HAVANT, HAMBLEDON, AND DROXFORD RAILWAY BILL.
(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)
COMMITTEE ROOM, HOUSE OF COMMONS, TUESDAY, MARCH 7.
Before Mr. Watlington (chairman), Mr. Leigh, Mr. Henderson, and Colonel Tottenham.
Mr. Denison, Mr. Rodwell, and Mr. Johnson appeared for the promoters of the bill; Mr. Merewether and Mr. Burke opposed for the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company; Mr. Clarke for opposing landowners.
In opening the case Mr. Denison said the line was intended to run from Havant through Hambledon to Droxford, where it would cross the Petersfield and Bishop’s Waltham line, granted last session, and run into another line, also granted last session, for continuing the road from Meon Stoke northward to Alresford. The line was about 12 miles in length, the estimate 110,000l.; and hence, as the committee would perceive, it was easy of construction. Objections had been taken to the sufficiency of the estimates; but this matter, as well as engineering points, had been considered by the referees, and the objections were overruled. As the committee were perfectly aware the district was purely agricultural; it was also, as probably the committee were not aware, remarkably well adapted for the erection of railway residences for people who had made their fortunes at Portsmouth. These people were continually passing to and from Portsmouth, in doing which they had, one way or the other, to climb Portsdown Hill, a feat of no little difficulty owing to its steepness. The only place of importance was Hambledon, with a population of 2,000. Some years ago, the notion that a town of 2,000 inhabitants asked for a railway would have excited a smile, but now-a-days it was almost difficult to find a town of 2,000 people without a railway. Besides the usual purposes of a railway, the carriage of passengers, coals and general goods, the line in question would be of national utility in forming portion of a communications between the camp at Aldershott and the important fortifications, now in course of construction at Portsdown Hill, at the head of Portsmouth Harbour. The capital was formed by contractors; but this was not in the present day considered to be an objectionable feature in the project. Having touched on the opposition offered by the Petersfield and Bishop’s Waltham and the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway, and the individual opposition of Mr. Dutton, Mr. Thistlethwaite, and others, the learned counsel called evidence.
Mr. Ford, Mayor of Portsmouth—As a Portsmouth man, I say the projected line would be advantageous to Portsmouth. At present it takes 1½ hour to get to on Hambledon. Portsdown Hill is a great obstacle. The other way would be to go to Havant by rail, and hire a carriage. This would cost as much as 1l. Large numbers of persons take lodgings and villas at Waterloo, a station on the line, and between that and Hambledon. Hambledon is a very pretty place. An omnibus goes five times a week from Portsinouth to Waterloo. I have been two hours going the distance of eight miles. I am secretary to the Portsmouth and Ryde Pier Comnpany. Great difficulty is experienced in getting to that neighbourhood. Waterloo has about 600 inhabitants; Barngreen about 500; Hambledon, 2,052; Droxford, 1,983; Soberton, 1,147; Westmeon, 901; Meonstoke, 431. This is the population according to the census of 1851. Thc assessed taxes for the district amount to about 40,000l. The district is a grazing district. The stock generally is driven to Chichester Market. This line will bring this district into communication with Chichester market, which is one of the best markets in the south of England; it will also form a direct communication with Arundel and Brighton.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clarke—i am a solicitor. If this line were not worked in conjunction with the South Coast line, of course its utility would be much lessened. I imagine this applies to all branch lines. The population of the whole district in question was less in 1861 than in 1851.
Mr. Clarke—I thought so, or you would not have selected it.
Witness—This shows that the district is suffering from the want of that accommodation in travelling which has so much benefited by it.
Re-examined by Mr. Denison—The present road from Havant to Waterloo is very circuitous.
Mr. Hale—I am a landowner at Hambledon. This line would go near my property. I am well acquainted with the district. It is highly cultivated. It is principally a sheep grazing district. Chichester is the best market in the district, and it would be highly advantageous to have communication between it amd the district. We pay 7s. a ton to draw coals from the nearest station; iron and other heavy goods 9s. to 10s. At present it is difflcult and expensive to go to Portsmuth. I agree with the last witness as to the diminution of the population of the district and the cause. The distance of railway for the district is an ingredient in the price of everything. I was obliged to come to London yesterday, or get up before it was light this morning, and drive 15 miles to the railway.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clarke—I think a Havant man cannot get to London before ten in the morning; I live ten miles off, but I go to Petersfield. Hambledon uses sea borne coals; they come from Havant, Fareham, and Portsmouth. Portsmouth is 12 miles from Hambledon; nine from Cosham and Fareham. The line would run about a mile from my property. I have no share in the line.
The agent for the Petersfield and Bishop’s Waltham Railway, in the absence of Mr. Merewether, proceeded to cross-examine as to the mode of crossing a turnpike-road near Droxford; but
The committee ruled that this was a matter which had already been decided by the referees.
Mr. Lunn—I am a brewer at Hambledon. We want railway accommodation for the trade. I am a director of the line. The districts which have been named would be greatly advantaged by this line of railway. I send out 2000 barrels of beer in the year. I get my coals from Fareham or Botley. We import in our district about 150 tons of artificial manure in the year; our exports are about 5000 tons a year.
Chairman—What do you mean by ‟district?”
Witness—Our parish—Hambledon.
Examination continued—Our postal service is very bad. Botley, 11 miles off, takes two days. I have no shares. No shares are taken.
Cross-examined by Mr. Burke—I am a director.
Mr. Burke—And you have taken no shares!
Witness—I am ready to take my shares as a director.
Mr. Burke—Yon have taken no shares. How is the line to be made?
Witness—The money will be found, I dare say.
Cross-examination pursued—The line, I suppose, will be worked by the company, if so, I suppose there will be a plant, if an arrangement is not made to do without it.
Mr. Burke—If nobody has subscribed sixpence how was the deposit money paid?
Witness—I dare say it is paid.
Mr. Pink—I live at Hambledon. I am a surveyor and land agent there,—a proprietor elsewhere. I know the land owners who petitioned against the bill. I know Mr. Dutton, and I know his land. It will not be injured by l driving this railway through it. Mr. Dutton lives near Romsey. A portion of the land is agricultural; another portion a coppice of a very wet description. The railway vill improve the land which remains, after he has received compensation for what is taken. I know Mr. Thistlethwaite’s land, but cannot speak much about that. With a few exceptions, all the landed proprietors in the neighbourhood are in favour of the line.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clarke—In this room I represent nearly all the land owners in the district, including Winchester College, the principal proprietor.
Mr. Clarke-And what others?
Witness—I cannot name another; but Winchester College are the principal.
Mr. Clarke—How much of the land of Winchester College does the line pass through?
Witness—Not an inch.
Mr. Clarke—You said you represented nearly all the land owners on the line.
Witness—I thought you said in the neighbourhood. The farm-house on Mr. Dutton’s farm is now occupied by a captain in the navy. There is not to be a station within 2½ miles from Mr. Dutton’s house; still the line would improve the property. There are some trees on the farm; but many of them are marked to be cut down. The place is known as Bedhampton Park. I don’t call theme ornamental trees. The separate trees are not all marked to be cut down. The line is to be carried across the park on an embankment 20 feet high, and that in front of the house. That would not be an advantage.
Cross-examined by Mr. Rodwell—The warden and fellows of Winchester College are most anxious for the line. The line would benefit the district through which it passes.
Mr. W. D. King examined by Mr. Rodwell—I am a land agent at Southsea. I know Mr. Thistlethwaite’s property. I do not think the line would injure the property. There would be no residential injury, I think, nor anything that would not be met by compensation. The line would be beneficial to the district, especially Waterloo; and increase the value of Mr. Thistlethwaite’s property as building land.
Cross examined by Mr. Burke—Havant station is a station for the South-Coast line, the Direct Portsmouth, and the Hayling Railway. It is now proposed to run in another line. There is plenty of room.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clarke—The line runs about a mile through Mr. Thistlethwaite’s property, partly on an embankment of 18 feet, and partly in a cutting of 18 feet. I know the road to Southwick. It is proposed to raise it 14 feet. Part of Mr. Thistlethwiaite’s property abuts on this road.
Mr. G. Kemp—I live at Waterloo. I have been in business there. It is the general opinion that this railway would greatly improve the place. When I go to London, I go to Rowland’s Castle, on the Portsmouth Direct, six miles off. There is a general want of railway accommodation throughout the neighbourhood.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clarke—From Rowland’s Castle you can get easily to London or Portsmouth.
Re examined by Mr. Rodwell—It would be well to get to Havant only. But I have no doubt that if the line is made the great companies will work it.
Mlr. — Ashdown examined by Mr. Rodwell—I am resident engineer of this line. There is nothing in the mode in which we deal with the property of Mr. Thistlethwaite and Mr. Dutton, to take the case out of the ordinary compensation.
This witness was cross-examined at great length with regard to the manner in which the line crosses the property of those two gentlemen, and deals with the various roads in its route.
Cross-examiiiaiion continued—I called on Lord Poulet, Lady Dacres, and Colonel Butler, and made arrangements with which they were satisfied.
Sir James Elphinstone, Bart., M.P., for Portsmouth, examined by Mr. Rodwell—I am acquainted with the district traversed by the line. The line will greatly benefit it, and also Portsmouth; but the principal benefit will be in giving the inhabitants of Portsmouth an opportunity of resorting for purposes of recreation to the beautiful country running from the north of Portsdown Hill to Waterioo and Horndean, more especially important since they had been shut out by the fortifications from the southern slope.
Mr. Burke contended that a weaker bill was never submitted to the consideration of a select committee. There was hardly any traffic throughout the district; nothing, in fact, to justify the passing of the bill. If there were a chance of reaping a profit from such a line the Brighton Company would have made it. Look at the admission of one of the directors, that he had not subscribed a farthing; and as to the deposit required by the standing orders, why he did not know where the money came from. The scheie, in fact, was got up for the advantage of a very few individuals, in the hope that some company might take it up. The London and Brighton Company made a line for themselves; and can it be endured that a few persons who, as far as it appeared, had not subscribed a farthing, should come and seize a station on that line, and use it as if it were their own? But he could show that there was not room at the station for a new company. Originally the station at Havant was a road-side station for the traffic on the coast line from Brighton to Portsmouth. It was now open to the South-Western, the Portsmouth Direct, and the Hayling; and already it was overcrowded.
Mr. George Hawkins—I am traffic manager of the London, Brighton, and South-Coast Railway. The witness confirmed the last statement of the learned counsel. The Havant station is overcrowded. It could not receive the traffic of the proposed line; and, as there was no power in the bill to provide station accommodation at Havant, it would be necessary, if this line were made, for the South Coast to do it. Havant at present is a through station; but, if this bill were passed, it would, quoad this line, become a terminus. But for this there was no provision whatever.
A discussion here ensued as to how far this evidence partook of the nature of engineering evidence, which is now taken in the preliminary investigation before the referees. The room was cleared; and on the re-admission of the public the chairman announced that the committee would hear the evidence. The examination of the witness then proceeded.
Witness said the junction proposed by the bill would be most inconvenient, and would be attended with delay and danger. The South-Coast Company were not antagonistic to the line; and if they would run alongside, as the Hayling did, would not object. From what he knew of the country he did not think the projected line would pay working expenses. He objected to settling the amount of compensation by arbitration.
Cross-examined by Mr. Rodwell—If we had the proposed line we could not accommodate the extra trains with our present rails; and we have not land, or power to obtain it, to increase. I don’t know that there is a fairer mode of settling compensation than by arbitration; but arbitrators generally go in favour of the public, and against private interests.
Mr. Clarke addressed the committee on behalf of the landed proprietors. He urged that not only was the line unnecessary, but that, without confcrring any substantial benefit, it would amount to a positive nuisance. He represented not only Mr. Thistlethwaite and Mr. Dutton, but Mr. Harvey and other owners and occupiers of land through which the line was intended to pass.
Mr. Norman, of Stratford-place, London, land agent—I am agent for Mr. Dutton for his land in Bedhampton-park. It is occupied by a farmer. It is not a mere farm; it is one of the most delightful residences in the county. It is proposed to run the projected line in front of the house, on an embankment ranging from 10 to 18 feet in height. There are some trees marked to be cut down, but the object is to improve and render more ornamental those that remain. The present station at Havant is 1½ mile from Bedhampton, and the projected station at Waterloo 2½r miles, so that the estate would not be benefited by the projected line.
Cross=examined by Mr. Rodwvell—I am Mr. Dutton’s land agent. I don’t know whether his solicitor is here. His solicitor is Mr. Burcham.
Mr. Rodwell—Who happens to be solicitor to the London and South-Western—a curious coincidence—(A laugh.)
Cross-examined—I think there is something in the case to take it out of the usual cases of compensation. The embankment cuts off the only view from the house.
Re-examined by Mr. Clarke—The embankment will destroy the present residence and cut the Iand in two, occupying the only position for a new mansion.
Examined by the Chairman—The tenant has a lease, which has about two years to run.
Mr. Thomas Thistlethwaite—I reside at Southwick. The proposed line intersects my property for about a mile. It is intersected by cutting and the embankment, which is very objectionable. My property would be deteriorated in value by this line; The Southwick Estate is about 8,000 acres. I do not think the railway required by the necessities of the case. It would he convenient, no doubt, for the inhabitants of Hambledon.
Cross-examined by Mr. Rodwfiell—The line inflicts no residential injury on me The field cut in two would be adapted for a villa.
The committee adjourned at four o’clock.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, WEDNESDAY.
The committee re-assembled this morning at 12 o’clock, Mr. Watlington again in the chair. The other members of committee were present. The same learned counsel were also in attendance.
The evidence on behalf of the landowners opposing the bill was proceeded with. The first witness called was
Colonel Bower, who. said he resided at Droxford. He had a house, grounds, and land there. He went there about eight years as a most agreeable residence. He was on a visit to a friend for hunting, and he so liked the place that he took a house and had resided there ever since. Many gentlemen resided there because of the excellent hunting the neighbourhood afforded. At present they had to drive a distance of about four miles to reach a railway station. He could not conceive how a new railway was required. He should be sorry to take any shares in such a speculation, for he felt convinced it could never pay. This was not alone his own opinion, but that of a majority of his neighbours. The line might be of some little advantage to the village of Hambledon, but unless the trains could run in connection with the trains upon the main lines of the other companies it would be utterly useless, for there would be no traffic. The gallant colonel was about to explain to the committee how the proposed line would interfere with the hunting of the country, when Mr. Denison objected to this evidence, on the ground that the petition did not allege hunting as one of the grounds of objection.
Mr. Phinn said a petition was not bound to set forth every portion of the objections to the line.
Mr. Denison said the standing orders of the House of Commons said it was.
The Chairman said the evidence might be taken shortly.
Colonel Bower then said if this line were constructed it would knock the Hambledon hunt on the head.
Cross-examined by Mr. Denison—The line no doubt would make the journey to London about an hour less. He opposed the line on the ground that it was not required by the public. If any public utility would follow from its construction he should not have opposed it.
Mr. C. B. Smith, of Wickham, was next called. He said he was a farmer and land surveyor, and he knew the district through which this line was to pass. He concurred in the opinion of Colonel Bower, that no public advantage would follow from the making of it. It was not a populous district, and it would only place the people of Hambledon in a little better communication with the market at Chichester. The witness repeated the statistics of the population as given in evidence by other witnesses yesterday. This line he considered would seriously interfere with much of the pleasure of the neighbourhood, such as hunting, &c. He had seen several landowners, and they were decidedly opposed to the scheme.
Mr. Dernison—What landowners have you seen?
Witness—Mr. Thistlethwaite and Mr. Holbert.
Mr. Denison—When, did you see Mr. Holbert? He has not signed the petition.
Witness—I saw him a few days ago, and he told me that he had not signed the petition, although he authorised me to say that he did not approve of the bill.
Mr. Denison—Who else did you see?
Witness—Mr. Harvey, who had some land at Barngreen.
Mr. Denison—Who brings you here?
Witness—I come on behalf of the landowners; for, although I live at Wickham, I am interested in the land through which this line is to pass.
Cross-examination continued—He had gone frequently from Portsmouth to Waterloo in half-an-hour, over Portsdown-hill; and he thought this was as soon as they could get by railway. He was not surprised that the Hambledon people should require this line. He was not surprised at anything.—(Laughter.)—He thought the disadvantages which would follow from making the line would canter-balance any advantage which was to accrue from its being made.
This was the case on behalf of the landowners.
Mr. Merewether then addressed the committee on behalf of the Petersfield and Bishop’s Waltham Railway, who also opposed the scheme. He urged that if this line was made the company which he represented would be called upon to incur an expense as to a junction and altering an arch, which were solely for the benefit of the Havant, Hambledon, and Droxford Railway Company. The referees had said that this junction could be altered, and, had the line proposed been a good and useful one, doubtless the Petersfield and Bishop’s Waltham Company would have submitted to this expense of deviating the junction; but he begged to add his voice to what had already been said, that no utility would follow from the construction of this line.
He then called the following witness:—
Mr..Scott, said he was the manager of the London and South-Western Railway Company, which was opposed to this line. He was acquainted with the traffic of this disrict. The Petersfield and Bishop’s Waltham line joined a line leased by the London and South-Western Company at Bishop’s Waltham. The traffic of the Bishop’s Waltham line, which had been opened two years, was very small. It was 3½ miles long, and in 1864 the gross return was 1,255l., which was 6l. per mile per week, which could manifestly not pay the working expenses of the line. Supposing the Havant, Hambledon, and Droxford line was constructed, he did not think the returns would exceed 6l. per mile per week. There was no place of importance on the line except Hambledon.
Cross-examined by Mr. Denison—The South-Western had running powers over the Bishop’s Waltham and Petersfield line. This had been settled by arrangement. They had running powers from Havant towards Portsmouth. The population of Bishop’s Waltham was about the same as that of Hambledon, namely, 2,267.
By Mr. Merewether—I don’t see how the capital is to be raised for the Petersfield and Bishop’s Waltham line and for the construction of the line from Havant to Droxford.
Mr. Denison, in reply upon the whole case, said that the opposition was really only one. If it was not for the assistance they had received from the South-Western Company they would not have thought it worth while to come before the committee to oppose the bill. There was no pretence of residential damage, and it was admitted by the counsel for the landlords that the South-Western Company were paying the expenses of those landlords. Reverting to the case of the South-Western Railway, the learned counsel said they were the owners, directly or in-directly, of every line in that neighbourhood, and were interested in opposing the new line on the ground of diversion of traffic. But a possible diversion of traffic from any district was not regarded by Parliament as an objection to the construction of a railway if fair grounds for its construction were shown. The proposed line, how-ever, did not come within that category wherein two lines converged towards a common point. Taking Hambledon as the centre of a district,—which Mr. Scott had run away from, and endeavoured to set up a case of diversion elsewhere,—they found that the inhabitants of Hambledon were at present nine miles from a railway station, and it was for the purpose of terminating such an inconvenience that the new line was proposed to be made. There were two companies in the neighbourhood of the proposed new line, one being the South-Western Railway and the other the Brighton Railway. Now, the South-Western did not want to see them, and the Brighton Company would be glad to see them, join their line, providing they could make different arrangements with respect to getting into the station. Therefore, he (Mr. Denison) contended that he was entitled to say that, with the exception of the South-Western Railway Company, who paid for the opposition to the new line, there really was no opposition to the line. If two companies wished to run into one town, where a station already existed, it was better not to construct a new station, but to obtain power to use the old and existing station. The terms upon which this privilege could be obtained might be settled by arbitration. Under all the circumstances he thought the committee would come to the conclusion that this was a measure which ought to receive parliamentary sanction, as there were people ready to find the money to construct the line, and the opposition had been of no very formidable character.
The room was then cleared for the committee to consider their decision.
The committee only remained in consultation a few minutes; and upon the re-admission of the public
The Chairman announced that the committee were of opinion that the preamble of the bill had not been proved.
The bill was, therefore, thrown out, and the proceedings terminated.