The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-02 00:00:00

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.

LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN.

A special meeting of this company was held on Satur-
day, at the Euston-square station, to consider the ex-
pediency of prosecuting the bills now before Parliament
for the construction of new works. There was a large
attendance of shareholders, and Major-General the Hon.
George Anson, chairman of the company, presided.
Mr. C. Stewart, the secretary, having read the notice
calling the meeting,
The CHAIRMAN rose and said—When I last had the
honour of addressing you from this chair, I announced
to you that it was the intention of the directors to call
a special general meeting of the company at an early
period, for the purpose of submitting to the proprietors
the expediency of prosecuting the bills which were
named in the half-yearly report, and of asking for your
approval of them, provided the directors, after duly
considering them, should think it desirable to proceed
with them in Parliament. The reason for adopting this
unusual course was, that a committee of the House of
Commons had been appointed for the purposeof
in-
quiring into the propriety of allowing and sanction-
ing
those large amalgamations which were proposed by
some of the principal railway companies in the kingdom.
On that occasion I ventured to offer my opinion,
that it would not be possible to confine that inquiry
to the simple question of amalgamation and agree-
ment. I felt that it could not be limited to the present
proposals of the companies, and that it would be found
necessary to extend it to the past, as well as to the future
course of legislation, with respect to railway matters
generally. Knowing, as I did, that the system now in
operation, of which we have had ample experience to
enable us to form a full and accurate judgment upon it,
had proved most injurious to railway interests generally,
and that it was defective also with respect to the conve-
nience and accommodation of the public, I did not be-
lieve, remembering that the committee of the House of
Commons was composed of able and sound headed men,
that it would be content with pursuing its investigations
simply into the measures which were then proposed by
the great companies, and for which the sanction of Par.
liament was asked, principally for the purpose of ena-
bling them to enter into amalgmations and agreements,
which, in point of fact, could virtually and practically
have been carried out, even though the House of Com-
mons, or a, committee of the house, had refused to give
them its sanction. It was likewise quite evident to me
that if the inquiry should be pushed into the question of
railway legislation generally, and if the committee should
be inclined to grapple with that question effectually, so
much time would be required for the investigation that
I was satisfied the greater part of the session would be '
consumed in hearing evidence and collecting informa-
tion, and I was in great hopes, therefore, that the
whole of the bills now before Parliament would have
been deferred. In this I have been much disappointed.
The select committee have decided that all amalgama-
tion bills, all bills involving agreements and combination
of interests between companies, should be postponed ;
but that all bills projected by new companies, all bills
brought forward by independent interests, may be allowed
to proceed. Now, the effect of this upon us is, that it
deprives us of the power of obtaining those acts which
we really thought and believed would be most beneficial
on all accounts for our interests. The committee have
given us no option as to our future policy, but has left
us exactly in the position in which we were when Par-
liament first undertook to endeavour to amend the sys-
tem of which we all disapproved. It has left us no other
alternative than to proceed with these bills, which, it is
now useless to disguise, have been projected solely for
the purpose of protecting our interests against the in-
roads and encroachments of hostile companies. What
have been the grounds for this decision on the part of
the select committee ? It is true that a great deal of the
evidence they have received has been of a contradictory
character ; but I would like to know what great ques-
tion has ever been mooted before a committee of the
House of Commons, or before Parliament itself, in re-
gard to which you will not find able and zealous advocates
on both sides ? It has always been so, and it always
will be so. I know it would occupy too much of your
time to sift this evidence as I could wish, but I cannot
help alluding to some portions of the evidence given by
the more important witnesses. In the first place, I will
name to you Mr. Laing, Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Swift, and
Captain Huish, all gentlemen intimately and, perhaps,
better, acquainted than we are with the management of
railway affairs, each of them pursuing different occupa-
tions and employments in connection with railways,
and all of them capable of giving a sound and judicious
opinion on the subject which the committee had been
appointed to investigate. Well, what is the effect of
their evidence ? All of them express a strong opinion in
favour of amalgamation. They showed plainly before
the committee that the objections to amalgamation on
the ground of competition were untenable ; that com-
bination had always followed, and would always follow,
any attempts at competition, and that if Parliament
should now refuse to legalise and sanction the proposed
union between companies, agreements could and would
be entered into in spite of Parliament, to which the same
objections would apply, if valid, as are now urged against
amalgamation by Parliamentary enactment. On the
other side of the question, we have Mr. Denison, Mr.
Russell, and Mr. Sandars, all expressing a different and
contrary opinion, and all disapproving of amalgamations.
It is true that Mr. Denison qualified his disapproval
much more than the others, because, while he most decid-
edly objected to an amalgamation between the London
and North-Western and the Midland Companies, he did
not seem to be of opinion that an amalgamation of the
Great Northern and Midland would be open to the
same objection. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Now, I
would like to know, if an amalgamation of the Great
Northern and Midland would bbe an advantageous
arrangement for the public and for the companies them-
selves, why an amalgamation of the London and
North-Western and Midland would be objectionable. I
think it would require all the ingenuity of the most able
partisan to convince the public that there is any distinc-
tion between the two cases. (Hear, hear.) But Mr.
Sandars objected to the principle of amalgamation in toto
upon public grounds. His opinion was that wholesale
competition was good for the public, and that, moreover,
combination was not practicable. If so, I would like to
be informed why the Great Western Company, of which
he is himself so able an organ, should be quite ready to
enter into any arrangement with those parties whose
alleged monopoly they have held up as a bugbear to induce
Parliament to sanction their competition scheme--a mo-
nopoly which it is their professed desire to destroy, but
which it is their real object and intention to share.
(Cheers.) I am satisfied that the committee of the
House of Commons did not, or does not, entertain any
strong opinion against amalgamations. What induced
it to arrest the progress of the bills in Parliament was a
vague and undefinable fear that if the demand for amal-
gamation should be encouraged by the Legislature with-
out inquiry and mature deliberation, it would speedily
and largely increase, and that ultimately all the railway
interests in the kingdom would be united in one body.
That this result might be possible I will not deny ; but
that it would be detrimental to the interests of the pub-
lic I am not prepared to admit. When Mr. Sandara was
asked what protection he would give to the publie against
the evils which might arise from this vast power being
vested in the hands of one company—what remedy he
would apply to prevent any serious consequences aris-
ing from this combination of interests—the reply he gave
to the question did not evince that ability for which
I should have given him credit. He said that he had
no plan to propose, that be would leave things as they
are, that he would allow the different companies to take
care of themselves. In short, the result of his whole ar-
gument was, that he thought combinations and agree-
ments so objectionable he would endeavour to prevent
them by act of Parliament. Prevent combination by
act of Parliament Really this is too absurd to bear
discussion, and I feel it would be a mere waste of time
to answer it. (Hear.) Far different was the evidence
of the gentlemen on the other side. When Mr. Ste-
phenson and Mr. Swift were asked what protection they
would afford to the public, they expressed their opinions
boldly and clearly—opinions in which, having been
formed upon extensive experience of railway matters
generally, and not in the interest of this or any other
company, I do not hesitate to say I very much agree.
And here I gladly take this opportunity of stating my
own views upon this question, because, though I was
was not called before the committee, I feel that, stand-
ing in the position in which I do with regard to this com-
pany, and having been for some time closely connected
with the management of its important affairs, you the
proprietors have a right to know my sentiments. I
have always been a strong advocate for amalgamations,
because I think that union of interests between railway
companies in any system whatever, whether continuous
or lateral, would be of the greatest advantage, not only
to the railway companies themselves, but also to the
convenience and accommodation of the public. That is
my firm belief ; but the occupation of the country by one
company, in consequence of amalgamation, instead of by
two or three, would not remove the evils of which I com-
plain, would not prevent attempts at competition, would not
prevent other companies from endeavouring to come into
your district for the purpose of taking away your traffic,
and forcing you to buy them off at a ruinous and extra-
vagant cost. some other remedy must be applied ; for
amalgamation alone would not be sufficient to secure
that which we are all convinced would be a desirable
thing to arrive at—namely, the stability of our property.
I do not hesitate to say I would be happy to see power
vested in the Board of Trade to examine all new pro-
jects,and to appoint proper persons to investigate the
necessity of their construction, to inquire into the grounds
upon which they are required, and to ascertain precisely
If the found
the parties by "ultra they are originated. (Hear, hear.)
y
struction, the coristmthere was a necessity for their con-
the parties ocoupyie Ton of them should be offered to
make the new lines"' e country, and if they refused to
iwriiwoui3ealuiddglvlseo tehmepmowteor tthheepßarotaireds
who projected them.
of Trade to make such
ectipfuoLf.oantilelpeoints of
prevent any act of oppressionat'di regulations as would
new companies on the part ofpuoetaeger
ceoxrnerpcaisneides,ovaenrdthase
would be a protection to the
attempts
to create a monopoly. Another obj
present
system is, the inconvenience to the
junction. I would give to the Board of
of
thPower to
make arrangements for the convenience
provided the companies themselves should the Public,
obstacles in the way of that suitable acconnroolviasai2 which the public has a right to demand. Witl,-;;`
spect to all complaints of want of accommodat on gene.
rally, I think the Board of Trade, or a body of per-
sons nominated by the Board of Trade, would be
good judges in such cases; and I believe we would be
'*'/.1- willing to submit to their interference if proper security
were given to us that no inroads and invasions on the
Part of hostile companies would be allowed upon our pro-
perty. By such means as I have hinted at, a stability
and tz'
value would be given to your property, which I
erz think it ought to possess. Another question which has
been raised is with regard to the limitation _
that roe of
113 dividends.
.
has boon urged we Iliad y zomethiag
•