The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-28 00:00:00

IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY.—LEWISHAM TO BROMLEY,
• &c., BILL.
- - - - -

Report of debato upon the -motion, " That the order for the
third reading be discharged," Juue 9, 1854
Mr. John Forster moved "that the order for the third read-
ing of the South-Eastern Railway (Lewisham to Bromley, &c.)
Bill be discharged—that the bill be withdrawn."

The-question-laving been put,
Mr. Peach said, this motion having been made, it is right
the house should understand the extraordinary circumstances
connected with this proceeding. They are shortly these :
The landowners of Mid-Kent, being desirous for a line of rail-
way from Farnborough to London, promoted a line during
this session from Farnborough to a junction with the Brigh-
ton Railway, at Sydenham. Another line was promoted with
the same object by the Crystal Palace and West-end Railway
Company, sous to
give to the line into Mid-Kent a West-end
terminus. The South-Eastern Company, after those lines
appeared, promoted a line to go from their line at Lewisham
to Bromley, as an opposition line to the other two. They
were all referred in due course to the same committee. Un-
fortunately, I do not see any member of the committee now
present, but I may state generally that the question before
them was, whether the district of Mid-Kent was likely to be
better served by the South-Eastern Company or by the land-
owners' line as promoted by themselves 3 The landowners were
fearful that in this case, as in previous cases, the South-Eastern
nhyahadngnhoa
dr e
tahl
aintenintimationtion to m g kveetnh et
hl ienme
wb ue
et ha s
se ouarmed-
m mitt Compa,
by Mr. Hope Scott, the counsel, that he was authorised by
the South-Eo.stern directors to say that they were bona isle
in their intention to make the line, and that if the
committee passed the bill it would bo carried out to comple-
tion. That was the assurance which was given, whatever
might be the:divisions—and there were great divisious in the
South-Eastern board upon the question, and a new board of
directors had even been elected upon it. But whatever the
divisions might be, Mr. Hope Scott said emphatically that
they had agreed that this line should be carried out ; and
upon that qftestion there could be no doubt. Upon the
strength of that undertaking, the committee, believing that
the district might be better served, and thinking also of the
vested interests of 'the South-Eastern Company, passed the
bill, and reported against the two other opposing bills. With
that decision I
was perfectly content, because, having bad a
fair consideration before the committee, I believed that they
bad given their best attention to the question, and that they
had come to a decision whThh they believed to be the right
one. But they tame to It upon the full faith that the South-
Eastern Company
really intended what they said, and that
the line would be made as it had been given to the South-
Eastern Company. That bill was passed upon the 22d of
March. In May. I heard it rumoured that there was no in-
tention to proceed with the bill; and if there had been such
an intention, they must have gone to the shareholders, under
the Wharncliffe resolution, for their assent before going to the
House of Lords, I thought it my duty then to write this
letter to the new chairman of the South-Eastern Company.
(The hon. member read the letter, which W a s to the following
effect':--Although their bill' for making a railway from Lewis-
ham to Bromley had been passed by a committee of the House
of Commons, upon the 22d of March, ha was informed that
they had not held the necessary Wharncliffe meeting, and that
they had not even issued the notices for such meeting. See-
ing that a bill in the same district, promoted by. Sir John
Lubbock and others, and another by the Crystal Palace Com-
pany, had been set aside in favour of theirhill, he had reason
to-believe that the House of Commons would accede to a pro-
position to have those two bilis recommitted in the event of,
their not prosecuting their bill. If upon the receipt of this
letter they called their Wharncliffe meeting, he should wait
the decision of that- meeting ; but he should consider any
further delay as conclusive' evidence that they did not in-
tend to proceed, and he should allow no opportunity to
escape of obtaining the sanction of ParliaMent to the other
bills). Upon the 18th of May I received this reply—(The
hon. member, read the reply, which was - in substance as
follows :--With reference to his letter of 'the 11th instant,
he had the honour to state that the board had resolved, in
consideration of the-position of the money market and other
reasons,
not to proceed further with the Bromley bill during
the present session)—the meaning of whicbof course is that
they do not intend to proceed with it at all. As to the excuse
of the money-marketiall I can say is, that the money market
was in a more difficult state when the bill passed or was so-
licited in committee than it was when that letter was written.
I assure the house that if the other bills had been passed, there
would have been plenty of means to have, made those lines.
There would have been no excuse of the money market upon
their part, and the inhabitants of Mid-Kent would have got
the advantage of a line of railway. I will not trouble the
house further upon the subject, but I beg that the committee
may be again asked to reconsider the other bills which were
submitted to them. I believe that by the forms of the house
I am entitled to make such a motion, and I hope, after what
has 'occurred on the part of the South-Eastern Company, that
that motion will meet with the sanction of the house; so far
as to allow the committee to reconsider the bills. I hope that
those interests that came here, and were willing at, once to
yield to the deliberate decision of Parliament, will not be al.
lowed to suffer by the South Eastern Company having come
forward at 'a time when there was an object to serve, and then
abandoning the ground immediately they found that that ob-
ject was served. •
Mr, James Macgregor.—ln the last session of Parliament a
bill for the same object as the one now referred to was pro-
moted by the South-Eastern Company, with the assent and
concurrence
Of the Brighton Company. That bill was pro-
moted upon the unanimous vote of the then existing board of
directors of the South-Eastern Company. Subsequently the
Brighton Company introduced a bill into the house for an
amalgamation between that company and the South-Western
Company; and in order to prevent strife with the Brighton
Company, the. South-Eastern withdrew their bill last session
for constructing a line from Lewisham to Bromley. Upon the
present occasion, in preparing for this session of Parliament,
a large majority of the board of directors of the South-
Eastern Company again promoted a bill for constructing a
branch line from Lewisham to Bromley ; and I may say that
that was done after the fullest consideration. A change took
place in the board of direction, and in the chairman of the
South-Eastern Company. The new board of directors consi-
dered this question, and as has been stated by the hon: mem-
ber for Coventry, they instructed their counsel Mr. H. Scott,
formally to pledge themselvee to the committee, of which

the noble lord the member for South Durham was the
chairman, that the bill for constructing a line from Bromley
to Lewisham should-be proceeded with b3na fide; and upon
that assurance the committee rejected the two lines from the
West-end to the. Crystal-. Palace, and' from Sydenham, and
passed. the bill for constructing the South-Eastern branch. I
protest against the motion which has now been submitted to
the house, because I think that it is a course which is neither
right nor truthful to the committee, nor protective, of the in-
terests of the ' company involVe'din it. I considered that the
only:course_ which was left for the directors of the South--
Eastern Company after the bill went through committee, was'
couvene a.ineeting of the company, to submit the circum-
stances at such meeting to the shareholders, and to take
their
.pleasure and decision.upon it. But that. has never been'
done ; and in deference to the committee to whom the pledge
was given, to the proprietors of the South-Eastern Company,
whose interests are invo'ved, and to the public in the vici-
nity of Bromley, Whoare also interested, and who sought the
advantage arKtuonvetritame of railway communication, I offer
`thy protest against the motion which has been submitted to
the house. I shall not trouble the, house by referring to for-
mer periods of difficulty and embarrassment in railway affairs.
ThiS bill was promoted under circumstances which are noto-
rious to all the proprietors of the company, many of whom •
approved of the.measure without its being formally put to the
vote; think .that the only mode of properly dealing
with the matter is by refusing the motion of the hon. member
for Bei...wick-upon-Tweed, and leaving it to the proprietors,
who, through their managing body, promoted the bill before
the honse which. was, sanctioned by the committee.
Bonierie,-,I apprehend with regard to the present
Motion that there can be no opposition to it, because it
would be altogether without precedent. when the party who.
prOinOted a private bill wished to withdraw it, that the
house should refUse.t.) allow it to be withdrawn. ..If it were
not allowed, to be withdrawn no object would bo gaine
because, even assuming them to go into another place and
to get an act of Parliament; you cannot, under the present
law, compel the company to make the railway, for they
have the power to hold theirland or to use it any way they
please. As regards, therefOre, the motion of the hon
member for 'Berwick, I apPrehend that the house can have
'no objection or _difficulty in acceding to it. But there is
another question of very serious, importance, which is, and
I do not use the _words in an offensive sense, whether the
committee who sat upon these -opposing bills have not been
misled and whether they did not pass this bill in the ex-
pectation that it was really and bona fide to be proceeded
with, and in consequence throw out the two competing bills
which were offered to the committee in rivalry with it.
(Hear, hear.) As,l understand the circumstances of the case,
the *hole of this.has arisen from the change in the direction
'of the South-Eastern Railway Company. Just before this
bill went into comidttee there was a change in the direction
of the company, and the new directors were not prepared at
that time to enter upon the consideration of this line. Since
then they have fully considered the circumstances, and they.
have resolved not to prosecute this line ; and I hold in my
hand a resolutiM to that effect; which lam informed was
carried by a majority in the direction of 6 to 2. This is a
question which is.no doubt material to the public in the dis-
trict; and if thoie gentlemen-promoting the other bills were
ready to go on, and were defeated because the committee un-
derstood that the,Sofith-Eastern Company were really prose-
cuting this line with the intention of completing it, it may be
a serious question for the house to entertain, if a motion
should be made for the , recommittal of those bills, whether
that recommittal, might not under the *circumstances be
granted... I express no opinion upon it, but if such a motion
should bo made I hope that the house will consider it.
(Hear, 'hear.)
Mr. Wilkinson.-.. I should like to hear from some member of
the committee whether it is not a common practice for the
South-Eastern CompanY to promote bills in Parliament with-
out.the slightest intention of carrying them out ?
Lord Harry Vane—l was not aware until I came into the
house that this motion was to be made. I was not informed
of it this morning,..and I was rather taken by surprise, inas-
much as I have not had the means of communicating with all
those gentlemen who served on the committee together with
myself. I have had some communication, however with one
or two on the subject of whether these bills ought to be re-
committed. I am unable to say avhat the opinion of others
may be, but so far as lam concerned, I have no objection
whatever that these bills should be recommitted. It is not
for me to state what were the precise grounds. upon which
the committee came to the decision to pass this bill ; and it
may be possiblethat the committee on considering the whole
matter, should these bills be again referred to them, might
find' reasons for not giving their sanction to ono or other of
them. There were two other bills before the committee, and
during the sittings a proposal was made that one of those bills
should be amalgamated with the other. When I say "amal-
gamated," I should perhaps rather say that a portion of one
line was to be given up, and that the two parties were ready
to come to au agreement upon that point. The hon. member
for Lambeth has asked- whether there were not instances
before the committee of extremely bad faith on the part of the
South-Eastern Company. It is true that I have heard charges
of that sort made, but I certainly cannot take upon myself
to make so grave a charge against the company, or to lend
my apparent sanction in this house to a charge thus made.
Allegations of that nature were certainly made, and it may
be perfectly true that they may be capable of sul;stantiatiOn ;
but I am not prepared to say that evidence was given that
that was the case. It is perfectly true that several schemes
have been promoted by the South-Eastern Company which
have not been 'eventually carried out. There were great
financial difficulties in the way of carrying out some of them;
but whether or not there was a bona fide intention at the
time of carrying them out it is utterly impossible for any
member of the committee to say. At the same time the
South-Eastern Company have had great difficulties to contend
with, in consequence, of the obligation originally forced upon
them by the opposition which they met with from the land-
owners, to construct a line which was not tho most direct
one, and which has thrown a great expense upon them.
Several schemes since then of a more direct nature have been
brought forward, both by the South-Eastern Company and
by independent parties, but up to this period I believe that
sufficient capital has never been found to carry out any of
those schemes; One of the lines submitted to the considera-
tion of the committee propOsed to carry a line into the inte-
rior of Mid-Kent, with the intention no doubt of carrying it
further at some future period; but in the present state of the
money market it was not possible to find money to carry out
a scheme of any great magnitude. The bill, therefore, which
was promoted by certain landowners, only proposed carrying
the line to a certain point in Kent, with the possible intention
at a future time; when money should 750 snore plentiful, of
carrying it furthdr forward. The line as proposed is not a
very long one, and the committee thought that the South-
Eastern ;Company had the first claim. There were other
reasons, 'moreover, which indUced the committee to sane-

tion the South-Eastern line. It was considered very de-
sirable to relieve the great amount of traffic carried along
the South-Eastern and Brighton lines, which might be done
by this proposal; and the committee thought it right in the
course of the investigation
,to throw out au opinion to this
eflbct—that it would be desirable when the South-Eastern
Company had carried out this scheme (which it appears has
not met with the sanction of the shareholders) that they
should-construct a junction with the present main line of the
South-Eastern Company. For myself I have no objection to
the proposed ,recembsittal of these bills. At the same time
I must say that tho members of the committee have come to
no conclusion or opinion as to the respective merits of the
two bills which it is proposed now to recommit. I see no
other member of, the committee present, and I have no objec-
tion whatever to offer to the proposed recommittal. (Hear.)
Mr. John Forster-The late board of directors of the South-
Eastern Company promoted this bill against the permission
of the proprietors and it was principally the opposition of
the proprietors oithis scheme which led to a change of the
direction in March last. Upon coming into office the new
directors did so with the promise of the proprietors, given at
a general meeting, that they would abide by the decision of
the new board of directors upon this bill. In the meantime
the new board were of course compelled to prosecute the
measure pro forma until they could finally make up their
minds upon the subject. They then determined that it would
not be expedient to proceed with the bill iu the present state
of the money market. The accommodation of a certain dis-
trict in Mid-Kent was not the only matter at issue ; for the
remedying of the course of the unfortunate line of railway
which public prejudice compelled the South-Eastern Company
to adopt at the time of its first formation must long be the
principal work of the board of directors. This Bromley
branch., it was considered, would be followed by other mea-
sures for a more direct course through Kent ; but the new
board think that the Bromley branch would not be the most
consonant with the formation of a new line through Kent.
It is, therefore; in order that they may not be committed by
the adoption'of that branch to what may not prove to be the
best line for Kent and for themselves that they wish to with-
draw this bill. It is, of course, open to the hon. member for
Coventry to apply for a recommittal of the other bills, and
it will be .open, I presunie, to the South-Eastern Company to
represent before the committee their objections to the new
proposed lino, the effect of constructing which would be, iu
fact, to create an entirely new and conflicting interest in
Kent. The South-Eastern Company, therefore, can have no
possible objection to the proposed re-committal of these bills.
' Mr. 'James Macgregor—l merely wish to explain, lest I
should not have been understood, that I stated explicitly that
the present directors of the South-Eastern Company have not
taken the pleasure of the proprietors upon this question.
The motion for discharging the order for the third reading
of the bill was then agreed to.

SYDENTIAM AND FARNBOROI7GII RAILWAY.
Debate on Mr. Geach's Motions, June 15, 1854..

" That the Sydenham and Farnborough Railway Bill be re-
committed to the former committee with leave to sit and
proceed on Monday next.
" That the West London and Crystal Palace Railway (Brom-
ley and Farnborough) Bill be re-committed to the former
comniitteo, with leave to sit and proceed on Monday next."
Mr. Goacti---I think• it right, sir, to offer a very few
brief reasons for the motions of which I have.given notice.
In the beginning of this session of Parliament the landowners
of Mid-Kent, desiring to-have railway accommodation, brought
before the house a bill for, making a railway froni Sydenham
to ‘Farnborough,-in Mid-Kent. At the same time another lino
of railway was projected, communicating with the West-end
and Crystal Palace Railway Company, and also going to Farn-
borough. The South-Eastern Railway Company, seeing those
two lines projected, themselves proposed a lino to go from
Lewisham td Bromley, which was part of the way into Mid-
Kent, and serving part of the pUrposes which were intended
by the two lines that I have spoken of. In due course those
three-lines were referred to a committee upstairs ; but in the
South-Eastern RailVray Company there grew up divisions
among the proprietors as to the policy of their having any
further extensions, and it appeared that those who were op-
posed to additional extension obtained a majority, and re-
moved from office those directors who had promoted the
Lowish= and Bromley line. It was then supposed by the
landowners of Mid-Kent that the line which had been pro-
posed by the South-Eastern Company would be abandoned ;
and when they came before the committee still to urge the
passing of that bill, the circumstances of the South-Eastern
Company were stated, and a doubt was expressed whether
they were bona fide in their intention to accept the bill, and
to carry it out.rt Upon that state of things the counsel em-
ployed by the South-Eastern Company, Mr. Hope Scott, stated
to the committee that he was authorised by the new directors
of the South-Eastern Railway Company, to state that what-
ever differences there might have been, they had now come
to the conclusion that it was right to prosecute that bill,
and that if it should be given by the committee it would be
accepted, and the line would be made. Upon that the corn-
mittee, after , having heard the evidence upon all the
schemes, determined that the right thing was to give the line
to the South-Eastern Company. With that I did not quarrel ;
because, being interested in one of the other lines, I felt that
we had. had a-fair hearing, that the committee had come to a
fair conclusion. They believed that the South-Eastern Com-
pany would best servo the district, and therefore they gave
the line to the South-Eastern Company, and they took their
bill. The bill passed upon the 22d March ; but finding upon
the llth May that they had not taken the necessary proceed-
ings for Wiliam the meeting under the Wharncliffe order, be-
fore they could proceed with the bill in the House of Lords,
I thought it my duty to write to the new chairman of the
South-Eastern Railway Company the following letter. (First
letter- read_ by Mr. Geach in the House of Commons in the
debate on the 9th of June.) In reply to that I received the
following from Sir* John Campbell, the chairman of the South-
Eastern Company, (Second letter read by Mr. Coach on the
same. occasion.) In confirmation of that determination, the
hon. member for Berwick-upon-Tweed on Friday last came to
the house, to move that the order for the third reading of the

-J [J j. 28: -1 X 5 4,