IN PARLIAMENT.] South-Eastern, and London, Brighton, &c., Rail. Co.'s Bill. [IN PARLIAMENT. but, inasmuch as notice had been served that the case could not go on on the ground that some creditors had been omitted from the schedule, he was not prepared to proceed. Rynd, solicitor for the insolvent, asked for an adjournment for a fortnight, in order to have the schedule amended by having creditors inserted whose names had been omitted. Byrne, solicitor, said that he appeared for a creditor whose name had been omitted from the schedule, and upon whom he believed a fraud had been committed. He was ready to go on with his case. Rynd pressed for an adjournment, as he thought the case could not be heard until the names of all the omitted creditors were inserted. to their legal remedies. Distinction made in deal ing with two petitioners of this class. The Bill was one (see 18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 129) "for establishing a working union of the South-Eastern and London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Companies, for confirming an agreement of the companies in that behalf, for authorising the admission of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company into the union, and for other purposes." It was opposed by the Chichester and Midhurst Railway Company under these circumstances : 1864, the Chichester and Midhurst Railway ComBy the Chichester and Midhurst Railway Act pany were incorporated and authorised to make a railway, known as the Chichester and Midhurst Railway, from the Brighton Company's railway at Chichester to Midhurst, with junctions with the Mid-Sussex and Midhurst Junction Railway, and MILLER, J. said he would hear the case of any with the Petersfield Railway of the South-Western creditor who was ready to oppose. Byrne then stated that so far back as the year 1862 his client, Mr. B., employed the insolvent to sell some house property, which he sold for a sum of 4701, but Mr. B. could not get the money out of the insolvent's hands, and had to employ another attorney to sue him. The matter wes settled by Mr. B. taking three bills for the balance due to him after giving the insolvent credit for certain claims, and that balance was the debt omitted from the schedule. Mr. B. was examined, and sustained the statement made by his solicitor. MILLER, J. said the only course open to the court was to dismiss the petition. The insolvent is a solicitor, and ought to have been more cautious in his conduct. The insolvent said that the bills were given subject to the taxation of his costs, and there was really only a sum of 12. due to Mr. B. Railway Company; and in the following year an Act for the extension of this railway to Haslemere was also sanctioned. In Nov. 1865, the London, Brighton, and SouthCoast Railway Company were desirous of obtaining the control over the Chichester and Midhurst Railway sanctioned by the Act of 1864, and ultimately making it part of their own system, and directors of the Brighton Company and the then for that purpose negotiations took place between the directors of the Chichester and Midhurst Railway Company; but as there were difficulties in the way of the Brighton Company at once purchasing or taking the Chichester and Midhurst Railway, an arrangement was made to the effect that the them directors of the Chichester and Midhurst Railway Company should retire, the shares in the capital of that company should be placed in the names of the directors of the Brighton Company and of nominees of that company, and that directors of the Brighton Company should be appointed directors of the Chichester and Midhurst Railway Company, and the report issued by the directors of the Brighton MILLER, J. observed that what he heard did not Company in Jan. 1866, stated "The directors have alter his opinion. Petition dismissed. Solicitor for the insolvent, Rynd. entered into an arrangement with the promoters of the line from Chichester to Midhurst, under which that line will be constructed in the interest of this company and transferred to this company at the Solicitors for creditors, Byrne, Irvine, and proper time." And at the meeting of the Brighton Hardman. En Parliament. Reported by FREDERICK CLIFFORD and PEMBROKE S. STEPHENS Company on the 29th Jan. 1866, this report was unanimously received and adopted. In pursuance of this arrangement the then directors of the Chichester and Midhurst Railway Company retired, and their places were supplied by the directors of the Brighton Company and the shares of the Chichester and Midhurst Railway THE COURT OF REFEREES ON PRIVATE Company were placed in the names of the directors BILLS. of the Brighton Company and other nominees of that company, and the Chichester and Midhurst interest of the Brighton Company, and a contract Railway Company was reformed entirely in the was entered into by the present petitioners for the purchase of the property and the construction of the railway. The works were accordingly commenced, and various liabilities incurred by the petitioners on the faith (as they alleged) that these arrangements would be carried into effect, and an agreement for vesting the Chichester and Midhurst Railway in the Brighton Company, and providing for the Chichester and Midhurst Railway Company, was contribution by that company to the capital of the entered into. By the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway (Capital and Powers) Act 1866, the Brighton Company were authorised to raise new capital, and amongst such capital 95,000l. for the purposes of the contribution by that Act authorised to be made by the Brighton Company to the capital of the H IN PARLIAMENT.] SOUTH-EASTERN, AND LONDON, BRIGHTON, &C., RAIL. Co.'s BILL. [IN PARLIAMENT. Chichester and Midhurst Railway, and by the same Act the Brighton Company were authorised with the authority of three-fourths of the votes of their shareholders, at a general meeting specially convened for the purpose, to subscribe towards the Chichester and Midhurst Railway Company's capital 95,000l., and with the like authority to contribute and apply in payment of the subscription any moneys which they were already authorised to raise, and which were not required by them for the purposes of their undertaking, and also any moneys which they were by that Act authorised to raise, and to lend money to the Chichester and Midhurst Railway Company, and to pay or guarantee, rent, interest, or dividend on their capital, or any principal money borrowed by them, or the interest thereon. At a special general meeting of the Brighton Company, held in accordance with the terms and provisions of the last-mentioned Act, resolutions were passed authorising such subscription to the extent of 95,000l., and the application of the funds of the Brighton Company, and the creation of further capital to the extent of 95,000l. by the Brighton Company under the powers of the lastmentioned Act for such subscription. The petitioners, the Chichester and Midhurst Railway Company, under their common seal alleged as follows: "That, acting upon such resolutions, the Brighton Company took and accepted shares of the capital of the Chichester and Midhurst Railway Company of the nominal value of 95,000l., and were thereupon registered as the owners of such shares, and they have paid considerable sums of money upon and in respect thereon, and the accounts of the Brighton Company showing such payments have been submitted to and adopted and approved at general meetings of the Brighton Company; but the Brighton Company nevertheless now seek to repudiate that subscription, and neglect and refuse to make any further payments upon and in respect of such shares, and your petitioners have been unable to proceed with the works of the said railway, and they are now suspended, and your petitioners are brought into great diffculties and embarrassment. "That the Brighton Company and the SouthEastern Railway Company, having formed a scheme for obtaining a monopoly of the whole means of railway transit in the south-eastern district of England, and also between England and the continent, and of getting the control over the existing railways in that district, whether only authorised or constructed, have entered into agreements between themselves, and also with the Chatham and Dover Company for an amalgamation or working union, which, if not now, will, if the Bill before the court should pass without the further intervention of Parliament, in reality be an amalgamation of those three companies, and for carrying out this scheme have introduced the said Bill into your honourable house. "That one of the avowed objects of this scheme is to enable the Brighton Company, and also the SouthEastern Railway Company, to get relieved from the obligations which they have taken upon themselves by various Acts of Parliament to construct various railways which have been declared to be of public importance and utility, and thus deprive the public of the benefits which it was declared would result from the construction of those railways. "That in furtherance of this object a Bill is now pending in your honourable House to authorise the abandonment by the Brighton Company of various lines of railway which they have been authorised by Parliament, and have undertaken to construct, as well as to obtain other relief for their own especial benefit. "That also in furtherance of the same object, a Bill is now also pending in your honourable house to authorise the abandonment by the South-Eastern Railway Company and the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company of the London, Lewes, and Brighton Railway, which those companies were, in 1866, after a contest commenced in 1863, and renewed in each succeeding session, either in whole or in part authorised to construct. "That the amalgamation or union of the Brighton, the South-Eastern, and Chatham and Dover Companies, and the abandonment of the before-mentioned railways, and other matters before mentioned, although the subject of three separate bills before your honourable House, are only part of one scheme designed and promoted by the said companies for the object and purposes aforesaid, and for other objects and purposes detrimental to the interests of your petitioners and the public. "That also in furtherance of the objects aforesaid, and as part of the before-mentioned scheme, the Brighton Company now repudiate the arrangements with your petitioners before mentioned, and seek to escape from their obligations to them as a cheaper and easier way for them to get rid of your petitioners' railway than adopting the engagements and liabilities made in good faith with your petitioners, and then, if necessary, applying to your honourable House for power to abandon the said railway. "That it would be unfair and unjust to your petitioners, and contrary to public policy, that the Brighton Company should be thus allowed to escape from their obligations to your petitioners, and inflict upon your petitioners the great and serious injury which would be the result of their being allowed to escape from those obligations fairly and openly contracted with your petitioners, and that for the purpose of enabling them more effectually to carry out their subsequent arrangements with other companies. "That the position of your petitioners would be altered and prejudiced were the first-mentioned bill allowed to pass, and the united companies would be enabled to coerce and injure your petitioners. "That there is not any public necessity for the before-mentioned Bill, and such Bill, so far from being beneficial to the public, will be very detrimental to them, and establish a great and injurious monopoly, and no public advantage is to be attained by the said Bill which cannot be attained with out it. "That the preamble of the first-mentioned Bill is incapable of proof. "That it does not contain any sufficient provision for keeping alive the obligations of the Brighton Company towards your petitioners, and ought not to be allowed to pass without a distinct recognition of the liabilities of the Brighton Company in reference to your petitioners and their said railway, and an indemnity to your petitioners in reference thereto." The objections to the locus standi were: 1. That the Bill does not contain provisions for taking or using any part of the lands, railway stations, or accommodation of the petitioners, or for running engines or carriages upon or across the same, or for granting other facilities as against or affecting the petitioners, nor are there any other provisions in the Bill affecting the petitioners in such manner as will confer a locus standi upon the petitioners. 2. That the petitioners do not allege a right to be heard on the ground of competition, nor does any such competition exist or could arise between the petitioners and the companies parties to the working union. 3. That all the allegations of the petition relate to transactions between the petitioners and the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company, and IN PARLIAMENT.] SOUTH-EASTERN, AND LONDON, BRIGHTON, &C., RAIL. Co.'s BILL. [IN PARLIAMENT. to alleged liabilities incurred by the last-mentioned | directors have applied to Parliament for the necescompany in relation to the undertaking of the peti- sary powers to carry out the necessary arrangetioners, but all such transactions and liabilities (if ments therein set forth with the Surrey and Sussex they have in fact taken place or been incurred) have Junction Railway Company. The works are let to taken place or been incurred under the provisions eminent contractors who are already proceeding with of existing Acts and can be ascertained and deter- energy, and the directors look forward to important mined by the legal tribunals of the country, and the results from the construction and completion of the petition does not allege that the provisions of the undertaking, which, under favourable circumBill interfere with the enforcement of such liabili- stances, will be ready within two years, and will ties nor is it the fact that they do so interfere. complete a third communication between London and Brighton," and, after discussion, this report was unanimously adopted by the meeting held on the 29th Jan. 1866. 4. The provisions of the Bill do not directly or indirectly affect the interest of the petitioners, and the petitioners have no such interest in the objects of the Bill as will confer a locus standi. The petition of the Surrey and Sussex Company set forth, inter alia, that by the Surrey and Sussex Junction Railway Act 1865, that company was incorporated with a share capital of 705,000, with power to borrow 235,000l. to construct railways forming a connection between the main and branch lines of the Brighton Company at Croydon and the East Grinstead, Groombridge, and Tunbridge Wells and the Brighton, Uckfield, and Tunbridge Wells Railways of the Brighton Company, and the Act provided for agreements between the company and the Brighton Company for the maintenance, management, use, and working of the said railways, the conveyance of traffic thereon, and the fixing, collection, and apportionment of the tolls, rates, and charges, receipts, and revenue in respect thereof. In pursuance of arrangements made before the passing of the Act, part of the shares of the company were placed in the names of the then directors and nominees of the Brighton Company, who likewise nominated directors and obtained the entire management and control of the Surrey and Sussex Railway. In July 1865 the directors of the Brighton Company issued their report, in which they stated, among other things, "that the Surrey and Sussex Junction Railway would give to the Brighton Company a direct route to Tunbridge Wells, and in conDection with their authorised lines from Groombridge to Hailsham and St. Leonard's, a line to the latter-named town and Hastings, nearly as short as any other route which is or can be constructed, and the directors, feeling it needful for the advantage and security of this company in those districts to avail themselves of the opportunity thus offered, entered into a working arrangement with that company, as indicated at the special meeting of the 25th April last; and looking to the great importance of the question, the directors have, subject to the approval of the proprietors, taken such steps as will result in this company being authorised to subscribe towards the capital, and ensure, at the earliest possible moment, the completion of the works and the adoption of the line as a part of the company's undertaking." At the meeting of the company this report was received and adopted unanimously, and the agreement for the working and maintenance by the Brighton Company of the Surrey and Sussex Railway, dated the 31st May 1865, was unanimously approved. Upon the faith of the resolutions of these meetings the petitioners stated that they proceeded at once to put the Surrey and Sussex Railway Act into operation; they entered into a contract for the construction of the line, took the necessary steps to purchase and acquire the requisite property, and portions of the property have been purchased, and the works have been commenced, and everything was done to insure the early completion of the line, and large and heavy liabilities have been incurred. The report of the directors of the Brighton company of the 19th Jan. 1866, amongst other things, stated that, "In accordance with the last report, the By the London, Brighton, and South-Coast Railway (Capital and Powers) Act 1866, which received the Royal assent on the 30th July in that year, the Brighton Company were authorised, with the consent of three-fourths of the votes of their shareholders at a general meeting specially convened for the purpose, to subscribe towards the Surrey and Sussex Company's capital, a sum not exceeding 500,000l., and to contribute and apply in payment of their subscription, any moneys which they were then, and also by that Act authorised to raise, and they were by the same Act (amongst other moneys) authorised to raise 500,000/. for such subscription. In August 1866, in pursuance of this Act, the Brighton shareholders gave authority to the directors to subscribe towards the capital of the Surrey and Sussex Junction Railway Company any sum not exceeding in the whole 500,000. And resoluwere also passed at the same meeting for raising capital for this and other purposes, and the directors subsequently created the capital in pursuance of the resolutions, and the Brighton Company also took and accepted shares of the Surrey and Sussex Company of the nominal value of 500,000l., and are still registered as the owners of such shares, and have paid large sums of money for and in respect of them. In the session of 1867 the Brighton Company promoted a Bill in Parliament for, amongst other purposes, the transfer of the powers and obligations of the Surrey and Sussex Company to the Brighton Company; but in the spring of that year the Brighton Company was in great financial difficulties, the proprietors objected to further capital engagements, and a committee of investigation was appointed. In the mean time the works on the Surrey and Sussex Railway were stopped, and an arrangement having been come to between the Brighton and South-Eastern companies for amalgamation, the provisions in the said Bill for the transfer of the powers and obligations of the Surrey and Sussex Company to the Brighton Company were, without prejudice, withdrawn, and in the summer of 1867 the then board of directors of the Brighton Company retired, a new board was appointed, the agreement for the amalgamation with the South-Eastern Company last mentioned was set aside, and another agreement for amalgamati on between the Brighton Company and South-Eastern Company being the one now proposed to be confirmed by the Bill now before Parliament was entered into, and the Brighton Company, as was alleged, became desirous to escape from their o bligations in connection with the Surrey and Sus sex Railway. The petitioners charged, amongst other things, that: "The Bill now promoted by the South-Eastern and Brighton companies, although nominally for a working union between those companies, is in fact a Bill for an amalgamation of those companies, in which amalgamation the Chatham Company are or may be included, and an avowed object of such amalgamation is the abandonment of authorised railways. IN PARLIAMENT.] SOUTH-EASTERN, AND LONDON, BRIGHTON, &C., RAIL. Co.'s BILL. [IN PARLIAMENT. "The Brighton Company, in furtherance of the | engagements they have entered into with the SouthEastern Company, and regardless of their prior engagement with your petitioners, have formed a scheme, unfairly, improperly, and in breach of good faith with your petitioners, to escape, and are endeavouring to escape, from their engagements and obligations to your petitioners and to compel and force your petitioners into an abandonment of the Surrey and Sussex Railway at their own risk and cost, or if the said railway is not abandoned in consequence of authority for that purpose being withheld, to render the said railway useless to the public, and of no value, but a positive loss and injury to your petitioners, and this your petitioners respectfully submit would be most unjust to them, and ought not to be allowed." The petitioners went on to explain, also, that the Brighton Company now disputed their liability in respect of the shares taken by them in the Surrey and Sussex line under their Act of 1866, and claimed repayment of the money already paid by them in respect of such shares. They also sought to be relieved from their obligations under the agreement of 1865 to work and maintain the railway, though the petitioners declared that upon the faith of such agreement they had, during the progress of their bill, struck out provisions which would have given them running powers and other facilities upon the Brighton and South-Eastern systems. With a view to relieve themselves from their obligations, the Brighton directors had instituted proceedings in Chancery against the Surrey and Sussex Company; and the petitioners alleged that if the amalgamation Bill were passed pending these proceedings, they, the petitioners, might be seriously damaged thereby. 'They then proceeded : "Your petitioners entered into all the arrangements with the Brighton Company before mentioned or referred to in good faith and in full belief that they would be so carried out by the Brighton Company; and they submit that it is neither just nor right that the Brighton Company should be allowed to repudiate these arrangements, and to escape from their liabilities in connection with the Surrey and Sussex Railway, and leave your petitioners, under the circumstances aforesaid, with a railway joining at each end the railways of the Brighton Company, and with no means of running over the lines of that company, or securing the transmission of traffic over and along them to and between the line of your petitioners, as in such case your petitioners' railway, even if completed, could not be worked with advantage to the public or with anything but loss to themselves. Your petitioners would not have accepted or taken the before-mentioned Act for the Surrey and Sussex Railway in the shape in which it was granted, but upon the faith and in the full belief that when they, in pursuance of the before-mentioned arrangements, abandoned the running powers and clauses facilitating the forwarding of traffic_before-mentioned, the working agreement and other arrangements would be honestly and fairly carried into effect by the Brighton Company, and that the line would have been taken by the Brighton Company at the earliest possible time, and your petitioners relieved from liability in connection therewith; and they have been strengthened in this belief and encouraged in their proceedings by the reports, speeches, resolutions, circulars, and acts of the Brighton Company. "Also, in furtherance of the before-mentioned scheme, and as a consequence of the agreement for the amalgamation of the Brighton company and the South-Eastern Company, another Bill has been introduced into your honourable Hcase, intituled 'A Bill to authorise the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company to abandon certain works, and for other purposes,' and by this Bill the Brighton Company seek to abandon and to be relieved from the obligation to construct the various lines in East Sussex which they were authorised by the Acts of 1864 and 1865 to construct, and from the construction of which the Surrey and Sussex line would have derived great and material support, as it was necessary to complete the system of the Brighton Company, and formed the direct and natural route for the traffic from portions of those lines to the metropolis and other places, and this Bill, if sanctioned, will further prejudicially affect your petitioners, unless relief is afforded to them by your honourable House. 66 'In like manner, another Bill is now pending in your honourable House, promoted by the SouthEastern Company, intituled "A Bill for the Abandonment of the Railways authorised by the SouthEastern and London, Chatham, and Dover (London, Lewes, and Brighton) Railways Act, 1866," and by this Bill it is desired to abandon the London, Lewes, and Brighton Railway in the event of the agree ment for amalgamation hereinbefore mentioned being carried into effect. "Both these last-mentioned Bills are promoted by the Brighton Company and the South-Eastern Company respectively, in pursuance of the beforementioned agreement for amalgamation, and as part of that scheme, and contrary to the interest of the public. "One great object, and the effect of the first-mentioned Bill, will be to give to the amalgamated or united companies the entire control and monopoly of the traffic in the south-eastern district of Eng. land, and between the metropolis and various other important places, and the largely frequented watering-places on the southern coast, as well as other towns and places of importance; and also the control and monopoly of the most frequented, important, and convenient routes between England and the Continent, which will be very prejudicial to the interest of the public, and enable them to abstract all or the great bulk of the traffic which would otherwise flow over your petitioners' railway, and otherwise to override and to coerce your petitioners. "The said first-mentioned Bill is promoted by the Brighton Company and South-Eastern Company, with a view also to prevent the construction of further lines of railway in the important district now served by their lines, and the lines of the Chatham Company, and if the said Bill is sanc tioned, it will, therefore, be a serious injury to the public as well as to your petitioners. "There is not any provision made in the firstmentioned Bill for carrying out the arrangements entered into by the Brighton Company with your petitioners, to confer upon the Brighton Company, the South Eastern-Company, and the Chatham Company the powers which they are now seeking, without making full and ample provision for the protection of your petitioners, and their property, rights, and interests. "The said Bill does not contain any sufficient provisions for keeping alive the obligations of the Brighton Company, and ought not to be allowed to pass without a distinct recognition of the liabilities of that company with reference to the Surrey and Sussex Railway, and an indemnity to your petitioners in respect thereof. The preamble of the said Bill is incapable of proof. There is not any object or interest to be served by the said Bill, nor is the said Bill called for or required by the public, but on the contrary the public would be greatly prejudiced by it, and the said Bill does not propose IN PARLIAMENT.] SOUTH-EASTERN, AND LONDON, BRIGHTON, &C., RAIL. Co.'s BILL. [IN Parliament. or offer anything to the public as an equivalent for | the great and injurious monopoly it seeks to establish, the authorised lines of which its object is to deprive the public, and the barrier it will be to further railway progress and development in the district." Sussex Company are what they are alleged to be, they will be preserved by this section; if not, cadit questio. The Referees having consulted, Mr. DODSON said:-The locus standi of the Chi Agents for petitioners, Sherwood, Grubbe, Pritt, and Cameron. Venables, Q. C. for both petitioners.-As to the Chi-chester and Midhurst Company is disallowed; that chester and Midhurst line, it was virtually transferred of the Surrey and Sussex Company is allowed. to the Brighton Company, who now, however, seek to Agents for the Bill, Dyson and Co. repudiate their subscriptions, so that the petitioners have been unable to proceed with the works. We say that this scheme of amalgamation has induced the Brighton Company to throw us over, and that they are entering into an alliance in which they will be controlled by the South-Eastern Company, and our interests will suffer. We have a technical locus standi against the Bill, because one of the duties thrown upon the proposed joint committee, is "the running or working over, or using, or jointly managing, of railways, or portions of railwaystations, and works of or partly belonging to other companies," and we come within this description. But further, we are entitled to argue that the interests of the Brighton Company, as long as it remains independent, are distinct from the interests of the Brighton Company when it is joined to the South-Eastern. If the amalgamation takes place our line will never be made; if the amalgamation does not take place our line may be made. Then our position will be the same as it is now, the interests of the Brighton Company being such as I have stated. No doubt they repudiated us before the amalgamation has taken place, but it is material to notice that this repudiation did not occur until after the first agreement with the South-Eastern Company. Now as to the Surrey and Sussex Company. After 300,000l. have been spent upon the line, the Brighton Company repudiate their liability, though in 1865 they adopted the line, and carried the Bill for constructing it through Parliament against the strenuous opposition of the South-Eastern Railway. We are entitled to appear against this Bill under Standing Order 133: Objections to locus standi of:-1. THE LONDON AND Railway amalgamation—Right of other companies to Where a railway Bill contains provisions for taking or asing any part of the lands, railway, stations or accommodations of another company, or for running engines or carriages upon or across the same, or for granting other facilities, such company shall be entitled to be heard upon their petition against the preamble and clauses of such Bill. According to my construction, the Brighton Company have powers of working this line; these powers would be transferred under the Bill to the joint committee, and the standing order would therefore give us a locus standi against the Bill. Moreover, we have the same right under Standing Order 131 on the ground of competition. The Surrey and Sussex line was taken up by the Brighton Company for the very purpose of competition. But if the lines proposed to be abandoned as the result of this amalgamation, are not constructed, we shall be left as it were in the air. Our line runs into a field; the connecting links upon which we had depended will be broken, and our traffic will be diverted. Rodwell, Q. C. for the promoters.-This Bill in no way alters the status of the Chichester and Midhurst Company. If the Brighton Company have entered into any liabilities with respect to the construction of that line, they will remain liable still, and the Court of Chancery is the proper place for determining that question. As to the Surrey and Sussex Company, they themselves actually went for an abandonment Bill this session, and were only thrown out on standing orders. Sect. 29 of the Amalgamation Bill transfers to the joint committee not only all the powers, but all the obligations vested in or attaching to the two companies respectively. If, then, our obligations towards the Surrey and Held, that the petitioners had a locus standi against the whole Bill, and were not to be restricted because of certain alleged irrelevancy in the petitions. The referees if they see fit will limit the locus standi as to certain portions of a Bill, but not as to portions of the petition; they will not undertake to analyse the petition, and decide how far it is relevant or irrelevant. The petitioners alleged joint user and ownership of certain stations, traffic arrangements, and working agreements with one or other of the two companies (South-Eastern and Brighton), which proposed by the Bill to establish a working union, power being reserved to the Chatham and Dover Company to come in. Upon these grounds, and upon the effect which the proposed amalgamation might have upon the traffic passing from their respective systems to the south-eastern district and the continent, the petitioners sought for leave to appear against the Bill. Merewether, Q. C. (for North-Western and Great Western Companies).-At present we have three competitive routes to the Continent, by the SouthEastern, the Brighton, and the Chatham and Dover lines; and the traffic from our systems has the choice of these routes, and the benefit of the existing competition. We have, therefore, a right to oppose a Bill that has for its object to place these three schemes in one hand, thereby establishing a virtual monopoly. At present our relations with the SouthEastern and the Brighton Companies are friendly; but we think we could show the committee that, if this Bill passes, favour would be shown to the Great Northern, our great rivals for the trade of the North, which has contributed towards the Chatham and Dover line, has acquired rights over that system, and has connecting links with it. [Mr. RICKARDS.-If you have friendly relations with the South-Eastern and Brighton Companies, you will have two friends in the joint committee, and the Great Northern may have only one.] Yes; but that is not for your consideration; that will be a point for consideration by the committee. It is enough if we can show here that there is a possibility of our being injured, and that we have a tale to tell to the committee. As to the Great Western, our locus standi can hardly be disputed (under Standing Order 133), for the South-Eastern Company runs into our station at Reading; and then again we are joint owners of the Kensington Station of the West London Extension Railway Company: London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Bill (No. 1) 1865, Smeth. 185. |