Wm 
 
 
 ■■OTMHl 
 
 9Hi 
 

Cornell University Library 
 KD 4370.F27 
 
 A treatise on the Court of Referees in P 
 
 3 1924 017 876 750 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924017876750 
 
A TREATISE 
 
 ON THE 
 
 COUET OF EEFEEEES IN PARLIAMENT 
 
 CONTAINING CHAPTERS ON 
 
 THE PRACTICE AND JURISDICTION OP TEE COUET, 
 
 ON 
 
 THE LOCUS STANDI OF PETITIONERS IN THE HOUSE OP COMMONS, 
 
 AND 
 
 REPORTS OF THE CASES DECIDED IN THAT COURT 
 DURING LAST SESSION, 
 
 REPRINTED BY PERMISSION (WITH ADDITIONS) FROM " THE LAW TIMES." 
 
 BT 
 
 JOHN HENBY FAWCETT, 
 
 OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BAREISTER-AT-LAW. 
 TOGETHER WITH A CHAPTER ON 
 
 ENGINEERING AND ESTIMATES, 
 
 AND A 
 
 DIGEST OF THE REPORTS MADE BY TBE REFEREES TO PARLIAMENT. 
 
 E. D. M. L1TTLEE, 
 
 Off TBE INNER TEMPLE, BARHISTEE.-AT-LAW. 
 
 LONDON: 
 HORACE COX, WELLINGTON STREET, STRAND, 
 
KEATING AND 00., HUNTERS, 27, GREAT GEORGE STREET, WESTMINSTER. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The Author, for private reference, had analyzed 
 and compared the Decisions of the Referees during 
 last Session. He was advised that such an analysis, 
 with additions, a Report of Cases, and a Digest 
 of the Referees' Reports, might be acceptable to 
 the profession. The object of this work has been, so 
 far as practicable, to reduce to a system, the Referees' 
 Decisions and Reports of last Session. For this pur- 
 pose, all cases of importance have been considered. The 
 Law Times' Reports of Decisions, which are the only 
 authorized ones existing, being taken as the standard. 
 These will be found reprinted by the kind permission of 
 E. W. Cox, Esq., in the Appendix, and are referred to 
 under the abbreviation of " R." The Referees' Reports 
 have been digested as far as they seemed material to 
 the purpose, and will be also found in the Appendix — 
 quoted under the abbreviation of "D." 
 
The standing orders, "S. O." referred to, are those of 
 the year 1866. 
 
 By the kindness of some of the leading Parliamen- 
 tary Counsel and Agents, most of the important cases 
 have been verified by reference to the short-hand 
 writers' notes. 
 
 Temple, 
 February, 1866. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The business before the Committees on Private Bills Having of late 
 years very greatly increased, and the decisions on points of prac- 
 tice and other questions being uncertain, and in some instances 
 absolutely contradictory, it was thought advisable, by the House 
 of Commons, at the beginning of last Session, to appoint a spe- 
 cial tribunal, now called the Court of Eeferees, whose province 
 should be to hold an inquiry preliminary to the hearing in Special 
 Committee, into all questions of locus standi of petitioners, engi- 
 neering details, efficiency of 'the proposed works, and sufficiency of 
 proposed estimates, on all of which points, their decision, unless 
 the House otherwise decidey is final. The object in this treatise 
 has been to examine, classify and digest these decisions. They will 
 be considered in the following order : — 
 
 I. Questions of Practice and Jurisdiction. 
 
 II. Of Locus Standi. 
 
 III. Of Engineering Details and Sufficiency of Estimates. 
 
 The reports furnished by the Law Times during last Session, will 
 be found at the end of this volume, arranged as nearly as possible 
 under the above heads ; the other cases referred to including the 
 Eeports of the Eeferees will also be found in the Appendix. 
 
vi. iNTBomrcTiosr. 
 
 It is impossible to foresee what new standing orders or rules it 
 may please the House of Commons and the Chairman of "Ways and 
 Means to frame, but most probably in deference to the Report of the 
 Committee which considered this question at the end of last Session, 
 various modifications will be introduced.* This Committee has 
 arrived at the conclusion, after hearing some of the most eminent 
 authorities, that on the whole, the Court of Referees has saved the 
 time of Members of the House, and possibly of the public, and 
 that questions of locus standi, and engineering, have been better 
 sifted there than they could have been in the hands of a Committee 
 selected by chance ; but whether there has been any saving of ex- 
 pense seems extremely problematical. The Committee very natu- 
 rally admit the objectidn which exists to a double inquiry, a system 
 which is contrary to all the accepted rules of jurisprudence. Indeed 
 it cannot be concealed that there is a great anomaly in withdrawing 
 a case from the notice bf a Court which has been occupied with 
 it perhaps many hours, and which with but little more labour 
 would be ripe for a general decision, for the purpose of placing 
 it before another Tribunal, probably not so competent to form a 
 correct judgment as the Court from which it has been withdrawn. 
 If indeed the committees were composed of gentlemen as well able 
 to deal with the technical and complicated questions which come 
 before them, as those who last Session formed the Court of Referees, 
 the matter would be simple, but that cannot be hoped for ; and as 
 the general impression appears to be against a fixed tribunal, it 
 seems probable that the present state of things will at any rate for 
 some time continue. 
 
 * Note.— Since going to press, the New Rules have been issued, and will be found 
 as altered and amended at the end of the first chapter. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 PRACTICE AND JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. 
 
 The constitution and jurisdiction of the Court of Referees are 
 provided for by the several Standing Orders which are briefly 
 enumerated hereafter. 
 
 It must however be remembered, that although a select com- 
 mittee on a bill may be taken to represent the irresponsible power 
 of the house, to deal with each case according to its peculiar 
 circumstances, yet the Court of Referees from its mixed character 
 cannot be said to be in this position, as many of its members are 
 not members of the House of Commons. Its powers, therefore, as 
 it seems to me, are limited to the authority given to it by the 
 several standing orders agreed to last Session. The power of framing 
 rules for its own guidance, and of those who practice before it has 
 not been accorded to members of the Court, this duty having been 
 delegated by parliament to the Chairman of Ways and Means. It 
 will be seen on perusal of the rules as framed and amended, that 
 there is no allusion as to the reception and rejection of evidence. 
 It must therefore be presumed, that the same rules of practice as to 
 evidence which obtain in the superior Courts, will govern this Court 
 in the reception of testimony. 
 
 Standing Order 91, provides for the constitution of one or Constitution 
 more Courts of Referees. The members of these Courts are to of Court - 
 consist of the Chairman of "Ways and Means, and three or more 
 persons to be appointed by Mr. Speaker. Such persons, however, 
 need not be Members of the House of Commons, but any one 
 specially adapted for such business. No Member of the House of 
 Commons may receive a salary. The Committee above alluded to 
 has however recommended, that for the future all the Referees 
 should receive a suitable remuneration iri consideration of the great 
 labour involved in transacting the business of the Court, and of the 
 time they must devote to its sittings. 
 
8 
 
 Matters to be The Court has power to inquire into the following matters as 
 by q Oourt. in to which petititoners against a bill pray to be heard in opposition, 
 S. 0. 93. 
 
 In Bills for 
 Construction 
 of Works. 
 
 In Waterwork . 
 Bills. 
 
 In Gas Bills. 
 
 I. The engineering details of the undertaking. 
 The efficiency of the works for the proposed object. 
 The sufficiency of the estimate for executing the same. 
 
 II. The nature and amount of existing and proposed source of 
 supply. 
 
 The pressure and proposed mode of service. 
 The pro-visions as to storage resevoirs, and the quality of ' 
 water. 
 
 III. The quality of the gas, the existing supply and price. 
 The pressure, the cost of production. 
 
 The mode of testing the purity and illuminating power of 
 gas, and the maximum price to be charged. 
 
 Very considerable dotibt has arisen as to whether the Referees 
 have power to inquire into the engineering in gas and water bills, 
 especially the former, indeed one of the Referees expressed a strong 
 opinion that they were precluded from so doing by the words to 
 the standing orders. It may be urged that pressure is strictly a 
 question of engineering ; but engineering details are confined to 
 bills of the second class, and gas belongs to the first. 
 
 The Chairman of "Ways and Means is directed to frame rules 
 for the practice and procedure of the Court ; these will be found 
 at the end of this chapter. The select Committee which sat to 
 consider whether the Court had proved beneficial or not, have 
 reported in favour of some further code being drawn up, and 
 also some alteration in the standing orders. In compliance with 
 that suggestion, the new Rules of February, 1866, have been 
 issued, somewhat altered and amended. 
 
 All questions as to the rights of petitioners to be heard on 
 their petitions are to be decided by the Referees ; and if no objec 
 tion be taken before them, the Committee on the bill will presume 
 that the promoters have waived any such which may exist. Havant, 
 Hambledon, and Droxford Railway Bill (R. p. 1). Should however 
 
9 
 
 any question of the above nature arise incidentally, when the bill has 
 been referred to the Select Committee, such Committee shall have 
 power to dispose of such question without further reference to 
 the Court. (S. 0. 90). 
 
 The following are the sole grounds which the standing orders Grounds on 
 direct shall entitle petitioners against a bill to be heard! tionera are to 
 
 When the petitioners allege that the proposed scheme is in be heard " 
 competition with an existing undertaking in which they are inte- 
 rested. Competing schemes, however, have not a locus standi of 
 right — the power of admitting or neglecting them is left to the 
 discretion of the Court. (S. 0. 130). 
 
 When a bill is promoted by an incorporated company, a share- 
 holder in the same will be entitled to be heard, if his interests, as 
 affected by the bill, are distinct from the interests of the com- 
 pany, but not otherwise. (S. 0. 131). 
 
 When a bill for constructing a railway contains provisions for 
 taking and using any part of the lands, railways, stations, or 
 accommodations of another company, or for running engines or 
 carriages upon or across the same, or for granting other facilities, 
 such company shall be entitled to be heard against the preamble 
 and clauses of such bill. (S. 0. 132). 
 
 When the petitioners are the municipal or other authority, 
 having the local management of the metropolis, or of any other 
 town, or the inhabitants of any town or district alleged to be 
 injuriously affected, the Court has power to admit them to be heard, 
 against any bill alleged to interfere with their interests. (S. 0. 133). 
 
 These are the only persons or bodies whom the standing orders 
 define as entitled to be heard on their petition against a bill. 
 When, however, the question of locus standi is hereafter discussed, 
 it will be seen that the Court has taken an enlarged view.of the dis- 
 cretion vested in it, and has in some instances admitted owners, 
 lessees, traders, freighters, and others to a general locus standi, 
 although their cases could not be said to come within the scope of 
 the standing orders. Some of these petitioners were granted a 
 hearing by what is termed the " Custom of Parliament," an elastic 
 discretionary power as yet undefined. 
 
 See North Staffordshire Railway Bill (R. p. 61), Roach River 
 Fishery Bill (R. p. 110), London and North Western Railway 
 (New Works), England and Scotland Bill (R. p. 63), &c, &c. 
 
10 
 
 Merits of Bill With consent of parties for and against a bill, the Court has 
 ™ y a Co^t? Clded power to inquire into the subject, matter, and merits of the pro- 
 posed bill, and after having so examined, should their report be 
 favourable, the same will — unless the House otherwise order — be 
 treated as an unopposed bill. (S. 0. 94). 
 Court to report The Referees are directed to report the result of their inquiries 
 CoS^nsf on m 7 matter before them to the House, with their reasons, and 
 their report is then to be referred to the Select Committee on the 
 bill, who are not to take any further evidence on any subject which 
 has been inquired into' by the referees. (S. 0. 95). If the Court 
 report that the engineering is inefficient for' the proposed object, 
 or the estimate for the proposed works insufficient, the bill cannot 
 be proceeded with, unless the House shall consider it expedient to 
 order otherwise. (S. 0. 96). 
 
 Should any -question arise in the course of the inquiry before 
 the Select Committee on any bill which the committee may deem 
 suitable to be decided by the Court of Referees, such question 
 may be formally referred by the committee in writing to the Court, 
 and their decision must then be returned, certified upon the ques- 
 tion submitted to it. 
 Allegations in In some cases, the Referees have refused to hear petitioners on 
 be specific. somewhat technical objections. They have decided not to hear 
 parties on any questions which are not distinctly and specifically 
 raised by the allegations in the petition. Lancashire, Yorkshire, 
 Midland, and Leeds Junction Bill (R. p. 3). In this case, the 
 petition was not prepared originally for the Court, but was re- 
 ferred to them by the Select Committee on the bill. The prayer 
 in the petition on which petitioners relied, stated, that " the works 
 proposed by their line (they being a competing line with the pro- 
 moters) were better defined (sic) than those of the promoters ;" 
 the question was raised whether the word was not a clerical error 
 for designed, but in the original petition produced it was proved to 
 be defined. The Referees decided that the engineering details had 
 not been sufficiently characterized in the petition and refused to 
 hear the petitioners. 
 
 It appears that the absolute words of the standing orders must 
 be used in cases where the local authorities or inhabitants of a 
 town who consider themselves injured, petition against a proposed 
 bill. A somewhat hard case was that of the Improvement Com- 
 
11 
 
 missioners under their common seal, and the inhabitants of the 
 town of Abergavenny, who petitioned against a proposed railway, 
 on the grounds that it would be inconvenient for traffic between 
 their town and the adjoining town of Monmouth; that it would 
 be inconvenient for traffic with certain extensive iron works, 
 adjacent ; and that certain turnpike roads by which the town was 
 approached would be seriously interfered with. Yet, under these 
 circumstances, the Referees decided- — without calling on the pro- 
 moters — that the petitioners had no locus standi, on the ground 
 that they had not specifically alleged in their petition that they 
 were, according to the words of the standing orders, injuriously 
 affected, or according to the diction of one of the Hon. Referees, 
 "physically injured or affected." Yale of Crickhowel Railway 
 Eastern Extension Bill (R. p. 108) ; on this point see also Severn 
 Junction Railway (R. p. 95). 
 
 The Court has determined that the following clause in a petition 
 does not sufficiently raise an issue as to engineering details to enable 
 them to hear the petitioners. "That the proposed railways are 
 ill contrived for the purposes they profess to effect; and your 
 petitioners complain of the said junctions with their railways, 
 because they are ill selected, and will interfere with the safe and 
 efficient traffic of the said railways." The wording of this clause 
 seems to raise a clear issue as to the engineering merits of 
 the proposed line, but in this as in some other cases, the Court 
 have deemed it right to adhere to the strict letter of the standing 
 order. Barnet, Hendon, Hampstead, and London Railway Bill 
 (R. p. 117). 
 
 The Court has uniformly declined to allow more than one One Counsel 
 counsel to appear before them in each case, and has adhered to heard, 
 this decision even where the whole bill was heard before them. 
 Forth Bridge Bill (R. p. 9). 
 
 Generally, the petitioners have the right to begin ; this practice Eight to begin, 
 as a rule saves time, as the petitioners can attack the plans and 
 estimates of their opponents where they please, but in some cases 
 they cannot possibly say what prices the hostile engineers may put 
 Upon certain works, and in such cases it may be advisable to require 
 the promoters to give some account of their estimates. 
 
 The Court has decided that they will hear cases in the 
 order in which the petitions have been deposited in the private 
 
12 
 
 bill office, subject to arrangements to suit the convenience of 
 counsel, Bute Docks, Cardiff, No. 1 Bill (B. p. 13). In tbis 
 instance tbey bave not followed tbe usual course adopted by tbe 
 Superior Courts, and it is possible that this decision may lead to 
 inconvenience, and ultimately be revised. 
 
 Where a navigable river is crossed by a viaduct, and the petition- 
 ers alleged an insufficiency of estimate, the Court decided that the 
 promoters must begin, on the ground that the petitioners could not 
 obtain sufficient information from the deposited plans to form a cor- 
 rect estimate of the cost of the proposed works ; but the Court 
 stated that their decision was exceptional, South Wales and Great 
 Western direct Bailway Bill (B. p. 8). 
 
 The precedent established, was however followed very shortly 
 after in a similar instance, where the promoters proposed to cross 
 the Forth by a viaduct, two miles in length, the only distinction 
 between the cases being that in the former, the promoters did not 
 appear to resist the application ; in the Forth cases they appeared 
 in opposition. Forth Bridge Bill (R. p. 9). When, however, the 
 petitioners applied for the promoters to begin, on the ground of the 
 extraordinary difficulties of the undertaking, the scheme being to 
 drive a tunnel 4278 yards under the river Mersey below high water 
 mark, with only 15 feet space from the rails to the crown of the 
 tunnel, and the petitioners alleged that the plans gave them no 
 satisfactory information how the works were to be constructed ; 
 the Court refused to entertain their application, and to depart from 
 the general rule of calling on the petitioners to begin, Birken- 
 head and Liverpool Bailway Bill (R. p. 12). This case is subse- 
 quent to and to some extent overules South Wales and Great 
 Western, and Forth Bridge cases. 
 Non-appear- Should a petitioner, whose locus standi has been objected to, 
 
 turner? * ' not a PP ear bi support of his locus, the Referees will decide against 
 him, and endorse his petition to that effect. Bolton Improve- 
 ments Bill (R. p. 3). 
 Allegations in As a general rule the allegations in each petition are taken 
 as true. to ^ e admitted as true. In a case very elaborately discussed the 
 
 / petitioners alleged that the promoters of a certain railway exten- 
 sion sought powers to run over and use the junctions and junction 
 points, connecting a third railway with the railway of the 
 petitioners. The promoters, inter alia, gave notice of objections to 
 
13 
 
 the locus standi of petitioners, on. the grounds that the bill did 
 not propose to take or interfere with any of their property. 
 When the case came on for argument, the promoters insisted that 
 the petitioners should give some evidence of their title to the 
 junction points in question. The Court held that they would 
 require prima facie evidence of the title of petitioners ; and also, 
 that they would not separate this objection from the others, but 
 would hear the whole case together. With great deference, this 
 decision seems to be at variance with the established principles 
 of law. The promoters come to the Court in a similar position to 
 the plaintiff in ejectment, and the rule in ejectment is, that the plain- 
 tiff must show abetter title than the defendant. Here, however, this 
 rule was reversed, and the quasi defendant in ejectment was called 
 on to establish his title, before the plaintiff entered upon his case. 
 
 If the principle were carried out in its integrity, it would be 
 necessary for every landowner petitioning against a bill to come 
 prepared with evidence of his title before he could be heard, 
 Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Extension Bill 
 (R. p. 65). 
 
 The Court will require the strictest proof of service of notice Service of 
 of objections to the locus standi of petitioners. Where the pro- jections. 
 moters of a bill proved that they had not only posted a letter to 
 the petitioner, containing notice of their objections to the locus 
 standi of his petition, but had also sent another to the parliamen- 
 tary agent who had deposited the petition ; the Referees decided 
 the due service of notice was not proved. (County. Antrim and 
 Belfast Boro'' Railway Bill (R. p. 10), The proof tendered in this 
 case would have been sufficient in the case of an objection by one 
 voter to the name of another being retained on the register; and 
 it is difficult to see, except proof of personal service, which in 
 many cases must be very inconvenient, what further evidence 
 could be required. 
 
 It was up to the case of the St. Clement Danes' Improvement Bill, Amendments 
 the uniform practice of the Court to refuse to take into considera- 
 tion amendments made in a»bill during the hearing of a petition ; 
 and when it was proposed to insert clauses, to insist that the they ' 
 could only deal with the bill as presented to them, Dee and 
 Mersey Junction Bill (R. p 88), the Court in that case stated, "we 
 can only deal with the bill as it comes before us." In Bute Docks 
 
14 
 
 Cardiff Bill, No. I. (R.p. 18). Itwas laid down by the Court that they 
 had no power to insert clauses. The same principle was admitted by 
 the Court in the Cambrian Eailways Additional Powers Bill(R.p.20); 
 and.Severn Junction Railway (R.p.95); and Connah's Quay Railway 
 • and Dock Bills (R.p.93). In the case of the Saint Clement Danes' 
 Improvement Bill (D.p.3), which was the last case argued before the 
 Court, a sort of compromise was effected, which makes it difficult 
 to understand, whether they intend to adhere to their former 
 decisions on this point or not. In this case they entered into the 
 question as to whether or not the .bill before them was to be 
 amended by the insertion of a certain .clause, required by the peti- 
 tioners^ subject which in the cases. above cited .they have distinctly 
 refused .to entertain. The Court eventually agreed to disallow -the 
 locus standi of petitioners on a personal guarantee being given by 
 the counsel for the promoters, that the clause in question should be 
 inserted. 
 Petitioners It has generally been considered, that petitioners who appear 
 
 peared on on clauses in the House of Lords, are thereby debarred from ap- 
 House of" pearing against the preamble of the bill when it comes on in the 
 Lords. Commons. By attempting to insert fresh clauses or modify existing 
 
 ones, they are -taken to assent to the preamble of the .bill. The Court 
 affirmed this principle in the Roach River Fishery Bill (R.p. 110) 
 when they refuged to hear -those of , the petitioners who had appeared 
 on clauses before a, committee pf the House of Lords. 
 Jurisdiction, A Bill proposed to .use a certain weir and feeder, and to legalize 
 
 S O 93 . . . . 
 
 them in Ijheir present condition. A dock had been previously con- 
 structed wilhout Parliamentary sanction, and was supplied with 
 wa,ter by ,this feeder. This feeder and the weir forming it, had been 
 constructed under the powers of an Act of Parliament, but not in 
 accordance with, nor in the manner prescribed by that Act. The 
 promoters also asked for powers to furnish the ships in dock with 
 water from the feeder. The Court after consultation held, that this 
 bill came within the scope of S. 0. 93, and that consequently they 
 .had power to inquire into the quality #c, of the water, Bute 
 D,ock, Cardiff No. 2 Bill (R. p. 16). 
 
 Postponement If the examiners of petitions have reported that the promoters 
 of considera- . ... . ' r ' • ■ , 
 
 tion of Locus ot a bill, who are also petitioners agamt another scheme, have not 
 
 complied with the standing orders, they will not be entitled to.be 
 
 heard while their case is under the consideration of the Select 
 
15 
 
 Committee on standing orders, as the fact of granting them a locus 
 standi would be to anticipate the decision of that committee, 
 London and South Western Railway (New Lines in Surrey) Bill 
 (R.p. 114). 
 
 "Where also the Board of Trade had considered it necessary to 
 require the promoters of a bill to provide additional works, and 
 they appeared as petitioners against another bill, and it appeared 
 that they had not complied with the suggestions of the Board of 
 Trade ; the Court declined to consider the question of their locus 
 standi until the recommendations of the Board of Trade had been 
 carried out. Monmouth, Forest of Dean, and Standish Junction 
 Railway Bill (R.p. 11). 
 
 In the Bute Docks, Cardiff, No. 1 and 2 Bills (R.p. 14), a Two Bills hay- 
 petitioner against one bill in maintaining his right to be heard pro- tofame under- 
 posed to refer to the other. Both bills had reference to the same u3sh ^- 
 undertaking, and it was provided that should both become law, then 
 certain provisions of the one should be construed to apply to both. 
 The Court decided that the petitioner had a right to refer to the 
 second bill. 
 
 In most cases the Court has considered it had no power to Limits f de- 
 hear petitioners where their property was not situate within the™* 1011, 
 limits of deviation, and have refused locus standi to a City Company 
 when proposed Railway buildings were in such close proximity, as 
 to interfere with certain ancient lights of their hall South Eastern 
 Railway (R.p.78). There are however certain exceptional cases as 
 when danger may be apprehended not only to the petitioners them- 
 selves, but also the working of the proposed Railway, by the close 
 proximity of powder mills, where the Court has decided that it had 
 jurisdiction to hear petitioners, although they did not actually, come 
 within the scope of the standing order. The loctm of petitioners -in 
 this case was not disputed by the promoters. The grievance com- 
 plained of was the proximity of dhe line, and 'the petitioners urged 
 this to be a point of engineering details. The argument of .the pro- 
 promoters was, that it was not competent for the Gouast to hear 
 petitioners on the question of engineering details, and as -no pro- 
 perty of theirs was taken, there were no other grounds on which 
 they could be granted a locus standi. Caledonian (Railway, Balerfcp" 
 and Penicuick Branches (R. p. 120). 
 
Rules for the Practice and Procedure of the Referees on 
 ■Private Rules, framed by the Chairman of Ways and 
 Means, S. 0. 92 to 97 (February 14th, 1866). 
 
 The Alterations and New Rules are in Italics. 
 
 Applications \ t Parties petitioning against Private Bills, in respect of any 
 
 before of the following matters, and who desire to be heard in opposition 
 
 1 vp f p rp p o 
 
 by their counsel or agents thereon, viz. — 
 
 In the case of bills m£ Am omml olwat i j for authorizing, the 
 construction of works, the engineering details of the 
 undertaking, the efficiency of the works for the pro- 
 posed object, and the sufficiency^of the estimates for 
 executing the same. 
 
 In the case of waterworks bills, the nature and amount of 
 the existing and proposed sources of supply, the pressure 
 and proposed mode of service, the quality of the water 
 in - each • case, and the provisions as to storage reser- 
 voirs. 
 
 In the case of gas bills, the quality of the gas, existing 
 supply and its price, the amount of pressure, the cost 
 of production, the modes of testing the purity and 
 illuminating power of the gas, and the proposed maxi- 
 mum price to be charged. 
 
 Shall indorse upon their petitions, previously to depositing the 
 
 same in the Private Bill Office, a statement of the grounds (being 
 
 some, one, or more of the grounds specified above) on which 
 
 they desire to be so heard; but it shall be competent to the 
 
 Referees, if satisfied that the omission to make such indorsement 
 
 in any case occurred through inadvertence or unavoidable cause, to 
 
 admit the petitioners to be heard before them upon such conditions 
 
 ■as they may think fit. 
 
 Applications 2. Parties who have indorsed their petitions in manner 
 
 fore Referees above mentioned, may at any time withdraw their opposition to a 
 
 drawn? W1 * h " kill} so ^ ar as re l ates to tne grounds specified in such indorsement, 
 
 by depositing a requisition to that effect in the Private Bill Office. 
 
17 
 
 3. The clerk to the Referees shall give not less than two clear Notice of h ear- 
 days' notice to the clerks in the Private Bill Office, of the day on t^ugh^ri!" 
 which the case of each bill is appointed to be taken by the Eeferees. vateBillOffice. 
 
 4. The cases shall be heard in such order as the Chairman of Order in which 
 "Ways and Means shall appoint, and according to a list prepared taken. 
 under his direction, andr kept in the office of the clerk to the 
 Referees. 
 
 5. When a bill is called on for consideration, the agents for the Certificate of 
 petitioners against the same shall be required, to produce a ceftifi- be produced, 
 cate of appearance from the Private Bill Office, in which shall be 
 
 stated the names of the petitioners,, their; counsel and, agents. 
 
 6. The sittings of the Referees shall commence at 11 o'clock Hours of Meet- 
 in the forenoon, or at such "other , hour as may have been specially 
 
 fixed by adjournment at a.preyious sitting. , 
 
 .., 7. All questions before the Referees shall be .decide^ by a M °de of Vot- 
 
 majority of voices* including the voice of the chairman; and,,when- Referees. 
 
 ever the voices are equal, the chairman shall have a; second or, 
 
 easting vote. > . -: ,...,., ; 
 
 8. The Promoters of any PviMt&PMl} mho intend to object to, the, Notice of Ob- 
 .. " jection to 
 Hght 'of Petitioners to oelheard- against the same, shall 'give notice of Loc®s Standi: 
 
 meh intention,. and of tne, grounds of their, objection, to ike, Clerk to - u 
 
 the Eeferees, mnd to the Agents for the Petitumers,, within. Seven clear. 
 
 days after such Petition has been deposited in. the Private Bill Office ; 
 
 fait H shall be competent to the Referees to allow such notices to be given, 
 
 under special cirmmstcmces, although, the. time above limited may have 
 
 eapired. 
 
 9. Parties who have given such, notice . as ahove, may, at any 
 time withdraw thee same; by giving notice of withdrawal in writing 
 to the clerk of the Referees. 
 
 10. Not less than one deartday's notice shall be given by the 
 clerk to the Referees to. the clerks in the Private Bill Office, of the 
 days on which the objections to the right of petitioners to be heard 
 will be severally taken into consideration by the Referees. 
 
18 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 [LOCUS STANDI.] 
 
 Competition — Amalgamations— User — Municipal Bodies — Traders; 
 Freighters, &c. 
 
 It may be doubted whether the standing orders define or limit the 
 powers of the court to grant locus standi to petitioners. If they 
 define their powers, then serious objections may be taken to many 
 of their decisions, as exceeding their authority. If on the other 
 hand, they are intended to limit in particular instances a general 
 or sort of common law practice of Parliament, it will not be 
 difficult to find instances where parties whose interests were seriously " 
 affected by a bill, have been denied the opportunity of asserting 
 their grievances before a committee. 
 Practice an- Twenty years ago, when the business before committees induced 
 formation of by the formation of railways and other works first became of any 
 Court - considerable magnitude, it was absolutely necessary for petitioners" 
 
 to show that their interests were directly or specifically affected by 
 a proposed scheme, to enable them to have a locus standi. The 
 committee decided on the merits of each case, whether or not the peti- 
 tioners had a sufficient interest to entitle them to be heard. In this 
 state of procedure, as may well be imagined with no authentic 
 precedents to follow, and with each committee forming its own 
 judgment, without considering themselves bound to what transpired 
 in an adjoining court, the decisions were various and contradictory. 
 It was held generally at that period, that competition, the most 
 legitimate of all present oppositions, did not confer a locus standi. 
 When a railway company desired to oppose a rival scheme, the 
 custom, which was in fact an evasion, was to enlist the name of some 
 landowner whose property was taken by the proposed line, and under 
 his shelter to find the funds for opposing the rival scheme. It was 
 not however till 1861, that owners of land required for railways, 
 &c, were formally admitted to a locus standi (Resolution General 
 Committee, 1861), and to this day there is no standing order which 
 
19 
 
 defines their right to be heard against a proposal to take their 
 property. In 1852, a standing order was agreed to by the House 
 of Commons, by which committees were empowered to allow peti- 
 tioners to be heard on the ground of competition, but left it 
 generally to their discretion to admit them or not. 
 
 When two railway companies have proposed an amalgamation, 
 parties seeking to oppose such amalgamation have been refused 
 or accorded a locus, in proportion as their interests seemed to the 
 different committees to be affected by such amalgamation. The 
 measure of such interest was never quite accurately defined, the 
 question depending on the particular bias of each individual com- 
 mittee. 
 
 It has also generally been the custom of committees not to 
 hear shareholders, being a minority dissenting from the proposal 
 of a corporate body of which they are members, to promote some 
 particular bill ; and by a standing order in 1853, the house distinctly 
 affirmed the principle which had guided the committees, viz. — that 
 shareholders being members of a corporate body promoting a bill, 
 shall not be heard against such bill, unless their interests as affected 
 thereby are distinct from the general interests of such company. 
 
 No doubt the Court of Referees have not considered them- 
 selves bound to respect the isolated decisions of former committees, 
 but I have thought it convenient merely to indicate briefly as 
 above, what has been the general course pursued with regard to 
 cases of locus standi by Select Committees, up to the years 1865. 
 In Mr. May's " Parliamentary Practice," the admirable chapter on 
 this subject fully explains this question, and gives most of the 
 important decisions. 
 
 Standing order 19, directs certain notices to be given to alls. 0. 19. 
 owners, occupiers, &c, whose property is within the limits of 
 deviation ; and like notices are to be given to owners, lessees, 
 occupiers, &c, of any works whatever, which require and use the 
 water from any stream, at a distance of twenty miles below the 
 point where it is proposed by any bill to abstract water from such 
 stream (S. 0. 23). 
 
 Owners, &c, of property within 300 yards of any proposed new 
 burialtground, or gas works, are also to receive notice (S. O. 24). 
 The like notices are to be given to the owners or reputed owners, 
 or lessees, for a life or lives, or for a term of twenty years, of any 
 
2& 
 
 crown church or corporate property, or any property held in trust 
 for charitable purposes (S. 0. 25). 
 
 And when by a bill it is proposed to alter any repeal or express- ' 
 statutary provision for the protection of any owner or lessee, or 
 occupier of property, or for the protection or benefit of pubhU 
 trustees or commissioners, corporation or person specially mentioned 
 in such provision (with the exception of the cases which, with 
 the consent of such parties, are required to be proved before the 
 Committee on the bill, S. 0. 172). Notice in writing of the bill, 
 and of the intention to alter or repeal such provision, must be 
 served on such owners, lessees, trustees, commissioners, corporation 
 or person (S. 0. 26).. 
 
 Although not provided by any standing order, it may be pre- 
 sumed that a locus standi is to be granted to any of the above 
 persons or bodies entitled to notice as above. 
 
 It may be fairly assumed, that parties who are prepared to incur 
 the trouble and expense of petitioning Parliament against a bill, 
 have at any rate such an interest in being heard, as should prima 
 facie gain them a locus standi ; and it is contrary to the spirit of our 
 lavfs, that any person or persons, who conceive that they will suffer 
 injury to their property, should not at any rate be in a position to 
 state their grievances before the tribunal, which has the power of 
 enabling other persons to commit acts, which in the opinion of the 
 petitioners may injuriously affect such property. In some in- 
 stances, which will be hereafter considered, it is difficult to com- 
 prehend the grounds on Which a locus was refused to certain 
 petitioners, and admitted to others ; but it is probable, that a 
 considerable change may take place in the ensuing Session, in 
 New Act as to consequence of the Act passed with regard to the costs payable 
 by promoters to petitioners in proceedings before Select Committees. 
 By that Act, promoters are liable to pay the costs of the petitioners 
 against any bill whereof the preambles shall have been decided by 
 the Committee to be not proved, or in which any provision has 
 been inserted, or struck out, or altered for the protection of' any 
 petitioner; and further, in which the committee unanimously 
 report, that such petitioners have been' unreasonably or vexatiously 
 subjected to expense in defending their rights, proposed to be 
 interfered with by such bill. (28 Vic. cap. 27.) If however, on 
 the other hand, the committee shall decide that the preamble'' of 
 
21 
 
 the bill is proved, and unanimously report that the promoters 
 
 have vexatiously been subjected to expense by the petitioners 
 
 against it, then the promoters shall be entitled to receive from 
 
 the petitioners such costs as the committee shall think fit. 
 
 A landowner whose land is proposed to be taken by any bill, Exemption of 
 
 * _ . . Landowners, 
 
 and who bona fide at his own sole risk and charge opposes a bill, is 
 
 specially exempted from the payment of costs. A provision 
 which clearly confirms the custom of granting locus standi to a 
 landowner, whose property is affected in all cases. 
 
 . By this Act also, promoters of a bill are defined to be in the Promoters, 
 case where a bill is not promoted by a company already incor- 
 porated, " All persons whose names shall appear in such bill as 
 promoting the same." As this Act imposes a penalty on all 
 vexatious oppositions, and a like penalty where promoters unreason- 
 ably refuse to give proper protection to persons whose pro- 
 perty or rights are affected, it. is probable that a more liberal spirit 
 may animate the Court in granting a locus to parties who deem 
 themselves aggrieved, and who are prepared to run the risk of such 
 penalty in asserting their grievances. 
 
 COMPETITION. 
 
 The standing order on this point is as follows : — 
 
 " It shall be competent to the Eeferees on private bills to admit S.O. 130. 
 u petitioners to be heard upon their petitions against a private bill, on 
 " the ground of competition, if they shall think fit." 
 
 The question, therefore, is left entirely to the discretion of the 
 Court, as to what they consider amounts to competition. I propose 
 briefly to examine the different cases in which they have decided 
 for or against petitioners on this ground. 
 
 The Court has decided to grant a locus to petitioners under the Locus Standi 
 following circumstances : — The London, Chatham and Dover Rail- 
 way, had a through route from the Metropolis to Sheerness, situate 
 on the banks of the Medway ; part of this route was formed by a 
 line leased to them in perpetuity ; they petitioned against the scheme 
 of promoters, who proposed to extend their line from London to a 
 point on the other side of the river opposite to Sheerness, and to 
 build a landing place in the river. The distance between the 
 terminus of promoters line and the town, was two miles and a-half, 
 
22 
 
 and there was no proposal for a bridge or other permanent means 
 of crossing the river ; the promoters asserted, that their line was a 
 purely local one, and that they had neither the will nor the power 
 to compete with the petitioners. The Court held that the latter had 
 a locus standi. 
 
 This decision is extremely liberal, and admits parties where the 
 competition is apparently remote, as access to the town in question 
 was virtually barred by a tidal river more than two miles broad. 
 North Kent Eailway Bill (R. p. 31). 
 
 In the following case also, a locus standi was allowed to an existing 
 railway company, which proposed to make a chain of lines from their 
 existing system to the town of Cardiff, and appeared as petitioners 
 against the Llantrissant and Taff Yale Junction Bill, a rival 
 scheme which sought to couple various other railways already 
 in existence, with another line proposed to be constructed by 
 an independent company, and so to run a competing route to 
 Cardiff. Running power was sought in the bill over the whole 
 of these lines, and their course would be for some distance 
 parallel to that of petitioners ; as regarded a portion of the scheme, 
 the petitioners had an undoubted locus standi, in consequence of its , 
 interference with their existing line. The whole system when 
 complete, in the hands of hostile companies, was capable of being 
 formed into a competing line with the proposed railway of peti- 
 tioners to the town of Cardiff. Llantrissant and Taff Yale Junc- 
 tion Railway Bill (R. p. 24). 
 
 The following case also was virtually one of competition, and 
 the Court decided to grant the petitioners, the Penarth Dock 
 Company, a locus standi against the bill. Under t the powers of 
 certain Acts of Parliament the petitioners had constructed a dock 
 at the mouth of the river Taff, at a short distance from the town 
 of Cardiff, for the purpose of facilitating the shipments of mineral 
 traffic of their district ; this dock they had afterwards leased under 
 Parliamentary powers to a railway company, reserving certain 
 reversionary interests. The promoters, who were trustees of the 
 docks of the town of Cardiff, sought powers to construct large 
 additional docks. The petitioners were held to have sufficient 
 interest in the railway company, though they had leased their 
 property to it, to give them a locus standi on the ground of com- 
 petition. Bute Docks, Cardiff, No. 1 Bill (R. p. 29). On the other 
 
23 
 
 hand, see the South Lancashire Eailway and Dock Bill (D. p. 6), 
 in which case the Widnes traders were refused a hearing. 
 
 The petitioners were not heard in the following cases, on the %?^ ^™ di 
 ground, as far as can be ascertained, that the Court considered the 
 competing interests of the petitioners too remote. 
 
 The Ely Valley Eailway had been leased to the petitioners, 
 the Great Western Eailway Company, for 999 years ; and by the 
 Act constituting the Ely Valley Extension Eailway, facility clauses 
 were introduced for the proper exchange transmission and pro- 
 tection of the traffic between them and the Ely Valley Eailways. 
 The scheme of the promoters was to amalgamate the Ely Valley 
 Extension with a fourth Eailway, the Ogmore Valley Eailway 
 Company, and to this the petitioners sought to object, on the 
 ground that they were lessees of a railway which had rights 
 granted it by Parliament, over one of the railways proposed to 
 be amalgamated, and as such ought to be heard on the ground of 
 completion. This, decision seems to establish the principle, that 
 where two railways have facility clauses for the mutual transaction 
 of traffic, this of itself will not be sufficient to give them a locus 
 standi, should either of them be interfered with in a manner which 
 the other may deem prejudicial to its interests. Ogmore Valley 
 and Ely Valley Extension Eailway Bill, Petition of Great 
 Western (E. p. 22). 
 
 The Cambrian Eailway, Aberystwith and Welsh Coast Eailway 
 Amalgamation Bill (E. p. 45), was a decision to the like effect, and 
 it may generally be laid down, that the Court will not grant a locus 
 standi to a railway which petitions against an amalgamation bill, 
 on the ground that it has granted or enjoys r unnin g powers, or 
 other facilities over the lines of railway of either of the companies 
 proposing to amalgamate. 
 
 Very nearly the same point is decided in the Havant, Hamble- 
 don and Droxford Eailway (E. p. 1). 
 
 The Court disallowed the locus standi of petitioners, who 
 alleged that the promoters of an amalgamation would compete 
 with them under these circumstances. The petitioners' railway 
 leads from the town of Brecon, by a junction with the Swansea 
 Valley Eailway, which is in process of formation, to the port 
 of Swansea. They further stated, that when their railway was 
 made, they confidently relied on the Hereford, Hay, and 
 
24 
 
 Brecon Railway Company's line being open and! accessible to 
 them. 
 
 The promoters, viz.--the Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Railway, 
 and the Hereford, Hay, and Brecon Railways, sought an amalga- 
 mation, which the' petitioners asserted would have the effect of 
 diverting traffic from their railway, by a circuitous route to Merthyr, 
 and thence to the port of Swansea, to the detriment of the peti- 
 tioners' property and the injury of public. 
 
 The traffic coming through Merthyr to Swansea, could be trans- 
 mitted by a line which was acknowledged to be a competing line 
 with the' petitioners ; and comparing this case with the Llantissant 
 and Taff Vale (ante), when the principle was conceded that if 
 a railway has a locus against one part of a competing 1 scheme, it 
 has a locus agaikst all; it is somewhat difficult to reconcile them, 
 Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Amalgamation Bill (R„ p. 33). 
 The petition of ' the Mid "Wales Railway against the same hill" 
 will be found under the head of Amalgamation. 
 Maintenance A novel case, but which may fairly be classed under the head 
 
 by iSiway^ of competition) is that of the Aberystwith and "Welsh Coast Rail- 
 Companies. wa y Bfli ? Steamboats (R. p. 98). Petition of the Steamship Owners*. 
 Asssociations of London. Parliament has required^ that when a 
 railway considers it necessary to its interests to maintain steams 
 boats as essential to develop its traffic, it shall only do so wittf 
 the sanction of the House. The promoters made an application 
 of this nature, and sought to obtain powers to establish a fine 
 of steamers between the coast of "Wales and Ireland. The 
 petitioners, a body of shipowners in London, claimed to be heard 
 against the bill, and certainly at first sight it would appear that 
 their interests were a little remote, but as in fact, unless they were 
 heard, the bill would be unopposed, they were admitted to a locus 
 standi. The petitioners did . not allege that they had vessels 
 plying to any of the ports mentioned in the petition, nor did theyi 
 mention any specific injury that they would receive, further than 
 that they might be competed with injuriously. 
 
25 
 
 Amalgamation of Railways — Usee, esc., of Lands, Rails, 
 Stations, &c, of another Company, S. 0, 132. 
 
 There is no definition in the standing order of the parties who 
 are entitled to be heard against an amalgamation hill ; previous to 
 the appointment of the Court, the decisions appear to have been 
 entirely dependent on the particular facts of each case, and the 
 views the committee selected to decide entertained as to the degree 
 the interests of the opposing railways were affected. 
 
 Some cases of importance have been decided by the Court 
 on this question, one of them The Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil 
 Junction Bill, under the head of competition has been already 
 alluded to. The standing order, with regard to the admission 
 of railway companies, whose lands, &c, are proposed to be taken, 
 is as follows :- — 
 
 " "Where a railway bill contains provisions for taWhg or using any S,0. 132, 
 " part of the lands, railway, stations, or accommodations of another com- 
 " pany, or for running engines or carriages upon or across the same, or for 
 "granting other facilities, such company shall- be entitled to be heard 
 " upon their petition, against the preamble and .clauses of such bill." 
 
 ;, In the case of The Brecon ahd Myrthyr Tydfil Junction, Locus Standi 
 Railway Amalgamation- Bill, petition of the Neath and Brecon a owe " 
 Railway, it will be remembered that a locus standi was refused the 
 petitioners, who alleged that the ejfect. of this amalgamation would 
 be -to place it in the power of the lines thus united, to send the 
 traffic coming from the North, through Brecon, to the port of 
 Swansea by a circuitious route, instead of over their direct line to 
 the port of Swansea ; they also alleged that they had always con- 
 fidently expected a mutual interchange. of traffic, &c, between their 
 railways and the Hereford and! Brecon Railways. The other petition 
 against this bill, was that of the Mid "Wales Railway (R. p. 47) : 
 the distinction in the position of the latter petitioners being, that 
 the Mid "Wales Railway had,j under an agreement, entered into 
 between them and. the, .Bzeoon and Merthyr Tydfil, one of the 
 amalgamating lines, mutual running powers over their respective 
 systems ; the intention of such agreement being, as alleged, that the 
 traffic coming from Merthyr Tydfil should be forwarded to the 
 manufacturing . districts of the North over the petitioners railway. 
 Tha Herefoiid and Brecon Railway, which was another outlet to 
 
26 
 
 the North, had abandoned part of their project, and. instead of 
 continuing their line to Brecon, had formed a junction -with the 
 petitioners line at or near Glasbury. The effect of amalgamating 
 the Brecon and. Merthyr Tydfil and Hereford and Brecon lines, 
 ■would be to enable them to send their traffic North over the Here- 
 ford and Brecon lines, and it would manifestly be their interest to 
 do so ; while, at the same time, the running powers of the Brecon 
 and Merthyr Tydfil Railway would enable them to use a portion 
 of the petitioners railway for the very purpose of diverting traffic 
 from it. 
 
 The promoters urged, that their running powers over the pe- 
 titioners railways were so general, that they could, if they -choose, 
 make use of the petitioners line in a manner injurious to their 
 interests, without the proposed amalgamation ; and that, therefore, 
 it mattered little to the petitioners, whether the amalgamation 
 took place or not. The Court allowed the locus standi of peti- 
 tioners. 
 
 There is no very distinct feature which separates this case 
 from that of the petition of the Neath and Brecon Company, 
 with the exception that the latter had no arrangement for 
 running powers over either of the proposed amalgamating lines. 
 Both petitioners apprehended that traffic would be diverted from 
 their lines by means of the amalgamation, and that it would 
 be the direct interest of the amalgamated lines so to divert 
 such traffic. But neither of these petitioners come within the 
 provisions of S. 0. 132 ; nor could the Mid "Wales petition 
 be admitted on the ground of competition. There certainly 
 are precedents where running powers are proposed to be taken 
 by a bill, that the line proposed to be so affected should have 
 a locus. standi. (Resolution of General Committee, 1861); (Garston 
 and Liverpool Railway Bill, 1861) ; but in this instance, the running 
 powers had been accorded, and the proposal was to use them in- 
 juriously to the petitioners. The decision must be classed under the 
 discretionary powers, claimed by the Court, to admit parties whom 
 they think aggrieved. 
 Locus Standi One of the most remarkable decisions during the session, was 
 
 in the case of Bill for the Amalgamation of theNorth British and 
 Edinburgh and Glasgow Railways, againstwhich the Great Northern 
 Railway petitioned. It is placed here under the head of AmalgamV 
 
27 
 
 tion, but the question depended entirely on whether the Great 
 Northern Company could be considered as a competing line, by 
 forming part of the eastern route to the North of Scotland, in 
 opposition to the London and North "Western and Caledonian 
 Railways, forming the western route. The lines forming the east 
 and west route to the North of Scotland, had some years before 
 entered into an arrangement, by which the profits derivable from 
 carrying the traffic from the North of Scotland were to be divided 
 equally between them. This agreement will terminate on 1st 
 January, 1870. Three years after that arrangement was made, 
 the North British, then an entirely east coast line, got an 
 extension from Hawick to Carlisle, giving it thereby access 
 to, and partly the command of, the west coast traffic. The 
 Caledonian Line had in a previous session presented a bill for their 
 amalgamation with the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway ; this was 
 rejected, principally on the ground that it would place the power 
 of diverting traffic in the hands of the Caledonian Railway, and 
 prevent wholesome competition ; and also because the Edinburgh 
 and Glasgow was considered as part of the east coast route. The 
 Great Northern Railway enjoyed running powers to York, and 
 have since obtained the same over the North Eastern and North 
 British, to Edinburgh, and in a proposed amalgamation between 
 the Caledonian and Scottish Central, they were to have running 
 powers from Larbert Junction to Perth. Larbert Junction is the 
 key to the whole traffic of the North of Scotland. All traffic to 
 and from the North must come through that Junction, except 
 what goes over the Forth ferry. 
 
 The position of the North British, independently of the amal- 
 gamation, enabled them to send what part of their traffic they 
 pleased by their line to Carlisle via Hawick, which gives them 
 a much longer lead ; but by the proposed amalgamation, the whole 
 unconsigned traffic coming from the North would be practically in 
 their hands, and it would of course be to their interest to divert it 
 into the channel most profitable to themselves. The promoters 
 argued, that their extension to Hawick had changed the position 
 of affairs since the agreement referred to, and that the Great 
 Northern, being at such a distance, could have no such interest as 
 would enable them to be heard ; and in addition, that the amalga- 
 mation proposed would in fact place them in no worse condition 
 
28 
 
 than they were at present. The Court decided against the locut 
 standi of the petitioners. North British and Edinburgh and Glas- 
 gow Railway Companies Bill (R. p. 55.) 
 
 . The Court has, without doubt, very great discretionary 
 powers, but the tendency should be to admit petitioners 
 to be heard against a bill, who strongly allege themselves 
 to be aggrieved. It is almost impossible to conceive a stronger 
 case than the one made out by these petitioners. The very 
 same amalgamation had been attempted by the Caledonian, 
 representing the west coast route, whp sought thereby to 
 gain command of the traffic, and this amalgamation was, pro- 
 bably with reason, rejected ; but when the attempt is made by the 
 North British Railway, having the power from its commanding 
 position to divert the flow of traffic east or west, as it pleases, and 
 when its interests directly are to send it by the west coast route, 
 the Court refuse to hear the line most interested against such diver- 
 sion. 
 
 The argument that the Great Northern are at too great a dis- 
 tance to be affected, is futile, that railway being the last link to 
 the Metropolis in the east coast system, and actually having running 
 powers over the most distant portion, must of course suffer or 
 benefit as the traffic from the north is forwarded or diverted over 
 that system. By the arrangement between the east and west coast 
 systems, the profit was to be divided equally between the two 
 routes, but upon the concluding of that agreement in 1870, the 
 effect of this amalgamation would be to put the North of Scotland 
 traffic entirely in the hands of a company, whose interest would be 
 to divert it in the direction in which they had longest lead. 
 
 Petition of A single trader, or firm of traders, as they represent their own 
 
 single Trader. . , . ' 
 
 particular interests, and not those of a class, will not be heard 
 
 against an amalgamation bill. Caledonian and Scottish Central 
 
 Bill (R. p. 51.) In that case, however, there was another objection 
 
 to the locus standi of the petitioner, that they had entered into an 
 
 agreement, binding themselves not to oppose. The objection on 
 
 the ground of their being sole traders was [ taken first, but the 
 
 Court refused to hear it as a preliminary objection, consequently 
 
 the question is still left a little in-doubt, as the decision did not 
 
 specify on which of the two objections the locus standi was refused. 
 
 See also Ely and Ogmore Valleys Junction Railway Bill (R. p. 101), 
 
.29 
 
 petition of Brogden & Sons. On- the other hand see Swansea Canal 
 Transfer Bill (R. p. 35). 
 
 Neither user of station, nor ahsolute use and enjoyment of a line 
 will give a locus standi to petitioners. Two very marked cases were 
 decided on this point, in neither of which did the court allow a loans 
 standi. 
 
 By an agreement entered into between the Brighton Company 
 and the Chatham and Dover, and sanctioned by Act of Parliament, 
 the Brighton Company undertook to erect a station at Knight's HilL User, of 
 Of this station both railways were to have joint user. The whole 
 cost of construction was to be borne by the Brighton Railway, but 
 the Chatham' and Dover Railway paid interest - on the outlay in- 
 curred in making the station, calculated on the, amount of traffic 
 .they carried from it. The Chatham, and Dover Railway were to 
 make a line from a station belonging to them at-B[exne.Hill t^ 
 Knight's Hill, for the purpose of generally facilitating the traffic, 
 the cost of which line was to be borne exclusively by them. A 
 third railway, proposed to take running powers over the Brighton 
 line, and to enter and use the Knight's Hill Station; The Chat- 
 ham and Dover Railway wished to be heard before the Select Com- 
 mittee, in order to protect the rights accorded to them by previous 
 legislation. The Court decided that they had no locus- standi. 
 Tooting, Merton and Wimbledon Extension Railway Bill (R, p. 40). 
 The question decided in the other case, viz^ — as to whether 
 user of a line by a railway company, give a locus standi to the 
 company enjoying that right, had never been decided before ; the 
 circumstances of the case were peculiar ; four railways agreed to 
 subscribe the capital for the "West London Extension Railway-; 
 the several companies' subscribing, were each represented by 
 Directors at the Board of the West London Extension Railway. 
 It did not appear whether the four companies were the only share- 
 holders in the line or not. There was an arrangement between 
 the 'companies using the West London Extension Railway, as 
 to the conducting of the local traffic, but, with regard to the 
 through traffic, each company was to be at liberty to use the 
 railway as if it was their own- absolutely, and without regard 
 td the West London Extension Railway. The separate user 
 of the railway was extended so far that the four several com- 
 panies had each their 1 own ticket and check clerks, as if the line 
 
30 
 
 had exclusively belonged to them. The bill proposed to admit tt 
 fifth railway, with equal rights of user to the four now enjoying 
 it. The "West London Extension Railway petitioned against the 
 bill, and also two of the companies having the rights of user over 
 it. The locus standi of the two latter were objected to : first on 
 the ground that they were shareholders in the West London 
 Extension Railway, and as such, not entitled to be heard ; and 
 seoondly, that they owned no portion of the line, stations, or ac- 
 commodation of the West London Extension Railway, and had only 
 rights of user over its line. The first of these objections is an 
 extension of the principle of S. 0. 131, and to some extent an 
 inversion of it. It is laid down in that order that — 
 
 S.0. 181. " When a bill is promoted by an incorporated company, share- 
 
 holders of such company shall not be entitled to be heard before the 
 committee against such bill, unless their interests, as affeoted thereby, 
 shall be distinct from the general interests of such Company." 
 
 But the objection was to the effect, that where a railway has peti- 
 tioned against a bill, no shareholder, however much his interests 
 are affected by the same — even should they be distinct from the 
 interests of the company — shall be heard against such bill. The 
 principle seems to have been admitted, that the case came within 
 the scope of S. 0. 131 ; and it remained to be proved, whether 
 the two companies had such a distinct interest, separate from the 
 West London Extension as would take them out of its terms. 
 They proved an entirely absolute user, independent of the West 
 London Extension Railway. They proved that the West London 
 Extension Railway did not work the line, nor did any one but the 
 four railways ; and some words in the 29th- clause of the bill dis- 
 tinguished them and their interests from the West London Exten-- 
 sion Railway. The words were, " And other companies or persons 
 owning or working the railway," are to be compelled to enter 
 into certain arrangements with the promoters. It is clear, there- 
 fore, that the railway seeking to use the line contemplated, that 
 each of the four companies had an interest separate from the 
 West London Extension Railway. And although they might have 
 representatives at the board of that railway, it does not at all follow 
 that their separate interests as distinot from their interest in the 
 West London Extension Railway, might not have been affected by 
 
31 
 
 the addition of another railway with equal powers of user. The 
 second objection was certainly fatal under S. 0. 132. And though 
 I am not prepared to go so far as to say the decision of the Court is 
 an erroneous one, yet it must be conceded that the petitioners came 
 under the category of parties named by the Court (in the Roach 
 Eiver Fishery Bill), whom they consider ought to be admitted 
 against a bill, viz. — " Persons whose interests are affected by it." 
 London, Chatham and Dover Railway Bill, No. 1 (R. p. 86). 
 
 See also Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Extension 
 Railway Bill (R. p. 65), and Manchester and Milford Railway Bill 
 (R. p. 43), Monmouthshire Railway and Canal Bill (petition of E. 
 Davies). " (R. p. 103). 
 
 The Court has decided not to hear petitioners (who had, under 
 an agreement sanctioned by Parliament, laid down narrow guage 
 rails on a broad guage belonging to another company), against a 
 bill by a third railway, proposing to place additional rails on the 
 same line, and which the company owning the broad guage did not 
 oppose. Manchester and Milford Railway (R. p. 43). 
 
 Municipal and Other Authorities and Inhabitants of 
 Towns and Districts. 
 
 The standing order under which the above parties maybe admitted 
 as petitioners is as follows : — 
 
 "It shall be competent to the Eeferees on private bills to admit S.0. 133. 
 "the petitioners, being the municipal or other authority, having the 
 " local management of the metropolis or of any town ; or the inhabi- 
 " tants of any town or district alleged to be injuriously affected by a 
 " bill, to be heard against such bill if they shall think fit." 
 
 Here again a general discretion is given to the Court to admit Construction 
 or reject petitioners who consider themselves aggrieved. The 0r(ier - 
 apparent meaning of the above order is, that the municipal autho- 
 rity of the metropolis, or of any other town, having municipal 
 authorities, may be heard. Should the municipal authorities 
 decline to interfere in corporate towns, then the authority hav- 
 ing the local management of the metropolis, or such towns, may 
 do so. ■ Next, that in the case of towns having no municipal bodies> 
 the authorities having the local management of them are the 
 
32 
 
 persons indicated as competent to be heard against a bill which is 
 supposed to affect their interests. Lastly, the inhabitants of any 
 town or district, which has neither municipal or local authorities/ 
 are to be heard as petitioners when their town or district is alleged- 
 to be injuriously affected by the proposed bill. But it does not 
 seem by any means certain, that in any case under this order the* 
 inhabitants of a town are n6t entitled to a locus standi, even when? 
 their municipal authorities may be in favour of the scheme ; for' 
 there is nothing in the standing order to present the inhabitants 
 of any town having a locus standi against a bill, even one promoted 
 by their local authorities, although the principle has been disr 
 tinctly acknowledged that the constituent bodies of a corporation' 
 cannot Tie heard against their common seal WhitechapeL and- Hol- 
 born Improvements Bill (R. >p, 70). But then the question arkes,. 
 What is the definition' of inhabitants ? Taking the words in 
 their strictest sense, 1 two or more persons inhabiting. any town of 
 district appearing as petitioners against, a bill, would seem to 
 satisfy the strict interpretation of the standing order. It has. 
 not been, as far as I can learn, decided what interpretation the 
 Court has put upon these words. It was indeed contended, in the 
 East London Railway Bill (R. p. 85), ■" that the inhabitants of any 
 town or district must meet, and the majority must decide;" but 
 jn order to put thai construction on the standing, order,, the words 
 "majority of the inhabitants of ' any town," &c, ought to have 
 been inserted in it. And in this case the Court did not endorse 
 the construction which" was attempted to be put upton 1 the words 
 of the order. Some ; definition of inhabitants would be convenient J 1 
 for although the natural inference may be, that it means the' 
 majority, the words' 'do not strictly or logically bear that sig- 
 nification. 
 Zooms Standi Certain petitioners against a railway bill described themselves 
 as "owners, lessees, and'oocupiers of property, situate in the parish 
 of Kingston, and inhabitants of the parish," it appeared that. the 
 land of some of the petitioners was' actually taken by the , pro- 
 posed line ; one petitioner complained that the line would run an em- 
 bankment, fifteen 'feet high at the bottom -of his pleasure grounds, 
 so that while he was not entitled to^ any compensation, his property 
 would be seriously and prejudicially affected— many of the petitioners 
 were merely inhabitants and householders in the parish. The 
 
 allowed, 
 
33 
 
 ^prpmoters, the London and South "Western Railway Company, did 
 sxop object to the locus standi of the petitioners whose land was 
 actually taken, but objected to those of their number who ej&iined 
 ■as inhabitants only; and their contention was, that the. inhabi- 
 itaats .as a body alone .could be heard. . The Court decided ; that the 
 petitioners ought fa fojiwcl in %e $kwfl4t&r- of inhabitants, but only 
 jjhp.se .who could show that their land had been taken. It is tdiflfeult 
 <&> reconcile this decision with : the .wording of the landing order. 
 J[f the.jQonrJt had decided- that landowners, whose property was prp- 
 rpcjsed ;to be taken, would ; alone be heard, such a decision would be 
 intelligible j or had it ..treated the. petitioners as inhabitants, alleg- 
 ing their town prjlistrict to be mjuriousiy affected, and ,sp cpming 
 within the wprds of the standing order, which applies, hujt.the 
 judgment seems to.eombine.the two, The petitioners are declared 
 <entitled to he heard jas inhabitants of Kingston, if se, ; 1hey ought to 
 haveJjeen heardicrespective rf their ownership s>£ land'taken f qr jfche 
 purposes .of ijhscrailway;; and. as .alleging, jta ithejr town ,ox dm- 
 jfcrietuvas Injuriously affiactedjAr^althBSJghithe, questisn was jrsised, 
 the Court does not seem to have. considered :>tihat they wejre not a 
 fair representation pf the.inhabitants «£ Jongsiton. The decision 
 merely amojstnts to-ihe admissipn of la»dowjiejcs. London and 
 ^i>Bth. Western Railway ,(R. p. 72). 
 
 . la all instances, where corporations, local boards, or the inhabi- Specific Alte- 
 
 . gations of 
 
 taats of towns or districts have petitioned against, a hy.1, the Court injury 
 has required . that there should be a specific, allegation in the re<lulsl 
 petition ithat. the town ,or district was actually affected (Severn 
 Jaiactipn .Railway (R. p. 95), and the Yale of Grickhowel Railway 
 Eastern Extejjsion.B.ill (R..p.I08^. in the former instance, the cor- 
 poration of :Tewkesbury.were riparian proprietors, being awners 
 of certain lands,"wharves, &c., on the banks of the river Severn and 
 petitioned under their common :§eal against ;« railway proposed to be • 
 carried pver.Jhe. river; -there was no. iavejmeat in ; the petition that 
 ■the .town .pf Tewkesbury would be injuriously affected by the 
 line, following the decision in the Farnham and: JSTetley Railway 
 (R. p,.15), they were entitled fa Me heard as owners, of tad en the 
 banks of a river,, and the Court restricted their loam to thiSjijand 
 did ^pt-i give them a general hens against the bill. In Ae rVale 
 uf . .Cric&kfficel ucase the i<aws sMmM , of the Jlbexgavenny Improve- 
 ments Gk>mmis&ners was,disaE<>w.ed. The Cpufft has-:however made 
 
34 
 
 an exception to this general rule. In a case which was heard 
 immediately preceding the above, the Mayor, Aldermen, &c, of 
 the city of Chester, petitioned under their common seal, alleging 
 that they were owners of wharves, &e., on the banks of the river 
 Dee, but not stating that the city of Chester was injuriously 
 affected, against a proposal to form docks on^the shores of the river 
 Dee, to construct two railways on or near the estuary of the said 
 river and to construct a new channel, 3000 feet long for the river 
 Dee; certain commissioners of the river also petitioned. The 
 Corporation of Chester were allowed a general locus standi against 
 the bill. Connah's Quay Eailway and Docks Bill (R. p. 93). It 
 is difficult to discover in what particular their position differed 
 from the corporation of Tewkesbury, mentioned in the last case ; 
 both were owners of land on the banks of the river, both were in- 
 terested in the preservation of the navigation, and in neither case 
 did the petition allege that the town of Tewkesbury or Chester 
 was injuriously affected ; yet, some marked distinction in the cases 
 must have existed, to induce the Court to vary a decision which 
 they had a few days before given. 
 
 The Brecon and Llandovery Junction Bill (D. p. 4) is a case 
 worthy of attention ; the Mid Wales petitioned against the bill., 
 and although it was admitted . they were neither injuriously 
 affected, nor could they be said to come within the provisions 
 of S. O. 132, yet as the promoters had not fulfilled their portion 
 of an arrangement sanctioned by Parliament, and as the M«U» 
 Wales had done their share at considerable expense, the Court 
 considered the petitioners entitled to a loom standi on general 
 grounds. The scheme of the promoters would have freed them 
 from engagements entered into under the provisions of their Act 
 of 1863. 
 f e " dTaU "ed * n ^ e fr^^g remarkable case, in which the same Mayor and 
 Corporation of the town of Chester, being owners of lands, houses, 
 &c, on the river Dee, together with certain commissioners of the 
 River Dee, petitioned against another proposal to carry a railway 
 across the estuary of the river Dee, by means of a viaduct, 300 
 yards in length, on the general ground, that the scheme would 
 have the effect of damaging the channel of the river, which 
 was navigable some miles above the site of the proposed railway 
 up to the town of Chester ; and also, that it would be the direct 
 
35 
 
 interest 'of the railway to do so, in order to divert the traffic from 
 the ports above to their own docks and railways. In addition, 
 a Company, under statutory powers, had been entitled to em- 
 bank and reclaim certain portions of the estuary of the river Dee, 
 and such lands when reclaimed were vested in them ; by the same 
 Act they were bound to maintain the channel of the river Dee in 
 an efficient navigable condition. By other and later Acts, two 
 commissioners Were appointed, who, when the company had ne- 
 glected to perform their duty for a certain time, and allowed the 
 channel of the river to be under a fixed depth, had power to apply 
 the, rents of the lands vested in the company, for the purpose of 
 restoring the navigation. The commissioners having an opposite 
 interest to the River Dee Company, also petitioned jointly with 
 the corporation, against the bill, on the grounds, among others, 
 that any interference with the bed of the river, and with the exist- 
 ing navigation, might have the effect of releasing the River Dee- 
 Company from their obligations to maintain the navigation in the 
 state of efficiency • prescribed by the existing statutes, and of 
 depriving the commissioners of the river Dee of the remedies they 
 possessed in the event of the failure by the River Dee Company to 
 fulfil their obligations. The locus standi of the river Dee commis- 
 sioners was objected to, and the points urged upon the Court were, 
 that no property of theirs was taken, that they were not conserva- 
 tors of the river Dee, and that they had no control over the banks 
 or navigation of the river. It was generally urged for the cor- 
 poration, that they were the proper parties under the standing 
 order, with regard to muncipal bodies to appear against a bill, 
 proposing to interfere with a river directly affecting the pros- 
 perity of the city of Chester, and also that they were owners of 
 property on the banks of the river ; and for the' commissioners, 
 that should the proposed bill become law, the company responsible 
 for the preservation of the navigation would be able to set up the 
 Act of Parliament as a defence, against any attempt on the part of 
 commissioners to enforce their powers ; the objection against the 
 locus standi of the corporation was not perseverecl with, but the Court 
 held that the commissioners of the Dee had no locus standi. With 
 regard to the decision, with respect to the petitioners as commis- 
 sioners under an Act of Parliament, charged to enforce the main- 
 tenance of a certain depth of water in the River Dee, it is difficult to- 
 
36 
 
 see how .consistently, with, the dictum, of the Com't hi a later case 
 Roach River Fishing Bill (R. p. 110), they could be excluded, from 
 feeing, heard. In that case it was laid down, "As a general rule, all 
 persons are entitled to be heard against a bill whose interests- are 
 affected thereby," ,and as the petition, alleged that the pro- 
 posed bridge might, tend to the .silting up of , the channel of the 
 River Dee, of which they were the conservators, appointed by 
 Parliament, this statement would appear give them unde^ .that; 
 dictum at least, the right to appear. It is true, no land belong- 
 ing to them was taken, nor were they actually ha the pqsitioniof 
 any party defined by the standing order as absolutely entitled -torn 
 hem standi; but it must be remembered^ that the invests of, the 
 River Dee Company, were :inhnipal,tOfthpa$. of idx#: trvijs^ 6 ?* an( i ^W* 
 the allegations of the.latter were, tittat the railway works would have 
 the .effect of destroying the channel, which they were bound by 
 Act of Parliament to protect, and. that they apprehended the result 
 of this Act. t would be, to enable the, company to set it up as a 
 defence when they endeavoured to put into effect their powers 
 
 1 under, the former statutes, .,; 
 
 Locus Standi ' The Court ihas« refused- to hear the Vestry pf a Metropolitan 
 Parish, against, a bill promoted by the Metropolitan B,oar4)i<$ 
 "Works, for Looal Improvements. No attempt was mad©, by 
 the vestry to show that they had a distinct right or separate, in- 
 terest, and the rule distinctly applied in this case,, that constituent 
 bodies of a corporation cannot be heard against its common seal, 
 Whiteehapel and Holborn Improvement Bill (R. p. 70). 
 
 They, have also refused to hear, the Trustees, of a Metropolitan 
 Parish, who petitioned against, a proposed Railway, on the ground 
 thafcthe rates would be depreciated.' Another body) the District 
 Board of Works had also' petitioned, but they had no contrpl 
 over the rates; ■ The bill as before* the Committee .. did , not 
 provide for the depreciation of the rates until a fresh assess- 
 ment, could be made, with the, exception of the poor rate and )la$d 
 tax, which are provided for/rby the Land Glauses Apt : Ilast London 
 Railway Bill (R. 7. 85). •., ■.•■„-...,... 
 
 •See also on this point St. Clement >Danea' Improvement Bill 
 
 ■- "In both these ■last' cited cases, the parties \whom,l<msi was re- 
 fuseds' were the authOTJiiefl 'Who made and collected the yates; and 
 
 disallowed. 
 
37 
 
 as- such protested that their parish would he'injuriously affected by 
 the temporary depredation of valuable property within it. In the 
 latter case, a stipulation Was made, that a clause providing for the 
 rates, during the proposed improvement, should be inserted in the 
 bill. l 
 
 A private Joint Stock Gas Company, who had eitablishe/d 
 themselves at Athertori since 1836, andhad, as they alleged, sefWd 
 the neighbourhood creditably, were in treaty and had made 
 preliminary arrangements with the Local Board of Atherton, for 
 lighting the streets,- and such pja^ea^inight,^. requisite. The 
 Local Board of an adjoining district applied for a bill to supply gas 
 to their dfetriet, including a portion of the district of Atherton. 
 Against tbis ; 'the Atherton' Gas Company petitioned, alleging j that 
 they would' be Injuriously affected by such an undertaking. Their 
 timiS standi was refused by the Court. Probably the Local Board 
 of Atherton would, under the strict meaning'of the standing order, 
 be the proper' body 'to petition against an interference' with their 
 district-} but on -the other hand it must ^be conceded, that the peti- 
 tioners Came within the category of persons whose interests are af- 
 fected ; and as such, might at the discretion of the Cburt be admitted 
 against a bill. On the other hand they were at the mercy of any 
 one Who chose to indict them for interfering -with the streets, as 
 n'b* consent of landowners nor local bodies takes aWay that right, un- 
 less there is Parliamentary authority, which' the petitioner's had 
 net. TyMesly withShakerly Local Board (R. p. 82). 
 
 In the proposal of the Neath and Brecon Railway, 1 to have the 
 Swansea Canal transferred to them, the Court would not grant the 
 locus standi of' the Board of Health of Swansea, who petitioned 
 against the existing rates, charged on the Canal, and 'generally 
 against the policy of the transfer.' But already the trustees of 
 Swansea Harbour and Dock had been allowed a locus 'standi, and 
 alSo three extensive traders in the district, bo that it may be sup- 
 posed the Court were inclined to consider that the municipal 
 authorities, said the trade of the county, would be sufficiently 
 represented. Swansea Canal Transfer Bill (Ep. 69). 
 
 ; The Corporation of Newport Were refused a hearing against 
 the Monmouthshire Railway and' Canal Bill, which sought addi- 
 tional poWers and also to acquire a canal; their grievance was, that 
 there were several railway crossings on the level of some of the public 
 
38 
 
 streets of Newport, and that the corporation who had always con- 
 sidered them dangerous, perceived with great alarm the proposal 
 of the Bailway to bring additional traffic over these crossings. 
 The ground of refusal was, that the Beferees would not revise the 
 evils of past legislation. Monmouthshire Kailway and Canal Bill 
 (E. p. 103) ; but on the other hand, see London and North Western 
 (New Works), England and Scotland Bill (E. p. 63). 
 
 Traders, Freighters, Bates, Tolls. 
 
 former prac- Traders and Freighters do not come within the scope of any 
 regard to. . standing order, which defines parties who are entitled to a locm 
 
 ii, but as it would be a manifest injustice to allow railway 
 companies to amalgamate or to propose extensions, without hearing 
 the persons most interested, viz.— The traders and freighters of the 
 .district, these two classes have gradually been admitted under 
 certain circumstances, to the privilege of being heard on questions 
 which most nearly concern their interests. Before the establish' 
 ment of the Court they were merely admitted by custom, and in no 
 case that I can discover, except against amalgamation bills. A fur- 
 ther concession has now been made, and under the. new regime they 
 have been heard against extension bills. They were also formerly 
 ; refused a hearing against any bill, except the question of tolls 
 was involved directly in it, and the application of existing rates 
 to an extension was not held to involve such a question ; this rule 
 will be found also to have been relaxed. Past committees, have 
 heldy that freighters of a canal, which a railway proposed to have 
 transferred into their hands, were not entitled to be heard against 
 such a proposed transfer. The decisions on this point will be 
 •found to have been overruled, and in general a disposition will be 
 discovered in the decisions on this head, to admit rather than 
 reject the reasonable claims of persons interested to be heard. 
 Locus Standi The first decision on this question in which a locus standi was 
 allowed to petitioners- — which seems to establish a principle and to ' 
 overrule the practice hitherto governing committees, is that of The 
 North Staffordshire Bailway Bill (E. p. 61). It will not, as w$l 
 be seen hereafter, be found to be perfectly consistent with some 
 decisions on the same question earlier in the session, In tins 
 
 allowed. 
 
39 
 
 case, the North Staffordshire Railway Company, by their Act of 
 1847, had power to charge a sis mile toll for all goods, minerals, 
 &c, conveyed by them over any portion of their line. They came 
 to Parliament for powers to construct three short new lines, of which 
 one only was to be six. miles in length, the other two being, very 
 short indeed ; and they proposed to apply the same rates of toll 
 and charges in respect to their new lines as they were entitled- to 
 levy by the provisions of their Act of 1847 ; but no- variation of 
 charges was- to be made, nor was power sought to levy any higher- 
 tolls than those-in existence. The petitioners, owners of mines, and 
 traders in the district, were admitted to be entitled to be heard, as 
 owners against those clauses in the bill, and that part of the preamble 
 which affected their interests as owners ; but. an objection was taken- 
 to their being heard as traders against, the clauses in the bill which 
 had reference to tolls, and to their having a general locus standi* 
 The petitioners affirmed, that they represented the whole trade of- 
 ■$ie district, and contended that as owners of mines, they had an 
 undoubted locus standi against the' whole Bill ; and next, that as 
 traders they were entitled to be heard against- the six miles tolls. 
 They also proposed a revision of the charges authorized by the Act 
 of 1847, and submitted that an uniform minimum three mile toll 
 should be imposed upon the whole North Staffordshire system. 
 
 The promoters contended, that under S. 0. 128, they might possi- 
 bly be admitted in the discretion allowed to the Court, but that to 
 that standing order the power of the -Court was limited; and further 
 .argued, that as no fresh tolls were proposed to be levied, the peti- 
 tioners neither by custom, nor by any existing order,, were entitled 
 to be heard. The Court- held that the petitioners had a general 
 locus standi, both as owners of mines and as traders. 
 
 This- decision would seem to affirm, that, a body of traders and. 
 freighters} using, any line,, are entitled to be heard on the question 
 of a revision of tolls- of that line,, if it is proposed to make, any 
 extension of such railway,, and impose the same tolls authorized 
 to be levied by previoua legislation. It is tolerably clear, that 
 there is no precedent for the admission- of traders under such cir- 
 cumstances, and were it not for other decisions on similar questions, 
 irreconcilable with this, tha principle would by this case have 
 been established that traders are entitled to be heard against any 
 extension bill,, and to open the question of revision of tolls granted 
 
40 
 
 by previous legislation. It was not urged upon the Court, but it 
 may be mentioned here, that the whole question of a revision of 
 tolls was under the consideration of a Royal Commission. 
 
 A similar case to the above, and affirming the principle agreed to 
 in that decision, was that of the London and North "Western Railway 
 New "Works Bill (R.p. 63). In that case also the London and North 
 Western Railway Company sought additional powers to construct 
 certain new lines, and apply to them the same rates and charges 
 authorized to be levied by them under their existing acts. 
 The petitioners, the Chamber of Commerce of Liverpool, and 
 an influential body of freighters on the Liverpool and Manchester 
 Railway, complained that the existing tolls were partial and 
 unequal, and fixed and levied in an arbitary and unfair way, 
 that the interests of the petitioners and the trade of the port of 
 Liverpool suffered thereby ; and the petitioners further submitted,' 
 that a system so oppressive, ought not to receive countenance 
 from the House of Commons, and that this proposed bill gave the 
 opportunity for a general revision of the tolls and charges of the 
 company. In this case also the Court considered that the peti- 
 tioners, traders, and freighters had a right to be heard, although 
 there were no fresh tolls proposed to be levied under the bill. . 
 
 There is another case in which the same principle is laid downy * 
 that freighters on a railway are entitled to be heard against any 
 extension of the line which they use, when it is proposed to 
 apply existing tolls to the new line. The freighters on the Mon- 
 mouth Railway, petitioned against a bill authorizing the Monmouth- 
 Company to execute additional works, to acquire a canal and for"' 1 
 other powers, including two deviations of their existing railway, and ' 
 certain branches. The petition stated, that the Monmouth Rail- ' ' 
 way Company were empowered by their Act, to make additional : 
 charges for articles or persons conveyed on their railway for a dis- 
 tance of less than four miles ; but that they had virtually turned 
 this power into a four mile clause, for the conveyance of mineral 
 traffic, even when the traffic was conveyed in the trucks and carriages 
 of the freighters. And they further submitted, that the company 
 should be restrained from charging tolls for the use of their rail- 
 way, or more than the actual mileage travelled. In this case the peti- 
 tioners prayed for a revision of the existing regulations sanctioned 
 by former legislation ; they however further alleged, though it 
 
41 
 
 does not affect the question of their locus standi, that certain works, 
 undertaken to be completed by the Monmouth Eailway Company 
 in a given number of years, had not been finished, and that there- 
 fore Parliament ought not to grant them further powers, until 
 they had carried out their engagements under a former Act. The 
 Court granted them a locus standi as freighters. Monmouthshire 
 Eailway and Canal Bill (E.p. 130). 
 
 It has already been stated that Select Committees had decided 
 against hearing freighters of a canal which a railway company 
 proposed to absorb. As in most instances of this nature, the 
 canal could be the only rival of the railway in competing for 
 goods traffic, the result of such a transfer would evidently lead 
 to a complete monopoly by the railway, which would be enabled 
 by raising the tolls, on the canal, to drive the traffic off it on to 
 their line. Notwithstanding this, there is no case to be found 
 where Committees would hear freighters under these circumstances. 
 The case which follows, therefore, though most equitable, must be 
 taken as without precedent. 
 
 Three petitions were presented against a bill proposing to Petitions of 
 transfer a canal to a railway company; the whole three 
 petitions demanded that provision should be made in the bill 
 for the effectual maintenance of the canal, and for the protection 
 of-, the petitioners, who enjoyed certain rights and easements 
 over it. 
 
 The first petition also alleged, that by a grant between them- 
 selves and the canal company, they were enabled to send their 
 merchandise at a certain fixed rate, and that it would be the 
 interest of the railway company to charge the maximum rate; 
 they therefore prayed, that the tolls should be Jowered if the bill 
 passed, throughout the entire length of the canal. 
 
 The other two petitions were presented by colliery owners, 
 freighters on the canal, and they stated that they used the canal 
 extensively, and had certain easements connected with it, such as 
 drawing a quantity of water from the same ; and that they appre- 
 hendqdif the canal were vested in the railway, an entire monopoly 
 of the traffic would be created, and that their interests would 
 thereby suffer. 
 
 {■The petitioners also urged, that under S. 0. 850, they were 
 entitled to be heard; that order provides " that no railway shall 
 
42 
 
 be authorized to construct,, or enlarge, purchase, or take a lease, 
 or otherwise appropriate any dock, pier, harbour or ferry, unless- 
 the committee on the bill, report that such restriction ought, not ta 
 be enforced;" and contended that this standing order could not 
 be enforced unless the traders- were heard. It seems to me 
 that, this argument is beside the question ; as in the> first place 
 no mention is made of canal or lock > and secondly, should it be- 
 granted that such might be included in the words of the standing 
 order, no mention is made that freighters' using them should be 
 entitled to ajocms standi. The broad reason that the petitioners, 
 were traders and. freighters, whose interests were affected, seems to 
 have had most Weight with the Court. 
 
 It seems to have escaped the notice of the promoters, that 
 these three petitions were those, of single traders, who did not 
 petition jointly as traders of the district, but each on their own 
 account, and endeavouring to make the best terms they could for 
 themselves. If this was so, according 'to the decisions in the 
 Caledonian and Scottish Central Railway Companies' Bill (ante), 
 and the Ely and Ogmore Valleys. Junctions Railway Bill they 
 were not entitled to be heard. It could not be said that they 
 Were admitted, on account of the great traffic they carried, as in 
 the. first case aboveicited, the Messrs: Baird alleged they carried; on 
 one-fourth of the whole iron trade of Scotland. 
 
 There was another petition against the same bill by the. con- 
 servators of the' harbour and owners of the port of Swansea. These 
 petitioners alleged, that they had constructed a lock, communicating, 
 from their docks- to the eanal proposed to be transferred, and a 
 basin for the convenience of barges using the same, and that they 
 were entitled to rates on all vessels entering the canal through 
 their lock. They further alleged,; that in their opinion the transfer 
 proposed would, aet injuriously on the. trade of the district, by 
 placing the^ control of the canal in the' hands of the railway com- 
 pany, which might, have interests, opposed to the general, interests, 
 of the trading community. In this case also the locus standi of peti- 
 tioners was allowed. Swansea Canal Transfer Bill (R.p. 35 and 38). 
 
 The dredgeritten. and fishermen of the river Roach have been 
 heard as traders against a bill proposing to incorporate a com- 
 pany/ and. for maintaining, an oyster fishery in the river Roaich. 
 The petition was- also signed by owners of the foreshore, these 
 
43 
 
 however were not heard, as no part of their property was proposed 
 to be taken. It was strongly urged that as any of the public had 
 a right to fish over the ground proposed to be taken, these oyster men 
 only formed part of the public, and that clearly the public could 
 not petition, the only private right which was effected was the 
 crown, in whom was the soil — but it was held that the petitioners 
 had a locus standi as traders. This case has carried the case of the t 
 admission of traders to its furtherest limit. Roach River Fishery 
 Bill (R. p. 110). 
 
 It is now necessary to consider those cases where the Court Locus Standi 
 has thought proper to disallow the locus standi of traders and ' < 
 
 freighters. The case of the traders and manufacturers of "Widnes 
 was the first decided by the Court, and governed others subse- 
 quently. These petitioners stated, that in consequence of the , 
 •proximity of Widnes to the Wigan coal-fields, they had esta- 
 blished various industries there, and were competing with two other 
 ports, Garston and Runcorn, situate at a considerably greater dis- 
 tance from the coal-fields than "Widness ; but that by an agree- 
 ment between coal owners and traders at Garston, coal for ship- 
 ment was to be carried to all these three ports at an uniform rate, 
 greatly to their disadvantage'; and they further alleged, that they 
 believed that the rule had been, and would be extended in the case 
 of coals carried to Garston for the purposes of manufactures. 
 
 No evidence of this agreement was forthcoming, and following 
 precedent the Court disallowed the locus standi. These petitioners 
 being persistent, petitioned against an amended bill promoted by 
 the same company, incorporating the agreement referred to. And 
 it was most strongly urged on the Committee, that they were 
 entitled to be heard, especially as the proposal to change uniform 
 rates for unequal duties is contrary to the spirit of past legislation ; 
 and as the export trade of Widnes would manifestly suffer by the 
 partiality shown to the other places. The petitioners were not 
 allowed a locus standi. Lancashire Union Railways Bill (R. p. 59), 
 idem, amended (R. p. 67). 
 
 A remarkable decision was, that against, the petition of the 
 Liverpool Chamber of Commerce and the merchants and traders 
 of Liverpool, who petitioned against the Manchester, Sheffield, 
 and Lincolnshire Railway Bill (R. p. 65), in which an extension was 
 sought. ' 
 
44 
 
 These petitioners, a most influential body, alleged, inter alia, 
 " that the public advantage would not be attained Unless stringent 
 and effective provision were inserted in the bill for having an equal 
 and impartial scale and' arrangement of the tolls and charges over 
 the Company's system, and for preventing them from having parti- 
 cular plans and routes, at the expense of others;" and further, 
 .-that a power of agreement With the London and Worth "Western 
 Eailway to work the proposed line should be omitted from the 
 bill, as it tended " to monopoly and to sanction and perpetuate the 
 partial and unfair arrangement of tolls and charges adopted by 
 the company." These allegations of injury seem strong, but the r 
 promoters did not seek to impose fresh rates, but i'o adapt those 
 given them 1 by former Acts, and the Referees following the 
 decision in the case of the Widnes traders, refused the petitioners 
 a locus standi, on the ground it must be presumed that their: 
 allegations as to injurious working of the existing rates was not 
 sufficiently specific. 
 
 It will be remembered that a similar influential body of traders 
 of Liverpool had petitioned against the London and North 
 Western (New Works) j England and Scotland Bill, and that their* 
 locus standi had been allowed. I eonfesa after a careful perusal of' 
 these two cases I cannot discover the reason why a locus standi'- 
 was allowed to One and disallowed to the other. I have indicated { 
 above, that in the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire case, it 
 may be that the petitioners were not sufficiently specific in their 
 allegations as to the tolls, but they are at any rate quite as specifie 
 as those in the case in which the locus was allowed. ' 
 
 These are the allegations of the petitioners against the London 
 and North Western in respect to the tolls. 
 
 " That the tolls, rates, and charges, are in many instances fixed 
 and levied in an arbitary and unequal way." 
 
 " That your petitioners submit that ft system so arbitary and 
 oppressive and a scale of rates, tolls, and charges so vicious, ought 
 not to be extended to any new railways and works, or to receiv*" 
 any countenance or tolerance from your Honourable House." 
 
 " That the company's system is framed with a view of forcing 
 the traffic by particular routes, and to particular points:" 
 
 If these allegations are compared with those in the Sheffield 
 case, it is most difficult to find the reason influencing the Court 
 
45 
 
 to reject one and admit the other. The case of the traders of 
 Widn.es was very analagous to that of the Staffordshire traders 
 (ante), neither of them wished other places to he favoured at 
 their expense, and both alleged themselves deeply interested — 
 their petitions, as has heen seen, met with a different fate. 
 
 Additional Oases. 
 
 These are a few cases which can scarcely be classed under any of 
 "the foregoing heads, and yet which require some notice. On two 
 occasions, corporations, who failed to allege that the town' which 
 they represented was injuriously affected, have been heard against 
 a bill proposing to interfere with a navigable river on which 
 their town was situate ; but a loom standi was conceded "to them 
 as owners of wharves and quays, Severn Junction Railway and 
 Connah's Quay Railway and Docks Bills (ante). 
 
 In the Farnham and Netley Railway (R. p. 75), whichindeed was Riparian 
 the first and leading case on the point; of the lomcs standi of riparian P ro P erties < 
 proprietors, several owners of wharves and quays-^-on the banks 
 of the Hamble River — were held to be entitled to a loom standi 
 against a bill which proposed to cross the river by a viaduct below 
 their property. It was not intended to touch any land of the 
 petitioners ; but they apprehended serious injury from the proposed 
 bridge, to the user of the water way, and obstruction to the. navi- 
 • gation of the Hamble. In these same cases, a petitioner, owner of 
 ^property and houses above the bridge, alleged that he and his 
 tenants enjoyed great facilities, by reason of their coal and other 
 •commodities being brought up the river by boats; and that i they 
 apprehended they would lose such facilities, in consequence of the 
 prejudicial effect the viaduct would have, over the navigation, he was 
 held not to be entitled to be heard; he had showed that some 
 specific damage would accrue to him, in consequence of his not 
 being able to bring his yacht through the bridge, which would 
 cause him to'go- four miles down the river to get onboard. It 
 Wasnot stated' that the petitioner or his tenants. were owners or 
 oeeupiers'of any property on the banks; but it was conceded that .; , 
 they had certain easements, but >not over any/land proposed to be 
 taken. '"■' ■' >-' -••:;< :..'.• -■' ■ ' , \--- ■ 
 
46 
 
 This decision- differs from some cases decided by committees 
 previous to last Session. In particular, the London and North 
 "Western Railway Bill and Mersey Bridge, which was a proposal to 
 cross the Mersey at Runcorn, and in that case the carriers were 
 heard. In a like case, the bargemen of the River Ouse had hem 
 heard ; and it was so held by a decision in the House of Lords 
 in 1863, which has frequently been quoted, the Solway Junction 
 Bill. There the petitioners described themselves, and were ad- 
 mitted to a locus standi, as inhabitants (although it was proved- 
 there were only three of them) of the port of Bowness ; they did 
 not claim to be heard themselves as traders or freighters, but as 
 owners of certain houses in the town of Bowness; and they in 
 like manner to the above case petitioned against the building of : 
 a bridge across the Solway, which they feared would interfere with 
 the due navigation of that estuary. It must therefore be taken as 
 decided, that the ownership of property, near a river, proposed 
 to be interfered with, coupled with probable damage, will not 
 entitle a petitioner to locus standi. 
 Limits of Although the petitioners in the above case were granted a 
 
 elation. j oem s f (m ^^ where their rights consisted in an easement in the 
 water of a river, in the case of the South Eastern Railway Com- 
 pany, the Court has not considered when the easement consisted of 
 an ancient light, which the promoters would by their works inter- 
 fere with, that the petitioners, the Skinners' Company, had a locu» 
 standi. The promoters had become possessed of the Charing Cross 
 Railway, which was formed by an Act passed in 1861. In that 
 Act a clause was inserted, specially providing that in executing the- 
 works authorized by the Act a certain street should not be reduced 
 in width. In this street was situated the Hall of the Skinners' 
 Company. The petitioners alleged, that in contravention of this 
 clause, the South Eastern Company had begun to build an hotel 
 opposite their hall, which was to be 90 feet high, and had also en- 
 croached a very considerable distance on the street above men- 
 tioned. It appeared that the Skinners' Company had obtained an 
 Injunction' in Chancery to stop the further progress of the building ; 
 but the object of the promoters was to authorize their proceedings, 
 Protection by by repealing the provisions of the Act of 1861, which rendered it 
 ormeracs. obligatory on them not to reduce the width of the street. It is 
 quite true, the property of the petitioners was not within the limits 
 
47 
 
 of deviation, but they were specially protected by clauses in 
 previous enactments which the promoters sought to annul. 
 Ancient lights are in some instances as valuable easements 
 as a user of waterway, and.it is submitted that proprietors of 
 ancient rights, and just beyond the limits of deviation, had equal 
 pretensions to be heard against a proposal to obscure them, as the 
 proprietors of wharves, situate some considerable distance above a 
 proposed bridge across a river, which they claimed to be entitled 
 to navigate. 
 
 The same decision was given in the case of the North London, Limits of 
 Highgate, and Alexandra Park Company (R. p. 113). In which ^^^^ 
 case the petitioner complained, that his property would be injuri- 
 ously affected by a viaduct crossing the road in front of an inn, of 
 which they were owners and occupiers. There are decisions of 
 former committees to the same effect ; but on the other hand, a 
 petitioner who complained that his property would be injured 
 and shaken, by a proposed railway, has been heard against it, 
 East Gloucester Eailway Bill (May, p. 732). 
 
 If persons purchase land, which is required for the purpose of Purchase of 
 a railway, after they have presented a petition against such rail- presentment 
 way, in a capacity other than that of landholders, and do not of petition " 
 present any fresh petition, alleging that their lands will be taken ; 
 they will not r on account of their acquisition of such lands, be 
 therefore entitled to a locus standi. Ely and Ogmore Valleys: 
 Junction Railway Bill (R.p. 101). 
 
48 
 
 CHAPTER. III. 
 
 Engineering Detaik-^Efficiency of Works — Sufficiency of Estiwaltf— 
 Wat$r$ipr}c8-~*-@as,, > . , ; 
 
 In this chapter it is proposed very briefly to summarize in the 
 above order the decisions -which have been given under S. 0. 
 93. It has been thought convenient -to collect the whole of 
 these into one chapter, although, as is hereafter pointed out, there 
 is eome doubt how far the second paragraph (relating to. water 
 bills), and the third {relating to gas), are governed by the first 
 paragraph, which relates to other bills for construction of works. 
 
 Engineering Details. 
 
 During last Session, there- was some doubt iwhethsjr or not the 
 decision of the Referees (though in practice flimosfc invariably 
 fatal if adverse) was ^absolutely conclusive in the case of railway 
 bills. This doubt arose from the fact, that by S. 0. M9 .-, the 
 chairman of ifoe committee was dyjeoted to report to the House 
 on "the merits, in an engineering point of »riew,'of the proposed 
 railway." In the ..corresponding < standing order of /this year(JSfo. 
 154), however, these words are omitted, and a new, standing. oa?clee 
 (No. 96) has also been introduced, which declares, that " in case 
 the Referees shall report with reference to any bill that the esti- 
 mate deposited in respect thereof is insufficient, or that the en- 
 gineering is inefficient for the proposed object, the bill shall not be 
 further proceeded with, unless the House shall otherwise order. 
 It is submitted, however, that even 'this new order is very am- 
 biguous, the words used in S. 0. 93, being "the engineering 
 details" and "the efficiency of the works for the proposed object ;" 
 so that the new order mixes up into one the words of the two 
 paragraphs, which one would think were quite distinct, inasmuch as 
 a line may be perfectly well engineered, and yet by not effecting 
 junctions with existing lines, or by running through a desolate 
 country, instead of accommodating intervening towns, it may be 
 very insufficient for the proposed object. 
 
49 
 
 It is presumed, however, that the intention of the clause is to - 
 conclude the Committee, on either efficiency of works or to use 
 the words of the old order, " engineering merits." 
 
 In any case the present system is after all only an extension of 
 the principle affirmed in S. 0. 95, " that no further evidence shall 
 be taken before the Committee upon any of the matter reported 
 upon by the Referees." 
 
 The objection must be one oocurine on the proposed line itself, Objection 
 
 • 1 1 "ii nr / must on 
 
 or in some work proposed to be authorized by the bill, Wower- proposed line. 
 Hampton and North , Staffordshire Railway (R. p. 125), unless the cir- 
 cumstances be very special, as where the proposed line ran very 
 ■close to powder mills ; and it was objected that this was not an 
 engineering defect, but the Referees held that this was an excep- 
 tional case, that the danger concerned the line as well as the mills, 
 besides which they could not be shifted like an ordinary residence, 
 Caledonian Railway (Salerno and Pmicmck Branches) (E. p. 120). 
 The promoters subsequently agreed to cover in their line, to which 
 the petitioners agreed. Same case (D. 26^. 
 
 A distinct issue on, engineering" must be raised on the petition, 
 injudicious direction and course of the line not b$feg sufficient. 
 The very words of the order should be used. Ba/met, Mendon, and 
 Hampstead Railway Bill (R. p. 117), ante p. 11. 
 
 The Referees can only report on the merits of the works as 
 proposed by the bill before them, Lancashire and Yorkshire (Addi- 
 tional Powers) Bill (R. p. 122). 
 
 Practically there is usually little difficulty on questions of 
 engineering in ascertaining the jurisdiction of the Referees, and 
 ■obtaining from them a report which will enable the committee to 
 deal satisfactorily with the bill, though on one occasion, during 
 last -session, a great misapprehension arose. In the Dee and -Mersey 
 Junction Railway (B. 31), the Referees reported, that the naviga- 
 tion of the Bee would be rendered in their opinion dangerous; 
 , whereupon the committee refused to entertain the bill, and upon the 
 Referees being appealed to, they stated that such was not their 
 intention, but the committee refused to alter their decision. 
 ; The digest of the reports which will be found in the appendix, 
 contains (as nearly as is, possible in a condensation) in the very 
 words used by the Referees, their views on the various schemes 
 brought before them. 
 
50 
 
 There is one difficulty in making them of practical utility, 
 ■which has been felt very strongly in preparing them for pres8> 
 viz. — that in many cases the Referees have not deemed it necessary 
 (probably with reason) to explain fully the facts or the reasoning 
 deduced therefrom, upon which their deoislons are founded, and 
 hence it arises that in Some cases results apparently contradictory 
 have been arrived at, when probably were one in possession of 
 fuller information an appreciable distinction would be found to 
 Concessions to exist in the state of facts from which their judgments have been 
 Promoters. ,j e( j uce( j. ij^j, Referees have, in construing S. 0. 95, whioh re* 
 quires them " in their report " to " state the facts upon which their 
 opinion is founded " thought that they Were not called upon to 
 state -the evidenoe of the fact and in practice have not done so, 
 (Select Committee on Referees, p. 17, question 157)* In some in- 
 ■stances, for example, where concessions have been offered by the 
 promoters, ihe Referees have reported in favour of the bill subject to 
 such concessions ; but in all those eases it is believed that such 
 concessions have been assented to by the parties, and have been 
 confined strictly to works Which could be carried out within the 
 limits of deviation, and for which the estimates were sufficient 
 (SekUt Committee on Referees, p. 21, question 185). 
 Improvement The Referees have also in many cases, where the estimate Was 
 of clause? 4 ™ eumc i e:Q t for carrying out the proposed works, suggested improve- 
 ments, whioh they, not being able to deal with matters of clause, 
 could not enforce, but on which their recommendation would of 
 Course weigh very strongly with the Committee. 
 
 In such questions as this, the new power given to the Referees 
 by S.O. 94, with consent of parties to hear the whole bill will be 
 very valuable, giving as it does to all -parties the Services of a 
 highly skilled tribunal, and Saving all the expenses attendant on 
 a double inquiry. 
 
 Another difficulty which has been felt, is one inherent in the 
 subject, for the facts and circumstances of each case must vary so 
 much that engineering must be merely relatively either good or 
 bad in every instance. 
 
 The 'Court cannot entertain the question, whether a site selected 
 is inferior in essential particulars to one selected by petitioners, or 
 whether other preferable ■sites might be found. Bute becks, Cardiff 
 (No. 1) Bill (R. p. 18). 
 
51 
 
 They can Inquire into whether proposed works will tend to silt 
 up a harbour. Bute Docks, Cardiff (No. 1) Bill (R. p. 18). 
 
 The Referees have no power as a rule to consider and compare 
 competing schemes, but they exercised such a power in the cases of 
 The Deal and Dover Railway, and The Dover, Deal and Sandwich 
 Railway (D. 58). "Usually, they have reported simply, that there 
 is a oompeting scheme, and have considered both schemes as nearly 
 as possible on the scheme day. A wise precaution is the one 
 adopted in the cases of the South Lancashire Railways and Dock, 
 and the Lancashire Union Railways, where comparative tables of 
 gradients were proved and incorporated in the reports* 
 
 The Referees cannot go into any question of clause. Great 
 Western Railway Bill (R. p. 124) ; but see St. Clement Dane's 
 Improvement (D. 8), and ante p. 13. 
 
 Where the petitioners complained that their access to an estate 
 would be cut off, the Referees allowed them to give evidence that 
 a bridge under the line would obviate the difficulty. Great Western 
 Railway Bill (R. p. 124). 
 
 Whether in an engineering point of view, a line can be carried 
 any further afterwards, is not a question for the Referees, but for 
 the Committee. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Additional 
 Powers) Bill (R. p. 122). 
 
 The Referees have not reported against the bill, but that great 
 care would be requisite in working in the Brecon and Merthyr 
 Junction Railway (D. 20) ; Greenock Railway (D. QO). 
 
 Two competing schemes neither being yet authorized, occupy- Competing 
 ing the same ground, is no objection to either Barnet, Hendon, p^ing^me"" 
 ffampstead and London Railways (D. 27) ; Wood Green, Winchmore g round - 
 Sill and Enfield Railway (D. 28). 
 
 The Referees have considered an alternative line within the Alternative 
 limits of deviation, in the Callander and Oban Railway (D. 22) ; the 
 Surrey and Sussex Junction Railway (D. 34,). 
 
 The Referees have reported conditionally in the Glasgow and 
 South Western Railway (Additional Powers) (D. 26). 
 
 In cases where railways have been proposed to be carried near Screens for 
 rpads, the Referees have- decided that screens ought to be pro- roads - 
 vided, Aboyne and Braemar Railway (D. 6); Lancashire and 
 Yorkshire Railway (Additional Powers) (D. 8); that double level 
 crossings would be dangerous in the Swansea and Aberystwith 
 Junction Railway (D. 21). 
 
52 
 
 They have refused to report as to the propriety of carrying a 
 road over a railway, North British Railway Additional Potvers) 
 (B. 7). 
 
 Concessions to In the following cases, the Referees have allowed concessions 
 
 Opponents. tQ fce mgj ^ e t() pp 0nent8j w ]£l s t the hill was before them. London, 
 Brighton and South. Coast Railway (St. Leonard's Line) (B. 8); 
 Spalding and Bourn Railway (B. 9); Leeds, North Yorkshire 
 and Durham Railway (B. 42) ; ■ Crystal Palace Railways (New 
 Lines J, (J). 45); in the London, Worcester and South Wales 
 Railway (B. 47 ); North of England Union Railway (D. 41); 
 Swansea Vale and Neath and Brecon Junction Railway (B. 9); 
 Vale of Neath Railway (Swansea Lines) (B. 10,) ; Great Western 
 Railway (B. 11); Savant, Sambledon and Broxford Railmy 
 (D. 11); Burton-upon-Trent and Nottingham Railway (B. 12),. 
 Bishop's Castle Railway (B. 13); Evesham and Redditch Railway 
 (B. 14); Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway (No. 2), (B. 14); 
 Fulham Railway (B. 15). This was as to alteration of point of 
 junction; Okehampton Railway (B. 16); Barnet, Hendon and 
 Hampstead Railway (B. 27). 
 
 Facing points. The Referees have reported against facing points on single 
 lines in the Swansea and Aberystwith Junction Railway (B. 21). UI 
 In favour of the same in the Chichester and Midhurst Railway 
 (D.41). 
 
 Against facing points, on main lines, in the Wood Green, 8fc, 
 Railway (B. 28) ; in the Leeds, North Yorkshire and Burham Rail- 
 way (B. 42). 
 
 As to back shunts, see Perth, 8fc, Station (B. 50J. 
 
 Junctions. The Referees have reported in favour of junctions on crowded 
 
 lines, where, under the same control in {he London, Brighton and 
 South Coast Railway (Additional Powers), (B. 33_). 
 
 On other lines in the Wolverhampton and Bridgnorth Railway 
 (B. 37J ; Vale of Crickhowel Railway (Western Extension) (B. 38 j. 
 
 Gradients. For reports as to gradients, see Metropolitan and St. John's 
 
 Wood Railway (B. 46) ; London, Worcester fyc. Railway (B. 47)]; 
 North of England Union Railway (B. 47) ; Newport and Usk Rail- 
 way (B. 48) ; Central Wales, fyc, Railway (B. 48) ; Chipping Nor- 
 ton 8fc, Railway (B. 49). -T 
 
 Level Cross- ^or reports as to level crossings, see Mold and Benbigh Junc- 
 
 in s s - Hon Railway (B. 51) ; Midland Railway (New Lines) (B. 50). 
 
. -•' 53 
 
 «- 
 
 The Refer#es""have reported, that power to effect works, was Powers of Bill 
 not taken in the Okehampton Railway (D. 16), in the Glasgow, 
 City Suburban and Harbour Railway (B: 17) ; Llantrissant and Taff 
 Vale Junction Railway (D. 19) ; Brecon and Merthyr Junction Rail- 
 way (B. 20) ; My and Ogmore Valleys Junction Railway (B. 22) ; 
 Bedford, Northampton and Weedon Railway (B. 24) ; North Surrey 
 Railway (B. 35). 
 
 As to, bridges, that if the public interests required the works, 
 that there was no objection in the South Wales and Great Western 
 Direct Railway (B. 38). 
 
 The Referees have reported, that they had no jurisdiction to 
 decide whether promoters could depart from the point of junction 
 shown on the deposited pjan in, Burton-upon- Trent and Nottingham 
 Railway (B. 12_) ; King's Lynn Bocks and Railway (B. 13^) ; 
 Ogmore Valley Railways, (No. \), (B. 11); Launceston, Bodmin 
 and Wadebridge t Jitncti8h ^Railway (B. 18J 
 
 Trade 
 
 The Referees have reported in favour of concessions to be sub- Eo '" v " '■" 
 
 ject to the approval of the Board of Trade, in the Aberystwith and 
 Welsh Coast Railway (B. 30^), and in the Furness Railway (B. 30^), 
 while in the Fareham and Netley Railway (B. 31^) where the pro- 
 moters offered such a concession, they reported against the bill. 
 
 The Referees have abstained from a decision on the advisability 
 of a junction, but that if made it should be subject to the approval 
 of the Board of Trade, East London Railway (B. 32^). 
 
 They have also reported against a proposed concession to 
 opponents where the consent of the Board of Trade to carry out 
 the same was requisite, Poole and Bournemouth Railway (B. 25). 
 
 The Court has reported against a line where no provision was 
 made for stations or running powers in the North Surrey Rail- 
 way (B. 35), and the Hornsey and Kingsland Junction Railway (B. 
 52). 
 
 Efficiency of the Works for the Proposed Object. 
 
 The points to be inquired into under this head, would seem to be, 
 w-hether apart from engineering details, the works are well devised 
 for the purpose of attaining the object of their construction. The 
 
54 
 
 decisions upon thia head have been very few, and those, which have 
 been given are not very important ones. 
 
 In certain of the reports ah adverse decision has been come to, 
 on the ground of the works being inefficient by reason of the 
 absence of estimate for certain matters, which were deemed necessary 
 for carrying them out, but as is hereafter pointed out under 
 the head of " Estimates " these should rather be placed among that 
 class of decisions, Soiith Lancashire Railways and Dock (D. 55); 
 Leeds, North Yorkshire and Durham Railimys (D. 42). 
 
 "Where the object of the bill was declared to be " the construc- 
 tion of a line of public and local advantage," and objection was taken 
 that no junction was effected at two different points with the principal 
 existing railway of the district, the Referees held that a statement 
 of the promoters that the object they had in view was a through 
 lead for mineral traffic only, was an answer, and that the works- 
 were efficient for the proposed object, Wolverhampton and Nottk 
 Staffordshire Junction Railway (B. 57). 
 
 Where the object proposed was "the accommodation and 
 through lead of the traffic coming from the Ogmore Valley Rail- 
 way and the Ely Valley Extension Railway," the promoters pro- 
 posed to take what traffic came from that line over a branch called 
 the Grellyrhaid Branch, and up a back shunt of 1 in 44. The 
 Referees held that inasmuch as the proposed line did not join the 
 Ely Valley Extension Railway — interfered most prejudicially with 
 its siding • ground, and prejudicially affected by the Gellyrhaid 
 Branch arrangement a not unimportant traffic seeking a western 
 destination from the Extension Railway — that the works were net 
 efficient for the proposed object, Ely and Ogmore Valleys Junc- 
 tion RaihvapH (D. 22). The Referees will only inquire into 
 works authorized by the bill and occuring on some part of the line. 
 They will therefore not inquire into the question of entering a 
 station on an already authorized line, by shunting back over that 
 line, Wolverhampton and North Stafford Railway (R. 125). 
 
 SuFMciEscr ok Estimate, 
 
 Befoiie the establishment of the Court of Referees, this ques- 
 tion was of course one for the consideration of the Select Com- 
 
55 
 
 mittee on every bill, but now by standing order 93, itis ordered 
 that the Referees shall, amongst other matters, in the case of bills 
 for authorizing the construction of 'works, inquire into the suf- 
 ficiency of the estimate for executing the same. 
 
 This department of Parliamentary Law is, I may say, almost 
 entirely the creation of the Referees, there having been for many 
 years hardly an instance of a bill failing on estimates. 
 
 Some of the decisions of the Referees during last Session ar,e 
 worthy of consideration, more especially as, now by standing 
 order 96, it is expressly provided, that in case the Referees 
 report that the estimate deposited is insufficient, the bill shall 
 not be proceeded with unless the House shall otherwise order. 
 
 By standing order 45, the estimate for any works proposed 
 to be authorized by a Railway, Dock or Harbour Bill, shall be in 
 the following form, or as near thereto as circumstances may 
 permit : — 
 
 Estimate of the proposed 
 
 (Railway). 
 
 Line, No. 
 Length of Line ... 
 
 Earthworks — 
 Cuttings— Bock ... 
 Soft Soil 
 Roads ... 
 
 Total ... 
 
 Cubic yds- 
 
 Miles, f. eh. 
 Price per Yd. 
 
 Whether 
 Single or Double. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 Embankments, including Roads ... 
 Bridges — Public Roads 
 
 Accommodation Bridges and Works ... 
 
 Viaducts 
 
 Culverts and drains 
 
 Metallings of roads and level crossings 
 
 Gatekeepers' houses at level crossings 
 
 Permanent way, including fencing : 
 
 Miles, fys. chs. 
 
 at 
 
 Cubic yds. 
 Number 
 
 Cost per Milt 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 Permanent way for sidings, and cost of junctions 
 
 Stations , 
 
 Contingencies 
 
 Land and buildings — 
 
 a. B. P. 
 
 per. cent. 
 
 Total £ 
 
56 
 
 This detailed form is an improvement introduced by the Select 
 Committee on Eeferees of last Session, on the suggestion of an 
 eminent engineer, and obviates what was felt by those who 
 practised before the Court to be a great inconvenience, and in 
 many cases an actual and serious loss of time, namely the rule 
 enforced by the Referees that — 
 Eight to Where the estimate is objected to the petitioners have to begin 
 
 begin - by attacking it ; the promoters then call their witnesses, and the 
 
 petitioners reply on their evidence, except under special circum- 
 stances. Forth Bridge (R. 9), ante p. 12 ; South Wales and Great 
 Western Direct Railway (R. 8), ante p. 12. 
 
 This rule, until the amendment above referred to, made it neces- 
 sary for the opponents, without informations except the sum men- 
 tioned in the deposited estimate, to go into item after item, when 
 probably, except as to one or two, the engineers on each side were 
 quite agreed. 
 For part of * n ^ e case °^ ^ xe ■^■ cion an ^ Twickenham Railway (D. 58), the 
 
 Plans only, estimate was admitted to be insufficient, if the promoters were 
 bound to estimate in respect of all the plans deposited ; but they 
 contended, that inasmuch as for a portion of the line the plans 
 were deposited in duplicate by themselves and another set of 
 promoters, who proposed to make that part of the line and had esti* 
 mated for it, that they were not bound to make any estimate in 
 respect thereof. The Referees did not report against the bill, but 
 merely drew attention to the fact, that there was no such limita- 
 tion on the deposited estimate, without deciding whether in their 
 judgment this was fatal. 
 Extraordinary The promoters are not bound to provide for extraordinary 
 difficulties. difficulties, where their occurrence is very "uncertain, and a suffi- 
 cient margin has been provided to meet contingencies and ordinary 
 accidents, Birkenhead and Liverpool Railway (D. 59). 
 Conjectural. But where the evidence on both sides was conjectural as to 
 
 the value of the rocks through which the works were to go, 
 the estimates low, and the margin only £5605 on £350,000, the 
 estimates were deemed vague and unsatisfactory, Greenock Rail- 
 way (D. 60). 
 Abandonment If the promoters abandon a portion of their scheme, the Re- 
 o part. ferees will still inquire into the sufficiency of the original estimate 
 
 for the works, as well as for the portion still remaining for consi- 
 
57 
 
 deration, Glasgow and North Western Railway (D. 59). But it 
 was intimated by the Hon. Chairman {Select Committee on Referees, 
 p. 20, question 181) that in this case the result might have been, 
 that the original estimate had been quite insufficient for the 
 whole scheme, and yet they might have carried a portion of the 
 scheme by abandoning that part for •which the estimate was 
 insufficient. And in one case where a part of the scheme was 
 reported against, and therefore abandoned, the committee refused 
 to allow the promoters to proceed with the remainder, and were 
 supported therein by the House (East and "West Junction Railway, 
 Sess. 1865). 
 
 Where no provision has been made for station land and build- Stations, &c. 
 ings, or for sidings at junctions and at docks, the Court has decided 
 that without these, the proposed works could not be efficient, though 
 strictly this would seem more properly a question of estimate, 
 South Lancashire Railways and Bock (D. 55), Leeds, North York- 
 shire and Durham Railway (D. 42,). The way in which the 
 Referees appear to have regarded the matter, is that the work is 
 insufficient in an engineering point of view, because the esti- 
 mate would not construct an efficient work ; none other can be 
 executed under the bill, and therefore if the estimate cannot con- 
 struct an efficient work, the work itself is inefficient. (Committee 
 on Referees, p. 22, questions 196, 197 J 
 
 Where the estimates were admitted not to have been made fof Not for Works 
 the execution of the works as laid down in the deposited plans, 
 the Referees considered them to have been so loosely prepared, • 
 
 that no reliance could be placed upon them; but it is a little 
 remarkable, that in the same inquiry the Court appears to have 
 allowed the promoters to go into a proposal to construct the works 
 in a material actually different from that contemplated by the esti- 
 mate. This would seem anomalous, even if the last proposal were 
 merely a return to the material contemplated by the deposited 
 plans which does not seem to have been the case, Connah's 
 Quay Railway and Docks (D. Ql). 
 
 The effect of this is clearly contrary to the intention of Par- 
 liament, which was that the same parties should not submit two 
 sehemes, and if their first failed, try another, "the estimates 
 should be carefully framed, plans should be well considered, and 
 by those estimates and plans, the parties ought to stand or fall." 
 
58 
 
 Compensation. As to damage for whioh compensation is claimable, the Re- 
 ferees have reported variously. In one oase where a tramway was 
 injured, leading to a colliery worth £50,000, where the promoters 
 admitted that they had treated the tramways as private roads, had 
 made no arrangements with the owner, nor included any sum in 
 the estimate for any alteration of the tramway; they reported 
 that unless suitable provision were made for working the oollieries, 
 the compensation to be paid would be very heavy, but did not fur-, 
 ther report against that part of the bill, A/on Valley Railway 
 (D. 54) ; while on the South Lancashire Railways and Dock, 
 (D. 55J, where a railway ran over a tram, and also through three 
 sets of marshalling sidings in a cutting of three feet, although the 
 promoters alleged that such sidings could easily be re-arranged, but 
 admitted that no provision had been made for such re-arrangement 
 or for compensation, they held the scheme defective. 
 
 Where it was objected that a Company would be compelled to 
 take the whole of certain works, which they bisected, the Referees 
 did not decide whether they were bound to do so or not ; but that 
 if they were, the estimates would be insufficient, if on the con- 
 trary sufficient, Glasgow and South Western Railway ; (Kilmamoek 
 Direct) (D. 62). But where the petitioners objected that they 
 would be entitled to compensation, under clause 68 of the Lands 
 Clauses Consolidation Act, by reason of their lands being in- 
 juriously affected, but the promoters disputed their right in toto 
 to any compensation, the Referees held that the promoters were 
 not bound to include any sum in their estimate for such com- 
 pensation, Piccadilly and Park Lane, Neio Road (D. 63). 
 
 With regard to this case, the Hon. Chairman said, "The estimate 
 is the money provided for the construction of the works proposed to 
 be authorized by the bill, and anything outside and beyond that, is; 
 not a question for the Referees. "to consider." " In all estimates 
 you require evidence as to the value of the house property taken* 
 or severance or any compulsory dealing with property ; but the 
 moment a line is interposed, the property on one side comes 
 within our cognizance, while that on the other does not." 
 
 With great submission to the opinion of one so very able and 
 experienced in these matters, this reasoning would seem fallacious. 
 The object of Parliament in requiring an estimate is to protect 
 property from invasion by persons who have insufficient capital t<? 
 
59 
 
 carry out their project, and who may therefore inflict grievous 
 injury on the land-owner, without benefiting the public, by 
 cutting into his land, and then failing either to pay him or com- * 
 plete their authorized works. 
 
 " Injuriously affecting " seems to be in One sense a dealing com- 
 pulsorily with property under the powers of the bill, inasmuch as, 
 were it not for the powers conferred by the bill, the promoters 
 would be clearly liable to an action at law ; but the right of action 
 being taken away by the intervention of Parliament for the public 
 benefit, it has been provided that all persons injured shall be 
 compensated, and the works can no more be constructed without 
 such compensation than without compensating the owners of land 
 actually taken, and ought therefore to be considered in preparing 
 and inquiring into the estimates. 
 
 Companies formed under acts incorporating the^Lands Clauses Surplus Land. 
 Consolidation Act, 1845, being compelled by thai Act under cer- 
 tain circumstances to purchase more land thaiifthey require (s. 92), 
 and being also (s. 127) required within ten years to absolutely 
 resell all their surplus land, are entitled in preparing their esti- 
 mates to allow for the probable proceeds for the resale of such 
 lands, North London, Highgate and Alexandra Park Railway 
 (R. p. 118). 
 
 Where the promoters of docks claimed to be entitled to the 
 whole of a certain foreshore, and provided no sum for its acquisi- 
 tion, the Referees repbrted that they were not in a position to 
 decide whether the foreshore was or was not their property, Bute 
 DocJcs, Cardiff, No. 1 (D. 63). 
 
 In ohe case the Referees reported that so much of a solid Conditional 
 embankment as the Board of Trade might think fit should be made 
 an open viaduct. They added that the estimate was sufficient for 
 the-proposed work, but that if the Board ordered any great amount 
 of open viaduct, that it would be insufficient, Whitehaven and 
 Furness Junction Railway (D. 62), but they gave no opinion of 
 their own, whether much or little silting, so as to involve much or 
 any open viaduct would take place, and in fact, appear to have left 
 the Committee to deal with the matter as they might think fit. 
 
 The Referees still maintain the old practice of not allowing 
 more than general evidence as to value of land severance or houses, 
 as it may be used adversely to the promoters on subsequent occa- 
 sions. 
 
60 
 
 If the estimate be insufficient, the bill will not be allowed to 
 proceed further without leave of the house, S. 0. 96. This rule 
 is in some cases a hardship, especially where there are competing 
 schemes, one of which, though in every other respect inferior to 
 its rival which fails on estimate, may pass into law to the injury 
 of the district ; however, on the whole, giving more time for con- 
 sideration, it probably will secure more perfect schemes, being 
 ultimately carried out. 
 
 "Waterworks Bills. 
 
 By S. 0. 93, the Referees are directed to inquire, " In the case of 
 Waterworks Bills, into the nature and amount of the existing and 
 the proposed source of supply, as to pressure and proposed mode 
 of service, the quality of the water in each case, and the provisions 
 as to'storage reservoirs." 
 
 The Referees have held that this paragraph of the standing 
 order stands by itself, and has no reference to the first paragraph/ 
 Bute Docks, Cardiff (No. 2) Bill (R. p. 16), though, as will be 
 seen hereafter there are grounds for doubting this decision. 
 
 Under this clause of the standing order, considerable doubt and 
 difficulty has occurred, both as to practice and jurisdiction arising 
 from the question, what is engineering within, and what is beyond, 
 the province of the Referees, and also from the difficulty that the 
 present rule as to onus of proof throws upon petitioners in this 
 class of bills. 
 
 The petitioners, nearly invariably in these cases, are persons 
 with whose supply of water it is sought to interfere and in the case 
 of a commodity, like water of such vast and increasing value, and 
 of which the quantity is so limited, they- are certainly entitled to 
 the highest consideration. 
 
 The first point upon which an issue may be raised, is as to the 
 nature and amount of the existing source of supply, and on that, 
 as well as on the subsequent head of pressure and mode of service ; 
 and it does certainly seem hard, that the petitioner, who has by 
 far the least means of knowledge, should be obliged to come and 
 prove in the first instance, that the facts on which the pro- 
 
61 
 
 moters rely do not exist. The promoters say we want water, we 
 have not sufficient supply, and we seek to deprive you of yours. 
 Surely the petitioner may fairly say, "I do not helieve in such 
 want, and before you compel me to give up what I value, you 
 must put yourselves in Court by proving it." 
 
 With regard to pressure and mode of service the petitioner is 
 also very much in the dark, but he is not allowed to hear 
 what the promoters' scheme is from their own lips, but must 
 hunt out as best he may any blot in the promoters' scheme ; and 
 when it is hit, the promoters may then come and say, " True, 
 what we propose is bad, and you have proved it, but we will now 
 mend our hands." It would be exceedingly convenient were some 
 such course adopted as that in use in a Court with which most 
 members of the Court of Referees are acquainted, viz. — the Quarter 
 Sessions, where in appeal cases the appellant is required to put 
 himself in Court by proving certain facts peculiarly within his 
 own knowledge, such as that notice of appeal has been duly given, 
 after which the respondent proves his case. So here it is submitted 
 that there would be both a saving of time and a greater security 
 for justice being done between the parties, were some such rule 
 devised by the Referees as to those and some other similar points. 
 
 Be that as it may, it is clear that any petitioner who seeks to 
 raise any question on any of the points mentioned in standing 
 order 93, must go before the Referees. 
 
 With respect to the quality of the water, it is clear that the Comparison of 
 Referees have the power to inquire into the quality both of the j^j2. of 
 existing and the proposed source of supply ; but with regard to 
 another, very important question — whether there is any other pre- 
 ferable source of supply available to the promoters than that 
 proposed, there appears to be a conflict of decisions, for in the 
 case of the Cheltenham Water Bill (D. 65) the Court, on evidence 
 being tendered to that effect, considered that they were not at 
 liberty to enter upon that inquiry, while in the case of the 
 Chesterfield Water and Gas Bill (D. 65), they would seem to 
 have done so, as they reported that the quality of water proposed 
 to be supplied was as good as could be procured in that locality. 
 The only safe course, therefore, will be to tender the evidence 
 Sbefore the Referees, and if they should reject it, the petitioners 
 will be in a position to claim a hearing before the committee 
 on the bill. 
 
62 
 
 The matters enumerated in the third paragraph of the standing 
 order, are not among those named in S.O. 96 as being fatal to a 
 
 bill. 
 
 Where it was proposed to legalize a weir and feeder and to take 
 powers to supply ships and persons using a dock with water, the 
 bill was held to be a water works bill, Bute Decks, Cardiff (No. 
 2) Bill (E. p. 16): 
 
 Gas Bills. 
 
 Burthen of With respect to Gas Bills, the rule as to the right to begin, acts 
 Proof - still more harshly. than in the case of water. The matters to be 
 
 inquired into are, " The quality of the gas, the existing supply 
 and its price, the amount of pressure, the cost of production, the 
 modes of testing the purity and illuminating power of the gas, and 
 the proposed maximum price to be charged." 
 
 Now there is not one of these matters which is not in the ab- 
 solute knowledge of the promoters, and some of them no other 
 person can know anything about, as for instance, the exact quality, 
 the amount of pressure, and cost of production. 
 
 These are matters on which promoters could give the required 
 information at once, and petitioners not at all, or by going to a 
 vast expense. 
 
 There is also the doubt which has been raised (see Select Com- 
 mittee on Referees, p. 16), as to whether engineering can in this 
 case be considered. One Honourable Chairman was of opinion, 
 that the Referees have no such jurisdiction in gas bills ; and in 
 his evidence he says, that an inquiry as to the laying of the mains, 
 and as to the site of the gas works, whether they have to overcome a 
 hill between the point of manufacture and supply, cannot be raised, 
 and that the question of pressure never has been raised. 
 
 The ground for this opinion is as has already been noticed, that 
 engineering details are confined to inquiries into the first para- 
 graph of the standing order, which refers to bills of the second 
 class ; but he appears to have admitted, that water bills were not 
 exactly in the same category with gas bills, although they are 
 included in paragraph two of the standing order, and explains this 
 by making a, distinction between bills of the first and of the second 
 
63 
 
 It is difficult to see that the Referees are not bound under the 
 standing order, to inquire into the engineering details of all hills 
 authorizing " the construction of ■works." 
 
 The Referees have to inquire into the sufficiency of the 
 storage reservoirs, on which it is sometimes difficult to raise any 
 question from petitioners being obliged to begin. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 1. — Digest of Reports of Referees, Session 1865. 
 
 II. — Reports of Cases of Locus Standi, etc., Decided by 
 the Referees, Session 1865. 
 
 Whe References at the bottoms of Gases in {he Digest, are the Reports of 
 Referees to Parliament, 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 SAINT CLEMENT DANE'S IMPROVEMENT BILL. 
 
 Petition of the Vestky of Saint Clement Danes. 
 
 Locus Standi — Parish Auihorities-^Bdtes — Insertion of Clauses in Bill. 
 
 In this case the Vestry of the Parish of Saint Clement Dane's, peti- 
 tioned against the bill of the promoters, which proposed to make exten- 
 sive improvements in the parish, without however showing the sanction 
 of the Metropolitan Board of Works, on the ground that no provision 
 was made in the bill for the payment of certain rates, while the pro- 
 posed alterations and improvements were being executed. The material 
 ■allegations in the petition were, " That a bill is now being promoted in 
 your Honourable House, entitled the Saint Clement Dane's Improve- 
 ment Bill, seeking compulsory powers to purchase a large portion of 
 the houses and buildings on the north side of the Strand, in the Parish 
 of Saint Clement Dane's to widen the said Strand, and to erect more 
 convenient buildings on the site of the said buildings." " That although 
 provision is made in the said bill for the protection of the paving, 
 lighting, and cleansing rates, during the demolition of the existing, and 
 erection of the subsequent buildings, yet there is no provision for the 
 poliqe, poor, or other rates, and land tax." " That the said bill is pro- 
 moted purely for commercial purposes." 
 
 Hume Williams for the petitioners — This is a private company, 
 seeking compulsory powers, in order, to insure the success of private 
 speculation; the principle of altering a bill has not been previously 
 admitted; and passed -into ,law y ithe iAct. contains no provisions for 
 rates and- taxes within the, control of the vestry and. it is not competent 
 
for the Court to order any alteration of the bill. The clause sought to 
 be introduced is specially within the province of the vestry to claim. 
 
 Davison for the promoters — The clause asked for can be introduced, 
 and a similar clause has satisfied the Metropolitan Board. If an oppo- 
 sition is admitted, it should be limited to the introduction of the clause 
 asked for, and not be permitted to extend to general merits or details. 
 
 The Chairman urged opponents to accept the terms proposed. 
 
 Hume Williams replied he had advised the vestry to do so. 
 
 Ultimately, on the personal undertaking of Davison, that the clause 
 in question should be inserted, the locus standi of the petitioners was 
 disallowed. 
 
 BEECON AND LLANDOVERY JUNCTION BAIL WAT- 
 PETITION OF THE CENTRAL WALES EXTENSION BAIL- 
 WAY. 
 
 (Mr. Hassard.) 
 Locus Standi — Deviation of Authorized Line breaking Connection 
 between Bailmays, and avoiding Petitioners' Lime—' Locus Standi 
 
 Thb petitioners alleged, that- as at present authorized the two lines 
 would communicate at a common station; that if the proposed deviation 
 were authorized "the continuous communication would- fee broken up or 
 made most inconvenient by the introduction of part -of another com- 
 pany's line between them and promoters line, and that passengers and 
 other traffic passing from one line to the other, would- be subject to a 
 third company's tolls. ,-> 
 
 The promoters objected ito the loeus standiaS the petitioners on the 
 grounds: — 
 
 1st. That the petition did not allege any competition between the 
 promoters tod the petitioners. 
 
 2nd. Nor that there were provisions for taking or using any part of 
 the land8, railways, stations, or accommodation, of the petitioners, or for 
 running engines or carriages upon or across the same. 
 
 3rd. Nor that any land, property, right, or interest of their'a- would 
 be taken or affected. 
 
 4thi Nor that they had any such interest as entitled them to be 
 heard i against it. 
 
 Littler for the petitioners— The Brecon and Llandovery is a com- 
 peting scheme with the petitioners, and was so treated by Parliament 
 
when their Act (of 1863) was passed, and it was in that Act, by section 
 27, required that their railway should be so constructed as to com- 
 municate with < the petitioners' line near' its southerly terminus at the 
 most northerly point reasonably practicable, thereby causing them the 
 longest run over petitioners' line, and so as to afford to the petitioners 
 the greatest facilities which could be obtained from a line, which was 
 essentially a competing scheme* and also to afford them a convenient' 
 junctibn for traffic, coming from the neighbourhood of Brecon to Llan- 
 drindod Wells on petitioners' line* which is a watering-place of some 
 celebrity ; and in return, by clause 29, compelled the Central Wales 
 Extension to complete that portion of their line within twelve months? 
 which they have done, and for which' portion the. Brecon and Llan- 
 dovery will have to pay toll. ' '' ' , 
 
 The new scheme avoids our line altogether, and all traffic will either 
 have to cross Llandovery by road, from their proposed new station, or to 
 go round by a proposed junction with the Vale of To wy, which Would 
 be inconvenient to the public, and also subject it to that company's < 
 tolls. No doubt this state of facts does not show any competition, nor 
 does it show any injury within S. O. 132 ; but we complain that we have 
 been compelled to do our share of an arrangement sanctioned by Parlia- 
 ment in 1863, and to go to great expense as to a station intended for the 
 Central Wales Extension, Brecon and Llandovery, and Vale of Towy, 
 which the Brecon and Llandovery now seek to avoid. Perhaps we do 
 not come within the standing orders, but the promoters have made a 
 fatal admission ; they say our interests are not interfered with, showing 
 that if they are, we are entitled to be heard. We lose tolls, and our traffic 
 is inconvenienced as already shown, and we also clearly have an " inte- 
 rest " such as is mentioned by them in their fourth objection. At the 
 worst this is a casus omissus, and this Court has power to admit a 
 petitioner where manifest hardship, would be done, especially where 
 excluding the petitioners will have a direct tendency to overturn aa 
 arrangement already, sanctioned by parliament. 
 
 Salisbury for the promoters — The other side, are compelled to admit 
 that they do not come within the provisions of the standing, orders. 
 Mr. BUbsakd — No, they say at worstthey do not. 
 The promoters clearly dty not in. any way affect the petitioners 
 injuriously within, the, meaning pf-the words, which mean, physically 
 affecting. If it is,- a. came, omissus this Court has no power to remedy 
 that. 
 
 By the CouBT^-The (<hh#. sfcwft of the Central Wales Extension 
 Company is allowed. 
 
SOUTH LANCASHIRE RAILWAYS AND DOCK. 
 PETITION OF TRADERS AND INHABITANTS OF WIDNES, 
 
 (Mr. Hassakd.) 
 Locus Standi — Injuriously Affecting. 
 The petitioner's manufacturers sought to be heard, on the ground that 
 the proposed Railway and Dock — some parts of which lay within three 
 miles of Widnes — would, by attracting large ships to their dock, and by 
 competition, prevent the development of the docks at Widnes, and of 
 their works on which large sums of money had been expended, and 
 damage the prosperity of the town. 
 
 The promoters objected to the locus standi of petitioners. 
 
 Martin {Parliamentary Agent) for the petitioners — The petitioners 
 clearly have a lows standi. It cannot be said that a railway and dock 
 which compete and enable other manufacturers of similar articles to 
 compete, do not "injuriously affect" their town. 
 
 Littler for the promoters — These words must mean the same as the 
 same expression in the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, as rela- 
 ting to compensation for lands, i. e. physically affected, and this it is- 
 not pretended we do. If these persons are to be said to be injuriously 
 affected because our dock is in a better position than their's, they and 
 we (if authorized) might oppose any other new dock still lower down 
 the Mersey, say at Birkenhead or Liverpool. 
 
 By the Court — the locus standi must be disallowed. 
 
 ABOYNE AND BRAEMAR RAILWAY. 
 (Mr. Adair.) 
 Boad — Danger to Public — Jurisdiction ofBeferees. 
 The petitioners objected that the estimates were insufficient (on this they 
 offered no evidence); that the line was laid out in such close proximity 
 to a much frequented public road, passing up a narrow valley by the side 
 of the River Dee, as to render the use of that road by persons with horses 
 and carriages inconvenient and dangerous ; that the road at one point 
 passed close to a perpendicular cliff, of 50 feet over the river, composed 
 of gravel, which was continually being washed away ; and that in ad- 
 dition to the danger oaused by the nearness of the railway, its construc- 
 tion would prevent the removal of the road further from the river if 
 required ; that at a narrow part of the valley there was a curve of 1 5 
 chains radius, so situated as to make it impossible to screen a train 
 
coming up in the opposite direction from the sight of horses descending 
 the road ; and that the line crossed the Tullich Burn, a wild moun- 
 tainous stream, formidable in winter, at a depth of 18 feet below 
 the level thereof and in cutting, and that it was impossible to carry the 
 Burn either under, or over, except at a great expense. 
 
 The promoters replied, that the Burn could be lowered and carried 
 under the line for less than £500 ; that by putting a screen in 
 certain places, by the side of the road, and in others by the side of the 
 railway, the view of the trains might be effectually prevented ; and that 
 at the point of passing the perpendicular' cliff, the objections might be 
 obviated by carrying the line further to the north, within the limits of 
 deviation ; and generally, that in a narrow valley, already traversed by 
 a road and a river, it was not possible to carry the line otherwise than 
 as proposed. 
 
 The Referees reported, that on the question whether the line can be 
 worked as laid down without possible danger to the public, using the 
 road in such close proximity to the . railway and the river, they pro- 
 nounced no opinion ; but that it was proved to their satisfaction, that 
 screens as proposed by the promoters could be erected, that there were 
 no engineering objections to the line, and that the estimates were 
 sufficient. 
 
 3rd April, 1865, p. 216. 
 
 NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS). 
 
 (Mr. Hassard.) 
 
 Boad — Level Crossing — Jurisdiction of Beferees. 
 
 The promoters proposed, amongst other things, to carry two lines of 
 
 rail across a road which they had heretofore crossed with a single line 
 
 only. 
 
 To this the road trustees objected, alleging that this would be 
 dangerous and tedious, aud suggested that the road could be carried 
 over the railway without increasing the gradient of the road 1 in 9^ ; 
 but to do this would require an embankment above 15 feet high, with 
 proportionate slopes, and one approach would run out above 150 feet. 
 
 The Referees reported that there were no engineering obstacles to 
 laying the second line of rails, or to constructing the bridge, but that 
 they did not consider it within their province to offer any opinion as 
 to the propriety of carrying the road over the railway by the bridge. 
 
 28th March, 1865, p. 178. 
 
LANCASHIEE AND YQRKSHHtiB RAILWAY (ADDITION AI* 
 
 POWERS). 
 (Mr. Hassabd.) 
 Eoad— Farrow Vafley— Proximity of Line. 
 It was objected, that from about 1 m, 2£ furh, up to I m, %l furl., there 
 was a curve of 15} chain* i» a deep cutting of 43 feet to some parts, and 
 that at the t<$row«»#<w of this curve, the. prop.os.ad railway would come 
 upoft a turnpike road, and run parallel with U, on a slightly higher 
 Javal for about 60 cU*i«%, at » distance of qi»1j ?0 yards. 
 
 The promoter* replied, that the valley waa only 60 yards wide* autf 
 that the proximity to. th« wad could not be avoided. 
 
 The Eeferees reported, that the line could not well be carried in any 
 other direction* hut tiwt * screen should be, erected, and maintained* by 
 the Company (if r^uir^d) between the iptflway and the road, 
 
 m&rtt, 1865, p,m 
 
 LONDON 4ND NOETH WESTEEN EATLWAY (NEW WORKS). 
 
 (Mr. Hassabd.) 
 
 himAei Alterations of Existing Worlcs obviating Engineering Objections. 
 
 It was objected that the gradient, 1 in 80 for two miles of a line near 
 
 St. Helen's, was bad ; and also that the line would cross on that gradient 
 
 13 pairs of aiding? in the goods station there. 
 
 The promoters replied that they intended moving the goods station 
 and sidings to other land, which they had purchased for the purpose. 
 
 The Eeferees reported that the line, might be safely constructed in 
 &e way proposed by tike promoter^ »nd that there were. no, objection* 
 ift an engineering point of -<mw. 
 
 6th April, 1865, p. 24& 
 
 LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST EAILWAY 
 (SAINT LEONARD'S LINE AND DEVIATIONS). 
 
 (Mr, DWSQN») 
 Cmemtions to Opponents. 
 It was objected by the Commissioners of Sewers, Ac., for Peve»sey, that 
 the railway would be carried over the levels within their jurisdiction, 
 over such unsound ground, that unless several cul verts,. varying in size, 
 from 10 to 18 feet were made, the drainage would be materially affected. 
 
The promoters expressed their willingness to make all the required cul- 
 verts, except two of IS feet each.. , , 
 
 The Eeferees reported that these difficulties were readily to be 
 surmounted, and that the provisions to which the promoters were willing 
 to assent, would suffice for carrying off the water. 
 
 QthMcaxili, 1865,jp.57. 
 
 SPALDING AND BOURN RAILWAY, 
 
 (Mr. Hassaed.) 
 Level Crciisinq — Concession to Opponents. 
 This line was objected to on the ground; that it was proposed to cross 
 the. Bourn and Essendine, Branch of the. Gre^t Northern Railway upon 
 the level, ahout 1Q chains, from. the. Bourn Station, at the foot of a de- 
 sqending gradient of X in 1Q0 towards, the proposed crossing, and 
 where that line is in a. cutting of 5 feet,, and on a curve of 20 chains 
 radius, the proposed railway having at that point a descending gradient 
 of 1 in 78, 
 
 It was answered that the proposed line could not be carried over 
 or under the Bourn and Essendine line ; but in order to avoid danger, 
 it was proposed to construct a blind siding, with self-acting points, 
 which would turn any train coming down the incline into such siding, 
 instead of allowing it to cross the Bourn and Essendine line ; and that 
 •the control of the pointsi would b© in the hands of the Cfaeat Horthem 
 Company. 
 
 The Referees repotted, that with these provisions, there, were no 
 engineering objections, 
 
 28th April, 1865, p. 28$. 
 
 SWANSEA VALE AND NEATH AND BRECON JUNCTION 
 
 RAILWAY. 
 
 (Six. Hassabc) 
 faterferme mtk &emr%-~Coim»8im to Qpp/omttx — SnomgrBridge* 
 This bfll was opposed' by the Mayor, &©., of Swansea,, on the ground 
 of stopping up two of their public roads, and of interference with 
 their sewers., drains, and water maias ; but the proinotejta explained 
 that they intended to cross one street by- an aioh of 12 ft. clear 
 headway, and the other by one of 70 ft. span, and also offered' not 
 to dietmb .the existing system of sewers, drains, and water mains, 
 
10 
 
 until substitutes should be provided to the satisfaction of the peti- 
 tioners' surveyor. The Vale of Neath Company objected that the 
 making of the proposed junction with the Swansea and Neath Eailway 
 would be incompatible with its safe working at a swing-bridge close to 
 such junction, which was open at irregular periods for four hours each 
 tide. At this bridge, the Board.of Trade had, for the prevention of danger 
 to the trains on the Swansea and Neath Eailway, required that points 
 should be put in in such a manner, that trains coming towards the 
 bridge are deflected into a curve, instead of passing forward to the 
 bridge, unless the points are expressly altered to allow of their passage 
 on to it, it was admitted that the proposed works would take away this 
 advantage, and the danger of accident in passing the bridge would be 
 augmented, but with care and great attention the junction could be 
 worked. The Eeferees reported, that subject to such explanation and 
 undertaking, there were no engineering objections as regards the said 
 Mayor, &c, to the proposed line. As to the Yale of Neath Company's 
 objections, simply, that " subject to these observations there are not any 
 engineering objections." ^ 1%, 1865, j, 372. 
 
 VALE OF NEATH EAILWAY (SWANSEA LINES). 
 (Mr. Hassaed.) 
 
 Total Occupation of Towing Pa(h~-Beservation by Eeferees of Portion for 
 Public — Concession to Opponents. 
 
 It was objected by the Swansea Harbour Trustees, that the promoters 
 proposed to cross certain low level railways and a carriage road of the 
 petitioners upon the level ; and also, that it was proposed to acquire 
 certain towing paths. 
 
 The Eeferees reported that there was a considerable increasing 
 traffic on the low level railways worked by horses, but that as the pro- 
 posed railway was merely a siding to a proposed goods station, trains 
 could never be run over it at any speed, and that as the control of the 
 crossing and signals would be in the hands of the petitioners, there 
 were no, engineering objections to the proposed line : that the towing 
 path being that used by vessels proceeding to the North Dock and the 
 Eiver Towy, it was necessary that free use of a towing path, at least 
 16 ft. in width, should be preserved to the harbour trustees and the 
 public. 
 
 16th May, 1865, p. 367. 
 
11 
 
 GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Hassaed.) 
 Approaches — Concession to Opponents. 
 The petitioners, landowners, objected that a private road and public 
 footway now crossed upon the level by the North and South Junction 
 Railway, would be rendered useless, and that the approach to certain 
 parts of the petitioner's estates, by means of a bridge over the Great 
 Western Railway, would be blocked up and destroyed. 
 
 The promoters in reply suggested, that the private road and footway 
 could be carried under the proposed railway, and the North and South 
 Junction Railway near the northern end of the proposed railway, 
 and that the access to the said portion of the petitioner's estate could be 
 maintained by the erection of a bridge over the Great "Western Railway 
 to the west of the existing bridge. 
 
 The Referees reported, that the petitioner's complaint was well 
 founded, and that the engineering details of the proposed railway would 
 be defective unless works of the kind proposed were provided. 
 
 6th April, 1865, p. 243. 
 
 HAVANT, HAMBLEDON, AND DROXFORD RAILWAY, 
 
 (Mr. Dodson.) 
 
 Junction — Removal of from Point on Deposited Plans within Limits of 
 
 Deviation. 
 
 It was objected that the proposed junction of the promoters' line with 
 the petitioners, and a proposed diversion of a turnpike road, would 
 necessitate the construction of a Skew-bridge in place of a square one 
 on the authorized Petersfield and Bishop Waltham Railway, where it 
 crosses a turnpike road at an increased expense to the petitioners, for 
 the sole benefit of the promoters, to which it was replied and proved, 
 that the limits of deviation would admit of the junction being made 
 lower down on the petitioners' line, and that such a junction would 
 enable the promoters to enlarge the piece of level of their line on which 
 the junction was formed from 100 to 232 yards, and also to divert the 
 turnpike road without any interference with the petitioners' bridge. 
 
 The Referees reported that the latter arrangement was preferable in 
 an engineering point of view. 
 
 3rd March, 1865, p. 45 
 
12 
 
 BURTON-IJPON-TRENT AND NOTTINGHAM RAILWAY. 
 (Mr. Hassajrd.) 
 
 Obviation of Objections — Junction — Deposited Plan — [Eemoval of 
 
 Points — Jurisdiction of Rvferees.. 
 Ti was objected; to Railway N6. I, that it was intended to appropriate 
 one of the arches of the bridge carrying Hawkih's Lane, in Burton- 
 upon-Trent, over the Midland and Nbrth 'Western Railways, this 
 bridge having been^built by the Midland Cbmpany, and the said arch 
 reserved for their own use. The promoters- avowed this intention, but 
 alleged if not permitted to do so, they could effect their purpose by con- 
 structing another arch under Hawkin's Lane, which could be done 
 without altering its level. 
 
 It was also objeeted, that No. 1 would be carried so near to the 
 North Staffordshire Railway as to interfere with its slopes, that near 
 Radcliffe it crosses the Midland Railway by a bridge having a headway 
 of only 16 feet from rail to rail, but it was shown that by a slight altera- 
 tion sufficient headw-ay can be given ; and that its junction in Notting- 
 ham with the North Western Railway was shown on the plan to be 
 effected upon a girder bridge, carrying the Great Northern Railway over 
 the Midland Railway, ^with a span of 90 feet, and that to effect such 
 junction it would be necessary to cut through one of the side girders of 
 such bridge ; but in reply to the last objection it was stated, that the 
 junction was not intended to be effected upon the bridge but at the 
 south end thereof. 
 
 It was objected to No. 3 Railway; that it could not be constructed as 
 proposed, so as to pass under the North Staffordshire Railway, leaving 
 sufficient heading, but it was replied that No. 3 would there be on a 
 gradient of 1 in 1016, and the point of crossing being 600 feet from its 
 junction with the London and North Western Railway, by mating the 
 gradient a little more steep, but still being less than 1 in 500, ample 
 headway could be provided. 
 
 To No. 4 it was objected that it was intended to form a junction 
 with the Midland^Railway, at a point where the latter is carried over a 
 road called the Meadow Lane Road, in the town of Nottingham, upon 
 the level, to which it was replied that it was not intended to form the 
 junction upon the road, but at a point south of it, and to run over the 
 road upon the existing Midland Lines, powers to use which were sought 
 in the bill. * 
 
 The Referees reported that it would be preferable in an engineering 
 point of view that the arch of the Midland Railway should not be inter- 
 
13 
 
 fered with ; that the interference with the North Staffordshire could 
 be obviated by the use of retaining walls, where necessary, and that there 
 was ample room for both lines ; and that if the junction of No. 1 were 
 effected at the sooth end of the bridge, there weald :be no engineering 
 objection, but as to whether the promoters could depart from the point of 
 junction shown upon the deposited plan, was not for them to decide, 
 being a question of law or clause. 
 
 3rd April, 1865, p. 217. 
 
 KING'S LYNN IKJCKS AND RAILWAY. 
 (Mr. Amie.) 
 
 Junction — Powers of JBUl — Jurisdiction of Referees. 
 On the objection of the Great Eastern Railway Company. 
 
 The Referees reported, that a junction with the Harbour Branch of 
 the Great Eastern Railway might easily be made in an engineering 
 point of view, but declined to express any opinion as to whether Che 
 promoters took power by their bill to effect the same. 
 
 13ihWarc%,lB65,j).^B. 
 
 BISHOFS CASTLE RAILWAY (EXTENSION TO CRAVEN 
 
 ARMS). 
 .•-...-. , (Mr. Hassabd.) 
 
 Junction — Deposited Plans — Bemedying Defect — Providing for Betervoir 
 
 Destroyed. 
 If compelled to make their junction at Knighton,"at the point shown on 
 the deposited plans, it was proved that the promoters could only reach 
 the platform of the Shre%sbury and Hereford -Company, which is also 
 used by the Knighton Company, at Knighton Station, by running along 
 the main line of the Knighton Railway, and making a back shunt to 
 the platform, and that they had taken no powers to use any part of the 
 Knighton Railway, but only die Shrewsbury and Hereford Station. 
 The petitioners also alleged tint the proposed line would interfere with 
 and prevent the construction of 4 reservoir much needed at the station 
 on the west side of the Knighton Kallway. It was however proved* 
 that other land would fee procured by the promoters in the immediate 
 •vicinity of the proposed reservoir. 
 
 The Referees reported, thatth« first ©Rejection, if not remedied, was 
 an engineering defect, but that ««&jecfc to the foregoing there were no 
 defects in an engineering point of view. 
 
 30«ft March, 1865, p. 194 
 
14 
 
 EVESHAM AND EEDDITCH EAILWAY. 
 (Mr. Hassard.) 
 
 Span of Bridge — Gradients and Sidings — Improvement of Scheme before 
 
 Beferees. 
 
 The Great Western Railway Company complained that No. 1 Eailway 
 crossed the main single line and two sidings of their Honeybourne and 
 Stratford Branch, by an arch of 26 feet span only, and that line No. 3, 
 crossed the sidings leading to a goods station, turntable, and sidings, of 
 their's, upon an embankment of 4 or 5 feet placed upon the rails of the 
 sidings. 
 
 The promoters' engineer admitted, that the span of the bridge was 
 insufficient, and offered to increase it to 40 feet, and also explained 
 to the Eeferees that by commencing his gradient towards the station 
 (which on the deposited plans is 1 in 100), some chains further off, the 
 line could be formed so as to cross the sidings on the level of the rails. 
 
 The Eeferees reported, that if the bridge were increased to a span of 
 40 feet, and the sidings were crossed on the level, there would be no 
 engineering objection to these railways. 
 
 lUh March, 1865, p. 85. 
 
 EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW RAILWAY (No. 2). 
 (Mr. Hassard.) 
 
 Injuries to Streets and other Schemes — Concessions to Opponents. 
 
 It was objected by^the Corporation of Glasgow, that the promoters pro- 
 posed to stop Hunter Street, Glasgow, the main connecting street be- 
 tween Duke Street and the Gallogate, two leading thoroughfares, there 
 being no other street between it and High Street (distant 600 yards) 
 and to substitute a new street 166 yards further east, in Gallogate, and 
 60 yards further east in Duke Street, than, Hunter Street, and so much 
 the more distant from High Street ; that by the construction of the rail- 
 <way, the proper sewerage of the district to the north would be prevented ; 
 and that the markets wonld be injured. The Forth and Clyde Naviga- 
 tion complained, that the carrying the proposed railway under the spans 
 
15 
 
 of their Drumpeller Viaduct would prevent them from improving the 
 connection of their Drumpeller Railway, with their canal, and also that 
 the spans (30 feet) of the arches by which it was proposed to cany the 
 railway over their canal were insufficient. 
 
 The Beferees reported that from the line being in cutting where it 
 crosses Hunter Street, and the authorized works of the Glasgow Union 
 Railway, it would be impossible to carry Hunter Street either under or 
 over the proposed line, and that there were no engineering objections to 
 its construction in the manner proposed ; that by constructing an inter- 
 cepting sewer at the north side of No. 1 Railway, the drainage could be 
 completely preserved ; that the promoters had agreed that the proposed 
 railway should be carried through the markets in a tunnel or 
 covered way, which would obviate all objections ; that they had also 
 agreed that the railway, where it crosses the Drumpeller Viaduct for a 
 distance of 90 feet from each side of the same, should be constructed 
 wholly to the south of a burn, marked No. 59 on the plans, with which 
 the petitioners were satisfied ; that the canal bridges should be of a span 
 of 36 feet, leaving a clear waterway of 30, exclusive of the towing path ; 
 and that with, these alterations there would be no engineering objections. 
 
 15th May, 1865, p. 359. 
 
 FULHAM RAILWAY. 
 (Mr. Hassakd.) 
 
 Junction — Injury to Opponents Railways — Alteration of Point of Junction 
 whilst before Beferees. 
 
 The London and South "Western Railway Company objected, that Rail- 
 way No. 2, if the Junction thereby proposed, were effected as laid 
 down on the deposited plan, would debar them from using a portion of 
 the Hammersmith and City Railway, which they were entitled to use, 
 and also from the use of a joint station. 
 
 The promoters offered to effect their junction at a point 6 chains 
 south of the point laid down on the plan with which the petitioners ex- 
 pressed themselves satisfied. 
 
 The Referees reporttd that there were no engineering objections. 
 
 21st March, 1865, p. 127. 
 
16 
 
 OKEHAMPTON RAILWAY, 
 (Mr. Hassabd.) 
 
 Injury to Ompetlng Line already Authorized *-= Oownniont — Powers of 
 
 Bill. 
 
 The Launceston and South Devon Railway objected that Railway No. 1 
 would interfere with the construction and enlargement of their railway, 
 being laid down for 5£ miles, in close proximity to their railway, occu- 
 pying, in gome places, the actual site thereof, and passing under the 
 bridges constructed by them for their own use, and over lands purchased 
 for doubling their line ; and that at Mary Tavy, the proposed line, would 
 pass between the station now being erected by the petitioners and their 
 railway. 
 
 The promoters in reply alleged, that they could construct their line 
 as a single line within their limits of deviation, except at Mary Tavy 
 station, through which they admitted they must pass, 
 
 The, South Devon Railway complained that Railway No. 3 would 
 interfere with the works, station, and sidings of their railway at Tavis- 
 tock, which the promoters admitted, but offered to obviate by a slight 
 deviation. They further complained, that Railway No. 7 descended 
 towards the south with a gradient of 1 in 60, that it then crossed the 
 main street leading from tha east into Plymouth) and shortly afterwards 
 descended with a gradient of 1 in 40, to within 3 chains of its termi- 
 nation near the water side. 
 
 The Referees trotted, that No. 1 could not be constructed without 
 infringing upon and rendering impossible the intended second line of the 
 petitioners ; that the promoters could not construct their line between 
 the petitioners' existing line and the cemetery near Tavistock, and that 
 they would also most probably hare to make use of the bridges Con- 
 structed by the petitioners for their double Una of railway, as otherwise, 
 in order to pass under the roads which cross over both lines, it might 
 be necessary to alter the gradients of the approaches to the bridges, to 
 do which, no powers are taken in the bill ; that the moving of the Mary 
 Tavy Station to the opposite side of the railway, would be attended with 
 much inconvenience ; that the gradient in Plymouth, being so near the 
 terminus, was very objectionable, and that subject to the foTBgoing 
 observations, there were no engineering obstacles. 
 
 16$ March, 1865, p. 92. 
 
17 
 
 GLASGOW CITY SUBURBAN AND HARBOUR RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Adair.) 
 
 Concessions to Opponents — Junction — Bemoval of from Point in Deposited 
 Plans within Limits of Deviation — Powers of Bill. 
 
 It was objected that a junction was proposed on the City of Glasgow 
 Union Railway, and that there was a difference of levels before the two 
 lines could clear each other of between two and three feet ; that diverting 
 Blackfriar Street, as proposed on the bill, would destroy one approach 
 to their goods station ; and that the line would render useless the south- 
 ern entrance to their station from High Street. 
 
 It was replied, that the line was devised to do as little injury to the 
 petitioners' line as possible ; that Blackfriar Street was diverted only 
 400 yards ; that the gradient of the proposed new street would be good ; 
 that the closing of the southern entrance could be obviated by carrying 
 the proposed line in tunnel; and that the junction could be effected 
 within the powers of the bill, by carrying it to the extreme point of the 
 limits of deviation on land scheduled, and by raising the promoters' line 
 to an extent not exceeding the limits laid down in the general act. 
 
 The Referees reported that all important interference with the pro- 
 perty and goods stations of the petitioners, might be practically avoided, 
 but that the junction could not be constructed under the powers in the 
 bill. 
 
 29th March, 1865, p. 186. 
 
 OGMORE VALLEY RAILWAYS (No. 1). 
 (Mr. Adaik.) 
 
 Junction — Sidings — Legal Powers. 
 
 It was objected that railway. No. 1 proposed a junction with the Ely 
 Valley Extension (broad guage line), at a turning point of gradients, 
 and was. therefor© dangerous. That railway No. 3 (a narrow guage 
 line) ran parallel with the existing Great Western (broad guage) 
 line, and was not necessary; that railway No. 3, at the junction 
 with the Ely Valley Railway could not be made according to 
 the deposited plans; that railway No. 5, proposed to join the Great 
 Western with a falling gradient of 1 in 76, close to the junction 
 
18 
 
 point of the Llantrissant and Taff Vale, which comes down to the junc- 
 tion on a falling gradient of 1 in 40; to bisect the sidings of the 
 Llantrissant and Taff Vale Eailways, whioh are legally laid down on 
 the level, and where the passenger traffic of the Llantrissant and the 
 Ely Valley lines would pass according to the requirements of the Board 
 of Trade, the Llantrissant Company having no power to alter their 
 sidings. 
 
 The promoters replied, that the gradient of No. 1 was, under the cir- 
 cumstances good, that the junction was practicable, that the Ely Valley 
 Extension had the power and the intention to lay down a third or narrow 
 guage rail, that No. 3 was for through narrow guage traffic, and there- 
 fore, though parallel to an existing line, was necessary, and that it could 
 be made, and by arrangement improved, and that the sidings referred 
 to were not legally there, and could be shifted by arrangement. 
 
 The Eeferees reported that there were no engineering objections to 
 No 1 ; that No. 3 could not be made at the point of junction with the 
 Ely Valley Extension, under the powers of the bill ; and that No. 5 
 proposed to join the sidings in an objectionable manner if the sidings 
 were legally in their present position, and was defeotive in an engineer- 
 ing point of view. The referees abstained from expressing any opinion 
 whether the sidings were or were not legal. 
 
 \9May, 1865, p. 420. 
 
 LAUNCESTON, BODMIN, AND WADEBEIDGE JUNCTION 
 
 EAILWAY. 
 (Mr. Hassakd.) 
 
 Junction— Doubling Opponents' Line— Concisions— Legal power to effect 
 
 (he same. 
 
 Tais was a bill for making a line to the Cornwall Eailway at Truro. 
 
 The Cornwall Eailway Company objected, and it was proved that 
 the junction at Truro would prevent the widoning of their viaduct there 
 if they should requiro to double the existing single line. 
 
 The promoters suggested that a junction could be offected within 
 the limits of deviation, by moving the point two chains further to the 
 west of the point shown on the deposited plans, and so by shifting the 
 line to the north, permit the Cornwall Eailway to be widened. 
 
19 
 
 This could be physically effected, but would lengthen the line by 
 two chains, and would also shift the point of Junction from that shown 
 on the deposited plans. 
 
 The Eeferees reported that it was extremely doubtful whether this 
 alteration could be legally executed without the consent of the Cornwall 
 Railway Company ; but that they were not competent to determine 
 this point. 
 
 18th May, I860, p. 375. 
 
 LLANTRISSANT AND TAFE VALE JUNCTION RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Adair.) 
 Junction — Facing points — Concession to Opponents — Powers of Bill. 
 
 Railway No. 1 proposed to join the Taff Vale Railway on a gradient 
 of 1 in 40 — the gradient of the Taff Vale at that point being 1 in 290. 
 Railway No. 2 proposed to join the Ely Valley Railway on a descending 
 gradient of 1 in 50 — the gradient on the Ely Valley at that point being 
 1 in 84. 
 
 It was objected that in order to effect a practicable junction on 
 No. 1, the gradient of 1 in 40 must be altered to 1 in 37, which would 
 occasion an alteration in the level of 7 feet per mile, whereas 5 feet 
 per mile is the utmost alteration allowed, and that consequently no 
 junction could be effected at this point ; and that the junction on Rail- 
 way No. 2 could not, in consequence of the difference of the gradients, 
 be effected without making a divergence beyond the limits shown on 
 the deposited plans and sections. 
 
 The promoters replied, as to the junction on Railway No. 1, that 
 inasmuch as no facing points are allowed on the Taff Vale Railway, 
 they proposed to join that line 1 by a back shunt, which they alleged 
 that they had power to do by extending their line beyond the limits 
 shown on the deposited plans, and upon lands scheduled (the proposed 
 works being works of convenience, and not portions of the main line) ; 
 and as to No. 2, they proposed to effect a junction in a similar manner, 
 which they alleged they had power to do. 
 
 The Referees reported that the junctions, according to the deposited 
 plans, could not be effected without the insertion of facing points, and 
 that that would be objectionable in an engineering point of view, and 
 further, that the mode proposed to obviate the difficulty could not be 
 effected under the powers of the bill. 
 
 19<ft May, 1865, p. 422. 
 
20 
 
 BRECON AND MERTHYR TYDFIL JUNCTION RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Adair.) 
 
 Junctions — Great Care being requisite, not an Engineering Defect under 
 Circumstances— Deposited Plan — Alterations — Powers of Bill — Affecting 
 Canal. 
 It was objected, that in consequence of the porous and shifting nature 
 of the soil, the proximity of the proposed railway to the Glamorganshire 
 Canal (in some places only 50 feet intervening) and from its being for 
 about 1 mile and 77 chains below its level, serious danger was to be appre- 
 hended to the canal from leakage, and from the slipping of the banks, both 
 during its construction and after its completion ; that inasmuch as at the 
 proposed junction with the authorized Brecon and Merthyr Railway, the 
 point of junction corresponds with the limits of deviation, and as there 
 is a difference at that point of 2 feet 6 inches in level between the pro- 
 posed, and the authorized lines, a practicable junction cannot be made 
 within the limits of deviation ; and that a proposed junction with the 
 Great "Western Railway at Aberdare, was an improper curve on which 
 to approach a station, on the ground that it joined the existing line at 
 the end of a viaduct, on a curve of 10 chains radius, the proposed line 
 being for a great part of that curve in cutting. 
 
 The promoters stated, that whatever may be the nature of the soil, 
 no danger need arise to the works of the canal, if proper precautions be 
 used in the construction of the proposed railway ; that by building 
 retaining walls (for which they have provided on their estimates) in those 
 portions of the line where the proposed railway is in cutting below the 
 level of and close to the banks of the canal, the danger arising from the 
 leakage of the water, or slipping of the banks would be avoided ; and 
 that during the construction of the bridge under the canal, no inter- 
 ference would be caused to the traffic; that the junction of the proposed 
 railway with the authorized Brecon and Merthyr Railway, although im- 
 practicable as shown upon the deposited plans, could be effected under 
 the powers of the Bill, and of the Act of the authorized Brecon and 
 Merthyr Railway ; that the curve of 10 chains radius at the point of 
 junction with the existing Aberdare Branch of ^the Great Western 
 Railway was not one of unusual severity ; that in the present case, 
 without making a new viaduct, or altering the canal, no better junction 
 could be made, and that the objection to the line being in cutting on a 
 
21 
 
 curve would be in part removed by constructing sidings thereon, which 
 would open and improve it. 
 
 The Referees reported, that considering the heavy character of tho 
 proposed works, and the porous and unstable nature of the soil, more 
 than ordinary care would be required in the construction of the proposed 
 railway; that even under those circumstances) the execution of the 
 works would necessitate, in certain cases, a deviation of the centre line> 
 and the construction of retaining walls to a considerable extent 
 (possibly of an aggregate length of 3 miles), but that the execution of 
 the proposed works was a question of expense for which sufficient 
 provision had been made in the estimates. 
 
 "With regard to the proposed Junction, the Referees were of opinion, 
 that although there was no engineering objection to the Junction with 
 the Aberdare Branch of the Great "Western Railway, yet, owing to the 
 position of the viaduct and the radius of the Junction curve, great care 
 would be required in working the traffic at this point, and that the 
 junction with the authorized Brecon and Merthyr Railway could not be 
 effected under the powers of the bill. 
 
 1M May, 1865, p. 425. 
 
 SWANSEA AND ABERYSTW1TH JUNCTION RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Adair.) 
 
 Junction — Alteration of Gradients — Facing Points on Single Line. 
 
 It was objected that a proposed junction with the authorized line of 
 the Swansea and Aberystwith Railway, at a point where there would 
 be gradents of 1 in 125, falling in opposite directions towards the junc- 
 tion, could not be made under the powers of the bill ; that the proposed 
 line then ran for 3 miles with only a ditch between it and the line 
 of the Vale of Towy Railway Company, so that, as sidings could not be 
 placed on both sides they would be two-one sided railways ; that as 
 both lines would run nearly on a level and intersecting farms, the ac- 
 commodation and other roads would be inconvenient and dangerous ; 
 that the Lampeter Road, by which all the traffic from the North is 
 conveyed to the Vale of Towy Railway, and which is the only means 
 of communication for miles with the south side of the vale, was to 
 be crossed on the level. 
 
22 
 
 The promoters admitted that the junction could not be formed ac- 
 cording to the sections on the deposited plans, but they maintained 
 that the gradients of the proposed lines might be altered under the 
 powers of the Bailways* Clauses Act, so as to enable the junction to be 
 made. 
 
 The Referees deported, that the petitioners objections were well 
 founded in fact ; that the proposed junction with the Swansea and 
 Aberystwith Eailway could not be made in accordance with the deposited 
 plans ; and further, that a proposed junction with the Vale of Towy Bail- 
 way, three-quarters of a mile south of Llandovery was at a point where 
 the proposed devjation line of the Brecon and Llandovery Eailway also 
 joins it, and that as the main object of the Swansea and Aberystwith 
 Junction Eailway was to form a communication with the said deviation 
 line, this junction would involve two sets of facing points on a single 1 
 line, which in the opinion of the Eeferees was highly objectionable. 
 
 19th May, 1865,^.419. 
 
 ELY AND OGMORE VALLEYS JUNCTION EAILWAY. 
 
 Junctions — Amendments — Powers of Bill — Efficiency of Works 
 for Proposed Object. 
 
 It was objected, that the proposed railway ' was badly laid out, and 
 ill-adapted to the mineral traffic of the district ; that the gradients and 
 curves were bad, and that the estimates were insufficient ; that the pro- 
 posed railway passed under the Ely Valley Extension Eailway in an ob- 
 jectionable manner, so as to obstruct the making of any other railway at 
 that point, and that it joined the Ely Valley Eailway with bad gra- 
 dients and curves. In support of these allegations, evidence was offered ; 
 that the junctions could not be made according to the deposited plans ; 
 that Branch No. 2 would necessitate the lowering of that line at the 
 point of junction with the main line, and that the proposed alteration 
 of level would cause a considerable increase of earthwork at the point 
 of junction with the main line, and consequently affect the estimate ; 
 that Line No. 1 should have joined the Ely Valley Extension Line 
 instead of passing under it in a deep cutting, interfering with the only 
 ground for sidings at that point ; that the junction might have been 
 effected by deviating the proposed line within the limits of deviation, 
 which would have saved the promoters the making 60 chains of railway, 
 
23 
 
 and given them better gradients, and that the increase of earthwork 
 in embankment would not have been more expensive than the cutting 
 as proposed, and for which the embankment would be substituted; 
 that according to the line as deposited by the promoters, traffic going 
 west from the Ely Valley Extension Railway would descend to the 
 Gellyrhaid Branch, and then have to be shunted back up a gradient of 
 1 in 44, and that the estimate was insufficient for the work proposed. 
 
 In answer to the above allegations, the promoters stated that the 
 proposed junction No. 1 could be executed under the powers of the bill, 
 that junction No. 2 could be made with the existing single line of the 
 Ogmore Valley Railway, by extending the proposed point of junction to 
 the limits oi deviation, and by lowering Branch No. 2 from the point of 
 junction with the main line, and that a practicable junction of No. 2 
 with the main line could be constructed ; that the junction of their line 
 with the Ely Valley Extension Railway would necessitate the construction 
 of 313,000 cubic yards of embankment, and that the proposed interference 
 with the sidings of the Ely Valley Extension Railway could be obviated 
 by transposing the sidings from the north to the south side of that line ; 
 that the traffic going west, which would require to be shunted back on 
 1 in 44 is very small in amount, that the western traffic seeking access 
 to the ports of shipment would be well served ; that if a junction was 
 effected with the Ely Valley Extension Railway, the traffic would be 
 subjected to the short distance clause of that railway, and that the es- 
 timate was sufficient for the construction of the works sought to be 
 authorized by the bill. 
 
 The Referees reported that junctions Nos. 1 and 2 could not be 
 made under the powers of the bill ; and that, although the lowering of 
 the main line at the point of junction with branch No. 1 would involve 
 further earthworks, there was no engineering objection to such work : 
 that the estimate is sufficient, but that the works as laid out were not effi- 
 cient for the object proposed — the accommodation and through lead 
 of the traffic coming from the Ogmore Valley Railway and Ely Valley 
 Extension Railway — inasmuch as the proposed railway does not join tho 
 Ely Valley Extension Railway, and interferes in a most prejudicial 
 manner with its siding ground; that the proposed junction arrange- 
 ment with the Gellyrhaid Branch of the Ely Valley Railway would 
 prejudicially affect a not unimportant traffic from the Ely Valley Extension 
 Railway seeking a western destination, and that therefore, the proposed 
 railway was objectionable in an engineering point of view, -and that the 
 works were not efficient for the object proposed. 
 
 19th May, 1865, p. 423. 
 
u 
 
 BEDFORD, NORTHAMPTON AND WEEDON RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. HassaJid.) 
 
 Brick/to Obstruction to Signals^Jmetion on CrOmieU Lint — Irtto Si(Mng» — 
 
 Grossing m Level— Powers of Bill~~ArrangvmentB with AuikoriUet. 
 It was objected by the London and North Western Railway Company, 
 that a proposed over-bridge, near Weedon Station, would offer an 
 additional impediment to that caused by an existing over-bridge, to 
 a driver from the north seeing the signals in Weedon Station, and that, 
 the line ought therefore to be be deviated ; that the over-bridge, if made, 
 should be wiJe enough to accommodate 6 lines of rail under it (to this 
 the promoters acceded), that having 23 passenger and 72 goods trains, 
 running through Weedon daily without stopping, the proposed junction 
 at Weedon, being on a curve of 13 \ chains radius on a descending 
 gradient of 1 in 98 and chiefly in deep cutting was objectionable j and that 
 it was proposed that the railway should cross Cow Lane, Northampton, 
 at two feet below the existing level of the street, but no provision was 
 made for crossing the same on the level, and that to take it under or 
 over the railway, would require approaches steeper than the present 
 gradient, for which no powers were taken in the bill. In reply the 
 promoters said, that an agreement had been come to with the street 
 authorities of Northampton, to divert Cow Lane, and take it under the 
 railway, with a gradient of 1 in 13. 
 
 The Referees reported, that the over-bridge, if made, would be a very 
 slight impediment, 'the signals being at a very considerable elevation; 
 that the proposed deviation would involve crossing a road upon the 
 level for which no provision had been made in the bill ; that having 
 regard to the proved traffic and the nature of the proposed works, the 
 junction ought not to be permitted with the main line, but either with 
 the sidings of the London and North Western Railway, or with sidings 
 to be constructed by the promoters, and for which they have scheduled 
 sufficient land ; and that as regards Cow Lane, without some such 
 arrangement as that proposed, the railway could not be constructed ; 
 and that as the Referees had no power to deal with the same, they 
 must report that as the bill stood it could not be constructed, but if 
 such arrangement could be carried out, there would be no engineering 
 objection to that part. 
 
 10th March, 1865, p. 67. 
 
26 
 
 POOLE ANT> BOURNEMOUTH RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Adaik.) 
 
 Junction— Concession to Opponents reported against wkm consent of 
 ' Boai-d of Trade necessary. 
 
 It was objected that this line proposed to join the Southampton and 
 Dorchester, which at the point of junction is on a gradient of 1 in 348, 
 with a rising gradient of 1 in 60 ; and as it was proposed to effect the 
 junction with a curve of 70 chains radius, which would recpire a space 
 of 6 chains for the works of the junction, such junction, if made at the 
 point specified in the plans, would he effected partly upon the gradient 
 of 1 in 60, which is irreconcilable with the gradient of the line to be 
 joined 1 in 348. 
 
 The promoters offered to obviate this difficulty by altering the 
 curve at the actual junction to one of 15 chains radius. 
 
 The Referees reported that this could not be done, having regard to 
 the 14tii section of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, without 
 the consent of the Board of Trade, and that the" proposed junction was 
 had in an engineering point of view.** 
 
 7th Marcli, 1865, p. 5H. 
 
 ** This section enacts as follows : — 
 
 And it shall not be lawful for the Company to deviate from or alter the gradients, 
 curves, tunnels or other engineering works described in the said plan or section, except 
 within the following limits, and under the following conditions : (that is to say), 
 
 Subject to the above provisions in regard to altering levels, it shall be lawful 
 for the Company to dimmish the inclination or gradients as follows : (that is 
 to say), in gradients of an inclination not exceeding one in a hundred, to any 
 extent not exceeding ten feet per mile, or to any further extent which shall 
 be certified by the Board of Trade to be consistent with the public safety, 
 and not prejudicial to the public interest ; and in gradients of or exceeding 
 the inclination of one in a hundred to any extent not exceeding three feet 
 per mile, or to any further extent which shall be so certified by the Board of 
 Trade as aforesaid. 
 
 It shall be lawful for the Company to diminish the radius of any curve de- 
 scribed in the said plan to any extent which shall leave a radius of not less 
 than a half mile, or to any further extent authorized by such certificate as 
 aforesaid from the Board of Trade. 
 
 It shall be lawful for the Company to make a tunnel, not marked on the said 
 plan or section instead of a cutting, or a viaduct instead of a solid embank- 
 ment if authorized by such certificate as aforesaid from the Board of Trade. 
 
26 
 
 GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTEEN EAILWAY 
 (ADDITIONAL POWEES). 
 
 (Mr. Hassabd.) 
 
 Injuriously Affecting Opponents' Worhs — Altering Bill. 
 
 Five trading firms complained that the stopping of a street proposed 
 by the bill, would destroy the existing communication with their 
 premises. 
 
 The promoters replied, that although the communication with the 
 whole of J. H.'s premises and half of M.'s would be destroyed, yet 
 communication might be given to the others, by a proposed new street. 
 
 The Eeferees reported that the works would have the effect com- 
 plained of; that there were no powers in the bill for making the 
 proposed new street, and that if constructed, it would afford a less 
 convenient access for H. 0. & Co., and B. &,Co., and would not give any 
 access to M. & Co., unless a portion of the street were -excepted from 
 the operation of the bill. 
 
 17th May, 1865, p. 373. 
 
 CALEDONIAN EAILWAY (BALEENO AND PENICUICK 
 BEANCHES). 
 
 (Mr. Hassakd.) 
 
 Danger to Petitioners' Gunpowder Mills — Concession to Opponents — 
 Junction under Control of Promoters. 
 
 The petitioners, Messrs. M. objected to the manner in which it was 
 proposed to pass their gunpowder mills. To obviate these objections, 
 the promoters offered to cover over the railway, while passing near these 
 works, and to deviate a private road of petitioners, which they proposed 
 diverting in such manner as should be directed by Messrs. M.'s 
 engineer, and with this the petitioners expressed themselves satisfied. 
 
 The North British Eailway Company, objected to a proposed junc- 
 tion near Slateford Station, within 10 chains of a descending gradient 
 of 1 in 110. 
 
 The Eeferees reported, that having regard to the fact, that the junc- 
 tion was to be effected with the line of the Caledonian Company, and 
 that the signals were entirely under their control, there were no en<*i- 
 neering objections to the proposed junction. 
 
 21th March, 1865, p. 175, 
 
27 
 
 BARNET, HENDON, HAMPSTEAD & LONDON RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Dodson.) 
 
 Concessions to Opponents —Competing Scheme not yet Authorized occupying 
 
 same Ground — Gradients. 
 It was objected by the lessee of a building estate, laid out for first-class 
 residences, that the residential character thereof would be totally 
 destroyed, for which injury he was advised that he would have no 
 power of enforcing compensation by law beyond the injury done to the 
 property actually taken by the railway, and that sewers made by him, 
 under private roads, would be interfered with, such sewers not being 
 within the 58th section of the Metropolis Local Management Act. The 
 promoters replied, that the vestry of St. John's, Hampstead, were the 
 custodians of these sewers, and that they had been arranged with for 
 other and equally efficient sewers. They offered, as regards residential 
 damage, to deviate the line so as not to interfere with certain ornamental 
 planting, and also said that much of the line would be in covered cutting. 
 The Metropolitan and St. John's Wood Railway Company objected, 
 that Railway No. 1, would pass through lands required for the con- 
 struction of their Hampstead Extension,* would cross under the exten- 
 sion line with only 11 feet headway in one place, and with only 10 feet 
 in another, a height insufficient for locomotives and carriages ; that to 
 obtain the requisite height of 14 feet, must interfere with the gradient 
 of the Hampstead Extension, which was 1 in 27 ; that line No. 2 was 
 36 chains in length, on a gradient of 1 in 60, falling towards the point 
 of junction in a tunnel for 18 chains, and proposing to effect a junction 
 by a curve of 12 chains radius with their railway, where the gradient was 
 1 in 100, and on the wrong side of the permanently defined station as re- 
 garded the use of signals which would be arranged for the service of the 
 Hampstead Junction {qiwere Extension) Railway, which would come 
 in at the other end, thereby endangering the traffic on the Metropolitan 
 and St. John's Wood Railway; that the junction could not have any 
 external light, being under a public road, which was so objectionable 
 that the Metropolitan Railway Company were actually going to great 
 expense to supersede an authorized junction with the Great Northern 
 Railway, solely because it was in the dark; that No. 1 joined the 
 sidings of the London and North Western Railway, which were already 
 
 * A line of this same Session reported on by the Keferees, 17th March, n. 109. 
 -Hwtp.43. E.D.M.L. 
 
28 
 
 over-crowded with traffic, on a falling gradient of 1 in 60, and a curve 
 of 15 chains radius. 
 
 It was replied that more head room might be obtained by altering 
 the gradient of the promoters line where it passed under the petitioners, 
 and that if the extension line were not sanctioned, the former would 
 become the HampStead Line; that the junction was on the level on the 
 Metropolitan and St. John's Wood, and that the promoters' line was level 
 for 3 Chains ; that the junction in the dark was n6t more objectionable 
 than many open air junctions approached by curves, and through cuttings 
 and buildings, which obliged reliance on signals} that an exchange 
 Station could be made on the promoters' line which would be as con- 
 venient as the petitioners, if that was definitely fixed; that the junction 
 With the London and North Western was the best practicable one, being 
 at the end of Primrose Hill Tunnel, in the open, and on sidings of 
 considerable extent; that the Complicated arrangements of railways 
 near London, make this junction in the open on the sidings of the 
 London and North Western better than a junction with the main 
 line; and that the junction with the Metropolitan and St. John's Wood 
 could be safely made in an engineering point of view, and both lines 
 efficiently and safely worked. 
 
 The EdgWare, Highgate, and London, objected that the Barnet 
 junction with the Great Northern Railway was by a curve of 10 chains 
 radius, from a rising gradient of 1 in 65 on promoters' line to a falling 
 gradient of 1 in 40; and that the Finchley junction with their line 
 Was by an ascending gradient of 1 in 57 for 28 chains, and at a point 
 intermediate between Finchley and Mill Hill Stations. It was replied 
 that the Barnet Junction, was for a short distance, on a gradient of 1 in 
 200, was mainly for coal, though efficient for passengers, and that the 
 Finchley Junction could be safely worked. 
 
 The Beferees reported that there Was no valid engineering objection. 
 
 13<ft March, 1865, p. 69. 
 
 WOOD GREEN, WINCHMORE HILL, AND ENFIELD 
 RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Adair.) 
 
 Two Proposed Schemes Occupying same Ground, not an objection to either— 
 
 Junctions — Facing Points on Main Line. 
 The Great Eastern Railway Company objected that Railway No. 1 
 crossed a projected line of their's, within one foot of the level thereof ; 
 that No. 2 passed close to their Enfield Branch, at a level crossing, 
 
29 
 
 which would consequently require to be doubled ; that by Railway No. 
 3 it was proposed to make a double junction with their Ordnance Sta- 
 tion, with facing points on one of their main lines, and that the crossing 
 of their line by the traffic of the proposed railway to the further side of 
 a station, through which a large number of trains ran at high speed, was 
 inconvenient and dangerous ; and that on Railway No. 6 the traffic 
 could only be conveyed by a back shunt into Enfield Station. 
 
 To these objections it was replied, that the road to be crossed by No, 
 2 was only a green lane, and so little used that the Great Eastern Com- 
 pany did not station a gatekeeper at the existing crossing; that the 
 Ordnance Station was entirely open to view from No. 3, and that if the 
 traffic thereon was worked as intended, in amity with the Great 
 Eastern Railway, it would be so much under their control as to obviate 
 the objection, and that No. 6 was proposed only for the accommodation 
 of the Great Eastern Railway, and that no powers are taken in the bill 
 for running over that line. 
 
 The Referees reported as to No. 1 that though the construction of 
 both lines at the proposed levels was incompatible, as neither line had 
 received the sanction of Parliament, this objection, in an engineering 
 point of view was not admissible. That the introduction of facing 
 points in the way proposed was very undesirable, and only to be allowed 
 in case there were very strong reasons for effecting a junction with both 
 the main lines at this station ; and that with this exception there were 
 no objections to the engineering of the proposed railways. 
 
 , 11th March, 1865, p. 108. 
 
 CALLANDER AND OBAN RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Hassakd.) 
 
 Alternative Line loithin Limits of Deviation. 
 
 Sir Malcolm Macgregor alleged that another and better line, less 
 injurious to petitioner's estate, could be made within the limits, of 
 deviation. 
 
 The Referees reported, that such deviation would require 27,00.0 
 additional yards of cutting, 300 yards of tunnel or covered cutting, of 
 an average depth of 30 feet ; that such deviation could be made ; that 
 its additional cost was variously estimated from £5000 to £ 12,000, and 
 that unless a strong case were made out, no sufficient reasons in an 
 engineering point of view for such deviation existed. 
 
 27th March, 1865, p. 176. 
 
30 
 
 ABERYSTWITH AND WELSH COAST RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Hassard.) 
 
 Opening Bridge — Beaching Ground — Concession to Opponents — Board 
 
 of Trade. 
 It was objected that the proposed railway would obstruct the waterway 
 of the river Dovey ; that the proposed opening bridge over the same, of 
 25 feet span, was insufficient for the purposes of navigation, and that by 
 the construction of an embankment, vessels would be compelled to beach 
 on shifting sands, instead of as at present on the hard beach. The promo- 
 ters expressed their willingness to substitute an opening bridge of any 
 width which might be directed by the Board of Trade, and that if the 
 vessels should be so removed, the sandy places could be rendered firm 
 by laying down rubble, which could be easily procured in the vicinity. 
 
 The Referees reported that with these provisions there were no engi- 
 neering objections. 
 
 1st May, 1865, p. 293. 
 
 FURNESS RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Hassaeu.) 
 
 Viaduct— Opening Bridge — Impediments to Navigation — Board of 
 
 Trade. 
 
 It was objected that No. 1 railway, which was proposed to be carried 
 across the Duddon Estuary, by a viaduct 2618 yards lopg, of open piling 
 throughout, with an opening bridge of 36 feet span would, from its ex- 
 posed situation, almost prevent navigation, and injuriously affect ship- 
 ping frequenting the harbour of Berwick Rails. 
 
 It was proved that there is a large and increasing trade at Borwick ; 
 that it is very exposed ; that the channel where it was proposed to be 
 crossed had shifted 700 feet northward since 1843, and it was alleged 
 still to have a tendency to shift, but it was proposed to fix the channel 
 to the site where the opening bridge was to be made, by consolidating 
 the remainder of the sands under the viaduct, by the deposit of stone so 
 as to prevent the river from cutting a new channel. 
 
 The Referees reported that in an engineering point of view the pro- 
 posed opening was insufficient, and that the works would be defective, 
 unless such an opening bridge were constructed as the Board of Trade 
 might consider requisite for the preserving of free navigation to Borwick 
 Harbour. 
 
 iStk March, 1865, p. 79. 
 
31 
 
 FAEEHAM AND NETLEY RADLWAY. 
 (Mr. Dodson.) 
 
 Opening Bridge — Willingness of Promoters to submit to Board of 
 
 Trade not noticed in Eeport — Danger to Navigation. 
 It was objected that the viaduct across the Hamble would obstruct the 
 navigation of that river. It was proposed to construct a viaduct of 17 
 arches of 30 feet span, affording a maximum headway of 46 feet at low 
 water spring tides, and 19 feet at high water spring tides ; and the 
 engineer stated that it was the intention of the promoters to make in 
 the viaduct an opening bridge of 40 feet span ; and that the estimate 
 would cover such a bridge, or such other as might be required by the 
 Board of Trade. 
 
 The Referees reported that were an opening bridge of 40 feet only 
 constructed, the navigation would be injuriously interfered with and 
 materially affected. 
 
 13th March, 1865, p. 72. 
 
 DEE AND MERSEY JUNCTION RAILWAY. , 
 (Mr. Hassard.) 
 Opening Bridge — Efficiency of Works — Danger to Navigation. 
 
 It was objected that the plan for carrying the railway across the river 
 Dee, by an open piling of 360 yards in length, with 15 openings of 60 
 feet each, and one drawbridge of 85 feet span, was most objectionable, 
 that the effect of it would be to make the steerage for all vessels difficult 
 and dangerous, and to create shoals and sandbanks in the channel, both 
 above and below. 
 
 The Referees reported that this viaduct could be constructed for the 
 sum estimated, that it would be efficient for the object proposed, and 
 that the channel under the drawbridge could probably be maintained, but 
 that the effect of such works upon the sand must be very uncertain ; 
 and further, that in consequence of the strength of the tide at the 
 proposed bridge, and the short period during which vessels could pass 
 through the same, there would be a serious obstruction to the navigation 
 of the river Dee, accompanied by some danger. 
 
 2ith April, 1865, p. 269. 
 
32 
 
 EAST LONDON RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Hassabd.) 
 Junctions on Crowded Lines— Amendment of Scheme whilst before 
 
 Referees— No Decision of Court— Reference to Board of Trade. 
 By No. 1 Railway it was proposed to effect a junction with the main 
 down line, and by No. 4 with the main up line of the London, 
 Brighton and South Coast Railway (which there consists of four lines 
 of rail), at a point about ^200 yards on the London side of New Cross 
 Station, over which the South Eastern Railway Company have and 
 exercise running powers. These companies objected that the proposed 
 railway would interfere with their use of the lines. 
 
 At the proposed point of junction, the two inner lines of rail are 
 devoted to the through traffic, and the two outer to the local traffic ; 
 and on these inner rails the South Eastern Railway daily run 18"~pas- 
 senger and 7 goods, and the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway 
 18 passenger and 8 goods trains each way, none of them stopping at New 
 Cross. On the outer rails, the London, Brighton and South Coast 
 Railway run 81 trains, and the South Eastern Railway 24 trains each 
 way, some of which follow each other at intervals of three minutes 
 only. 
 
 These local lines it was proposed to cross on the level to effect a 
 junction with the main lines. 
 
 No. 7 was a double line of rails, by which it was proposed to join 
 the two eastern. ljn.es of the North Kent Railway of the South Eastern 
 Railway Company (consisting at that ppint pf four lines of rail,) ; and 
 No. 8 a ^pur of double line from N,o, 7, by whiph to join the two 
 eastern lines of the North Kent a* the same point. 
 
 Thft South Eastern Railway Company stated) that on the completion 
 of certain authorized railways, it was their intention to devote the tw<o 
 eastern linss to North Kent,, and the two western to Dover traffic » and 
 proposed that the junctions should be effected with the two oute? lines 
 of rail only. To this the promoters assentedi upon condition that the 
 South Eastern should themselves effect a communication between the 
 inner lines of rail, in such manner as should be agreed upon by the,nj, 
 or directed by the Board of Trade. 
 
 The Referees reported as. to Nos. 1 and. 4, that the junctions coujd 
 physically be effected, but having regard to the very crowded state of 
 the- traffic, both on the local and main lines, whilst it was most desirable 
 that the facilities sought hy the promoters should be afforded, it was 
 
m 
 
 questionable if -the, junctions 'should be allowed; and. that the mdde of 
 junction, if any be allowed,, should be determined by the Board; -of 
 Trade (to this the promoters assented). As to 7 and 8 that in an 
 engineering point of view the proposed arrangement should be adopted. 
 
 110, March, 1865, p. 113. 
 
 LONDON* BRIGHTON AND SOOTH COAST RAILWAY 
 (ADDITIONAL POWERS). 
 
 (Mr. Hassabd.) 
 
 Junctions on Crowded Line — Signals and Junction under same Control and 
 
 IPSE 'promoter's proposed' by the first junction railway to connect the line 
 authorized toy their South London Line Acti 1865, with their main line, 
 at a point where it consists of three lines of rail, two used in common 
 by them and the Sbuth Eastern' "Railway Compariy'for their through 
 traffic; anid'ttne Used by the promoters for their up local traffic. There, 
 were 159' trains 'daily rilhning upon the down main line, 77 trains upon 
 the lip main line; and 78 trains on the local' line. By the second and 
 third' junction lines it was proposed to'effec't' juhciions witn'lhe up and 
 do"Wti nrain'Hries of 'the"' Brightoti Railway, somewhat nearer New Cross 
 Statttm, l and ih"manher $feHs"ely similar to that detailed in'the Referees* 
 Re'^ort'oh ihe'EaSt London' Railway Bill (see supra p. 32). The South 
 Eafstern Railway Cdmpahy objected 'thdt' these lines interfered with 
 their' rlghtfe,' and' 'were laid ; out So as to cause unnecessary and injurious 
 interference with their undertakings. " ' 
 
 ' The Referees Repotted as'to the first llnej that the ejecting a junction 
 wiiJi' So 'crowded "a line inu'st be attended with a certain amount of 
 danger ; but considering that 'the junction was to be effected' with lines 
 belonging to the promoters themselves, that the signals there were all 
 under^heir own control; and that the object of the junction was to take 
 some of the traffic'to Lo'hd6n 'Bridge off the main lines, and transfer it 
 to the line authorized by their''" Extension Act, 1863" (South London 
 Line), the 'Referees' are" of opinion that' this junction was not objec- 
 tionable lb an ' engineering' point of view. 
 
 As tb"Nos. 2 and '3, "they reported, after referring to the East London 
 case,'thatin thtt present case the junctions proposed to be effected being 
 with'the-piWmo'tos'bWn lines, they having the entire control over the 
 slgna1s J thereon,ana My atsd stating that the object of those junctions was 
 to take traffic off' their maih lines t'd London > Bric(g'ej and transfer it to 
 their South Eohddn Line, and by means thereof to obtain access to the 
 
34 
 
 Farringdon Street Station of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, 
 and with proper precautions, there were no engineering objections to the 
 effecting the proposed junctions. 
 
 23rd March, 1865, p. 143. 
 
 SURREY AND SUSSEX JUNCTION RAILWAY. 
 (Mr. Adair.) 
 
 Junction — Crowded Line — Facing Points Reported against — Better Line 
 Proposed ly Landowner. 
 
 It was proposed that line No. 1 should commence by a junction with the 
 main line of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, at the east 
 side, which has at that point also local lines running parallel therewith 
 close to Combe Bridge, near Croydon, and proceed on the eastern side 
 of the said line, through the shrubberies belonging to the house of the 
 Rev. J. P. M., and within about 40 yards of his residence ; and Mr. M. 
 objected that such Line had been injudiciously planned, and that other 
 directions might be taken, attended with less engineering defects, and 
 proposed that so much of No. 1 Railway, as lies between the junction at 
 Combe Bridge, and the junction with No. 2 Railway, should be aban- 
 doned altogether, as .requiring the insertion of facing points on the 
 main down line of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, and 
 alleging that Railway No. 2 would suffice for all connection of the lineB 
 which could be required ; and further proposed, that if Railway No. 1 
 should be retained, it should be made as a single line, and should be 
 continued parallel to, and not a greater distance than 14 feet from, the 
 main line of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, until it had 
 passed through his shrubberies (200 yards from Combe Bridge). The 
 effect of this alteration would be to increase the gradient of No. 1 
 Railway (which is towards the station) from 1 in 115, to a gradient of 
 1 of 100, to the point of junction with No. 2 Railway. 
 
 The Referees reported that this would very much lessen the injury 
 complained of by Mr. M., but would leave the facing points in the 
 down main line ; and it having been given in evidence before them that 
 the South Eastern Railway alone had thirteen trains daily, each way, 
 running at considerable speed over the place where the facing points 
 were proposed to be put in, that unless there were very strong reasons 
 for effecting a junction with the main lines, that part of the proposed 
 Railway No. 1, was defective in an engineering point of view, especially 
 
as the local traffic lines of the London and Brighton Company effect a 
 communication with London. 
 
 13th March, 1865, p. 75. 
 
 NORTH SURREY RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Hassaed.) 
 
 Junction — Crossing Other Main Lines on a Level — Powers of Bill. 
 
 This was a proposal to make a line from the London, ' Brighton and 
 South Coast Railway, near Streatham, to the London, Chatham and 
 Dover Railway, at Clapham. 
 
 The London, Chatham and Dover Railway Company objected, that 
 at the proposed junction with their railway, it crossed over four lines, 
 two of .which are intended for their city traffic, and two for the London, 
 Brighton and South Coast Railway ; and that as the junction was only 
 proposed to be effected with the latter two lines, no proper junction 
 could be made with the lines of the London, Chatham and Dover Rail- 
 way, and that the powers for entering into a working agreement with 
 them could not be carried into effect. In reply, the promoters proved 
 that at the time of the survey, the London, Chatham and Dover Rail- 
 way consisted of two lines only, and that the junction was proposed 
 to be effected with these. The London, Brighton and South Coast 
 Railway Company objected to the proposed mode of junction with their: 
 line at Streatham, and suggested, that if allowed, the junction with the 
 up line should be made by a spur from the proposed line to be carried 
 over their railway. 
 
 The Referees reported, that if the railway were intended to facili- 
 tate access to the City, the engineering would be defective, unless the 
 junction be also effected with the Londom, Chatham and Dover City 
 Lines, and to do this, it would be necessary to cross the two lines appro- 
 priated to the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway on the level ; 
 that the effecting the junction at Streatham by the spur would be safer 
 engineering, but would involve worse gradients, and that no powers 
 were taken by the bill to effect the necessary works, they not being on 
 the deposited plans ; that there were no ventilating shafts provided, nor 
 could they be made, in a tunnel of 2090 yards, and the ventilation was, 
 therefore doubtful, and that no land had been provided for stations, nor 
 were powers sought to run into any station on other lines, on which 
 account, the engineering details were deficient. 
 
 17th March, 1865, p. 110. 
 
36 
 
 PERTH GENERAL RAILWAY STATION. 
 
 (Mr. Hassaed.) 
 
 Junction — IJser of Line not Provided for in Bill. 
 
 The Referees reported that these lines would be defective unless the 
 Scottish North Eastern were empowered to use Railway No. 2, for the 
 purpose of delivering traffic consigned to the Scottish Central Company, 
 so as to prevent trains standing upon the Scottish North Eastern main 
 line while waiting to enter No. 2 ; that they would cut off the Perth 
 Station Committee from, land intended to be acquired by them for the 
 general station, unless means were provided in the bill maintaining such 
 access, and that there were reasons for forming a junction on No. 4 in 
 the manner proposed, which did not fall within their province to offer 
 an opinion upon. 
 
 28<7j March, 1865, p. 186. 
 
 WREXHAM AND MINERA' RAILWAY. 
 
 ' (Mr. Adaie.) 
 
 Junction— Not Effected, Physically— Running Powers — Gradient- 
 Curve. 
 
 It was objected that though the line was professedly an extension of 
 the Wrexham and Minera Railway, it had no physical junction with 
 that : line, and that the curves and gradients were not calculated for 
 passenger traffic. . It 'was replied, that though there was no physical - 
 junction with the Wrexham and Minera Railway (inasmuch as 12. 
 chains of the Great Western intervened), the bill authorized the Wrex- 
 ham and Minera Company to enter into arrangements for the user of 
 that line, and the Great Western to subscribe to the undertaking. 
 
 The Referees reported,, that the worst gradient was 1 in 50, and the 
 worst curve 15 chains radius ; and that these were not engineering 
 objections. 
 
 7th April, 1865, j>. 263. 
 
 SHREWSBURY AND POTTERIES JUNCTION RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Dodson.) 
 
 Junctiaw-r-TJndue, Interference with Petitioners' Railway.,, 
 
 Foe the petitioners it was alleged, that the i lines would interfere with 
 
 the safe and affective working of their lines. Objections were made 
 
37 
 
 on engineering grounds, to the numerous junctions involved in the 
 promoters' -scheme, more especially to those of Nos. 2 and 8 with the 
 Shrewsbury and Birmingham Line, which the traffic of those railways 
 in passing from one to the other must cross on a level. It was also 
 urged, that lines 2 and 3 would extend for a considerable distance 
 closely parallel to the Crewe and Shrewsbury and Shrewsbury and 
 Welchpool Railways, and prevent any future widening of those lines 
 on that side ; that No. 1 would cause similar inconvenience by running 
 parallel to the Wellington and Drayton Railway, and that it would 
 interpose between that line and Hodnet. 
 
 The Referees reported that the proposed lines would not unduly in- 
 terfere with the petitioners' railways, and are calculated to relieve the 
 Shrewsbury Station of much traffic, now entering only for the purpose 
 of being shunted and marshalled; and that the objections alleged on 
 engineering details are not such as should prevail against the promoters' 
 scheme. 
 
 1th April, 1865, p. 257. 
 
 WOLVERHAMPTON AND BRDDGNORTH RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Hassaejd.) 
 
 Junction near Station — Gradients — Tunnel — Control of Working. 
 
 It was objected that a junction with the Severn Valley Railway, which 
 is there a single line, was to be eflfected at a distance of one and a-half 
 miles from Bridgnorth Station, where the proposed line will be on a 
 descending gradient of 1 in 15&, the Severn Valley Railway there being 
 upon a gradient of 1 in 264 rising towards the station ; that a tunnel 
 above 500 yards in length would intervene between the junction and 
 the station, the mouth thereof being 17 chains from the 'station; and 
 that upon the said line there are gradients. of ■ 1; in 66 for 1 mile, of If 
 in 70 for 2 miles 28 chains, and of 1 in 80 for l£ mile. 
 
 The Referees, reported; that the junction in question' was to be 
 effected with a line for some time worked without difficulty, and to bei 
 W6rked*by the same Company, and that there were no engineering 
 objections to the proposed line.- 
 
 6th April, 1865, p. 234. 
 
38 
 
 VALE OF CRICKHOWEL RAILWAY (WESTEKN EXTENSION). 
 
 (Mr. Hassard.) 
 
 Junction near Station — Gradients — Control of Working —Powers of Bill. 
 
 The works complained of were junctions proposed to be effected by 
 
 double fork at the Talybont Station of the Brecon and Merthyr 
 
 Railway. 
 
 The southern fork was to effect its junction at some distance from 
 the foot of an incline, 6| miles long, of 1 in 39 ; and the northern fork 
 at some distance from the foot of an incline If miles long, of 1 in 40. 
 The space intervening between these inclines for 29 chains, is upon 
 a gradient of 1 in 300, and upon this space the Talybont Station is 
 placed. 
 
 It was also objected, that the proposed railways would destroy the 
 sidings by which the Brecon and Merthyr Company obtained access to 
 their engine shed, turn-tables, and goods shed ; to which it was replied, 
 that certain sidings could be provided in lieu thereof. 
 
 The Referees reported, that it would be desirable, if possible, to 
 avoid effecting a junction with a railway so near to such long and steep 
 inclines, but that from the nature of the country, if a junction is to be 
 effected, it could not be made without some defect, and that as the 
 control of the trains and signals was to be vested in the Brecon and 
 Merthyr Company, there were no engineering objections ; and also, that 
 the proposed sidings, which were laid down in a plan produced, were 
 not wholly within the limits of deviation, consequently could not be 
 effected -within the powers of the bill. 
 
 16th May, 1865, <p. 368. 
 
 SOUTH WALES & GREAT WESTERN DIRECT RAILWAY* 
 
 (Mr. Adair.) 
 
 Bridge — Injury to Navigation, — Public Interests. 
 
 It was proposed, in order to save 22-Jj miles between London and South 
 Wales, to cross the River Severn, by a bridge, upon 87 piers, consisting 
 of iron cylinders, ranging from 10 to 20 feet in diameter, and 178 in num- 
 ber, which would occupy a space equal to one-fifteenth of the whole, 
 river ; the viaduct, 2\ miles long, was proposed to consist of 71 arches ; 
 1 of 600 feet, 2 of 265, 30 of 167, 17 of 140, 21 of 138, the maximum 
 
 * This case, as here printed, is, with omissions, in the exact words of the Report. 
 — R.D.M.L. 
 
39 
 
 headway was to be in the three largest arches, 100 feet, in the next 
 thirty arches would range from 56 feet to 98 feet 3 inches. 
 
 The Referees reported as follows, that the various issues raised 
 between the promoters and the opponents were thoroughly investigated 
 during a long inquiry, and underwent the attentive consideration of the 
 Eeferees. The evidence laid before them was on many points extremely 
 conflicting, and the statements of the witnesses upon every matter of 
 fact not easy to be reconciled. After carefully weighing all the evidence 
 on both sides, and making such allowance as appears reasonable for 
 bias on the minds of the witnesses, the Eeferees have been led to adopt 
 the following conclusions : — 
 
 1. As regards the restriction of the waterway, the Eeferees have 
 not been led to conclude that any material addition to the dangers of 
 the Severn, or any inconvenience too great to be reasonably imposed 
 upon those who make use of the navigation, would be occasioned by the 
 proposed structure, in case the general interest of the public justify the 
 interference. The position of the- bridge in a straight reach of some 
 length, and in a part where the channel appears from the charts to 
 have been for a long time constant, is favourable for the purpose. 
 The span of the main arch, 600 feet in width, exceeds that of any bridge 
 in the kingdom, and is considerably wider than the actual channel in 
 some parts of other navigable rivers ; and, assuming the use of lights, 
 and other suitable precautions, the risk of collision with the piers does 
 not appear to justify serious apprehensions. 
 
 2. As regards the headway, assuming as it appears .fair to do upon 
 the balance of evidence, the minimum period of one hour before high 
 water, as the time at which vessels going up would reach the side of the 
 bridge, the available headway at spring tides would range from 104 feet 
 3 inches to 109 feet 5 inches, according to the height of the tides. It is 
 admitted on the part of the promoters, that vessels beyond a certain 
 size (which may be taken at 400 tons register) could not pass under with- 
 out lowering their topgallant masts. The evidence is very conflicting as 
 to the existing practice in this respect, and also as to the degree of incon- 
 venience and delay involved in the operation. Upon the whole, the 
 Eeferees are led to believe that the masters of vessels going up to Glou- 
 cester, seldom lower their masts, and that they feel considerable repug- 
 nance to being compelled to do so. On the other hand, it is enforced in 
 some harbours, and was so, until within a few years, at Gloucester. 
 
 It is necessarily done at the Menai Straits, where. the height of the 
 Britannia Bridge is 100 feet above ordinary spring tides. It was proved 
 to the Referees, that this bridge has not prevented the resort to the port 
 
40 
 
 of Carnarvon of vessels of as large tounage, as those which now go to 
 Gloucester. 
 
 From the copious evidence laid before the Referees respecting the 
 structure and measurement of vessels, they believe themselves safe in con- 
 cluding that the necessity for lowering the topgallant masts in order to 
 pass through any- of the three highest arches, would apply to but few 
 vessels under 400 tons register, while some above that burthen would' be 1 
 able to pass through without lowering. But if 400 tons be assumed asthe 
 limit, the number of vessels entering the port- of Gloucester, according 
 to the average of the last ten years, that would be affected by such a 
 regulation would not exceed 67 per annum. It appears therefore to the 
 Referees, that neither in respect to the inconvenience which it might 
 cause, nor to the extent of its operation, can the obligation of lowering' 
 the topgallant masts be considered as a grievance which would consti- 
 tute a valid objection to the proposed headway. 
 
 It appears to the Referees, that there may be reason to apprehend 
 that large vessels may be occasionally deterred from coming to that port," 
 and that the selection of vessels for the trade of Gloucester may be 
 somewhat narrowed, but they do not think that such apprehensions 
 could be lasting or the effects serious. 
 
 One other point only remains to be noticed. In addition to the 
 objections above stated, some evidence was given by the opponents as ta 
 the physical effect likely to be : produced by the interposition of so large 
 an amouut of solid structure in the bed pf the river, and eventually upon 
 the course of the channel itself. In the present instance, the evidence 
 offered was not such as to satisfy the Referees that any extensive change 
 was likely to result which ought to form an objection per se to the pro- 
 posed structure. 
 
 Upon the whole the Referees are of opinion, that if the proposed 
 new communication between the Metropolis and South Wales shall b& 
 considered' to afford important advantages to the public, the objections 
 which have been noticed against the proposed bridge upon engineering 
 grounds are not such as to justify the rejection of the scheme. 
 
 15th May, 1865, p. 353. 
 
 SEVERN JUNCTION RAILWAY. 
 
 • ,, * (Mr. Adaiki) . i 
 
 Sigh Level Bridge — Alteration of Span. 
 
 The promoters proposed to cross the river Severn, above Gloucester/ 
 
 by a high level bridge of sixteen archis, two of 200 feet span, one' of 1 
 
i\ 
 
 150 feet span, and thirteen of 100 feet span, the maximum headway 
 being -6B feet, awl the minimum 50- feet ; for the purpose, of connecting 
 the South Wales Coalfields and the Midland and Southern districts' of 
 England. 
 
 The' opponents mostly alleged probable injury to the navigation, and 
 the promoters of Use South Wales and Great Western Direct Railway 
 alleged that their bill offered a better scheme for the/ public. ' <: 
 
 The Referees repMea% that should the Committee allow the scheme, 
 to pitoceedj the promoters should; be legally bound to 'construct the> 
 second arch of the bridge frdnj the Welsh shores of a span of 300 feet,- 
 and the thitfd arch of a span of 180 feet, and that should' this require- 
 ment be carried out, there would be no engineering objection to the pro- ; 
 posed bridge.* , - - r , 
 
 15* May,: 1865, p. 681;-.,, 
 
 CHICHESTER AND MIDHURST RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Dodson.) 
 
 Junction, with Single Jane with Facing Points — Gradients and Works. 
 
 It was objected that Railway No. 1 would interfere at the junction at ' 
 Haslemere, with the London and South Western, and that the works ' 
 were heavy and costly. 
 
 ; The Referees reported, that the junction as proposed at 10 chains 
 from Haslemere Station, would necessitate the insertion of facing points 
 in a gradient of 1 in 100 falling from the station, but as long as the line 
 is worked as a single line, all trains stopping at Haslemere to pass, no 
 dow,n train would have acquired any considerable velocity at the point 
 of junction,, and that the long gradient of 1 in 70, and a tunnel of 1089 
 yards, as well as some curves, which would require great care in the' 
 working of the railway, were necessitated by the features of the country, 
 a difference of 332 feet in height, having to be surmounted, and to be : 
 effected in the last 3 miles of, the north end of the railway. 
 
 ' . • ■ 6th March, 1865, p. 50. 
 
 * No notice; is taken ojf the opposition of the South Wales and Great Western ^ 
 Ijire^, proh^Wjy; be^u|^jit.w55, a.xcimpeting scheme, and was fully: reported upon in' 
 Mr. Adair's report, supp. votes, p. 353," ante. p. 38. 
 
42 
 
 LEEDS, NORTH YORKSHIRE AND DURHAM RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Hassabd). 
 
 Building Plans — Compensation — Bonds — Sewers — Interference with Op- 
 ponents Goods Station — Concessions — Junctions — Gradients — Facing 
 Points — Efficiency of Works. 
 
 A petition was presented on behalf of Mr. A. M. and several others, 
 owners of lands in the line of the said railway, complaining that it was 
 proposed to raise a certain bridge, called Monk Bridge, a height of 7 
 feet, which would cause the approaches to Mr. M.'s land to be more 
 steep. 
 
 That the said Railway No. 1 would destroy a certain plot of land 
 which had been laid out for the erection of mills and wharves. 
 
 The Referees reported, that the matters complained of, relate to 
 a claim for compensation rather than to an engineering defect, and 
 that so far as this petition was concerned, there was no engineering ob- 
 stacle to the executing of the proposed railway. 
 
 The Leeds and Collingham Road Trustees objected, that at 11 miles 
 70 chains, and at 12 miles 10 chains from Leeds, it was proposed to divert 
 the said road, which when so diverted would run close along and on the 
 easternside]of said railway for a distance of two miles ; and the Referees 
 reported, that this would be an engineering defect unless a proper screen 
 such as might conceal the said railway from view be provided along the 
 said road. 
 
 A petition was presented on behalf of the Great Northern Railway 
 Company, complaining that the promoters sought to take land and pro- 
 perty of the petitioners, which was essential to the accommodation and 
 working of the traffic of petitioners ; and that the promoters would in- 
 juriously interfere with the railway and works of petitioners at the Leeds 
 Central Station. It was proved that the Great Northern Railway Com- 
 pany had acquired a piece of land, about 5£ acres in extent, which they 
 were preparing, by raising the surface 16 feet, for an extension of their 
 goods station ; that Railway No. 1, as laid down upon the plan would 
 pass through the centre of this land, upon the present surface of the 
 ground, and so cut the land into two parts, as well as occupy a consider- 
 able portion of the ground. To obviate this objection, the promoters 
 proposed at the option of the petitioners, either to carry their railway in 
 a covered cutting through the said land without altering the surface 
 thereof as raised (which they could do by slightly depressing the proposed 
 level of their rails), or to deviate their proposed railway, so as to pass 
 
48 
 
 close along the side of the Canal, and thus avoid severing this parcel of 
 land. 
 
 Either of these propositions could be carried out ; and the Eeferees 
 reported, that in that event, there would not be any engineering 
 obstacle to the construction of Railway No. 1 as far as the Great 
 Northern Railway is concerned. 
 
 It was also objected that No. 5 Railway, which is a Branch from 
 No. 4 Railway, terminating by a Junction with the Leeds, Bradford and 
 Halifax Railway, would be dangerous, inasmuch as the Leeds, Bradford 
 and Halifax Railway at the point of junction is upon a gradient of 1 in 
 50 descending towards the station, and that the introduction of facing 
 points upon such a gradient would be attended with danger. 
 
 The Referees reported, that introducing facing points and forming a 
 junction upon such a gradient is objectionable, but upon considering the 
 character of the Leeds Station, and that the speed of trains must be 
 slow at the point of junction, in an engineering point of view the 
 junction in question might be sanctioned. 
 
 No. 4 Railway was objected to by the North Eastern Railway Com- 
 pany, upon the ground that it would cross the petitioners' railway at 
 their Wellington Street Goods' Station, Leeds, by a bridge in such a 
 manner as would impede all view of anything descending the petitioners' 
 line, which there descends with a gradient of 1 in 50. , But it was 
 proved that Railway No. 4 would there be carried upon an open iron 
 viaduct, and the Referees reported, that there was no engineering 
 objection to the construction of Railway No. 4 upon the grounds 
 alleged. 
 
 No. 9 Railway, which was a Junction Railway from No. 1 in the 
 township of Wetherby, to the North Eastern Railway, in the said town- 
 ship close to "Wetherby Station, was objected to, upon the ground that the 
 junction was effected upon the gradient of 1 in 66, rising towards the 
 North Eastern Railway, without the intervention of any level space 
 upon which a' train could stand ; and that no powers were taken to run 
 into the Wetherby Station, nor were any sidings provided for standage 
 at the point of junction. 
 
 All these facts were admitted, and the Referees reported that whilst 
 there were no engineering obstacles to the effecting of the junction as 
 proposed, it was a defect that no standage was provided nor powers 
 taken to run into the North Eastern sidings at the Wetherby Station. 
 
 Nos. 11 and 12, which were junctions from No. 1 Railway to the 
 North Eastern Railway: in the townships of Alne and Tollerton, about 
 600 yards from these stations respectively, were objected to upon the 
 
44 
 
 ground that facing points would-be introduced with the North Eastern 
 Eailway. 
 
 Nos. 11 and 12 Eailways Would effect junctions with the up and 
 down lines' of the North Eastern Eailway, which was there and for a 
 long distance upon a level. It is the part of the North Eastern 
 Eailway upon which the express trains run at the highest speed, and 
 the North Eastern Eailway Company, have gone to much expense to 
 avoid inserting facing points therein, there being but one set between 
 York and Darlington. The promoters state that the insertion of facing 
 points could be avoided, but not within the powers contained in the 
 bill, or without the concurrence of the North Eastern Eailway Com- 
 pany. 
 
 The Eeferees reported that the forming those junctions with facing 
 points, as proposed, would be objectionable in an engineering point of 
 view. 
 
 No. 13 Eailway, which is a junction from No. 1 Eailway to the 
 North Eastern Eailway, in the township of Kirkby, was objected to. 
 upon the ground that it would be effected 600 yards from the Stokesly 
 station ; that the North Eastern Eailway is there a single line, carrying 
 a very large amount of mineral, traffic ; that it is worked upon the staff 
 system, and that it would be attended with much danger to effect this 
 j unction at this point. Upon those grounds the Eeferees reported that 
 this junction was objectionable in an engineering point of view. 
 
 No. 20 Eailway, which was a junction from No. 2 Eailway to the 
 North Eastern Eailway, in the township of Pickering, was objected to,- 
 upon the ground that the point of junction which would be about 20 
 chains from the Pickering station of the North Eastern Eailway Com- 
 pany, would be hidden from view from the said station, by the embank- 
 ment upon which Eailway No. 2 was there intended to cross the North 
 Eastern Eailway, but it was proved that an opening could be made in the 
 said embankment, so as to afford a view of this point of junction, and 
 with this alteration, the Eeferees reported that there were no engineer- 
 ing objections to the effecting of the proposed junction. 
 
 No. 21 Eailway, which was a junction from No. 2 Eailway to the 
 North Eastern Eailway, in the township of Seamer, was objected to 
 upon the ground that the point of junction, which would be about half a 
 mile from the Seamer station, and the same distance from the Filey t 
 Junction of the North Eastern Eailway, ought to be effected at the 
 Seamer station, and if constructed as proposed, it would be hidden from 
 view from the said station by the embankment upon which said Eail- 
 way No. 2 crosses the North Eastern Eailway. 
 
45 
 
 The effecting the junction at the Seamer Station would involve the 
 placing the junction wherethe North Eastern Railway crosses a public 
 road upon the level, and it was proved that by deviating Railway No. 2, 
 and putting an opening in the embankment upon which it is to cross 
 the North Eastern Railway, a view of both the proposed and the Filey 
 junctions can be preserved'; and with these alterations the Referees 
 reported, that there were no engineering objections to the proposed 
 junction. 
 
 The Referees further reported, that they had carefully examined the' 
 estimate, and were of opinion, that with rigid economy the sum 
 estimated would be sufficient for the execution of the works contem- 
 plated in the deposited plans, and perhaps for the carrying of the roads 
 now proposed to be crossed upon the level over the proposed railways, 
 as might be hereafter required ; but it was admitted, that no provision 
 had been made for providing station land or buildings at the termini of 
 the said railways, nor at any intermediate points along the said lines, 
 nor had any provision been made for sidings at any of the proposed 
 junctions ; and the Referees reported, that without these several matters 
 being provided, the intended works would not be efficient for their 
 proposed object. 
 
 3rd April, 1865, p. 219. 
 
 CRYSTAL PALACE RAILWAYS (NEW LINES). 
 
 (Mr. Hassakd.) 
 
 Gradients — Station Boom — Improvement of Scheme. 
 
 It was objected that Railway No. 1 would be 1 in 70 from its point of 
 junction with the Crystal Palace and South London Junction, for a 
 distance of 2Jm., and that it was proposed to place a station upon the 
 line at a point within that distance. The promoters replied, that they 
 could construct that part of the line for the distance of 150 yards with 
 a gradient of I in 300. The Referees reported that this would suffice 
 for the placing of such station. 
 
 2ith March, 1865, p. 159. ' 
 
46 
 
 LANCASHIRE UNION RAILWAYS. 
 (Mr. Hassabd.) 
 
 Gradients — Connected Lines. 
 It was objected that the gradients were bad, the steepest being 1 in 90. 
 The Referees reported, that as steeper gradients existed upon the lines 
 with which the proposed line forms junctions, this was not objec- 
 tionable. 
 
 26th April, 1865, p. 276. 
 
 METROPOLITAN AND ST. JOHN'S WOOD RAILWAY. 
 (Mr. Adair.) 
 
 Gradient 1 in 27 — Reversed Curves of '10 and 12 Chains — Reported for. 
 The proposed line was 83^ chains in length,* of which 23£ chains were 
 horizontal, and 61 J on a gradient of 1 in 27, of which 18 chains were in 
 tunnel. It was to leave the Belsize Station on a curve of 10 chains 
 radius, followed by a piece of straight for a little less than 1 chain, running 
 into a curve of 12 chains radius ; and then proceeded to a piece of 
 gradient of 1 in 250, on which a station was proposed to be erected, and 
 thence through a tunnel to Hampstead, entering the station by a curve 
 of 15 chains. 
 
 It was proved that the long prevailing gradient of 1 in 27 was in 
 considerable excess over that on any other railway except near Oldham, 
 over which a considerable goods and passenger traffic is carried. 
 
 The Referees reported, after hearing evidence as to the manner in 
 which the promoters undertook to carry on traffic, that this line 
 presented a most unusual combination of curves and gradients, particu- 
 larly at the Belsize Junction, where the piece of inserted straight line 
 (though capable of a small extension) was of the most limited length, and 
 barely sufficient to remedy the engineering objection of reversed curves 
 of 10 and 12 chains radius ; but that if the break power be sufficient, 
 the trains very short, the line for passenger traffic only, worked by the 
 best system of signals, under the conduct on all occasions of a pilot man, 
 and by rolling stock specially constructed for the purpose, there were no 
 insurmountable engineering objections to the construction of the railway. 
 
 llth March, 1865, p. 109. 
 
 * This statement as to the whole length or one of the parts is obviously an error. 
 
47 
 
 LONDON, WORCESTER, AND SOUTH WALES RAILWAY. 
 (Mr. Hassard.) 
 
 Gradient near Terminus on Level of Street — Concession to Opponents. 
 It was objected, that the proposed line was intended to cross the 
 Stratford-upon-Avon Branch of the Great Western Railway by abridge 
 of 28 feet span, at a point where they had already a main line and two 
 sidings, and might require space for an additional line of rail ; and 
 that the promoters had no means of getting into the Stratford-upon-Avon 
 Station, except by a back shunt over the authorized line of the East and 
 West Junction Railway ; and that line No. 2 descended at Worcester, 
 first with a gradient of I in 44, then horizontally for only 10 chains 
 to a terminus in Sansum Street. 
 
 The promoters replied, that they were willing to erect a 40 feet 
 bridge, which would be sufficient to pass over the existing line and 
 sidings, and that it was intended to erect a station at or near the junc- 
 tion with the East and West Junction Railway, whereby the necessity 
 of the back shunt would be avoided. 
 
 The Referees reported, that a bridge of 40 feet span was sufficient for 
 all necessary purposes, and that the proposed gradient of 1 in 44 to 
 within 10 chains of a terminus on the level of a street was of an un- 
 favourable character. 
 
 lith March, 1865, p. 86. 
 
 'NORTH OF ENGLAND UNION RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Hassard.) 
 
 'Gradient — Alteration of Scheme before Beferees — Improvement of Curves. 
 
 It was objected that No. 2 Railway, in approaching the London and 
 North Western Railway, to effect a junction therewith, descends for a 
 distance of 1 mile, with a gradient of 1 in 70, then is level for 5^ 
 chains up to the point of junction ; but inasmuch as the London and 
 North Western Railway is there upon a gradient of 1 in 100, descend- 
 ing towards the junction, it would be necessary in order to effect such 
 junction, to lower the level space 16 inches and also reduce its extent ; 
 to which it was answered, that by removing the gradients of 1 in 70, 
 and 1 in 160 back upon an adjacent level space, the full extent of 
 level space on the 5^ chains might be recovered. It was also objected 
 that there were a number of reversed curves of 20 chains radius ; 
 
to which it was answered that they could be much improved within the 
 limits of deviation. ...... ...... 
 
 The Keferees reported that the junction could be effected as last 
 proposed, and that there was ho objection in an engineering point of 
 view, and that the reversed curves of DO chains were very objectionable, 
 but that they could he much improved, and that there were no engineer- 
 ing obstacles to that .portion of the line being carried out as proposed* 
 
 6th April, 1865, p. 235. , 
 
 NEWPORT AND USE RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Hassard.) 
 
 Alteration of Gradient.— Objection that Junction should be nearer Station not 
 a question of Engineering. 
 
 It was objected that on the deposited plana .the. proposed, Railway Was 
 shown to be . level for .6 chains up,,tq the point of junction with the, 
 Monmouthshire Railway, which is there on 9, gradient, of ;1 in -273, 
 and that therefore it would be impossible, to effect , a junction unlesa 
 the .proposed railway . were: made ^ft conform to. , the Monmouthshire 
 Railway qver about 600 yards, ; and, aJsQ^ thftt the junction ought to bftj 
 near the existing Newport, Station, instead, of about 48 chains there- 
 from. ' , , ., 
 The Referees as to' the first objection reported that the junction 
 gradient could be altered without difficulty, and that there was no 
 engineering objection. As to the second, that it would seem better if 
 the junction- was nearer to the station, but that that was a matter to be 
 determined upon consideration of the amount of traffic rather than as 
 a question of engineering. 
 
 2nd May, 1865, jp. 299: ' l 
 
 CENTRAL WALES AND STAFFORDSHIRE JUNCTION 
 RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Hassard.) 
 Gradients — Destruction of Opponent's Sidings, #c. 
 It was objected that No. 1 descended pn a gradient of 1 in 66 for a 
 Hole and, a quarter to, the Bridgnorth, Station, where it has a level , of . 
 about *>\ chains, and that it does pot form any junction with the Great; 
 Western Railway, but runs parallel with it for about I chain. It was 
 
49 
 
 replied, that the nature of the country renders it difficult to approach 
 Bridgnorth with a good gradient, and that the main object of , making 
 this gradient so steep was to keep the rails in Bridgnorth, Station .at the 
 same level as the rails of the Great Western Railway, ther,e, so .that, a 
 connection may be effected at any time hereafter. 
 
 No. 4 Bailway was objected to on the ground that, to effect a junc- 
 tion with the West Midland Bailway, it would cut through and destroy 
 certain coal wharves and sidings near the town of Netherton. This was 
 admitted, but it was said that inasmuch as the sidings of the West 
 Midland Railway are nearly continuous from Netherton to Dudley, it 
 would be impossible to effect a junction without doing some such 
 damage. 
 
 The Referees reported that there were no engineering objections. 
 
 3rd. April, 1865, p. 215. 
 
 CHIPPING-NORTON, BANBURY AND EAST AND WEST 
 JUNCTION RAILWAY.- > 
 
 (Mr. Hassard.) 
 
 Gradient near Station — Back Shunt up Gradient of 1 in 100 
 Reported Against. 
 
 It was objected to the junction with the authorized East and West 
 Junction Line, that the proposed line would be upon a gradient of 1 in 
 79 falling towards the point of junction with only 6 chains of level 
 before effecting that junction ; to which it was answered, that as the 
 junction was near the proposed station of the Essex and West Junction, 
 the speed would necessarily be slow. To No. 2 it was objected that it 
 effected a junction with a siding of the Great Western at Banbury, and 
 after a level space of ,8 chains passed upon a gradient of 1 in 80, falling 
 towards the station, with a curve of 20 chains radius over the Great 
 ' Western Railway ; that the junction proposed to be effected with the 
 Great Western Railway at Chipping-Norton, would be. at a distance of 
 52 chains from the station; the gradients of the proposed line being 1 
 in 63 up to 10 chains from the point of junction, and for that space ,1 
 in 165 towards the junction, the gradient of the Great Western Railway 
 being there 1 in 100 falling from the station, which would involve a 
 back shunt of 52 chains, up an incline, of 1 in 100 for all trains passing 
 from Banbury to Chipping-Norton. 
 
50 
 
 The Keferees reported that with ordinary precautions there were no 
 objections to the junction of No- 1. That the mode of juncsion at 
 Banbury, and also that at Chipping-Norton, was an engineering defect. 
 
 30th March, 1865, p. 195. 
 
 PERTH GENEEAL RAILWAY STATION, SCOTTISH 
 
 CENTRAL, &c, RAILWAY COMPANIES. 
 
 (Mr. Hassabd.) 
 
 Junction — Bach Shunt on Main Line. 
 
 It was objected that Railway No. 2, which diverged from No. 1, the 
 new main line, and led to the proposed new goods station, would not 
 effect any junction with lines from the north ; and that trains coming 
 from the north would have to make a back shunt upon the new main 
 line. 
 
 The Referees reported that this was defective in an engineering 
 point of view. 
 
 28th March, 1865, p. 179, 
 
 MIDLAND RAILWAY (NEW LINES, &c.) 
 
 (Mr. Has sard.) 
 
 Private Sidings — Junction — Level Crossings in Street. 
 
 Messrs. B. & Co. objected that Railway No. 14, a short loop line, com- 
 mencing by a junction with the Midland Railway, north-west of the 
 crossing of G-uild Street, in Burton, and terminating by a junction witli 
 the same line south-east of the same crossing, crossed at both ends the ' 
 sidings of the petitioners at their junctions with the Midland Railway, 
 and Grossed Guild Street on the level, about 6 feet from the existing 
 crossing. 
 
 The Local Board of Ashby-de-la-Zouche complained that it was 
 proposed to cross three of their roads on the level, which wdtfld be 
 highly danj^rous. The railway was proposed to take the litfe of an 
 existing hoise tramway, one of the roads marked " disused road," on the 
 plan, was cut off, and another road substituted for it when the Midland 
 Railway Act, 1846, was obtained, and there was very little traffic upon 
 it ; the second was stated to be the principal street of the town, and the 
 ascending gradients from the railway were for 53 yards 1 in 41, then for 90 
 
51 
 
 yards 1 in 23, and for 23 yards 1 in 53 ; the promoters maintained that 
 they could not throw a bridge across it, because the necessary embank- 
 ment would destroy the houses on each side, the third had a descending 
 gradient of 1 in 16^ for 250 yards, and the petitioners stated that they 
 were improving it to provide for the traffic ; the promoters admitted 
 that a bridge could be thrown over this, but said it was a mere bridle 
 road. 
 
 The Referees reported, as to No. 14, that the junctions disturbed 
 being formed on the property of the Midland Company, the sidings at 
 the points where they are crossed belong to them ; that the junctions 
 eould easily be readjusted, and that there was no engineering objection 
 to the sidings or Guild Street being crossed as proposed. As to the 
 petition of the Local Board, they reported that the descent to the level 
 crossing was very steep, and was an engineering objection to the pro- 
 posed line, but that if protected by gates and a watchman, that it would 
 not be more dangerous than as at present over an open tramway with- 
 out such protection, and that there were no engineering' objections to 
 crossing these roads as proposed. 
 
 3rd April, 1865, p. 223. 
 
 MOLD AND DENBIGH JUNCTION RAILWAY 
 (EXTENSIONS). 
 (Mr. Adair.) 
 Width of Over Arch — Shiftiness of Soil where Passing under Oppo- 
 nents Line — Junction — Single Line— Level Crossing. 
 The London and North Western Railway Company complained that 
 their Treiddyn mineral branch would be interfered with, as the proposed 
 line crossed it by a bridge only 15 feet in width, whereas that Company 
 possessed land for a double line, and might hereafter construct and use 
 it as a passenger line. The promoters replied, that the gradient being 
 1 in 34, the branch could never be used as a passenger line, and more- 
 over, that if necessary, as the promoters propose a double line, sufficient 
 width of bridge could hereafter be given: 
 
 The Great Western Railway Company objected that the proposed 
 railway sought a defective junction with their line at Wrexham, and 
 was badly laid out in an engineering point of view. 
 
 The petitioners stated that they had experienced considerable diffi- 
 culties in constructing their line, owing to the soft and shifting nature 
 of the soil, and that although their line was nowhere in deep cutting, 
 
■".* fej'rtj rft iff i ■.'•"., • , . , .;. ' .... 
 
 coristaht"«]^ had taken place; that the proposed line was where it 
 crossed under .the petitioner's railway (at that point on an embank, 
 ment) 52 feet below the surface, and that further on the promoters 
 proposed a cutting of 18 feet, which would endanger the stability of the 
 existing railway ; that it was proposed to cross the south fork of their 
 railway at Wrexham (there a single line), and to effect a junction with 
 both lines of the Shrewsbury and Chester Railway at the south end of 
 Wrexham Station, taking no powers to use the station, and that the 
 junction was proposed at a point where the Shrewsbury and Chester 
 Railway passes over a level crossing; that considerable and increasing 
 mfeiefitt traffic is cpnstantly and at uncertain intervals passing over the. 
 solltli sfiirky over which empty waggons are shunted, thus constituting a 
 siding as well as a main line for through trade, and that the introduc- 
 tion of two more lines at the level crossing was dangerous, and would 
 impede the safe working of the station. 
 
 In reply it was urged that though the construction of the line might 
 be expensive from the nature of the soil, it was practicable, and that 
 the depth of cutting was exceptional and owing to the formation of 
 the land at that point ; that they would construct a station on their 
 own land at Wrexham ; that the junctions were practicable, and not 
 subject to any disadvantage other than those attaching to any junctions 
 requiring facing points. 
 
 The Referees reported that the width of the Treiddyn Bridge was 
 sufficient, but as regards the nature of the soil sufficient care had not 
 been taken to ascertain accurately the nature of the soil on which the 
 works were to be constructed ; that the proposed junction at Wrexham 
 (considering the nature of the traffic on the south fork, and the point at 
 and the manner in which it was proposed to join the main line of the 
 Shrewsbury and Chester Railway) was very objectionable, and was a 
 defect in an engineering point of view. 
 
 7th April, 1865, p. 264. 
 
 HORNSEY AND KINGSLAND JUNCTION RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Hassabd.) 
 
 Junction Double Line rmning into Single Up Line — No Provision for 
 Statipns or Running powers. 
 
 It was objected that it was proposed that this railway (a double line) 
 should effect a junction with the up line of the Edgware, Highgate and 
 
53 
 
 London Railway, at the east side of the Great Northern Railway near 
 Seven Sisters' Station, but no provision was made for the carrying on of 
 the 1 down traffic, there being no junction proposed with the down line 
 of the Edgware, Highgate and London Railway, which is upon the 
 West side of the Great Northern Railway, and also that a junction was 
 to be effected with the North London Railway, but no station was pro- 
 posed to- be erected there, nor were there any powers in the bill for 
 running into any station on the North London Line. 
 
 The Referees reported that the engineering was deficient. 
 
 l&th March, p. 91. 
 
 NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY (CARLISLE STATION 
 
 BRANCH). 
 
 (Mr. Hassard.) 
 
 Destruction of Private Siding — Compensation — Signals in Station 
 worked by One Man. 
 
 It was objected, that the railway would destroy a siding leading to 
 Messrs. N.'s marble yard, and that four additional sets of points would 
 be introduced into the station, which would require to be worked from 
 the present signal station, 100 yards distant ; and it was proposed to 
 work some of the signals and points to be introduced by another man in 
 addition to the person^at present in charge of the points and signals at 
 the north end of the station. 
 
 The Referees, reported that .the .siding leading only to the marble 
 
 yard its destruction was a question of. compensation rather than engiheer- 
 
 J -•.>•*.._ .. .«.'„ . ;/■. ^::z una &s «•■ . \u,i,^ <& v/ 
 
 ine. and that to ensure safety, all the points and signals,at the irorth v ehd 
 should be under the control of one man ; and that if the proposed works 
 be executed,the number which must then be placed in his charge"\f6uld 
 be excessive. 
 
 2nd May, 1865, p. 297. 
 
 REGENT'S CANAL (LLMEHOUSE BASIN AND CUT). 
 
 i 
 
 ,. (Mr* Adair.) 
 Stopping' up: Street*~Mi»g*&i<ty^$^^ fir .Wffjus. 
 
 It was objected that the pronioters took powers- to stop up part of 
 Ristre's Ropewalk and the whole of Tyte's, Alley,, by. which last arrange- 
 ment an alternative route which traffic frequently takes Jq avoid a^pass- 
 
54 
 
 ing over a fixed and narrow bridge at Limehouse Cut entrance, and where 
 the narrowness of Narrow Street causes frequent delay, would be entirely 
 destroyed, and the convenience of passage from east to west irremediably 
 prejudiced ; that the construction of a new swing-bridge in addition to 
 two existing would be inconvenient ; that under an Act of George the 
 Third powers are vested (and intended to be exercised) in the Board of 
 Works of Limehouse District, to construct a new street from Queen 
 Street through Ristre's Eopewalk to Northey Street, which the bill pro- 
 poses to repeal, and thus render the carrying out a great local improve- 
 ment impossible. 
 
 In reply the promoters stated, that in lieu of Tyte's Alley, which is 
 10 feet wide, and so much of Bistre's Ropewalk, 26 feet wide in some 
 parts, as is stopped up, they proposed to substitute a new street of 80 
 feet width throughout, and to widen Narrow Street, which is now in 
 the widest part only 25 feet wide to an uniform width of 30 feet ; that 
 the new swing-bridge would be over the dock chamber, the area of 
 which would allow many vessels to be above the bridge, which would not 
 be kept open for more than twelve minutes at one time ; that a platform 
 would be constructed for foot-passengers on the dock gates ; and that 
 the new street would answer all the objects of the proposed street of the 
 Board of Works. 
 
 The Eeferees reported, that unless some very strong necessity for the 
 proposed works be shown to the satisfaction of the Committee, the in- 
 troduction of a third-swing bridge into these crowded thoroughfares, 
 allowing for the increased width of Narrow Street would be a serious 
 interruption to the use of the streets, and that the new street would, 
 by stopping up an alternative route, and rendering the larger improve- 
 ment impossible, only in a limited degree relieve the existing crowded 
 state of the thoroughfares. 
 
 27th March, 1865, p. 178. 
 
 AFON VALLEY RAILWAY. 
 (Mr. Hassard.) 
 
 * 
 
 Injury to Tramway t — Compensation — Amendment of Scheme while 
 
 before Referees. 
 
 It was objected that the proposed railway would cross several mineral 
 tramways belonging to the petitioners in such a manner that the levels 
 of the tramways would require to be altered, in order to give sufficient 
 
56 
 
 headway for locomotive engines to pass under them ; and it was ad- 
 mitted that the tramways had been treated as private roads, and that 
 no specific arrangements had been made or sum included in the esti- 
 mates for the alteration thereof. It was also objected that it would be 
 impossible to effect a junction, of the proposed railway with the 
 Llynvi Valley Eailway in the manner shown on the deposited plan, 
 inasmuch as the proposed railway would be on a gradient of 1 in 40 up 
 to the point of completion of the junction, the Llynvi Valley Eailway 
 being the level for 130 feet before such completion. To obviate this 
 difficulty it was proposed to push back the entire inclined part (2 
 miles) of this line about 130 feet ; but it was still objected that the 
 junction would be effected where the proposed railway, was upon a 
 gradient of 1 in 40 descending towards the Llynvi Valley Railway, 
 which there is level for only 528 feet, and which has also at that point 
 a branch line diverging from that level space, which is barely sufficient 
 for the traffic at that point. The promoters thereupon proposed to put 
 in a blind siding with self-acting points to divert all traffic descending 
 the proposed railway into it. 
 
 The Referees reported that the collieries to which the tramways 
 gave access were of considerable value, and that unless suitable pro- 
 vision were made for working them a very heavy sum might have to be 
 paid for compensation to the owner ; but that there were no engineering 
 difficulties in the construction of that part of the railways, and that 
 the construction of the siding would be attended with considerable ex- 
 pense, as it would have to be effected by excavation into a bed of iron 
 ore j but that if the Committee should sanction the proposed alterations 
 there would be no engineering objections to the railway as altered, and 
 that the sum estimated was sufficient for the execution of the works 
 proposed. 
 
 5th May, 1865, p. 315. 
 
 SOUTH LANCASHIRE RAILWAYS AND DOCK. 
 
 (Mr. Hassard.) 
 
 Grossing Tramway so as to Destroy it — Improving Schemes — Powers — 
 
 Deposited Plans — Efficiency of Works. 
 It was objected by Messrs. Knowles that No. 1 Railway would cross 
 the petitioners tramway to their Headley Colliery, leaving a height of 
 but 9 feet 6 inches from rail to rail, that tramway being at present 
 worked by locomotives which it would be impossible to continue to do 
 
56 
 
 With such a headway, and that railway No. 2 would cut through a 
 tramway leading to the top pit and a triple set of marshalling sidings 
 with a cutting 3 feet in depth, so as to necessitate the alteration of those 
 lines. It was objected by the London and North Western Railway 
 Company, that the Junction Eailway, No. 3, with their North Union 
 Eailway, was to be on a descending gradient of 1 in 88 towards the 
 North Western Railway, which is there very much crowded with traffic, 
 and without any level space intervening between the said gradient, and 
 that the point of junction was badly contrived ; that the lock at the 
 entrance to the dock, as shown on the deposited plans, was too small for 
 the purposes of the dock, and that the estimates were insufficient. 
 
 The promoters replied, that the Headley tramway could be lowered 
 at the point of crossing, so as to admit the passage of locomotives ; that 
 the sidings on No. 2 could be re-arranged, but they admitted that they 
 had made no provision for such re-arrangement or for compensation to 
 Messrs. Knowles ; that at the Junction of No. 3 with the North Western 
 Railway the requisite level space could be procured by moving the 
 polhf of junction with No. 1 further back upon that line, and that they 
 could construct what Was shown on the plans as a tidal entrance in the 
 form of a lock of sufficient dimensions, by removing the site of the 
 dock 100 feet further back from the river. 
 
 The Referees reported that it was doubtful if at the Headley 
 crosssing such alteration of level could be made legally or physically ; 
 that such crossing was objectionable in an engineering point of view ; 
 that the mode of dealing with the Top Pit sidings was defective in an 
 engineering point of view ; that the proposed junction of No. 3 was 
 highly objectionable; that the sections as shown on the deposited plana 
 do not show any such level space as mentioned by the promoters ; that 
 they could not decide whether or not the promoters had power to alter 
 their point of junction with their own Line No. 1 ; that the lock as 
 shown was too small, but that probably the additional accommodation 
 could be obtained, and within the limits of deviation, but no plans or 
 sections of the dock, as proposed to be altered, had been deposited ; 
 that no provision had been made for station land or buildings, for 
 sidings at the junctions or dbcks, and that without these proyisions'Uhe 
 intended works Would not be- efficient for their proposed object, and that 
 the estimates were insufficient. 
 
 26th April, 1865, p. 27^. 
 
57 
 
 WOLVERHAMPTON AND NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE 
 JUNCTION RAILWAY. 
 (Mr. Adaib.) 
 Efficiency far Proposed Object — Better Line. 
 The London and North Western Railway objected that although the 
 line was not defective in a strictly engineering point of view, it was 
 not efficient within the preamble— the construction of a line of public 
 and local advantage ; and said that to effect this a junction with their 
 line at Colwich should have been made, and also that instead of passing 
 over their Cannock Mineral Line by a'viaduct 92 feet high, a junction 
 should have been made with that line, and a communication thus 
 afforded with Rugeley. Several landowners alleged defective engineer- 
 ing, and that a better line could have been devised. 
 
 The Referees reported that, the object being a through lead of 
 minerals from Oannook Chase to the Potteries, the works were effi- 
 cient for the proposed object ; and that there was no evidence that 
 the. line could' have been laid out within the limits of deviation more 
 conveniently to the landowners. 
 
 6th April, 1865, p. 244. 
 
 NORTH KENT RAILWAY. 
 
 Objection to Lovmess of Level — Possible Accident by Flooding. 
 
 It was objected that the line was at too low level, the rails being gene- 
 rally on the level of Trinity high water mark at spring tides in the 
 river Thames, from which the district through which it ran is protected 
 by an embankment, and that it ought to be laid from 4 to 5 feet higher, 
 to prevent its being injured by inundation if this embankment were 
 broken by accident or otherwise, and also that the estimate for a pier 
 (£5000) was insufficient. 
 
 The promoters replied that the embankment had existed for a long 
 term of years ; that there is not the. slightest ground for anticipating any 
 such mischance* and that, the pier was intended to be an ordinary timber 
 structure to be used chiefly for landing coals, fish, <fec. 
 
 The Referees reported that there was no engineering objection and 
 that the estimates were sufficient. 
 
 Uth June, 1865, p. 511. 
 
DEAL AND DOVER EAILWAY. 
 DOVEE, DEAL, AND SANDWICH EAILWAY. 
 (Mr. Hassaed.) 
 Competing Schemes — Beport in Favour of One. 
 These were competing bills for conneoting Dover, Deal, and Sand- 
 wich. 
 
 The gradients and curves on the Deal and Dover were less favour- 
 able than those of the Dover, Deal, and Sandwich, but were not 
 seriously objectionable, having regard to the fact that it branched from 
 the London, Chatham and Dover Railway, in a deep valley. It was 
 however shorter, being 9 miles 47 chains as against 15 miles 20 chains, 
 between Dover and Deal, and about the same length between Deal 
 and Sandwich. 
 
 The Eeferees reported, that there was no engineering obstacle to 
 either line, and that the Deal and Dover line is better calculated to 
 effect the objects of both bills. 
 
 7lh March, 1865, p. 54. 
 
 MIDLAND EAILWAY (BAENSLEY TO KIEKBUETON). 
 
 (Mr. Hassaed.) 
 
 Expensive Works. 
 
 It was objected that the works proposed to be executed were costly. 
 
 The works were admittedly very heavy and expensive, but were 
 proved to be required, to obtain good gradients, as the line passed 
 through a very diffioult country. 
 
 The Eeferees reported that there were no engineering objections to 
 the bill. 
 
 Gth April, 1865, p. 241. 
 
 ACTON AND TWICKENHAM RAILWAY. 
 (Mr. Adair.) 
 
 Estimates — Sufficiency — Plans deposited in Duplicate for Portion of Line 
 — No Limitation in Estimates. 
 
 This bill was objeoted to on the ground of insufficient estimates. 
 
 The insufficiency of the estimates for the whole work was admitted, 
 but it was stated that the portion of the railway from Acton to Brent- 
 
59 
 
 ford was provided for by another bill also before Parliament, and that 
 the plans and sections for this portion were deposited in duplicate ; ' 
 and it was stated that a separate estimate of £80,000 was deposited for . 
 that portion of the line, and that the deposited estimate (£120,000) was 
 intended for the remaining works included in this bill only. ' 
 
 The Referees reported, that the deposited estimate did not contain 
 any such limitations, but was described as the estimate of the expense 
 of the undertaking according to the deposited plans ; and as those 
 plans referred to all the railways described, this estimate was wholly 
 insufficient, but that if the above portion were to be considered as pro- ■ 
 vided for by the other bill, then that the estimate was sufficient. 
 
 30th March, 1865, p. 193. 
 
 GLASGOW AND NOETfl WESTEEN EAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Adaik.) 
 Estimates — Abandonment of portion of Scheme — Sufficiency. 
 The deposited estimate was £300,000 for 32 miles of railway. The 
 promoters before appearing before the Eeferees withdrew 17 m. 52 ch. 
 The Eeferees received evidence upon the sufficiency of the deposited 
 estimates for the whole works, and also of the amount to be appor- 
 tioned to the works still proposed to be constructed, which was 
 £134,290. 
 
 The Eeferees reported, that the deposited estimate would have been 
 sufficient, and that the works still proposed could be constructed for 
 the estimated amount of £134,290. 
 
 16th May, 1865, p. 369. 
 
 BIBKENHEAD AND LIVEEPOOL RAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Hassakd.) 
 
 Junction under Circumstances not Objectionable — Estimates not to Provide 
 against Extraordimry Contingency. 
 
 It was objected that the Junction of No. 2 Eailway (which would have 
 a descending gradient of 1 in 52) with No. 1 (which would be on a 
 descending gradient of : 1 in 47), both, lines being upon curves of 20, 
 chains radius was bad engineering, and that the estimates were insuffi- 
 cient. ; -?'.■' 
 
60 
 
 The Referees reported, that under the peculiar circumstances, this 
 junction was not objectionable in an engineering point of view, mora 
 especially as it was near a station, and the' working of it was to be con- 
 trolled by telegraph. 
 
 They also reported that though evidence had been given that extra- 
 ordinary difficulties might be encountered by meeting with faults, and 
 strata charged' with water, or other serious obstacles in the execution 
 of the tunnel under the river Mersey, and that it was possible suoh 
 difficulties might arise, in their opinion the occurrence of them 
 was so uncertain that it would not be just to require the promoters to 
 provide for them in their estimate, and that a sufficient margin had 
 been provided to meet contingencies and any ordinary accidents that 
 might be expected to occur during the execution of the works. 
 
 28th April, 1865, p. 285. 
 
 GEEENOCE EAILWAY. 
 
 (Mr. Adair.) 
 
 Gradients — Worked with Care — Estimates Conjectural — Smallness of 
 Margin on Large Works. 
 
 It was objected that the gradients ascending from Greenock for upwards 
 of 3 miles, with 693, 320, and 180 yards tunnel, in the first 2 miles, on a 
 gradient of 1 in 70, with one piece of 1 in 200 for 100 yards, then 
 descending for about 5 miles at 1 in 100, were severe ; that there were 
 in the same distance four curves of 15 chains radius, one of which was 
 in the tunnel of 693 yards, and two were reverse curves ; and that the 
 line descends into the harbour, abruptly by a gradient of 1 in 40, on to 
 a level piece of only 160 feet ; and that the estimate was insufficient. 
 
 In reply it was stated that the steepness of the gradient was inherent 
 in such an undertaking, that some of the curves could be eased in some 
 cases within the limits of deviation, and that the last objection would 
 be met by the connection which the line formed with works in course of 
 construction in the harbour. 
 
 The Eeferees reported that the descending traffic to the harbour would 
 require care in its management, but that the traffic might be worked 
 efficiently, and that the steepness of the gradients did not in themselves 
 constitute a valid objection to the undertaking ; that the evidence on 
 the estimates was very conflicting* chiefly arising from the conjectural' 
 views on either side, as to the nature of the rocks through which the 
 
61 
 
 work was to be carried, the promoters however stating, that they were 
 greatly guided by the cost of the neighbouring Glasgow and Wemyss 
 Railway Line ; and that their estimate was vague and unsatisfactory for 
 works of such a heavy character — the estimates for rock cuttings and 
 tunnels being low, as compared with the cost of similar existing works, 
 and the surplus of £5605 being small on works of the cost of £350,000. 
 
 29th March, 1865, p. 187. 
 
 CONNAH'S QUAY RAILWAY AND DOCKS. 
 (Mr. Hassaed.) 
 
 Crossing Existing Line on Qradient — Concessions to Opponents — 
 
 Estimates. 
 
 It was objected that Railway No. 1 would cross the Buckley Railway, 
 leading to the present basin at Oonnah's Quay, by a level crossing at a 
 point where that railway is on a gradient of 1 in 34 ; but it was proved 
 that the point of crossing is near the termination of the Buckley Railway, 
 where the speed must be slow ; and further that Railway No. 1 would 
 supersede that part of the Buckley, except for a small local traffic. 
 
 It was also objected, that the construction of a guide wall or em- 
 bankment in the River Dee, below Connah's Quay, would so contract the 
 entrance of the River Dee, as to render the navigation thereof dangerous. 
 The promoters replied that they were willing to alter the direction of 
 the wall so as to obviate the objections of the petitioners. 
 
 The original estimate was £275,000 exclusive of railways ; but this 
 included a diversion of the course of the Dee, which was abandoned, the 
 cost of which was estimated at £50,647. In course of the inquiry, 
 works were proposed to be executed in material different from that con- 
 templated by the estimate ; and it was admitted that the estimates were 
 not made for the execution of the works, according to the sections con- 
 tained in the deposited plans. 
 
 The Referees reported that Railway No 1 was not objectionable ; that 
 if the guide wall were constructed in such a line as might be agreed on 
 with the petitioners there would be no engineering objections thereto ; 
 that the estimates had been so losely prepared that no reliance could be 
 placed upon them. 
 
 7th April, 1865, p. 258. 
 
62 
 
 WHITEHAVEN AND FURNESS JUNCTION RAILWAY. 
 (Mr. Has sard). 
 
 Embankment or Viaduct — Power to Board of Trade to Order the 
 
 Latter — Estimate — Hypothetical Report. 
 It was proposed to carry the line across the Duddon Estuary for upwards 
 of 2| miles, upon a solid embankment, with only 350 yards of open 
 viaduct. It was alleged that if so constructed the effect of the works 
 would be to silt up the sands above the embankment, diminish the area 
 of the tidal basin, and eventually injure materially the Duddon and 
 Barrow Channels, and that the estimate was insufficient. 
 
 The promoters admitted that some silting would take place. 
 
 The Referees reported that the effect of such silting must be very 
 doubtful j and that the engineering works would be defective unless the 
 Board of Trade were empowered to require that an open viaduct be 
 substituted for so much of the solid embankment as they might think 
 requisite, and that the estimate was sufficient for the works proposed, 
 but that if an open viaduct should be substituted for a large portion of 
 the embankment the sum estimated would be insufficient. , 
 
 13<A March, 1865, p. 80. 
 
 GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY 
 (KILMARNOCK DIRECT). 
 
 (Mr. Hassakd.) 
 
 Estimates — Compulsion to take whole of Lands — Hypothetical Report. 
 
 It was objected that the estimates were insufficient, inasmuch as the 
 railway passed over the lands of Mr. Dixon, now occupied as the Govan 
 Iron Works, and which, with the land, were valued at £350,000, and it 
 was urged that the Company could be compelled to purchase the entire 
 of Mr. Dixon's interest. 
 
 The Referees reported, that the works were already divided by a 
 parish road, and that if the Company should be compelled to purchase 
 the whole interest, the estimate would be insufficient, otherwise that 
 it was sufficient. 
 
 13jfA March, 1965, p. 78. 
 
G3 
 
 BUTE DOCKS, CAEDIFF (No. 1). 
 
 (Mr. Hassard.) 
 
 Estimates — Property in Foreshore — Jurisdiction of Referees. 
 
 The Beferees reported that the foreshore to be enclosed was assumed to 
 belong to the Marquis of Bute ; that there was no sum provided for its 
 acquisition, and that they were not in a position to form an opinion 
 whether th« foreshore was or was not the property of the Marquis. 
 
 4th May, 1865, p. 305. 
 
 PICCADILLY AND PAEK LANE, NEW EOAD. 
 
 (Mr. Adair.) 
 
 Estimates — Fancy Value — Compensation — Injuriously Affected— 
 Expunging Powers from' Bill — Jurisdiction of Beferees. 
 
 The main contention between the parties related to the item of compen- 
 sation. 
 
 The petitioners were of two classes. One, the lessees of the houses 
 in Hamilton Place, which would or might, in whole or in part, be taken 
 or interfered with for the purposes of this bill. The other, the lessees 
 of houses in Hamilton Place, or in the part of Piccadilly adjoining 
 thereto, which it was alleged would be injuriously affected and depre- 
 ciated in value, by the conversion of Hamilton Place from a cul de sac 
 into a public thoroughfare. 
 
 The objections taken to the works on engineering grounds were 
 confined to two points. The first related to a power contained in the 
 bill of deviating from the level of the intended road as shown upon the 
 sections. This objection was met on the part of the promoters, by de- 
 claring their intention to expunge these powers from the bill and to 
 adhere to the levels shown. The second and more material objection 
 was to the alleged deficient width of the roadway which would allow no 
 more than 28 feet 4 inches at the narrowest point of the carriage way. 
 
 The second class of petitioners, in order to make good their claims 
 to compensation, would have to bring their respective cases within the 
 operation of the Section 68 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 
 under the category of lands or houses " injuriously affected" by the 
 construction, of the works. 
 
 The Beferees reported, that such cases might involve some important 
 
64 
 
 questions of law, and might possibly come under the adjudication of 
 the legal tribunals, and therefore they desired to refrain from giving any 
 opinion as to the validity or invalidity of such . claims, but said that it 
 appeared clear to them that claims of this nature founded upon allega- 
 tions of contingent and consequential injury, in respect of which the 
 promoters entirely deny their liability, are not such expenses as they 
 (the promoters) are required to provide for in their Parliamentary 
 estimate. 
 
 That the properties which came under the other class, as being 
 subject to be taken in whole or in part for the purposes of the works, 
 were Nos. 5, 6, and 7, Hamilton Place ; that the case of No. 7 stood on a 
 separate footing, being included within the limits of deviation, but the 
 promoters distinctly stated, that it was not their intention to take or 
 interfere with it in any respect, and that they would consent to be 
 strictly confined to the line of the road as laid down upon their 
 deposited plans, leaving these premises unaltered. 
 
 Nos. 5 and 6 have each a garden attached to them. The proposed 
 roadway would cut off a small portion (about 20 superficial feet) from 
 the garden No. 5. It would intersect and take away a large portion of 
 the garden of No. 6. According to the arrangement proposed by the 
 promoters, the space taken from the garden of No. 5 would be compen- 
 sated by throwing into it a much larger piece of ground (about 1000 
 superficial feet), and they considered that by so doing, they would 
 indemnify the proprietors and leave no further claim for compensation 
 in respect of No. 5. 
 
 The deterioration which would be caused to No. 6 by the loss of 
 garden ground and other damage, was estimated by them at £6600, 
 which their estimate would be just sufficient to cover. 
 
 That according to the valuation of the witnesses for the petitioners 
 on the other hand, there would be a deterioration in value of No. 5, 
 amounting to £8000. The evidence on this part of the case was very 
 conflicting ; but it appeared to the Eeferees that the houses in question, 
 from their peculiar character, and the circumstances of their position, 
 possessed a considerable extent of what may be called a " fancy " or 
 speculative value depending on individual taste aDd sentiment; and, 
 therefore, not capable of being estimated according to the strict standard 
 of market value. 
 
 That such being the case, the Eeferees, feeling the difficulty of arriv* 
 ing at a precise conclusion, and of determining beforehand what the 
 value of the property in question might be, in case the proposed roadway 
 should be constructed, were not prepared to pronounce a positive opinion, 
 
65 
 
 that the estimate of the' promoters would prove insufficient for the pur- 
 poses Of "the required' compensation, and that it appeared tb them, under 
 these circumstances, that the question in this' respect was not to be 
 regarded as one of mere engineering merits or details, but involved con- 
 siderations affecting the expediency of the proposed route, and the 
 general merits of the scheme which belong to the Committee on the 
 Bill, and not to the Beferees. 
 
 30tii March, 1865, j). 196. 
 
 GLOSSGP WATER.. 
 
 (Mr. Hassabd.) 
 
 Concession to Opponents. 
 
 fr'wta prbpttsea' tb v givethe petitioners' a compensation supply fbrwater 
 tirbV abstracted' of 21 cubic feet a minute. 
 
 ISiefpelatibners objected that by the proposed' situation" of the guage; 
 the'mbiety" of the water of the Blacishaw Clbugh Stream, which ought - 
 to lie left free for the use of mill owners, would be taken credit for ih 
 the 21 cubic feet to- be" allowed; but the promoters agreed, that the- 
 guagb'Bitould'beso'pIaced'and arranged, as to ensure their having' that 
 moiety 1 in addition to the 21 cubic feet compensation water. 
 
 The Beferees reported that this was sufficient. 
 
 24th March, 1865, p: 157. 
 
 CHESTERFIELD WATER AND GAS. 
 
 (Mr. Hassard.) 
 
 Quality — Jurisdiction to Inquire into Exercised. 
 
 The Beferees reported, that the quality of Water proposed to be supplied 
 was as good as could be procured' in that locality. 
 
 Idth March, 1865, p. 89. 
 
 CHELTENHAM WATER; 
 (Mr. Dobson.) 
 Quality — Jurisdiction to Inquire into Declined. 
 Thb Referees reported that there were no sufficient objections to the pro- 
 posed source -off- supply, and: quality of the water, and that evidence was 
 
66 
 
 tendered by the petitioners to show that preferable supplies might be 
 derived from other sources, but that they did not consider themselves at 
 liberty to enter upon that inquiry. 
 
 23rd March, 1865, p. 137. 
 
 BEISTOL WATEE. 
 
 (Mr. Dodson.) 
 
 Provision for Protection of Water-shed District. 
 
 It was objected by the owners, &c, of lands in the neighbourhood of 
 the Chelvey and Midgal Springs, and of the River Kenn, that these 
 springs were the chief feeders of the River Kenn, which waters about 
 6000 acres of land used for dairy and grazing purposes, and that the 
 abstraction of the water as proposed by the bill would do them a great 
 injury. The promoters did not dispute the prior claim of the inhabi- 
 tants of the district, and said they did not contemplate taking more than 
 one million of gallons, and admitted that it would be reasonable to 
 secure the district against the abstraction of water, whenever the effect 
 of doing so would be, to reduce the local supply below three millions of 
 gallons per day. 
 
 The Referees reported, that it would be for the Committee on the 
 bill to consider this. 
 
 6th March, 1865, p. 49. 
 
 BIRMINGHAM WATER. 
 
 (Mr. Hassard.) 
 
 Water Supply to Opponents Mills — To other places in the Neighbour- 
 
 hood. 
 
 Toe Referees reported that the owners of certain mills, situate upon the 
 streams which flow from the pools intended to be appropriated, and upon 
 such pools would be deprived of their water supply, and that the wells 
 in Sutton Coldfield would be deprived of their water ; that there were no 
 engineering objections to the works, that they were efficient for their 
 object, that the estimate was sufficient, that the present supply of Bir- 
 mingham was insufficient, and that the quality of the water proposed to 
 be supplied was good. 
 
 Uth Marth, 1865, p. 111. 
 
67 
 
 BUTE DOCKS, CARDIFF (No. 2). 
 (Mr. Hassabd.) 
 Water — Power to Supply Ships — Purity — Conditions. 
 The promoters sought to supply water to ships, railway companies and 
 persons using the docks as follows:— "A water boat draws water from 
 the feeder flowing from the river Taff into the Bute West Dock, at a 
 point in the said dock a few feet from the entrance of the said feeder 
 into the dock, and the said water having passed through a charcoal filter 
 into the tanks in the said boat, is then supplied to the shipping in the 
 dock." 
 
 The Referees reported that it was very doubtful whether the water 
 which could not be pure when taken into the boat, was effectually puri- 
 fied by being passed through the filter, and that if the water from tha 
 feeder was to be used, it should be drawn by a service pipe from a point 
 near the weir, and beyond the contaminating influence of the West 
 Dock, and that the Taff undoubtedly received the drainage of a large 
 population, but that it was not proved to their satisfaction that it was 
 so impure or unwholesome as to be unfit for domestic use. 
 
 5th May, 1865, p. 313. 
 
 (ADDENDUM.) 
 
 WREXHAM MOLD AND CONNAH'S QUAY RAILWAY BILL. 
 
 (Mb Adair). 
 Level Crossings — Junctions— Gradients— Interference with Traffic by 
 
 Bridges. 
 It was objected to Railways No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4, that Ihey 
 crossed various roads on the level ; to No. 1, thai it joined the existing 
 Mold Branch with a descending gradient of 1 in 60, where the former 
 is also on a descending gradient of 1 in 55 ; there was a piece of level 
 of 100 yards at the point of junction, but half of this was ou the Mold 
 Branch. It was further objected to .No. 2, that it joined No. 3 with a 
 descending gradient of 1 in 40, at a point where the latter was on a 
 curve of 10 chains with a gradient of 1 in 80 
 
68 
 
 The objection 'to No. 4 was that it joined No. 7 on a curve of 20 
 chains, and a gradient of 1 in 50, where the latter railway had a curve 
 of 10 chains and a gradient of 18-63. 
 
 Kail way No. 6 had a gradient for 8 chains of 1 in 25, and to Rail- 
 ways 5 and 6 it was objected, that they would, by passing over pertain 
 lines, interfere with the safe and efficient working of the same. 
 
 The Eeferees reported, that considering the formation of the country* 
 the nature of the traffic principally being mineral and coals, and the 
 existing number of lines, there were no engineering objections to any 
 of the proposed railways, except No. 6 and 7, which they recommended 
 to be abandoned. 
 
 lih April, 1865, p. 260. 
 
 The following Cases were not considered of sufficient importance io be 
 Digested, but will be found in the Supplements to the Fates, I&tport$ p» 
 Private Bills, at the pages opposite each. 
 
 Alexandra (Newport) Docks 292 
 
 Bath (jlas 43 
 
 Belfast (New Streets) 291 
 
 Bute Dock, Cardiff, No. 1 305 
 
 Caledonian Eailway, Glasgow (south side) 106 
 
 ,, (Crofthead and Kilmarnock Eailway Ex- 
 tension) 77 
 
 East and West Junction Eailway 66 
 
 East and West Yorkshire Union Eailway 237 
 
 Edgeware, Highgate and London Eailway 90 
 
 Edinburgh and Glasgow, No. 3 Eailway 37I 
 
 Exeter Gas 139 
 
 Folkstone Gas 141 
 
 Garth Quarry Eailways 314 
 
 Glasgow City Union Eailway 105 
 
 GosportGas 142 
 
 Hadlow Railway gl 
 
 Isle of Wight Eailway 453 
 
 Llanelly Railway and Dock (Extension to Mumbles) 494 
 
 London, Chatham, and Dover Eailway. No. 2 59 
 
Lynn and Sutton Bridge Railway ... 
 
 Manchester Corporation Water 
 
 Metropolis Sewage and Essex Reclamation 
 
 Moses Gate and Ringley Branch 'Road ... 
 
 North British Railway (Lass wade Branches) 
 
 North London Railway (Highgate and Alexandra Park) 
 
 Peterbro', Wisbeach and Sutton Railway — 
 
 Preston Gas ... ... .*» ... ... ... 
 
 Torquay Gas ... 
 
 Tottenham and Hampstead Junction Railway (New Lines) 
 Trowse Road , .„ ... - , 
 
 
 f»e» 
 
 74 
 
 ... 
 
 145 
 
 ... 
 
 117 
 
 ... 
 
 294 
 
 ... 
 
 174 
 
 ... . 
 
 172 
 
 
 119 
 
 ... 
 
 147 
 
 ... 
 
 138 
 
 es) 
 
 128 
 
 ... 
 
 41 
 
70 
 
 INDEX OP CASES IN THE DIGEST. 
 
 r«gr« 
 
 Aberystwith and Welsh Coast Bailway ... 30 
 
 Aboyne and Braemar Eailway 6 
 
 Acton and Twickenham Eailway 58 
 
 Afon Viilley Eailway 54: 
 
 Barnet, Hendon, Hampstead and London Eailway 27 
 
 Bedford, Northampton, and Weedon Eailway 24 
 
 Birkenhead and Liverpool Eailway 59 
 
 Birmingham Water 66 
 
 Bishop's Castle Eailway (Extension to Craven Arms) 13 
 
 Brecon and Llandovery Junction Eailway (additional case on 
 
 locus standi) 4 
 
 Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Eailway 20 
 
 Bristol Water 66 
 
 Burton-upon-Trent and Nottingham Eailway 12 
 
 Bute Docks, Cardiff, No. 1 63 
 
 Bute Docks, Cardiff, No. 2 67 
 
 Caledonian Eailway (Balerno and Penicuick Branches) ... 26 
 
 Callander and Oban Eailway 29 
 
 Central Wales and Staffordshire Junction Railway 48 
 
 Cheltenham Water 65 
 
 Chesterfield Water and Gas 65 
 
 Chichester and Midhurst Railway 41 
 
 Chipping Norton, Banbury, and East and West Junction Eailway 49 
 
 Connah's Quay Railway and Docks 61 
 
 Crystal Palace Eailway (New Lines) 45 
 
 Deal and Dover Eailway 58 
 
 Dee and Mersey Junction Eailway 31 
 
 East London Eailway 32 
 
 Edinburgh and Glasgow Eailway, No. 2 14 
 
 Ely and Ogmore Valleys Junction Eailway 22 
 
 •Evesham and Eedditch Eailway 14 
 
 Fareham and Netley Eailway 31 
 
 Fulham Eailway 1 
 
 Furness Eailway 30 
 
71 
 
 r«V 
 
 Great Western Eailway 11 
 
 Greenock Eailway 60 
 
 Glasgow City Suburban and Harbour Eailway 17 
 
 Glasgow and South Western Eailway (additional powers) ... 26 
 
 Glasgow and South Western Eailway (Kilmarnock Direct) ... 62 
 
 Glasgow and North Western Eailway 59 
 
 Glossop Water 65 
 
 Ha vant, Ham bledon, and Droxford Eailway 11. 
 
 Hornsey and Kingsland Junction Eailway 52 
 
 King's Lynn Docks and Railway 13 
 
 Lancashire Union Railways 46 
 
 Lancashire and Yorkshire Eailway (additional powers) 8 
 
 Launceston, Bodmin, and Wadebridge Junction Eailway ... 18 
 
 Leeds, North Yorkshire and Durham Eailway 42 
 
 Llantrissant and Taff Vale Junction Eailway 19 
 
 London, Brighton and South Coast Eailway (additional powers) 33 
 
 London, Brighton and South Coast Eailway (St. Leonard's Lines) 8 
 London and North Western Eailway (New Works) England 
 
 and Scotland 8 
 
 London, Worcester and South Wales Eailway 47 
 
 Metropolitan and St. John's Wood Eailway 46 
 
 Midland Eailway (Barnsley and Kirkburton) 58 
 
 Midland Eailway (New Lines, &c.) 50 
 
 Mold and Denbigh Junction Eailway (Extensions) 51 
 
 Newport and Usk Eailway 48 
 
 North British Eailway (additional powers) 7 
 
 North British Eailway (Carlisle Station Branch) 53 
 
 North of England Union Eailway 47 
 
 North Kent Eailway 57 
 
 North Surrey Eailway 35 
 
 Ogmore Valley Railways, No. 1 17 
 
 Ok eh amp ton Eailway ... 16 
 
 Perth General Eailway Station, Scottish Central, &c, Eailway 
 
 Companies 50 
 
 Perth General Railway Station 36 
 
 Piccadilly and Park Lane, New Eoad 63 
 
 Poole and Bournemouth Eailway v 25 
 
 Eegent's Canal (Limehouse Basin and Cut) 53 
 
 Saint Clement Dane's Improvements (additional case on locus 
 
 standi) * 
 
n 
 
 Severn Junction Railway 
 
 Shrewsbury and Potteries Junction 
 
 South Lancashire Railways and' Dock' 
 
 South Lancashire Railways and Bod (additional case on locus 
 
 standi) 
 
 South Wales and Great Western Direct Railway 
 
 Spalding and Bourn Railway 
 
 Surrey and Sussex' Junction Railway 
 
 Swansea and Aberystwith Junction Railway 
 
 Swansea Vale and Neath and Brecon Junction - Railway... 
 
 Vale of Crrckbowell Railway (Western - Extension) 
 
 Vale of Neath Railway (Swansea Lines) 
 
 Whitehaven and Furness Junction Railway 
 
 Wolverhampton affd'Bridgenorth Railway 
 
 Wolverhampton- and North Staffordshire Junction' Railway 
 Wood Green, Winehmore Hill, and Enfield Railway 
 Wrexham and Minera Railway 
 
 Page 
 
 40 
 36 
 55 
 
 6 
 
 38 
 9' 
 34 
 21 
 9' 
 38' 
 IO- 
 37' 
 57" 
 28 
 36 
 
 (Addendum)- 
 Wrexham Mold and- Connah's Quay Railway 
 
 67 
 
 KEATING AND CO., PKINTEBS, 27j GBEAT GEORGE STREET, WESTMINSTER.