HAVANT, HAMBLEDON, & DROXFORD RAILWAY BILL.
(From our own Correspondent.)
HOUE OF COMMONS, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1.
The newly-constituted tribunal called the Referees, created last session by the Standing Orders Committee, with the object of relieving the ordinary committees appointed to try the merits of private bills of the task of hearing the purely scientific and engineering evidence usually brought forward, met yesterday for the first time. The tribunal consists of Mr. Hugh Adair, Mr. Hassard, Mr. Rickards and Mr. Gibson Craig, with Mr. Dodson, chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, acting as chairmen. Among the bills which came before them to-day was the Havant, Hambledon, and Droxford Railway Bill.
Mr. Johnson appeared as counsel for the promoters; Mr. Clerk appeared for the London and South-Western Compamny; Mr. Merewether for the Petersfield and Bishop’s Waltham Company.
Mr. Johnson objected to the locus standi of the London and South-Western Company.
Mr. Clerk submitted that his petition contained sufficient grounds for his appearing in opposition to the bill. It alleged that the London and South-Western Company are the owners of divers railways in the district; that they are also largely interested in the railways in the district affected by the proposed line; and that the railways belonging to the petitioners solely, surround and traverse almost every part of the district in question. The petition also alleged that the making and working the new railway will be injurious to the petitioners and without benefit to the public, and will compete with and divert traffic from the railways of the petitioners, and that such diversion and useless competition ought not to be permitted, more especially because there is a strong probability that the additional railways already authorised or about to be constructed in the district will secure very inadequate remuneration for the capital which must necessarily be expended in working them. He conceived this was the case which came under the 125th standing order, giving to committees originally a power of hearing parties on the ground of competition where it seemed proper to the committee to do so. That standing order, which had been altered last session, gave the same power to the referees. Now, if there was ever a case where an existing system of railways had grounds for asking to be heard against the merits of a scheme on the ground of competition, it was surely this case. The London and South Western, by their own lines and by lines which they leased, worked the traffic of the whole district; and here was a new line proposed by independent parties, entirely unconnected with any railway in the district, which could only be used to abstract traffic from tie existing system of railways. The learned counsel then pointed out on the map the points where it would abstract traffic from the London and South-Western, going in any direction from Havant as the starting point. In reply to the referees, Mr. Clerk stated at first that the London and South-Western Company are the lessees of the Petersfield and Bishop’s Waltham, and of the Mid-Hants; but he afterwards corrected this statement, saying the Company have running powers over the Petersfield and Bishop’s Waltham, and that they are under agreement to become lessees of the Mid-Hants line for a term of 999 years. But whether they were lessees or not did not affect the question of competition, because their interests would be just as much prejudiced if this proposed scheme should be sanctioned by Parliament.
Mr. Johnson contended that the London and South-Western had no right to be heard before the committee on the merits. First, because they are not owners, lessees, or occupiers of land or property taken or interfered with under the powers of this bill. The 127th standing order seemed to show what the rights of railways are when those rights are at all affected by proposed legislation: ‟Where a railway bill contains provisions for taking or using any parts of the land, stations, or other accommodations of another railway, or for running engines or carriages on or across the same, or for gathering other facilities, such company shall be entitled to be heard upon this petition against the preamble and clauses of such bill.” Now, the London and South-Western were not in that position; and clearly they had no right to be heard as owners, lessees, or occupiers. With regard to other companies, the Petersfield and Bishop’s Waltham and the Mid-Hants, they had a right to be heard, and they both appeared before the Referees. If these two lines, which are solely affected by this bill, had a right to appear in opposition, what right had the London and South-Western Company to duplicate the opposition of those railways by claiming to stand, as it were, upon the same ground that they did? The proposed line did not touch any portion of the property belonging to the London and South Western Company; and with regard to competition there could be no competition whatever except through the medium of these two other lines which were already before the committee in opposition. They had running powers, he would admit, over the Petersfield and Bishop’s Waltham, but they had only permissive powers with regard to the Mid-Hants, which they might or might not exercise; therefore it could not be said that there was any competition which would affect their traffic; and even if there were competition, it would still remain a matter within the discretion of the referees whether they should be heard on the merits. He submitted that the London and South Western had made out no case to be heard against the bill.
Mr. Clark wished to be heard in reply, but
Mr. Johnson objected.
Mr. Adair said the practice was that the promoters should put a witness forward, and then upon a question being asked by the opposing counsel, the right to ask it should be challenged. Then the counsel claiming a locus standi would state his reasons for being heard, after which the promoters had the opportunity of replying. Therefore Mr. Clark could not be heard again.
The referees then retired, and after several minutes, consultation returned, and stated that they were of opinion that the London and South Western Company were not entitled to be heard in this case, and they directed that an endorsement should be made upon the petition to that effect.
Mr. Merewether said he appeared in support of the petition of the Petersfield and Bishop’s Waltham Railway Company. They complained that by the bill now before the Referees the mode in which it was proposed to effect a junction with their authorised line, together with the works in connection therewith, were badly designed and wrongly laid out, and not calculated to effect the object in the most efficient manner. Then there was an allegation that powers were sought over the lands and property of the petitioners which were objectionable. The Referees would see by the plans before them that the Mid-Hants Railway joined the Petersfield and Waltham line at the Meonstoke station. The Havant, Hambledon, and Droxford Railway proposed to join the petitioners’ line at a point situated about a quarter of a mile from the station on a gradient of one in 80. The petitioners alleged that the line ought to be doubled at that point, in order to accommodate the traffic; but the promoters of the present bill wished to have running powers instead.
The Chairman said the referees could not entertain the question of doubling the line.
Mr. Merewether said he would limit his observations to the other points. He would first call the engineer of the petitioners.
Mr. John Collister, C.E., examined by Mr. Merewether said, I am the engineer to the Petersfield and Bishop’s Waltham Railway Company, and have made myself acquainted with the nature of the present bill. By clause 22 the promoters proposed to make a junction with our anthorised line at a distance of about a quarter of a mile from the site of our proposed station. Our line is intended to be constructed single. My objection to the junction is that it occurs with a falling gradient of 1 in 80 towards the station. If it had joined us near to the station—about three hundred yards nearer—it would have been on a level. I do not know of any other instance in the South of England where a junction is effected with a single line at a quarter of a mile from a station with a gradient of one in eighty. The promoters of the bill propose to divert a turnpike-road, which will occasion us to make a skew bridge instead of a straight or a square one, at more than double the cost. By that means they save the construction of a bridge themselves. The Meonstoke-station is intended to be a first-class one.
Cross examined by Mr. Johnson—Supposing the new line were to be diverted, as it might be, in a certain direction within the limits of deviation, the road would not be interfered with, and we could still pass over it at right angles.
Mr. Johnson—Now you know you have not got a spade into the ground, although your Act was passed last session. Have you any plan showing the precise site of the station?
The witness—No; but when the line was laid out I fixed upon the spot which was most suitable to the purpose.
Mr. Johnson—There was no plan prepared, at all events?
The witness—No.
Mr. Johnson—And you are not in the habit, I think, of showing to Parliamentary committees or to the public the identical spot where you propose to make your station?
The witness—I endeavour to fix upon it as near as possible.
Mr. Johnson—Show me how you fixed upon it ‟as near as possible” in this case.
T'he witness—I fixed it at four miles and six furlongs.
Mr. Johnson—Nevertheless, you had no plan showing the exact site of tbe station which would be binding upon you?
The witness—No; except the parliamentary plan.
Mr. Johnson—That will not show it, will it?
The witness—It shows the level piece of ground where of course the station must be placed. The gradient of one in 80 I find extends 350 yards. The level extends for nearly half a mile towards Petersfield, which would bring us a little beyond the point of junction with the Mid Hants line. We have plenty, of land scheduled at that spot, so that we are not limited to a particular spot, but of course the station must be upon the level. I do not know any instance in Scotland, even, where one single line joins another single line upon a gradient of one in 80.
Re-examined by Mr. Merewether—AII that I have to guide me in my judgment as to the goodness or badness of the design Is our own deposited plan of last session and the plan deposited with the present bill; and all I can say is that if both plans are carried out we shall be obliged to be at the expense of making a skew bridge where a square one would have sufficed. The angle would be about 20 degrees, it is so very oblique just at that spot. We cannot divert our line on one side, because of the rise in the ground; and if we diverted it on the other, we should run through the rector’s house. We have made arrangements with the Mid-Hants Company as to the site of the station. If the turnpike road which we cross over is not diverted the promoters will have to make a bridge of their own. The diversion of the road would be inconvenient to travellers, because they would have to go out of their way in consequence.
Mr. Clark said he appeared in support of three other petitions which were presented by landowners against the bill on account of residential injury which they would sustain. Mr. Dutton complained of the mode in which it was proposed to affect his property, and objected to the compulsory taking of his land.
Mr. Rickards—I see you state in your petition that you disapprove of the engineering details. Is that as against of the construction of the line generally, or simply with regard to this particular property?
Mr. Clark—Only as to the nature of the works affecting this estate.
The Chairman—Then it is not a case for our consideration.
Mr. Clark—I have here a joint petition of several Iand-owners, objecting to the interference with certain roads. That, I apprehend, is a matter of engineering details which will come within your jurisdiction. They complain that certain roads leading to their estates will be seriously interfered with.
The Chairman—We decline to entertain the petition on that ground.
Mr. Clark—I merely wished to have your decision upon the point for our guidance hereafter.
Mr. Rickards—If it does not constitute an objection to the railway itself as a work of construction, but simply affects the value of the property through which the line passes, it is a case for the committee and not for us.
Mr. Johnson said he would now call the engineer in answer to the objections raised by his learned friend Mr. Merewether.
Mr. Ashdown, C.E., examined by Mr. Johnson—I selected the point of junction advised. I knew that if I had gone nearer the locality in which the station was to be made I should be met with the objection that it was trenching upon the limits of the property appropriated to the purposes of the other lines, and therefore I fixed upon a spot at a convenient distance, in such a manner that arrangements could afterwards be made by us and the other companies within our limits of deviation.
Mr. Johnson then addressed the committee briefly upon the evidence, and Mr. Merewether having been heard in reply, the proceedings terminated.
The report of the referees upon the bill will be shortly laid before the committee appointed to consider the merits of the scheme.