THE BOARD OF TRADE AND THE KENTISH RAILWAY SCHEMES. LONDON: PUBLISHED BY THOMAS VARTY, 31, STRAND. 1845. l^F V3 3%5,-va ^)fe3 THE BOARD OF TRADE AND THE KENTISH R ATI, WAY SCHEMES. 10 tr a2 The first Report from the Railway Department of the Board of Trade laid before the Legislature in this session, bears date the 13th February, nine days after the meeting of Parliament, and is “ on the Kentish and South-Eastern Railway Schemes.” These were far from being the first group decided upon by the Railway Board, but they are thus honoured by priority of report in a special argumentative paper, because of some circum- stances that had transpired affecting the impartiality of the decision, and that have been commented upon invidiously both in and out of Parliament. It is exceedingly to be regretted that any personal ques- tions should ever have been mixed up with the decisions and reports of an authority constituted like that of the Board of Trade. Its jurisdiction over railway schemes had its origin in the desire of Parliament to obtain the aid of some Government department in the preliminary exami- nation of the numerous projects which threatened to over- whelm the legislature. It was thought that by such an examination, and by comparison of one with another, or by suggesting arrangements and postponements, many imma- ture and bubble schemes would be checked in the com- B 2 mencement, and so prevented from incurring the expense, and from giving Parliament the trouble of considering their bills in committee. And most undoubtedly this beneficial result has attended the reference of schemes to the Railway De- partment of the Board of Trade. The Parliament and the public, and the promoters themselves of immature schemes, are much indebted to the Board for their services in this respect ; and if they had confined themselves to reporting against projects because of immaturity, or against particu- lar lines, because not required, or because the same accom- modation could better be provided by other lines, there would have been but one opinion as to the value of their de- cisions, and as to the expediency of continuing their juris- diction. But when there is a new line proposed, upon the necessity of which there is no question, as in the instance of the Thames Valley, or North Kent Line, and the Lon- don and York lines, and when rival schemes are presented for providing the desired railway accommodation to the district by similar, or nearly similar routes, and when these schemes are all matured and ready for presentation by bill to Parliament, — in such cases the Railway Department of the Board of Trade would seem to travel beyond the juris- diction intended for them, by an arbitrary decision for or against either one or the other scheme. Their duty being to advise and assist Parliament, and not to decide , their report in such cases should be, not in favour of the parties but in favour of the line , with an impartial examination into the merits and defects of the different schemes for executing it, each reviewed in detail, for the advice and assistance of Parliament in deciding between claimants and competitors, but with no decision previously announced in favour of one, and against the other ; and further, with their opinion as to the maturity and fitness of each of the schemes for presentation in the session pending. The functions of the Railway Board have been assimi- 3 lated to those of a grand jury in the criminal jurispru- dence of the country, and the comparison is not inapt. The promoters of railway schemes present their bills to this grand inquest, and if their case is not made out, if their schemes are not sufficiently matured, their bill is ignored. But, suppose a case of affray, with bills of indictment on both sides, each fully supported by evidence, what in such case is the duty of the grand jury ? Why, to find both bills, leaving the perfect trial to be had coram judice , by the tribunal appointed for such purposes. So with the Railway Board, in a case of equal maturity and ba- lanced merit, it was their duty to report favourably of both, offering only advice and assistance towards the adjudication ; and such advice, to be of value, must be impartial ; the review of the schemes must be fair, and all circumstances bearing for or against each or either should be stated fully and without bias. But when personal questions are mixed up with the reports of the authority thus called upon to advise, and more espe- cially when the conduct of parties concerned in the examina- tion of railway schemes is impugned and made matter of accusation, the reports assume quite a different character. Those who have to prepare them feel as if put personally on their defence ; they take up the questions at issue with a partisan spirit, and discuss them with more than a bias to- wards the party favoured, because, for their own justifi- cation, it is necessary to show, not only an inclination of the balance between nearly equal claims, but that the case of the favoured side is far superior. Reports drawn up under this feeling cannot be expected to contain an exact or faithful analysis of the merits and defects of competing schemes, such as Parliament requires for its assistance in adjudicating between the promoters. They assume the appearance, and in reality become, one-sided pleadings, such as might be drawn up by the advocates or solicitors of a 2 4 the favoured companies, but which ought never to be put forth by a Board or department of the Government. It will thus be apparent, that the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, when they undertook to show cause for what they had done in respect to the Kentish Railway schemes, and endeavoured to prove that they had not done wrong in the decisions they had announced, descended from their position of assessors and referees, whose duty it was to inform, advise, and assist Parliament, and took the place of advocates, pleading in behalf of the par- ticular company, to which they were accused of having unnecessarily and injudiciously pledged themselves. There is, in consequence, in the Report presented on the 13th of February, an overweening desire to persuade and convince, and not a sufficient fear of misleading. It is an argumen- tative paper, rather than a report of the result of investiga- tions. Circumstances which might tell against the favoured party, are glossed over or omitted altogether, while those urged in its behalf, are dwelt upon, and even coloured, so as to stand out broadly, and obtain more than due attention. The Railway Department of the Board of Trade may not have intended this. They may have thought that in their report upon the Kentish Railways they were stating every thing fairly, as represented to them, or as ascertained by inquiry ; but the effect is natural. When our personal feelings are engaged or excited, we forget, or make light of what bears adversely against our impressions ; and the par- ticular nature of the attack made upon the Board of Trade, for its decision in respect to these railways, being one of partiality, because of undue influence from parties inter- ested, was especially such as to suggest the attempt to show an overwhelming array of reasons in support of the decision promulgated. Seeing, therefore, the ground there is for regarding the report of the 13th February, as the case made out by the Railway 5 Board in justification of its conduct, which had been impugned, perhaps ungenerously, it will not excite surprise that the reasons given are not convincing, and do not satisfy those connected with the schemes rejected. But these par- ties are more than dissatisfied with the manner in which their representations, and the circumstances urged in their behalf, are treated in this report ; many of these are not referred to at all, and others are distorted, or passed over in a manner not becoming in an official authority referred to for advice and assistance. In party contests, it may be con- sidered fair, to shut out of view all that makes against the cause you support ; but what might be excusable in a party speech, spoken to gain a political victory, or to make an impression conducive to some present purpose, is quite inex- cusable in an official body, relied upon to examine and report fairly, upon questions affecting vast property, and involving considerations of great public as well as private interest. What would be thought of a Master in Chancery, who so reported upon a case referred to him, as to keep wholly out of view, or to slur over, the grounds of claim upon one side ? The Lord Chancellor has declared in his place in the House of Lords, what he would do, if a Master or referee, appointed to investigate by hearing evidence, and then to report, gave in his report without taking any evidence at all, and assuredly he would equally supersede, and set aside, a report drawn up as a pleading, to exhibit only one side of the case. Now an essential circumstance in the schemes reported upon by the Railway Department of the Board of Trade in their Report of the 13th February, is the time and man- ner in which they were respectively put forward ; and in the whole Report there is not a word upon this subject. Ever since the first formation of railways in England, there have been schemes promoted, for providing the north of Kent, or Thames valley, with railway accommodation; but all 6 have failed hitherto, because not sufficiently matured when brought before Parliament, or because of objections taken successfully by the proprietors of estates affected, or by rival companies, or because of engineering difficulties, and the opposition of the Admiralty, Ordnance, and public autho- rities. In the report of the Committee of the House of Commons, which sat upon the Deptford and Dover and other North Kent lines, promoted in 1836 and 1837, the following par- ticulars are given of these schemes. First, there was the original Gravesend Railway Company set on foot by William Green, but dissolved on the 1st Dec. 1835, and amalgamated with a new company of the same name, the share-list of which was completed in Jan. 1836. Afterwards the Dover Railway Company was promoted by the directors of the Gravesend Company, as a competing line with that projected by the South-Eastern Company ; and, pending the consideration of the bill for incorporating that company, it was united with the Gravesend Company, under the name of the Kent Railway Company, and so ap- peared as a competing line against that projected from Rei- gate to Dover. On the 16th May, 1836, the committee on the South- Eastern Railway Bill reported on the proposed line of the Kent Railway, as a competing line to Dover with the South- Eastern — 66 That the engineering evidence on the Northern line, or Kent Railway, did not establish a case in detail before your committee, but it appears to be a line which, as connecting the port of Ramsgate and other large towns in the north of Kent with London, and showing public advantages, may for such purposes entitle it to conside- ration hereafter, provided it can be shown that such a line may be accomplished without insuperable engineer- 7 ing difficulty ; but your committee do not, for the rea- sons before stated, consider it eligible as a line from London to Dover.” The committee then gave reasons for rejecting the bill of the Kent Railway Company, from imperfections of the share-list, and because it was not sufficiently matured. Thus the formation of a line of railway in the valley of the Thames, by Chatham to Canterbury, and eventually to the Kentish coast, has remained a desideratum, the accom- plishment of which, at some time, was contemplated by Parliament as inevitable; but its completion was made dependent on the maturing of such a scheme, as would satisfy the Admiralty, the Ordnance, and the proprietors and public bodies along the line taken, and as would present no engineering difficulties, of a kind that Parliament, or those whom Parliament might consult, should consider insuperable. There is no doubt that engineering difficulties have hitherto been the main obstacle. These are particularly felt at Greenwich and Woolwich, at Rochester, in the passage of the Medway, and at Chatham, where the town and fortifications have to be respected, and in the high ground between the Thames and Canterbury. Dover has been the terminus to which most companies heretofore looked, because through that point the traffic with the Con- tinent was assured. When the present South-Eastern Company devised their scheme of a line to Dover, they first had the line of the Thames Valley examined, but were satisfied, upon the report, it is believed, of Capt. Pringle, that this line was impracticable, upon engineering grounds. They then proposed a line by Bromley, but deemed this also too difficult and expensive. Their final adoption of the line by Reigate and Ashford, was influenced by the desire of uniting in the same scheme a railway communi- cation with Brighton, and because from Reigate a straight line, with easy gradients, was found practicable all the way 8 to Folkestone. Having presented themselves as advocates and promoters of this line as the best, the South-Eastern Company have uniformly opposed the formation of any other in the valley of the Thames. It is their opposition mainly, which has hitherto prevented the success of any of the schemes put forward for such a line, and they have always magnified the difficulties, and maintained the line to be impracticable. Such having been the condition of things in respect to this tract of country, can it be denied, that the field was a fair one for an engineer to take up for the display of skill and ingenuity in conquering these difficulties? Mr. Vignoles employed himself for several years in examining the country, with a view to master them. In 1840-41 he put forward a plan for a line to Chatham, which fell through for want of sufficient support. Early in 1844 he brought his scheme forward again in a more complete form, and showed the possibility of meeting all the objec- tions hitherto made, and of satisfying all the public bodies and authorities, who were concerned, or affected by his proposed line. His scheme being the most complete and best matured, obtained supporters, and can it be said, after what appeared in the Parliamentary Report above referred to, that this was not a fair and legitimate speculation, to be taken up by a new company — the want of railway accommodation for the large population of the Thames Valley being urgent, and universally admitted, and the great benefits of communication by railway with the arsenals of Woolwich and Chatham being, in a national point of view, and for purposes of state, as well as of private con- venience, so apparent. As a fair and legitimate undertaking for a new company, no less than, as a good commercial speculation, the pro- moters put forth their scheme as early as in June, 1844, and published their prospectus on the 18th July following. 9 In August only, of 1844 (and for the first time since the South-Eastern Company has been incorporated, without any meeting of shareh older s, public discussion, or reso- lutions to sanction such a proceeding), intimation was given, by advertisement in the newspapers, of the intention of that company to promote a line in North Kent, by Chatham to Canterbury. The sincerity of such intention was long doubted, and the notice was looked upon, as designed merely to obstruct the schemes for the same line already in for- wardness. The requisite steps to survey, and prepare books of reference for this line, were necessarily performed with such haste, that the plans and papers are exceedingly defec- tive, as will be apparent to the committees of Parliament which may have to examine them. Such, however, being the manner in which the proposed line of railway for North Kent was taken up by the London, Chatham, and North Kent Railway Company, on the one hand, and by the South- Eastern Railway Company on the other, it will be obvious that the date of putting forth the prospectuses or notices was a material circumstance. If the South-Eastern Com- pany had at any time antecedently contemplated the execu- tion of this line, — if it had been regarded as one of their pro- jects, waiting only means and opportunity for completion ; or if, never having entertained it before, they had taken it up in the past year, before Mr. Vignoles^s line was pro- moted by the new company, — the formation of such a company to execute a similar line upon ground preoccu- pied, would assuredly, and very justly, have been regarded as an interference ; and the anterior project of the South- Eastern Company would have been favoured, and rightly so, if of equal, or nearly equal merit, because it was ante- rior. The Report of the Board of Trade would, it is pre- sumed, in that case, have made much of the circumstance of the priority of date in putting forth the prospectus : the priority, however, is on the side of the company against 10 which the Board report, and that report is accordingly to- tally silent upon the subject. This, it is submitted, is not reporting fairly all circumstances, for advice and assistance, but making out a case in justification, from which adverse circumstances are intentionally excluded, or kept out of view. The circumstance of priority is essential in more respects than one. At the time when the London, Chatham, and North Kent Company put forth their scheme, it was a fair and legitimate undertaking for a new company ; it was a scheme to which engineers were invited to direct their attention ; a speculation assured, if certain known difficulties could be overcome, in a district given over as impracticable and left derelict by other companies ; and clearly, therefore, the ground was not preoccupied, or fairly claimable for a branch of any existing company’s line. But if this was a fair under- taking for a new company, then the very report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, which gave the Board of Trade its present jurisdiction over railways, indicates specifically as to be discouraged by that Board — “ Branch and extension lines projected by old companies, in which, upon the first aspect of the plan, a presumption is raised, that the object of the scheme is to throw difficultes in the way of new and legitimate undertakings If competing branches even, are to be discouraged, when put forth merely to ob- struct new legitimate schemes, much more so lines identical, in tracts of country separated by nature from the lines of the old companies, when the object avowed is defensive, or for protection, that is, to prevent the competition apprehended by the establishment of the legitimate new line under a new company. This object, in the projection of the North Kent Line by the South-Eastern Company, is specifically declared in the correspondence of that company with the Croydon Company, which, in consequence of the quarrels of these companies, has been published ; and the fact is confirmed, by 11 the time and manner in which these new schemes were put forward, and even by the negotiations of the South-Eastern Company with the Board of Trade. The Railway De- partment may not have regarded this North Kent scheme of the South-Eastern Company as falling within the description of branches, and extensions, projected to throw difficulties in the way of a new and legitimate undertaking: but, having for specific instruction to discourage such, and the new company having specifically represented the rival schemes to be such, it was surely the Board’s duty, as the assessor or referee of Parliament, to state that this was so argued, and that a claim had been raised, in consequence, upon the parliamentary instructions, which, for such and such reasons, the Board thought should be disallowed. Their silence on the subject, and entire omission of all mention of the claim, leads to the inference that there were no good reasons which could be assigned for setting it aside. Another rather extraordinary omission in this Report of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, is the fact, that by special minute, dated in August last, and published in the official Gazette , five points were indi- cated, as those to which the inquiries of the Board would be directed, and upon which they would require explana- tions from the companies, or other promoters of schemes submitted to them ; and the London, Chatham, and North Kent Company was specifically, by the same notice, re- quired to give the Board satisfaction on these five points. The natural expectation from such a commencement of proceedings, by a Board constituted and appointed for inquiry, was, that those five heads of inquiry would be made the issues, or criteria, for trial of the merits of competing lines, that by these several tests each scheme would be examined and judged, and that comparison would be made of the result of such examination in its bearing on 12 each. If, besides these five points, other grounds should be urged in behalf of particular schemes, so as to place the decision upon a different issue, it seemed natural that those companies, who had been invited, and required, to give ex- planation upon these five heads only, should be allowed to show cause upon those other grounds also. In the Report of the 13th of February, however, the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade not only never mention that they had indicated these five heads to the promoters of schemes sub- mitted to them, but never once refer to them, taking quite a different course of argument, and passing their judgment upon the several schemes, on grounds, scarcely referable to any one of them. This betrays, to say the least, great inconsistency in the proceedings of the Railway Department of the Board, and wouldseem toshow that the report ofthe 13th February, 1845, was not the production of the same officers, who suggested, and drew up, the minute of heads of inquiry communi- cated to the promoters of railway schemes in August, 1844. Other views had been laid before the Board in this interval, and principles were submitted, which influenced their decisions, differing altogether from those with which they commenced their investigations; and it would seem, as if the preparation of the Report had been left to those who suggested those views. But was this fair to the old and the new companies, to whom the special test of the five points had been officially indicated ? and is it due to Par- liament and to the public, that the report should omit mention of those five heads of inquiry, as the tests originally proposed, and assign no reason for setting them aside ? Surely this is not fulfilling the duty of a just and impar- tial referee and assessor. But let us examine the array of principles, propounded by the Board of Trade, in justification of its decisions in favour of the South-Eastern Company. The very 13 manner, in which the subject is opened in their Report, shows that the Report was written for the purpose of such justification ; for, instead of weighing separately each scheme by the tests originally indicated, or by any new tests, the Report sets out with a statement of the parties concerned, in which the South-Eastern Company, with its comprehensive defensive scheme, is placed on one side as plaintiff, and all others, on the other side, as if constituting but one opponent, competitor, or defendant. The following is the Board’s statement of the principles which have guided their decision — we beg the reader’s pardon ; it is not the principles of decision, upon the merits of competing schemes, that the Board lay down, but the “ principles which have guided the Board in giving preference thus likewise admitting, that it is a prefer- ence they are about to justify, and not a decision upon the merits. Take, however, the Board’s own words : — “ The list of schemes in this district shows, that, on the one hand, a very extensive and comprehensive system, for the accommodation of the whole Kentish and South-Eastern district, is proposed by the South-Eastern Company, in connection with their existing lines ; while, on the other hand, the same, or nearly the same, objects are proposed to be attained by a number of new and independent schemes. “ This renders it necessary that we should begin by an explicit statement of the principles which have guided us , in this and similar cases , in forming an opinion whether a preference ought or ought not to he given , and if given, under what conditions and to what extent, to lines for completing the accommodation of particular districts, which lines are in connection with existing railways in those districts. “ In this, as in every other case, we have endeavoured to keep steadily in view the attainment of the greatest amount of public advantage. We have not recognized the exist- 14 ence of any thing like a vested right in existing companies to be protected from the same description of competition which they have themselves inflicted on canals and other existing modes of communication. Beyond, perhaps, a bare preference , in cases of absolute equality , due to the interests of shareholders, who themselves constitute a por- tion of the public, we have not considered that an existing railway company could claim any preference over other parties proposing to effect the same objects, beyond that which might result from an identification of interest with the public. “ Considering the subject in this point of view, it appears to us that, as a general rule, the most important point for the interests of the public, is to secure the best perma- nent lines of railway communication for the country at large and for the wants of the district. To sanction an inferior or unnecessarily circuitous line, proposed by an existing company, or to reject one of decided public and local advantage, proposed by a new company, for the sake of any terms that could be offered by an existing company, would, in our opinion, be, except under peculiar circum- stances, unfair towards the local interests thus sacrificed, and unwise as regards the general and permanent interests of the public. “ We have, therefore, as a general rule, considered it as an essentia] preliminary requisite, before entering upon the question of giving protection to existing companies by allowing them to complete the railway communications of particular districts, that the lines proposed by them shall be, in all substantial respects, sound in themselves, and not inferior to those proposed by any other parties.” Now against the abstract principle, that the object to be arrived at is “ to secure the best permanent lines of railway communication for the country at large, and for the wants of the district respectively,” no one can have any thing to 15 say. Every company of Course pretends that its line is the best for these especial purposes, but the decision, which is the best, involves much inquiry, and needs that particular kind of investigation that can only be made before a com- mittee of Parliament, It is the duty of the Board of Trade to assist the Parliament in deciding this particular issue be- tween competing companies ; and for that purpose one would have expected the merits and pretensions of each com- peting line to be fully and fairly stated ; but if the Board’s report had been drawn up with that view, the Board’s justification for giving a preference would have failed. The issue would have lain between particular lines, not between one comprehensive scheme, and all comers ; therefore, in the Report there is very little, if any thing at all, said upon this head, and what little there is, is wholly one-sided, and con- tains omissions and distortions, scarcely warrantable in an advocate’s pleading, as will presently be shown. But, before proceeding to that part of the subject, it is ne- cessary to protest against the conclusion come to in the last part of the above citation. It seems to be there laid down, that existing companies have a claim to protection , or pre- ference, if the line they propose is sound, and not inferior to those proposed by other parties. This doctrine is speciously advanced, and plausible enough, and upon the assumption that all the competing lines started together, it must carry a qualified assent ; but how is it to be reconciled with the resolution of Parliament constituting the Board of Trade a reporting authority upon railways, which makes special reference to the case of a project fairly and legitimately undertaken by a new com- pany, and not interfering with any appropriated or preoc- cupied districts, and to branches or extensions projected by an old company to defeat such a project, that is, taken up merely for defence and protection, in other words, to obstruct such fair and legitimate undertaking P In such a 16 case, it is the new company, which, having been induced to form its scheme, and to spend large sums in surveys, and in the other processes, necessary to prepare it for Parliament, is entitled to protection, and that has been so declared by Parliament. Everybody knows, that to get up a new line is matter of great labour and expense, and that engineers, and others, are encouraged to examine populous districts, and to study the means of supplying their want of railway accommodation, by the hope of framing such schemes as will be adopted by the public as good commercial speculations. Such has been the source of all the vast improvements that have been made, not only in railways, but in public works of all kinds. The hope of fair commercial profit has been the origin and basis of all the undertakings in this country, that have astonished the world, and which are now exam- ples for the imitation of other nations. These are the results of fair competition amongst pro- jectors ; which competition is quite a different thing from competition in the working of rival lines ; and surely it cannot be the aim and intention of the Board of Trade, to discourage and put an end to this fair field of competition. If, however, every scheme that is devised, and brought to maturity, is liable to be superseded, and set aside, merely because the same scheme is taken up by an old company, who would ever devote himself to devising schemes to pro- vide for any public want ? The fallacy of the Boards conclusion, as to the right of old companies to preference or protection, lies in omitting any reference whatever to the time and circumstances, under which competing schemes may have been devised, and put forward. This omission has previously been noticed to have been particularly unfair towards the London, Chatham, and North Kent Railway Company, whose line was put forward, and nearly matured, before the South-Eastern Company thought of entertaining the project ; nay, whose engineer first devised a scheme, for 17 obviating the great objections, which had hitherto pre- vented the execution of this line, and but for his success in which, the South-Eastern Company would never have thought of projecting this line — whose plan for passing Chat- ham and the Medway, the most serious obstacles in the line, has actually been pirated by the South-Eastern Company, as will presently be exposed and proved. In such a case as this, because an old company gets up a hasty scheme, pirated in part, to be set in competition with the project of the new com- pany, matured to the point of readiness to go before Parlia- ment, does the Board of Trade mean to lay down that a pre- ference is to be given to the old company merely because it is in existence ? Surely not. It is not pretended that an engi- neer has a right to preference in a particular district, because he may be the first to survey and propose a scheme for furnishing it with a railway. Far from it. Let anybody propose a better line than the first, and that of course will be adopted, the priority of survey and of project notwithstand- ing. But if another engineer takes the same line precisely, or what is nearly the same, having the same method of getting over the great difficulties of the line, then, of course, priority has weight. The right of an engineer in his own particular plan, rests on the same precise ground, as that of an inventor in his new machine, or of an author in his new work. To proceed. Having laid down broadly that an old company promoting a line of equal merit, whensoever, and under whatsoever circumstances such company may take it up, is entitled to preference, the Board next argue the ques- tion of competition ; and, quoting the words of the Report of the Select Committee of Parliament of last session, come to the conclusion that “ competition loses more or less of its value as a security to the public, when, from the nature of the case, it is limited to two or three parties who are constantly urged by mutual interest to combine.” c 18 The competition here referred to, is not the competi- tion of engineers and projectors in getting up schemes — nothing is said for or against such competition, but the competition of rival lines, sanctioned and completed. The question argued is, whether or not the public is likely to derive advantage from such competition, in the rates of charge established, and conveniences provided. The whole object of introducing this argument, however, is to justify the Board of Trade in giving all the lines of Kent to one company, and to obviate, or meet, the very palpable objection to such an arrangement, on the score of its tending to establish a monopoly in the management of the traffic. The question whether the railways of England will best be worked under competition, or under one management con- trolled by the Board of Trade, is a very proper one for Parliament. The Board of Trade, indeed, advocate com- prehensive management for Kent only, and not for all England; but their favoured comprehensive scheme places in the hands of one company, and under one direction, four important lines out of London, viz. the Greenwich Line, the Bricklayers 1 Arms and North Kent Line, the New Bromley and Tunbridge Line, and the Old Reigate and Dover Line. It thus enlarges the South-Eastern Company, from one with a capital of a million and a half, as originally consti- tuted, and a debt of the same amount, contracted in executing its original line, into one of upwards of twelve millions nominal, and eight paid up, capital, which is a larger capital far than that of the East-India Com- pany, for the control and direction of which a whole vo- lume of Acts of Parliament has been found necessary If one company, with the Board of Trade to regulate and superintend it, is best for these four separate lines, so also would one company be best for all the Western, and for all the Northern lines, under the same board or depart- mental control. It is not the purpose of these pages to argue 19 the principle of such vast centralizations, against that of competition ; that is, of a separate management for each separate line, by a company seeking to make the most of its particular line, working it so as to provide most ac- commodation to the public. The feeling of the public of England is decidedly in favour of separate companies for separate lines ; and if an argument were wanted to prove that this feeling is right, it would be found in the recent conduct of this very South-Eastern Company, whose en- largement is thus proposed. For since it obtained the favourable report of the Board of Trade, this company has doubled its charge for the conveyance of parcels ; a mea- sure that has set all East Kent against it, and which the company would not have dared to do, if there had existed a separate line to Canterbury competing with it for the conveyance of those parcels. The gist of the case, however, between the South-Eastern Company, and the proposed London, Chatham, and North Kent Railway Company, does not lie in the question, whe- ther separate lines are best managed by one and the same, or by different companies. The argument is only intro- duced by the Board to obviate the charge of establishing a monopoly, and in page 3, of the Report, a very extraor- dinary proposition is stated, in justification of the decisions passed by the Board exclusively in favour of the South- Eastern Company in the following words : — “ When an existing railway company proposes schemes which, although only partially sufficient for the full accom- modation of the district, may yet be sufficient to prevent other parties from entering the field with further or im- proved projects in that district, the arguments against the creation of a monopoly acquire additional strength. The simpler case is, when, as in the present instance, the exist- ing company comes forward with a complete and compre- hensive scheme, and the question is reduced to this : whe- c 2 20 ther the existing company is able and willing to offer guarantees for the public advantage superior to any that can be afforded by a new company.'’ Now, if we understand this paragraph, it seems to lay down, that if the South-Eastern Company had come forward with only one new line beside its own, that might be an ob- jectionable monopoly ; but, whereas they have put forward schemes for many lines, so as to obstruct the projects of all other competing companies, therefore this is not an ob- jectionable monopoly. Is there anybody in or out of Par- liament that can be imposed upon by such sophistry ? Let the argument be reversed, and it would sound as well, and be just as true, nay much more sensible. If the South-Eastern Company had proposed only one new line, that could not be called an objectionable monopoly ; but because they have proposed several, to meet the projects of all competitors, that surely is an objectionable monopoly. This we think much more likely to meet the assent of the public. But the Board place the question upon the offer of guarantees for public advantage, and this part of the argu- ment of the Report deserves and requires examination. First, it is laid down that an established company having a valuable property, and large available income , independent of the new scheme, can offer guarantees for the fulfilment of all it undertakes, superior to those of a new company however respectable. This proposition, as applied to the South-Eastern Com- pany, assumes it to have a clear property, beyond its capital and debt, and an income more than sufficient to work the line, and pay dividends on the capital, and interest on the debt. If the contrary be the case, — if a concern has already, besides expending the entire capital, cairied its outlay to the full length of its credit, and though for two years in possession of its full receipt on the line executed, has made no dividends, where, we would ask, is the fund for guarantee? 21 A solvent company in high credit, paying regular divi- dends, and with its shares at premium, might offer such a guarantee as is here referred to, but was the South- Eastern Company in that condition ? Look at the com- pany’s published accounts — at the price of the South- Eastern shares before the Report of the Board so extra- vagantly raised them in the share-market. It is notorious that the company has not any available income , and that their line to Dover does not realize, and cannot be hoped to realize, an excess, beyond the cost of working the line, sufficient to pay any thing like a proper dividend upon the enormous outlay, occasioned by mismanagement, and by an originally bad choice of line. The superiority of the guarantee of an old company, whether solvent or not, is, in the Board’s Report, supported by reference to several existing companies, which have failed to complete the entire lines they undertook. But what does this prove? Only that they mismanaged their outlay, or worked upon erroneous estimates. Can the South-Eastern Company escape from a similar charge, especially in respect to that part of its line which lies between Dover and Folkestone ? The South-Eastern Company, indeed, did not stop when its capital was expended, but pledged all it had executed, to borrow the means of completing the remainder of the line. The shareholders of the other companies stopped short when their capital was expended, and rested satisfied with so much as their means had enabled them to finish. These very companies, whose short performance of their undertakings is referred to by the Board of Trade, are all now existing companies, and we would ask, is their guarantee, as such, to be preferred to that of a new company, because they are so existing ? The entire argument is utterly fallacious. The guaran- tee offered by any company, new or old, must depend on the means provided, and on the assurance of return. A 22 new company with its capital subscribed, and in part paid up, offers surely as good security for completing the line it is formed to execute, or for the performance of any thing to which it may be pledged, as an old company can offer ; because either’s doing what it offers must equally depend on shareholders seeing their advantage in subscribing their money for the purpose. If the Board of Trade really sought guarantees, they could only find them (where they should have been looked for) by examination of the esti- mates of outlay, the traffic tables, and other statements upon which the hope of return is founded. All other guarantee is quite illusory. Suppose the South-Eastern Company, instead of its comprehensive scheme for Kent, had offered to extend its line to China, with a branch to Bengal — lines very much wanted for the public accommodation — would the existence of this com- pany, as an old company, afford any guarantee for the completion of such a line? Certainly not, unless sub- scribers could be procured for the capital required, who believed that the line could be made, and would pay. So neither can it be safe to trust any guarantee, that the lines promised by the South-Eastern Company, under their pre- sent comprehensive scheme, will be executed ; for unless subscribers can be persuaded to part with their money, by the conviction, that these lines will pay, they never will be executed. We might easily show that, of all the lines pro- mised by the South-Eastern Company, that in the Thames Valley to Canterbury, taken from the London, Chatham, and North Kent Company, is the only one of which it can be predicated, that there will be any return. The guarantee, therefore, of a company, provided with sufficient capital to execute that line only, will afford far better security, than that of a company, encumbered with other losing projects, not to mention its already overwhelming debt, and insuffi- cient income. 23 Second, The power of working more economically and conveniently the traffic of a system of branches all under one management, is dwelt upon as a reason for handing over all the lines of Kent to the same company. This argu- ment applies, evidently, only to branches of the same line, which, when under different companies from that which manages and works the trunk, have led to continual disputes and bickerings. But here the argument of the Board, in respect to competition, comes into play, against the very objection on which the report dwells ; for self-interest, and the desire to draw as much traffic as possible along the lines formed, must always lead to an arrangement of such differences, where they occur between companies working branches, and those who manage the trunk line. But surely the line of the Chatham and North Kent Company is as much entitled to be regarded as a separate trunk line, as any of those now existing in Kent or elsewhere. If the expediency of uniting the management of traffic upon sys- tems of lines, is to be urged as a reason for giving two trunk lines to the same company, then the error of having allowed separate companies to make the diverging lines from the metropolis will be apparent ; all should be united into one company, superintended and directed by the Board of Trade, as the East-India Company is by the Board of Control. This, perhaps, is the system aimed at, and in- tended to be brought about, through the agency of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade. Assuredly it is not the system yet sanctioned by Parliament, or desired by the nation. The third point dwelt upon by the Board, is the power of an old company to undertake to do something extra with its existing lines, beyond what it is required by the Act of its incorporation to do for the public, as a bonus or price for the new lines it seeks to obtain. An act was passed last year, for regulating new railways 24 that might thenceforward be sanctioned, and the committee of Parliament that sat upon the bill, and recommended that act to be passed, expressed a hope that existing companies might be brought to accede to arrangements for introducing similar principles into their management. It is undoubtedly desirable that the same principles and system of management should be applied to all railways, old as well as new ; but Parliament, with a wise forbear- ance, would not arbitrarily impose new conditions on com- panies previously established. These are left for their adoption, as they shall find for their interest, under the competition of other companies, which adopt them by com- pulsion. It is expected that uniformity must follow from this competition ; but surely it never was intended that the old companies should make the offer to come into the desired arrangement a thing of value to be bid, in ex- change for a preference over new companies, and for the obstruction of legitimate undertakings threatening them with the very competition which was looked upon as the in- strument for producing the same effect. Would a committee of Parliament have received an offer of this kind, as a consi- deration for throwing out thebillof a company which had taken up a fair and legitimate speculation, and demanded of Par- liament a bill for carrying it on ? The thing is monstrous ; and if a parliamentary committee would not have received such an offer, as an argument against a bill, so neither were the Board of Trade, the assessors and advisers of Parlia- ment, entitled to set up their favourable report for sale, and to take such an offer, as the price to be paid for a pre- ference. The fourth point, dwelt upon by the Board in their Report, is of the same nature as the third. It is said, an old company, when it offers to reduce its charges, or to give the public any similar advantage, can carry the same imme- diately into effect, whereas a new company’s promises in 25 respect to traffic charges, depend on the execution of the line, and the company’s eventual solvency. Therefore, it is argued, that a moderate offer from an established company is better than a more advantageous one from a new com- pany. This argument has been added by the Board, because the traffic estimates in the prospectus of the London, Chat- ham, and North Kent Company, assumed rates far below those of the South-Eastern Company, or any that they are prepared to bind themselves to adopt. These estimates were framed under the conviction that, with the river steamers to compete for the traffic of the line, nothing but low rates, good speed, and great accommodation to third- class passengers in particular, would be likely ever to suc- ceed. The advantage to the public from such low rates and other conveniences is apparent, and it will be for Parlia- ment to judge, whether the South-Eastern Company’s offer to reduce its charges to a rate (still nearly double the rates of the London, Chatham, and North Kent Company’s estimates for third-class passengers), is an equivalent consideration for those rates ; and whether, knowing this company’s apprehen- sion of the effect upon its other lines, of such rates as were proposed by the new company, and its manifest interest in keeping all at as high a level as possible, in order to main- tain the income derived from those lines, it is wise to leave the Chatham and Canterbury trunk line in the hands of a company so directly interested in preventing competi- tion. At the close of this argument as to the superiority of the guarantees of an old company over the promises of a new one, the Railway Department of the Board of Trade sum up their principles of railway policy in the terms following ; viz. to give a preference to the schemes of existing rail- way companies for supplying their own districts , assuming, apparently, the entire of Kent and the Valley of the Thames to be part of the district of the South-Eastern Company, 26 (which is denied, and surely seems unreasonable), provided only that these schemes are as good or better than those of other parties (without any reference to the time or circum- stances under which the said schemes were promoted), and provided that the old company shall offer guarantees against monopoly, or rather, against the abuses of monopoly, in managing the traffic (for the fact of monopoly is ad- mitted, and specifically aimed to be introduced, and even justified as expedient), and provided that the old company promises extraneous advantage of some kind as the price or bargain for the preference given. The fallacy of all these principles has been already explained. It is time, however, to proceed to their specific application to the case of the competing Chatham and North Kent lines. After enumerating the different projects for forming rail- ways in Kent, the Railway Committee of the Board classifies those submitted to its consideration under three heads; placing first, the projects for shortening the distance of the present line to Dover by cutting off the angle at Reigate, and ranging under the second head, the projects for providing North Kent with railway accommodation by lines to Chat- ham, Canterbury, and Maidstone, with extensions, present or eventual, to Deal, and other ports on the east coast. In the third class are the extensions to the southern coast, from Tunbridge to Hastings, and from Ashford to Hastings. It is with the second class of these that we have espe- cially to deal ; for, though we cannot admit the principle laid down by the Railway Board, that the communication with Dover and the continent must of necessity be by a dif- ferent line, from that which provides, by frequent trains and stoppages, for the traffic of the populous towns of North Kent (a principle that has evidently emanated from the managing directors of the South-Eastern Company), still the permission to that company to improve its line to 27 Dover, by cutting off the Reigate elbow, and so shortening the distance, is a fair advantage the old company might claim, to enable it to stand against the competition threat- ened by other companies, promoting new lines likely to be extended to the same terminus. There can be no reason why a line by Canterbury to Dover, fairly competing with the improved Ashford and Dover Line, should not possess at least equal facilities for expresses, and be able to command equal speed and punc- tuality, with a Tunbridge and Ashford Line; for, as the latter professes to provide for the wants of a dense rural population, and, in consequence, has even more numerous stations than the proposed Chatham and Canterbury Line, the objection, on account of stoppages, applies equally, if not more strongly, to that line for continental expressses. The objection, however, in both cases, may be obviated by placing the stations off the lines on which the expresses would run, as has been already done on several existing lines. These expresses would then, of course, be run along the shortest line. On the other hand, in favour of establishing a second line of railway communication with so important a sea-port town as Dover, there is this argument, that the present line along the sea-coast is liable to be damaged by tempest, and to be fired upon by any steam-frigate in time of war, in consequence of its running immediately along the shore, when, if there were no second or alternative line, the communication would be cut off or interrupted. But the consideration of which is the best line to Dover, and whether to run a second line to that port, is not at present before Parliament, or the public ; the matter now at issue is, whether the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade in recommending and reporting in favour of the line promoted by the South-Eastern Company, for providing rail- way accommodation as far as Canterbury in North Kent, and in rejecting the other schemes having the same object in 28 view, have acted with justice to the promoters of those other schemes, or with wisdom as regards the public benefit, and the interests of the local district, and of its popu- lation. It is admitted by the Board of Trade, that a line of rail- way is required for the accommodation of North Kent, and that the question is narrowed, therefore, to a choice between the schemes presented for their consideration. Of three before the Board, that of the Croydon Company is rejected, because its gradients are suited only to an atmospheric line, the success of which principle is still dependent upon expe- riment, and because it avoids Woolwich and the population of the North Kent Road, and gives to Gravesend only a circuitous communication with London ; in all which re- spects it is manifestly inferior to the other two. The case, therefore, lies between the remaining lines, that is, between the line promoted by the London, Chatham, and North Kent Railway Company, and that proposed in self-defence by the South-Eastern Company, to prevent its execution as a competing line by a rival company. It is necessary to ex- tract from the Report the description given of these two lines, because the charge of unfairness, in the suppression of material circumstances, and of partiality in the colouring or distortion given to others, is founded especially on this part of the Report : — “ In their general features and objects, these two schemes are nearly identical. They both pursue the general direction of the Old North Kent Road by Woolwich, Gravesend, Rochester, and Chatham, and thence to the same point, Chil- ham, on the South-Eastern Company's line, from Ashford to Canterbury, which affords the nearest practicable route to Canterbury. They both throw off a branch* to Sheerness, and accomplish, more or less perfectly, the great national * Since this paper was written the South-Eastern Bill has been presented, and this branch no longer appears as part of its scheme. 29 object of placing the naval and military establishments of Sheerness, Chatham, and Woolwich in direct railway com- munication with one another, and with the metropolis. In the most difficult and important features of the lines, such as the passage of the Medway at Rochester, and of the Lines at Chatham, they are substantially the same. “ The President of the Board, having communicated with the Master-General of the Ordnance, has ascertained that, while in some points of detail each scheme is con- sidered objectionable, and may require modification, there is no such substantial objection to either as to require its rejection, or to give any decided preference in a comparison of the two. “ The chief points of difference between the two schemes in other respects appear to be — “ 1. In the mode of passing Woolwich, and the course pursued thence to Gravesend. 66 The North Kent Line keeps above the town of Wool- wich, crossing the Artillery-ground, and thence skirting Shooter’s Hill, and keeping inland by Crayford and Dart- ford. “ The South-Eastern Company’s line passes through Woolwich, close past the gates of the Dockyard and Ar- senal, and thence along the marshes by Erith to Gravesend, accommodating the populous inland district by a second line diverging from the Tunbridge Line, No. 211, at Eltham, and thence passing by Bexley to join the first or North Kent Line, near Dartford. “ The arrangement proposed by the South-Eastern Company appears decidedly preferable, in point of public advantage and local accommodation, as passing close to the Arsenal and Dockyard at Woolwich, as giving superior facilities for the conduct of the public service, on the one hand, and for the uninterrupted passage of frequent trains, calculated to meet the wants of a dense population, on the 30 other, by the alternative line, and as serving more places and a larger population by the two lines than could be served by one. “ This arrangement, however, will involve greater ex- pense and greater interference with house property ; but this latter consideration we are precluded from enter- taining. “ 2. After passing Chatham, the two lines slightly di- verge, the South-Eastern Company’s line keeping more to the north, on the low ground, and thereby shortening the length of the Sheerness Branch, and the distance to Sheer- ness, and increasing that to Canterbury about \\ miles. 66 3. The comparative distances by the two lines are — “ North Kent Line, — London to Chilham 53^ miles from the proposed terminus at the Bricklayers’ Arms. South-Eastern Line, — London to Chilham, 55^ miles from the Bricklayers’ Arms, or miles from the proposed terminus at Hungerford Bridge. “ On the whole, therefore, there appears no such differ- ence between the two schemes as to give any very decided preponderance to either ; and we have, therefore, had re- course to the other considerations stated in the beginning of this report, in order to determine between them.” In the first paragraph of this citation the Board state fairly the general features and objects of both schemes, and finish by declaring the two schemes to be substantially the same in the most difficult and important features. Now, if the method adopted by both schemes of over- coming the engineering difficulties, which had hitherto pre- vented the formation of any line of railway in the Thames Valley, be, as here stated, substantially the same, surely some weight should be attached to priority in the devising of a successful plan for so doing. Does not this very similarity justify some suspicion, that so important a part of the plan must have been borrowed or copied by the company which 31 last put it forward, from its predecessor in the field ? There are collateral circumstances to establish the fact, that the plan of the London, Chatham, and North Kent Company has been copied, and this fact will, it is believed, be sub- stantiated by evidence before the committees of Parliament : for it is susceptible of proof, that Mr. Vignoles’s plans of that part of the line, which describes the mode of passing the Medway and town of Chatham, were for three days in the hands of one of the officers of the South- Eastern Company, who had thus the opportunity, and the means of making use of them. Further, it is known, that there is no map in detail of the city of Rochester, except that made for the London, Chatham, and North Kent Company; and the mapping of a town, with close houses and streets, is an affair of more than the few days the engi- neer of the South-Eastern Company could have had to bestow upon it. Again the two plans are in this part iden- tical in their details, and even in superfluous details, which are given with the same minuteness in both. But most singular of all, a set of works, introduced into both plans, is laid down, not as they were on the date of survey, but as they are intended to be, the plan for the alterations having been furnished by the surveyor employed on the part of the London, Chatham, and North Kent Company. The fact, therefore, of the identity in the passage of the Medway at Rochester, and of the Lines at Chatham, is accounted for, so far as the ground-plan is concerned. But the South-Eastern Company did not obtain pos- session of more than the survey or ground plan ; accord- ingly the identity ceases, when we come to look at the sections and elevations ; and here there is a most important omission in the report of the Board, for, chiefly by reason of the low line above high-water afforded by the bridge of the South-Eastern Company, and of the low embankment, by which the bridge of that company is approached on 32 both sides, it is certain that this part of their plan was en- tirely objected to by the Board of Admiralty, as it has since been by the municipal and other public authorities of Chatham and Rochester, and by the bridge- wardens : while, on the other hand, the plan of the London, Chatham, and North Kent Company, besides the concurrence of these authorities, and of the population of both cities, is fully approved by the Admiralty. The letter of the Secretary to the Admiralty conveying the full and unqualified assent of that Board to their scheme, was read at the meeting of this Company in January, and this letter was commu- nicated officially to the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, long before the date of their Report — indeed, before the Board's decision was published in the Gazette. Why this communication is not noticed or referred to, and why no allusion whatever is made in the Report, to the opi- nion or proceedings of the Board of Admiralty, though in the public notice of the Gazette of the 17th January, the South-Eastern Company's modification of their plan, so as to suit the views of this Board, is made a condition of approval to the scheme of this company, are points that would seem to require explanation. Such omissions are scarcely consistent with the character of impartiality which, in a review of the merits and defects of two schemes, Par- liament and the public have a right to expect from their advisers. The next part of the Board's report is also liable to a similar charge of unfairness. It is said that the President of the Railway Board, having communicated with the Master-General of the Ordnance, has ascertained that there is no substantial objection against either plan requiring its rejection, or giving any decided preference in a comparison of the two. Now the London, Chatham, and North Kent Com- pany have the official reply of the Board of Ord- 33 nance, which requires the adoption of an alternative for the passage near the parade at Woolwich ; that is, that being below the level, it should be covered over ; but approv- ing almost unconditionally the rest of the scheme, and especially the plan proposed for passing Chatham Lines. It is known, however, that the plan of the South-Eastern Company for this latter purpose, has been totally disap- proved by the Ordnance, because of its tunnel undermining the citadel and lines. The London, Chatham, and North Kent Company had at first selected the same place for its tun- nel, as that adopted in the plans of the South-Eastern Com- pany, and hence the latter’s adoption of it along with the rest of the copied plan for passing Rochester and Chatham; but, finding the objection on the part of the Board of Ordnance to be insuperable to a tunnel in this position, the London, Chatham, and North Kent Company changed the locality of their tunnel, placing it more inland, and clear of the citadel, by which means this company has ob- viated that difficulty. The South Eastern Company, there- fore, having a plan before Parliament, which never can be acceded to by the Ordnance without alterations, nor ad- missible under the rules of Parliament ; while the plan of the London, Chatham, and North Kent Company has been ac- ceded to by that authority, under an easy condition in respect to Woolwich ; it is strange that the Board of Trade should declare neither scheme to be entitled to preference, so far as concerns this department. The official letters to both com- panies will, of course, be produced to the Committee of Par- liament which may sit on the respective bills, and by them the fairness of this statement of the Board will be judged. Con- versations that may have taken place between the presidents of the two Boards will go for nothing in comparison with this official correspondence. The Master-General of the Ord- nance, however, when, in such a conversation, he referred to the South-Eastern Company’s scheme as requiring modifica- D 34 tion, must have meant, the particular modification adopted by the London, Chatham, and North Kent Line for chang- ing the position of the tunnel, — in other words, that the plan of the London, Chatham, and North Kent Company should be adopted, instead of that preferred by the Board of Trade, because promoted by the South-Eastern Com- pany. The Report proceeds to state the material points of dif- ference between the lines, taking, however, no notice of the difference of level at Chatham. The first difference is stated to be in the mode of passing Woolwich, which, by the line of the South-Eastern Company, is by carrying the railway through the heart of the town close to the Arsenal and Dock-yard gates, with great destruction of house property ; whereas the London, Chatham, and North Kent line crosses the open Artillery-ground by a cutting, which the Ordnance requires to be covered over. The Board approve and prefer the line through the town of Woolwich, remarking that the destruction of house property is a question they are preclu- ded from entertaining. This reservation, however, involves a sophistry ; for though it is true, the Board was not free to consider the claims of individuals affected in their property, it was assuredly the duty of the Board to look to the rela- tive merits of plans, as they were injurious to property, and as their estimates might in consequence be increased or diminished. It was their duty also to see that two lines were not provided where one would suffice ; and the line taken by the South-Eastern Company, proceeding from Woolwich along the Erith marshes, and therefore affording no accommodation to the rural population, required a second line from Eltham to Dartford to answer that pur- pose, which, surely, as compared with the single line of the North Kent Company, was an objection, though the Board notice it as an advantage. 2. From Chatham the two lines, according to the Board 35 of Trade, diverge, that of the South-Eastern Company keeping more to the north among the salt marshes, at the confluence of the Medway and Thames, for the sake of shortening the line to Sheerness, but increasing the distance to Canterbury by a mile and a half, and giving no accom- modation to the population, which, of course, resides in the high lands, and would have no access to the railway across those marshes; whereas the line of the London, Chatham, and North Kent Company keeps near the present Dover road, in the heart of the thickly-inhabited districts. In fairness, one would have thought, that the shortening of the distance, and providing directly for the accommodation of the rural popula- tion, would have been regarded as grounds of preference for the scheme accomplishing these ends, and might have been so stated in a report for the advice and assistance of Parlia- ment ; but it was indispensable to shew no preponderance of merit in the rival plan rejected, lest the justification of the Board of Trade should fail, and, therefore, even obvi- ous advantages are glossed over when on the side of that Company. But what can be said of an advising authority that, professing to consider carefully the merits of the plans submitted to it, which plans it has in full detail, the maps, sections, and elevations being in fact exact copies of the plans required for Parliament, if in its report it neglects to notice such objections as the following, all publicly stated, and in print, before the date when the Report of the 13th of February was prepared, and all being objections to the particular scheme approved. The Board, be it observed, had an engineer of rank and eminence, specifically associated in the Railway Committee, to assist in the consideration of these plans ; it is inconceivable, therefore, that a com- mittee so formed should fail to have noticed such obvious objections on the face of the plans of the South-Eastern Company, as these : viz. 1st. The crossing the line of the Croydon and Brigh- d 2 a 36 ton Railway, and of the Croydon Atmospheric Railway, on the level, near the CorbettVlane junction, “ 2nd. The great destruction of house property at New Deptford, and the crossing of several streets in succession on the level. “ 3rd. The enormous destruction of villa residences, and valuable property between Lewisham-bridge and the Paragon at Blackheath. “ 4th. — The circuit of at least one mile bet ween Blackheath and Woolwich, which can only be avoided by a passage through Greenwich Park, within 300 yards of the Royal Observatory. “5th. — The destruction of property in the town of Wool- wich through which the South-Eastern Railway passes for a mile. “ 6th. — The inextricable dilemma they are involved in, by their mode of passing Dartford Creek — whereby they must either close that navigation to every thing but small boats, or place the highly objectionable obstruction of a swivel bridge on their main line. “ 7th. — Their mode of crossing the Medway, which is at too low a level to be likely to be approved of by the Admi- ralty. “ 8th. — Their mode of skirting the shore of the Medway at Chatham, whereby the wharfs and water-side property are entirely cut off, by the railway interposing at a low level. “ 9th. — Their crossing of the Military Road at Chatham on the level, and passing through the fortifications there in such a manner as essentially to affect the military defences, and which, of course, could never be assented to by the Board of Ordnance. “ 10th. — Their passage through the Salt Marshes between Gillingham and Halstow, where the subsoil is known to be treacherous, and where many large and deep navigable creeks will have to be passed.” 37 It is quite impossible that General Pasley, one of the members of the Railway Committee, who signed the Ga- zette notice of 17th January, and who has also signed the Report of 13th February, 1845, should have passed over such very obvious defects of plan, as are here brought to notice. The blindness of the Board of Trade, therefore, must have been a wilful blindness : and it has transpired that this very decision in favour of the plan of the South- Eastern Company, and against that of the London, Chatham, and North Kent new Company — which decision, it will be observed, is based entirely on the declaration that there was no preponderance of merit in either plan, — was adopted on the casting vote of the president of the committee, without regard to the opinion of General Pasley and of another member. If, however, General Pasley, the only engineer at the Board, shall be found to have considered that there was a preponderance of merit in the scheme disapproved and rejected by the Board of Trade, and if the Ordnance and Admiralty are found to have both declared officially in favour of that scheme, and against that approved and recommended by the Board of Trade, then the decision of that Board in regard to these Kentish lines, based as it is on the fact of there being no preponderance, will not be found quite in accordance with the high, confident tone with which its report was laid before Parliament. By their respective merits these two schemes must final lv be judged. Those concerned in the London, Chatham, and North Kent Line desire no other test, and feel convinced that, so judged, their line will triumph. The Board of Trade has placed the decision on its true ground, by declaring, that if there were a pre- ponderance of merit in the plans of the rival com- pany, the guarantees and promises tendered by the ex- isting company, as the conditions for its obtaining a pre- 38 ference, are as nothing, or of very small weight, in the scale. The object of the Parliament is, of course, to secure for the country the best lines of railway, and the Board of Trade is referred to in order that it may advise, as to which is the best of the lines offered. All the promises and sacrifices in the world would not make an inferior line, promoted by an existing company, better than one acknowledged to be the best put forward, and therefore would give such a com- pany no right to execute its inferior line, to the prejudice of the many interests concerned in having the best line executed. The Board of Trade enumerate eight advantages for the public, and sacrifices to the South-Eastern Company, which have been offered as biddings for the preference shewn to their inferior line. It would be easy, by an examination of these in detail, to prove that they are valueless, or delusive to the pub- lic, or such as the public need not incur the sacrifice, of having an inferior line executed, to obtain. The projects entertained, and for which merit is thus claimed, are either beneficial to the South-Eastern Company as separate independent speculations, and ought to be adopted on that account for the good of the subscribers, or the directors have no right to offer them, and the shareholders, when they find their interests sacrificed, will refuse to ratify the act and complete them; and if they do so, or if, after making large professions, the South-Eastern Company fail to carry their bills through Parliament, whether by accident or intentional de- fault, where is the power, and what the process by which the Board of Trade, or Parliament itself, can compel a company to fulfil its engagements, and to spend money on what avowedly will not pay ? When the existing company deemed it necessary to back its scheme for a North Kent Railway, by extravagant offers of an extraneous kind, did not this very circumstance afford ground to suspect that the scheme so put forward did not 39 rely on its intrinsic merit? and was the Board of Trade warranted, when, having before it a good scheme, well sup- ported and legitimately undertaken, for executing this desir- able object, it received biddings from another company to purchase the rejection of such a scheme? Was the new company to be sold in this way behind its back, without an opportunity of gainsaying, or refuting, or of meeting in any way the pleas and offers put forward to support such a negotiation ? It is known that the directors of the South-Eastern Com- pany have always regarded as most injurious to their inter- ests the formation of a railway in North Kent. It is known that the project of the London, Chatham, and North Kent Company is looked upon by them as a millstone round their necks, and that, from the time when its maturity as a scheme was assured, the directors of the South-Eastern Company have been devising and searching for the means of obstructing and preventing its completion. Amongst these means was the appointment of Mr. W. O’Brien to be the salaried superintendent of the Dover Line, which very appointment should have inspired the Board of Trade with additional caution in its dealings with that company. “ A capital hit we made,” said an in- fluential director of the South-Eastern Company, “ in ap- pointing Captain O’Brien our superintendent ; w a capital hit indeed, if it was to lead to a fraternization of the Board with the South-Eastern Company, and the adoption by the Board of all the views of policy and of public advantage, that might be suggested by the directors of that company ; and if the delenda spirit and dispositions of that com- pany towards rival schemes were, in consequence, to be in- fused into the Board of Trade, and to guide its decisions. But such views have not been yet sanctioned, either by the Government or by Parliament. They will have to undergo the test of severe examination before a committee of the 40 House of Commons, which, acting judicially, and having the questions at issue, whereby the merits of the rival plans will be tried, fairly argued before it, will decide upon the merits impartially and without bias, and will never allow a legitimate scheme, promoting a line of great public benefit, and having the best plans for executing that line, to be bought off by delusive promises and offers from one of the competing companies. While these pages are still in the printer’s hands, the sub-committee of standing orders has had its first sittings on the Bill of the South-Eastern Company for its com- prehensive schemes. The whole of these schemes were put into one Bill, as if all were one project, a mode of proceeding adopted evidently to take advantage of the Board of Trade’s report in favour of concentration. But the schemes had been devised, and notices had been given separately, in the districts severally affected, and the lodgment of plans was in like manner separate; those of each county only being deposited with the officers of the county, not entire, as required for conformity with the Bill. The sub committee were, in consequence, unanimously of opinion that such notices and deposits of plans were not sufficient for conformity with the standing orders. This objection, the first of five hundred taken to the plans and proceedings of this Company, is fatal. Seven separate Bills must now be presented for each separate line of the new railways ; the capital subscribed for, as well as the deed of association, and all the other forms, must be in seven different shapes. It requires much consideration to put all these into proper train, and the session may, therefore, be lost to this Company for all its projects. But this is perhaps its expectation and wish. For few of the projects are sufficiently matured to stand the test of exami- nation by a committee of the House of Commons. What then will become of this Company’s guarantee for the immediate extension to the public of all the advantages it promised? And how can the Board of Trade ex- plain having omitted to certify that each one of the schemes favoured was, separately, in a state of forwardness as to capital, as well as in its plans, for presentation se- parately in the sessions, as by the minute of August the Board declared its intention specifically to inquire ? If that minute had been made the rule for the Board’s proceedings in respect to all plans submitted, the South- Eastern Company would not be liable to fall into this difficulty ; and those who bought the scrip of its new shares, on the faith of the Board’s eulogy of a comprehensive scheme, would not risk the ruin of their hopes, which must follow from the rejection of the Bills of the South-Eastern Company. The North Kent Company will of course proceed with their Bill, subject only to such opposition as the monopolists may be able to raise up ; and the public will judge by the result whether the Provisional Committee of this Company were warranted in recommending to the shareholders not to abandon their scheme, in consequence of the unfavourable report of the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade. Printed by J. & H, Cox, Brothers, 74 & 75, Great Queen Street, Lincoln’s-lnn Fields.