction of farther lines; and they were actually conceded to the extent of 4790 miles (including 60 miles of tunnels), at a cost of about £120,000,000 sterling.[85] During this session Mr. Stephenson appeared as engineer for only one new line—the Buxton, Macclesfield, Congleton, and Crewe Railway—a line in which, as a coal-owner, he was personally interested; and of three branch lines in connection with existing companies for which he had long acted as engineer. At the same period all the leading professional men were fully occupied, some of them appearing as consulting engineers for upward of thirty lines each!
One of the features of this mania was the rage for "direct lines" which every where displayed itself. There were "Direct Manchester," "Direct Exeter," "Direct York," and, indeed, new direct lines between most of the large towns. The Marquis of Bristol, speaking in favor of the "Direct Norwich and London" project at a public meeting at Haverhill, said, "If necessary, they might make a tunnel beneath his very drawing-room rather than be defeated in their undertaking!" And the Rev. F. Litchfield, at a meeting in Banbury on the subject of a line to that town, said, "He had laid down for himself a limit to his approbation of railways—at least of such as approached the neighborhood with which he was connected—and that limit was, that he did not wish them to approach any nearer to him than to run through his bedroom, with the bedposts for a station!" How different was the spirit which influenced these noble lords and gentlemen but a few years before!
The course adopted by Parliament in dealing with the multitude of railway bills applied for during the prevalence of the mania was as irrational as it proved unfortunate. The want of foresight displayed by both houses in obstructing the railway system so long as it was based upon sound commercial principles was only equaled by the fatal facility with which they now granted railway projects based upon the wildest speculation. Parliament interposed no check, laid down no principle, furnished no guidance, for the conduct of railway projectors, but left every company to select its own locality, determine its own line, and fix its own gauge. No regard was paid to the claims of existing companies, which had already expended so large an amount in the formation of useful railways; and speculators were left at liberty to project and carry out lines almost parallel with theirs.
The House of Commons became thoroughly influenced by the prevailing excitement. Even the Board of Trade began to favor the views of the new and reckless school of engineers. In their "Report on the Lines projected in the Manchester and Leeds District," they promulgated some remarkable views respecting gradients, declaring themselves in favor of the "undulating system." They there stated that lines of an undulating character "which gave gradients of 1 in 70 or 1 in 80 distributed over them in short lengths, may be positively better 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 favor 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, when speaking in favor of the continuance of the Railways Department of the Board of Trade, 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 would they be to arrive at any such conclusion. When George 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 such 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 underestimate 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 farther 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 labors of Parliament was a tissue of legislative bungling, involving enormous loss to the nation. Railway bills were granted in heaps. Two hundred and seventy-two additional acts were passed in 1846. Some authorized the construction of lines running almost parallel with 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 decided without judgment and without discrimination; and in the scramble for bills, the most unscrupulous were usually the most successful. As an illustration of the legislative folly of the period, Robert Stephenson, speaking at Toronto, in Upper Canada, some years later, adduced the following instances:
"There was one district through which it was proposed to run two lines, and there was no other difficulty between them than the simple rivalry that, if one got a charter, the other might also. But here, where the committee might have given both, they gave neither. In another instance, two lines were projected through a barren country, and the committee gave the one which afforded the least accommodation to the public. In another, where two lines were projected to run, merely to shorten the time by a few minutes, leading through a mountainous country, the committee gave both. So that, where the committee might have given both, they gave neither, and where they should have given neither, they gave both."
Among the many ill effects of the mania, one of the worst was that it introduced a low tone of morality into railway transactions. The bad spirit which had been evoked by it unhappily extended to the commercial classes, and many of the most flagrant swindles of recent times had their origin in the year 1845. Those who had suddenly gained large sums without labor, and also without honor, were too ready to enter upon courses of the wildest extravagance; and a false style of living arose, the poisonous influence of which extended through all classes. Men began to look upon railways as instruments to job with. Persons sometimes possessing information respecting railways, but more frequently possessing none, got upon boards for the purpose of promoting their individual objects, often in a very unscrupulous manner; land-owners, to promote branch lines through their property; speculators in shares, to trade upon the exclusive information which they obtained; while some directors were appointed through the influence mainly of solicitors, contractors, or engineers, who used them as tools to serve their own ends. In this way the unfortunate proprietors were in many cases betrayed, and their property was shamefully squandered, much to the discredit of the railway system.