THE PRAGTICE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 REEEEEES' COURTS 
 
 IN REGARD TO 
 
 EI&IIEERING DETAILS & ESTIIATES. 
 
 J. S. WILL.
 
 ST 
 
 COLLI 
 
 All the Statu 
 By W. ]Sr. "\ 
 
 In the Debate 
 Campbell said " t 
 were usually requ 
 learned frieud Mr 
 by liim, and no St 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELFS 
 
 SCHOOL OF LAW 
 LIBRARY 
 
 -ij 
 
 ^NS 
 
 3, 1866, 
 
 Administration of 
 
 xisters-at-Law. 
 
 ebruary, 1854, Lord 
 ,11 the Statutes which 
 nes, compiled by his 
 Iways had this work 
 . it." 
 
 DANIELL'S CHANCERY PRACTICE, 1865. 
 
 THE 
 
 PEACTICE OF THE HIGIH COURT OF 
 
 CHANCEEY, 
 
 With some Obsei-vations on the Pleadings in that Court. 
 By the late EDMUND ROBERT DANIELL, Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 FOURTH EDITION. 
 
 WITH CONSIDEEABLE ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS, 
 
 Incorporating the Statutes, Orders, and Cases to the Present Time, and Braithwaite's 
 
 Record and Writ Practice. 
 
 TOGETHER WITH 
 
 References to a Companion "Volume of Forms and Precedents. 
 
 By LEONARD FIELD and EDWARD CLENNELL DUNN, Barristers-at-Law ; 
 With the assistance of JOHN BIDDLE, 
 
 OF THE MASTER OP THE KOLLS' CHAMBERS. 
 
 In Two Volumes. Vol. I. Price £1 lis. 6d., cloth. 
 *J* Volume II. and the companion Tolume of Forms will be published very shortly. 
 
 m-
 
 tr^ ^ —)i^ 
 
 "WOEKS PUBLISHED BY STEVENS AND SONS. 
 
 Roscoe's Nisi Priiis. — A Dio-est of the Law of Evidence 
 
 o 
 on the Trial of Actions at Nisi Prius. Eleventli Edition. By WILLIAM! 
 MILLS, M.X., of tlie Inner Temple, Bam<ter-at-Law, and WILLIAM 
 i^lAEKBY, M.A., of the Innei- Temple, Barrister-at-Law, Recorder of 
 Bnckinghara. Eoyal 12mo. elotli. Price d£'l 11*. 6(1. 
 
 Rogers on Elections, Election Committees, and Regis- 
 tration, 18C5, with an Appendix of Statutes and Forms. Tenth Edition. With 
 the New Eegistration Statute, and all the Election and Eegistration Cases to the 
 present time. By F. S. P. WOLFEESTAN, Esq., of the Inner Temple, Bar- 
 rister-at-Law. 1865. In demy 12mo. 1/. 12s. chith. 
 
 Dodd and Brooke's Piactice of the Court of Probate.— 
 
 The Law and Practice of the Court of Prohate, Contentious and Connnon Foim ; 
 with the Eules, Statutes, and Forms. By PHILIP WM. DODD, S..Hcitor; 
 and GEOEGE HENEY BEOOKE, Proctor, Doctors' Commons. In Svo. Price 
 1/. lis. Gd. cloth. 
 
 Morgan's Chancery Acts and Orders. — The Statutes, 
 
 General Orders, and Eegulations relating to the Practice, Pleading, and Jurisdic- 
 tion of the Court of Chancery, with Copious Notes, containing a Summary of 
 every Eeported Decision thereon. By, GEOEGE OSBOENE iViOEGAN, M.A., 
 Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, late StoweU FeUow of University College, and 
 Eldon Law Scliolar in the University of Oxford. Third Edition. Considerahly 
 enlarged. In 8vo., price 1?. 8s. cloth. 
 
 "No labour has been frimred to make the work as complete and accurate as possible. 
 With its elaborate index and marginal references, it is impossible to over-estimate its value as a 
 manual of general ])raciice."—Laiv 31 aga sine, May, 1S62. 
 
 Tilsley's Stamp Acts. — A Digest of the Stamp Acts, and 
 
 the Judicial Decisions on the Stamp Laws, not contained in the Author's Treatise, 
 including the ProViate Legacy, and Succession Duties ; with Tables of all the Stamp 
 Dutie.s to 1805 inclusive. By HUGH TILSLEY, Assistant Sohcitor of Inland 
 Eevenue. Ninth Edition, revised by his Son, EDWAED HUGH TILSLEY, of the 
 Inland Eevenue Office. In 8vo. Price 12s. Gd. cloth. 
 
 Wharton's Articled Clerk's Manual, 1864.— A Manual for 
 
 Articled Clerks. By J. J. S. WHAETON, M.A., Oxon, Barrister-at-Law, 
 Author of "The Law Lexicon," &c. Ninth Edition, greatly enlarged, and witli 
 the addition of Book-keeping, by Single and Double Entry. By CHAELES 
 HENEY ANDEESON, Editor of the "Legal Examiner," &c. Containing 
 Courses of Study, as well in Common Law, Conveyancing, Equity, Bankruptcy, 
 and Criminal Law, as in Constitutional, Eoman, Civil, and Ecclesiastical, Colonial, 
 and International Laws, Medical Jurisjuudence, and Book-keeping; a Digest of all 
 the Examination Questions, with the New Statutes, General Eules, Forms of 
 Articles of Clerkship, Notices, Affidavits, &c., and a List of the proper Stamjjsand 
 Fees ; l)eing a Comprehensive Guide to their successful Examination, Admission, 
 and Practice as Attorneys and Solicitors of the Superior Courts. Price 18s. cloth. 
 
 Wharton's Law Lexicon — Third Edition. 1864. A Law 
 
 Lexicon, or Dictionary of Jurispiudence ; explaining all the Technical Words and 
 Phrases employed in the several Departments of English Law : including also the 
 various Legal Terms used in Commercial Transactions, together with an ex- 
 planatory as well as Literal Translation of the Latin I\Laxims contained in tlio 
 Writings of til e Ancient and ]\Iodern Commentators. By J. J. S. WHAETON, 
 Esq., M.A., Oxon, Barrister-at-Law. Third Edition, gi-eatly enlarged and im- 
 proved. In 1 vol., royal 8vo. Price 40s. cloth. 
 
 Cooke on Inclosures. — Fourth Edition. 1864. The Acts 
 
 for Facilitating the Inclosure of Commons in England and Wales ; with a Treatise 
 on the Law of Eights of Commons in reference to these Acts, &c. With lAu-nis, as 
 settled by tlie Inclosure Commissioners. By G. WllS'GEOVE COOKE, Esq., 
 Barrister-at-Law. Fourth Edition. 12mo. Price IGs. cloth. 
 
 The Law of Contracts. — By John William Smith, Esq., 
 
 Author of " Leadin" Cases," "A Treatise on Mercantile Law," &c. P'ourth 
 Edition. By JOHN GEOEGE MALCOLM, Esq. , of the Inner Temple, Banister- 
 at-Law. Svo. 1865. Price 16».'clotli. 
 
 >r^ 
 
 m
 
 '^tX^ieUtyCi.^^ 
 
 /^t/iS^Wu. OM^^thA^
 
 THE PRACTICE 
 
 THE REFEEEES' COURTS, 
 
 IN SEQAKD TO 
 
 ENGINEERING DETAILS, EFFICIENCY OF WORKS, 
 
 AND ESTIMATES, 
 
 WATER AND GAS BILLS; 
 
 WtTS 
 
 % C^apte mx €Mm$ to €ompnmtxon. 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN SHIEESS WILL, Esq., 
 
 OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BARRISTER- fliT-LAW, 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 STEVENS AND SONS, 26, BELL YARD, 
 LINCOLN'S INN, 
 
 1866.
 
 
 PEIPTEI) BT C W. STIiVEKP, 
 ft, GBEAT QUEEN BTKEtT, LIKCOIU'S IKK FIELDS, V.C.
 
 TO 
 
 THOMSON HANKEY, ESQUIRE, M.P, 
 
 TO COLLECT ASH AERANGE THOSE PRINCIPLES 
 
 WHICH 
 HAVE GUIDED THE REFEREES IN THEIR IMPORTANT DUTIES, 
 
 AND WHICH, 
 IN THE DISTINGUISHED POSITION OF 
 
 QTtainnan oC one of t^t UtUxtt»' OTouvts, 
 
 HE HAS HAD 
 AN ACTITE PART IN ESTABLISHING, 
 
 Is 
 
 BY PERMISSION 
 
 T^ 
 
 \»\
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 Those concerned in the practice of the Beferees' Courts, 
 will, I trust, find this volume what it professes to be, 
 viz., a Book of Practice for Counsel, Agents, and. Engi- 
 neers, and a Compendium of the past decisions of the 
 Beferees. 
 
 The task of analysing the Beports of the Beferees to 
 the House, relating, as they do, to so many different 
 subjects, all of them of a technical nature, has been one 
 by no means unattended with difficulty ; while the com- 
 pilation of a Law Book, out of materials belonging 
 pecufiarly to the department of the Bailway Engineer, 
 involved, at least, some novelty. Under these circum- 
 stances, I am encouraged to hope that these pages, the 
 result of considerable labour, will meet with an in- 
 dulgent reception. 
 
 I am conscious of the fact, that a few of the cases
 
 VI PREFACE. 
 
 cited would have been much more readily understood 
 by the aid of the plans and sections deposited ; but 
 these plans and sections it was, of course, impossible for 
 me to reproduce. In the vast majority of cases, I trust 
 that I have succeeded in stating intelligibly the points 
 contested, and the decisions to wliicli the Referees came. 
 Cases previously decided are continually being cited 
 from recollection before the Referees ; and, if I have 
 introduced any that can only be imperfectly under- 
 stood without the plans and sections, it is because I feel 
 that it will be satisfactory, when such cases are so cited, 
 to know what it wa^ that the Referees really reported 
 
 « 
 
 concerning them. 
 
 It has been my endeavour to state the facts of each 
 case with fullness, and, as far as possible, in the Referees' 
 own words, so as to save reference to the Supplement to 
 the Votes of the House. 
 
 I have — not without much diffidence — to express a 
 hope that this Work may prove of some assistance to the 
 Engineer. It may assist him in anticipating and pro- 
 viding against the objections of opponents to the engi- 
 neering details and efficiency of the Line he is laying 
 out ; it may also enable him, through a familiarity 
 with the previously decided cases, to have clearly 
 before him, especially when under cross-examination, all 
 the various competent devices by which the Referees
 
 PEEFACE. VU 
 
 will allow particular engineering objections to be got 
 over. 
 
 By the addition of an Index of the Bills cited, and a 
 copious General Index, I trust that any utiHty tins 
 volume may otherwise possess, has been increased. 
 
 J. S. W. 
 
 4, Elm Court, Temple, 
 
 lat November, 1866.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Constitution and Practice of the Courts 
 
 SECT. 
 
 I. 
 
 II. 
 
 III. 
 
 Constitution and Jurisdiction of the Courts 
 Eules of Procedure .... 
 
 Right to Begin ..... 
 
 IV. Eights inter se of Petitioners to Begin 
 V. Coiu'se 01 the Enquiry, Report, &c. . 
 VI. Only one counsel heard on each side . 
 VII. Petitioners not allowed to go into Ohjections not speci- 
 fied in their Petition .... . . 
 
 VIII. Alterations and Modifications Avithin Limits of Devia- 
 tion ......... 
 
 1. May be proposed by Promoters and by Peti- 
 
 tioners within Limits of Deviation 
 
 2. Alteration in regard to Spans, Headway, &c., of 
 
 Bridges and Viaducts ... 
 
 3. Alteration proposed in regard to Docks . 
 
 4. Alteration of the position of Junctions . 
 
 5. Where a proposed alteration involves the ellect- 
 
 ing of a Junction not originally contemplated 
 
 6. Alternative Lines or Routes proposed by I'eti- 
 
 tioners ....... 
 
 7. More appropriate site ibr particular works 
 
 8. Diversion of a Street proposed by Petitioners . 
 
 9. Promoters proposing Viaduct instead of Embank- 
 
 ment ........ 
 
 10. Alterations to obviate objections to Gradients, 
 Curves, Crossings, &c. ..... 
 
 PAGE 
 
 1 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 7 
 9 
 
 11 
 12 
 12 
 
 U 
 15 
 16 
 
 20 
 
 21 
 23 
 
 24 
 
 24 
 25
 
 X ' CONTENTS. 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 11, One alteration proposed proving objectionable, 
 
 can Promoters suggest another . . .25 
 IX. Extent of Limits of Deviation and of Power of altering 
 
 Engineering Works 26 
 
 X. Competing Lines 30 
 
 XI. Favourable Report by Eeferees subject to a Eeference 
 
 to Engineers . . . . . . . .33 
 
 XIL Favourable Eeport subject to the Petitioners' consent 
 
 being obtained for the proposed works . . .34 
 XIII. Eeferees will not decide as to the Legality of existing 
 
 works ......... 35 
 
 XIV. Eeferees will not enquire into the Legality of Promoters' 
 
 claim to Ownership of Land, &c. . . . .35 
 
 XV. Objections in respect of works contemplated by Peti- 
 tioners .... ..... 36 
 
 XVI. Effect on the Bill of the Eeferees' Decision . . .37 
 
 1. Where Eeferees report that Estimate insufficient 37 
 
 2. Where the Eeferees report that works inefficient 
 
 • ■ • or Engineering defective . . . .39 
 
 Cases where the Eeferees report Junctions 
 
 to be impracticable or objectionable . 42 
 
 Back Shunts 42 
 
 Eeports against Facing Points on Main 
 
 Lines 43 
 
 Where Eefe*ees report that powers taken by 
 the Bill are insufficient for the construc- 
 tion of the proposed works . . .44 
 Adverse Eeport as to Interference with K'avi- 
 
 gation 45 
 
 XVII. Questions arising before Committee and referred to 
 
 Eeferees . .47 
 
 XVIII. Jurisdiction of Consent over whole subject-matter of 
 
 Bill 48
 
 CONTENTS. XI 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 INTERFERENCE OF PROPOSED LINE WITH THE PROPERTY, RIGHTS, ETC., 
 
 OP OTHER LINES, 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 I, Taking the Land of another Company ... 50 
 
 1. Taking Land intended for another Company's 
 
 Station ....... 50 
 
 2. Taking Land intended by another Company for 
 
 doubling tlieir Line -52 
 
 3. Taking Land intended for another Company's 
 
 Sidings ....... 55 
 
 4. Wliat if the Opponents have long neglected to 
 
 make use of the Land alleged to be required 
 by them for Stations, Doubling their Line, 
 Sidings, &c. 56 
 
 5. Taking Land which another Company are 
 
 authorised to take but have not yet taken . 57 
 
 6. What if the compulsory powers enabling the 
 
 opposing Company to take the land have ex- 
 pired 57 
 
 IL Interference with another Company's existing works . 58 
 L Extent to which Interference with another Com- 
 pany's existing sidings vail be allowed , . 58 
 2. Destroying Points constructed for turning trains 
 
 from Swinging Bridge Avhen opened . . GO 
 
 3. Crossing another Company's Line on the level . 61 
 
 4. Interference with the Station arrangements and 
 
 Approaches of another Company . . .64 
 
 5. Interference with the Arch of another Company 6Q 
 G. When the Promoters' powers of deviation will 
 
 be restricted . . . . . . .67 
 
 III. Miscellaneous instances of Interference with other Lines 68 
 L Objection that Promoters' trains Avill have to 
 
 stand on Petitioners' Main Line . . .68 
 
 2. Destroying Points at Junctions ... 69 
 
 3. Doing that which will entail expense on another 
 
 Company without countervailing advantage . 69 
 
 4. Passing under Petitioners' Line in such a way as 
 
 to prevent their lowering same ... 70
 
 XU CONTENTS. 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 5. Doing that which will prevent another Com- 
 
 pany from vising a line over which they have 
 Kunning Powers ...... 70 
 
 6. Gutting oflf communication between Petitioners' 
 
 line and a Quay the traffic of which it ac- 
 commodates . . , . . . .71 
 
 7. Imperilling another Company's line through 
 
 danger arising from Slips, &c. . . .71 
 IV. What if the Interference complained of results from 
 the Petitioners having altered the condition of their 
 Line, &c., subsequently to deposit of plans . . 72 
 V. Interference with a Eailway authorised but not yet 
 constructed, or with a proposed Line not yet autho- 
 rised 74 
 
 VI. Headway and Span of Bridges ove)' other Lines — Dis- 
 turbing Gradients of other Lines by such Bridges . 77 
 VII. Headway of Bridges under other Lines — Disturbing 
 
 Gradients of other Lines by such bridges . . 80 
 
 VIII. Obstruction to view of Signals at Junctions and at 
 
 Stations, and to view of Line, &c. .... 82 
 
 CIJAPTER III. 
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH CANALS. 
 
 I. Interference with Land of Canal Company ... 87 
 II. Proposed Line rimning for 5 miles beside Canal and 
 for 2 miles of that distance below level of same 
 
 III. Interference with passage of Vessels to Canal 
 
 IV. Interference with Tomng Paths .... 
 V. Headway and Span of Bridges over Canals . 
 
 VI. Tunnels under Canals 
 
 88 
 89 
 89 
 90 
 91
 
 CONTENTS. XUl 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH THE PROPERTY OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND 
 
 PRIVATE COMPANIES. INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVATE RAILWAYS AND 
 
 TRAMWAYS. 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 I. Interference vnth. the property of private individuals 
 
 and private Companies 92 
 
 II. Interference -wdth private Lines, Tramways, Sidings, &c. 96 
 
 1. Follows same general rule as Interference with 
 
 other private property 9G 
 
 2. Unnecessary or avoidable Interference with pri- 
 
 vate Lines, &c. 98 
 
 3. What if the private Sidings interfered with are 
 
 on Promoters' own Land . . . .100 
 
 4. Crossing private Luies on the level . . .100 
 
 5. Headway, Span, "Width, &c,, of Bridges over 
 
 and under private Lines . . . .101 
 
 III. Accommodation Works 102 
 
 IV. Endangering Gunpowder IMills through proximity of 
 
 proposed Line 104 
 
 V, Interference with the Drainage of a District. — Danger 
 to district from floods through insufficient waterway 
 over River 105 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 JUNCTIONS. 
 
 I. Provisions of the General Act, 1863 . . .107 
 
 II. Junctions on irrcconciloable Gradients . . . 108 
 
 III. Junctions on steep Gradients and sharp Curves. — No 
 
 intervening level space for standage, &c. . .111 
 
 IV. In what exceptional cases Jimctions on steep gradients 
 
 and sharp curves are usually alloAved . . .118 
 1. Where the Junction is with a Line of the Pro- 
 moters own, or Avorked by theui, or where the 
 proposed Line will be worked by the Line to 
 be joined 118
 
 XIV CONTENTS. 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 2. Where the Signals at the point of Junction 
 
 will be in the hands of the Company to be 
 joined ........ 120 
 
 3. Where trains already have to slow at the pro- 
 
 posed point of Junction . . . .121 
 
 4. Where the Lines are entirely mineral . .123 
 v. Multiplicity of Junctions in one place . . .123 
 
 VI. Junctions impracticable because the two Lines not on 
 
 same level at point of Junction .... 125 
 
 YII. Jimctions with crowded Main Lines, or Crossing same 
 
 on level 126 
 
 1. These are in general objecticQiable . . .126 
 
 2. But not objectionable when with Promoters own 
 
 Line . . . ..... 128 
 
 3. Not objectionable where the Signals will be 
 
 entirely under the control of the Line to be 
 joined ........ 130 
 
 VIII. Jimction in a tunnel sanctioned . . . . . 130 
 
 IX. Junction of proposed narrow gauge Line with a broad 
 
 gauge Line and vice versd . . , . .131 
 
 X. Back Shunts when objectionable . . . .133 
 
 XI. When objections to Junctions may be obviated by the 
 
 construction of Blind Sidings . . . . .135 
 
 XII. Facing Points . , 136 
 
 1. Pacing Points on Main Lines objectionable . 136 
 
 2. Cases where Pacing Points allowed, Speed of 
 
 Trains being slow, or Junction being on the 
 level 140 
 
 3. Two sets of Facing Points on a single Line 
 
 " highly objectionable " . . . .141 
 
 XIII. Objection that according to Plans no physical Jimction 
 
 effected 142
 
 CONTENTS. XV 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 STEEP GRADIENTS AND SHARP CURVES. — UNUSUAL DIFFICULTIES IN 
 
 CONSTRUCTION OF LINE. 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 I. Engineering rules in regard to Curves and Gradients . 143 
 II. Objections to Steepness of Gradients and Sharpness of 
 
 Curves . 146 
 
 III. Lines of extraordinary Difficulty in Construction. Diffi- 
 
 cult Country, &c .150 
 
 IV. Station on or near to steep Gradients . . . .156 
 V. Objection that Line will bo below level of adjacent 
 
 Eiver, Canal, &c. . . . . . . .158 
 
 VI. Gradients at Level Crossings over Eoads and Streets . 159 
 
 CHAPTER VIL 
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH ROADS AND STREETS. — BRIDGES UNDER AND OVER 
 SAME. -= ALTERATION OF INCLINATIONS, ETC. 
 
 I. Crossing Roads and Streets on the level . . .160 
 
 1. Provisions of the General Acts on this subject 160 
 
 2. Crossing Roads on the level .... 162 
 
 3. Crossing Streets on the level .... 165 
 
 4. Level Crossings over Roads and Streets allowed 
 
 where near Stations . . . . .168 
 
 II. Altering Inclinations of Roads and Streets . . .169 
 
 1. Provisions of the General Act. , . .169 
 
 2. Instances where powers .sought in Bill to alter 
 
 Inclinations of Roads and Streets . .170 
 
 3. Instance where promoters omitted to seek powers 
 
 in r>ill tn alti'f Inclinations of Roads and 
 Streets . . . . . . .171 
 
 III. Headway, Span, Widtli, e^'c, of Bridges under and 
 
 over Roads and Streets . . . . . .173 
 
 IV. Screens for Turnpike Roads 177 
 
 V. Lowering Road l)elow level of adjacent Stream . . 179
 
 XVI CONTENTS. 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 VI. Kailway proposing to occu]3y site of Road . . .180 
 VII. Shutting i;p Streets. — Providing new Street in place 
 
 thereof ......... 180 
 
 VIII. Interference with Gas, Water and Drainage pipes . 184 
 IX. Laying a Tramway in a narrow Street . . .185 
 
 X. Swing Bridges in crowded thoroughfares . . .186 
 XI. Improvement Bill. — Width of a proposed new Street 
 
 in the Metropolis . 187 
 
 XII. Proposed Station 120 feet below Street . . . 187 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Tidal and Navigable Waters. — Works in, on and over the 
 SAME. — Obstruction to Navigation. — Reclamation Bills. 
 
 I. Bridges or Viaducts over Tidal or Navigable Waters 
 II. Embankments across or along Tidal Waters 
 
 III. Tunnels under Rivers, Tidal Waters, and Canals . 
 
 IV. Sinking Cylinders in navigable River to form Subway 
 V. Interference with Anchorage Ground . 
 
 VI. Possible siltmg up of Sand, &c. .... 
 VII. Proposed Docks or Pier interfering with Navigation 
 VIII. Provisions of GenerSl Act of 1863, as to works in or 
 across Tidal Waters, &c. .... 
 
 IX. Proposed Reclamation of Tidal Lands . 
 
 189 
 196 
 197 
 199 
 200 
 200 
 202 
 
 203 
 206 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Powers taken by the Bill insufficient for the Construction op 
 
 the Proposed -Works. 
 
 I, No provision for Stations, Sidings, Standage, &c. . 208 
 
 II. No physical Junction effected with another Line which 
 
 it is intended to join . , . . , .211 
 
 III. No powers taken to alter or affect Gradients of Roads 
 
 and Streets . 212
 
 COXTENTS. Xvii 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 rV. Objection that no Eimning Powers taken over another 
 Line, in order to connect proiDosed Line ■\vith some 
 other Line intended to be joined .... 212 
 V. "Where construction of proposed works contingent on 
 construction of some other works before Parliament 
 and not yet sanctioned . , . . . ,214 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Tunnels, 
 
 I. Ventilation, Gradients, Headway, Drainage, &c., of 
 
 Tunnels ........ 215 
 
 II. Alleged dangerous proximity of two Tunnels . .217 
 
 III. Jimctions in Tunnels . . . . . . .217 
 
 IV. Tunnels close to Junctions or to Stations preventing 
 
 view of Signals . 218 
 
 V. Tunnels under navigable liivers and Tidal Waters . 218 
 
 VI. Subway \mder Thames formed by sunk Cylinders . 219 
 
 VII, Tunnel under Canal 219 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 Dock Bills, 
 
 Taking water from the same source as another Dock Company — 
 
 Alleged deprivation of supply , 220 
 
 Construction of Dock narrowing Waterway and increasing 
 Velocity of Current .... .... 220 
 
 Interference Avith Anchorage Groimd 220 
 
 Taking private Tramways, no objection in an" engineering point 
 of view .......... 220 
 
 Causing silting up and conscrpient injury to Channel, &c. . 220 
 
 Pier obstructing and diverting set of Tide . . . ,221 
 Docks as designed reported inefficient . . . . .221 
 
 b
 
 XVm CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 Dock Company seeking powers to supply Shipping witli Water 221 
 Landing Passengers and goods by means of a Pontoon . . 222 
 Lock at entrance to Dock too small ...... 222 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 ESTIMATES. — OBJECTIONS IN RESPECT TO PRICES AND QUANTITIES. 
 SECT. 
 
 I. Importance of Accuracy in Estimates, Form, &c. . 223 
 
 II. Objection that Quantities understated .... 225 
 
 III. Junctions, Signals, Sidings, &c., not provided for in 
 
 Estimate 225 
 
 IV. Objection that no provision for Stations, answered by 
 
 fact that line for mineral purposes . . . .226 
 V. No provision for deposit of surplus Cutting . . .227 
 VI. Cases where promoters calculated on getting rubbish 
 
 gratuitously for Earthwork 227 
 
 VII. Insufficiency of Estimate for Tunnel under Eiver . 228 
 VIII. No provision for expense of Dredging in order to con- 
 struct Harbour of Eefuge 229 
 
 IX. Foreshore. — Promoters assuming same to belong to 
 
 them and including no sum for same in Estimate . 229 
 X. Larger and more expensive works to be constructed than 
 shown on Plans, but Estimate originally prepared for 
 such larger works . . . . . . .230 
 
 XL Different material to be used from that contemplated 
 
 in Estimate ...... . . 231 
 
 XII. Eock Cuttings. — Vague and unsatisfactory evidence as 
 
 to same. — Estimate reported insufficient . . . 231 
 
 XIII. Taking scheme as a whole Estimate sufficient, though 
 
 Estimate for particular portions of works insufficient 232 
 
 XIV. Plea that portion of Line provided for by another Bill 
 
 before Parliament and by a separate Estimate . . 234 
 XV. Wliether necessary to deposit Estimate for the expense 
 of laying down an additional Line upon an existing 
 EaUway ......... 236 
 
 XVI. How Estimate, as deposited, dealt with where portion 
 
 of proposed works abandoned ..... 236
 
 CONTENTS. XIX 
 
 SECT, PAGE 
 
 XVII. Evidence. — Price paid for Land in the district by other 
 
 Companies proved . . . . . . .238 
 
 XVIII. Evidence. — Price paid for similar work in neighbour- 
 hood proved ........ 238 
 
 XIX. Evidence. — Inclination of Slopes of Embankments of 
 
 neighbouring Eailways on similar soil proved . .239 
 XX. Estimate reported sufficient for works proposed, but 
 insufficient if Board of Trade should order Viaduct 
 
 instead of soUd Embankment 239 
 
 XXI. Estimates reported sufficient " with economy" . .240 
 XXII. Expense of substituting other Roads for those to be 
 
 interfered wdth 240 
 
 XXIII. Expense of providing other Gas and "Water Pipes before 
 
 interfering with existing Pipes . . . .241 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Estimates. — Objections in respect op the omission or under — 
 
 ESTIMATE OP ClAIMS OP COMPENSATION. 
 
 I. Estimate insufficient, looking to amount of compensa- 
 tion claimable . . . . . . .242 
 
 II. Where private property interfered with, Petitioners 
 should attack Estimates rather than Engineering 
 Details 243 
 
 III. Value of Property in Towns. — Contingent and remote 
 
 injury 245 
 
 IV. What if the Land has increased in value since Estimate 
 
 made 248 
 
 V. What if no actual Valuation of Land, &c., made for 
 
 Estimate . . ...... 249 
 
 VI. Value of Land on which another Company have par- 
 tially constructed works 249 
 
 VII. When Promoters taking part of House, Manufactory, 
 
 &c., may bo required to take whole .... 250 
 VIII. Estimate need not provide for remote contingencies in 
 
 the construction of works 252
 
 XX CONTENTS. 
 
 SECT. PAGE 
 
 IX. When Promoters may l)e required to take whole of 
 
 intersected Lands , , . . . . .253 
 
 X. Compensation for the temporary use of Land, Eoads, &c. 254 
 
 XL Accommodation Works . . . . . .255 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 Estimates. — For what Compensation is claimable. 
 
 I. Tlie subject generally 256 
 
 II. Compensation consequent on Interference with Roads 
 
 and Streets ........ 257 
 
 III, Compensation consequent on Interference with Water 262 
 
 IV. Compensation in respect of Vibration, Noise, &c. . 265 
 V. Compensation for Danger to Cotton Mill through proxi- 
 mity of Railway ....... 267 
 
 VI. In what cases Company taking part of House, Manu- 
 factory, &c., can be compelled to take whole . . 267 
 VII. Whether a Company tunnelling under may be com- 
 pelled to take the whole Land and Buildings on the 
 
 surface 271 
 
 VIII. Compensation in respect of Minerals under Line . 273 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 Waterworks Bills. 
 
 I. Standing Order 92, and its construction quoad Jioc . 274 
 II. Objections by Millowners and Individuals about to be 
 
 deprived of tlieu' supply 276 
 
 III. Objections to the amount of proposed supply, provi- 
 
 sions for storage, &c. ...... 283 
 
 IV. Objections to quality of proposed supply . . . 286 
 V. Objections in reference to Pressure .... 288 
 
 VI. Objection that preferable supply might be obtained 
 
 from other sources . . . . . . .289
 
 CONTENTS. XXI 
 
 SECT PAGE 
 
 VII. Estimate insufficient looking to amount of Money 
 
 Compensation claimable by Millowners, &c. . .290 
 
 VIII. Efiect of Adverse Eeport by Keferees . . ,291 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 Gas Bills. 
 
 I. Standing Order 93, and its construction quoad hoc . 292 
 II. Gas Bills in past Sessions ...... 294 
 
 III, Cases in which all questions in Gas Bills have been 
 
 referred to the Eeferees . , . . , .298 
 
 Index op Bills Cited 229 
 
 General Index 307
 
 EXPLANATION OF REFERENCES. 
 
 The reference "1865, 293," means the 293rd page of the Supple- 
 ment to the Votes of the House of Commons for Session 1865 (where 
 the Eeferees' Reports are printed); and, in like manner, the figures 
 "1866, 115 " are intended to indicate the 115th page of the Supple- 
 ment for the year 1866. 
 
 The letters " S. & G." denote the published Reports of Messrs, 
 Stone and Gkaham,
 
 THE 
 
 PEACTICE OF THE REFEREES' COURTS 
 
 IN REGARD TO 
 
 ENGIKEERIXG DETAILS, ESTIMATES, &c. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 CONSTITUTION AND PRACTICE OF THE COURTS. 
 
 Sect. I. 
 
 CONSTITUTION AND JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS. 
 
 The Courts of Referees were first constituted by the 
 
 Standing Orders of the House of Commons for 1865. 
 
 By Standing Order, No. 90, for 1867, it is provided : — Provisions of 
 
 Standing 
 
 (1) " That tlie Chairman of Ways and Means, with not 2l'H: , 
 
 ^ ■' 1 1 11 1 -1 The Members 
 
 less than three other persons, who shall he apponited hy of the Courts. 
 
 Mr. Speaker for such period as he shall think fit, shall be 
 
 Referees of tlie House on Private Bills ; 
 
 (2) " That such Referees are to form one or more courts ; Number of 
 
 C3) " That three, at least, are to be required to consti- ^'**"''^'*- 
 , ^ , J. Number of 
 
 tute each court ; Refcreca to 
 
 " (4) Provided that the Chairman of any second court form a Court. 
 
 shall be a Member of the House ; Chairman of 
 
 • 111 1-nf -^.1 secoua Court. 
 
 " (5) And provided that no such Keieree, it he be a 
 
 Member of the House, shall receive any salary." 
 
 y
 
 JURISDICTION. 
 
 Jurisdiction 
 of Eeferees 
 defined. 
 
 Questions of 
 locus standi. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the Referees, in reference to questions 
 of engineering and estimates, is, at present, defined by the 
 Standing Order, No. 92, for 1867, which is as follows : — 
 
 " The Eeferees shall inquire into all or any of the fol- 
 lowing matters as to which parties petitioning against 
 any Bill pray to he heard in opposition, viz. : — 
 
 (1) "In the case of Bills for authorising the con- 
 struction of works, the engineering details of the under- 
 taking, the efficiency of the works for the proposed 
 object, and the sufficiency of the estimate for executing 
 the same. 
 
 (2) " In the case of "Waterworks Bills, the nature and 
 amount of the existing and the proposed source of supply, 
 as to pressure and proposed mode of service, the quality 
 of the water in each case, and the provisions as to storage 
 reservoirs. 
 
 (3) " In the case of Gas Bills, the quality of the gas, 
 the existing supply and its price, the amount of pressure, 
 the cost of production, and the modes of testing the 
 purity and illuminating power of the gas, and the pro- 
 posed maximum price to be charged." 
 
 By Standing Order, No. 93, it is provided that questions 
 as to the locus standi of petitioners are to be decided by 
 the Referees ; and, by an arrangement among the Referees, 
 the Chairman of Ways and Means presides in a Court of 
 Referees exclusively for the consideration of such questions. 
 
 This branch of the Referees' jurisdiction, however, does 
 not lie within the scope of the present treatise.
 
 RULES OF PROCEDURE. 
 
 Sect. II. 
 
 RULES OF procedure. 
 
 Standing Order, No. 91, provides that : — . Provisions of 
 
 Standing 
 
 (1) " The practice and procedure of the Referees, their Order 91. 
 
 times of sitting, order of business, and forms and notices Chairman of 
 required in their proceedings, shall be prescribed by jieans^'o 
 rules, to be framed by the Chairman of Ways and frame rules. 
 Means ; 
 
 (2) " Subject, however, to alteration by him as occa- 
 sion may requu-e ; 
 
 (3) " But only one counsel shall appear before such Only one 
 Referees in support of a Private Bill, or in support of any ^^T's d""^ 
 petition in opposition thereto, unless specially authorised 
 
 by the Referees. 
 
 (4) " And all such rules and alterations, when made, 
 are to be laid on the table of the House." 
 
 In exercise of the power thus delegated to bim, the 
 Chairman of Ways and Means has prescribed the fol- 
 lowing 
 
 " Rules for the practice and procedure of the Referees. Rules issued, 
 
 (1) " Parties petitioning agaiust Private Bills, in re- 
 spect of any of the following matters, and who desire to 
 be heard in opposition by their counsel or agents thereon, 
 
 viz., 
 
 " In the case of Bills of the second class, for autho- 
 rising the construction of works, the engineering 
 details of the undertaking, the efficiency of the 
 works for the proposed object, and the sufficiency of 
 the estimates for executing the same. 
 
 " In the case of "Waterworks Bills, the nature and 
 amount of the existing and proposed sources of 
 supply, the pressure and proposed mode of service, 
 the quality of the water in each case, and the pro- 
 visions as to storage rcsen'oirs. 
 
 " In tbe case of Gas Bills, the (jualit}- of the gas, 
 B 2
 
 4 
 
 RULES OF PROCEDURE. 
 
 Applications 
 for Hearin.^ 
 before Referees 
 may be with- 
 drawn. 
 
 How that is to 
 be done. 
 
 Notice of 
 hearing to be 
 given through 
 Private Bill 
 Office. 
 
 Order in 
 ■which cases 
 shall be taken. 
 
 Certificate of 
 appearance 
 to be pro- 
 duced. 
 
 Hours of 
 meeting of 
 Referees. 
 
 Mode of 
 voting by 
 Referees. 
 
 existing supply and its price, the amount of pressure, 
 tlie cost of production, the modes of testing the 
 purity and illuminating power of the gas, and the 
 proposed maximum price to be charged, 
 shall endorse upon their petitions, previously to depositing 
 the same in the Private Bill Office, a statement of the 
 grounds (being some one or more of the grounds speci- 
 fied above) on which they desire to be so heard ; but it 
 shall be competent to the Referees, if satisfied that the 
 omission to make such indorsement in any case occurred 
 through inadvertence or unavoidable cause, to admit the 
 petitioners to be heard before them, upon such conditions 
 as they may think fit. 
 
 (2) " Parties who have indorsed their petitions in 
 manner above mentioned, may, at any time, withdraw 
 their opposition to a Bill, so far as relates to the grounds 
 specified in such indorsement, by depositing a requisition 
 to that effect in the Private Bill Office. 
 
 (3) " The Clerk to the Referees shall give not less than 
 two clear days' notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill 
 Office, of the day on which the case of each Bill is appointed 
 to be taken by the Referees. 
 
 (4) "The cases shall be heard in su^li order as the 
 Chairman of Ways and Means shall appoint, and accord- 
 ing to a list prepared under his direction, and kept in the 
 office of the Clerk to the Referees. 
 
 (5) " "When a Bill is called on for consideration, the 
 agents for the petitioners against the same, shall be re- 
 quired to produce a certificate of appearance from the 
 Private Bill Office, in which shall be stated the names of 
 the petitioners, their counsel, and agents. 
 
 (6) " The sittings of the Referees shall commence at 
 eleven o'clock in the forenoon, or at such other hour as 
 may have been specially fixed by adjournment at a pre- 
 vious sitting. 
 
 (7) " All questions before the Referees shall be decided 
 by a majority of voices, including the voice of the 
 chairman, and, whenever the voices are equal, the chair- 
 man shall have a second or casting vote." («) 
 
 (a) There are also three additional rules, viz., Nos. 8, 9, and 10, which 
 have reference to the hcvs standi of petitioners.
 
 RIGHT TO BEGIN. 5 
 
 Sect. III. 
 
 RIGHT TO BEGIN. 
 
 According to the rule of these Courts the opponents' Right to 
 counsel begins ; and this rule applies to all Bills, whether ^^^^' 
 Railway Bills, Waterworks Bills, or Gas Bills. 
 
 Before the Select Committee which was appointed in Opinions as to 
 1865, to inquire into the operation of the Courts of Referees, ^'^ '^^ ^' 
 a diversity of opinion was expressed as to the expediency 
 of this general rule ; and it was urged by some that, in 
 Water and Gas Bills particularly, the matters for inves- • 
 
 ligation are peculiarly, and in many cases exclusively, 
 within the knowledge of the promoters ; that in Water 
 Bills, for instance, the promoters are better able to give 
 detailed information concerning the proposed source of 
 supply, the quality of the water, and the proposed provisions 
 for storage reservoirs than the opponents ; and that in 
 Gas Bills such matters as the amount of pressure and the 
 cost of production are exclusively within the knowledge of 
 the promoters. In the case of the Bath Gas Bill, 1865 Refusal to 
 (see evidence before Select Committee, Q. 352), the oppo- the rule. 
 nents of the Bill urged reasons similar to the foregoing 
 before the Referees ; but the Court declined to excuse the 
 opponents from beginning. 
 
 Any hardship likely in exceptional cases to arise from 
 the rule which the Referees have laid down is greatly di- But pro- 
 
 minished l)y the opponents being able to call the promoters' "lot^crs" cngi- 
 "^ . . " . ncor may be 
 
 engineer as their first witness, and to examine, or rather called at 
 
 cross-examine him on all the points which they think it "" ***"' " 
 
 expedient to raise, and for which the allegations in their 
 
 petition form a sufficient basis. Where the promoters' 
 
 engineer keeps out of the way, so as to avoid being called at speater'H 
 
 the outset by the opponents, a Speaker's Order will be Order lor his 
 
 granted for his attendance. (Sec evidence before Select 
 
 Committee, Q. 1333.) ExceptionH to 
 
 Cases have arisen, however, where the Referees have * ^ '^" ^'
 
 6 
 
 RIGHT TO BEGIN. 
 
 Severn Bridge 
 of 24 milps. 
 
 Forth Bridge 
 of 2 miles. 
 
 But where 
 tunnel of 
 4278 yards 
 under river, 
 the general 
 rule adhered 
 to. 
 
 allowed a departure from the rule above stated. In the 
 South Wales and Great Western Direct Raihvay Bill 
 (1 Stone & Graham, 8), the promoters proposed to cross the 
 Severn by a bridge about 2^ miles in length ; and an appli- 
 cation was made to the Court on behalf of the petitioners, 
 that the promoters' case should be heard first, as the 
 sufficiency of the estimates for the bridge, which was the 
 main feature of the line, would be questioned ; and it was 
 impossible for the petitioners to go into that till they had 
 more information than was given by the deposited plans. 
 The Chainnan stated that, " under the exceptional cir- 
 cumstances of this case, the bridge promoters would begin. 
 . . . . The viaduct formed an essential part of the 
 scheme ; but this was an exceptional case, and that was the 
 reason why the general practice was departed from. The 
 promoters would be heard first on their whole case." 
 
 Soon after the Forth Bridge Bill (1 S. & G. 9), came be- 
 fore the Referees. The proposed railway would cross the Frith 
 of Forth by a viaduct of 2 miles in length. The estimates 
 were challenged, and an application was made on behalf 
 of the petitioners, that the promoters' case might be taken 
 first, on the ground that the deposited plans only gave the 
 number of arches and the span of each ; but gave no infor- 
 mation as to the nature of the works, or the materials to 
 be used, or indeed any information on which the petitioners 
 could attack the estimates. The Referees, following their 
 decision in the last-mentioned case, required the promoters 
 to begin. 
 
 On the other hand, in the Birhenhead and Liverpool 
 Railway Bill (1 S. & G. 12), by which it was proposed to 
 construct under the Mersey a tunnel, of which 4,278 yards 
 would be under the high water mark of the river, and 
 there were only 15 feet of space from the rails to the 
 crown of the tunnel, a motion was made that the pro- 
 moters should be called upon to begin, and explain how 
 they proposed to construct works of so unusual an extent, 
 as the deposited plans did not show how that was to be 
 done. The Court in this case declined to depart from their 
 usual practice, and called on the petitioners to begin.
 
 COURSE OF THE ENQUIRY. 
 
 Sec. IV. 
 
 RIGHTS INTER SE OF PETITIONERS TO BEGIN. 
 
 In the Bute Docks, Cardiff, {No. 1) Bill (1 S. & G. 13), 
 four separate petitions had been presented against the Bill ; 
 and the question of right to begin arose as between the 
 several petitioners. It was stated from the bar that the 
 rule had always been that where there were several peti- 
 tions against a Bill, the senior counsel attending should be 
 heard first ; but the Referees decided to take the petitions Order in 
 in the order in which they were deposited in the Private lfoJ,f V^po." 
 Bill Office ; subject, however, to any special arrangement sited. 
 between counsel. This rule has since invariably obtained. 
 
 Sect. V. 
 
 COURSE OF THE ENQUIRY, REFEREES' REPORT, ETC. 
 
 The course of the enquiry before the Referees is as Conduct of 
 follows :— The counsel for the opponents, having the right *''*^ enquiry, 
 to begin, states the case of the opponents, and it has be- 
 come usual for him thereafter to call the promoters' engi- 
 neer to afford such explanations, concerning engineering 
 details and the efficiency of the works contemplated, or 
 the data on which the deposited estimate has been made 
 up, as the opponents may desire. This witness is then 
 cross-examined by the counsel for the promoters, but 
 usually only on such matters as he has been examined 
 upon, the promoters having the right to call him afresli in 
 the com-se of their own case. Thereafter, the opponents' 
 own witnesses, to substantiate their objections to the works 
 or estimates, are called and are cross-examined in the usual
 
 8 
 
 COURSE OF THE ENQUIRY. 
 
 Referees to 
 report to 
 House, 
 
 stating the 
 facts. 
 
 Report to 
 stand referred 
 to Select 
 Committee. 
 Tlieir decision 
 final. 
 
 way. On the case of the opposition being closed, the 
 counsel for the promoters states their case (or he may 
 reserve his speech until the close of his evidence), recalls, 
 where necessary, their engineer (to explain in detail matters 
 in regard to which he has not already spoken), and calls 
 any further evidence for the promoters ; he has no right 
 to sum up, except where he has waived his opening address. 
 The counsel for the opponents has a right to reply. 
 
 In the Maryport Imjorovement Harbour and Dock 
 Bill, 1866, (14 Law Times, 83), before the Referees on 
 the question of locus standi, the petitioners adduced 
 evidence, and at the close of the same the petitioners' 
 counsel proposed to sum up the evidence. It was observed 
 by the Referees : — " You can only be allowed to make a 
 simple statement of the propositions on which you rely. 
 No comment or anything in the nature of a speech, can be 
 allowed," 
 
 By Standing Order 95 it is provided : — 
 
 (1) " So soon as the inquiry into the matters re- 
 ferred to'rthem upon any^hill has-been completed, the 
 Referees shall make their report upon the same to the 
 House, stating the facts upon which their opinion is 
 founded ; 
 
 (2) " And the report shall thereupon stand referred to 
 the Select Committee on the Bill. 
 
 (3) " No further , evidence^' shall be taken by the 
 committee upon any of the matters reported upon by the 
 Referees." 
 
 Report when 
 made. 
 
 The Referees do not, as a rule, announce their decision 
 in Court at the close of the enquiry. The terms of their 
 decision are learnt only when the report, to the House is 
 made, which is usually two or three days after the enquiry. 
 
 The effect of the Referees' decision on the future conduct 
 of the Bill, is hereafter considered. (Sect. 16.)
 
 ONE COUNSEL ON EACH SIDE. 
 
 Sect. VI. 
 
 ONLY ONE COUNSEL HEARD ON EACH SIDE. 
 
 According to Standing Order, No. 91, " Only one coun- One counsel 
 sel shall appear before such Referees in support of a Private ^^ ^ 
 Bill, or in support of any petition in opposition thereto, 
 unless specially authorised by the Referees." In the first 
 session of their institution, the Referees did not possess the 
 discretionary power since given to them by the words 
 italicised. They, in consequence, considered the Standing 
 Order as imperative in reference to the number of counsel ; 
 and refused to sanction any departure from it. 
 
 In the Forth Bridge Bill (1 S. & G. 10), the whole case 
 being about to be inquired into by the Referees under 
 Standing Order, 94, the counsel for the promoters applied 
 to the Court to lend him their assistance in an application 
 to the House, to modify the Standing Order allowing only 
 one counsel to appear, as this was a case of such magnitude 
 that it was impossible for one counsel to conduct it pro- 
 perly. The Chairman intimated that the Referees consi- 
 dered that they were acting under the orders of the House, 
 and that it was not for them to make any application to 
 alter the Standing Orders. 
 
 A similar application was made to the Referees with a 
 like result, in the case of the Severn Bridge {The South 
 Wales and Great Western Direct Railway Bill). (See 
 evidence before Select Committee, Q. 53.) 
 
 As to the expediency of so restricting the number of 
 
 counsel, conflicting opinions were expressed before the 
 
 Select Conmiittce ; who, in their report, said, "Theregu- Recommcmlar 
 
 lation which confines the number of counsel to one in each ^'°^ "^Z,'"-' 
 
 Select Com- 
 
 case, is much complained of by some, while it is spoken of mittec as to 
 by others as a great improvement. It is alleged, that a 
 barrister is at times over-tasked by having to deal with 
 many opponents, each defended by counsel ; but, on the
 
 10 
 
 ONE COUNSEL ON EACH SIDE. 
 
 Keferees have 
 now power to 
 allow several 
 counsel. 
 
 More than 
 one counsel 
 may, however, 
 be present. 
 
 Leaving 
 counsel's name 
 blank in 
 appearance 
 paper. 
 
 other hand, it was represented to the Committee, that 
 great advantage had been derived from the continued 
 attention of the same counsel to the whole of the case 
 before the Referees/ On the whole, your Committee recom- 
 mend, that if the Court of Referees should be continued 
 as it is, the present rule should stand, but that it should be 
 open to parties to apply to the Court for permission to 
 appear by more than one counsel." 
 
 In accordance with this recommendation, the proviso 
 "unless specially authorised by the Referees," has been 
 added to the Standing Order ; so that the Referees have 
 now the power of sanctioning the attendance of any num- 
 ber of counsel on either side. 
 
 In the Maryport Improvement Harbour and Dock 
 Bill (27th Feb. 1866, 14 Law Times, 83), an application 
 was made to the Referees on locus standi, for leave, under 
 the Standing Order, for more than one counsel to appear 
 on behalf of the petitioners. It was urged that the under- 
 taking had been before Committee in a previous session, 
 and that the petitioners were anxious to be represented by 
 the same counsel, as being peculiax'ly conversant with the 
 details of the scheme ; and it was stated, that the cause 
 was a heavy one, and the assistance of a junior counsel was 
 desirable. The Referees ruled that there were no special 
 grounds to induce them to depart from the ordinary rule. 
 
 But even in the event of the Referees declining to autho- 
 rise the attendance of more than one counsel a side, there 
 is nothing to prevent either party from having as many 
 counsel present as they please, as in the Bath Gas Bill, 
 where three counsel attended on behalf of the Bath 
 Corporation, who opposed, although the leading counsel 
 only was heard to address the Court and examine and 
 cross-examine the witnesses, (a) 
 
 It has also been a not unfrequent practice for parties to 
 
 (a) The leading counsel for the Corporation, in his evidence before the 
 Select Committee on the Referees, said, " When the appearance paper was 
 taken up, the Eeferees said that they could not recognise more than one 
 counsel, but that they could not preclude others from being in the room, 
 and ofiering me assistance." (Report of Select Committee, Q. 253.)
 
 PETITIOXERS RESTRICTED TO OBJECTIONS SPECIFIED. 11 
 
 retain two counsel, so as to secure the attendance of one, 
 entering the appearance in blank, and filling in the 
 counsel's name when the case is called on. {Evidence he- 
 fore Select Com. Q. 455.) 
 
 Sect. VII. 
 
 PETITIONERS NOT ALLOWED TO GO INTO OBJECTIONS NOT 
 SPECIFIED IN THEIR PETITION. 
 
 The petitioners will be restricted from travelling beyond Petitioners 
 
 the allegations in their petition. Thus, the petitioners will ^o^^^f.^^ *«. 
 ° , ^ ' r allegations in 
 
 not be allowed to go into evidence in regard to the defects petition. 
 of a proposed junction, or of any other portion of the works 
 proposed, if the objection thereto has not been stated in 
 the petition. 
 
 Nor i.s it sufficient to state vaguely the petitioners' objec- Vagueness of 
 tion in the petition ; some specific issue must be raised. objections. 
 
 It is not enough for a petitioner to allege generally that Allegation 
 a proposed line is "ill- contrived," because no distinct engi- IJVJf '^°° 
 
 . -^ . o " iii-con- 
 
 neermg issue, capable of being met by the promoters, is tiived " insuffi- 
 thereby raised. In the Barnet, Henclon, Hampstead, and ^^^^^' 
 London Railivay Bill (1 S. & G. 117), the petitioners' alle- 
 gation was as follows : — " The proposed railways are ill- 
 contrived for the purposes they profess to effect, and your 
 petitioners complain of the said junctions with the Great 
 Northern Kailway, not only on account of the interference 
 with their property, but also because they are ill-selected, 
 and will interfere with the safe and efficient management 
 of the traffic of the Great Northern Railway." The Referees 
 here held that an issue as to the engineering details of the 
 undertaking was not sufficiently raised by the words of the 
 petition — the petition did not say that the junctions were 
 bad in an engineering sense, and it was consistent Avitli the 
 petition that all the petitioners complained of was the 
 injudicious direction and course of the line.
 
 12 
 
 Allegation 
 that peti- 
 tioners' line 
 " better 
 defined," 
 insufficient. 
 
 ALTERATIONS WITHIN LIMITS. 
 
 In another case, the Lancashire and Yorkshire, and 
 Midland and Leeds, Bradford and Halifax Junction 
 Bill (1 S. & G. 3), the petition of the Great Northern Rail- 
 way (who were promoting a competing line) alleged, 
 " Your petitioners humbly submit that the works so pro- 
 posed by them are better defined {sic) and more conducive 
 to the public convenience than the said branch railways pro- 
 posed by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway." The 
 petition prayed that the petitioners might be heard against 
 the engineering details of the proposed lines, but did not 
 otherwise allege any defects in the eugineering details of 
 the line proposed by the promoters. The Referees decided 
 that they " could not hear parties upon matters not specified 
 in the allegations in their petitions." In the case of the 
 Great Northern Railway {Additional Powers) Bill (1 S. 
 & G. 5), against which there was a similar petition, by the 
 Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, very similar to the 
 petition in the above case, the Referees also refused to hear 
 the petitioners. 
 
 Sect. VIII. 
 
 ALTERATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS WITHIN LIMITS OF 
 
 DEVIATION. 
 
 I 
 
 May he proposed by Promoters and by Petitioners within 
 Limits of Deviation. 
 
 It is competent to the promoters to propose, before the 
 Referees, such alterations on and modifications of their 
 original plans as they deem expedient, either in order to 
 obviate the objections of petitioners, or to effect some varia- 
 tion of their own choice ; provided always that such altera- 
 tions or modifications are capable of being effected within
 
 ALTERATIONS WITHIN LIMITS. 13 
 
 the limits of deviation shown in the deposited plans. It 
 is equally the right of petitioners to propose such alterations 
 and modifications for the consideration of the Referees, 
 whether on the gi'ound of public expediency, or as obvi- 
 ating special injury to themselves ; provided, in like 
 manner, that the same are capable of being ejffected within 
 the promoters' limits of deviation. And the reason of this 
 restriction within those limits is, that under the Bill the 
 promoters would have no power to construct works beyond 
 the limits of deviation. Where alterations are suggested 
 by petitioners, it is the practice of the Referees to report 
 upon the practicability, efficiency, cost, and comparative 
 merit of the same, as well as on the practicability, &c., of 
 the original design of the promoters. As, however, the 
 Referees do not possess any power to insert clauses, they 
 cannot themselves sanction such alterations, and can only 
 report on tlie expediency of the same, leaving the Com- 
 mittee on the Bill to decide which of the two methods 
 (assuming both to be practicable) ought to be adopted, 
 regard being had to the public advantage. 
 
 The alteration proposed must be capable of being wholly 
 carried out within the limits of deviation. In the Vale of 
 Crichhoivell Railivay {Western Extension) Bill, 1865, 368, 
 the objection was taken that the proposed railways Avould 
 destroy the sidings by which the Brecon and Merthyr Rail-* 
 way obtained access to their engine-sln^d, turn-tables, and 
 goods-yard. The Referees reported, "The sidings in ques- Sidings (in 
 tion will be destroyed, and it was suggested that certain i'*^" of others 
 sidings can be provided in lieu thereof; but those laid proposed 
 down in the plan produced to the Referees are not wholly \i^i^ &c. 
 within the limits of deviation contained in the deposited 
 plans, and consequently cannot be effected within the 
 powers contained in the present Bill."
 
 14 
 
 ALTERATIONS WITHIN LIMITS. 
 
 II. 
 
 Alteration in regard to Spans, Headivay, &c., of Bridges 
 
 and Viaducts. 
 
 Alteration in 
 headway of 
 Severn 
 Tiaduct. 
 
 Increasing 
 headway and 
 span. 
 
 Alteration in 
 spans of 
 bridge, in 
 number, 
 height, and 
 width. 
 
 In the South Wales and Great Western Direct Raihuay 
 Bill, 1865, 353, it was proposed to carry the line across 
 the Severn by a viaduct 2^ miles in length, which would 
 be constructed upon 87 piers, consisting of iron cylinders, 
 ranging from 10 to 20 feet in diameter, and 178 in num- 
 ber ; and the number of arches would be 71. With regard 
 to the headway to be afforded by these arches, the pro- 
 moters proposed, before the Referees, some alteration on 
 the heights shown on the deposited plans. The maximum 
 headway there shown was 95 feet above high water at 
 spring tides ; but, before the Referees, the promoters pro- 
 posed to give an increased elevation of 5 feet, making the 
 maximum headway 100 feet. 
 
 And in the London and North Western and Midland 
 Counties Coal Fields Railway Bill, 1866, 195, the pro- 
 moters (see more fully post) proposed to raise the headway 
 of a certain bridge and to increase the span of a certain 
 other bridge. 
 
 In the North British Railway (Tay Bridge) Bill, 1866, 
 246, it appeared from the dej^osited plans that the proposed 
 bridge across the Tay was intended to be formed with two 
 spans of 300 feet each, 53 spans of 200 feet, and 38 spans of 
 100 feet. But the Board of Trade having objected to this 
 mode of construction, the promoters proposed before the 
 Referees to build the bridge with side spans of 120 feet each 
 and 18 spans, each 200 feet wide, with a height of from 102 
 to 110 feet in the clear from high water. The Referees, in 
 reporting that the final adjustment of the spans should be 
 left to the decision of the Board of Trade, under the 14th 
 section of the Railways Clauses Act, 1863, added, " It will 
 also be desirable that the promoters shajl have power so to
 
 ALTERATIONS WITHIN LIMITS. 15 
 
 deviate vertically from their levels, as shown, as to enable 
 them to construct all the 200 feet spans of a height of not 
 less than 110 feet above high water, if so required/' 
 
 III. 
 
 Alteration 'proposed in regard to Docks. 
 
 In the Alexandra {Neivport) Docks Bill, 1865, 292, Alteration in 
 
 the promoters were allowed to make extensive alterations <iimensions of 
 
 , . . . docks. 
 
 in the dimensions of certain docks ; the Referees reported 
 
 that the docks proposed to be constructed would be of 
 
 larger dimensions than they were shown to be upon the 
 
 plan deposited, and the inner dock was intended to be 
 
 lengthened 50 feet ; and that the sum estimated would be 
 
 sufficient for the execution of the proposed enlarged works, 
 
 which were all within the limits of deviation ; and that the 
 
 estimate lodged had been prepared for the enlarged works. 
 
 In the South Lancashire Raihuays and Dock Bill, Removing site 
 
 1865, 273, it having been objected that the dimensions of of ^o^k loo 
 
 the lock at the entrance of the proposed dock, as shown on 
 
 the deposited jDlans, were too small for the purposes of the 
 
 dock, the promoters replied that they could construct what 
 
 was shown on said plans as a tide entrance in the form of a 
 
 lock of sufficient dimensions (^00 feet by 50) by removing 
 
 the site of the dock 100 feet further back from the river. 
 
 The Referees reported " that the lock as shown is too small ; 
 
 but that probably the additional accommodation required 
 
 could be gained by such removal, and that the same could 
 
 be effected upon the land contained within the limits of 
 
 deviation."
 
 16 
 
 ALTERATIONS WITHIN LIMITS. 
 
 Altering 
 position of 
 unctions. 
 
 Committee to 
 decide if 
 alteration to 
 be allowed. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Alteration of the Position of Junctions. 
 
 It is competent to both promoters and petitioners to 
 propose before the Referees the removal of a point of 
 junction from the position indicated on the deposited plans 
 to some other situation. Objections to junctions are among 
 the most frequent of all objections. Where the proposed 
 junctions are really defective in an engineering point of 
 view, the petitioners' objections are in most cases obviated, 
 within the limits of deviation and the powers of the general 
 Acts, by removing the point of junction from its position 
 on the plans to some other situation, or by altering the 
 gradient of the proposed line. A few instances are here 
 noticed. In the Havant, Hambledon, and Droxford 
 Railway Bill, 1 865, 45, a certain jimction having been 
 objected to, the promoters proved " that the limits of 
 deviation at the junction were large enough to admit of the 
 junction being made lower down, on a gradient of 1 in 80 
 of the petitioners' line," &c. In the Barnet, Hendon, and 
 Midland Junction Railway Bill, 1866, 205, a junction 
 having been objected to by the Edgware, Highgate, and 
 London Railway, on the ground that it was made south of, 
 and at a greater distance than necessary from, the Finchley 
 Station, the promoters replied " that the jimction could be 
 effected within the limits of deviation nearer to the station," 
 and the Referees reported favourably. In the Bromyard 
 and Hereford Railway Bill, 1866, 88, several proposed 
 junctions having been objected to, on the ground of incom- 
 patibility of gradient and other grounds, the Referees 
 reported that " Evidence was given to show that the neces- 
 sary alterations can be made within the limits of deviation." 
 
 As the Referees have, however, no power to authorise 
 the removal of a point of junction, they can only report on 
 the practicability and engineering merits of the proposed
 
 ALTERATIONS WITHIN LIMITS. 17 
 
 alteration, the Committee on the Bill being thus left to 
 decide thereon. 
 
 In the Burton- on- Trent and Nottingham Railivay 
 Bill, 1865, 217, the Midland Railway had objected to a 
 junction which railway No. 1, at its termination in Not- 
 tingham, would form with the North Western Railway, on 
 the ground that, as shown in the plans, it would be effected 
 upon a girder bridge, carrying the Great Northern over the 
 Midland with a span of 90 feet, and that to effect such a 
 junction it would be necessary to cut through one of the 
 side girders of the said bridge. In reply, the promoters 
 stated that the junction was not intended to be effected 
 upon the bridge, but at the south end thereof. The Re- 
 ferees reported that " If the junction be so effected, there 
 will not be any engineering objection ; but as to whether 
 the promoters can depart from the point of junction upon 
 the deposited plan is not for the Referees to decide, being 
 matter of law or clause." In the South Lancashire Mail- 
 way and Dock Bill, I860, 273, the London and North 
 Western objected to a proposed junction which line No. 3 
 (commencing by a junction with line No. 1) would form 
 with their North Union Line. The proposed junction line 
 would be on a gradient of 1 in 88 descending towards the 
 latter line, which is there very much crowded with traffic, 
 and without any level space intervening betw^een the said 
 gradient and the point of junction. The Referees con- 
 sidered this mode of junction, under the circumstances, 
 highly objectionable in an engineering point of view. The 
 promoters replied that the requisite level space could be 
 procured by moving the point of junction with the proposed 
 Line No. 1 further back upon that line ; but the Referees 
 reported that they "cannot decide whether or not tlie 
 promoters have such powers to alter tlie point of junc- 
 tion with their own line No. 1." And in the Launcedon, 
 Bodmin, and Wadehridcje Junction Railivay Bill, 1860, 
 37"), the Cornwall Railway Company complained that the 
 construction of a junction at Truro would prevent the 
 widening of their viaduct, so as to allow their line, now a 
 
 C
 
 18 ALTERATIONS WITHIN LIMITS. 
 
 single line, to be doubled. To obviate this objection it was 
 suggested that a junction could be effected within the limits 
 of deviation by moving the point of junction 2 chains 
 further to the west of the point shown on the deposited 
 plans, and shifting the proposed line so far to the north 
 as to permit the viaduct to be doubled. This could be 
 physically effected, but it would amount to a lengthening 
 of the proposed line to the extent of 2 chains, and it would 
 also shift the point of junction from that shown on the de- 
 posited plans. The Referees report bears : — "The Referees 
 are of opinion that it is extremely doubtful whether this 
 alteration can be legally executed without the consent of 
 the Cornwall Railway Company ; but they are not compe- 
 tent to determine this matter." 
 Removal of In the following instances the proposal that the position 
 
 fion^suffo-isted ^^ a junction should be altered came from the petitioners: — 
 by petitioners. In the WrexJiam and Minera Raihuay Bill, 1865, 263, it 
 was objected to Railway No. 1, that a junction was made 
 with the Minera Branch with a gradient of 1 in 50 at the 
 foot of a gradient of 1 in 37 on that line, at a point which 
 would involve a great amoimt of shunting of the traffic 
 coming from the Frose Collieries and the Brymbo Ironworks, 
 and that a much better junction might have been made at 
 the end of the Frose Branch, whereby the traffic would be 
 carried in a direct line, and the shunting avoided. The pro- 
 moters replied that the proposed junction was fixed with a 
 view to the accommodation of the local traffic on both sides 
 of the valley, and to the placing of a station so as to avoid 
 interference with the traffic on the Wheatsheaf and Minera 
 line ; and that if placed at the point suggested by the 
 petitioners, the junction would, in addition to this inter- 
 ference, involve a gradient of 1 in 25 and carry the lines to 
 a higher level, whereas it was so laid down as to pass over 
 the lowest summit between Wrexham and the Fridd 
 Branch. The Referees reported that the position of the 
 junction in question was " well placed, having regard to the 
 nature of the country, and well chosen to effect the objects 
 of the promoters."
 
 LTERATIONS WITHIN LIMITS. 19 
 
 In the Neivport and Usk Railway Bill, 1865, 299, tlie 
 Monmouthshire Railway Company objected that a proposed 
 junction with their Eastern Valleys Line ought to be 
 effected near to the existing Newport Station, instead of at 
 the point proiDosed, which was about 48 chains distant 
 therefrom. The Referees reported that it would seem 
 better if the junction were effected nearer to the station ; 
 but that this was a matter to be determined upon considera- 
 tion of the amount of traffic rather than as an engineering 
 question. 
 
 And in the Maidstone and Ashford Raihvay Bill, 1866, 
 65, the South Eastern objected to Railway No. 1 , which 
 was about 6 furlongs in length, that the junction with their 
 line midit have been much nearer to their Maidstone 
 station, by which the construction of nearly half a mile of 
 line would have been rendered unnecessary. It was in- 
 tended that a separate station should be erected at the town 
 for the traffic of the proposed lines. The Referees reported 
 that if there was no object beyond the transfer of the traffic 
 from one line to the other, upon which matter alone 
 evidence was given, the junction would be preferable at the 
 point nearer to the petitioners' station. 
 
 Where the objections of the petitioners cannot be obvia- where objec- 
 ted within the limits of deviation and the powers of the Jio'^^ cannot 
 
 , '■ be obviated 
 
 general Acts, the Referees have no alternative but to report within limits 
 unfavourably of the proposed junctions. See the Glasgoiv of deviation. 
 City Suburban and Harbour Railiuay Bill, 1865, 186, 
 where the Referees reported that, " the junction with the 
 petitioners' railway could not be constructed under the 
 powers of the Bill ; " the Swansea and Aberystivith Junc- 
 tion Railway Bill, 1865, 419, where they reported that 
 "the junction of the proposed railway with the Swansea 
 and Aberystwith Railway cannot be made according to 
 the deposited plans ; " the Llantrissart and Taff Vale 
 Junction Railivay Bill, 1865, 422, where they reported 
 in reference to a certain junction, that " the mode proposed 
 by the promoters to obviate tliis difficulty cannot, in the 
 opinion of the Referees, be effected under the powers of 
 
 c2
 
 20 
 
 ALTERATIONS WITHIN LIMITS. 
 
 the Bill ; " and the Tottenham and Hamystead Junction 
 Raihuay {Neiv Lines) Bill, 1865, 128, where a junction 
 having been objected to as impracticable, on account of the 
 difference of gradients, the Referees reported " the evidence 
 given to this effect, in the opinion of the Referees, fully- 
 sustained the objection. No other mode of effecting a 
 junction, consistent with the provisions of the Bill and the 
 powers of the Company, was shown to the Referees to be 
 practicable." 
 
 Junction 
 proposed not 
 before con- 
 templated. 
 
 r(t^\ 
 
 Where a proposed alteration involves the effecting of a 
 junction not originally contemplated. 
 
 It is quite competent to either party to suggest such 
 alterations, if they can be effected within the limits of 
 deviation. In order to effect a junction not before con- 
 templated, the authority of the Committee on the Bill is 
 necessary ; the Referees, however, will consider and report 
 on the practicability and expediency thereof Thus, in the 
 Midland RailwoAj (Settle to Carlisle) Bill, 1866, 213, the 
 North Eastern objected that Railway, No. 3, would cross 
 their line upon the level near Carlisle Station ; and the 
 London and North Western objected that Railways, Nos. 
 3 and 4, would nan through and cut up their goods 
 station at Carlisle, and also obstruct the approach to the 
 same through Crown Street. To obviate these objections, 
 the promoters proposed to effect a junction of No. 3 with 
 the^Seutli Eastern (with their consent) at a certain point, 
 and to abandon the rest of No. 3 and the entire of No. 4. 
 The Referees reported that this junction could be effected 
 within the limits of deviation, and would remedy the 
 injuries complained of ; and added, " it will be for the 
 Committee on the Bill to determine whether they will allow 
 such alterations." 
 
 See also the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire
 
 ALTERATIONS WITHIN LIMITS. 21 
 
 Raikuay {Central Station and Lines) Bill, 1866, 261, 
 (p. 25), where the promoters proposed that their line No. 3, 
 should be constructed only up to a certain point, and that 
 a junction should there be effected with an authorised Mid- 
 land Line. 
 
 VI. 
 
 Alternative Lines or Routefi proposed by Petitioners. 
 
 As regards alternative lines suggested without the limits 
 of deviation, it is quite clear that the Referees will not Alternative! 
 
 , . -^ , , , hues or routes 
 
 allow petitioners to go into that question, and will refuse outside limits 
 altogether to entertain the suggestion. In the Lancashire °^ fleviatiou. 
 and Yorkshire Railway (Additional powers), 1 S. & G. 122, 
 the petitioners proj^osed to go into the question as to whether 
 the jDromoters " could not take a better course by going on 
 the other side of a brook, which was without their limits of 
 deviation." The Referees decided, " We cannot go into that. 
 They could not go on the other side of the brook under the 
 powers of this Bill ; and we can only report on the merits 
 of the works as proposed by the Bill before us." And, 
 again, in the Bristol mid North Somerset Railway 
 Southern Extension Bill, 1866, 323, the Great Western 
 and the East Somerset Railway Companies objected that 
 the lines proposed were defective in many of their engi- 
 neering details, but the petitioners, having proposed to give 
 evidence of the comparative merits of these railways with 
 certain other lines not before Parliament, or within the 
 limits of deviation, the Referees declined to hear tliern ex- 
 cept on the engineering details of the lines proposed by the 
 Bill ; " and the petitioners thereupon witlidrew {a). 
 
 (a) See North British Railway (Lcufswaclc Brandies) Bill, 1865, 174, 
 where, on the petition of tlie Caledonian llaihvay, the Referees reported 
 that " better f^radients eonld have Ijeen obtained by takintf a more direct 
 line, and that the promoters state that they were induced to take the line 
 proposed in order to meet the wants of the population along the line." 
 See also l^rowae lioud Bill, j)ode(i, where the alternative road suggested 
 by the opponents was not wholly wHhin the limits of deviation.
 
 22 ALTERATIONS WITHIN LIMITS, 
 
 The Select Committee appointed to enquire into the 
 operation of the Courts of Referees say, in their report, " It 
 has been suggested by some of the witnesses that the 
 Referees should have the power of considering the engineer- 
 ing statistics Of alternative lines of railway which has hitherto 
 been exercised by Committees on opposed Bills ;" and they 
 recommended (Report, p. v.) the adoption of this suggestion. 
 No Standing Order has been issued to carry the recommen- 
 dation into effect. 
 Alternative Within the limits of deviation, however, alternative lines 
 
 lines or routes qj. routes have frequently been considered by the Referees, 
 proposed i ./ ^ ^ ^ 
 
 within limits Thus, in the Callander and Oban Railway Bill, 1865, 
 of deviation, jyg^ -^ ^^^^ objected by a landowner that another and 
 
 better line, less injurious to the petitioner's estate, and 
 within the limits of deviation, could be made. The gra- 
 dients and curves on this proposed deviation were equal to 
 those on the proposed line ; but such deviation would 
 require 27,000 additional yards of cutting, a tunnel or 
 covered cutting 800 yards in length, with an average depth 
 of SO feet, with other works. The Referees reported that 
 the proposed deviation could be made ; but that, unless a 
 strong case be made out, no sufficient reasons in an engi- 
 neering point of view existed for the making of such devia- 
 tion, the additional cost of which was stated by the 
 petitioners to be about ^£"5,500, whilst the promoters stated 
 that it would amount to dt'l 2,000. In the Troivse Road 
 Bill, 1865, 41, the promoters having proposed to make a 
 new piece of road 1,090 yards in length, the petitioners 
 alleged that a road, 462 yards only in length, might be 
 constructed " almost entirely within the proposed limits of 
 deviation," which would better effect the object of the pro- 
 moters ; and sections and plans were produced to show the 
 practicability of the shorter road. The Referees reported 
 that the same class of heavy engineering works were 
 
 As to comparing the engineering merits of proposed line with other lines 
 in existence in the locality, see Severn Jimctiou Eaihimy Bill, 1865, 361, 
 where the Referees reported, "In regard to the allegation of the bad 
 gradients of their line, the promoters showed that, comparing them with 
 those of other lines in the South Wales district, they were superior."
 
 ALTERATIONS WITHIN LIMITS. 23 
 
 common to both the proposed roads ; that the cost ot 
 making the shorter road would be less, but subject to 
 additions for compensation ; that the heavy earthworks of 
 the shorter line would require the construction of retaining 
 walls at the back of some cottage property ; and that part 
 of the bridge by which it would cross the railway would be 
 immediately over the passenger platform of th© station, (a) 
 
 VII. 
 
 More appropriate Site for particular Works. 
 
 It is also the settled practice of the Courts that no Better site for 
 suggestion that a more fitting site might have been chosen, limits of 
 beyond the limits of deviation, for particular works, can be ^^^^la^-ion- 
 entertained. That is a question for the consideration of 
 the Committee on the Bill. The province of the Referees 
 is merely to decide whether the particular works may be 
 erected within the particular limits chosen by the promoters, 
 without reference to the comparative elegibility of other 
 sites. Thus, in the Bute Docks, Cardiff (No. 1) Bill 
 (1 S. & G. 18), the Penarth Dock Company alleged in their 
 petition that, " the site selected for the additional werks 
 now proposed is far inferior in many essential features to 
 that selected by your petitioners; and apart from the 
 question of compaiison between these two sites, there are 
 other sites in the neighbourhood, and upon the property of 
 the undertakers, preferable to that now selected by them." 
 The Referees ruled, " We have no power to deal with such 
 
 (a) It is to be obscrved,that in this case the petitioners produced plans 
 and sections of the suggested shorter road. As the proposed road could not 
 be constructed entirely within the limits of deviation, it is not clear that 
 this case will be followed as a precedent. See the decision of the Court in 
 a subsequent case, the Vale of Crickhowell Railway ( Western Extension') 
 Bill, 18G5, 368, where the promoters, having suggested that certain sidings 
 might be constructed in lien of those destroyed belonging to the peti- 
 tioners, the llefcrecs reported " that those laid down in the plan produced 
 to the Referees, arc not wholly within the liniits of deviation contained in 
 the deposited plans, and consequently cannot be effected within the 
 powers contained in the present Bill.''
 
 24 
 
 ALTERATIONS WITHIN LIMITS 
 
 a question as this. We cannot give the promoters a right 
 to place their dock in any particular spot. All we can do 
 is to say whether it can be placed on the site proposed 
 
 As we have no power to insert clauses, we 
 
 cannot enquire as to the capabilities of different sites." 
 
 Petitioners 
 proposing 
 diversion of a 
 street. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Diversion of a Street proposed by Petitioners. 
 
 In the Rhyrwney Eaihvay Bill, 1866, 216, it was sug- 
 gested on behalf of the Corporation of Cardiff that it would 
 be desirable to divert that part of Gaol Street which lay 
 between certain points from the east side of the Ehymney 
 Railway to the west side of the said railway. The Referees 
 reported — "Should the Committee upon this Bill think 
 proper to direct this diversion, there will be no engineering 
 objection thereto.'' 
 
 IX. 
 
 Promoters proposing Viaduct in place of Emhanhment 
 
 In the Graven Junction Railway Bill, 1866, 110, the 
 line, as shown in the deposited plan, was entirely on 
 embankment where not under the surface ; and the pro- 
 moters proposed before the Referees to substitute a viaduct 
 for 800 feet of embaokment. The Referees reported that 
 as no viaduct had been shown on the plans deposited, they 
 were of opinion that the promoters, under the powers con- 
 tained in their Bill, were not at liberty to construct any- 
 thing but an embankment, (a) 
 
 (a) The promoters would have such a power under the general Act of 
 1845, sect. 14, if authorised by the certificate of the Board of Trade, see 
 p. 28. In this case the Referees also reported the estimate insufficient, 
 and therefore the Committee did not enter on consideration of the Bill.
 
 ALTEKATIONS WITHIN LIMITS. 25 
 
 X. 
 
 Alterations to obviate Objections to Gradients, CurveSy 
 
 Crossings, &c. 
 
 See numerous instances noticed hereafter, particularly in 
 Chapter II., YI., and VII. 
 
 XL 
 
 One alteration proposed proving objectionable, can Pro- 
 moters suggest another ? 
 
 In the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Rail- 
 way {Central Station and Lines) Bill, 1866, 261, the 
 question arose whether the promoters, after having fixed 
 upon a definite alteration before the Referees, which turned 
 out to be impracticable, could be permitted to submit a 
 further alteration. It appeared that, by agreement 
 with the Midland Railway Company, the promoters had 
 arranged that Railway No. 3 should be constructed only up 
 to a point 1 mile 7^ chains from the commencement 
 thereof; that a junction should there be effected with the 
 authorised Midland Line; and that the remainder of No. 3 
 should be abandoned. It was admitted that at the point 
 in question Railway No. 3 would be 3 feet 3 inches above 
 the level of the authorised Midland Line. The Referees 
 considered that this difference would render the junction at 
 the point proposed impracticable, and that in such case the 
 railway would not be efficient for the objects proposed. It 
 was thereupon alleged by the promoters that at a point 8 
 chains further from the commencement of No. 3 than the
 
 26 LIMITS OF DEVIATION, ' 
 
 point selected for the junction with the Midland, the two 
 lines were upon the same level, and that a junction could 
 be there efifected ; but the Referees " declined to entertain 
 this question, upon the ground that the promoters, having 
 fixed upon a definite alteration which had been proved to 
 be impracticable, they could not be permitted to submit a 
 further alteration." When, however, the Bill came before 
 iihe Committee, they remitted it back to the Referees (under 
 Standing Order 97) with the following question: — "The 
 committee desire to be informed by the Referees whether, 
 consistently with efficient engineering, it is practicable 
 mthin the limits of deviation, to effect a junction at the 
 point 8 chains further from the commencement of line No. 
 3 than the point of junction at present proposed ; and, if 
 so, whether the estimate, as amended, wUl suffice." (See 
 1866, 297.) 
 
 Sect. IX. 
 
 EXTENT OF LIMITS OF DEVIATION AND OF POWER OF 
 ALTERING ENGINEERING WORKS, 
 
 In consequence of the rule that the Referees will not 
 entertain any alteration or amendment which cannot be 
 effected within the limits of deviation, and of the fact that 
 the objections of petitioners are usually obviated by some 
 alteration within those limits, it becomes of material con- 
 sequence to have in view, in the course of any enquiry 
 before the Referees, what are the limits of deviation, verti- 
 cal as weU as lateral, to which the promoters are entitled ; 
 for these vary according to the position and the nature of 
 the work contemplated. In like manner it is important to 
 keep in view what are the promoters' powers of deviation 
 from, or alteration of, engineering works shown on the 
 plans, such as the constructing of a viaduct in place of an
 
 LIMITS OF DEVIATION. 27 
 
 embankment, as represented on the deposited plans, and 
 vice versd. These limits and powers are regulated by the 
 sections of the General Acts which follow : — 
 
 Eailwats Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, 
 (8 Vict. c. 20). 
 
 " Sect. XI. In making the railway, it shall not he Company not 
 lawful for the Company to deviate /"ro?;? the levels of the ^J^ deviate from 
 railway, as referred to the common datum line described in section more 
 in the section approved of by Parliament and as marked than five feet, 
 in the same, to any extent exceeding in anj ]^\ace Jive feet, ticofeet, with-' 
 or, iti passing through a totvn, village, street, or land con- ""^ consent of 
 tiauously built upon, two feet, without the previous con- ' 
 
 sent, ui writing, of the owners and occupiers of the land 
 in which such deviation is intended to be made, or, in 
 case any street or public highway shall be affected by 
 such deviation, then the same shall not be made without 
 the Hke consent of the trustees or commissioners having 
 the control of such street or pubhc highway, or, if there 
 be no such trustees or commissioners, without the like 
 consent of two or more justices of the peace, in petty 
 sessions assembled for that purpose, and acting for the 
 district in which such street or public highway may be 
 situated, or, without the hke consent of the commissioners 
 of any public sewers, or the proprietors of any canal, 
 navigation, gas works, or water works affected by such 
 deviation ; provided always that it shall be lawful for the 
 company to deviate from the said levels to a further ex- 
 tent, without such consent as aforesaid, by lowering solid 
 embankments or viaducts, provided that the requisite 
 height of headway, as prescribed by Act of Parliament, 
 be left for roads, streets, or canals passing under the 
 same. . . ." 
 
 Sect. XII. This section provides for public notice Public notice 
 being given previous to making such greater deviations, to be given 
 
 -«•• TT 1* iiii 1 2 tons to 
 
 and for owners of adjommg lands appeahng to the board making greater 
 of trade against such deviations. deviations. 
 
 " Sect. XIII. Where in any place it is intended to y>'<^ducts 
 
 , .J tunnels, the. to 
 
 carry the railway on an arch or arches or other viaduct, u made as 
 
 as marked on the said plan or section, the same shall be ''narked on 
 
 *■ deposiled 
 
 plans.
 
 28 
 
 LIMITS OF DEVIATION. 
 
 Limiting 
 deviation from 
 works in plan. 
 
 Inclination or 
 gradients of 
 Eailway. 
 
 Radius of 
 curves may be 
 diminished. 
 
 Tunnels may 
 be made 
 instead of 
 cuttings, 
 And viaducts 
 instead of 
 embankments. 
 
 Limits of 
 deviation from 
 line marked 
 on plans. 
 
 made accordingly ; and where a tunnel is marked on the 
 said plan or section, as intended to be made at any place, 
 the same shall be made accordingly, unless the o-vvTiers, 
 lessees, and occupiers of the land in which such tunnel is 
 intended to be made shall consent that the same shall 
 not be so made." 
 
 " Sect. XIV. It shall not be lawful for the company 
 to deviate from or alter the gradients, curves, tunnels, or 
 other engineering works described in. the said plan or 
 section, except within the following limits, and under the 
 following conditions ; that is to say — 
 
 " Subject to the above provisions in regard to alter- 
 ing levels, it shall be lawful for the company to 
 diminish the inclination or gi'adients of the railway 
 to any extent, and to increase the said inclination or 
 gradients as follows ; that is to say, in gradients of 
 an inclination not exceeding one in a hundred to any 
 extent not exceeding ten feet per mile, or to any 
 fiu'ther extent which shall be certified by the Board 
 of Trade to be consistent with the public safety, and 
 not prejudicial to the public interest ; and in gra- 
 dients of or exceeding the inclination of one in a 
 himdred to any extent not exceeding three feet per 
 mile, or to any further extent which shall be so cer- 
 tified by the Board of Trade as aforesaid. 
 
 " It shall be lawful for the company to diminish 
 the radius of any curve described in the said plan to 
 any extent which shall leave a radius of not less than 
 half a mile, or to any further extent authorised 
 by such certificate as aforesaid from the Board of 
 Trade. 
 
 " It shall be lawful for the company to make a 
 tunnel, not marked on the said plan or section, in- 
 stead of a cutting, or a viaduct instead of a solid 
 embankment (a), if authorised by such certificate as 
 aforesaid from the Board of Trade." 
 See also Sect. IV. of Railways Clauses Act, 1863. 
 "Sect. XV. It shall be lawful for the company to 
 
 (a) As to the substitution of other engineering works for Si'ehe?, tannels, 
 or viaducts, see Act of 1863, infra.
 
 LIMITS OF DEVIATION. 
 
 29 
 
 deviate from the line delineated on tlie plans so deposited, 
 
 provided that no sucli deviation shall extend to a greater 
 
 distance than the limits of deviation delineated upon the 
 
 said plans, nor to a greater extent in passing through a 
 
 town, village, or lands continuously built upon than ten 
 
 yards, or elsewhere to a greater extent than one hundred 
 
 yards from the said line, and that the railway by means Deviation not 
 
 of such deviation be not made to extend into the lands of $" e:dend into 
 
 . lands of 
 
 any person, whether owner, lessee, or occupier, Avhose j^crsons not 
 
 name is not mentioned in the books of reference, without mcntmicd m 
 the previous consent, in writing, of such person, unless reference. 
 the name of such person shall have been omitted by mis- 
 take, and the fact that such omission proceeded from 
 mistake shall have been certified in manner herein or in 
 the special Act provided for in cases of unintentional 
 errors in the said books of reference." 
 (As to deviation of railway skirting tidal xvaters, see p. 30). 
 
 Eailways Clauses Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 92). 
 
 "Sect. IV. Notwithstanding anything in the said 
 Eailways Clauses Consolidation Acts, respectively con- 
 tained, the company, in the construction of the railway 
 may deviate from the line or level of any arch, tunnel, or 
 viaduct described in the deposited plans or sections so as 
 the deviation be made within the limits of deviation shown 
 on those plans, and subject to the limitations contained in 
 sections eleven, twelve, and fifteen of those acts respec- 
 tively, and so as the nature of the work described be not 
 altered, — and may also substitute any engineering work 
 not shown on the deposited plans or sections for an arch, 
 tunnel, or viaduct, as shown thereon ; (a) provided that 
 every such substitution be autliorised by a certificate of 
 the Board of Trade ; and the Board of Trade may gi'ant 
 such certificate in case it appears to tlicm, on due enquiry, 
 that the compauy has acted in the matter with good faitli, 
 and that the owners, lessees, and occupiers of the lands in 
 which the substitution is intended to be made consent 
 
 Power to alter 
 
 engineering 
 
 works. 
 
 Deviation 
 from level of 
 arch, tunnel, 
 or viaduct. 
 
 May substi- 
 tute other 
 engineering 
 work for arch, 
 tunnel, or 
 viaduct. 
 Provided 
 authority of 
 I'uard of 
 Trade ob- 
 tained. 
 
 (rt) As to the substitution of viaduct for embankment, sec Act of 1815, 
 stq^ra, p. 28.
 
 30 
 
 COMPETING LINES. 
 
 ProJiibition of 
 deriatioH of 
 Hallway 
 sJcifting tidal 
 waters without 
 consent of 
 Board of 
 Trade. 
 
 thereto, and, also, that the safety and convenience of the 
 public will not be diminished thereby. 
 
 "Provided that nothing in the present section shall 
 affect any power given to the company or to the board of 
 trade, by section eleven, fourteen, or fifteen, of the last- 
 mentioned Acts respectively." 
 
 " Sect. XVII. Where the company is authorised by 
 the special act to construct a railway, skirting a public 
 navigable tidal river or channel, the company shall not 
 make any deviation of the railway from the continuous 
 centre line thereof marked on the plan deposited by them, 
 at the Board of Trade, even within the limits of deviation 
 shown on that plan, in such manner as to diminish the 
 navigable space, without the previous consent of the 
 Board of Trade or otherwise, than in such manner as is 
 expressly authorised by the Board of Trade. 
 
 " If any deviation is made in contravention of the 
 present section, the Board of Trade may abate and re- 
 move the work in the construction whereof the deviation 
 is made, or any part thereof, and restore the site thereof 
 to its former condition, at the expense of the company ; 
 and the amount of such expense shall be a debt due from 
 the company to the crown, and be recoverable accordingly 
 with costs, or the same may be recovered, with costs, as a 
 penalty is recoverable from the Company. 
 
 Sect. X. 
 
 COMPETING LINES. 
 
 The reterees have no power to contrast and compare 
 competing lines. The Select Committee in 1865 reported 
 that it had been suggested by some of the witnesses before 
 them that the Referees " should express their opinion of the 
 comparative engineering merits of competing lines," and 
 they recommended the adoption of that suggestion (Report, 
 p. 5) ; but no Standing Order was issued to carry this
 
 COMPETING LINES. 31 
 
 i-ecommendation into effect. It is the practice of the courts 
 to examine into the merits of each line separately, and to 
 report upon each separately. Usually the competing Bills 
 are put in the Court List together, and come on for hearing 
 the one immediately after the other ; so that the reports on 
 the two Bills may go to the House together, {a) (See Evidence 
 before the Select Committee, Q. 1221.) It is for the Com- 
 mittee on the Bills to form their own conclusion as to the 
 comparative superiority, in an engineering point of view, 
 as well as in other respects, of the one line over the other. 
 
 Such was the course adopted by the Referees in the com- Instances, 
 petitions (for the whole or part of the respective distances) 
 between the followinsr bills, viz. : — 
 
 1. The East and West Junction Baihcay Bill, 1865, 66, 
 vnVa the Bedford., Northampton, and Weedon Railioay BUI, 
 1865, 67. 
 
 2. The Crofthead and Kilmarnoeh Extension Railway 
 Bill, 1865, 77, with the Glasgotc and South Western (Kil- 
 marjiock Direct) Bill, 1865, 78, 
 
 3. The Glasgow (City) Union Raihcay Bill, 1865, 105, 
 with the Caledonian Railway (Glasgotc South Side Rail- 
 ways, ^c.) Bill, 1865, ]06. 
 
 4. The North British (Lasswade, Sfc. Branches) Bill 
 1865, 174, with the Caledonian Railioay (Balerno and 
 Penicuik Branches) Bill, 1865, 175. 
 
 5. The Wolverhampton and Bridgnorth Railway Bill, 
 1865, 234, wdtli the Central Wales and Staffordshire 
 Junction Railways Bill, 1865, 215. 
 
 6. The North of England Union Railway Bill, 1865, 
 235, with the East and West YorJcshire Union Railway 
 Bill, 1865, 237. 
 
 7. The South Lancashire Railways, 6(c. Bill, 1865, 273, 
 with tlic Lancashire Union Railways BUI, 1865, 276. 
 
 8. The Ogmore Valley Railway (No. 2) Bill, 1866, 152, 
 
 (a) Although competing Bills areusually put out together, (his is a mere 
 matter of convenience ; and there is no reason why one JJill should be 
 unduly delayed on account of the other, especially where the lines only 
 partially compete. See instances Nos. 5 and 11 in the list, infra.
 
 32 
 
 COMPETING LINES. 
 
 Different 
 kinds of 
 competition 
 between pro- 
 posed lines. 
 
 Tlie Deal and 
 Dover Bills. 
 
 witli the Llantrissart and Taff Vale Junction Railioay 
 Bill, 1866, 153. 
 
 9. The Edgware, Higligate, and London Railway Bill, 
 1866, 193, with the Great Northern (Potter's Bar, Barnet, 
 and Hendon) Bill, 1866, 194, and the Barnet, Hendon, and 
 Midland Junction Railway Bill, 1866, 205. 
 
 10. The Swansea and Glydach Railway Bill, 1866, 263, 
 with a branch proposed by the Swansea Vale Railway. 
 
 11. The Greenock and Ayrshire Railway Bill, -1866, 
 287, with the Ccdedonian Railway (Greenock and Gourodk 
 Extensiom) Bill, 1866, 109. 
 
 Competitiou between proposed lines is of three kinds :— 
 
 (1.) Where the hnes run between the same places, but 
 by different routes ; as in Nos. 3, 6, 9, 10, and 11, sujyra ; 
 and in the Deal and Dover Bills, infra. 
 
 (2.) Where they not only run between the same places, 
 but the same ground is proposed to be occupied by each, of 
 which No. 8, supra, is an example. 
 
 (3.) Where the competition is partial — for part only of 
 the line or lines proposed to be constructed ; instances of 
 which are Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7, sup-z-a. 
 
 Although it is now settled that the Referees will not 
 undertake to compare and contrast competing lines, yet one 
 case occurred (it was one of the first that came before 
 the Referees on the institution of the courts), where the Re- 
 ferees reported on the two Bills in one report, in which 
 they entered into a comparison of the proposed lines, and 
 exi3ressed the conclusion to which they had arrived in 
 regard to the superiority of the one over the other. This 
 was the case of the Deal and Dover, and Dover, Deal, and 
 Sandwich Railway Bills (1865, 54) which were both pro- 
 moted for the purjjose of effecting a connection from Dover 
 to Deal and Sandwich. The Referees reported, " The engi- 
 neering upon the Deal and Dover Line is less favourable as 
 to gradients and curves than upon the Dover, Deal, and 
 Sandwich ; but it appears to be the best which can be had, 
 having regard to the fact that the London, Chatham, and 
 Dover Railway, from which it branches off, lies in a deep
 
 REPORT SUBJECT TO REFERENCE. 33 
 
 valley. These gradients and curves are not objectionable. 
 The distance from Dover to Deal by the Deal and Dover 
 Line is much shorter than that *by the Dover, Deal, and 
 Sandwich, viz., 9 miles 47 chains, instead of 15 miles 20 
 chains, while the distance to Sandwich does not materially 
 differ. Upon all the facts adduced before them, the Eeferees 
 are of opinion that the Deal and Dover Line is better cal- 
 culated to effect the objects proposed by both Bills. There 
 is no -engineering obstacle to either line." 
 
 Sect. XL 
 
 EAVOURABLE REPORT BY REFEREES SUBJECT TO A 
 reference TO ENGINEERS. 
 
 In two cases where the Referees were satisfied that the 
 objections of petitioners were capable of being obviated by 
 some modification on the plans within the limits of de- 
 viation, they have reported in favour of the Bill, leaving 
 the details of the proposed alteration or modification to be 
 settled by engineers. Thus, in the Oreat Western Railway 
 {Further Powers) Bill, 1 866, 233, the Cambrian Railways 
 Company, having opposed certain junctions, it was agreed 
 between the parties that the promoters should form the 
 same at such points within the limits of deviation as should 
 be agreed upon between the engineers on either side, or in 
 case of difference on their part as shall be determined by 
 an umpire. The Referees reported, that, " subject to this 
 proviso," the works were efficient in an engineering point 
 of view. And in the Louth and Lincoln Railway Bill, 
 1866, 234, where the River Witham Drainage Commis- 
 sioners objected that by certain bridges in the proposed 
 railway to be erected over the River Witham and tlie South 
 Delph, the waterway would be so diminished as to inter- 
 fere seriously with the drainage of the district, it was 
 
 D
 
 34 REPORT SUBJECT TO PETITIONERS* CONSENT. 
 
 agreed between the parties that the accommodation required 
 by the petitioners in respect of the drainage should be 
 referred for settlement to their respective engineers and an 
 umpire. The Referees reported, that, " subject to this pro- 
 viso," the works were efficient in an engineering point of 
 view. 
 
 Sect. XII. 
 
 FAVOURABLE REPORT SUBJECT TO THE PETITIONERS' CON- 
 SENT BEING OBTAINED FOR THE PROPOSED WORKS. 
 
 In certain instances, where the Referees entertained an 
 unfavourable view of proposed interference with the rights 
 and property of others (not being mere individual rights for 
 which money compensation may be obtained) the Referees 
 have reported that the proposed works should only be 
 sanctioned subject to the petitioners' consent being ob- 
 tained thereto. Thus, in the West Bromwich and Walsall 
 Railway Bill, 1866, 217, where the promoters, in order to 
 effect a junction with another line, proposed to cut through 
 six sets of sidings of the London and North Western, the 
 Referees considered the proposed line defective in an engi- 
 neering point of view, as laid out ; but the promoters re- 
 presented that it could be so altered within the limits of 
 deviation as to effect the proposed junction without inter- 
 fering with the proposed sidings. The Referees reported 
 that it was doubtful whether this could be effected, and 
 that, in their opinion, " the effecting of the said junction 
 ought to be made dependent upon the consent of the 
 London and North Western Railway Company." And in 
 tbe Ryde Station, and Railway Bill, 1866, 899, the 
 Referees reported, " It -will also be necessary that the pro- 
 moters should be restrained from taking any part of the 
 Victoria basin, dock, or pier, witliout the consent of the 
 owners thereof." See also the Nortlt British Railway
 
 CLAIM TO OWNERSHIP OF LAND. 35 
 
 « 
 
 (Glasgow Branches) Bill, 1866, 221, jiost, where the 
 Referees reported, that "the promoters should be so 
 restricted as to prevent them from deviating for more than 
 the width necessary for the construction of one-half their 
 railway from their centre line, as shown on the deposited 
 plan, in the direction of the Glasgow Union Railway, with- 
 out the consent of the petitioners." 
 
 Sect. XIIL 
 
 referees will not decide as to the legality of 
 existing works, 
 
 For the purposes of the enquiry before the Referees, ex- 
 isting works or buildings are taken to be legally in their 
 present position. Thus, in the Ogniore Valley Raihvays 
 (No 1) Bill, 1 865, 420, where the Llantrissart and TafF Vale 
 Railway objected that certain sidings of theirs would be 
 injured, and the promoters replied that these sidings were 
 not legally authorised, and ought not to be there, the 
 Referees reported, " In regard to the legality of the 
 sidings laid down at the point of junction on the Mwyndy 
 Branch, the Referees express no oi^inion ; but they consider 
 the manner in which the Line No. 5 proposes to meet 
 them as olyectionable in an engineering point of view." 
 
 Sect. XIV. 
 
 REFEREES WILL NOT ENQUIRE INTO THE LEGALITY OF 
 PROMOTERS' CLAIM TO OWNERSHIP OF LAND, ETC. 
 
 In illustration of this principle, see the Bute Docks, 
 Cardiff {No. 1) Bill, 1865, 305, in which the proposed 
 works would occupy a portion of the foreshore of the 
 
 D 2
 
 36 WORKS CONTEMPLATED. 
 
 Cardiff Flats to the extent of 112 acres. In the estimate, 
 it had been assumed that the foreshore was the property of 
 the Marquis of Bute (on whose behalf this Bill was pro- 
 moted), and consequently no sum was provided for the acqui- 
 sition of land. The Referees reported that they were " not 
 in a position to form any opinion as to whether the said 
 foreshore is or is not the property of the Marquis of Bute." 
 
 Sect. XV. 
 
 objections in respect of works contemplated by 
 
 petitioners. 
 
 The Referees have in certain cases entertained objections 
 in respect of interference with or damage to works, sidings, 
 buildings, &c., not actually in existence, but which are in 
 contemplation. Thus, if the promoters proposed to cross 
 the petitioners' line or sidings by a bridge, the span of 
 which would be so narrow as to prevent the promoters 
 from afterwards doubling their line or increasing the 
 number of their sidings, the Referees will take care that 
 the span is increased to the necessary extent. As to pre- 
 venting the doubling of another Company's line, see the 
 Okehampton Railway Bill, p. 52 ; and the Launceston, 
 Bodmin, and Wadehridge Junction Railway Bill, 
 p. 53 ; as to interference with contemplated approach to 
 another Company's station, see Crystal Palace Neiv Rail- 
 ways Bill, p. 65 ; as to preventing the contemplated lower- 
 ing of another Company's line, see Bromyard and Here- 
 ford Railway Bill, p. 70 ; as to preventing the contem- 
 plated extension of another Company's siding accommoda- 
 tion, see West Bromwich and Walsall Railway Bill, 
 p. 56 ; and as to preventing contemplated widening of a 
 street, see Manchester, Shejffield, and Lincolnshire Rail- 
 tvay (Central Station and. Lines) Bill, 1866, 2.97, where
 
 EFFECT OF REFEREES' DECISION. 37 
 
 the Referees reported, " Should Railway No. 3 be sanc- 
 tioned, provision should be made that no obstruction should 
 be offered to the widening of Watson Street to a breadth ot 
 60 feet as contemplated." 
 
 Sect. XVI. 
 
 EFFECT ON THE BILL OF THE REFEREES' DECISION. 
 
 It is provided by Standing Order 95, that " No further No further 
 evidence shall be taken by the Committee upon any of the taken?*^^ '" ^^ 
 matters reported upon by the Referees." And it is further 
 provided by Standing Order 96, that " In case the Referees When Bill 
 shall report with reference to any Bill, that the estimate proceeded 
 deposited in respect thereof is insufficient, or that the "ith. if report 
 engineering is inefficient for the proposed object, the Bill 
 shall not be further proceeded with, unless the House shall 
 otherwise order.'' 
 
 I. 
 
 Where the Referees report that Estimate insuffi,cient 
 
 Of the manner in which the Committee on the Bill will 
 deal with the same, when the estimate has been reported 
 insufficient, the following cases are instances : — In the 
 Greenock Railway Bill, 1865, 233, where the Referees had 
 reported that the estimate was insufficient, the Committee 
 on the Bill reported, " That in consequence of the said Committee 
 report, the Committee did not proceed to examine further prcainMe"^ 
 the allegations contained in the preamble of the Bill, and ^^^ piovcd. 
 had determined to report that the same had not been 
 proved to their satisfaction." In the North Wales and
 
 38 
 
 EFFECT OF REFEREES DECISION. 
 
 Bills with- 
 drawn in 
 consequence 
 of adverse 
 report. 
 
 Where pri- 
 vate indivi- 
 dual to supply 
 funds. 
 
 Birkenhead and Liverpool Railway Bill, 1866, 106, 
 the Referees reported that the works were " inefficient, 
 .and the estimate insufficient." The Committee reported, 
 1866, 131, that the Referees having reported that the 
 estimate was insufficient, they had not proceeded with the 
 consideration of the same. And in the East London 
 Railway {South Western Extension) Bill, 1866, 185, the 
 Committee on the Bill reported " the Referees on private 
 Bills having reported that the estimate in respect to the 
 said Bill is insufficient, the Committee had not proceeded 
 with the consideration of the Bill." 
 
 In many cases the Bill has been withdrawn from the 
 Committee, as in the South Lancashire Railways and 
 Dock Bill, 1865, 340, in which the Referees having reported 
 that the estimates were insufficient, the Committee on the 
 Bill reported that the parties promoting the same " had 
 stated to the Committee that it was not their intention to 
 proceed with the same." Like reports made in the Garth 
 Quarry Raihuays Bill, 1865, 398 ; and in the Edinburgh 
 and Glasgoiu Railway {No. 3) Bill, 1865, 457. 
 
 Even where the funds for the execution or works are to 
 come out of the private purse of the promoter himself, yefc 
 if the estimate has been reported insufficient, the Committee 
 will not proceed with the Bill. Thus, in the Bute Docks, 
 Cardiff, No. 1, Bill, the estimate having been reported 
 insufficient (1865, 305), it was urged before the Committee 
 that the funds for the execution of the works were not 
 to be raised as in the case of a company's capital, but were 
 to be supplied from the private resources of the promoter ; 
 that the insufficiency of the estimate was therefore not of 
 material consequence ; and that in such a case the Referees' 
 report was not intended to be final {a) ; the Committee 
 declined to proceed with the Bill, and their report (1865, 
 437), after adverting to the Referees' report, runs — " That, 
 in consequence of the said report, the Committee did not 
 further examine into the allegations contained in the 
 
 (a) The authority for these facts will be found in the Evidence before 
 Select Committee, Q. 302.
 
 EFFECT OF REFEREES DECISION. 39 
 
 preamble of the Bill, and had determined to report that 
 the same had not been proved to their satisfaction." 
 
 Where the Referees report that the estimate for a What if pro- 
 particular Bill is insufficient, and the promoters abandon a d^n^^p^rt oT 
 portion of the line, so as to render the amount of the scheme, 
 estimate adequate for the remaining portion, the Committee 
 on the Bill even then will not proceed with it. Thus, in 
 the East and Junction Railway Bill, which was a line 
 from Ellsworth, on the London and North Western, by 
 Northampton to Bedford, the Referees had reported the 
 estimate insufficient — " sufficient provision not having been 
 made for the purchase of valuable property in the town of 
 Northampton, and for contingencies" (1865, 66), the pro- 
 moters proposed before the Committee to abandon that part 
 of the line from Blisworth to Northampton ; but the Com- 
 mittee refused to proceed with the Bill, the Referees not 
 having stated by how much the estimate was deficient. The 
 promoters then moved the Committee to refer the Bill back 
 to the Referees, but this motion was not granted, {a) 
 
 II. 
 
 Where the Referees report that Works inefficient or 
 Encjineeriwj defective. 
 
 It has been found difficult in a number of cases to avoid 
 further opening up, before the Committee, the topics 
 reported on by the Referees. On this subject it was 
 observed, before the Select Committee of 1865, by tlie 
 Chairman of Ways and Means : — " There have been cases 
 which I have heard of, in which, under one pretence or 
 form or another, the questions which have been gone into 
 before the Referees have been gone into again before the 
 Committee under some different name. For instance, 
 
 (a) For the authority for these faets, see Evidence before the Select Com- 
 mittee, Q. 299.
 
 40 
 
 EFFECT OF REFEREES DECISION. 
 
 Works 
 
 •' inefficient.' 
 
 Bill aban- 
 doned. 
 
 where the engineering has been investigated by the Re- 
 ferees, and reported upon, it has been gone into again 
 before the Committee under the name of traflfic, or under 
 the form of how it would aflfect some other railway. (Evi- 
 dence of Mr. Dodson, Q. 1408.) 
 
 And it was also stated by a Chairman of Committees, 
 Mr. Arthur Mills, that, " There has been a great deal of 
 argument or attempted argument on the part of counsel to 
 introduce matters which have been argued and dealt with 
 before the Referees, and questions have constantly arisen as 
 to whether it is competent for counsel to go into points of 
 engineering." (Q. 1,492.) "I think that in all the instances 
 within my recollection the Committee have adhered strictly 
 to the rule of not allowing any evidence to be given to 
 prove or disprove facts found by the Referees. I have 
 strictly adhered to that rule." (Q. 1,498.) 
 
 It is proposed here to state, from an examination of the 
 reports of the Committees, the result of certain of the Bills 
 against which the Referees reported on engineering grounds. 
 The information derivable from the reports of the Com- 
 mittees is necessarily imperfect as to the mode in which the 
 engineering objection was dealt with ; and in many cases 
 these reports make no mention whatever of the report of 
 the Referees. It will be observed that, notwithstanding 
 unfavourable reports from the Referees, Bills have fre- 
 quently passed the Committee. In such cases the promoters 
 probably abandoned the objectionable portion of the works 
 (as where several distinct lines were proposed by the Bill), 
 or undertook to effect some alteration in their objectionable 
 plan (into the engineering details of which the Committee 
 have power to enquire), or came to some arrangement with 
 the opponents. 
 
 In the Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Raihvay 
 (Northern Lines) Bill, the Referees (1866, 223) reported 
 that the works were " inefficient in an engineering point of 
 view." The Committee on the Bill reported (1866, 397) 
 that the promoters had stated it was not their intention to 
 proceed with the same.
 
 EFFECT OF REFEREES' DECISION. 41 
 
 In the Ely and Ogmore Valleys Junction Railway 
 Bill, the Keferees reported, (1865, 423) "The Referees 
 consider the proposed railway objectionable in an engineer- Engineering 
 ing point of view, and that the works are not efficient able." 
 for the object proposed." The Committee on the Bill ^^orJis"not 
 reported (1866, 471) that the promoters had stated to the Bill aban- 
 Committee that it was not their intention to proceed with '^•^'^*^^- 
 the Bill 
 
 In the Perth General Raihuay Station Bill, the 
 Referees reported (1865, 180) that trains coming from the 
 north would have to stand on the Scottish North Eastern 
 main line before entering the proposed line No. 2, and so 
 block the main line, and that this would be an engineering « Engineering 
 defect. The Committee reported (1865, 438) that the ^^fl^^^ 
 promoters had stated it was not their intention to proceed doned. 
 with the Bill. In the North British Raihuay {Carlisle Engineering 
 Citadel Station Branch) Bill, where the Referees (1865, B*|[i^passed 
 297) reported a similar objection, the Committee (1865, 
 490) passed the Bill with amendments. 
 
 In the Caledonian Railway {Glasgow South Side 
 Railways, &c.) Bill, the Referees had reported (1865, 107) 
 " that the works would not be so efficient for the object Works not so 
 proposed as in the interest of the public should be re- should be 
 quired." The report of the Committee on the Bill bears required, 
 that " they had examined the allegations contained in the Preamble 
 preamble of the Bill, but the same had not been proved to j^^^ \^^^ 
 their satisfaction " (1865, 205). proved. 
 
 In the Mold and Denbigh Junction Railway {Eocten- 
 sions) Bill, the Referees reported (1865, 264) that a 
 certain interference with the London and North Western at 
 Mold " would cause some inconvenience to the public ;" that 
 " as regards the construction of the line, sufficient care had 
 not been taken to ascertain accurately the nature of the 
 soil on which the works are proposed to be constructed ;" 
 that a certain junction at Wrexham was "very oljection- 
 able, and is a defect in an engineering point of view." The 
 Committee (1865, 34rl) passed the Bill with amendments, 
 making no allusion in their report to the report of the
 
 42 EFFECT OF REFEREES' DECISION. 
 
 Referees. The Bill proposed to construct four lines, and 
 the above objections applied only to No. 1, 
 
 Cases tuhere the Referees have reported junctions to be 
 impracticable or objectionable. — In the Poole and 
 Bournemouth Railway Bill, the Referees (1865, 53) re- 
 ported that a certain junction " was bad in an engineering 
 point of view." The Committee (1865, 84) passed the BiU, 
 but amended it by striking out the objectionable portion. 
 In the Tottenham and Ham^jstead Junction Railway 
 (Neiu Lines) Bill, the Referees (1865, 128) reported that a 
 certain junction was impracticable, and that " no other 
 mode of effecting a junction consistent with the provisions 
 of the Bill and the powers of the Company was shown to 
 them to be practicable." The Committee (1865, 232) 
 passed the Bill, and it does not appear how the objection 
 was dealt with. But as the Committee have ample powers 
 to sanction alteration of works, the fact that a particular 
 junction is objectionable does not necessarily prove fatal to 
 the Bill. 
 
 Back shunts. — The same observation may be made in 
 reference to back shunts or the non-formation of a par- 
 ticular junction in certain cases. Thus, in the Perth 
 General Railway Station, Scottish Central, &c., Raihuay 
 Companies Bill, the Referees (1865, J 79) reported that 
 Railway No. 2, in not effecting any junction with the lines 
 from the north, would be defective in an engineering point 
 of view, "as trains coming from the north will have to 
 make a back shunt upon Line No. 1, which is intended to 
 be the new main line." The Committee (1865, 882) passed 
 the Bill with amendments. But in the Chipping, 
 Norton, Banbury, and East and West Junction Rail- 
 way Bill, where the Referees (1865, 195) reported that 
 the effecting of a certain junction would involve a back 
 shunt of 52 chains up an incline of 1 in 100, and that 
 this, in their opinion, was an engineering defect, and 
 also that the estimate was inadequate, the Committee 
 on the Bill reported (1865,301) that it appeared by the 
 Referees' Report "that the estimate was insufficient for
 
 EFFECT OF REFEREES' DECISION. 4j3 
 
 the proposed undertaking, and that there was an engmeer- 
 ing defect ; " and that in consequence they did not ex- 
 amine the allegations contained in the preamble, and had 
 determined to report that the same had not been proved to 
 their satisfaction. 
 
 Reports against Facing Points on Main Lines. — The 
 Referees reported against a facing on a main line in the 
 Surrey and Sussex Junction Raihvay Bill (1865, 75); 
 the Committee passed the Bill with amendments (1865, 184). 
 In the Sivansea and Aberystwith Junction Raihvay 
 Bill, the Referees reported (1865, 419) that a certain junc- 
 tion would involve two sets of facing points on a single 
 line, and that this would be " highly objectionable." The 
 Committee passed the Bill with amendments (1865, 501). 
 But, in the Llantrissart and Taff Vale Junction Railway 
 Bill, where the Referees (1865, 422) reported that certain 
 junctions, according to the deposited plans, could not be 
 effected without facing points (see ch. v), the Committee 
 on the Bill reported (1865, 471), " That it appeared by the 
 Referees' report that the junctions, according to the depo- 
 sited plans, could not be effected without the insertion of 
 facing points, which the Referees consider would be objection- 
 able in an engineering point of view. That the mode pro- 
 posed by the promoters to obviate this difficulty cannot, in 
 the opinion of the Referees, be effected under the powers of 
 the Bill. That in consequence of the said report the Com- 
 mittee did not further examine the allegations contained in 
 the preamble, and had determined to report that the same 
 had not been proved to their satisfaction." And in the 
 Wood Green, Winchmore Hill, and Enjield Raihvay Bill, 
 in which the Referees reported (1865, 108) that "the in- 
 troduction of facing points on the main line of the Great 
 Eastern in the way proposed is very undesirable, and only 
 to be allowed in case there are very strong reasons for 
 effecting a junction with both the main lines at this 
 station," the report of the Committee on the Bill (1865, 
 149) bears tliat tlic promoters had stated that it was not 
 their intention to proceed with the Bill.
 
 4-4 EFFECT OF REFEREES' DECISION. 
 
 Wliere Referees report that powers taken by Bill are 
 insujfficient for the construction of the proposed works. — 
 In the North Surrey Railway Bill, by which it was pro- 
 posed to construct a line 2 miles 16 chains long, 2090 
 yards of which would be in tunnel, the Referees had 
 reported (1865, 110) that " No ventilating shafts are in- 
 tended to be made, nor can they be constructed. Con- 
 sidering the length and height of this tunnel, it is very 
 doubtful whether the ventilation in it will be sufficient. No 
 land has been provided at either end for stations, nor are 
 any powers taken to run into any stations in any other 
 line ; and, in this respect, the engineering details are, in the 
 opinion of the Referees, deficient," and had concluded their 
 report thus, " Subject to the foregoing observations, there 
 are no engineering obstacles to the execution of the pro- 
 posed works ; and the question arose before the Committee 
 on the Bill whether the Referees' report was sufficiently 
 definite to prevent the Bill being proceeded with. (See 
 Evidence before Select Committee, Q. 1361) — 5.) The 
 report of the Committee on the Bill (1865, 171) bears 
 " that it appeared by the said report that the Referees are 
 of opinion that the engineering details are insufficient for 
 the proposed undertaking. That in consequence of the 
 said report, the Committee had determined not to examine 
 further the allegations contained in the preamble of the 
 Bill, and to report that the same had not been proved to 
 their satisfaction." In the Leeds, North Yorkshire, and 
 Durham Railway Bill, 1865, 219, the Referees reported, 
 " it has been admitted that no provision has been made for 
 providing station land or buildings at the termini of the 
 said railways, nor at any intermediate points along said 
 lines, nor has any provision been made for sidings at any 
 of the proposed junctions, and the Referees are of opinion 
 that without these several matters being provided the in- 
 tended works will not be efficient for their proposed object." 
 The Committee on the Bill reported (1865, 31<7), that, in 
 consequence, they had not examined fui'ther the allegations 
 in the preamble, and had determined to report that the
 
 EFFECT OF REFEREES' DECISION. 45 
 
 same had not been proved. In the South LancasJdre 
 Railways and Dock Bill the Referees reported (1865, 
 273) that the estimates were insufficient, and that " no pro- 
 vision had been made for providing station land or build- 
 ings, nor had any provision been made for sidings at any 
 of the proposed junctions or at the dock ; and the Referees 
 are of opinion that, without these several matters being 
 provided, the intended works will not be efficient for their 
 proposed object." The Committee reported (1865, 340) 
 that the promoters had stated that it was not their in- 
 tention to proceed with the Bill. In the Hornsey and 
 Kingsland Junction Railway Bill, the Referees (1865, 
 91) reported that no station is provided at a point of junc- 
 tion with another line, nor were any powers taken by the 
 Bill to run into any station upon that line, and that for 
 these reasons they considered the engineering was defective, 
 and the estimate insufficient. The Committee's report 
 (1865, 126) bears that the promoters had stated it was not 
 their intention to proceed with the Bill. 
 
 Adverse R&poH as to interference with Navigation. 
 — The effect of the Referees' decision in reference to inter- 
 ference with navigation is open to some uncertainty. A 
 Bill might interfere with navigation, and yet it might 
 be expedient for the public benefit that it should be 
 passed ; and it has been urged that the interests of 
 navigation should give place, in certain cases, to public 
 advantage on land. {See Evidence before Select Com- 
 mittee, Q. 239.) 
 
 In the Dee and Mersey Junction Railway Bill, the 
 Committee on the Bill reported (1865, 319), "That it 
 appeared by the said reports that it was proposed by the 
 Bill to carry a railway over the river Dee by a viaduct, 
 which the Referees were of opinion could be constructed as 
 proposed for the sum estimated, and that it would be 
 efficient for the object proposed, and that the channel 
 under the said drawbridge might probably be maintained ; 
 but that the effect of such works upon the sands must be 
 very uncertain, and that the Referees were further of
 
 46 EFFECT OF REFEREES' DECISION. 
 
 opinion that, in consequence of the strength of the tide at 
 the site of the proposed bridge, and the short period during 
 which vessels could pass through the same, there would be 
 a serious obstruction to the navigation of the river Dee, 
 accompanied with some danger. That, in consequence of 
 the said report of the Keferees, the Committee did not 
 further examine the allegations contained in the preamble 
 of the Bill, and had determined to report that the same 
 had not been proved to their satisfaction/' 
 
 In the WhiteJiaven and Furness Junction Railway 
 Bill, where it was proposed to cross the Duddon Estuary 
 upon a solid embankment of 2| miles, with only 350 
 yards of open viaduct, and it was objected that this would 
 cause the sand to silt up above the embankment, and would 
 so diminish the area of the tidal basin, and eventually injure 
 certain channels, and the promoters admitted that some 
 silting up would take place, the Referees reported that " as 
 the amount and effect of such silting must be very doubt- 
 ful, they are of opinion that the engineering works will be 
 defective, unless the Board of Trade be empowered to 
 require that an open viaduct may be substituted for so 
 much of the said soUd embankment as they may think 
 requisite. The estimate is sufficient for the works as pro- 
 posed, and some margin has been provided for contingencies ; 
 but if an open viaduct should have to be substituted for a 
 large portion of the embankment, the sum estimated would 
 be insufficient to defray the increased cost." (1865, 80). 
 The Committee on the Bill passed the preamble, and in 
 their report do not allude to the report of the Referees. 
 For what passed before the Committee, see Evidence before 
 Select Committee, Q. 239, et seq. The whole question of 
 interference with the navigation was opened up of new. 
 (Q. 242). 
 
 In the following cases, where it was proposed to construct 
 opening bridges, the Referees reported that the proposed 
 openings were insufficient, and so would interfere with the 
 navigation ; but the Committee on the Bills passed the 
 preambles, and in their reports do not make any reference
 
 QUESTION REFERRED TO REFEREES. 47 
 
 to the Referees' reports, the necessary enlargement of 
 spans having been provided for, viz. : 
 
 Fareham and Netley Railway Bill, 1865, 72, and 
 161. 
 
 Furness Railway Bill, 1865, 79, and 130. 
 
 Sect. XVII. 
 
 QUESTIONS ARISING BEFORE COMMITTEE AND REFERRED 
 
 TO REFEREES. 
 
 By Standing Order, No. 97, "The Select Committee 
 to which any Bill has been referred, may, subject to the 
 approval of the Chairman of Ways and Means, refer any 
 question arising in the course of their enquiry, which they 
 may deem suitable to be so referred, to the Referees for 
 their decision, such question to be stated in writing and 
 signed by the Chairman of the Committee. The Referees, 
 so soon as their enquiry has been completed, to return the 
 question, with their decision certified thereon, to the 
 Chairman.'' 
 
 Committees have, in a number of cases, availed them- 
 selves of the provisions of this Standing Order, and in 
 the Session, 1866, five such remits were made. 
 
 Under this Standing Order the Committees have power 
 so to refer " any question . . . which they may deem 
 suitable to be so referred." They may, therefore, refer ques- 
 tions as to estimates, as well as questions in regard to 
 engineering details and efficiency of works. 
 
 It is to be observed that the question so arising before 
 the Committee, is " to be .stated in writing and signed by 
 the Chairman of the Committee." The following may be 
 taken as a form : — 
 
 " The Committee desire to be iiiforined by the liefercea 
 whether, consistently with ellicicut cugiueering, it is
 
 48 JURISDICTION OVER WHOLE SUBJECT-MATTER. 
 
 practicable within the limits of deviation, to eflect a 
 junction at the point 8 chains further from the commence- 
 ment of Line No. 3, than the point of junction at present 
 proposed ; and, if so, whether the estimate, as amended, 
 will suffice. 
 
 (Signed) Brook W. Bridges, Chairman. 
 Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railicay {Central 
 Station and Lines) Bill, 1866, 297. 
 
 It is also to be observed, that it is entirely optional 
 with the Committee to refer such questions to the Referees. 
 Committees still have power themselves to enquire into the 
 engineering details of such questions, and they have also 
 power to enquire into the engineering details of alternative 
 lines suggested by petitioners, beyond the limits of devia- 
 tion. As to the practice of Committees on this subject see 
 Evidence before the Select Committee, pp. 168-9. {Evi- 
 dence of Mr. Arthur Mills, M.P.) 
 
 Sect. XVIII. 
 
 JURISDICTION OF CONSENT OVER WHOLE SUBJECT-MATTER 
 
 OF BILL. 
 
 It is pi-ovided by Standing Order, 94, that " In case the 
 promoters and opponents of any Bill shall agree that all 
 the questions in issue between them upon such Bill shall be 
 referred to the Referees, it shall be competent to the 
 Referees to inquire into the whole subject-matter of the 
 Bill, and to report their opinion thereon to the House ; and, 
 in case they shall report that such Bill ought to be pro- 
 ceeded with, the same shall, unless the House shall otherwise 
 order, be referred to the Committee on unopposed Bills, 
 and shall be treated as an unopposed Bill." 
 
 Parties have availed themselves of the provisions of this 
 Standing Order in the following instances : —
 
 JURISDICTION OVEli WHOLE SUBJECT-MATTER. 49 
 
 In the Neath New Gas Bill, 1866, 316, all the ques- 
 tions in issue between the promoters and opponents were, 
 in like manner, referred to the Referees, who reported, 
 " that, subject to certain proposed amendments ' made in 
 and annexed to the Bill, which the Referees recommend 
 should be made therein, they are of opinion that the said 
 bill ought to be proceeded with." 
 
 And in the Woo'ksop and Shireoaks Gas Bill, 1866, 
 817, in which all the questions in issue were also referred 
 to the Referees, they reported that " this Bill ought not to 
 be proceeded with, the opponents (an existing Company), 
 undertaking to reduce the price of gas to 4s. per 1000 feet 
 from 1st January next." 
 
 E
 
 50 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 INTERFERENCE OE PROPOSED LINE WITH THE PROPERTY, 
 RIGHTS, ETC., OF OTHER LINES. 
 
 Sect. I. 
 
 TAKING THE LAND OF ANOTHER COMPANY. 
 
 It is an objection in an engineering point of view, if the 
 promoters propose to take for their line land which has 
 been acquired by another company, and of which that 
 company propose to make use for the doubling of their line, 
 for sidings, for stations, or for other purposes connected 
 with their undertaking. 
 
 I. 
 
 Talcing Land intended for another Com'panys Station. 
 
 In the Leeds, North Yorkshire, and Durham Railway 
 Bill, 1865, 219, the Great Northern complained that it 
 was proposed to take land of theirs which was essential to 
 the accommodation and working of their traffic. They had 
 acquired a piece of land about 5^ acres in extent, which 
 they were preparing, by raising the surface 16 feet, for an 
 extension of their goods-station. Railway No. 1, as laid
 
 TAKING LAND OF ANOTHER COMPANY. 
 
 down upon the plan, would pass through the centre of this 
 land, upon the present surface of the ground, and so cut 
 the land into two parts, as well as occupy a considerable 
 portion of the ground. To obviate the objection, the pro- 
 moters proposed, at the option of the petitioners, either to 
 carry their railway in a covered cutting through the said 
 land, without altering the surface thereof as raised (which 
 they could do by slightly depressing the proposed level o 
 their rails), or to deviate their railway so as to pass close 
 along the side of the canal, and thus avoid severing this 
 parcel of land. The Referees reported that either of those 
 propositions could be carried out ; and that, in that event, 
 there would not be any engineering obstacle, so far as the 
 Great Northern were concerned. 
 
 And in the Watford and Fdgware Junction Railway 
 Bill, 1866, 190, a piece of land at Edgware had been 
 bought and taken possession of by the Edgware, Highgate, 
 and London Railway for the purpose of constructing their 
 station at Edgware. The Referees reported that the line 
 of railway proposed by the promoters passed through this 
 piece of land upon the same level with the authorised line 
 of the Edgware, Highgate, and London Railway, and 
 touching it within said land ; that, in fact, as laid out, 
 it must do so in order to effect a junction with the autho- 
 rised Watford and Edgware Railway ; that the promoters 
 had expressed an intention of making a joint station at 
 Edgware, but that no powers wore taken in any Bill to do 
 so; and that, "subject to the above observations, the 
 Referees were of opinion that there were no engineering 
 objections to the proposed works." In this case, the estimate 
 was not challenged. 
 
 E 2
 
 52 TAKING LAND OF ANOTHER COMPANY. 
 
 11. 
 
 Talcing Land intended by another Company for the 
 doubling of their Line. 
 
 In the Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway 
 {Northern Lines) Bill, 1866, 223, the Mid Wales Railway- 
 objected to a portion of the proposed line, which they 
 alleged would interfere with the construction and enlarge- 
 ment of their railway, inasmuch as it would be laid down 
 for its whole length over lands purchased for doubling their 
 line ; that at the Trefifeinon and Talgarth stations it would 
 occupy their second line of rail ; and that at the Three 
 Cocks Junction it would cross the access to their station on 
 the level, and interfere with the efficient working of their 
 goods-yard. The promoters replied that the object of their 
 railway was the doubling of the petitioners' single line of 
 railway, over which they had running powers. The Referees 
 reported that the works were " inefficient in an engineering 
 point of view/' 
 
 In the Okehampton Railway Bill, 1865, 92, the Laun- 
 ceston and South Devon Railway complained that this line 
 would interfere with the jjhysical construction and enlarge- 
 ment of the petitioners' railway, inasmuch as it was laid down 
 for a distance of 5^ miles in close proximity to their rail- 
 way, occupying in some places the actual site thereof, and 
 passing under the bridges constructed by the petitioners for 
 the purposes of their own railway ; and that at the Mary 
 Tavy Station the proposed line would pass between the 
 petitioners' railway and the station now being erected by 
 them ; and it was proved that a portion of the promoters' 
 line was intended to be constructed upon land purchased 
 ])j the petitioners, and which would be required by them 
 for the doubling of their own line. The promoters replied 
 that they could construct their own as a single line within 
 their limits of deviation without infringing upon the peti-
 
 TAKING LAND OF ANOTHER COMPANY. 53 
 
 tioners' railway ; but the Referees reported that this could 
 not be done without infringing upon and rendering impos- 
 sible the intended second line of the petitioners' railway ; 
 that the promoters could not construct a line between the 
 petitioners' line and the cemetery near Tavistock ; and that 
 they would also most probably have to make use of the 
 bridges constructed by the petitioners for their double line, 
 as, in order to pass under the roads which cross over both 
 lines, it might be necessary to alter the gradients of the 
 approaches to the bridges, to do which no powers were taken 
 in the Bill. 
 
 In the Launceston, Bochnin, and Wadehridge Junction 
 Railway Bill, 1865, 875, the Cornwall Railway Company 
 complained that the constniction of a junction at Truro 
 would prevent the widening of their viaduct so as to allow 
 their line, now a single line, to be doubled. To obviate this 
 objection, it was suggested that a junction could be effected 
 within the limits of deviation, by moving the point of junc- 
 tion 2 chains further to the west of the point shown on the 
 deposited plans, and shifting the proposed line so far to the 
 north as to permit the viaduct to be doubled. This could 
 be physically effected, but it would amount to a lengthening 
 of the proposed line to the extent of 2 chains, and it would 
 also shift the point of junction from the pof»ition shown on 
 the deposited plans. The Referees reported that " it is 
 extremely doubtful whether this alteration can be legally 
 executed without the consent of the Cornwall Railway 
 Company ; but they are not competent to determine this 
 matter." 
 
 In the Mold and Denbigh Junction Hallway (Exten- 
 sions) Bill, 1865, 264, the London and North Western 
 Railway objected that where the proposed line No. 1 
 crossed the petitioners' Treiddyn Branch, a bridge was pro- 
 posed of only 15 feet in width, whereas the comi)any had 
 land for a double line ; and that hereafter the line might 
 be doubled and used as a through passenger line, as well as 
 a mineral line, from Mold to Wrexham. The promoters 
 replied that the Treiddyn Branch could only be used as a
 
 54 TAKING LAND OF ANOTHER COMPANY. 
 
 passenger line, the gradients of it being 1 in 34 ; and that, if 
 necessary, as the promoters propose a double line, sufficient 
 width of bridge could hereafter be given. The Referees 
 reported that the width, under the present circumstances, 
 was sufficient. It will be observed, however, in this case, 
 that the petitioners did not allege any immediate or posi- 
 tive intention of doubling their line ; and the Referees 
 treated that merely as a contingency which " might " occur. 
 Of a like nature was the decision in the case of the 
 London, Worcester, and South Wales Railway Bill, 
 1865, 86, where the Great Western objected that the pro- 
 posed railway would cross their Stratford-upon-Avon Branch 
 by a bridge of only 28 feet span, at a point where they had 
 already a single main line with two sidings, and " might ' 
 hereafter require an additional line of rail. The promoters 
 stated that they were willing to make the bridge of 40 feet 
 span, which would be sufficient to carry the line over the 
 existing line and sidings. The Referees reported that 
 there were no engineering objections. In the Bromyard 
 and Hereford Railway Bill, 1866, 88, it was objected 
 that Railway No. 2 ran parallel, on the north side, to the 
 Worcester and Hereford Railway for 3 miles and 5 furlongs, 
 and that Railway No. 3 also ran parallel to the Shrewsbury 
 and Hereford Railway for 2 miles and 5 chains, at a dis- 
 tance, in many points, of not more than 50 feet from centre 
 to centre of each line. It was shown that the Worcester 
 and Hereford Company, though a single line, had taken 
 land and constructed works which defined the second line 
 to be on its south side, and that the Shrewsbury and Here- 
 ford Railway had already completed their double line. The 
 Referees reported that "the objections alleged to engineer- 
 ing details are not such as should prevail against the pro- 
 moters' scheme." In the Shrewsbury and Potteries Junc- 
 tion Railway Bill, 1865, 257, the opponents urged that 
 lines Nos. 2 & 3 would extend for a considerable distance 
 closely parallel to the Shrewsbury and Crewe and Shrews- 
 bury and Welshpool Railways, and prevent any future 
 widening of those lines on the side thus approached ; and
 
 TAKING LAND OF ANOTHER COMPANY. 55 
 
 that No. 1 would cause similar iaconvenience by running 
 parallel to the Wellington and Drayton Line, and that it 
 would be interposed between that line and Hodnet. The 
 Referees reported that the proposed lines would not unduly 
 interfere with the petitioners' railways, and that they are 
 calculated to relieve the Shrewsbury Station of much 
 traffic that now enters it only for the purpose of being- 
 shunted and marshalled for conveyance in different direc- 
 tions ; and further, that the objections alleged to engineer- 
 ing details were not such as should prevail against the 
 promoters' scheme. 
 
 III. 
 
 Talcing Land intended for another Company s Sidings. 
 
 In the Ely and Ogmore Valleys Junction Raihvay 
 Bill, 1805, 423, the Ely Valley Extension Eailway urged, 
 among other objections, that line No. 1 should have joined 
 their line, instead of passing under it in a deep cutting, in- 
 terfering with the only ground for sidings at that point. 
 The Referees reported that the works of tiiis line, as laid 
 out, were not efficient for the object proposed, inasmuch as 
 the proposed railway did not join the Ely Valley Extension 
 Railway, and " interfered in a most prejudicial manner" 
 with their siding ground. In the Sivansea and Aherysttvith 
 Junction Raihvay, 1805, 419, the proposed railway would 
 run for about 3 miles beside the Towy Vale Railway. 
 The Referees reported that the lines for all the distance 
 would be so close together that they were described as being 
 on separate embankments, with only a ditch between them, 
 and that, as sidings for local accommodation could only 
 be placed on one side of eacli, they would be two one- 
 sided railways ; and that, as they also passed along the 
 agricultural district of the Vale of Towy, generally nearly 
 on the level and intersecting the farms, any accommodation
 
 56 TAKING LAND OF ANOTHER COMPANY. 
 
 or other roads must be carried across both lines, which 
 would be inconvenient and dangerous. And in the West 
 Bromwich and Walsall Raihvay Bill, 1866, 217, the 
 London and North Western Railway objected that by the 
 bridge by which it was proposed to carry the line over the 
 Grand Junction Railway at their Bescot Station, the peti- 
 tioners would be prevented from extending their siding ac- 
 commodation at that station. The Referees reported that 
 the span of the bridge should be enlarged so as to cross the 
 whole of the property of the Grand Junction Railway at 
 the point of crossing, and that an additional opening of 24 
 feet span should be made in the embankment at each end 
 of such enlarged span of the bridge. 
 
 IV. 
 
 What if the Opponents have long neglected to make use 
 of the land alleged to be required by them for Station, 
 Doubling Line, Sidings, &c. 
 
 If it should appear that the petitioning company have 
 no use for the land proposed to be taken, or that they have 
 so long delayed to turn it to the use for which it was ob- 
 tained as to lead to that inference, the Referees will not 
 consider it an engineering objection if it is proposed to be 
 taken by another company. Thus, in the Mold and Den- 
 bigh Railway {Branches, &c.) Bill, 1866, 220, the London 
 and North Western objected that the proposed diversion of 
 the stream near their Llong station, along the south side of 
 their Hne, and the construction of the proposed railways 
 close to their fence, for 2 miles on the north side, would so 
 confine the space as to prevent them from laying down any 
 sidings at the Llong Station, and from hereafter making 
 any communications from the north side. The promotei'S 
 replied that the petitioners' railway had been in use for 1 5
 
 TAKING LINE OF ANOTHER COMPANY. 57 
 
 years ; but that, though they had taken land for a double 
 line, they had only laid down a single line, and had not 
 constructed any communication on the north side. The 
 Referees reported that there were no engineering objections, 
 and that the works were efficient. 
 
 V. 
 
 Taking Land which another Company are authorised to 
 take, but have not yet taken. 
 
 In the case of the Maidstone and Ashford Railway 
 Bill, 1866, 65, this objection was taken, but was not sus- 
 tained by the Referees on its being admitted by the peti- 
 tioners that the land might be made to serve the purposes 
 of both companies. The facts were these :• — The London, 
 Chatham, and Dover Railway objected that Railway No. 2 
 was laid down through certain lands adjoining the town of 
 Maidstone, which they had authority to purchase land, and 
 upon which they intended to place a station, with ap- 
 proaches from Weeks Street and Water Lane, which would 
 be intercepted by the proposed line. No lands had actually 
 been purchased, nor any works commenced, and it was 
 admitted tliat a station might be erected which would serve 
 the purposes of both companies. The Referees reported 
 that there were no engineering objections. 
 
 VI. 
 
 What if the compulsory Powers enabling the Opponents 
 to take the Land have expired. 
 
 Where the compulsory powers of the petitioners for 
 taking the laud iiad expired, and tlie period for completion
 
 58 INTERFERENCE WITH ANOTHER COMPANY'S WORKS. 
 
 of works would expire in three months, the Referees 
 refused to sustain the petitioners' objection. This was in 
 the London, Brighton, and South Coast Raihvay {St. 
 Leonard's and Hastings Lines) Bill, 1866, 254, where 
 the South Eastern objected that the proposed Railway 
 would prevent them from obtaining access, by the tram- 
 road authorised by " The Hastings Harbour Act, 1853," to 
 the pier and harbour at Hastings, The Referees reported 
 that the tramroad had not yet been commenced, but that 
 the relative levels of the two undertakings would be such 
 that the tramroad could, without difficulty, be carried over 
 the proposed railway ; and further, that the compulsory 
 powers under the Act to purchase lands had already 
 expired, and that the period for the completion of the 
 works would expire in three months, and that the works 
 were efficient. 
 
 Sect. II. 
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH ANOTHER COMPANY'S EXISTING 
 
 WORKS. 
 
 I. 
 
 Extent to tuhich interference with another Company's 
 existing sidings will be alloiued. 
 
 In the Evesham, and Redditch Railway Bill, 1865, 85, 
 the Great Western objected that the line, No. 3, as laid 
 down on the deposited plans, would cross the sidings lead- 
 ing to their goods station, turntable, and engine sheds, upon 
 an embankment of the height of 4 or 5 feet, placed upon 
 the rails of the said sidings. The Referees reported that 
 " crossing them in this manner would be most objectionable, 
 as it would entirely block uj) these sidings.'' The jDromoters, 
 however, offered, by commencing their gradient towards 
 the station (which on the deposited plans was 1 in 100),
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH ANOTHER COMPANY'S WORKS. 59 
 
 some chains further off, to cross the sidings on the level of 
 the rails ; and the Referees reported that if the sidings 
 were crossed on the level, there would be no engineering 
 objection to the proposed line. 
 
 In the Ogmore Valley Railway {Ko. 1) Bill, 1865, 420, 
 it was objected that the sidings of the Llantrissart and Taff 
 Vale Railway would be rendered useless for junction pur- 
 poses, from the proposed line. No. 5, bisecting them on 
 the level, and that the point of junction was where the 
 passenger traffic of the two lines, the Ely Valley and the 
 Llantrissart and Taff Vale, would pass, according to the 
 requirements of the Board of Trade, and that the Llan- 
 trissart line had no power to alter the position of their 
 sidings. The promoters replied that these sidings were 
 not legally authorised, and ought not to be there, and that 
 they could by arrangement be shifted so as to avoid any 
 difficulty. The Referees reported that, in regard to the 
 legality of the said sidings, they expressed no opinion, but 
 they considered the manner in which the line, No, 5, pro- 
 posed to meet them as oljectionable in an engineering 
 point of view, and that the line, No. 5, was defective in an 
 engineering point of view, if the sidings were legally in 
 their present position. In the West Broniwich and Wal- 
 sall Railway Bill, 186t), 217, the Loudon and North 
 Western Railway objected, and it was admitted, that rail- 
 way. No. 2, would cut through six sets of sidings at Bescot 
 Station, in order to effect a junction with the Grand Junc- 
 tion Railway ; and the Referees considered that the line 
 was defective in an engineering point of view, as laid out. 
 The promoters, however, further alleged that the line could 
 be so altered, within the limits of deviation, as to affect the 
 proposed junction with the Grand Junction Railway with- 
 out interfering with the said sidings. The Referees : " it 
 is doubtful whether this can be effected, and, in the opinion 
 of the Referees, the effecting of the said junction ought to 
 be made, dependent upon the consent of the London and 
 North Western Railway." In the North British Raihvay 
 {Carlisle Citadel Station Branch) Bill, 18(j5, 297, Rail-
 
 60 INTERFEKENCE WITH ANOTHER COMPANY'S WORKS. 
 
 way, No. 2, would cross a siding to the west of the existing 
 goods line, and destroy the use of it ; but the Referees 
 reported that this siding was used chiefly for the reception 
 of North British trains, which, if the proposed line be 
 made, would be accommodated elsewhere. In the London 
 and North Western Railway (New Works, <&c.) [England 
 and Scotland'] Bill, 1865, 242, a line promoted by the 
 London and North Western, to join the St. Helen's Railway, 
 was objected to by owners, &c., along the line, because it 
 would, on a gradient of 1 in 80, pass through and cross all 
 the lines of sidings of that Company's good station (13 
 pair of rails), and their goods yard. The promoters 
 replied that they had purchased land lately in the 
 immediate vicinity of the St. Helen's Station, for station 
 purposes, and proposed to move all the sidings and 
 goods yards mentioned by the petitioners to another 
 part of the St. Helen's Railway, so as to avoid any crossing 
 or interference with the sidings and stations. The 
 Referees reported that the line might safely be constructed 
 in the way proposed, and that there were no engineering 
 objections. 
 
 II. 
 
 Destroying points constructed for turning trains from 
 swinging bridge when opened. 
 
 In the Swansea Vale and Neath and Brecon Junction 
 Railway Bill, 1865, 372, the Vale of Neath Railway ob- 
 jected to a proposed junction with the Swansea and Neath 
 Railway, close to the swinging bridge which carries the 
 latter line over the new cut leading to the harbour and 
 north docks. The control of this bridge is vested in the 
 Swansea Harbour Trustees, and the bridge is opened at 
 irregular intervals during a period of four hours for each 
 tide. In order to prevent danger to trains running from 
 the Swansea and Neath line over the bridge, the Board of
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH ANOTHER COMPANY'S WORKS. 61 
 
 Trade required that points should be put into that railway, 
 in such a manner that a train coming towards the bridge, 
 should be deflected into the curve forming a junction with 
 the promoters' railway, instead of passing forward to the 
 bridge, unless the points were expressly laid for the passaire 
 of a train over said bridge. The Referees reported that if 
 the junction proposed be constructed, the benefit of this 
 arrangement would be taken away, and the danger of 
 accident in passing said bridge would be augmented ; but 
 that with care and constant attention the j unction could be 
 worked. 
 
 III. 
 
 Grossing another Company's line on the level. 
 
 In the Pemhrohe and Tenhy Railway Bill, 1866, 256, 
 the Great Western objected to two level crossings, as being 
 in close proximity to level crossings in their railway at tlic 
 several points. The promoters stated in reply, that the 
 two railways would be in such close proximity to each 
 other, that the two proposed level crossings and those now 
 existing in the petitioners' railway at these points, could be 
 worked by one gatekeeper, without increase of danger to 
 the public. The Referees reported that, in an engineering 
 point of view, the works proposed were efficient, (a) In 
 the Peterborough, Wisbeach, and Sutton Raihuay Bill, 
 1865, 119, the Great Eastern Railway objected that, if a 
 proposed junction with their line at Wisbeach were sanc- 
 tioned, it would cause their line to be crossed on the level 
 in front of their station. The Referees reported that there 
 was no engineering objection to this junction being made, 
 " under proper arraugomeuts between the Companies." In 
 the Hadlow Railivay Bill, 1S65, 61, the South Eastern 
 alleged that a proi^oscd junction at the Tonbridge Station 
 
 («) A level crossing over a turnpike road was allowed, for a like reason, 
 in the Bo'nm Ac. Bill, 1866, 264.
 
 62 
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH ANOTHER COMPANY S WORKS. 
 
 Crossing an 
 abandoned 
 line on the 
 level. 
 
 Where speed 
 of trains slow 
 ^t point of 
 crossing. 
 
 would cause serious inconvenience in the working of their 
 traffic, as one of the branches of the pro})osed hne would 
 cross the petitioners' main line in approaching the station ; 
 and they maintained that the proposed line should, there- 
 fore, be carried either over or under their railway. The 
 Referees considered that " either of these alterations of the 
 dejiosited plans would be objectionable and unnecessary." 
 The proposed junction would be formed about a quarter of 
 a mile from the station, and the petitioners' line would be 
 crossed 700 feet from the south end of the goods station, 
 and 2,300 feet from the end of the passenger station, and 
 the petitioners' railway at that point is upon a long straight 
 line, nearly level. The Referees reported that the junction 
 as proposed was quite practicable, and would be safe 
 " under proper management." 
 
 In the Vrofthead and Kilmarnock Extension Railway 
 Bill, 1865, 77, the Glasgow and Southwestern objected to 
 a junction with their main line, very close to the station 
 of Kilmarnock, on the ground that it would be necessary 
 to cross upon a level certain lines of theirs leading to cer- 
 tain coal pits now being worked, and that the effecting of 
 such junction with the main line would interfere with their 
 access to certain sidings on the west of their line. The 
 Referees reported that the making of " the proposed junc- 
 tion would not be objectionable, if made under proper 
 arrangements, such as a blind siding tothe coal pit line. 
 
 In the Wrexham, 31 old, and Connah's Quay Railway 
 Bill, 1865, 260, it was proposed to cross on the level an 
 abondoned branch of the existing Wheatsheaf line. The 
 petitioners admitted that this line was not at present 
 worked, but said it might be brought into use again. The 
 Referees reported, in reference to this and certain other 
 proposed level crossings, that "the inconvenience that 
 would arise from the level crossings complained of, was not 
 proved to them to be of such a nature as to constitute an 
 engineering objection." 
 
 In the ConnaJis Quay Railway and Docks Bill, 1865, 
 258", it was objected that Railway No. 1 would cross the
 
 INTERFERENCE AVITH ANOTHER COMPANY'S WORKS. 63 
 
 Buckley line of railway leading to the present basin at 
 Connah's Quay upon the level, the said railway being 
 there upon a gradient of 1 in 34 ; but it was proved that 
 the point of crossing is near the termination of the said 
 Buckley Railway, where the speed of trains must be slow; 
 and, further, that the Railway No. 1, when completed, would 
 supersede that part of the Buckley Railway, save for a small 
 portion of local traffic. The Referees reported that there 
 'was no engineering objection to such crossing. And in 
 the London and North Western and Midland Counties 
 Coal Fields Raihvay Bill, 1866, 198, it was objected that 
 Railway No. 5, in order to make a junction at Burton with 
 the London and North Western Railway, would cross the 
 branch of the Midland Railway, which leads to the brew- 
 eries on the level, at a point close to where the London and 
 North Western and North Staffordshire Railways join that 
 railway. It was proved that the lines to be so crossed 
 were only used for slow goods traffic. The Referees re- 
 ported that the junction would be unobjectionable. In 
 the Vale of Neath Railway {Swansea Lines) Bill, 1865, Line to be 
 367, it was proposed to cross on the level a low level niineral. 
 railway of the Swansea Harl)Our Trustees, upon which 
 there was a considerable mineral traffic, and which was 
 worked by horses. The Referees reported that the pro- 
 posed railway was merely a siding into a j^roposed new 
 goods station ; that trains never could be run over it at any 
 speed ; and that, as the control of the crossing and signals 
 would be in the hands of the petitioners, they were of 
 opinion that there were no engineering objections to the 
 construction of the proposed line. And in the North Bri- 
 tish Raihvay {Gani'ps, &c., Branches) Bill, 1866, 375, 
 the Caledonian Railway objected that railway No. 2 
 would be carried across an authorised line of theirs. Tlic HuUi liuoa 
 Referees reported that both lines were purely mineral "ii"cral. 
 lines, and could not have any great traffic ; and that, 
 therefore, there would not be any serious engineering 
 objection. Crossing local 
 
 See also as to crossing local lines on the level in order to toToin'miia 
 
 lines.
 
 64 INTERFERENCE WITH ANOTHER COMPANY'S WORKS. 
 
 effect junctions with main lines, East London Railway 
 Bill, 1865, 113, and London, Brighton, and South Coast 
 {Additional Powers) Bill, 1865, 14:3, cited Chapter V. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Interference with the station arrangements and ap- 
 proaches of another Company. 
 
 In the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway {No. 2) 
 Bill, 1865, 59, the South Eastern Railway alleged that the 
 proposed line, as laid down, would cut off the access to 
 Beckenham Station, and by approaching closely to the 
 booking office would necessitate its removal, and injuriously 
 affect the arrangement of the platform and lines for the 
 accommodation and interchanges of local traffic between 
 the two companies ; and they suggested that the line 
 might be deviated within tlie parliamentary limits, and 
 lowered five feet, so as to be carried under the present 
 approach road, and not to interfere with the existing station 
 arrangements. The promoters stated that their object was 
 to carry the fast through traffic past the Beckenham 
 station without interfering with the local traffic ; and they 
 proposed to carry out the works by widening an adjoining 
 bridge, which carries a public road over the railway to a 
 sufficient width to give a convenient approach, and by 
 erecting a new booking office on the level of the bridge, 
 with separate stairs descending to the different platforms, 
 and by transferring only some unimportant sidings and a 
 turn-table from one side to the other, without in an};- ma- 
 terial point altering the arrangements of the existing lines. 
 The Referees reported that there were no engineering diffi- 
 culties, and that the proposed works were efficient. In the 
 Surrey and Sussex Junction Raihvay Bill, lb65, 75, 
 the Loudon, Brighton, and South Coast Railway objected 
 that Railway No. 2, if constructed where the centre line is
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH ANOTHER COMPANY'S WORKS. 65 
 
 laid down on the plans, would cross the approach to their 
 new station at Croydon within ten yards of the same, and, 
 being there upon an embankment of five feet, it would 
 block up the approach to the said station. This was 
 admitted by the promoters ; but they proposed to deviate 
 their line from the centre line, within the limits of devia- 
 tion, so as to remove it to a sufficient distance from the 
 new station, and to afford an approach to the same by 
 means of Crohan Lane, which the proposed line would 
 cross by a flat girder over-bridge. The Referees reported 
 that, if these proj)osals were carried out, they would remedy 
 the objections as regards the new station. In the Crystal 
 Palace New Railway Bill, 1865, 150, the London, Brigh- 
 ton, and South Coast Railway objected that Railway No. 2 
 would prevent the making of an intended approach to the 
 petitioners' Croydon Central Station, and that the carrying 
 of the said line under the main lines of the petitioners 
 would be attended with danger At the site of the in- 
 tended approach Railway No. 2 would be 19 feet below the 
 surface of the ground. The Referees reported that the 
 intended approach could readily be constructed over it, and 
 that, " with the ordinary precautions," the carrying of the 
 Railway No. 2 over the petitioners' main line would not be 
 attended with danger. In the Mold and Denbigh Junc- 
 tion Railway {Extensions) Bill, 1865, 2G4, the London 
 and North Western Railway complained that their station 
 at Mold would be seriously prejudiced by the proposed 
 deviation of a turnpike road, from which their station is 
 now approached on either side, and that the descent on the 
 Mold side from the turnpike road would be altered from I 
 in 18 to 1 in 11 or 1 in 15. The promoters replied that 
 the slope would continue 1 in 18, and end before reaching 
 the door of the station l>uilding ; that there would be 
 sufficient level for the use of carriages, and that the access 
 from the goods station would be improved. The Referees 
 reported " that in regard to the interference with the Lon- 
 don and North Western at Mold, the proposed arrange- 
 ment would cause some inconvenience to the public." In 
 
 F
 
 66 INTERFERENCE WITH ANOTHER COMPANY'S WORKS, 
 
 the North British Raikuay {Carlisle Citadel Station 
 Branch) Bill, 1865, 297, Railway No. 3 was objected to on 
 the ground that, by joining the goods Hnes, it would shorten 
 the space available for the standing of a train from 1,100 
 feet (its present length) to 950 feet, which would be insuffi- 
 cient ; and, also, that it would require additional points 
 and signals to be introduced and worked. It was proved 
 that upon certain occasions the entire space (1,100 feet) 
 was insufficient for the accommodation of the trains coming 
 into the goods lines. It was proposed to work some of the 
 points and signals, to be introduced, by another man in 
 addition to the person at present in charge of the points 
 and signals at the north end of the station ; but the Re- 
 ferees reported that, to ensure safety, all the points and 
 signals at that end should be under the control of one 
 man ; and that, if the proposed railways should be exe- 
 cuted, the number which must then be placed in his charge 
 would be excessive ; that there were then six companies 
 making use of the Citadel Station, and the traffic was very 
 crowded, 476 engines passing the signal-box at the north 
 end within the 24 hours ; and that, if the proposed lines 
 were made, some of those engines belonging to the North 
 British Railway would not pass that signal-box ; but that 
 the passenger train engines would still pass along or across 
 the existing lines. 
 
 V. 
 
 Interference with the Arch of another Gom'pany. 
 
 In the Burton-upon-Trent and Nottingham Railway 
 Bill, 1865, 217, the Midland Railway objected that it was 
 intended to appropriate one of the arches of the bridge 
 carrying Hawkins Lane in Burton-upon-Trent, over the 
 Midland and North Western Railways, this bridge having 
 been built by the Midland, and the arch reserved for their
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH ANOTHER COMPANY'S WORKS. 67 
 
 own use. The promoters contended that, if they should not 
 be permitted to do so, they could effect their purpose by 
 constructing another arch under Hawkins Lane, which 
 they could do without altering the level of the lane. The 
 Referees reported that " it would be preferable, in an 
 eugineering point of view, that the arch reserved by the 
 Midland Railway Company should not be interfered with." 
 
 VI. 
 
 When the Promoters' poivers of Deviation will be 
 
 rest7'icted. 
 
 In the North British Railway (Olasgoiv Branches) 
 Bill, 1866, 221, the City of Glasgow Union Railway ob- 
 jected that the Railway No. 7 would, for a distance of half 
 a mile, be parallel to, and pass so near the petitioners' 
 authorised railway (parts of the latter being included 
 within the limits of deviation) as to interfere with the effi- 
 cient construction of their line. The promoters replied 
 that, though the limits of deviation of No. 7, had been 
 carried beyond those of the petitioners' railway, they had 
 no intention of interfering with their works, which as yet 
 had not been constructed. The Referees reported that 
 there would be no difficulty in constructing both the autho- 
 rised and the proposed railways, without interference with 
 each other ; but they thought that the promoters should 
 be so restricted as to prevent them from deviating for more 
 than the width necessary for the construction of one-half 
 their railway from their centre line, as shown in the 
 deposited plan, in the direction of the Glasgow Union 
 Railway, without the consent of the petitioners. In the 
 Caledonian Raihvay (Greenock and Oourock Extensions) 
 Bill, 1866, 109, the Greenock Harbour Trustees objected 
 that the foot of the slope of an embankment upon which 
 Railway No. 1 was to be constnicted, would project beyond 
 
 f2
 
 •68 MISCELLANEOUS INSTANCES OF INTEEFEEENCE. 
 
 the line of the seawall of the Albert Harbour, But the 
 promoters undertook that it should be so removed back- 
 ward that the foot of said slope should not project in any 
 manner. In the Same Bill the promoters further under- 
 took not to take any land comprised within the limits of 
 deviation of the authorised line of the Greenock and Ayr- 
 shire Kailway. 
 
 Sect. III. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS INSTANCES OF INTEEFEEENCE WITH OTHEE 
 
 LINES. 
 
 I. 
 
 Objection that Promoters' trains will have to stand on 
 Petitioners' Main Line. 
 
 In the Perth General Railway Station Bill, 1865, 180, 
 the Joint Committee for the management of the General 
 Station at Perth objected that inasmuch as the junction of 
 No. 2 with No. 1 was to be made close to the Glasgow 
 Road Bridge, where the line of the Scottish Central termi- 
 nates, it might be necessary for the interchange of traffic 
 that trains coming from the north should stand upon the 
 Scottish North Eastern Main Line before entering No. 2, 
 and so block the main line. The Referees reported that 
 this would be an engineering defect, unless the Scottish 
 North Eastern Railway were empowered to use No. 2 for 
 the purpose of delivering traffic coming from the north 
 consigned to the Scottish Central Railway. And in the 
 No7-th Bi'itish Railway (Carlisle Citadel Station BroAich) 
 Bill, 1805, 297, it was objected that Railway No. 2 would 
 cross the goods line and also the main passenger lines, for 
 the purpose of forming junctions with the latter, and also 
 with the line appropriated to the North British at the west 
 side of the North Dock ; and it was objected that trains
 
 MISCELLANEOUS INSTANCES OF INTERFERENCE. 69 
 
 running over the said railway into the portion of the North 
 Dock approj)riated to the North British, would stand across 
 and block up the main lines of the said station. The 
 Eeferees reported that " the crossing of the said lines will 
 cause a serious obstruction to the traffic thereof, and if 
 any train of above ] 2 carriages should run into the North 
 Dock, it will block the main passenger lines." 
 
 II. 
 
 Destroying points at Junctions. 
 
 In the North British Railway (Carlisle Citadel Station 
 Branch) Bill, 1865, 297, the Referees reported that "No. 
 2 Railway will also destroy two sets of points within the 
 station now used for effecting junctions between the lines 
 therein, and no substitutes have been pointed out for such 
 junctions. It will require four additional sets of points to 
 be introduced within such station, wliich will be required 
 to be worked from the present signal station TOO yards 
 distant." 
 
 III. 
 
 Doing that which will entail expense on another Company 
 without countervailing advantage. 
 
 In the Havant, Ilamhledon, and Droxford Railway Bill, 
 1865, 45, whore the promoters proposed to divert a certain 
 turnpike road, the petitioners, who were about to construct a 
 bridge over the same road, objected tbat the proposed diver- 
 sion would necessitate the construction of a skew bridge 
 in the place of a square one, as proposjed by them, which 
 would cause a consequent increase of expense to them for 
 the sole benefit of the promoters. The promoters agreed 
 to divert the turnpike road without any interference with 
 the petitioners' bridge.
 
 70 MISCELLANEOUS INSTANCES OF INTEEFERENCE, 
 
 IV. 
 
 Passing under Petitionei's Line in such a way as to 
 prevent their lowering same. 
 
 In the Bromyard and Hereford Railway Bill, 1866, 88, 
 it "was objected that a height of only 16 feet 6 inches fi'om 
 rail to rail was provided for the line to pass under the 
 Shrewsbury and Hereford Eailway ; and it was contended 
 that this would prevent the lowering of that line in future, 
 should occasion so require. The Referees reported that 
 this height would give sufficient headway ; that no evidence 
 was given to show that the Shrewsbury and Hereford line 
 would require any alteration of its level; and that this 
 objection was not valid. 
 
 V. 
 
 Doing that which luill prevent another Company from using 
 a line over which they have running powers. 
 
 In the Fulham Railway Bill, 1865, 127, the proposed 
 Railway No. 2 would terminate by a junction with the 
 Hammersmith and City Railway. By an Act passed in 
 1864, the South Western were authorised to effect a junc- 
 tion with the Hammersmith and City Railway near the 
 station now existing, to run over certain portions of the 
 same, and to become joint owners of an exchange station 
 to be constructed in the vicinity of the existing station at 
 Hammersmith. T^e South Western Railway complained 
 that Railway No, 2, if the junction proposed should be 
 effected as laid down on the plan, would debar them from 
 using the portion of the Hammersmith and City Line 
 which they were entitled to use, and from the use of the
 
 MISCELLANEOUS INSTANCES OF INTERFERENCE. 71 
 
 joint station. The promoters, to obviate these objections, 
 proposed to effect their junction at a point 6 chains south 
 of the point originally proposed, and with this the South 
 Western Railway were satisfied. 
 
 YI. 
 
 Cutting off Communication between Petitioners' Line and 
 a Quay, the trafic of which it accommodates. 
 
 In the Lynn and Sutton Bridge Raikuay Bill, 1865, 74, 
 the Great Eastern objected that wliile the Harbour Branch 
 of their railway runs along a quay beside the river Ouse, 
 and accommodates the traffic shipped or unshipped thereon, 
 the proposed railway is to pass on the same quay be- 
 tween this branch and the river, and on the same level, 
 so as to cut off their communication with the river, 
 and otherwise interfere with their land and property, 
 as well as with several sidings leading to certain coal drops 
 on the river, these crossings being on a level. The Referees 
 reported that " the proposed line will interfere, to a certain 
 extent, with the communication of the Harbour Branch of 
 the Great Eastern with tlie river, and with the access to 
 the coal drops ; but otherwise there are no engineering 
 objections to it." 
 
 VII. 
 
 Imperilling another Company's Line through danger 
 arising from slips, &c. 
 
 In the Mold and Denbigh Junction Railway {Extension) 
 Bill, 1865, 264', the Wrexham and Minora and Great 
 Western Companies alleged that Railway No. 1 sought to 
 effect an ill-advised and defective junction with their \\nv
 
 72 petitioners' line altered after deposit of plans. 
 
 at Wrexham, and was badly laid out in an engineering 
 point of view. In support of this allegation, the petitioners 
 stated that they had experienced considerable difficulties in 
 constructing their own line owing to the soft and shifting 
 nature of the soil ; and that, although it was nowhere in 
 deep cvittiug, constant slips had taken place ; that the pro- 
 posed line was, where it crossed under petitioners' line (at 
 the point on embankment) 52 feet below the surface ; that 
 further on, the promoters proposed a cutting of 18 feet, 
 which would imperil the foundations of petitioners' railway. 
 The promoters called evidence to show that although the 
 construction of the line might be expensive from the nature 
 of the soil, it was practicable ; and that the depth of the 
 cutting alleged by the petitioners was exceptional, and 
 owing to the formation of the land at that point. The 
 Referees reported that " sufficient care had not been taken 
 to ascertain accurately the nature of the soil on which the 
 works are proposed to be constructed." 
 
 Sect. IV. 
 
 WHAT IF THE INTERFERENCE COMPLAINED OF RESULTS 
 FROM petitioners' HAVING ALTERED CONDITION OF 
 THEIR LINE, &C., SUBSEQUENTLY TO DEPOSIT OF PLANS. 
 
 If the petitioners have added an additional line to their 
 railway, or constructed sidings subsequently to the pro- 
 moters' survey and the deposit of the plans, the Referees 
 Avill deal with such additional line or sidings as if they had 
 existed prior to the deposit of the plans ; and, therefore, 
 will not hold their non-existence at that date, as any ex- 
 cuse for undue interference therewith by the proposed 
 line. Two cases of this nature have occurred. In the 
 North Surrey Railway Bill, 1865, 110, the London, 
 Chatham, and Dover Railway alleged that, at a pro- 
 posed point of junction at Clapham Station, their railway
 
 petitionees' line altered after deposit of plans. 73 
 
 consisted of four lines of way, two of which were intended 
 to be appropriated to the City traffic of their own litfe, and 
 the other two to the London, Brighton, and South Coast 
 Railway; and that, as the junction was only proposed to be 
 effected with the latter two lines, no proper junction could 
 be made with the petitioners' lines ; and that the powers 
 contained in the Bill for the promoters to enter into working 
 arrangements with the petitioners could not be carried into 
 effect. The promoters replied that at the time when the 
 survey and plans were made, there were but two lines 
 of rails on the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway at the 
 Clapham Station, and with these two the proposed junction 
 would be effected. The Referees reported that " If this 
 railway is intended to facilitate the access to the City, the 
 engineering will be defective unless the junction be also 
 effected with the London, Chatham, and Dover lines ; and 
 to do this it would be necessary to cross the two lines ap- 
 propriated to the London, Brighton, and South Coast Line." 
 And in the North British Railway {Carlisle Citadel Station 
 Branch) Bill, 1865, 297, the Caledonian and other Com- 
 panies objected that Line No. 2, would intersect a part of 
 the petitioners' new goods yard, and cross some of their 
 sidings so as to render them less serviceable. The Referees 
 reported tliat a clear headway of 11 feet 6 inches would 
 be left over the sidings in question, which headway, if 
 deemed necessary, might be increased by about 6 inches ; 
 that there would not be any injurious interference with the 
 said sidings or goods-yard ; and that, it was to be observed, 
 that, at the time of making the pkms deposited, no sidings 
 were in existence in said goods-yard, but that they were, 
 nevertheless, bond fide sidings, the new goods station being 
 in course of erection.
 
 74. 
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH A PROPOSED LINE. 
 
 Sect. V. 
 
 Gradients 
 incompatible. 
 
 Gradients 
 and curves 
 incompatible. 
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH A RAILWAY AUTHORISED BUT NOT 
 YET CONSTRUCTED, OR WITH A PROPOSED LINE NOT 
 YET AUTHORISED. 
 
 If, for example, a proposed junction appear from the 
 deposited plans to be impracticable, in consequence of the 
 level of the proposed line, as shown, being incompatible 
 with the level of the opposing line, as authorised or as 
 proposed, and if by mutual alteration of gradients the two 
 lines may be brought to the same level, the Referees will 
 not report that there exist any engineering obstacles. Such 
 was the course adopted by the Court in the following cases: — 
 In the Bromyaj'd and Hereford Raihuay Bill, 1866, 66, 
 the Great Western alleged that the gradient of the Wes- 
 tern fork of the double junction of Railway No. 1, and 
 that of the Worcester, Bromyard, and Leominster Railway, 
 with which the junction was intended to be effected, were 
 incompatible. The last-mentioned line had not yet been 
 constructed ; and the Referees reported that, although the 
 junction could not be effected as shown on the deposited 
 plans, it was practicable by an adjustment of the gradients 
 of the two lines, within their powei-s, when under construction. 
 And in the Ci'oydon, Mitcham, and Kingston Raihuay 
 Bill, 1866, 92, it was objected that where Railway No. 4, 
 formed a junction with the Kingston, Maiden, and Wim- 
 bledon Junction Railway, the gradients and curves of those 
 two lines, as shown on the deposited plans and sections, 
 were incompatible. The Referees reported that as neither 
 of these lines had yet been constructed, and it was not 
 denied that by an alteration of both, which could be made 
 within the powers of the General Act, the junction might 
 be effected, this objection was not valid.
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH A PROPOSED LINE. 7o 
 
 The same principle is followed where it is proposed that Levels incom- 
 tlie promoters' line should cross on the level another line ^^[^1 'q^ 
 not yet constructed or authorised, and there appear from crossing on 
 the respective plans and sections a difference in the levels 
 of the two lines at the point of crossing. Thus, in the 
 Wood Green, Winchmore Hill, and Enfield Railway 
 Bill, 1865, 108, the Great Eastern complained that the 
 railway would cross a projected line of theirs to Winchmore 
 Hill within one foot of the level of the same. The 
 Referees reported that though the construction of both 
 lines at the proposed levels was incompatible, yet " as 
 neither had received the sanction of Parliament, this objec- 
 tion, in an engineering point of view, was not admissible." 
 Again, in the Croydon, Mitcham, and Kingston Railway 
 Bill, 1866, 92, it was oljjected that where the line crossed 
 the proposed line of the City, Kingston, and Richmond 
 Railway, it was 3 feet 9 inches under the level of that 
 line, as shown by the respective sections. The Referees 
 reported that as neither of these lines had yet received 
 the sanction of Parliament, that did not constitute an 
 engineering objection to the proposed line. And in the 
 Caledonian Railway (Greenock and GourocJc Extensions) 
 Bill, 1866, 109, the Greenock and Ayrshire Railway 
 Company complained that the promoters No. 1 line, ter- 
 minating in the Clyde, was laid out so as to cross a line 
 of railway proposed to be made by the petitioners (and 
 for Avhich a Bill was now before Parliament), in a similar 
 direction to No. 1, so as to extend railway accommodation 
 to the traffic of steamers. The Referees reported that this 
 crossing and all interference could be avoided by altering 
 the direction of both railways, so that they may run in a 
 parallel direction, that of the petitioners being kept to the 
 seaward of No. 1, and that such alterations were within 
 the limits of deviation. 
 
 And, generally, it may be taken as the rule, that if by 
 mutual alteration of the two schemes within their powers 
 of deviation, the engineering difficulty complained of can 
 be obviated, the Referees will report in favour of the pro-
 
 76 
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH A PROPOSED LINE. 
 
 Interference 
 with slopes of 
 authorised 
 embankment. 
 
 Proposed 
 change of site 
 of petitioner's 
 authorised 
 station. 
 
 InsuflBcient 
 headway over 
 authorised 
 line. 
 
 posed line. The following cases further illustrate the 
 practice of the Referees in this matter. In the Burton- 
 iipon-Trent and Nottingham Railway i?iZZ, 1865, 21 7, it 
 was objected that Railway No, 1 would be carried so close 
 to the authorised North Staffordshire Railway as to inter- 
 fere with the slopes thereof The referees reported that 
 this could be obviated by constructing the embankment of 
 the latter railway with a retaining wall where it may be 
 necessary, and that there was ample room for both lines. 
 In the Barnet, Hendon, and Midland Junction Railway 
 Bill, 1866, 205, the Edgware, Highgate, and London Rail- 
 way objected that the junction of the proposed railway 
 with their railway was objectionable, inasmuch as it was 
 made south of, and at a greater distance than necesary from, 
 the Finchley Station. The promoters stated in reply that 
 the junction could be effected within the limits of deviation 
 nearer to the station ; and that, by a small alteration of 
 its site, the station (not yet built) might be made con- 
 venient for the use of both railways. The Referees reported 
 that the works were efficient. 
 
 In the Bd'ness, Grangemouth, and South Alloa Junction 
 Railway Bill, 1866, 264, it was objected that the level of 
 the rails, as shown on the sections, where the line crossed 
 over the North British Bridge of the Forth Railway, wculd 
 not afford a sufficient headway for that line. It was 
 answered that the bridge of the Forth Railway was not 
 yet constructed, and there would be no difficulty in giving 
 ample headway for that line, by having recourse to the 
 lateral and vertical deviations permitted by the General 
 Act. The Referees reported that the works proposed were 
 efficient. 
 
 The London, Chatham, and Dover and South Eastern 
 (Kennington, Ciapham, and Brixton) Railways Bill, 1866, 
 163, and the Brixton, Ciapham, a7id Balham Extension 
 Railway Bill, 1866, 165, proposed to construct railways 
 which, between Brixton and Streatham, would be nearly 
 parallel to each other, and, according to the deposited plans 
 and sections, the lines would intersect at Brixton, the
 
 HEADWAY AND SPAN OF BRIDGES OVER LINES. 77 
 
 former passing over the latter at a height of from 7 feet 
 to 9 feet 6 inches only. In their report on each of the 
 Bills the Referees merely stated the above facts, without 
 comment. 
 
 Sect VI. 
 
 HEADWAY AND SPAN OF BRIDGES OVER OTHER LINES — DIS- 
 TURBING GRADIENTS OF OTHER LINES BY SUCH BRIDGES. 
 
 In crossing over anotlier line, it is obviously necessary Headway, 
 that the promoters should provide sufficient headway, so as to 
 allow that hne to be efficiently worked. In order to obtain 
 such headway, to what extent will the promoters be allowed 
 to disturb the gradients of the line over which they pass ? 
 It is provided l)y the General Railways Act, s. 49, {a) 
 that : — 
 
 " The descent made in the road, in order to carry the 
 same under the bridge, sball not be more than one foot in 
 thirty, if the bridge be over a turnpike road ; one foot in 
 tAventy, if over a public carriage road ; and one foot in 
 sixteen feet, if over a private carriage road, not being a 
 tramroad or railroad ; or if the same he over a tramroad or 
 railroad, the descent shall not he greater than the prescrihed 
 rate of inclination ; and if no rate he prescribed, the same 
 shall not he greater than as it existed at the passing of the 
 Special Act.'''' 
 
 In consequence of this provision, unless the promoters 
 obtain special powers, the gradient of another line, over 
 which their line passes, cannot be interfered with ; and the 
 promoters must therefore so direct the gradients of their 
 proposed railway as to pass over such lines at a sufficient 
 elevation. Objections on the score of insufficiency of head- 
 
 (a) Similar provision for Scotland in Railway Clauses (Scotland) Act, 
 i>ect. 42.
 
 78 HEADWAY AND SPAN OF BEIDGES OVER LINES. 
 
 way are, however, almost invariably obviated, before the 
 Referees, by some alteration within the promoters' powers 
 of vertical and lateral deviation. The following are 
 miscellaneous instances of this class of objections to engi- 
 neering : — 
 
 In the Burton-upon- Trent and Nottingham Railway 
 Bill, 1865, 217, it was objected that Railway No. 1 would 
 be carried over the Midland Railway by a bridge which 
 was shown in the deposited plan to have only a height of 
 16 feet from rail to rail, and that this would not afford 
 sufficient headway ; but the Referees reported that, by a 
 trifling alteration, sufficient headway could be obtained. 
 
 In the Aberdare Valley and Caerphilly Junction Rail- 
 way Bill, 1866, 115, the Taff Vale Railway alleged that the 
 proposed line would cross diagonally over their Llancaigh 
 Branch, which at that point was on a gradient of 1 in 8, so 
 as to leave a minimum headway of only 8 feet ; that, although 
 their branch could not be worked by locomotive power, 
 certain of their engines, with reduced funnels, were passed 
 along it for use elsewhere ; and they contended that suffi- 
 cient headway ought to be given to allow a locomotive with 
 a funnel of the ordinary height to pass. The promoters 
 proved that the branch was crossed near the same place by 
 a turnpike road bridge with a minimum headway of 10 feet 
 3 inches ; and also that by crossing a few yards farther 
 down the incline, within the limits of deviation, they could 
 give a minimum headway of 14 feet. The Referees re- 
 ported that the headway as proposed was equal to that now 
 given under the road bridge ; but that, Avith a view to future 
 contingencies, it was desirable that the proposed line should 
 be so constructed as to give a headway of 14 feet. 
 
 In the Caledonian Railway {Greenock and GourocJc 
 Extensions) Bill, 1860, 109, the Referees reported that 
 Railway No. 3 would cross a proposed line of the Greenock 
 and Ayrshire Railway with a difference of level of only 
 10 feet 8 inches; but that, as the last-mentioned hne was 
 there descending on a gradient of ] in 70, by shifting the 
 point of crossing 300 feet to the eastward (which could be
 
 HEADWAY AND SPAN OF BRIDGES OVER LINES. 79 
 
 done within the limits of deviation) Line No. 3 could cross 
 with a clear headway of 1 3 feet 6 inches. 
 
 Where the promoters' line proposes to cross, with an 
 insufficient headway, the line of another company not yet 
 constructed, but either already authorised or before Parlia- 
 ment, and by mutual alteration of gradients within the 
 powers of deviation, the necessary headway can be pro- 
 vided, the Keferees will not report unfavourably of the 
 proposed line. See Bo'ness, Grangemouth, and Soiith Alloa 
 Junction Railway Bill; London, Chatham, and Dover and 
 South Eastern {Kennington, Clapham, and Brixton) Rail- 
 way Bill ; and Brixton, Clapham, and Balham Extension 
 Railway Bill, cited in sect. 5 of this chapter. 
 
 It will also be a valid engineering objection if the pro- Span. 
 meters propose to cross over another line by a bridge the 
 span of which is insufficient to clear the line and sidings of 
 the latter. Thus in the Evesham and Redditch Railway 
 Bill, L865, 85, the Great Western objected that Line No. 1 
 would cross the main line and sidings of their Stratford and 
 Honeybourne Branch, which there consists of a main single 
 line and two sidings, by an arch of only 26 feet span. It was 
 admitted that such a span would be insufficient to cross 
 over the line and sidings. The Eeferees reported that if 
 the span were increased to 40 feet there would be no en- 
 gineering objection. 
 
 And it is to be kept in view that it is not only necessary 
 that the promoters' bridge should clear the lines of rails 
 and sidings actually laid down and used by the line to 
 be crossed, but if there be an intention on the part of the 
 petitioners to lay down additional rails, or construct 
 sidings at that spot, the bridge must be of sufficient span 
 to meet these future contingencies. See the West Brom- 
 wich and Walsall Railway Bill, 186(), 217, where the 
 promoters were requii-ed so to enlarge the span of their 
 proposed bridge, and make other provisions as to admit 
 of the future extension of the sidings of the Grand 
 Junction Railway, over whose line they were to pass. 
 And in the London, Worcester, and South Wales Bill,
 
 HEADWAY OF BRIDGES UNDER LINES. 
 
 1865, 86, the Great "Western objected that the pro- 
 posed railway would cross their line by a bridge of only 
 28 feet span at a point where they had at present a single 
 main line with two sidings, and might hereafter require 
 space for an additional line of rail. The promoters stated 
 that they were willing to make the bridge of 40 feet span, 
 which would be suflficient to carry the line over the existing 
 line and sidings. The Referees reported that there were 
 no engineering objections. In this case, however, it will be 
 noticed that the petitioners did not allege a positive inten- 
 tion to construct the additional line of rail, but merely that 
 they " might hereafter require " to do so. See an analogous 
 case, the Mold and Denbigh Junction Railway {Exten- 
 sions) Bill, ] 865, 264. 
 
 Sect. VII. 
 
 headway of bridges under other lines — disturbing 
 gradients of other lines by such bridges. 
 
 It is provided by the General Railways Act, 1845, 
 sect. 50, (a.) in reference to bridges under roads and other 
 lines, that : — 
 
 " The ascent shall not be more than one foot in thirty 
 feet, if the road be a turnpike road ; one foot in twenty 
 feet, if a public carriage road ; and one foot in sixteen 
 feet, if a private carriage road, not being a tramroad or 
 railroad ; or if the same be a tramroad or railroad, the 
 ascent shall not be greater than the prescribed rate of 
 inclination ; and if no rate be prescribed, the same shall 
 not be greater than as it existed at the passing of the 
 Special Act." 
 
 The promoters cannot therefore do anything which will 
 necessitate the alteration of the gradient of a line under 
 
 (a) Similar provisions for Scotland in Railway Clauses (Scotland) Act, 
 sect. 43.
 
 HEADWAY OF BRIDGES UNDER LINES. 81 
 
 which they pass, without special powers. Objections raised 
 by such lines, on the ground of insufficiency of headway, 
 are not uncommon, but are usually remedied by the pro- 
 moters undertaking, within the limits of deviation, to make 
 their gradient a little steeper, or to begin the incline at 
 a farther distance, so as to obtain the necessary headway. 
 Thus in the Barnet, Hendon, Hampstead, and London 
 Railiuay Bill, 1865, 69, the Metropolitan and St. John's 
 Wood Railway objected that Line No. 1 would cross under 
 the petitioners' Hampstead Extension, with only 11 feet 
 headway, and that Line No. 2 would pass under the same 
 line with only 10 feet headway, a height insufficient for 
 locomotives and carriages ; and that to obtain the requisite 
 height of 1 4 feet, must interfere with the gradient of the 
 Hampstead Extension Line, which was a gradient of 1 in 
 27. The promoters, to obviate this objection, agreed to 
 alter their gradient under that line. 
 
 In the Burton -upon -Trent and Nottingham Railway 
 Bill, 186'5, 218, it was objected that Railway No. 3 could 
 not be constructed, as proposed, to pass under the North 
 Staffordshire Railway, as the headway would be insuffi- 
 cient ; but. No. 3 being there upon a gradient of 1 in 1,016, 
 and having 660 feet further to run before reaching its 
 point of junction with the London and North Western 
 Railway, the Referees reported that by making the gra- 
 dient a little more steep, still being less than 1 in 500, 
 ample headway could be provided. 
 
 In the Bromyard and Hereford Railiuay Bill, 1 86G, 88, 
 it was objected that a height of only 16 feet 6 inches from 
 rail to rail was provided for the line to pass under the 
 Shrewsbury and Hereford Railway, and it was contended 
 that this would prevent the lowering of that line in 
 future, should occasion so require. The Referees reported 
 that that height would give sufficient headway ; that no 
 evidence was given to show that the Shrew.sbury and Here- 
 ford Line would require any alteration of its level, and this 
 objection was not valid. 
 
 G
 
 82 
 
 OBSTRUCTIONS TO VIEW OF SIGNALS. 
 
 Sect. VIII. 
 
 Over-bridge. 
 
 Preventing 
 view of 
 station. 
 
 Over-bridge. 
 
 Preventing 
 view of 
 signals. 
 
 Over-bridge. 
 
 OBSTRUCTION TO VIEW OF SIGNALS AT JUNCTIONS AND 
 AT STATIONS, AND TO VIEW OF LINE, ETC. 
 
 Id the Bedford, Northampton, and Weedon Railway 
 Bill, 1865, 67, Railway No. 4 would effect a junction with 
 the main line of the London and North Western Railway, 
 near the Castle Station of the latter in Northampton. The 
 line would be made with a curve of 13 chains radius ; and 
 the point of junction would be close to an over-bridge, a 
 few yards only from the station, which bridge it was alleged 
 would prevent the driver of a train coming along the pro- 
 posed line from seeing into the station. The Referees re- 
 ported, — " There does not seem to the Referees to be any 
 substantial objection to the engineering of branch No. 4, 
 a proper system of signals being provided." In the Same 
 Bill, ibid, the London and North Western objected that, by 
 the manner in which Railway No. 6 proposed to cross their 
 line near their Weedon Station (by an over-bridge), it would 
 offer an additional impediment to that caused by an exist- 
 ing over-bridge to the signals near the station being seen 
 by the driver of a train coming into Weedon from the 
 north ; and it was proposed to deviate the lines, but the 
 Referees reported that this would involve the crossing of a 
 road upon the level, for which no provision had been made 
 in the Bill, and that " The additional impediment to the 
 signals being seen would, in the opinion of the Referees, 
 be very trivial, the signals being at a very considerable 
 elevation." In the Crystal Palace New Raikvays Bill, 
 1865, 159, the London, Brighton, and South Coast Rail- 
 way objected that Railway No. 1 would be carried over the 
 petitioners' Wimbledon and Croydon Railway at the height 
 of 1 6 feet 6 inches, and at a distance of about 800 yards 
 from the petitioners' West Croydon Station, that line
 
 OBSTRUCTIONS TO VIEW OF SIGNALS. 83 
 
 having, at the point of crossing, a curve of 15^ chains 
 
 radius, and being upon the surface ; and it was alleged 
 
 that the interposing of a bridge at this point would obstruct Obstructing 
 
 the view along this line to the station. The Referees ^^"^T ^^ 
 . . station. 
 
 reported — "It will to some extent so obstruct the view, but, 
 
 in the opinion of the Referees, with ordinary precautions, it 
 will not be any engineering obstacle to the construction of 
 the proposed line/' In the Wrexham Mold and Connah's 
 Quay Bill, 1865, 260, it was objected that Line No 2, 
 coming down at a gradient of 1 in 40, would effect a junc- 
 tion with No. 3, on which line the curve at the point of 
 junction was 1 chains, with an inclination of 1 in 80 ; that 
 the lines pass under two roads, and, as the level of the 
 
 roads was unaltered, it would be necessary to construct 
 
 . • , Bridges, 
 
 bridges which must be continuous and bell-mouthed, equiva- obstructing 
 
 lent in effect to a tunnel, obscuring the proper working forking of 
 of the lines. The promoters replied that the traffic of the 
 junction would be within proper management with signals, 
 and that in such a country, from the difficult nature of the 
 ground, great reliance must be placed on signals at all 
 junctions; but that in this case the objection might be 
 partially obviated by straightening the road, and building 
 two bridges instead of one at a distance from each other of 
 about 40 yards. By the Bill a number of other lines were 
 proposed, all of which were objected to. The Referees 
 reported, " that, considering the formation of the country, 
 the nature of the traffic (at the present time wholly mine- 
 ral), and the complication and number of the existing 
 colliery lines, there are no engineering objections to any of 
 the proposed railways of such a nature as to render their 
 construction undesirable, except Nos. 6 and 7." In the 
 Same Bill, ibid, it was alleged that a bridge, carrying line q , . , 
 No. 6 over the Minera and Wheatsheaf Railway, would 
 cause a serious obstruction to the view of parts of the exist- Obstructing 
 ing railway, where there is much traffic, and care is re- ^''c^ of parts 
 quired in its management. The Referees reported that the 
 objection seemed well founded ; but that " it is not deemed 
 that the proposed bridge would c^use the obstruction to the 
 
 G 2
 
 84 
 
 OBSTRUCTIONS TO VIEW OF SIGNALS 
 
 Over-bridge. 
 Obscuring 
 view of Hue. 
 
 Junction 
 hidden by 
 proposed 
 embankment. 
 
 Bridge 
 obstructing 
 view of line. 
 
 view on important parts of the existing lines." And in the 
 Same Bill objection was further taken to a proposed bridge 
 over the Ffroed Branch of the existing Wrexham and 
 Minora Line, obscuring the view where there is much 
 mineral traffic, and interfering with the use of some sidings 
 at the point where the bridge crosses the other line. The 
 promoters denied that any inconvenience would occur at 
 this point, as, from the nature of the ground, the most 
 important points would not be obscured. The Referees re- 
 ported that the evidence on this point was very conflicting ; 
 and, that, from the nature of the country, it was difficult to 
 measure the amount of inconvenience that would be sus- 
 tained ; that some inconvenience could not fail to occur in 
 the management of the existing traffic, but that it did not 
 appear to them that it would be of a serious nature. In 
 the Leeds, North Yorksfdre, and Durham Railway Bill, 
 1865, 219, a junction with the North Eastern was objected 
 to, on the ground that the point of junction, which would 
 be about 20 chains from the Pickering Station, would be 
 hidden from view from said station by the embankment, 
 upon which another of the promoters' proposed lines there 
 crossed the North Eastern ; but, it having been proved that 
 an opening could be made in the embankment, so as to 
 afford a view of this point of junction, the Referees reported 
 that, with this alteration, there would be no engineering 
 objections. In the Same Bill, Railway No. 4 was objected 
 to by the North Eastern, upon the ground that it would 
 cross the petitioners' railway at their Wellington Street 
 Goods Station, Leeds, by a bridge in such a manner as 
 would impede all view of anything descending the peti- 
 tioners' line — which there descends with a gradient of 1 in 
 50. But, it was proved, that Railway No. 4 would there 
 be carried upon an open iron viaduct. The Referees 
 reported that there would be no engineering objection 
 upon the grounds alleged. In the Same Bill, Railway No. 
 21, which would form a junction with the North Eastern, 
 was objected to, upon the ground that the point of junction, 
 which would be about half a mile from the Seamer Station,
 
 OBSTKUCTIONS TO VIEW OF SIGNALS. 85 
 
 and the same distance from the Filey Junction of the 
 
 North Eastern, ought to be effected at the Seamer Station ; 
 
 and that, if constructed as proposed, it would be hidden Junction 
 
 . 1 1 hidden by 
 
 from view from said station by the embankment upon embankment. 
 
 which Railway No. 2 there crosses the North Eastern, The 
 Referees reported, that "the effecting of the junction at the 
 Seamer Station would involve the placing the junction 
 where the North Eastern Railway crosses a public road 
 upon the level ; and it was proved, that, by deviating Rail- 
 way No. 2, and putting an opening in the embankment, 
 upon which it is to cross the North Eastern Railway, a 
 view of both the proposed and the Filey Junctions can be 
 preserved, and with these alterations the Referees are of 
 opinion that there were no engineering objections to the 
 proposed junction.'" In the London, Worcester, and South ^ 
 
 Wales Railway Bill, 1865, 86, the Great Western Railway 
 objected that the line crossed their main line by an over- Over-bridge. 
 bridge, 14 feet high, 20 yards from the north end of a tun- 
 nel of 800 yards, approaching their Worcester Station; 
 and that the bridge would intercept the view of the signal, intercepting 
 which was placed at the south end of the said tunnel, so as J^^^fJ 
 to be seen through it. The promoters replied that the 
 signal could not now be seen at a greater distance through 
 the tunnel than the l^ridge, of the height of 14 feet, would 
 admit; and that, by placing a repeating signal on the 
 north side of the proposed bridge, greater safety than at 
 present would be attained. The Referees reported that the 
 proposed bridge " would not materially obstruct the signal 
 through the tunnel, and that increased safety would be 
 o))tained by having a repeating signal placed north of it." 
 See also Iladloiu Railway Bill, 1866, 66, where a junc- 
 tion was proposed with another line at a point only 7^ junction near 
 chains from the mouth of a tunnel ; but there was already a ni^oi't^j of 
 signal station at the mouth of the tunnel, and the Referees 
 reported in favour of the junction : the Wolverhampton 
 and Bridgnorth Railway Bill, 1865, 234, where it was 
 objected that a tunnel would intervene between a point of 
 junction and the Bridgnorth Station, the mouth thereof
 
 86 
 
 OBSTRUCTIONS TO VIEW OF SIGNALS. 
 
 Tunnel 
 intervening 
 between 
 junction and 
 station. 
 Tunnel near 
 point of 
 junction. 
 
 being 17 chains from the station; but tbe Keferees re- 
 ported in favour ; and also the Lancashire and York- 
 sliire Railway (Additional Powers) Bill, 1865, 239, where 
 the proposed branch entered a tunnel 530 yards in length, 
 about 14 chains from the point of junction with the pro- 
 moters' main line, which, it was alleged, would render it 
 difficult to see the junction signals. {Post, Chap. V.)
 
 87 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH CANALS. 
 
 Sect. I. 
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH LAND OF CANAL COMPANY. 
 
 As promoters will not be allowed to take the land acquired 
 by other companies for purposes of their own, so they will 
 not be allowed to deprive canal companies (canals, like 
 railways, being undertakings for the public advantage) 
 of land which they themselves require. In the Chester 
 and West Cheshire Railway Junction Bill, 1866, 89, it 
 was objected that valuable land on which the wharf of 
 the Shropshire Canal was situated would be taken under 
 the compulsory powers of the Bill. If so, the canal 
 company would be much injured ; but the promoters 
 offered not to] take any land which would deprive the 
 petitioners of the power to extend their present dock 
 for 80 feet, and to make a road round the south end 
 of the dock so extended, of 12 feet in width. These con- 
 cessions removed the petitioners' objections, and the Re- 
 ferees reported that there were no objections in an engineer- 
 ing point of view.
 
 88 LINE RUNNIiNG BESIDE CANAL. 
 
 II. 
 
 PROPOSED LINE RUNNING FOR FIVE MILES BESIDE CANAL, 
 AND FOR TWO MILES OF THAT DISTANCE BELOW 
 LEVEL OF THE CANAL. 
 
 Id the Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway 
 Bill, 1865, 425, the proposed line would run along the 
 western side of the Glamorganshire Canal for 3 miles ; it 
 would then be carried under the canal at a depth of 16 
 feet below the bottom of the water ; and would continue 
 its course on the eastern side below the level of the canal 
 for about 2 miles. The Canal Company and the Taff Vale 
 Railway objected that, in consequence of the porous and 
 shifting nature of the soil, and the frequency of land sHps 
 in the Taff Valley, the proximity of the proposed railway to 
 the canal (some of the cuttings being only 50 feet distant 
 from the bank), and the proposed railway being below the 
 level of the canal for about 2 miles, serious danger was to 
 be apprehended to the works of the canal from leakage and 
 from the slipping of the banks, both during the construc- 
 tion of the proposed railway, and also after its completion ; 
 further, that the traffic on the canal must necessarily be 
 stopped during the construction of the proposed bridge 
 under the canal ; and that no provision had been made by 
 the promoters to obviate this difficulty. The promoters 
 replied that, whatever might be the nature of the soil, no 
 danger need arise to the works of the canal, if proper pre- 
 cautions be used in the construction of the proposed line ; 
 that by building retaining walls (for which they had pro- 
 vided in their estimates) in those portions of the line where 
 the railway was in cutting below the level of and close to the 
 banks of the canal, the danger arising from leakao-e of the 
 water or slipping of the banks would be avoided ; and that, 
 during the construction of the bridge under the canal, no
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH TOWING PATHS. 89 
 
 interference would be caused to the traffic. The Referees 
 reported that " considering the heavy character of the pro- 
 posed works, and the porous and unstable nature of the soil, 
 more than ordinary care will be required in the construction 
 of the proposed railway ; that even under those circum- 
 stances the execution of the works will necessitate in 
 certain cases a deviation of the centre line and the con- 
 struction of retaining walls to a considerable extent (possibly 
 of an aggregate length of 3 miles) ; but that the execution 
 of the proposed works is a question of expense for which 
 sufficient provision had been made in the estimates." 
 
 Sect. III. 
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH PASSAGE OF VESSELS TO CANAL, 
 
 In the Bute Docks, Cardiff, (No. 1) Bill, 1865, 805, the 
 Glamorganshire Canal Company complained that the pro- 
 posed works would injure the access to their canal, and 
 interfere with the anchorage grounds of vessels. The 
 Keferees reported, " That the proposed works might, 
 under certain conditions of wind and tide, slightly interfere 
 with the passage of small vessels to or from the entrance to 
 the Glamorganshire Canal ; but that very few and only 
 small vessels ever take such a course as could be so inter- 
 fered with." 
 
 Sect. IV. 
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH TGWINQ PATHS. 
 
 In the Vale of Neath Railway {Swansea Lines, cfcc.) 
 BiU, 1865, 367, the Swansea Harbour Trustees complained 
 that the promoters proposed to acquire certain towing-
 
 90 HEADWAY OF BRIDGES OVER CANALS. 
 
 paths adjoining the Ship Canal at Swansea, used by vessels 
 entering the River Tame and proceeding to the North 
 Dock. The Referees reported, that " it will be necessary that 
 the free use of a towing-path at least 16 feet wide should 
 be preserved to the Harbour Trustees and the public." And 
 in the Swansea and Clydach Railway Bill, 1866, 263, it 
 was objected that the proposed railway would interfere with 
 the Swansea Canal, by occupying parts of their property, 
 restricting the towing-path, &;c. As to the towing-path, 
 the promoters replied that they proposed to make the 
 towing-path of the uniform width of 6 feet wherever they 
 interfered with it. The Referees reported in favour of the 
 scheme. See also the Edinburgh and Glasgow {No. 2) 
 Railway Bill, 1865, 359, infra. 
 
 The widths of towing-paths must necessarily depend in 
 each case on the requirements of the particular canal. The 
 above cases, however, show that the Referees will take care 
 that towing-paths are not destroyed or unduly restricted. 
 
 Sect, V. 
 
 HEADWAY AND SPAN OF BRIDGES OVER CANALS. 
 
 The Referees will require the span and headway of such 
 bridges to be sufficient for the requirements of the canal ; 
 and any undue diminution of the waterway or headway 
 will be accounted an objection in an engineering point of 
 view. In the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway {No. 2) 
 Bill, 1865, 359, the Forth and Clyde Navigation Company 
 objected inter alia that the spans (30 feet) of the arches, 
 by which it was proposed to carry the railway over their 
 canal, were insufficient. It was proved that along the 
 petitioners' canal the existing bridges did not exceed 30 
 feet span. The Referees were of opinion " that the bridges 
 in question ought to be of a span of 36 feet, so as to leave 
 80 feet of waterway, exclusive of the towing path ; and
 
 TUNNELS UNDER CANALS. 91 
 
 that with those alterations there will not be any engi- 
 neering objections to the construction of the railway pro- 
 posed." In the Chester and West Cheshire Junction 
 Raihuay Bill, 1866, 89, it having been objected that the 
 proposed railway would cross the Shropshire Canal by a 
 bridge of 25 feet span, with a headway of 9 feet, and the 
 promoters having agreed to construct the bridge of 85 feet 
 span, with a headway of 10 feet, the petitioners' objection 
 was withdrawn. And in the Stvansea and Clydach Rail- 
 way Bill, 1866, 263, the Swansea Canal Company objected 
 that the proposed railway would occupy parts of their 
 property, contracting the waterway at the points at which 
 the railway would cross the canal. The promoters replied 
 that their bridges over the canal would be of the span of 
 15 feet, and of 7 feet headway, and would be similar to 
 other bridges over the canal ; and that they were prepared, 
 if necessary, to increase the span of the bridges. The 
 Referees reported that the works were efficient. 
 
 As to destroying waterway of a private canal, see Mid- 
 land Railvjay (Branches, &c.) Bill, 18GG, 119, Chap. iv. 
 Sect. i. 
 
 Sect. VI. 
 
 TUNNELS UNDER CANALS. 
 
 See Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway 
 Bill, 1865, 425, supra Sect ii.
 
 92 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH THE PROPERTY OF PRIVATE INDI- 
 VIDUALS AND PRIVATE COMPANIES. INTERFERENCE 
 WITH PRIVATE RAILWAYS AND TRAMWAYS. 
 
 Sect. I. 
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH THE PROPERTY OF PRIVATE INDI- 
 VIDUALS AND PRIVATE COMPANIES. 
 
 It has been seen that, as a general rule, where it is pro- 
 posed to take the land or injuriously affect the line, stations, 
 &c., of another railway, that will be considered an objec- 
 tion in an engineering point of view by the Referees. 
 But this is owing to the public importauce attaching to the 
 maintenance and efficiency of a public railway. The rule 
 is otherwise in regard to interference with private property. 
 For this, the remedy provided is compensation. Whether 
 the public importance of the proposed line is sufficiently 
 great to outweigh the private inconvenience resulting from 
 taking compulsorily the property of an individual, is a 
 question of policy, which the Committee on the BiU, and 
 not the Referees, have to consider and determine. It may, 
 therefore, be stated as the general rule, that no matter how 
 great may be the amount of interference with or injury to 
 the property of private individuals, or private companies, 
 the Referees will not consider such interference an objec- 
 tion to the promoters' scheme, — unless, perhaps, in excep- 
 tional cases, where it is of public importance that private
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVATE PROPERTY. 93 
 
 rights should be protected. In many cases they have 
 reported (for the information of the Committee on the Bill) 
 the extent and consequences of the interference ; while at 
 the same time reporting favourably of the scheme in an 
 engineering point of view. The cases of this nature are 
 here collected. 
 
 In the Darnet, Hendon, Hampstead, and London Rail- 
 way Bill, 1865, 69, the Referees called attention in their 
 report to the fact that one petitioner alleged that he was 
 a lessee for a long term of years, and otherwise beneficially Residential 
 interested in the Belsize Park Estate, which he had laid damage. 
 out in building residences of a first class character ; and of 
 which estate some portion was proposed to be compulsorily 
 taken for the purposes of the undertaking, and the resi- 
 dential character of which would be totally destroyed, to 
 the petitioners' loss and prejudice ; and for which he was 
 advised he had no power of enforcing compensation by law, 
 beyond the injury done to the property actually taken by 
 the railway. And they reported that there was " no valid 
 engineering objection to the proposed railways." 
 
 In the Leeds, North YorksJdre, and Durham Railway 
 Bill, J 865, 219, the Referees' report bears : "A petition was 
 also presented on behalf of the owners of Ampleforth College, damaete. 
 in the county of York ; but the subject of their complaint 
 being, in the opinion of the Referees, rather a question of 
 residential damage, the Referees do not offer any opinion 
 thereon." In the Same Bill, an owner of land on the pro- 
 posed line complained, " that it was proposed to raise a 
 certain bridge, called Monk Bridge, a height of 7 feet, 
 which would cause the approaches to his land to be more injury to 
 steep ; " and he and other owners of land complained that :il|l>|'oache8 to 
 Railway No. 1 would destroy a certain plot of land " which injury to land 
 had been laid out for the erection of mills and wharves." l^i'l out for 
 
 nulls and 
 
 The Referees reported that " the matters complamcd of wliari-cs. 
 relate to a claim for compensation, rather than to an engi- 
 neering defect," and that they did not consider that, so far 
 as this petition was concerned, tliere were any engineering 
 obstacles to the execution of the proposed railway."
 
 94. 
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVATE PROPERTY. 
 
 Destroying 
 access to 
 estate. 
 
 Injiiiy to 
 private 
 road, (a) 
 aud sewer. 
 Residential 
 damage. 
 
 Injury to 
 sewers. 
 
 In the Great Western Railway Bill (1 S. & G. 124), C. 
 and others objected that the proposed railway joined an 
 existing railway by a junction very near to a level crossing, 
 which was the only means of access to a portion of the 
 petitioners' valuable estate ; and the effect of the two lines 
 being so near, would be that the level crossing would be 
 rendered practically useless. The Referees allowed wit- 
 nesses to be called and examined as to the practicability of 
 making a bridge under the railways, instead of crossing 
 them by level crossings. 
 
 In the Barnet, Hendon, Hampstead, and London 
 Railway Bill, 1865, 69, certain petitioners alleged various 
 interests in villa residences on a portion of the proposed 
 line, and that the said line would pass under, injure, and 
 affect the private road by which the petitioners' houses were 
 approached, and injvire the sewer connected therewith, and 
 would make an open cutting within a few yards of the 
 several premises, and render them no longer desirable as 
 residences. The promoters undertook so to deviate their 
 line as to interfere as little as possible with certain orna- 
 mental planting, and also that much of the line would be 
 in covered cutting, and therefore not detrimental to the 
 petitioners' property. The Referees reported that there 
 were no engineering objections. And in the Same Bill, a 
 certain petitioner objected that the line would interfere 
 with certain sewers serving houses on his property ; and 
 that, inasmuch as these sewers were made by him under 
 private roads, also made by him, they were exempted from 
 the 58th section of the Metropolis Local Act. The pro- 
 moters alleged that a certain vestry were the custodians of 
 these sewers, and that an arrangement had been made by 
 them with the vestry, by which other and equally efficient 
 sewers would be constructed for the use of the petitioners' 
 houses. The Referees reported that there were no engi- 
 neering objections. 
 
 (a) As to tlie extent to which promoters may alter the inclinations of 
 private roads in passing under or over them, see General Railways Act, 
 1845, sects. 49 and 50.
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVATE PROPERTY. 95 
 
 In the North of England Union Raihvay Bill, 1865, 
 235, the Keld Head Mining Company complained that the 
 proposed railway would pass through their works, take 
 away their water supply, and cut up their dressing floor. Injury to 
 It appeared, however, that a very small amount of incon- mining com- 
 venience or damage would be caused to the petitioners ; P^^y- 
 that it was not intended to interfere with the water supjDly ; 
 and that other dressing floors could be provided upon the 
 premises. The Referees reported that " there are not any 
 engineering objections to carrying the said railway through 
 the said works." 
 
 In the Halesowen and Bromsgrove Branch Raihvay s injury to 
 Bill, 1866, 235, the New British Iron Company obiected ^or'^s of iron 
 
 1 1 -n •! -NT i. J J company. 
 
 that the Eailway No. 1 would pass through the middle of 
 
 their property, taking nearly 5 out of the 11 acres of their 
 spoil land, and interfering with the use of the remainder, 
 and dividing their colliery from the ironworks ; and that, 
 in an engineering point of view, it would be highly objec- 
 tionable. The Eeferees reported these facts, and also that 
 the works, in an engineering point of view, were eflicient 
 for the objects proposed. 
 
 In the majority of the foregoing cases, the objection of In cases like 
 
 the petitioners was taken to the enoineering details alone ^^f. f^^'pS'^'^S 
 ^ o & estimates may 
 
 of the scheme, and not to the sufficiency of the estimate, be challenged. 
 
 In all similar cases the objection on the latter ground Avill 
 
 no doubt in future be put prominently forward. And in 
 
 reference to the question of estimate, the 92nd clause of 
 
 the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, should be kept 
 
 in the view, whereby, if the promoters take part " of any 
 
 house, or other building or manufactory," the owners may 
 
 compel them to take the whole. In the la^t-mentioned 
 
 ca.se, the estimate was challenged as being insufficient for 
 
 (among other things) land and buildings ; and the Referees 
 
 reported that the same was inade(|uate, " especially for the 
 
 severance of land and buildings, for which no provision 
 
 appeared to have been made." 
 
 In the Glasgow and South Western Railway (A ddi- Shutting up 
 tional Powers) Bill, 1865, 373, several petitioners com- «t'cct injury 
 
 ^ to individuals.
 
 96 INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVATE LINES. 
 
 plained that the stopping up of a certain street would 
 destroy the existing access to their respective premises. 
 The Referees reported that the closing of the street would 
 have the injurious effect upon their respective premises, 
 complained of by the petitioners ; and they stated certain 
 details in regard to the accommodation which the several 
 petitioners would receive from a new street which was in- 
 tended to be provided by the promoters ; but they did not 
 report that the interference complained of was an objection 
 in an engineering point of view. 
 Destroying In the Midland Railway {Branches, &c.,) Bill, 1866, 
 
 private^anaL ^^^' Lord M. objected "that the proposed railway was to 
 be carried across a canal called the Bilborough Cut, in 
 which the water was of a depth of 4 feet 6 inches, on a 
 close embankment, in such a manner as entirely to destroy 
 the waterway. The Referees' report runs : " The pro- 
 moters admitted that it was their intention to construct 
 the railway in the manner described. No other matter was 
 brought under the notice of the Referees ; and they are of 
 opinion that the works are efficient for the objects proposed 
 in the Bill." 
 
 Sect. II. 
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVATE LINES, TRAMWAYS, 
 SIDINGS, ETC. 
 
 Follows same general rule as interference with other 
 private property. 
 
 As in the case of other private property, so, as a general 
 rule, in the case of j)rivate railroads, tramways, &c , no 
 amount of interference will be accounted an objection to 
 the proposed line in an engineering point of view, — the 
 petitioners' remedy being compensation.
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVATE LINES. 97 
 
 The following are cases illustrative of the general prin- 
 ciple referred to. In the Llanelly Railway and Dock 
 {Extension to Mumbles) Bill, 1865, 494, an individual 
 petitioner complained that a tramway belonging to him 
 " would be interfered with in an objectionable manner." 
 The Referees reported that there would be such an inter- Preventing 
 ference with the extension (now in course of construction) of^*^^av^ 
 of the petitioners' tramway, that such extension could not extension, 
 be effected if the proposed line were constructed ; although 
 they also reported that there were no engineering objec- 
 tions to the proposed scheme. And in the North British Destroying 
 Railway {Carlisle Citadel Station Branch) Bill, 1865, ^"^^ ® ^^ ^°^' 
 297, where the objection was taken that Railway No. 2 
 would cross a certain siding leading to the Marble-Yard of 
 Messrs. N., and would render the same useless, the Referees 
 considered that " the question is one rather of compen- 
 sation than engineering." In the Hull Docks Bill, 1866, Taking prl- 
 91, the Referees reported that the tramways, by which cer- ^^''^ ^^'"^' 
 tain individual petitioners had access to the River Humber, 
 would be taken for the works proposed by the Bill ; and 
 they at the same time reported that the works were effi- 
 cient. And in the Ryde Station and Railway Bill, 1866, 
 399, the Ryde Pier Company and the Ryde Commissioners 
 objected to the works. The Referees reported that there 
 were no engineering objections ; and, further, that " should Preventing 
 this Bill be sanctioned, the carrying of Railway No. 1 construction 
 across the authorised Ryde Pier Tramway would render 
 the construction of the latter impossible, unless the Ryde 
 Commissioners consent to the vertical alteration of the 
 level of the said tramway/' 
 
 H
 
 98 
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVATE LINES. 
 
 11. 
 
 Unnecessary or Avoidable interference with Private 
 
 Lines, <&g. 
 
 Crossing 
 private 
 tramway, 
 and destroy- 
 ing sidings. 
 
 Crossing 
 mineral 
 tramways on 
 level. 
 
 Notwithstanding the general principles above set forth, 
 the Referees have reported unfavourably of the proposed 
 railway, in an engineering point of view, where private 
 property is injuriously affected to an unnecessary or avoid- 
 able degree, due regard being had to the public advantage 
 and convenience. In one case, private tramways being 
 injuriously affected by the proposed scheme, and no provi- 
 sions having been made for remedying the injury by an 
 alteration of the tramway, and no compensation therefor 
 having been provided in the estimate, the Referees reported 
 against the proposed line in an engineering point of view. 
 This was the South Lancashire Railways and Dock Bill, 
 1865, 273, where the lessees of the Ince and Hindley 
 Collieries complained that Railway No. 2 would cut oflf 
 their access to Top Pit, by crossing their tramway leading 
 to the same, and would cut through and destroy a triple 
 set of sidings now used for marshalling their coal waggons, 
 with a cutting of 3 feet in depth, so as to necessitate the 
 alteration of those lines. The promoters stated that those 
 sidings could be re-arranged ; but they admitted that they 
 had not made any provision for such re-arrangement, nor 
 had they made any provision in their estimate for any 
 compensation to the petitioners. The Referees reported 
 that " the proposed mode of dealing with the tramway to 
 the Top Pit, and the marshalling sidings, was defective in 
 an engineering point of view." In the Afon Valley Rail- 
 way Bill, 1865, 315, however, it appeared that Railway 
 No. 2 would cross several mineral tramways belonging to 
 Messrs B., in such a manner that the levels of the said 
 tramways would require to be altered, in order to give 
 sufficient headway for locomotive engines to pass under
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVATE LINES. 99 
 
 them. The promoters admitted that the tramways had 
 been treated as if they were private roads, and that no 
 specific arrangements had been made for the alteration 
 thereof, neither had any sum been inchided in the estimate 
 for such alteration. The Referees reported that, " The 
 collieries to which the said tramways give access are of 
 considerable value (estimated by the owners as of the value 
 of .i£^oO,000), and, unless suitable provision be made for 
 working them, a very heavy sum may have to be paid for 
 compensation for damage thereto. But there are no engi- 
 neering difficulties in the construction of that part of Rail- 
 way No. 2." 
 
 In the Bristol and North Somerset Railway (Deviation) 
 Bill, 1866, 121, the promoters proposed to carry their rail- Interference 
 way for some distance, parallel to a certain tramway, upon ^^1X10^17^ 
 an embankment 22 feet high, and at such a distance that, embankment. 
 if the same were constructed with the usual slopes, it would 
 cover the tramway. The promoters undertook to construct 
 a retaining wall, so as not to encroach on the tramway, ^^^u ^^ i^ 
 The Referees reported that " this arrangement will, in the constructed, 
 opinion of the Referees, remove all objection." 
 
 See also the South Lancashire Railways and, Dock Bill, 
 1865, 273 (see infra, p. 101), in which case, the pro- 
 moters proposing to cross a certain tramway leading to a 
 colliery, leaving an insufficient headway, the Referees 
 reported that the propo.sed mode of crossing was objection- 
 able in an engineering point of view. See Cannock Chase 
 Railway (Extension) Bill, and the Bristol and North 
 Somerset Railway (Deviation) Bill (see infra, p. 102), 
 in both of which cases the promoters having proposed to 
 cross private tramways, leaving insufficient headway, the 
 Referees reported what was the sufficient headway that 
 ought to be provided in each case. See also Southern 
 Raihvay Bill (see infra, p. 100), where a level cross- 
 ing over private lines was sanctioned upon the promoters 
 undertaking to provide gates, gatekeeper, and proper 
 signals. 
 
 H 2
 
 100 INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVATE LINES. 
 
 III. 
 
 What if Private Sidings interfered with are on Pro- 
 moters oivn Land. 
 
 In the Midland Railway {New Lines, &c) Bill, 1 865, 
 223, certain private petitioners objected that Railway No. 
 14 "will prejudicially affect their land, premises, and works, 
 and will cross, alter, or otherwise affect sidings belonging to 
 and used by them." The proposed railway was a loop line 
 of 7 chains. It would cross at both ends the sidings of the 
 petitioners at their junctions with the Midland Railway ; 
 but the Referees reported that "these junctions being 
 formed on the property of the said company, the sidings at 
 the points where they are crossed belong to them. There 
 is no engineering objection to these sidings being crossed as 
 proposed, and the junctions may be easily readjusted." 
 
 IV. 
 
 Crossing Private Lines, &c., on the Level. 
 
 In the Southam Railway Bill, 1866, 359, individual 
 petitioners objected that the proposed railway would cross 
 on the level the tramway by which the lime is conveyed 
 from their quarries to their lime kilns. The Referees 
 reported that, "as the promoters have made provision in 
 their estimate for and undertake to have gates, a gate- 
 keeper, and proper signals at this level crossing, the pro- 
 posed line may be worked with safety, and that the works 
 are efficient in an engineering point of view." 
 
 In the Ogmore Valley Raihvay {No. 1) Bill, 1866, 151, 
 certain railway companies urged, among other objections,
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVATE LINES. 101 
 
 that the proposed line would pass across a private railway 
 belonging to Mr. P., on the level where that railway 
 descended on a gradient of 1 in 45. The Referees reported 
 that the works were efficient. In the Vale of Neath Rail- 
 way {Swansea Lines, &c.) Bill, 1865, 367, it was proposed 
 to cross on the level, a low level railway of the Swansea 
 Harbour Trustees, upon which there was a considerable 
 mineral traffic, and which was worked by horses. The 
 Referees reported that the proposed railway was merely a 
 siding into a proposed new goods station ; that trains never 
 could be run over it at any speed ; and that, as the control of 
 the crossing and signals would be in the hands of the peti- 
 tioners, they were of opinion that there were no engineer- 
 ing objections to the construction of the proposed line. 
 
 V. 
 
 Headway, Span, Width, &c., of Bridges over and under 
 
 Private Lines. 
 
 In reference to the promoters' powers to alter the gra- 
 dients of private lines, see provisions of the General Act, 
 1845 (ss. 49 and 50), cited chap, ii., ss. 6 and 7. 
 
 In the South Lancashire Railways and Dock Bill, 
 1865, 273, the lessees of the Ince and Hindley Collieries 
 complained that Railway No. 1 would cut off their access to 
 the Hindley Colliery by crossing their tramway leading to 
 the same, and leaving a length of but 9 feet 9 inches from 
 rail to rail. This tramway was worked with locomotive 
 engines, which could not continue to be used with such a 
 headway. The promoters contended that the tramway 
 might be lowered so as to permit of the passage of locomo- 
 tive engines. But the Referees reported that it would be 
 doubtful whether such alteration of level could be made 
 legally or physically ; and that the proposed mode of cross- 
 ing was objectionable in an engineering point of view.
 
 102 ACCOMMODATION WORKS. 
 
 In the Cannock Chase Extension Bill, 1866, 116, the 
 Cannock Chase Colliery Company objected that the pro- 
 posed railway, in crossing over their tramway, would give a 
 headway of 6 feet only, and by so doing, would deprive 
 them of access to their coal-pits with locomotive engines- 
 The promoters contended " that the line of the petitioners 
 was a private one, unauthorised by Parliament, and not 
 within the General Act." It was shown that, by raising 
 the proposed line throughout, and lowering the petitioners' 
 line for its length within the limits of deviation, giving a 
 gradient of not less than 1 in 70, the promoters would be 
 enabled to provide a headway of 14 feet. The Referees 
 reported "that this accommodation should be afforded, 
 and that the engineering details of the undertaking are 
 efficient." 
 
 In the Bristol and North Somerset Railway {Devia- 
 tion) Bill, 1866, 121, the promoters proposed to carry their 
 railway over the Somersetshire Canal Company's tramway 
 by an arch 10 feet in span, and with only 10 feet headway. 
 By the promoters' Act of 1863, the line then authorised 
 (for which Railway No. 1 was a substitution) would cross the 
 same tramway by an arch of 12 feet span and 16 feet head- 
 way. The Referees reported that a similar arch should be 
 constructed. 
 
 Sect. III. 
 
 ACCOMMODATION WORKS. 
 
 On the subject of the efficiency of proposed works, 
 questions may arise as to the extent to which adjoining owners 
 and occupiers are provided by the promoters with accom- 
 modation works. The provisions of the Railways Clauses 
 Act, sect. 68, on this subject, are as follow : — 
 
 Worlsfor "And with respect to works for the accommodation of 
 
 arcommoda- lands adioiniu'? the railway, be it enacted as follows : — 
 
 Hon of lands. .< o
 
 ACCOMMODATION WORKS. 103 
 
 " The Company shall make, and at all times thereafter 
 maintain, the following works for the accommodation of 
 the owners and occupiers of lands adjoining the railway ; 
 that is to say, 
 
 " Such and so many convenient gates, bridges, Gates, bridges, 
 arches, culverts, or passages over, under, or by the * 
 sides of, or leading to or from the railway, as shall 
 be necessary for the purpose of making good any 
 interruptions caused by the railway to the use of the 
 lands through which the railway shall be made ; and 
 such works shall be made forthwith, after the part of 
 the railway passing over such lands shall have been 
 laid out or formed, or during the formation thereof: 
 
 " Also sufficient posts, rails, hedges, ditches, mounds, Fences. 
 or other fences for separating the land taken for the 
 use of the railway from the adjoining lands not 
 taken, and protecting such lands from trespass, or 
 the cattle of the owners or occupiers thereof from 
 straying thereout, by reason of the railway, together 
 with all necessary gates made to open towards such 
 adjoining lands, and not towards the railway, and all 
 necessary stiles ; and such posts, rails, and other 
 fences shall be made forthwith after the taking of 
 any such lands, if the owners thereof shall so require, 
 and the said other works as soon as conveniently 
 may be : 
 
 "Also all necessary arches, tunnels, culverts, Drains. 
 drains, or other passages, either over or under, or by 
 the sides of the railway, of such dimensions as will 
 be sufficient at all times to convey the water as 
 clearly from the lands lying near or aifected by the 
 railway as before the making of the railway, or as 
 nearly so as may be ; and such works shall be made 
 from time to time as the railway works proceed : 
 
 " Also proper watering places for cattle where, by Watering 
 reason of the railway, the cattle of any person l^'^cc*. 
 occupying any lands lying near thereto, shall be 
 deprived of access to their former watering places ; 
 and such watering places shall bo so made as to be at 
 all times as sufficiently supplied with water as there-
 
 104 
 
 Such worhs 
 not to obstruct 
 working of 
 railway. 
 
 ENDANGERING GUNPOWDER MILLS. 
 
 tofore, and aa if the railway had not been made, or a8 
 nearly so as may be ; and the Company shall make 
 all necessary watercouses and drains for the purpose 
 of conveying water to the said watering places : 
 " Provided always, that the Company shall not be 
 required to make such accommodation works in such a 
 manner as would prevent or obstruct the working or 
 using of the railway, nor to make any accommodation 
 works with respect to which the owners and occupiers of 
 the lands shall have agreed to receive, and shall have been 
 paid compensation instead of the making them, (a) 
 
 Sect. IV. 
 
 ENDANGERING PRIVATE GUNPOWDER MILLS BY PROXIMITY OF 
 
 LINE. 
 
 In the Caledonian Railway {Balerno and Penicuik 
 Branches) Railway Bill, 1865, 175, certain gunpowder 
 manufacturers complained of the manner in which the said 
 railway was intended to be carried past their works. To 
 obviate their objections, the promoters agreed that the line 
 should be covered over for some distance whilst passing 
 near and through the said works ; and that the extent and 
 manner of executing such covering should be left to the 
 decision of the petitioners' engineer. It appears from a 
 report of the case (1 S. & G. 122), that it was objected 
 before the Referees, on behalf of the promoters, that the 
 petitioners' objection not being one in regard to engineering 
 details, they could not be heard. But the Referees con- 
 sidered this an exceptional case, as the danger concerned 
 the line as well as the petitioners, and the mills were 
 buildings which could not be shifted like an ordinary resi- 
 dence. (6) 
 
 (a) See cases cited, post, ch. XUI. gect.ll. For corresponding provisions 
 in regard to Scotland, see Railway Clauses (Scotland) Act, sect. 60. 
 (a) As to the extent of the petitioners' right to compensation under the
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH DRAINAGE. 105 
 
 Sect. V. 
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH THE DRAINAGE OF A DISTRICT — DANGER 
 TO DISTRICT FROM FLOODS THROUGH INSUFFICIENT WATER- 
 WAY OVER RIVER. 
 
 In the Colnhrooh Railway Bill, 1866, 189, the owners 
 of lands and houses affected by the proposed railways 
 objected that the River Colne would be crossed with an 
 insufficient headway ; and that the drainage of the country 
 to be traversed would be materially interfered with. The 
 Referees reported that the headway and waterway were 
 sufficient ; and that " the railway, if constructed with side- 
 drains of a depth not exceeding that of the bed of the 
 River Colne, and having sufficient outlet, will not interfere 
 with drainage." The same objection was raised to the 
 Louth and Lincoln Raihuay Bill, 1866, 234, the River 
 Witham Drainage Commissioners contending that by certain 
 bridges to be erected by the promoters over the River 
 Witham and the South Delph, the waterway would be so 
 diminished as to interfere seriously with the drainage of 
 the district. It was, however, agreed between the parties 
 that the accommodation required in respect of the drainage 
 should be referred for settlement to the respective engineers 
 and an umpire ; and the Referees reported that, subject to 
 this proviso, the works were efficient in an engineering point 
 of view. 
 
 In the Hadlow Railway Bill, 1866, %Q, the River Med- 
 way Company and the Tonbridge Parish Highway Board 
 objected that by the embankment across the valley of the 
 Medway, as shown on the deposited plans and sections of 
 Railway No 1 , the river, in times of flood, would be seriously 
 obstructed to their great injury. The length of the em- 
 Lands Clauses Act in such a case, see in re the Stockport, Timpa-lcy, and 
 Altrirujham Railway Company, 33 Law Journal, Q. B. 251, cited ch. XIV , 
 sect. 5.
 
 106 INTERFERENCE WITH DRAINAGE. 
 
 bankment was 25 chains ; and the promoters proposed to 
 construct 5 bridges, giving an aggregate waterway of 210 
 feet, the bridge over the main stream being of 40 feet span. 
 It was stated that the aggregate waterway under the road 
 passing through the town of Tonbridge did not exceed 135 
 feet, and that the floods complained of were to be attributed 
 to sluices, weirs, and other obstructions lower down the 
 river. The Referees reported that, " if an aggregate water- 
 way of 300 feet were provided, the bridge over the Medway 
 not being less than 50 feet span, there would be no engi- 
 neering objection to the construction of Railway No. 1." 
 
 And see London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway 
 (St. Leonard's Line and Deviations) Bill, 1865, 57, 
 Chap, vi., Sect. iii.
 
 107 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 JUNCTIONS, 
 
 Sect. I. 
 
 PROVISIONS OF THE GENERAL ACT, 1863. 
 
 The 26 & 27 Vict., c. 92, contains certain provisions in 
 
 regard to junctions, to which it is occasionally necessary 
 
 to refer in the Courts of the Referees. By sect. ix. it junctions 
 
 is provided that junctions between a railway and any other ^jperin^en-'^ 
 
 railway shall be made under the superintendence and to denceofline 
 
 the reasonable satisfaction of the engineer for the time being 
 
 of the company or person to whom such other railway 
 
 belongs. Section xii. provides that the company or person Company 
 
 .11 .1 , . • . 1 / ■ joined may 
 
 With whose railway the junction is made may irom time to erect neces- 
 
 time erect such signals and conveniences incident to the ^^^ signals, 
 
 junction, either on their or his own lands or on the lands of the 
 
 company making the junction, and may from time to time and appoint 
 
 ... 1.1 -i. 1 1.1 watchman, &e. 
 
 appoint and remove such watchmen, switchmen, or otlier 
 
 persons, as may be necessary for the prevention of danger 
 
 to or interference with the traffic at and near the junction ; 
 
 also, that the working and management of such signals and of s^gnals.^&c. 
 
 conveniences, wherever situate, shall be under the exclusive to ^^ under - 
 
 . •11 •! control of 
 
 regulation of the company or person with whose railway Company 
 
 the junction is made ; and all expenses of erecting and J^'Q^'^- ^ 
 maintaining those signals and conveniences, and of employ- signals, watch- 
 ing those watchmen, switchmen, and other persons, and all switchmen to 
 
 incidental current expenses, shall, at the end of each half i»c home by 
 
 * Company 
 
 joining.
 
 108 JUNCTIONS ON IRRECONCILEABLE GRADIENTS. 
 
 year, be repaid by the company making the junction, and 
 in default thereof may be recovered from them in any court 
 of competent jurisdiction. 
 
 Sect. II. 
 junctions on irreconcileable gradients. 
 
 In the Foole and Bournemouth Railway Bill, 1865, 
 53, the London and South Western Railway objected to a 
 proposed junction with their Southampton and Dorchester 
 Line. The proposed line would approach the latter (which 
 at the point of junction is on a gradient of 1 in 34!8) with a 
 rising gradient of 1 in 60 ; and, as it was proposed to effect the 
 junction with a curve of 70 chains radius, which would 
 require a space of 6 chains for the works of the junction, 
 such junction, if made at the point specified in the plan, 
 would be effected partly upon the gradient of 1 in 60, 
 which was irreconcileable with the gradient (1 in 348) of 
 the line to be joined. In order to obviate this objection, 
 the promoters proposed to alter the curve at the actual 
 junction to one of 15 chains radius; but the Referees re- 
 ported that this "could not be done, having regard to the 14th 
 section of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, without 
 the consent of the Board of Trade {a). And we are of 
 opinion that the proposed junction is bad in an engineering 
 point of view." In the Tottenhanfh and Hampstead Junc- 
 tion Railway {New Lines) Bill, 1865, 128, the opponents 
 alleged that, " owing to the great difference in the gradients 
 at the proposed point of junction between the intended line, 
 as shown on the plans, and the railway with which it was 
 
 (a) Sect. 14 provides, that "it shall be lawful for the company to 
 diminish the radius of any curve described in the said plan, to any extent 
 which shall have a radius of not less than half a mile, or to any further 
 extent authorised by such certificate, as aforesaid, from the Board of 
 Trade."
 
 JUNCTIONS ON IRRECONCILEABLE GRADIENTS. 109 
 
 to communicate, such a junction would be impracticable." 
 The Referees reported that the evidence fully sustained the 
 objection ; and that "no other mode of effecting a junction, 
 consistent with the provisions of the Bill and the powers of 
 the company, was shown to them to be practicable." In 
 the Swansea and Aberystwith Junction Railway Bill, 
 1865, 419, the objection was taken that the proposed junc- 
 tion of Railway No. 3 with the authorised line of the 
 Swansea and Aberystwith Railway could not be formed 
 under the powers of the Bill. As the gradients of both 
 these lines were 1 in 125, the gradients of both the lines 
 falling in opposite directions towards the point of junction, 
 the promoters admitted that the junction could not be 
 formed according to the sections on the deposited plans ; but 
 they maintained that the gradients of the proposed line 
 might be altered under the powers of the Railway 
 Clauses Act, so as to enable the junction to be made. On 
 this point, however, the Referees reported that " the junc- 
 tion of the proposed railway with the Swansea and Aberyst- 
 with Railway cannot be made according to the deposited 
 plans." In the Ogmore Valley Railways {N'o. 1) Bill, 
 1865, 420, it was objected that Railway No. 3, at the junc- 
 tion with the Ely Valley Railway, could not be made 
 according to the deposited plans. The Referees reported 
 that the line " could not be made at the point of junction 
 under the powers of the Bill ; " but no reasons are stated. 
 
 All objections of this nature may, however, be obviated, 
 within the limits of deviation, by alteration of the intended 
 gradients. Thus, in the Wrexham, Mold, and Connah's 
 Quay Raihoay Bill, 1865, 260, Railway No. 4 would join 
 Railway No. 7, where both were upon steep gradients, the 
 former on a curve of 20 chains and a gradient of 1 in 50, 
 and the latter on a curve of 10 chains and a gradient of 1 
 in 18.63. Such a junction was objected to as imprac- 
 ticable. It was stated that, according to the plan, one 
 would project over the other. The Referees reported, 
 " The promoters reply, and there seems no reason to doubt, 
 that the objection may be obviated within the limits of
 
 110 JUNCTIONSON" IRRECONCILEABLE GRADIENTS. 
 
 deviation by a slight rise in the level of No. 4, or by con- 
 tinuing both lines on the same level until they are clear of 
 each other. In either case the gradients would not be 
 sharpened to any perceptible extent/' In the Neivport 
 and Usk Railway Bill, 1865, 299, the Monmouthshire 
 Railway, &c., Company objected to a proposed junction 
 with their Eastern Valleys Line, as interfering prejudicially 
 with their works. On the deposited plans, the proposed 
 line was shown to be level for 6 chains up to the point of 
 the completion of the junction ; but, inasmuch, as the Mon- 
 mouthshire line is there upon a gradient of 1 in 273, it 
 would be impossible to effect the junction without making 
 the proposed railway conform to the Monmouthshire Rail- 
 way for a distance of about 200 feet. The Referees 
 reported that this could be done without difficulty. In the 
 Afon Valley Maihvay Bill, 1865, 315, the Referees re- 
 ported that " it will be impossible to effect the junction of 
 Railway No. 2 with the Llynvi Valley Railway, in the pre- 
 cise manner shown on the deposited plan, inasmuch as the 
 proposed railway is thereby shown to be on a gradient of 1 
 in 40 up to the point of the completion of the junction, the 
 Llynvi being there level for 130 feet before such com- 
 pletion. To obviate this difficulty, it has been proposed to 
 push back the entire inclined part of Railway No. 2 (which 
 is 2 miles long) about 130 feet. This would lower the 
 level of the same 4 feet at the first point of junction with 
 the Llynvi Valley Railway, and would increase the depth 
 of the cuttings by that amount. But this would not add 
 to the cost of construction, as the amount of the embank- 
 ment thereon is in excess of the cutting."(a) In the Brom- 
 yard and Hereford Railway Bill, 1866, 88, the Great 
 Western objected to three different junctions, on the ground 
 of incompatibility of gradient, and to three other junctions, 
 on the question of curves, as not being capable of construc- 
 tion in accordance with the deposited plans. The Referees 
 reported that, " Evidence was given to show that the 
 
 (a) For a further objection to the junction, as proposed to be amended, 
 see post, as to Blindsiding
 
 JUNCTIONS ON STEEP GRADIENTS AND CURVES. ]11 
 
 necessary alterations could be made within the limits of 
 deviation." In the Croydon, Mitcham, arid Kingston 
 Railvxiy Bill, 1866, 92, the Eeferees reported that "It 
 was admitted that certain objections taken to the junctions 
 on Railways Nos, 2, 3, and 5, might be obviated within the 
 powers of the General Act ; " and, also, that the works 
 were efficient. In the Brixton, Clapham, and Balham 
 Junction Raihvay Bill, 1866, 165, it was objected that 
 the junction of Railway No. 4 with the London, Chatham, 
 and Dover (Metropolitan Extension) Line could not be 
 efifected within the statutory powers, the gradients being 
 respectively 1 in 80 and 1 in 100. The promoters stated 
 in reply that, by lowering the line at Acre Lane, the 
 gi-adient of 1 in 80, of Railway No. 4, at the point of junc- 
 tion, could be so altered within the powers of the General 
 Act as to make the junction in an efficient manner. The 
 Referees reported that the works were efficient. And in 
 the London, Chatham, and Dover and South Eastern 
 (Bromley, Farnhorough, and West Vi/ickham) Raihvays 
 Bill, 1866, 315, the London, Brighton, and South Coast 
 Railway objected to several junctions in the proposed rail- 
 ways, as being " laid out in the deposited plans with in- 
 compatible gradients ; " but the Referees reported that, 
 "as the junctions could be efficiently made within the 
 limits of deviation, both lateral and vertical, the objections 
 are not valid." 
 
 Sect. III. 
 
 JUNCTIONS ON STEEP GRADIENTS AND SHARP CURVES — NO 
 INTERVENING LEVEL SPACE FOR STANDAGE, ETC. 
 
 In the South Lancashire RailvKiys and Bock Bill, 
 1865, 273, the London and North Western Railway ob- 
 jected to a proposed junction which Railway No. 3 (com- 
 mencing by a junction with Railway No. 1) would form with 
 their North Union Line. The proposed junction line would
 
 112 JUNCTIONS ON STEEP GRADIENTS AND CURVES. 
 
 be on a gradient of 1 in 88, descending towards the latter 
 line, which is there very much crowded with traffic, and 
 without any level space intervening between the said 
 gradient and the point of junction. The Referees reported 
 that, " this mode of junction the Referees, under the cir- 
 cumstances, consider highly objectionable in an engineering 
 point of view ; " further, that the promoters had replied 
 that the requisite level space could be procured by moving 
 the point of junction with line No. 1 further back upon 
 that line. The Referees reported that the sections, as 
 shown upon the deposited plans, do not show any such 
 level space ; and the Referees cannot decide whether or 
 not the promoters had such power to alter the point of 
 junction with their own line No. 1." In the Leeds, North 
 Yorkshire, and Durham Railway Bill, 1865, 219, it was 
 objected that Railway No. 9 would effect a junction near 
 the Wetherby Station with the North Eastern Railway, 
 upon a gradient of 1 in ^Q, rising towards the latter line, 
 without the intervention of any level space upon which a 
 train could stand ; nor were any sidings provided for 
 standage at this point of junction. The Referees reported 
 "that whilst there are no engineering obstacles to the 
 efifecting of a junction as proposed, it is a defect that no 
 standage is provided, nor are any powers taken to run into 
 the North Eastern sidings at the Wetherby Station." 
 Several of the other lines proposed by the Bill were also 
 objected to for like reasons. The Referees reported that 
 *' The same defect, as to the absence of any provision for 
 standage at the several points of junction, applies to the 
 several railways, Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, and 21, in manner 
 similar to that mentioned in respect of Railway No. 9 ;" 
 and that, without these matters being provided for, the 
 intended works would not be efficient (see more fully 
 Ch. IX., § 1.) 
 
 In the following cases, junctions on steep gradients and 
 on sharp curves were allowed : — 
 
 In the Bar net, Hendon, Hampstead, and London 
 Railway Bill, 1865, 69, the Edgware, Highgate, and
 
 JUNCTIONS ON STEEP GRADIENTS AND CURVES. 113 
 
 London Railway objected to the proposed junction at 
 -Barnet with the Barnet Branch of the Great Northern, by 
 a curve of 10 chains radius, from a rising gradient of 1 in 
 65 on the proposed line, at a point where the Barnet 
 Branch had a falling gradient of 1 in 40. They also ob- 
 jected to the proposed junction at Finchley with their 
 authorised line by an ascending gradient of 1 in 57 for 28 
 chains, and at a point intermediate between the Mill Hill 
 and Finchley Stations. The promoters replied that the 
 Barnet junction was for a short distance on a gradient of 1 
 in 200, and it was proposed to be used only as a coal line, 
 though, if necessary, it might be used as a passenger com- 
 munication with safety ; and that the Finchley Junction, as 
 proposed, would join the petitioners' line on a gradient of 
 ] in 127, and on a curve of 18 chains radius; and that 
 there was room to construct a station on the promoters' 
 line. The Referees reported that there was " no valid engi- 
 neering objection." In the Savie Bill it was also objected 
 that Line No. 1 joined the sidings of the London and North 
 Western Hallway, which were already overloaded with 
 traffic, on a falling gradient of 1 in 60, and on a curve of 
 15 chains radius on a siding of that company's line. The 
 promoters replied that this junction was " the best practi- 
 cable, being in the open at th^ end of Primrose Tunnel, 
 pointing towards London, and on sidings of considerable 
 extent ;" and also that " the complicated arrangement of 
 railways in London made this junction in the open on the 
 sidincTS of the London and North Western better than a 
 junction with the main line." The Referees reported that 
 there was " no valid engineering objection," In the Leedsi 
 North Yorkshire, and Durham Railway Bill, 18G"), 219, a 
 proposed junction of Railway No. 8 with the North Eastern 
 at Leeds was objected to, upon the ground that it would be 
 effected where the latter line was upon a gradient of 1 in 
 104, and the proposed line would be upon a gradient of 
 108, without the intervention of any level space. The 
 Referees reported that, " under all the circumstances attend- 
 ing the Leeds Central Station, there are no engineering 
 
 I
 
 11 i JUNCTIONS ON STEEP GRADIENTS AND CURVES. 
 
 objections to effecting the junction in the manner proposed." 
 In the Lmicashire and Yorkshire Railway {Additional 
 Powers) Bill, 186.5, 239, the junction of the proposed Rip- 
 ponden Branch would be effected with the main Une of the 
 Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, east of Sowerby Road 
 Station, and about 80 chains distant from the present 
 goods station, on a curve of 10 chains radius, and on a falling 
 gradient of 1 in J 02, and at a point where the main line of 
 the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway leaves a cutting and 
 enters on an embankment ; and that the branch enters a 
 tunnel, 530 yards in length, about 14 chains from the 
 junction, which would render it difficult to see the junction 
 signals. The promoters replied that it was intended to 
 enlarge the present goods station at Sowerby Bridge Road, 
 and extend it up to the proposed point of junction with the 
 Ripponden Branch ; that the gradient of the main line was 
 1 in 260 ; and that there was no danger of the signals not 
 being seen, as the branch runs straight from the junction 
 for a considerable distance, and a person might see the 
 station signals from the further end of the tunnel ; and that 
 there would be no quick traffic on this branch, it being less 
 than 3 miles in length. The Referees reported that "on 
 consideration of all the evidence given, they were of opinion 
 that there existed no engineering objections to the junctions 
 as proposed, and that they might be safely made." In the 
 Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway Bill, 
 1865, 425, the proposed junction with the Aberdare Branch 
 of the Great Western was objected to, on the ground that 
 the point of junction was at the end of a viaduct, and on a 
 curve of 10 chains radius (the proposed line being for the 
 greater part of that curve in cutting) ; and that this was an 
 improper curve on which to approach a junction. The pro- 
 moters contended that the curve of 10 chains radius was 
 not one of unusual severity ; that, without making a new 
 viaduct or altering the canal, no better junction could be 
 made ; and that the objection to the line being in cutting 
 on a curve would be in part removed by constructing sidings 
 therein, which would open and improve it. The Referees 
 reported that " although there is no engineering objection "
 
 JUNCTIONS ON STEEP GRADIENTS AND CURVES. 115 
 
 to this junction, " yet, owing to the position of the viaduct, 
 and the radius of the junction curve, gi-eat care will be 
 required in working the traffic at this point/' 
 
 In the East London (South Western Extension) Bill, 
 1866, 167, a junction with the authorised East London 
 Railway was objected to, on the ground that it was on a 
 curve of 12 chains, with a falling gradient of 1 in 61. The 
 Referees reported that there was no objection in an engi- 
 neering point of view to his junction. In the City, Kings- 
 ton, and Richmond Raihvay Bill, 1866, 177, it was ob- 
 jected that No. 3 would effect a junction with Railway No. 
 1 with a curve of 10 chains, a descending gradient of 1 in 
 84, and close to the north side of the embankment of the 
 Brighton and South Coast Railway, through which Railway 
 No. 1 passes. It was also objected that Railway No. 4 would 
 effect a junction with Railway No. 1 with a like curve of 10 
 chains, a descending gradient of 1 in 79, and close to the south 
 side of the same embankment. The Referees reported that, 
 " considering the circumstances of the case, those junctions 
 are not defective in an engineering point of view." 
 . In the Chipping Norton, Banbury, and East and West 
 Junction Raihvay Bill, 1865, 195, the Referees reported 
 that, " It was objected to Railway No. 2 that it effects a junc- 
 tion with a siding of the Great Western Railway at Banbury, 
 and, after a level space of 8 chains, passes upon a gradient 
 of 1 in 80 (falling towards the station) with a curve of 20 
 chains radius over the Great Western Railway," and that 
 "This mode of junction is not, in the opinion of the Referees, 
 objectionable." 
 
 In the Hadloiu Railway Bill, 1866, 66, the South Eas- 
 tern objected to a proposed junction of Railway No. 2 with 
 their Tonbridge Wells Branch, " as being on a gradient of 
 1 in 100, and at a point only 7^ chains from the mouth of 
 the tunnel." It was shown that the gradient between the 
 proposed junction and Tonbridge Wells was generally 1 in 
 100, and that there was already a signal station at the mouth 
 of the tunnel. Upon these grounds the Referees reported 
 that there was no engineering objection to the junction. 
 
 i2
 
 116 JUNCTIONS ON STEEP GRADIENTS AND CURVES. 
 
 In the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway {West 
 Riding Branches) Bill, 18G6, 161, it was objected that the 
 proposed line descended on a gradient of 1 in 70, to its point 
 of junction with the existing line of the Lancashire and 
 Yorkshire Railway at Elland. The Referees reported that, 
 "This gradient is steep, but not so steep as existing junc- 
 tions upon lines in the same neighbourhood, which have 
 been worked with safety for many years ; and, considering 
 the nature of the country, the Referees are of opinion that 
 it is not defective in an engineering point of view." 
 
 In the Greenock and Ayrshire Raihvay Bill, 1866, 
 287, it was objected that both the junctions of No. 3, viz., 
 that with the promoter;?' authorised line on gradients both 
 of 1 in 70, and that with the existing Greenock and 
 Wemyss Bay Railway, on gradients of 1 in 70, and 1 in 
 67^, would be objectionable and dangerous. The Referees 
 objected " that similar junctions are with ordinary care 
 worked without danger or accident, and that the petitioners' 
 objections in these respects are not valid." 
 
 In the following cases the 'petitioners' objections were 
 obviated within the limits of deviation : — In the Ilavant, 
 Hamhledon, and Droxford Raihvay Bill, 1865. 45, it was 
 proposed to form a junction of the promoters' line with the 
 authorised line of the Petersfield and Bishops Waltham 
 Railway, near Droxford. This junction was to be effected 
 on a long gradient of the latter line of 1 in 80, falling 
 towards Meonstoke. The promoters proved that the limits 
 of deviation at the junction were large enough to admit of 
 the junction being made lower down on the gradient of 1 in 
 80 of the petitioners' line, within 12 chains of the foot of 
 the incline ; and that such a junction would enable the 
 promoters to enlarge the piece of level of their line, on 
 which the junction would partially be formed, from 100 to 
 232 yards and upwards. The Referees reported that this 
 was preferable to the original proposal in an engineering 
 point of view. In the North of England Union Railway 
 Bill, 1865, 235, the Referees reported that Railway No. 2, 
 in approaching the London and North Western Railway to
 
 JUNCTIONS ON STEEP GRADIENTS AND CURVES. 117 
 
 effect a junction therewith, descended for a distance of 1 
 mile, with a gradient of 1 in 70, then was level for 5^ chains 
 up to the point of junction ; but that, inasmuch as the Lon- 
 don and North Western Railway was there upon a gradient 
 of 1 in 100, descending towards the junction, in order to 
 effect the junction it would be necessary to lower the 
 level space 16 inches, and so to reduce the extent of the 
 level space, but that the extent of level space could be 
 recovered by moving the inclines of 1 in 70 and 1 in 
 IGO backward upon an adjacent level space; and that 
 the junction proposed could be so effected, and there would 
 not be any engineering ol)jection thereto. In the Wrexhamt 
 Mold, and Ccninah's Quay liaihvay Bill, 1865, 260, it was 
 objected that Railway No. 1 would join the existing Mold 
 Branch of the Chester and Holyhead Line, at a point where 
 the latter is on a gradient of 1 in 55 and the former 1 in 
 60, both descending. There was a level piece at the point 
 of junction of 100 yards on Railway No. 1 ; but one-half of 
 this was on the existing line of the Mold and Cliester Rail- 
 way. These steep gradients extended, in the one case, to 
 half a-milo ; and, in the other, to three quarters of a mile, 
 from ihe point of jimction. The promoters admitted that 
 the line, as laid out, " would require caution in working the 
 traffic ;" and it was proposed to obviate the objection by 
 enlarging the piece of level at the point of jimction, or by 
 giving a gradient of 1 in 300 for 24-0 yards, and lowering 
 the proposed line from the top of tlio inclination 5 feet, 
 involving an increase in the depth of the cutting of from 
 15 to 20 feet. The gradient in that cavse would remain the 
 same. The Referees reported that " this alterati(jn, which 
 is within the limits of deviation, would be a great improve- 
 ment on the plan at first proposed. But even with this 
 alteration care would be required in managing the traffic at 
 this point." In the Vale of Grickliowell Railway ( Westein 
 Extension) Bill, 1865, 368, the junctions propo.sed to be 
 effected by a double fork at the Talybont Station of the 
 Brecon and Merthyr Railway, were objected to. The 
 southern fork would effect its junction " at some distance
 
 138 JUNCTIONS ON STEEP GRADIENTS AND CURVES. 
 
 from the foot of an incline of 1 in 89 (6f miles in length) 
 on the Brecon Railway ;" and the northern fork would 
 effect its junction " at some distance from the foot of an 
 inchne of 1 in 40 (of If mile in length) on said railway." 
 The space intervening between those inclines for 29 chains 
 was upon a gradient of 1 in 300, and upon this space the 
 Talybont Station was placed. The Referees reported that 
 "it would be desirable, if possible, to avoid effecting a 
 junction with a railway so near to such long and steep 
 inclines as those upon the Brecon and Merthyr Railway ; 
 but,- from the nature of the country, if a junction is to be 
 effected, it cannot be made without some such defect ; and 
 as the control of the trains and signals will be vested in the 
 Brecon and Merthyr Company, the Referees are of opinion 
 that there are not any engineering objections to the con- 
 struction of the proposed junctions." 
 
 Sect. IV. 
 
 IN WHAT EXCEPTIONAL CASES JUNCTIONS ON STEEP GRADIENTS 
 AND SHARP CURVES ARE USUALLY ALLOWED, 
 
 Where the Junction is with a Line of the Fromoters' own, 
 or worked hy them, or where Proposed Line will he 
 worked by the Line to he joined. 
 
 In the North British Raikuay (Lassiuade, dx. Branches) 
 Bill, 1865, 174, on the petition of the Caledonian Railway, 
 the Referees reported that the junctions were " open to 
 some objection, in one case being effected where the lines 
 are upon a gradient of 1 in 50 ; but the junctions are 
 effected with lines belonging to the same owners, and, in 
 some cases, the lines are continued parallel to each other, 
 so as to secure a moderate gradient before effecting the 
 junction. The Referees therefore do not consider the
 
 JUNCTIONS ON STEEP GRADIENTS AND CURVES. 119 
 
 junctions objectionable in an engineering point of view." 
 In the Caledonian Raihvay {Balerno and Penicuik 
 Branches) Bill, I860, 175, the North British Railway com- 
 plained of the manner in which the junction near the Slate- 
 ford Station is intended to be effected viz., within 10 
 chains of the foot of a descendinsf gradient of 1 in 110, 
 The Referees reported that having regard to the fact that 
 the junction was to be effected with the line of the Caledonian 
 Railway, and that the signals were entirely under their con- 
 trol, they were of opinion that there were no engineering 
 obstacles to the effecting of the junction in the manner 
 proposed. In the Wolverhampton and Bridgnorth Rail- 
 way Bill, I860, 234, it was objected that the junction with 
 the Severn Valley Railway, which is there a single line, was 
 to be effected at a distance of 1^ miles from the Bridguorth 
 Station, where the proposed line would be upon a descending 
 gradient of 1 in 156, the Severn Valley Railway there being 
 upon a gradient of 1 in 264 rising towards the station ; 
 that a tunnel above 500 yards in length would intervene 
 between said junction and the station, the mouth thereof 
 being 1 7 chains from the station ; and that upon said line 
 there wore gradients of 1 in 66 for 1 mile, of 1 in 70 for 2 
 miles 28 chains, and of 1 in 80 for 1^ miles. The Referees 
 reported that "the junction in question is to be effected 
 with a line which has been for sometime worked without 
 any difficulty. It is to be worked by the same company ; 
 and the Referees do not consider that there are any en- 
 gineering objections to the construction of the proposed 
 line." In the North British Raihuay {Glasgoiu Branches) 
 Bill, 1866, 221, the City of Glasgow Union Railway ob- 
 jected that the junction of Railway No. 7 with the existing 
 North British Railway would be placed at such a distance 
 from the junction of the petitioners' authorised railway with 
 the same line as to cause unnecessary difficulty in tiie 
 system of signals. The promoters stated in rc[)ly, " that 
 the proposed junction would be unobjectionable, inasmuch 
 as it would be made with their own railway, and would be 
 under the control of the same company. See also London,
 
 120 JUNCTIONS ON STEEP GRADIENTS AND CURVES. 
 
 Brighton, and South Coast Railway (Additional powers) 
 Bill, 1865, 143, cited, _pos^, p. 128. 
 
 In the Great Northern Railway {Potter's Bar, Barnet 
 and Hendon) Bill, 1866, 194, the Edgware, Highgate, and 
 London Railway objected that the junction with their line 
 "was inconveniently placed;" but the Referees reported 
 that "inasmuch as this latter railway is leased for 999 
 years to the promoters, and is to be worked by them, the 
 Referees are of opinion that the objection is not valid." 
 
 11. 
 
 Where the signals at the point of junction will he in the 
 hands of the Company to he joined, (a) 
 
 In the Maidstone and Ashford Railway Bill, 1866, 65, 
 the South Eastern Railway having objected to a proposed 
 junction with their line at Ashford, the Referees reported 
 "The signals will be under the control of the South 
 Eastern Company. The Referees think that, with ordinary 
 caution, the proposed junction may be worked with safety 
 and efficiency." In the Barry Raikvay (Penarth and 
 Cardiff Extension) Bill, 1866, 132, the Taff Valley Rail- 
 way, as lessees of the Penarth Railways Harbour and 
 Docks, alleged that the junction, by which it was proposed 
 that the intended railway should join the Penarth Railway, 
 was inconvenient and dangerous, and bad in an engineering 
 point of view. The Penarth Railway is a mineral line, 
 upon which there is a depot, from whence the coal brought 
 from the surrounding district is forwarded to either side of 
 the Penarth Dock by two branches, and the proposed junc- 
 tion was to be effected with the western branch at a point 
 close to the fork and near to the depot. The promoters 
 stated that the junction could be made without difficulty 
 
 (a) See 26 & 27 Vict. c. 92, sect. 12, cited ante, p. 107.
 
 JUNCTIONS ON STEEP GRADIENTS AND CURVES. 
 
 or danger ; and that there was no point on the petitioners' 
 railway, within the limits of deviation, at which it could be 
 better effected. It was shown that the proposed railway, 
 by forming the junction at the point described, would in- 
 terfere only with the working of the Western Branch of 
 the petitioners' railway, by which but one side of the 
 Penarth Dock is served ; whereas, by a junction at any 
 other point, the whole working of the depot above alluded 
 to would be impeded ; and that, by effecting the junction 
 in the mode proposed, both railways would be under the 
 control of the same system of signals. The Referees re- 
 ported that there was no engineering objection to the pro- 
 posed junction. And in the Glasgoiu and South Western 
 Railway {Additional Foivers) Bill, 1866, 192, the Cale- 
 donian Railway objected that where a junction was pro- 
 posed to be effected with their line, trains at certain times 
 follow each other at very short intervals, and that it would 
 be dangerous to allow trains coming from the north to 
 cross the western or down line of the Caledonian Railway, 
 in order to get on the proposed line. The Referees re- 
 ported that the signals would all be under the control of 
 the Caledonian Railway Company, and there would not be 
 any engineering objection. 
 
 See also Vale of Crickhowell Raihuay {Western Ex- 
 tension) Bill, 1865, 368, cited p. 117. 
 
 121 
 
 III. 
 
 Whe7'e trains already have to slow at the -proposed 
 point of junction. 
 
 This may arise either from proximity to stations or other 
 causes. In the Chipping, Norton, Banbury, and East 
 and West Junction Railway Bill, 1865, 195, a junction
 
 122 JUNCTIONS ON STEEP GRADIENTS AND CURVES, 
 
 with the authorised East and West Junction line near 
 Canons Ashby, was objected to on the ground that the pro- 
 posed hne would be upon a gradient of 1 in 79, falling 
 towards the point of junction, with only 6 chains of level 
 before effecting the junction. The Referees reported that, 
 " as the junction would be near the proposed station of the 
 East and West Junction Line, where the speed of trains 
 must necessarily be slow, with ordinary precautious there 
 would be no engineering objections to this junction/' And in 
 the Leeds, North Yorkshire, and Durham Railway Bill, 
 1865, 219, it was objected that Railway No. 5, terminating 
 by a junction with the Leeds, Bradford, and Halifax Rail- 
 way, would be dangerous, inasmuch as the latter line, at 
 the point of junction, was upon a gradient of 1 in 50 de- 
 scending towards the station ; and that the introduction of 
 facing points upon such a gradient would be attended with 
 danger. The Referees reported that " the introducing 
 facing points and forming a junction upon sClch a gradient 
 is objectionable ; but upon considering the character of the 
 Leeds Station, and that the speed of trains must be slow at 
 the point of junction, the junction in question may be sanc- 
 tioned." In the Birkenhead and Liverpool Raihuay 
 Bill, 1865, 285, a junction, proposed to be made by No, 2 
 Railway (which would be upon a descending gradient of 1 
 in 52) with No. 1 Railway (which would be upon a descend- 
 ing gradient of 1 in 47), both lines being there upon curves 
 of 20 chains radius, was objected to. The Referees re- 
 ported that " under the peculiar circumstances of this case, 
 this junction is not objectionable in an engineering point 
 of view, the more especially as it is near to the station, and 
 the working of it will be controlled by the telegraph."' 
 
 See also the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway {Ad- 
 ditional Powers) Bill, 1865, 239, cited p. 114.
 
 MULTIPLICITY OF JUNCTIONS. 
 
 123 
 
 IV. 
 
 Where the lines are entirely mineral. 
 
 This was one element taken into consideration by the 
 Referees in the Wrexham, Mold, and Connah's Quay 
 Raihvay Bill, 1865, 262, where a number of objections 
 were taken to junctions, &c., on lines Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 ; 
 and the Referees reported that there were no engineering 
 objections, " considering the formation of the country, the 
 nature of the traffic — at the present time mineral — and the 
 complication, and number of the existing colliery lines/' 
 In the North British Railway {Camps, &c., Branches), 
 Bill, 1866, 375, the Caledonian Railway having objected 
 that Railway No. 2 would be carried across their line on 
 the level, the Referees reported that, as both lines were 
 purely mineral, and could not have any great traffic, there 
 would be no serious engineering objection. And see also 
 the London and NoHh Western and Midland Counties 
 Goal Fields Railioay Bill, 1866, 195, where a crossing on 
 the level over another line was allowed, on the ground that 
 the line to be crossed was only used for " slow goods 
 traffic" (ante, p. 63). 
 
 Sect. V. 
 
 MULTIPLICITY OF JUNCTIONS IN ONE PLACE. 
 
 The expediency and safety of several junctions in con- 
 tiguity must necessarily depend very much on the circum- 
 stances of each case. Occasions may, however, occur when 
 the fullowing instances may prove useful for reference. In 
 the Wrexham, Mold, and Connah's Quay Raihvay Bill, 
 1865, 260, the junction, at the Wrexham Station, of Line
 
 124 
 
 MULTIPLICITY OF JUNCTIONS. 
 
 Four existing 
 lines at point. 
 
 No. 4 with the promoters' authorised line from Wrexham 
 to Whitchurch was objected to, as increasing an incon- 
 venience and compHcation already considerable. It ap- 
 peared that there were already four existing or authorised 
 lines in the neighbourhood, converging to the Wrexham 
 Station ; and, if a fifth were sanctioned, there would be 
 five sets of points. The promoters answered that " the 
 junction, which one of their authorised lines made with the 
 Great Western, was so complained of, that power had been 
 taken last session to make a line passing behind the station, 
 avoiding the rails and platform, and superseding one of the 
 junctions complained of" The Referees reported, " It was 
 admitted by the petitioners that this plan, if carried out, 
 would obviate the particular objection as to the number of 
 junctions." In the Croydon, Mitcham, and Kingston 
 Railway Bill, 1866, 92, it was objected that Railway No. 1 
 formed a treble junction with the Wimbledon and Croydon 
 and South London, Tooting, and Sutton Junction Rail- 
 ways, and crossed the line of the former nearly at right 
 angles. The promoters stated that it was intended to erect 
 a station, with the proper signals, at this point. The 
 Referees reported that the proposed junction could be 
 worked with safety and efficiency. And in the Llan- 
 trissart and Taff Vale Junction Railway Bill, 1866, 
 Four junctions 153, it was objected that Railways 1, 3, and 4 would make 
 four junctions, within a distance of 30 chains, at the place 
 where the Llantrissart and Taff Vale Junction Railway 
 and the Llantrissart Common Branch are to be joined." 
 The promoters replied that these junctions were necessary, 
 and that they could not be effected in a better or more 
 convenient manner. The Referees reported that the works 
 would be efficient. 
 
 Forming a 
 treble junc- 
 tion. 
 
 witliin 
 80 chains.
 
 JUNCTIONS IMPRACTICABLE. l"2i 
 
 Sect. VI. 
 
 JUNCTIONS IMPRACTICABLE BECAUSE THE TWO LINES NOT ON 
 SAME LEVEL AT POINT OF JUNCTION. 
 
 It is obvious that, in order to effect a junction with 
 another line, the proposed railway must, at the point of junc- 
 tion, be on the same level as that line In many cases, before 
 the Referees, it has turned out that, either from oversight 
 or otherwise, this important matter has not been sufficiently 
 attended to, and it has happened that, at the point of junc- 
 tion, the proposed line would, according to the deposited 
 plans, be many feet higher or lower than the line intended 
 to be joined. If the difference of level is so great that it 
 cannot be got over by the vertical deviation allowed by the 
 General Act (Sect, xiv.) the junction becomes absolutely 
 impracticable and objectionable in an engineering point of 
 view. In the Glasgow City, Suburban, and Harbour 
 Railway Bill, 1865, 186, the City of Glasgow Union 
 Railway objected that a junction was proposed on their 
 line at a point, between their goods and passenger stations, 
 where they proposed to lay four lines of railway, and that, 
 at the point of junction, " there was a difference of levels, 
 before the two lines could clear each other, of between 2 and 
 3 feet, and that according to the deposited plans the junc- 
 tion was impracticable. The promoters replied that the 
 junction could be made by carrying it to the extreme point 
 of the limits of deviation on land scheduled, and by raising 
 their line to an extent not exceeding the limits laid down 
 in the General Act. The Referees reported that "the 
 junction with the petitioners' railway cinild not be con- 
 structed under the powers of the liill." In the Brecon and 
 Merthyr TyJ/d Junction Railway Bill, 1865, 425, a 
 proposed junction with the authorized Brecon and Merthyr 
 Tydfil Railway was objected to, "inasmuch as the point (jf 
 junction corresponds with the limits of deviation, and as
 
 126 JUNCTIONS WITH CROWDED MAIN LINES. 
 
 there is a difference at that point of 2 feet 6 inches in level 
 between the proposed railway and the authorised Brecon 
 and Merthyr Railway, " a practicable junction cannot be 
 made within the limits of deviation shown upon the de- 
 posited plans and sections/' The promoters answered that, 
 although impracticable, as shown on the deposited plans, 
 the junction could be effected under the powers of the Bill 
 and of the Act of the authorised Brecon and Merthyr 
 Railway. In regard to this objection, the Referees reported 
 that the junction " cannot be effected under the powers of 
 the Bill," And in the Mancliester, Sheffield, and Lincoln- 
 shire Raihvay {Central Station and Lines) Bill, 1866> 
 261, the promoters represented that by agreement with the 
 Midland Railway it had been arranged that Railway No. 3 
 should be constructed only up to a certain point, and that a 
 junction should there be effected with the authorised Mid- 
 land Line, and that the remainder of No 3 should be 
 abandoned. It was admitted that at the point in question 
 No 3 would be 3 feet 3 inches above the level of the autho- 
 rised Midland Line. The Referees reported, " This difference 
 of level will render the junction at the point proposed im- 
 practicable ; and in such case the railway would not be 
 efficient for the objects proposed. "(a) 
 
 Sect. VII. 
 
 JUNCTIONS WITH CKOWDED MAIN LINES OR CROSSING SAME 
 
 ON LEVEL. 
 
 I. 
 
 These are in general ohjectionable. 
 
 In the Bedford, N'orthanipton, and Weedon Railway 
 Bill, J 865, 67, a junction was proposed to be made by a 
 
 (a) For further objections in this case, see p. 25.
 
 JUNCTIONS WITH CROWDED MAIN LINES. 127 
 
 double or S curve to the London and North Western Rail- 
 way Station at Weedon, the curves to be of 13^ chains 
 radius, with a gradient of 1 in 96, descending towards the 
 station, and chiefly in deep cutting. It was proved that 
 there were 23 passenger trains and 72 goods trains daily 
 passing through Weedon Station without stopping. The 
 Referees reported that, having regard to this fact, as Avell 
 as to the nature of the works upon this branch, this junction 
 ought not to be permitted with the main line, but ought to 
 be made either into the existing sidings of the London and 
 North Western Railway, or into sidings to be constructed 
 by the promoters, and for the making of which they have 
 scheduled sufficient land. The Referees further reported 
 that Railway No. 9, Avhich was the other fork of the above- 
 mentioned junction, ought, for the same reasons, if permit- 
 ted, to be made into sidings and not into the main line of 
 the London and North Western Railway. In the East 
 London Raihvay Bill, 1865, 113, the object of the pro- 
 moters was the construction of railways to connect, by 
 means of the Thames Tunnel, certain railways on the north 
 side of the Thames with certain others on the south side. 
 It was proposed by Railway No. 1 to effect a junction with 
 the main down line of the London, Brighton, and South 
 Coast Railway, at a point about 200 yards on the north side 
 of New Cross Station ; and it was also proposed by Railway 
 No. 4 (a spur of No. 1) to effect a junction with the main 
 up line of the same railway at the same point. At the 
 proposed point of junction, the London, Brighton, and South 
 Coast Railway consists of four lines of rails, the two inner 
 lines of rails being devoted to the through traffic, and the 
 two outer lines being appropriated to the local traffic of 
 the Brighton Line. The South Eastern, who enjoy run- 
 ning powers over these main lines, daily run 18 passenger 
 and 7 goods traius upon the main down line, and an etjual 
 number of trains upon the main up line. The Brighton 
 Company daily run 18 passenger and 8 goods trains uj^on 
 the same main down line, and an equal number of trains on 
 the main up line. None of these main line trains stop at
 
 128 JUNCTIONS WITH CROWDED MAIN LINES. 
 
 New Cross Station ; and some of them run past the pro- 
 posed point of junction at a speed of 40 miles an hour. On 
 the down local line the Brighton Company, on ordinary 
 occasions, run daily 79 passenger and 2 goods trains, and an 
 equal number on the up local line ; and upon the same 
 lines the South Eastern run daily 19 passenger and 5 goods 
 trains upon the up, and 18 passenger and 7 goods trains upon 
 the down line. Some of these local trains follow each other 
 at an interval of only three minutes. The promoters' lines 
 would cross those local lines upon the level to effect the pro- 
 posed junctions with the main lines. The Referees reported 
 that " the proposed junctions could be physically effected ; 
 but, having regard to the very crowded state of the traffic 
 on both the local and main lines, the Referees are of opinion 
 that, whilst it is most desirable that facilities for effecting 
 the connection proposed by the promoters should be afforded, 
 it is very questionable if the junctions proposed should be 
 allowed ; and they are of opinion that the mode of junction, 
 if any be allowed, should be determined by the Board of 
 Trade ;" and that the promoters had expressed their wil- 
 lingness to assent to this. 
 
 II. 
 
 But not objectionable when with Pronioters' own Line. 
 
 In the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway 
 {Additional Powers) Bill, 1865, 143, it was proposed to 
 effect junctions with the up and the down main lines of the 
 promoters' railway at a point about 10 chains to the London 
 side of the New Cross Station, and in a manner precisely 
 similar to the scheme of the East London Railway (supra), 
 the point of junction in the present instance being some- 
 what nearer the station. In the present case, as in the 
 other, the local lines would be crossed on the level, in order 
 to get to the main lines. The Referees in their report
 
 JUNCTIONS WITH CROWDED MAIN LINES. 129 
 
 quote the evidence laid before them in the case of the East 
 London Line, and added, " But in the present case the 
 junctions are proposed to be effected with the promoters' 
 own Hnes. They have entire control over the signals 
 thereon ; and they state that the objects of those junctions 
 is to take traffic off their main lines to London Bridge, and 
 transfer it to their South London Line ; and by means 
 thereof to obtain access to the Farrinodon Street Station of 
 the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway. Under these 
 circumstances, the Referees are of opinion that, with proper 
 precautions, there are no engineering objections to effecting 
 the proposed junctions." In the Same Bill it was also pro- 
 posed to form a short junction railway to connect the pro- 
 moters' South London Line with their main line near the 
 bridge carrying the main line over the Grand Surrey 
 Canal. The main line, at the proposed point of junction, 
 consisted of three lines ; — two used in common by the pro- 
 moters and the South Eastern for their through traffic, and 
 one used by the promoters for their local traffic. There are 
 daily 159 trains ninning upon the down main line, 77 trains 
 upon the up main line, and 78 trains running upwards upon 
 the local line. To effect the proposed junction with the 
 main lines, it would be necessary to cross the local line upon 
 the level. The Referees reported that the proposed junc- 
 tion with so crowded a line must be attended with a certain 
 amount of danger ; but, considering that the junction was 
 to be effected with lines belonging to the promoters them- 
 selves, that the signals there were all under their own con- 
 trol, and that the object of the junction was to take some of 
 the traffic to London Bridge off the main lines, and transfer 
 it to the promoters' South London Line, they were of 
 opinion that the junction was not objectionable in an en- 
 gineering point of view ; and .that no danger would arise 
 from crossing the local line in the manner proposed. 
 
 K
 
 130 JUNCTION IN A TUNNEL. 
 
 III. 
 
 Not Objectionable where the Signals will be under the 
 control of the Line to be joined. 
 
 See Glasgoiu and South Western Railway {Additional 
 Powers) Bill, 1866, 192, and other cases cited p. 120 — 1. 
 
 Sect. VIII. 
 
 JUNCTION IN A TUNNEL SANCTIONED. 
 
 In the Barnet, Hendon, Hampstead, and London 
 Railvjay Bill, 1865, 69, the Metropohtan and St. John's 
 Wood Railway objected to a proposed junction of Railway 
 No. 2 with their line near the Swdss Cottage in a tunnel, 
 and urged that this would interfere with the safe working 
 of their line ; and they stated that Railway No. 2 was " on 
 a gradient of 1 in 60 falling towards the point of junction 
 in a tunnel for 18 chains/' and would effect the juuction, 
 "by a curve of 12 chains radius at a point where the peti- 
 tioners' railway was on a gradient of 1 in 100, and on the 
 wrong side of the permanently defined station, as regarded 
 the use of signals, which would be arranged for the service 
 of the Hampstead Junction Railway, which would come in 
 at the other end of the station, and that this junction, as 
 proposed by the promoters, must, therefore, endanger the safe 
 working of the traffic " on the petitioners' line. They urged 
 that the junction could not be lighted by any external 
 light, as the proposed line was at a point under a public 
 road ; and " that the Metropolitan Railway Company were 
 actually going to a great expense to supersede one of their 
 existing authorised junctions with the Great Northern
 
 JUNCTION OF NARROW WITH BROAD GAUGE LINE. 131 
 
 Railway, solely because the said junction was made in the 
 dark." The promoters replied that such junction would be 
 on a level part of the petitioners' line, the line of the pro- 
 moters having 3 chains level at the junction point ; that a 
 junction in a tunnel was not, for practical working, more 
 objectionable than many open-air junctions which were ap- 
 proached by curves and through cuttings and buildings, 
 the position of which necessitated reliance on signals and 
 not on the signalman's being able to see the approaching 
 train ; and that this part of the line could be efficiently 
 worked by signals. The Referees reported, " on a careful 
 consideration of the whole evidence, that there is no valid 
 engineering objection." 
 
 Sect. IX. 
 
 JUNCTION OF PROPOSED NARROW GAUGE LINE WITH A BROAD 
 
 GAUGE LINE AND vice versd. 
 
 Such junctions are frequently proposed, but of course 
 can be entertained only where the laying down of an 
 additional rail is contemplated, converting the narrow gauge 
 line into a broad gauge line as well, or the broad gauge line 
 into a narrow gauge line as well. Thus, in the Or/more 
 Valley Raihvays (No. 1) Bill, 18Go, 420, the promoters 
 having proposed to effect a junction with the Ely Valley 
 Extension, it was objected that that line being broad gauge, 
 a narrow gauge line could not join it. The promoters re- 
 plied that the Ely Valley Company had the power and 
 also the intention to lay down a third rail for narrow gauge ; 
 and the Referees reported that there were no engineering 
 objections. And in the Ely Valley and Vale of Neath 
 Junction Railways Bill, 1866, 90, a junction was joro- 
 posed with an extension of the Ely Valley Line ; but the 
 proposed line being narrow gauge and the Ely Valley Line 
 broail gauge, tlie Referees reported, " It is obviously impos- 
 
 K 2
 
 ;|32 BACK SHUNTS. 
 
 sible to effect a physical junction between those lines, or to 
 run through carriag:es over them. It was suggested that 
 the mixed gauge was about to be laid down upon the Ely 
 Valley Line ; but no evidence was laid before the Eeferees 
 to warrant them in coming to that conclusion. Upon these 
 grounds, if this line be intended for through traffic, the 
 Referees are of opinion that the engineering thereof is not 
 efficient." 
 
 Sect. X. 
 
 BACK SHUNTS WHEN OBJECTIONABLE, 
 
 In the Crofthead and Kilmarnock Extension Railway 
 Bill, 1865, 77, the Glasgow and South Western objected 
 to a junction at Crofthead, as it would be effected at the 
 north side of Neilston Station, 850 feet therefrom, the pro- 
 posed line faUing 1 in 70 into the Caledonian Railway, 
 which is there upon a gradient of 1 in 66, falling from the 
 station ; and, to get to the station from Kilmarnock side, it 
 w5uld be necessary to make a back shunt up the incline 
 of 1 in Q6. The promoters replied that they intended to 
 reduce the gradient of the proposed line, before coming to 
 the junction, to 1 in 200, and place a new station upon the 
 gradient so altered. The Referees reported that, " If this 
 be effected, there can be no objection to the proposed junc- 
 tion." In the London, Worcester, and South Wales Rail- 
 way Bill, 1865, 86, the Great Western objected that the 
 promoters had no mode of getting into the existing Strat- 
 ford- on- Avon Station, except by a back shunt over the 
 authorised line of the East and West Junction Railway. 
 The promoters undertook to erect a station near the junc- 
 tion with the East and West Junction Railway, so as to 
 avoid the necessity of a back shunt. The Referees reported 
 (in regard to this and other alleged objections), " subject to 
 the foregoing remarks, the Referees are of opinion that
 
 BACK SHUNTS. , 133 
 
 there are no engineering obstacles to tlie proposed railways." 
 In the Callander aivd Oban Railway Bill, 1865, 176, it 
 was intended to form a tramway from the terminus of the 
 proposed line to the Oban Pier ; which tramway was in- 
 tended to cross the roads and streets on the level. The 
 Referees reported, — " The tramway in question is an awk- 
 ward way of effecting a communication between the pro- 
 posed terminus and the pier, involving a back shunt, and 
 being on gradients varying from 1 in 60 to 1 in 160 (where 
 it crosses the main street) ; but it was stated that the 
 object of passing, as it were, the town of Oban is to obtain 
 a level space before arriving at the station, the railway 
 approaching Oban being upon a descending gradient of 1 in 
 55 ; and that thereby a sufficient space will also be secured 
 for a station. The Referees are of opinion that there are 
 no engineering objections to the constructing the rail and 
 tramways in manner proposed." In the Perth General 
 Railway Station, Scottish Central, &c., Railway Com- 
 pa/nies Bill, 1865, 179, the Scottish Central Railway ob- 
 jected that Railway No. 2, which was intended to afford 
 access to the intended new goods station from Line No. 1 
 from the south, would not effect any junction with the 
 lines from the north. The Referees reported that, in that 
 respect it would be defective in an engineering point of 
 view, " as trains coming from the north will have to make a 
 back shunt upon Line No. 1, wliich is intended to be the new 
 main line." In the Chiiiping Norton, Banbury, and East 
 and M''est Junction Bill, 1865, li)5, it was objected that 
 the junction proposed to be effected with the Great Western 
 Railway at Chipping Norton would be at a distance of 52 
 chams from the station, the gradients of the proposed line 
 being 1 in 63 up to 10 chains from the point of junction, 
 and for that .space 1 in 165 towards the jimction, the 
 gradient of the Great Western Railway being there 1 in 
 100 falling from the station. The Referees reported that 
 " this will involve a back shunt of 52 chains up said incline 
 of 1 in 100, for all trains passing from Banbury to Chip- 
 ping Norton ; and, in the opinion of the Referees, is an
 
 ISrt BACK SHUNTS. 
 
 engineering defect." In the Ehj and Ogmore Valleys 
 Raihuay Bill, 1865, 423, it was objected that, as the line 
 was laid out, traffic going west from the Ely Valley Exten- 
 sion Railway would descend to the Gellyrhaid Branch, and 
 then have to be shunted back up a gradient of 1 in 44. 
 The promoters contended that the traffic requiring to be so 
 shunted would be very small in amount. The Referees 
 reported that the proposed junction would prejudicially 
 affect a not unimportant traffic from the Ely Valley Exten- 
 sion Line, seeking a western destination ; and for this and 
 other reasons they further reported that the proposed line 
 was objectionable in an engineering point of view, and that 
 the works were not efficient for the objects proposed. In 
 the Ogmore Valley Railway {Ho. 1) Bill, 1866, 151, it 
 was objected that, for traffic coming from the Llantrissart 
 Branch and going to Cardiff, a back shunt would be 
 required to bring it on to the Ogmore N^alley system of 
 Railways. It was, however, stated in reply that such traffic 
 would not come on this line, but would pass over the Taff 
 Vale system. It was further objected that the line would 
 be carried by an expensive bridge under the Ely Valley 
 Extension Line, so as to necessitate a back shunt up a 
 steep gradient for intercommunication with that line, 
 whereas it ought to have joined the said line on the level, 
 and passed again out of it near the bridge. The Referees 
 reported that " the works proposed by the promoters at this 
 point are preferable to those suggested by the petitioners." 
 In the Wolverhampton and North Staffordshire Junc- 
 tion Railway Bill, 1 S. & G., 125, the London and 
 North Western Railway objected that it was proposed to 
 form a junction with the North Staffordshire Railway, at a 
 point 80 chains past a certain station on that line, so that 
 the traffic would have to be shunted back into the station. 
 The Referees ruled that they could not entertain objections 
 to this back shunting, as it was not a work sought to be 
 authorised by the Bill, nor did it occur on any part of the 
 proposed line, adding, " unless there is shunting on the pro- 
 posed line, we have nothing to do with it."
 
 OBJECTIONS OBVIATED BY BLIND SIDINGS. 135 
 
 Sect. XL 
 
 WHEN OBJECTIONS TO JUNCTIONS MAY BE OBVIATED BY THE 
 CONSTRUCTION OF BLIND SIDINGS. 
 
 In the Crofthead and Kilmarnock Extension Raikvay 
 Bill, 1 865, 77, the Glasgow and South Western Railway 
 objected to a junction with their main line very close to the 
 station of Kilmarnock, on the grounds that it would be 
 necessary to cross upon a level certain lines of theirs lead- 
 ing to certain coal-pits, and that the effecting of such junc- 
 tion would interfere with their access to certain sidings on 
 the west of their line. The Referees reported that the 
 making of " the proposed junction would not be objection- 
 able if made under proper arrangements, such as a blind 
 siding to the coal pit line." 
 
 In the Spaldinrj and Bourn Railivay Bill, 1 86", 286, 
 it was proposed to cross the Boui'n and Essendine Branch 
 of the Great Northern upon the level, within about 10 
 chains of the Bourn Station, at the foot of a gradient of 1 
 in 100, descending towards the proposed crossing, and 
 where the said line is in a cutting 5 feet deep, and has a 
 curve of 20 chains radius. The j)roposed line would there 
 have a gradient of 1 in 78, descending towards the said 
 crossing. It was proved that the proposed line could not 
 be carried under or over the existing railway ; and, in 
 order to avoid any danger, it was proposed to construct a 
 blind siding with self-acting points, which would turn any 
 train coming from the Saxby side into such siding, instead 
 of alloAving it to cross the Bourn and Essendine Branch; 
 and that the control of the signals and points would bo in 
 the hands of the Great Northern Company. With these 
 provisions, the Referees reported that there were no engi- 
 neering objections. In the Afon Valley Railway Bill, 
 1865, 315, it was proposed, in order to obviate certain ob- 
 jections, to effect a junftion with the Llynvi Valley Rail-
 
 136 FACING POINTS. 
 
 way, where the proposed railway would be upon a gradient 
 of 1 in 40, descending towards the Llynvi Valley Line, 
 which there is level for only 528 feet, and which has also, 
 at that point, a branch line to the Maesteg Ironworks, 
 diverging from that level space, which is barely sufficient 
 for the traffic upon the line at that point. To obviate this 
 objection the promoters proposed to put in a blind siding, 
 with self-acting points, to divert all traffic descending the 
 proposed line into it. The Referees reported that "the 
 construction of this siding will be attended with consider- 
 able expense, as it will have to be effected by excavation 
 into a bed of iron ore. But, if the Committee shall sanc- 
 tion the proposed alterations, there will not be any engi- 
 neering objections to the construction of the proposed rail- 
 ways as intended to be altered." In the Ely Valley and 
 Vale of Neath Junction Railways Bill, 1866, 90, it was 
 objected that " where the junction is proposed to be made 
 with the Ely Valley Line, the proposed line will be on a 
 gradient of 1 in 40, and the Ely Vale Line is on a gradient 
 of 1 in 42, both descending in the same direction/' The 
 Referees reported that this junction could not be effected 
 with safety, except by means of a blind siding, which the 
 promoters agreed to substitute. 
 
 Sect. XII. 
 
 FACING POINTS. 
 I. 
 
 Facing Points on Main Lines objectionable. 
 
 In the Surrey and Sussex Junction Railway Bill, 
 1865, 75, Line No. 1 was intended to commence by ajuncti(m 
 with the main lines of the London, Brighton, and South 
 Coast Railway at the east side thereof, close to Combe
 
 FACING POINTS. 137 
 
 Bridge, near Croydon, and would proceed on the eastern 
 side of the said line through the shrubberies belonging to 
 the house of A., and within about 40 yards of his residence. 
 Line No. 2 would commence with the lines on the west of 
 the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway, which 
 are intended for local traffic only, and, crossing the main 
 lines by an over bridge, form a junction with Line No. 1 on 
 the eastern side of the Brighton main line. Both these 
 proposed railways were intended to be double lines. A. 
 objected that Line No. 1 was injudiciously planned, and 
 that other directions might be attended with less engineer- 
 ing defects. He proposed that part of Line No. 1 should 
 be abandoned, as requiring the insertion of facing points on 
 the Brighton Main Down Line ; but in the event of its 
 being retained he proposed certain variations. These, 
 the Referees reported, would very much lessen the injury 
 complained of by A., but would still leave the facing points 
 in the Down Main Line ; and " it having been given in 
 evidence that the South Eastern Railway alone has thirteen 
 trains daily each way, running at considerable speed over 
 the place where the facing points are proposed to be put in," 
 the Referees reported that " unless there be very strong 
 reasons for effecting a junction with the main lines, that 
 part of the proposed Railway No. 1 is defective in an engi- 
 neering point of view, especially as the local traffic lines 
 effect a communication with London.'' In the Wood Green, 
 Winchmore IliU, and Enfield Raihvay, 1865, 108, the 
 Great Eastern Railway complained that it was proposed to 
 form a double junction with the Great Eastern Ordnance 
 Station, with facing points on one of their main lines, and 
 that the crossing of their line by the traffic of the proposed 
 railway to the further side of the station, through which a 
 large number of trains run daily at high speed, was incon- 
 venient and dangerous. In reply, it was contended that 
 the line by which the station was approached was entirely 
 open to view ; and that, if the traffic weru worked in amity 
 with the Great Eastern, as was intended, it would be so 
 much under their control as to remove the objection. The
 
 138 FACING POINTS. 
 
 Referees reported, that " the introduction of facing points 
 on the main line of the Great Eastern in the way pro- 
 posed is very undesirable, and only to be allowed in case 
 there are very strong reasons for effecting a junction with 
 both the main lines at this station." In the Leeds, North 
 Yorkshire, and Durham Railway Bill, 1865, 219, Rail- 
 ways Nos. 11 and J 2, which were junctions with the North 
 Eastern about 600 yards from the Alne and Tollerton 
 Stations respectively, were objected to on the ground that 
 facing points would be introduced into the North Eastern. 
 The junctions would be effected with the up and down lines 
 which were here, and for a long distance, upon the level ; 
 and on a part of the North Eastern upon which the express 
 trains run at the highest speed, and the North Eastern 
 had gone to much expense to avoid inserting facing points 
 therein, there being but one set between York and Dar- 
 lington. The promoters stated that the insertion of facing 
 points could be avoided; "but not within the powers con- 
 tained in the Bill, or without the concurrence of the North 
 Eastern. The Referees reported that " the forming those 
 junctions with facing points as proposed would be objection- 
 able in an engineering point of view." In the Mold and 
 Denbigh Junction Railway (Extension) Bill, 1865, 264, 
 the Wrexham aud Minera and Great Western Companies 
 objected that the Line No. 1 proposed to cross the south 
 fork of the petitioners' railway at Wrexham (there a single 
 line) and to effect a junction with both lines of the Shrews- 
 bury and Chester Railway at the south end of the Wrexham 
 Station, taking no powers to use the station ; and tliat the 
 junction was proposed at a point where the Shrewsbury and 
 Chester Railway was passing over a level crossing ; that 
 considerable and increasing mineral traffic was constantly, 
 and at uncertain times, passing over the south fork over 
 which the empty waggons are shunted, thus constituting it 
 a siding as well as a main line for through trade ; and that 
 the introduction of two more lines at the level crossinsf is 
 calculated to increase the danger and impede the safe 
 working of the station. The promoters replied, in regard
 
 FACING POINTS. 139 
 
 to their taking no powers to use the station at Wrexham, 
 that they would construct a station on their own land, and 
 that the junctions generally were practicable, and not subject 
 to any disadvantage other than those attaching to any 
 junctions which require facing points to effect them. The 
 Referees reported that " the junction at Wrexham (con- 
 sidering the nature of the traffic using the south fork of 
 the Minora Line and the point at which, and the manner in 
 which Line No. 1 proposes to join the main line of the 
 Shrewsbury and Chester Railway) is very objectionable, 
 and is a defect in an engineering point of view/' In the 
 Llantrissart and Taff Vale Junction Raihvay Bill, 1865, 
 422, Railway No. 1, on a gradient of 1 in 40, would join 
 the Taff Vale Railway where the gradient was 1 in 290. It 
 was objected that in order to effect a junction at this point, 
 the gradient of 1 in 40 must be altered to 1 in 37, which 
 would occasion an alteration in the level of 7 feet per mile, 
 whereas 3 feet per mile is the utmost alteration allowed ; 
 and hence that no junction could be effected. The promoters 
 stated, that inasmuch as no facing points were allowed on 
 the Taff Vale Line, they proposed to join that line by a back 
 shunt, which they alleged they had power to do by extend- 
 ing their line beyond the limits shown on the deposited 
 plans, upon lands scheduled, the proposed works being 
 works of convenience and not portions of the main line. 
 And Railway No. 2, on a descending gradient of 1 in 50, 
 would join the Ely Valley Railway where the gradient was 
 1 in 84 ; and it was objected that in consequence of the 
 difference of the gradients, the proposed junction could not 
 be effected without making a divergence beyond the limits 
 shown on the deposited plans and sections. The promoters 
 prepensed to effect the junction in the same manner as the 
 junction of Line No. 1 with the Taff Vale Line (in order to 
 avoid facing points) which they alleged they had power to 
 do. The Referees reported that, " It was proved to the 
 Referees that the junctions, according to the deposited plans, 
 could not be effected witliout facing points, which they con- 
 sidered would be objectionable in an engineering point of
 
 140 FACING POINTS. 
 
 view. Tlie mode proposed by the promoters to obviate this 
 difficulty cannot, in the opinion of the Referees, be effected 
 under the powers of the Bill.'' 
 
 II. 
 
 Cases where Facing Points allowed, Speed of Trains 
 being slow, or Junction being on the Level. 
 
 While facing points on steep gradients, and especially on 
 main lines, are, as a rule, particularly dangerous and objec- 
 tionable, it is to be borne in mind that the dano^er arising: 
 therefrom decreases in proportion as the speed of the 
 trains, the steepness of the gradient, and the amount of the 
 traffic, decrease. Thus, in certain cases, the Referees have 
 sanctioned facing points on steep gradients, where they 
 were satisfied that at the points of junction the speed of 
 trains would be very slow, as at stations ; and in another 
 case they reported favourably of facing points where these 
 were on the level. The following are the cases referred 
 to : — In the Chichester and Midhurst Railway Bill, 1865, 
 50, it was sought by Railway No. 1 to effect a junction at 
 Haslemere with the direct Portsmouth Railway, at present 
 constructed and used as a single line, and worked by the 
 London and South Western Railway, who now alleged that 
 the junction was at an inconvenient point, and would 
 interfere with the working of the existing line at Haslemere. 
 The Referees reported that, " although there are no en- 
 gineering difficulties, the junction as proposed at 10 chains 
 from the Haslemere Station will necessitate the insertion of 
 facing points in a gradient of 1 in 100 falling from the 
 station ; but as long as the line is worked as a single line, 
 all trains stopping at Haslemere Station to pass, no down 
 train would have acquired any considerable velocity before 
 reaching the point of junction." And in the Leeds, North
 
 FACING POINTS. 141 
 
 Yorkshire, and Durham Railway Bill, 1855, 219, it was 
 objected that Railway No. 5, terminating by a junction 
 with the Leeds, Bradford, and Halifax Railway, would be 
 dangerous ; inasmuch as the latter line, at the point of 
 junction, was upon a gradient of 1 in 50 descending towards 
 the station ; and that the introduction of facing points upon, 
 such a gradient would be attended with danger. The Re- 
 ferees reported that " the introducing facing points and 
 forming a junction upon such a gradient is objectionable ; 
 but upon considering the character of the Leeds Sta- 
 tion, and that the speed of trains must be slow at the 
 point of junction, the junction in question may be sanc- 
 tioned." 
 
 In the Wrexham, and Minera Railway Bill, 1865, 263, ^n'Sd^'''"* 
 the junction of Line No. 2 with the Fridd Branch was ob- allowed, 
 jected to, as being " at the foot of a gradient of 1 in 84, 
 with facing points." It appeared that the junction would 
 not be made at the foot of this gradient, but that, as shown 
 on the plan, it would be more than 20 chains from that 
 gradient, of which distance about 1 2 chains were practically 
 level ; the Referees reported that there were no engineering 
 objections. 
 
 III. 
 
 Two sets of Facing Points on a Single Line "highly 
 
 objectionable." 
 
 In the Svjansea and Aberystwith Junction Raihvay 
 Bill, 1865, 419, the proposed line would form a junction 
 with the ToAvy Vale Line three-quarters of a mile soutli of 
 their Llandovery Station, at a point where the pro- 
 posed deviation line of the Brecon and Llandovery Rail- 
 way also joins it ; and, as the main object of the proposed 
 railway was to form a communication with the said devi-
 
 142 OBJECTION THAT NO JUNCTION EFFECTED. 
 
 ation line, this junction " would involve two sets of facing 
 points on a single line," which the Referees reported would 
 be " highly objectionable." 
 
 Sect. XII. 
 
 OBJECTION THAT, ACCORDING TO PLANS, NO PHYSICAL JUNC- 
 TION EFFECTED. 
 
 See Ch. ix. sect. 2.
 
 143 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 STEEP GRADIENTS AND SHARP CURVES.— UNUSUAL 
 DIFFICULTIES IN CONSTRUCTION. 
 
 Sect. I. 
 
 ENGINEERING RULES IN REGARD TO CURVES AND GRADIENTS. 
 
 " Although the determination of the curves and gradients Cueves. 
 in any particular case must, in a great measure, depend 
 upon the peculiar circumstances attending each case, there 
 are, nevertheless, certain general rules which should always, 
 if possible, be attended to. Those in regard to curves are, 
 that sharp curves, where unavoidable, should be brought as 
 near as possible to stations and other stopping places, and 
 on no account on steep inclines, in order that the trains 
 might not traverse the curve with any considerable velocity, 
 since the tendency to leave the rails increases as the square 
 of the speed of the train ; and curves should, if possible, be 
 made on those portions of the line which are either on the 
 surface or embanked, and not in deep cutting, where the 
 curving of the railway would prevent a clear view of the 
 line for any distance being obtained." {Law's Civil En- 
 gineering, Part 2, p. 18.) 
 
 " As the perfect condition is a right line, so does com- 
 parative perfection consist in the minimum amount of 
 deviation from it, that is, in the largest possible radius of 
 curvature ; and .... in order to impose the least
 
 144 
 
 RULES IX REGARD TO CURVES AND GRADIENTS. 
 
 Gradients. 
 
 Gradients at 
 stations. 
 
 diminution of speed, small cm'ves should always be near to 
 stations or stopping places ; and the more distant curves 
 are from these the larger should be their radius." (Denip- 
 sey's Practical Raihvay Engineer, 4th Edition, p. 2.) 
 
 " The least objectionable situation for curves on a railway 
 is at the extremities of the line (where they frequently 
 occur of less than 500 yards radius) ; and at the foot of an 
 inclined plane is the most dangerous, more particularly if 
 any portion of it should be in tunnelling : the objection 
 also increases with the speed of the train. (Brees's Glos- 
 sary, voce Curve.) 
 
 " Steep inclines of greater length than one half to three 
 quarters of a mile should not be introduced ; and if a sum- 
 mit level has to be surmounted, it is best to effect it by a 
 succession of steep grades, with short level planes between 
 them : the locomotives are thus enabled to recover their 
 steam at certain intervals of the ascent, just the same as 
 horses placed under similar circumstances recover their 
 wind." (Brees, voce Gradient.) 
 
 " In long inclines it is desirable to form occasionally 
 short benches or level portions, which, while they check the 
 speed of a descending train, materially assist those ascend- 
 ing." {Laiu's Civil Engineering, Part 2, p. 18.) 
 
 "A level plane, or, what is better, a short declivity, 
 should always be introduced at starting from a terTninal 
 station, to facilitate the departure of the engine on one line 
 and check the velocity of the approaching train on the 
 other. Intermediate stations should not be situated on 
 steep inclinations, on one side or the other ; for, as the 
 trains approach in either direction, what would be gained 
 on one side would be lost on the other : they should, there- 
 fore, be laid out on the level." {Brees, voce Gradient)
 
 RULES IN REGARD TO CURVES AND GRADIENTS. 
 
 U5 
 
 TABLE OF GRADIENTS. 
 
 Ratio of 
 
 Per mile 
 
 Per chain ' 
 
 Ratio of 
 
 Per mile 
 
 Per chain 
 
 inclination. 
 
 in feet. 
 
 iu inches. 
 
 inclination. 
 
 in feet. 
 
 in inches. 
 
 1 in 
 
 
 j 
 
 1 in 
 
 
 
 5280 
 
 1 
 
 •15 i 
 
 170-3 
 
 31 
 
 4-65 
 
 2640 
 
 2 
 
 •30 
 
 165-0 
 
 32 
 
 4-80 
 
 1760 
 
 3 
 
 •45 
 
 160-0 
 
 33 
 
 4-95 
 
 1320 
 
 4 
 
 •60 
 
 155-3 
 
 34 
 
 5-10 
 
 1056 
 
 5 
 
 75 
 
 150-8 
 
 35 
 
 5-25 
 
 880 
 
 6 
 
 •90 
 
 146-6 
 
 36 
 
 5-40 
 
 754-2 
 
 7 
 
 1-05 
 
 142-7 
 
 37 
 
 5-55 
 
 660-0 
 
 8 
 
 1-20 
 
 138-9 
 
 38 
 
 5-70 
 
 586-6 
 
 9 
 
 1-35 
 
 135-4 
 
 39 
 
 5-85 
 
 528-0 
 
 10 
 
 1-50 
 
 132-0 
 
 40 
 
 6-00 
 
 480-0 
 
 11 
 
 1.65 
 
 128-8 
 
 41 
 
 6-15 
 
 440-0 
 
 12 
 
 1-80 
 
 125-7 
 
 42 
 
 6-30 
 
 4061 
 
 13 
 
 1-95 
 
 122-8 
 
 43 
 
 6-45 
 
 377-1 
 
 14 
 
 2-10 
 
 120-0 
 
 44 
 
 6-60 
 
 352 
 
 15 
 
 2-25 
 
 117-3 
 
 45 
 
 6-75 
 
 3300 
 
 16 
 
 2-40 
 
 114-8 
 
 46 
 
 6-90 
 
 310-6 
 
 17 
 
 2-55 
 
 112-3 
 
 47 
 
 7-05 
 
 293-3 
 
 18 
 
 2-70 
 
 110-0 
 
 48 
 
 7-20 
 
 277-9 
 
 19 
 
 2-85 
 
 107-7 
 
 49 
 
 7-35 
 
 264-0 
 
 20 
 
 3-00 
 
 105-6 
 
 50 
 
 7-50 
 
 251-4 
 
 21 
 
 3-15 
 
 103-5 
 
 51 
 
 7-65 
 
 240-0 
 
 22 
 
 3-30 
 
 101-5 
 
 52 
 
 7-80 
 
 229-5 
 
 23 
 
 3-45 
 
 99-6 
 
 53 
 
 7-95 
 
 2200 
 
 24 
 
 3-60 
 
 97-8 
 
 54 
 
 8-10 
 
 211-2 
 
 25 
 
 3-75 
 
 96-0 
 
 55 
 
 8-25 
 
 203-1 
 
 26 
 
 3-90 
 
 94-3 
 
 56 
 
 8^40 
 
 195-5 
 
 27 
 
 4-05 
 
 920 
 
 57 
 
 8-55 
 
 188-6 
 
 28 
 
 4-20 
 
 91-0 
 
 58 
 
 8-70 
 
 182-1 
 
 29 
 
 4-35 
 
 89-5 
 
 59 
 
 8-85 
 
 1760 
 
 30 
 
 4-50 
 
 88-0 
 
 60 
 
 9-00
 
 146 OBJECTIONS TO GRADIENTS AND CURVES 
 
 Sect. II. 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO STEEPNESS OF GRADIENTS AND SHARPNESS 
 
 OF CURVES. 
 
 In all the following instances (except the last — on p. 149) 
 the Referees considered the proposed gradients and curves 
 not objectionable in an engineering point of view, under the 
 particular circumstances of each case. It will be observed 
 from this and the two succeeding sections, in how small a 
 proportion of cases such objections have been successfully 
 taken. 
 
 In the Metropolitan and St. John's Wood Raihuay 
 Bill, 1865, 109, a line was proposed from the Belsize 
 Station of the authorised Metropolitan and St. John's 
 Wood Railway to Hampstead. The proposed line would 
 be 83^ chains in length, of which 23^ chains were horizon- 
 tal, and 61 g on a gradient of 1 in 27, and of which a 
 length of 18 chains was in tunnel. The difference of height 
 to be surmounted between Belsize and Hampstead stations 
 was 148 feet. The Referees reported, " The proposed line, 
 which leaves the Belsize Station on a curve of 1 chains 
 radius, followed by a piece of straight for a little less than 
 1 chain, runs into a curve of 12 chains radius, and then 
 proceeds to a piece of gradient of 1 in 250, on which a 
 station is proposed to be constructed, and thence through a 
 tunnel to Hampstead, entering the station by a curve of 
 1 5 chains radius. The long prevailing gradient of 1 in 27 
 was proved to be in considerable excess of that on any 
 existing railway, except that leading to Oldham, over 
 which a considerable goods and passenger traffic is con- 
 ducted ; but this line presented a most unusual combina- 
 tion of curves and gradients, particularly at the Belsize 
 Junction, where the piece of inserted straight line (though 
 capable of a small extension) is of the most limited length,
 
 OBJECTIONS TO GKADIENTS AND CURVES. 147 
 
 and barely sufficient to remedy the engineering objection 
 of reversed curves of 10 and 12 chains radii. The Referees 
 are of ojDiniou (after hearing the evidence of the promoters 
 as to the manner in which they propose and undertake 
 to conduct the traffic over the line) that, if the break- 
 power be sufficient, the trains very short, the line for pas- 
 senger traffic only, worked by the best system of signals, 
 under the conduct, on all occasions, of a pilot man, and by 
 rolling stock specially constructed for the purpose, there 
 are no insurmountable engineering objections to the con- 
 struction of tliis railway." In the Burton-upon-Trent 
 and Nottingliam Railway Bill, 1865, 217, it appeared 
 that Railway No. 1 would be led over a summit level 
 102 feet above its commencement at Burton-upon-Trent, 
 and 172 feet above its termination at Nottingham. " At 
 a little more than 8 miles from Burton it has a gradient 
 of 1 in 100 for above 1 mile, then at 10|^ miles from 
 Burton it has a gradient of 1 in 104 for f of a mile, then 1 
 in 186 for I of a mile, then level for 30 chains, then a 
 gradient of 1 in 176 for 1 mile, then level, then a gradient 
 of 1 in 102 for 2 miles 48 chains, then level, then 1 in 113 
 for 22 chains, then 1 in 693 into valley, and at 25 miles 
 from Burton-on-Trent another gradient of 1 in 1 68." The 
 Referees reported that " some of these gradients are steeper 
 than may be desirable, yet that they did not constitute an 
 engineering obstacle to the construction of the line or to 
 the efficiency thereof ; " and also that " the sharpest curve 
 upon any of the proposed railways has a radius of 10 chains ; 
 and, as they all occur at or near junctions near to stations, 
 the Referees are of opinion that there are not any engineer- 
 ing objections thereto." In the Midland Railway {New 
 Lines, &c.) Bill, 1865, 223, the Midland Railway sought to 
 acquire a certain existing railway, and to substitute it for a 
 railway which they had been authorised to construct in the 
 same parish under an Act obtained by them in 186.j, but 
 the construction of which it was now proposed to abandon. 
 It was objected that " the line proposed to be substituted 
 has curves and gradients which render it unfit for the con- 
 
 l2
 
 148 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO GRADIENTS AND CURVES. 
 
 Objections 
 obviated 
 witiiin limita 
 of deviation. 
 
 veyance of passengers." It was a short locomotive mineral 
 line, unsanctioned by Parliament. The maximum gradient 
 upon it was 1 in 78, and there was one curve upon it of 10 
 chains, which it was stated might be improved. The Re- 
 ferees reported that the line might be made so as to be fit 
 for passenger and goods traffic, and that there was no engi- 
 neering objection to it. In the London and North Wes- 
 tern Railway {New Works, &g.) [England and Scotland} 
 Bill, 1865, 242, a line of about 5 miles was opposed by 
 owners &c., along the same, who complained of the steep- 
 ness of the gradient and the heaviness of the works. The 
 line would descend for 2 miles 5 chains by a gradient of 1 
 in 80, and, after a level of 100 yards, enter the St. Helen's 
 Railway, which is also on the level. The promoters replied 
 that from the nature of the country they could not avoid 
 the gradient of 1 in 80 ; and that it would be a perfectly 
 good gradient for the traffic likely to pass over the line. 
 The Referees reported that the line might safely be con- 
 structed in the way proposed by the promoters, and that 
 there were no engineering objections. In the Lancashire 
 Unioti Railway Bill, 1 865, 276, the gradients having been 
 objected to, the Referees reported that " the steepest gra- 
 dient is 1 in 90 ; and as steep gradients exist upon the 
 several lines with which the proposed railway forms junc- 
 tions at either end, the Referees are of opinion that the 
 proposed gradient is not objectionable." In the Lsle of 
 Wight Railway Bill, 1865, 493, owners &c. along the line 
 having objected that the line was badly laid out, the 
 Referees reported that the worst gradient was 1 in 70 ; and 
 that there was no engineering objection. In the Kings- 
 hridge Railway Bill, 1866, J 2.3, the Referees reported 
 that the sharpest curve on this line of 2 miles 1 furlong 
 was 14 chains, and the steepest gradient 1 in 54 ; and that 
 there were no engineering objections. 
 
 In the North of England Union Railway Bill, 1865, 
 235, upon Railway No. 2, there were a number of reversed 
 curves of 20 chains radius, with little or no straight spaces 
 intervening between them, upon a gradient of 1 in 70.
 
 OBJECTIONS TO GRADIENTS AND CURVES. 1 19 
 
 The Referees reported that "Such curves are highly ob- 
 jectionable, but it was proved that, within the limits of 
 deviation, they can be much improved ; and the Referees 
 are of opinion that there are no engineering obstacles to 
 this line being constructed as proposed." 
 
 Where a general objection is stated to the gradients of a 
 proposed hne, the promoters will find it a convenient course 
 to prepare a table (to be handed in to the Referees) showing 
 all the various gradients on the line, and the lengths of each. 
 This course has beeb adopted in several cases, as in the 
 South Lancashire Railways, &c. Bill, 1865, 273 ; the 
 Lancashire Union &c. Bill, 1865, 276 ; the East and 
 West Yorkshire &c. Bill, 1865, 237 ; and the North of 
 England Union &c. Bill, 1865, 235. 
 
 In the following instance, the Referees reported against the i in 25 for 
 proposed gradients. In the Wrexham, Mold, and Connah's ^o^^^^l^ ^^ 
 Quay Railway Bill, 1865, 260, Line No 6. would descend i in 50 
 by a gradient of 1 in 25 for 8 chains, continued by a gradient ^^'^ ^°^^ 
 of 1 in 50. The Referees reported that "the gradients 
 would be highly objectionable for ascending traffic ; " and i in 1 8 for 
 recommended the abandonment of that line as objectionable ^,jj"g2^t,]g 
 in an engineering point of view. And in the Same Bill, 
 Railway No. 7, which descended for upwards of 3 furlongs, 
 by a gi-adient of 1 in 1863, was objected to as being highly 
 dangerous. The promoters replied that "there was a choice 
 of difficulties, and that the line was proposed with the view 
 of getting rid of the evil of a double shunt over two level 
 crossings ; " but it was not denied that this line was of little 
 use, that it was only intended for return waggons, and that 
 it was unsuited for heavy traffic. The Referees reported 
 that the line, in an engineering point of view, was objec- 
 tionable ; and they recommended its abandonment.
 
 150 LINES OF EXTRAORDINARY DIFFICULTY. 
 
 Sect. III. 
 
 LINES OF EXTRAORDINARY DIFFICULTY IN CONSTRUCTION 
 
 DIFFICULT COUNTRY, ETC. 
 
 The Eeferees are always willing to recognise the fact that 
 the country through which the proposed line would pass 
 presents extraordinary and unusual difficulties in the way 
 of the engineer ; or that any difficulties out of the ordinary 
 category have had to be overcome in the laying out of the 
 line, in addition to some of the cases cited in the preced- 
 ing section, the following deserve special attention with 
 reference to this subject. In the Chichester and Midhurst 
 Railway Bill, 1865, 80, the London, Brighton, and South 
 Coast Railway objected that the works of Railway No. 1 
 from Midhurst to Haslemere were "heavy and costly." 
 The Referees were of opinion " that the long gradient of 1 in 
 70, a tunnel 1 ,089 yards in length, as well as some curves 
 which will require great care in the working of the railway, 
 are necessitated by the features of the country through 
 which the railway is proposed to be driven, a difference of 
 332 feet in height having to be surmounted between the 
 terminal points, and having to be effected in the last three 
 miles of the north end of the railway." In the London, 
 Brighton, and South Coast Railway (St. Leonards Line 
 and Deviations) Bill, 1865, 57, the line as proposed would 
 pass for upwards of 4 miles through two of the levels 
 under the care of the Commissioners of Sewers, &c., for 
 the levels within the Rapes of Pevensey and Hastings, 
 crossing divers sewers, streams, ditches, and watercourses. 
 The Commissioners alleged that the ground was so moory 
 and unsound that it would be impossible to construct em- 
 bankments of the necessary height, without occasioning 
 great bulging of the soil on either side. They gave the 
 result of borings made along the line of the proposed rail-
 
 LINES OF EXTRAORDINARY DIFFICULTY. 151 
 
 way, showing the ground to be in great part boggy and 
 unsound, and maintained that, owing to the weakness ne- 
 cessarily incident to embankments of a height varying 
 from 16 to 32 feet, constructed upon such soil, openings for 
 the passage of cattle, the flow of water, and other purposes, 
 could not be made in them ; and that the drainage of the 
 levels, which was already too slow, would thus be further 
 materially obstructed. They further maintained that eight 
 culverts of certain dimensions (which they specified and 
 which are also specified in the Referees' report) would be 
 necessary. The promoters' engineer did not dispute the 
 correctness of the borings, but " unhesitatingly declared 
 that he apprehended no particular difficulty in the proposed 
 work, whether from the nature of the soil or other circum- 
 stances alleged ; " and the company agreed to make all 
 necessary openings in the embankments and all the culverts, 
 except two which they considered unnecessary. The Referees 
 reported, that there were " no engineering difficulties which 
 are not of a character well understood and readily to be 
 surmounted by the means ordinarily resorted to in similar 
 circumstances ;" and that the provisions for carrying off the 
 water which the promoters agreed to make would suffice 
 for that purpose. In the Glascfoiv City Union Railway 
 Bill, 1805, 105, the Referees reported, "The objections 
 which Avere urged embraced a great diversity of engineering 
 points in respect to junctions, gradients, curves, interference 
 with public streets, and similar matters involving considera- 
 tions of public safety and convenieuce ;" and that " consider- 
 ing all the circumstances of the locality and of the existing 
 railways, no valid objection was made out to the scheme of 
 the Glasgow Union Railway ; but that, if sanctioned, it 
 would fulfil the object of providing continuous communica 
 tion between the several railways and stations proposed to 
 be connected together, in a manner consistent with tlie 
 convenient accommodation and (reasonable care and skill 
 being assumed) the security of the public' (a) 
 
 (a) See Caledonian (Glaagow South Side) Line, infra.
 
 152 LINES OF EXTRAORDINARY DIFFICULTY, 
 
 In the Greenock Railway Bill, 1865, 187, the line would 
 ascend from Greenock for upwards of 3 miles on a gradient 
 of 1 in 70, with one piece of gradient of 1 in 200 for 1 00 
 yards, and for a further distance of 2 miles at 1 in 100, with 
 one piece of gradient of 1 in 200 for 100 yards ; and after 
 passing the summit (355 feet in height) it would descend for 
 about 5 miles at 1 in 100. There were three tunnels of the 
 respective lengths of 693 yards, 320 yards, and 180 yards in 
 the first 2 miles ; and there were in the same distance 4 
 curves of 15 chains radius, one of which is in the tunnel of 
 693 yards, and 2 of the curves were reversed curves. And it 
 was further objected that the Line No. 2 would descend 
 abruptly by a steep gradient of 1 in 40 to the harbour on 
 to a level of only 1 60 feet. The promoters stated that the 
 last-named objection would be met by the connection which 
 the line would form with the proposed works in the harbour 
 in the course of construction by the Corporation ; and they 
 maintained that the engineering difficulties rugged by the 
 petitioners were inherent in an undertaking which carried a 
 railway, by so steep an ascent, from the harbour to such an 
 elevation ; and that the sharpness of the curves might, in 
 some cases, be eased within the limits of deviation. The 
 Referees reported that " the descending traffic to the har- 
 bour will require care in its management ; but there is no 
 reason to doubt that through the line generally the traffic 
 may be worked with efficiency on gradients of the steepness 
 above stated, and the Referees consider they do not in them- 
 selves constitute a valid objection to the undertaking." In 
 the Central Wales and ^Staffordshire Junction Railway 
 Bill, 1865, 215, it was objected that Line No. 1 would de- 
 scend with a gradient of 1 in 66 for a mile and a quarter to 
 the Bridgnorth Station, where it would have a level space 
 of 5 4 chains. The promoters proved that the nature of the 
 country rendered it difficult to approach Bridgnorth with a 
 good gradient. The Referees reported there were no en- 
 gineering objections. In the East and West Yorkshire 
 Union Railway Bill, 1865, 237, the promoters of the North 
 of England Union Railway (a competing line also before
 
 LINES OF EXTRAORDINARY DIFFICULTY, 153 
 
 Parliament) alleged " that the engineering details of the 
 proposed line were exceedingly defective, unsuitable, and 
 inefficient. Evidence was given that the proposed line, 
 after havins: attained a considerable level, descended for an 
 amount of 95| feet, and again ascended to cross the summit 
 level between Sedberg and Leyburn." The Referees' report 
 contains a table showing the undulating character of the 
 gradients. It was also objected that Hawes was the only 
 place where a junction could be effected with a north and 
 south line, and that the line at that place was at so low a 
 level that it could not be connected with any such line* 
 The Referees reported, " The promoters gave evidence that 
 the worst gradient upon their line is ] in 70 ; that the line 
 is carried down into the valley at Hawes, in order to ac- 
 commodate the population ; and that Hawes is not the 
 proper place for a communication with the north and south 
 line, beins: GiO feet below a summit that should be crossed 
 by any line going south ; and tliat if any such north and 
 south line should be made, it should cross the promoters' 
 line far to the west of Hawes. The country over which it 
 is proposed to carry this line is very difficult, and the 
 Referees are of opinion that there are no engineering objec- 
 tions to the executing the works as proposed." In the 
 Midland Raihvay {Barnsley to Kirlchurton) Bill, 1865, 
 241, the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway objected "that 
 the works are costly ; that the line is ill-chosen, and involves 
 engineering difficulties which might have been avoided." 
 • The line was 12^ miles in length. It commenced at 
 Barnsley on an embankment 52 feet high, and at 1^ miles 
 from Barnsley it was in a cutting 45 feet deep. At 2 miles 
 there was an embankment 73 feet high ; and, after passing 
 through a cutting 53 feet deep, there was an embankment 
 and a viaduct 223 yards in length and 65 feet high, which 
 crossed over the line of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Rail- 
 way. At 4^ miles from Barnsley there was an embank- 
 ment 65 feet high, and a viaduct 365 yards in length, and 
 83 feet high at its highest point. At 5^ miles there was a 
 cutting 70 feet deep, and then a tunnel 1 ,294 yards in length,
 
 154 LINES OF EXTRAORDINARY DIFFICULTY. 
 
 with cuttings at each end of 64 and 65 feet ; and at 7 miles 
 another embankment 62 and 65 feet high, and ^ a mile 
 long. At 8^ miles there was another cutting 66 feet deep 
 for ^ a mile, and at 9 miles 3 furlongs a tunnel of 814! 
 yards. At 10 miles there was a cutting of 54 feet, and 
 then an embankment of 62 feet; and at 11 f miles there 
 was a cutting of 60 feet and an embankment of 70 feet. The 
 Referees reported that " these are very heavy and expen- 
 sive works, but they are required to obtain good gradients, 
 as the line passes through a difficult country ; and the 
 estimate is not objected to. There is a gradient of 1 in 70 
 at the junction with the London and North Western Rail- 
 way at Kirkburton ; but 1 in 100 is the worst gradient on 
 the rest of the line ;" and that there were no engineering 
 objections to the proposed railway. In the Ahoyne and 
 Bi'aemar Railway Bill, 1865, 216, objections were taken 
 to the close proximity of the line to a much frequented 
 public road, passing up a narrow valley by the side of the 
 River Dee ; but the promoters answered that, in a narrow 
 valley already traversed by a road and a river, it was not 
 possible to carry the line otherwise than as proposed, and 
 that by putting a screen in certain places by the side of the 
 road, and in others by the side of the railway, the view of 
 the trains might be effectually prevented ; and the Referees 
 reported that " On the question Avhether the line can be 
 worked as laid down without possible danger to the public 
 using the road in such close proximity both to the railway 
 and the river, the Referees pronounce no opinion ; but it 
 was proved to their satisfaction that screens, as proposed by 
 the promoters, could be erected ; and they have further to 
 report that there are no engineering objections to the con- 
 struction of the proposed line." And in the Lancashire 
 and Yorkshire Railway {Additional Powers) Bill, 1865, 
 239, it was objected that, at the termination of a curve of 
 12 chains in a deep cutting of 43 feet (in some parts), the 
 railway would come upon a turnpike road, and run parallel 
 with it on a slightly higher level for about 60 chains, at a 
 distance of only 30 yards ; but the promoters replied " that
 
 LINES OF EXTRAORDINARY DIFFICULTY. 155 
 
 the valley was only 60 yards wide, and that the proximity to 
 the road could not be avoided." The Referees reported 
 that the line could not well be carried in any other way 
 than that proposed, but that they considered that a screen 
 should be erected and kept up by the Railway Company (if 
 requested to do so) between the turnpike road and the rail- 
 way ; and that there were no engineering obstacles. See 
 also Vale of Crickhotvell Raihuay {Western Extension) Bill, 
 1865, 368, cited p. 117. 
 
 It will be observed that in all of the foregoing' instances 
 the Referees reported in favour of the proposed line. In 
 the Caledonian Railway {Glasgow South Side Railways, 
 &o.) Bill, 1865, 106, however, which was a rival scheme to 
 the Glasgow {City) Union Railway Bill, 1865, 105, supra, 
 the Referees reported adversely — that "a great quantity 
 of evidence, the principal pait of wiiich was of a highly 
 technical character, was laid before the Referees by the 
 opponents, designed to show that, whatever might be the 
 recommendations of the scheme from the Caledonian Com- 
 pany's point of view, the continuous communication which 
 it offers would be subject to serious disadvantages in regard 
 to the interests of the public, especially to delays and im- 
 pediments arising from the complication of the intersecting 
 and connecting lines, and the accumulated traffic liable to 
 be thrown uj^on some parts of tlie communication already 
 much burthened with traffic of their own. As an instance 
 of this it was pointed out that a portion of the Clydesdale 
 Junction Railway, which, according to the proposed scheme, 
 would form an integral part of the continuous communica- 
 tion, is at the present time the channel of a heavy mineral 
 traffic — no less than 1 06 trains in 24 hours passing along 
 that line, of which 3 only are passenger trains. The alleged 
 danger and difficulty in the working of a large and con- 
 stantly flowing stream of passenger traffic along a line so 
 circumstanced might no doul)t be mitigated by additional 
 vigilance and care, but only, according to the admission of 
 the promoters themselves, at the expense of time ; and 
 delay is itself a consideration of serious importance in regard
 
 A 56 STATION ON OK NEAR STEEP GRADIENTS. 
 
 to a passenger traffic of such nature and amount as the pro- 
 posed lines would be required to accommodate. After care- 
 fully weighing all the facts laid before them, the Referees 
 are of opinion that the scheme, though highly complicated, 
 had been very ingeniously devised ; but they considered 
 that the works would not be so efficient for the ob- 
 ject proposed, as in the interest of the public should be 
 required." 
 
 Sect. IV. 
 
 STATION ON OR NEAR TO STEEP GRADIENTS. 
 
 In the London, Worcester, and South Wales Raihvay 
 Bill, 1865, 86, the Great Western Railway objected that, 
 at Worcester, the proposed line would descend from a junc- 
 tion with their line near Forgate Station, with a gradient 
 of 1 in 44, and then run horizontally for only 10 chains to 
 a terminus on the level of Sansum Street, in Worcester. 
 The Referees reported that the "gradient of 1 in 44 to 
 within 10 chains of a terminus on the level of a street is of 
 an unfavourable character." In the Okehampton Railway 
 Bill, 18G5, 92, the Referees reported, in regard to Railway 
 No. 7, " This railway descends towards the south with a 
 gradient of 1 in 60 ; it then crosses upon the level the 
 main street leading into Plymouth from the east ; and, 
 shortly after, descends with a gradient of 1 in 40 to within 
 3 chains of its termination near the waterside. The Re- 
 ferees are of opinion that this gradient, so near the termi- 
 nus, is very objectionable in an engineering point of view." 
 In the Crystal Palace New Railways Bill, 1865, 159, the 
 London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway objected that 
 Railway No. 1 would be on a gradient of 1 in 70 from its 
 point of junction with the Crystal Palace and South Lon- 
 don Junction Railway for a distance of 2 1 miles, and that 
 it was proposed to place a station upon the said line at a
 
 STATION ON OR NEAR STEEP GRADIENTS. 157 
 
 point within that distance ; but, the promoters having 
 satisfied the Referees that they could construct a part of 
 the said line, for the distance of 150 yards, with a 
 gradient of 1 in 300, the Referees reported that that 
 would suffice for the placing of such station. In the North 
 BHtish Railway (Lassivade, &c., Branches) Bill, 1865, 
 17-t, on the petition of the Caledonian Railway, the Re- 
 ferees rej)orted that the gradients upon the proposed lines 
 were of an inferior character, being, for a considerable por- 
 tion of the lines, 1 in oO ; but that this gradient was not 
 continuous, having several level, or nearly level, portions at 
 intervals where it is proposed to place stations ; and that 
 better gradients could have been obtained by taking a more 
 direct line, and that the promoters had stated that they 
 were induced to take the line proposed in order to meet 
 the wants of the population. In the Greenock Railway 
 Bill, IH65, 187, Line No. 2 descended abruptly by a steep 
 gradient of 1 in 40 to the harbour on to a level of only 1 60 
 feet ; but the promoters contended that this objection 
 would be met by the connection wliich the line formed 
 with the proposed works in the harbour in the course of 
 construction by the Corporation. The Referees reported 
 that " the descending traffic to the harbour will require 
 care in its management." In the Central Wales and Staf- 
 fordshire Raihuay Bill, 1865, 215, the Great Western 
 Railway objected that Railway No. 1 would descend with 
 a gradient of 1 in 66 for a mile and a quarter to the 
 Bridgnorth Station, where it has a level space of 51 chains ; 
 and that it did not form any junction with the Great 
 Western Railway, but ran parallel to it at a distance of 
 about 1 chain. In reply, it was proved that the nature of 
 the country rendered it difficult to approach Bridgnorth 
 with a good gradient ; and that this gradient was made so 
 steep, mainly for the purpose of keeping the rails of the 
 proposed line in Bridgnorth Station at the same level as 
 the rails of the Great Western Railway there, so that a con- 
 nection might be effected at any time hereafter. The Re- 
 ferees reported that there were no engineering objections In
 
 158 LINE BELOW LEVEL OF RIVER. 
 
 the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway {West Riding 
 Branches) Bill, 1866, 161, it was objected that the goods 
 station at Huddersfield would be placed upon a gradient of 
 1 in 154 at the foot of an incline of 1 in 70. The Referees 
 reported that, " under all the circumstances, this arrange- 
 ment is not defective in an engineering point of view." 
 And in the Bo'ness, Grangemouth, and South Alloa Junc- 
 tion Raihvay Bill, 1866, 264, it having been objected that 
 at Bo'ness the gradient of the line would be 1 in 73 at the 
 point indicated by the promoters as the intended site of the 
 station, the promoters replied " that the station was not 
 positively decided upon ; but that, when it is, the gradient 
 of the line could, without difficulty, be flattened ; " and the 
 Referees reported the works efficient. 
 
 Sect. V. 
 
 OBJECTION THAT LINE WILL BE BELOW LEVEL OF ADJACENT 
 
 RIVER, CANAL, ETC. 
 
 The danger arising from inundation of the line from this 
 cause has, on several occasions, been made a ground of 
 objection. In the Aboyne and Braemar Railway Bill, 
 1865, 216, it was objected that near Aboyne the line 
 crossed the Tullich Burn, a wild mountain stream very 
 formidable in winter, that the line was 1 1 feet below the 
 level of the burn and in cutting, and that the stream could 
 not be carried either under or over the line except at very 
 great expense. The promoters, however, proved that the 
 burn could be lowered and carried under the railway for 
 .iPoOO. And in the North Kent Railway Bill, 1865, 511, 
 the petitioners stated that the line (which would run from 
 the existing North Kent Line to the Medway, opposite 
 Sheerness) was at too low a level, the rails being in most 
 parts on the level of the Trinity high -water mark at spring
 
 GRADIENTS AT LEVEL CROSSINGS OVER ROADS. 159 
 
 tides in the River Thames, from which the district through 
 which it is carried is protected by an embankment ; and 
 that it ought to be laid from 4 to 5 feet higher, to prevent 
 its being injured by inundation, if this embankment were 
 broken by accident or otherwise. It was proved that the 
 embankment of the Thames there had been in existence 
 for a long series of years ; and that there was not the 
 slightest ground for anticipating any accident of the kind 
 suggested. The Referees reported that there was no engi- 
 neering objection. See also the Brecon and Merthyr 
 Tydfil Junction Railway Bill, 1865, 425, (cited ante, 
 p. 88) where the proposed line would run for five miles 
 beside the Glamorganshire Canal, and for two miles of that 
 distance below the level of the canal. 
 
 Sect. VI. 
 
 gradients at level crossings over roads and streets. 
 
 On this subject see Chap. VII., sects. 2 and 3.
 
 160 
 
 CHAPTER Vll. 
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH ROADS AND STREETS.— BRIDGES 
 UNDER AND OVER SAME.-ALTERATION OF INCLINA- 
 TIONS, ETC. , 
 
 Sect. I. 
 
 CROSSING ROADS AND STREETS ON THE LEVEL. 
 
 I. 
 
 Provisions of the General Acts on this subject. 
 
 By 5 & 6 Vict. c. 55, (a) it is provided, sect. 9, that a rail- 
 way company shall be bound to erect gates and employ a 
 gatekeeper at every level crossing ; (b) and by sect. J 3, 
 where level crossings exist over " private roads, highways, 
 and private roads and tramways," the Board of Trade are 
 empowered to authorise the company to carry such roads, 
 &c., over or under the railway, (c) 
 Railway not ^J the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, (fZ) sect. 46, it is 
 
 to cross roads provided that, " If the line of the railway crosses any turn- 
 unless other- pike road or public highway, then (except where otherwise 
 b^^sjeciai'^^*^ provided by the special act) either such road shall be car- 
 
 Act. 
 
 (a) This Act extends to Scotland. 
 
 (b) See Railway Clauses Act, 1863, sect. 6, where the company are 
 required to erect a lodge at each level crossing. 
 
 (c) See Railway Clauses Act, 1863, sect. 7, by which the Board of Trade 
 may require the company to do this, where necessary for the public safety. 
 
 id) See similar provisions in Railways Clauses (Scotland) Act, 1845, 
 sect. 39, ct seq.
 
 CROSSING ROADS AND STREETS ON THE LEVEL. 161 
 
 ried over the railway, or the railway shall be carried over 
 such road, by means of a bridge of the height and width, 
 and with the ascent or descent by this or the sjDecial act in 
 that behalf provided ; and such bridge, with the immediate 
 approaches, and all other necessary works connected there- 
 with, shall be executed, and at all times thereafter main- 
 tained, at the expense of the company ; provided always, 
 that, with the consent of two or more justices in petty 
 sessions, as after mentioned, it shall be lawful for the com- gut proviso 
 pany to carry the railway across any highway, other than ^^ *'° ^^S^' 
 a public carriage road, on the level." By sect. 47, it is pro- n^. . , 
 vided that, if a railway cross public roads on a level, the erected by 
 companj shall erect gates and keejD the same closed across 
 such roads ; but the Board of Trade may order that such 
 gates be kept closed across the railway instead of across 
 the roads. By sect. 4S it is provided, " Where the railway Trains not to 
 
 crosses any turnpike road, on a level, adioininc^ to a station, ^\^.^^. ^P^'^^ 
 '' '- , 'JO ' anjoiuing 
 
 all trains on the railway shall be made to slacken their stations at 
 speed before arriving at such turnpike road, and shall not fo^j. j^jig^ ^n 
 cross the same at any greater rate of speed than 4 miles an ^i*^""^- 
 hour ; and the Company shall be subject to such rules and 
 regulations, with regard to such crossings, as may from time 
 to time be made by the Board of Trade." And by sect. Company to 
 Gl it is provided tliat, " If the railway shall cro,ss any hiojh- make ap- 
 way other than a public carriage way on the level, the com- fences, &c., to 
 pany shall at their own expense make, and at all times "^ f Tt\v^ 
 maintain, convenient ascents and descents, and other con- crossed on tlie 
 venient approaches, with handrails or other fences, and 
 shall, if .such highway be a bridleway, erect and at all Bridleway. 
 times maintain good and sufficient gates, and if the same 
 shall be a footway, good and sufficient gates or stiles, on Footway, 
 each side of the railway whore the highway shall commu- 
 nicate therewith.' 
 
 By sect. 53 it is enacted, that, before interforiiig with 
 roads, &;c., so as to render the same dangerous or impass- 
 able, the Company shall provide other roads. 
 
 The 26 & 27 Vict., c. 92, also contains certain enact- Tra/ws not to 
 ments on this subject: — By sect. 5 it is provided that UveUroxxi'nyZ 
 
 M
 
 162 CROSSING ROADS AND STREETS ON THE LEVEL, 
 
 " Where the company is authorised by the special act to 
 
 carry the railway across a turnpike road or public carriage 
 
 road on the level, it shall not be lawful for the company in 
 
 shunting trains to pass any train over the level crossing or 
 
 Company to at any time to allow any train, engine, carriage, or truck 
 
 erect lodge at *^ ,, r^ r. • i ^i ^^ ji 
 
 point of to stand across the same. beet, o provides that the com- 
 
 ^ossing. pany shall erect a lodge at the point of crossing. Sect. 7 
 
 Trade may empowers the Board of Trade to require the erection of a 
 
 inXad o" ^^ bridge, instead of a level crossing, where that appears to 
 
 level crossing, them necessary for the public safety. 
 
 II. 
 
 Crossing Roads on the Level. 
 
 Must be It has been seen that no level crossing over roads can be 
 
 authwised effected unless specially authorised by the promoters' Act. 
 {Raihvay Clauses Act, 1845, sect. 48.) Accordingly, 
 where in the Bedford, Northampton, and Weedon Rail- 
 way Bill, 186^, 67, the petitioners proposed a certain de- 
 viation of the line, the Referees reported, " But this devi- 
 ation would involve the crossing of a road upon the level, 
 for which no provision had been made in the Bill." In the 
 Bo'ness, Grangemouth, and South Alloa Junction Rail- 
 Level way Bill, 1 866, 264, it was objected that the proposed line 
 tronTalreaX "^ould make a second level crossing over the Grangemouth 
 existing and Bo'ness Turnpike Road, in addition to one already 
 existing. The promoters replied, " that the level crossing 
 would be close to the one now existing, and would in no way 
 add to the inconvenience." The Referees reported that the 
 works were efficient. In the Wrexham and Minera Rail- 
 Level crossing ^vay Bill, 1865, 263, it was objected that the line crossed 
 used with°°* °^ ^^^ ^®^®^ ^ public road, the gradient of which was 1 in 5. 
 wheels. The promoters replied that this road was scarcely ever used 
 with wheels ; and that, therefore, no real danger would
 
 CROSSING ROADS AND STREETS ON THE LEVEL. 163 
 
 arise. The Referees reported that there were no engineer- 
 ing objections. In the North British Railivay {Addi- 
 tional Powers) Bill, 1865, 178, the Bill would enable the 
 promoters to carry their railway with a double line of rails 
 across a certain road, which was already crossed by them 
 with a single line of rails. The Road Trustees objected to Additional 
 the laying of a second line of rails, as " dangerous and ^^^^f^ ^^^^ 
 tedious ;" and they gave evidence that the said road could allowed. 
 be carried over the railway without increasing the gradient 
 of the road, now 1 in 9 4. To carry the road over the rail- 
 way in the manner proposed, would necessitate an embank- 
 ment above 15 feet high, with proportionate slopes at the 
 sides ; and the approach on the south side would run out 
 above 150 feet. The Referees reported, " There are no en- 
 gineering obstacles to laying the second line of rails, or to 
 constructing the proposed bridge ; but the Referees do not 
 consider that it lies within their province to offer an opinion 
 as to the propriety of carrying the said road over the rail- 
 way by the proposed bridge." In the Wixxham, Mold, 
 and Connah's Quay Railivay Bill, 1865, 260, on Railway 
 No. 2 a road was intended to be raised 6 feet 6 inches, and 
 then crossed on the level ; and on Railway No. 3 a similar 
 level crossing was proposed. It was admitted by the pro- 
 moters that these crossings might be obviated by the con- 
 struction of bridges ; but it was said with regard to the first 
 that there was very little traffic on the road ; and with Oyer road 
 regard to the second, that a bridge would be very expensive, traffic, 
 and that no serious damage need be apprehended, as the 
 road is at this point level, and the railway is on a gradient of 
 only 1 in 330. The Referees reported, " The Referees offer 
 no opinion on the expediency of constructing bridges in 
 these several cases. The inconvenience that would arise 
 from the level crossings complained of was not proved to 
 them to be of such a nature as to constitute an engineering 
 objection to the lines on which they occur." 
 
 It is the not unfrequent recourse of Road Trustees op- where brid-e 
 posing, to suggest, before the Referees, the construction of l^^flJoners^ 
 a bridge instead of a level cro.ssing over their road. The instead of 
 
 „ level crort.sini?. 
 
 M 2 *'
 
 164. 
 
 CROSSING KOADS AND STKEETS ON THE LEVEL, 
 
 Where diver- 
 sion of a road 
 proposed. 
 
 Objection to a 
 
 level crossing 
 
 obviated by 
 
 imjjroving 
 
 approaches, 
 
 inclination, 
 
 &c. 
 
 two last-mentioned cases illustrate the manner in which the 
 Referees deal with such suggested alterations. In the one 
 case, they " do not consider that it lies within their province 
 to offer an opinion as to the propriety of carrying the said 
 road over the railway by the proposed bridge ;" and in the 
 other, they " offer no opinion on the expediency of con- 
 structing bridges " — although in the first case the petitioners 
 alleged that the road could be carried over the line without 
 increasing the gradient of the road. See Midland Railway 
 {Asliby and Nuneaton, &c.) Bill, J 866, 137, infra, p. 168 ; 
 and Midland Railway (Neiv Lines, &c.) Bill, 1S65, 223, 
 cited infra, p. 166. 
 
 Where the diversion of a road, capable of being effected 
 within the limits of deviation, has been proposed before the 
 Referees, they have considered that to be within their 
 province. Thus, in the Havant, Hamhledon, and Drox- 
 ford Railway Bill, 1865, 45, where it was proposed by the 
 promoters to divert a turnpike road, the Referees reported, 
 " This diversion can be made within the limits of deviation." 
 And the opponents (the Petersfield and Bishops Waltham 
 Railway) having objected that this diversion would interfere 
 with a certain bridge which they were about to construct, 
 the promoters agreed " to divert the turnpike road without 
 any interference with the petitioners' bridge." And in the 
 Leeds, North Yorkshire, and Durham Railway Bill, 
 1865, 219, where it was objected that the centre of the Rail- 
 way, as laid down, touches the west side of the Leeds and 
 Collingham Road, and that the slope of the cutting would 
 extend across the same, the promoters replied "that the 
 limits of deviation would allow the direction of either the 
 railway or the road to be so altered as to avoid any mter- 
 ference ;" and the Referees reported that no engineering 
 objection existed. And in the London, Brighton, and 
 South Coast Railway ( Various Powers) Bill, 18o6, 255, 
 Avhere the petitioners objected to the level crossing (over a 
 road) near to the junction of the proposed railway with the 
 promoters' Shoreham, &c. Branch, " inasmuch as the lono- 
 and narrow approach to it on the one side, and the proxi-
 
 CROSSINQ ROADS AND STREETS ON THE LEVEL. 165 
 
 mity of another level crossing over the same road by the 
 latter line on the other, would render it dangerous, and 
 increase the objection on the same account to the existing 
 level crossing ;'' and the promoters stated in reply, that they 
 proposed to widen the approaches, and alter the inclination 
 of the roadway from a gradient of 1 in 30 falling towards 
 the level crossino[s to the level, and that these works would 
 so improve the approaches as to remove the petitioners 
 olyections ; the Referees reported that, " subject to these 
 alterations, the works in an engineering point of view were 
 efficient." 
 
 In the Leeds, NoHh Yorkshire, and Durham Raihvay Seventy-three 
 Bill, 18G5, 219 (by which 21 railways were proposed to p/opoS''''^^ 
 be constructed in the West and North Ridings of Yorkshire, 
 and in the county of Durham) the North Eastern Railway 
 complained generally " that the proposed railways will cross 
 73 public roads on the level." Two bodies of Road Trustees 
 opposed ; but their objections were confined to five specified 
 level crossings. The Referees' report (so far as appears 
 from it) was not influenced by the above general objection, 
 upon which no detailed evidence appears to have been 
 given. 
 
 III. 
 
 Crossing Streets on the Level. 
 
 Streets, like roads, cannot be crossed on the level, un- 
 less sj)ecial authority be obtained (Railways Clauses Act, 
 1 845, sect. 48). Thus, in the Bedford, No^^than^Jton, and 
 Weedon Railway Bill, 1 865, 68, where, by the deposited 
 plans, it was proposed that the railway should cross a certain 
 street called Cow Lane, in Northampton, at 2 feet below 
 the existing level of the said street, the Referees reported, 
 " But no provision is made in the Bill for crossing this 
 street upon a level ; and to take the same under or over the
 
 166 CROSSING ROADS AND STREETS ON THE LEVEL. 
 
 proposed railway, would require the approaches to be made 
 steeper than the gradient of the present road (1 in 16), for 
 which no powers are taken in the Bill. In answer to this 
 objection, it was stated that an agreement had been made 
 with the surveyor of the Town Commissioners of Northamp- 
 ton, to divert Cow Lane, and take it under the proposed 
 railway, with a maximum gradient of 1 in 13. Without 
 some such arrangement the railway cannot be constructed ; 
 and, as the Referees have no power to deal with the same, 
 they must report that, as the Bill stands, the proposed rail- 
 way cannot be constructed ; but if such agreement can be 
 carried out, there will not be any engineering impediment 
 thereto." 
 
 In the Callander and Oban Jtaihuay Bill, 1865, 176, 
 it was objected that the proposed railway would not be con- 
 nected directly with the pier at Oban, and that it was 
 intended to form a tramway from the terminus of the pro- 
 Crossing posed line to the pier, which tramway would cross the roads 
 Oban on level. ^^^ streets on the level, and would interrupt the ti'affic of 
 the streets. The Referees reported that the tramway in 
 question was an awkward way of effecting a communication 
 between the proposed terminus and the pier, involving a 
 back shunt, and being on gradients varying from 1 in 60 to 
 1 in 160 (where it crosses the main street) ; but it was 
 stated that the object of passing, as it were, the town of 
 Oban was to obtain a level space before arriving at the 
 station, the railway approaching Oban being upon a de- 
 scending gradient of 1 in 55, and that thereby a sufficient 
 space would also be secured for a station. The Referees 
 reported that there were no engineering objections to con- 
 structing the rail and tramways in the manner proposed. 
 In the Midland Railway {Neiv Lines, &c.,) Bill, 1865, 
 Crossing 22.3, the Local Board of Health of Ashby-deda-Zouch com- 
 Ashby-de-la- plained that the railway would cross on the level certain 
 Zouch on of the streets and roads under their control, which 
 
 level • • 
 
 would be highly dangerous m consequence of the steep- 
 ness of the gradients. It appeared that the promoters 
 proposed to take, for the purposes of the line, an ex-
 
 CROSSING ROADS AND STREETS ON THE LEVEL. 167 
 
 isting horse tramway, which crossed on the level the 
 streets now proposed to be crossed in the same manner. 
 One of these was the principal street in the town. *' The 
 ascending gradients from the railway upon it are, for 53 
 yards, 1 in -il, then for 90 yards 1 in 23, and for 23 yards 
 1 in 53." The Keferees reported that " this is a very steep 
 descent to a level ; but the promoters maintaioed that it 
 was impossible to throw a bridge across it, because the 
 necessary embankments would destroy the houses which 
 are on the sides of the street at the crossing. This is an 
 engineering objection to the proposed line ; but the Re- 
 ferees are of opinion, that, if protected by gates and a 
 watchman, the crossing will not be more dangerous than it 
 is at present over an open tramway without such precau- 
 tion." Another of the streets which would be crossed had 
 a descending gradient towards the railway of 1 in 16^ for 
 250 yards. The petitioners stated that they were im- 
 proving it, to provide for traffic on it. The promoters 
 admitted that a bridge might be thro^vn over this crossing, 
 but stated it was unnecessary, there being so little traffic, 
 as it was only a private or bridle road. The Referees 
 reported that there was no engineering objection. In the 
 London and South Western Raihvay {Additional Powers) Crossing lane 
 Bill, 1866, 178, the Wandsworth District Board of Works, ^* 
 and others, objected that, by the increased power of laying 
 fresh rails across a lane adjoining the goods station at 
 Nine Elms, increased annoyance wouhl be caused to the 
 passengers and goods traffic proceeding along the line ; and 
 that, by a diversion of the lane and widening it at a cer- 
 tain point, this inconvenience might be obviated, and con- Two seta of 
 sequently that the engineering is bad. The lane was existing. 
 already crossed by two sets of crossings 500 feet apart ; 
 and the proposed new crossing would be intermediate 
 between them. Inasmuch as a large amount of traffic was 
 then and must still be worked across the lane, the pro- 
 moters agreed to widen the lane 40 feet ; and the Referees 
 reported that " there is no objection, as a mere question of 
 engineering, to the proposed alteration."
 
 168 CROSSING ROADS AND STREETS ON THE LEVEL, 
 
 IV. 
 
 Level Crossings over Roads and Streets allowed where 
 
 near Stations. 
 
 The reason of this is obvious. The speed of trains must 
 there necessarily be slow under ordinary circumstances ; 
 and, besides, by the 48th section of the Railways Clauses 
 Act, 1845, the speed of trains over such crossings shall not 
 exceed four miles an hour. In the Midland Railway 
 (Ashby and Nuneaton, etc.,) Bill^ 1866, 117, it was 
 objected that the line would cross a public road on the 
 level, " where the gradient of the road was so steep as to 
 render the crossing dangerous ; " and that this might be 
 obviated by carrying the railway over the road, which 
 could have been done by altering the gradients from 1 in 
 890 and 1 in 660, to 1 in 200. The promoters proved that, 
 for a considerable distance from the crossing, the gradient 
 of the road would not be less than 1 in 63, and they stated 
 that they intended to erect a station at this point ; and 
 that, to carry the railway over the road, an embankment 
 of 32 feet in height would be required, which would make 
 it impossible to erect a station, with proper sidings and 
 other requirements, in such a manner as to secure the con- 
 venience of the public. The Referees reported that there 
 were no engineering objections. In the Leeds, North 
 Yorkshire, and Durham Railway Bill, 1865, 2! 9, the 
 Leeds and Collingham Road Trustees complained that 
 Railway No. 1 would cross their turnpike road " upon the 
 level where the railway is on a curve, and the road upon a 
 gradient of 1 in 20." The promoters explained, that 
 " most probably there would be a station near to this level 
 crossing ; and the Referees did not consider the same 
 objectionable/' In the Same Bill, the Tadcaster and Otley 
 Road Trustees complained Railway No. 2 would cross their 
 road close to Collingham upon the level, and also that 30
 
 ALTERING INCLINATIONS OF ROADS AND STREETS. 169 
 
 chains the railway would run nearly parallel to the said 
 road. " It was proved that the road could not be carried 
 under the railway, because it would then be below the level 
 of the adjacent river, which would prevent it from being 
 drained ; and that, if the road were carried over the rail- 
 way, in order to give the necessary gradient to the ap- 
 proaches of the bridge, they should be carried across other 
 roads and into the adjacent village ; and, further, that most 
 probably a station would be placed close to the road." The 
 Referees reported that "there is no engineering objection 
 to the said level crossing ; but that a screen should be 
 erected along said road, if required." 
 
 Sect. II. 
 
 ALTKRING INCLINATIONS OF ROADS AND STREETS. 
 
 I. 
 
 Provisions of the General Act. 
 
 The Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, (a) in 
 regard to the alterinof the inclination of roads in order to 
 carry the same under a railway, provides by the 49th sec- 
 tion that : — 
 
 "The descent made in the road in order to carry the Descent 
 same under the bridge shall not be more than 1 foot in 30 roads, &c 
 feet if the bridge be over a turnpike road, 1 foot in 20 feet 
 if over a public carriage road, and 1 foot in 1 6 feet if over 
 a private carriage road, not being a tramway or raihoad, 
 or if the same be a tramway or raihoad, the descent shall 
 not be gi-eater than the prescriljed rate of inclination ; and 
 if no rate be prescribed, the same shall nut be gi-eater than 
 as it exi.sted at the pa.ssing of the si)ecial Act." 
 
 (a) Sec Railways Clauses (Scotland) Act, sect. 42, et scq. 
 
 m
 
 170 ALTERING INCLINATIONS OF ROADS AND STREETS. 
 
 And, in reference to the ascent of roads passing over 
 railways, the 50th section provides : — 
 
 " Tlie ascent shall not be more tlian 1 foot in 30 feet if 
 tlie road be a turnpike road, 1 foot in 20 feet if a public 
 carriage road, and 1 foot in 16 feet if a private carriage 
 road, not being a tramroad or railroad, or if tlie same be a 
 tramroad or railroad, the ascent shall not be greater than 
 the prescribed rate of inclination ; and if no rate be pre- 
 scribed, the same shall not be gi-eater than as it existed at 
 the passing of the Special Act." 
 
 See also sect. 58, by which it is provided that, before in- 
 terfering with roads, &c., so as to render the same impass- 
 able or dangerous, other roads shall be provided by the 
 company. 
 
 11. 
 
 Instances where powers sought to alter Inclinations of 
 
 Roads and Streets. 
 
 Although, when special powers are desired by promoters, 
 each particular case must necessarily depend entirely on its 
 own merits, the following instances may prove useful for 
 reference, being those which have actually occurred on this 
 point. In the Fulham Railway Bill, 1865, 127, certain 
 owners, lessees, &c., upon a portion of the proposed line, 
 objected to the manner in which certain roads in the dis- 
 trict traversed by the railway were crossed ; but the Re- 
 ferees reported that, " as it was proved that the provisions 
 of the General Act as to the gradients of said roads to be 
 altered were observed ; that clauses had been agreed upon 
 with the Metropolitan Board of Works relative to the roads 
 in the district, and no complaint was made on behalf of the 
 District Board, the Referees are of opinion that there are
 
 ALTERING INCLINATIONS OF ROADS AND STREETS, 171 
 
 no engineering objections to carrying out the works as pro- 
 posed." In the Garth Quarry Raihvays Bill, 1865, 314, 
 it was proposed to raise a turnpike-road 1 4 feet, so as to 
 allow the line to pass under it. The Referees reported that 
 " the effect of such raising will be to extend the existing 
 gradient of ] in 9, for a distance of 40 yards, upon a gra- 
 dient of 1 in 1 to the top of the bridge, by which the road 
 is to be carried over the railway, and also to convert the 
 road at the other side of the bridge, now level, into a 
 gradient of] in 30. They are of opinion that there were not 
 any engineering objections to the raising of the road as 
 proposed." And in the Sivansea and Clydach Railway 
 Bill, 1866, 263, it was objected that the works necessary Raising road- 
 for taking the railway under one of the approaches to the jj^htfy con- 
 bridge over the River Towy (by which the roadway would stmcted 
 
 , . brid'^c 4 feet. 
 
 be raised 4 feet over the spring of the arch), " would in- ° 
 
 juriously affect the bridge, which was built with one arch 
 of 90 feet span, and lightly constructed." The Referees 
 reported that the works were efficient. 
 
 III. 
 
 Instances where promoters omitted to seek poivers to alter 
 Inclinations of Roads and Streets. 
 
 See Bedford, Northami^ton, and Weedon Railway Bill, 
 1 865, 68 (ante, p. 1 6")), where the Referees reported, " No 
 provision is made in the Bill for crossing this street upon 
 the level ; and to take the same under or over the proposed 
 railway, would require the ap[)roaches to be made steeper 
 than the gradient of the present road (1 in 16), for wliicli 
 no powers are taken in the Bill .... As the Bill 
 stands, the proposed railway cannot be constructed." In the 
 Okehampton Railway Bill, 1865, 92, where it appeared 
 that Line No. 1 was intended to be constructed upon the
 
 172 ALTERING INCLINATIONS OF ROADS AND STREETS. 
 
 land purchased by the Launceston and South Devon Kail- 
 way, for the purpose of doubling their line, the promoters 
 projjosed various alterations on their original plan, in order 
 to obviate the objection ; but the Referees reported, among 
 other matters, that the petitioners " would also most pro- 
 bably have to make use of the bridges constructed by the 
 petitioners for their double line of railway ; as, in order to 
 pass under the roads which cross over both lines, it might 
 be necessary to alter the gradients of the approaches to the 
 bridges, to do which no powers are taken in the Bill." In 
 the North Surrey Railway Bill, 1865, 110, a line was 
 l^roposed from a junction with the Balham and Croydon 
 Line of the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway, 
 near the Streatham Station, to a junction with the Lon- 
 don, Chatham, and Dover Railway at Clapham Station. 
 The line for 2090 yards would be in tunnel or covered 
 way, running under and along the South Road, King's 
 Road, and Loats Road. The Referees reported that " this 
 tunnel in one place cannot be, at the utmost, more than 15 
 feet high, as no powers have been taken to alter the level of 
 the road under which it passes, and to lower the level of 
 the rails will make the gradient (there 1 in 100) more 
 steep." In the Moses Gate and Ringley Branch Road 
 Bill, 1865, 294, which was a Bill giving fresh powers to 
 that Road Trust, it was proposed to raise the level of the 
 Moses Gate Road, at the extremity of the Promoters' 
 Trust, so as to convert a gradient of 1 in 30 into 1 in 62. 
 The level to be obtained under the powers of the Bill 
 would terminate abruptly at the end, towards Manchester, 
 of a bridge which was under the jurisdiction of the Justices 
 of the Hundred of Salford ; while the access to the bridge 
 from Bolton was in the jurisdiction of the corporation of 
 that borough. It was therefore objected that this would 
 involve the corporation of Bolton and the Justices of the 
 Hundred of Salford in the raising or rebuilding the bridge; 
 and would also involve the corporation in a large outlay to 
 raise the road to the bridge in that borough. The Referees 
 reported that " the proposed alteration of the road could
 
 HEADWAY OF BRIDGES OVER ROADS AND STREETS. 173 
 
 not therefore be effected, without rendering the road impass- 
 able, unless the bridge and access to it from Bolton were 
 also raised simultaneously to a corresponding level by the 
 said justices and corporation ; that no powers were taken 
 in the said Bill for so raising said bridge or roatl, which 
 would be attended with considerable expense, as compen- 
 sation would have to be paid to the owners and occupiers 
 of the houses adjacent to the said road ; subject to this 
 observation there are no objections, in an engineering point 
 of view, to the works proposed." In the Hadlow Railway 
 Bill, 1866, 66, it was objected that, according to the de- 
 posited plans, Railway No. 3 would be carried over a cer- 
 tain road with a headway of only 4 feet ; and the promoters, 
 in order to obviate this objection, proposed to lower the 
 road and increase the gradient from 1 in 66 to 1 in 51. 
 The Referees reported that, " It was shown that the e.\ecu- 
 tion of the works, according to the deposited plans, would 
 obstruct the passage of the road, and that the alteration of 
 the gradient from 1 in 'oQ to 1 in 51, or the lowering of the 
 road as proposed, cannot be carried out under the powers of 
 the General Act, without the consent of the Board of Trade. 
 The Referees are of opinion that the engineering details of 
 Railway No o, so fur as tliey affect the said road, are 
 objectionable." See also London, Brighton, and South 
 Coast Railvjay {Various Powers) Bill, 1S66, 255, cited 
 p. I6i. 
 
 Sect. III. 
 
 HEADWAY, SPAN, WIDTH, ETC., <)F BRIDGES UNDER AND 
 OVER ROADS AND STREETS. 
 
 On tliis subject the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 
 1 <St5, provides, sect. 49 {«) : 
 
 {(i) Sec Railways Clauses (Scotland) Act, sect. 42, ct scq, for similar pro 
 visions applicable to Scotland.
 
 174 
 
 HEADWAY OF BRIDGES OVER ROADS AND STREETS. 
 
 Consti'uction 
 of bridges 
 over roads. 
 
 Width of 
 arch. 
 
 Height of 
 arch over 
 public roads. 
 
 Over private 
 roads. 
 
 Construction 
 of bridges 
 carrying roads 
 over railway. 
 
 Fence. 
 
 Width of 
 road. 
 
 Width of 
 bridges need 
 not exceed the 
 width of roads 
 in certain 
 cases. 
 
 " Every bridge to be erected for the purpose of cai-rying 
 the railway over any road shall (except where otherwise 
 provided by the Special Act) be built in conformity with 
 the following regulations : that is to say — 
 
 " The width of the arch shall be such as to leave 
 thereunder a clear space of not less than 35 feet if the 
 arch be over a turnpike road, and of 25 feet if over a 
 public carriage road, and of 12 feet if over a private 
 road : 
 
 The clear height of the arch from the surface of the 
 road shall not be less than 16 feet for a space of 12 
 feet if the arch be over a turnpike road, and 15 feet 
 for a space of 10 feet if over a public carriage road ; 
 and in each of such cases the clear height at the 
 springmg of the arch shall not be less than 12 feet : 
 
 The clear height of the arch for a space of 9 feet 
 
 shall not be less than 14 feet over a private carriage 
 
 road." 
 
 "Sect. 50. Every bridge erected for carrying anyroad 
 
 over the railway shall (except as otherwise provided by 
 
 the Special Act) be built in conformity with the following 
 
 regulations : that is to say — 
 
 " There shall be a good and sufficient fence on each 
 side of the bridge of not less height than 4 feet, and 
 on each side of the unmediate approaches of such 
 bridge of not less than 3 feet. 
 
 " The road over the bridge shall have a clear space 
 
 between the fences thereof of 35 feet if the road be a 
 
 turnjjike road, and 25 feet if a public carriage road, 
 
 and 12 feet if a private road." 
 
 " Sect. 51. Provided always, that in all cases where the 
 
 average available width for the passage of carriages of any 
 
 existing roads within 50 yards of the point of crossing the 
 
 same is less than the width hereinbefore prescribed for 
 
 bridges over or under the railway, the width of such 
 
 bridges need not be greater than such average available 
 
 width of such roads, but so, nevertheless, that such bridges 
 
 be not of less width, in the case of a tiu'npike road or 
 
 public carriage road, than 20 feet : provided also, that if 
 
 at any time after the construction of the railway the
 
 HEADWAY OF BRIDGES OVER ROADS AND STREETS.. 175 
 
 average available widtli of any such road sliall be increased 
 
 beyond the width of such bridge on either side thereof, the if road 
 
 company shall be bound, at theii" own expense, to increase afterwards 
 
 the width of the said bridge to such extent as they may be bridges to 
 
 required by the trustees or siu'veyors of such road, not "c also 
 
 . . . widened, 
 
 exceeding the width of such road as so widened, or the 
 
 maximum width herein, or in the Special Act, prescribed 
 
 for a bridge in the like case over or under the railway." 
 
 " Sect. 52. Provided also, that if the mesne inclmation 
 
 of any road within 250 yards of the point of ci-ossing the 
 
 same, or the inclination of such portion of any road as may 
 
 requu'e to be altered, or for wliich another road shall be Existing 
 
 .substituted, shall be steeper than the inclination herein- inclinations 
 
 . ^ of roads 
 
 before required to be preserved by the company, then the crossed or 
 
 company may carry any such road over or under the rail- diverted need 
 
 way, or may construct such altered or substituted road at improved. 
 
 an inclination not steeper than the said mesne inclination 
 
 of the road so to be crossed, or of the road so requu-iiig to 
 
 be altered, or for which another road shall be substituted." 
 
 When special powers, exceeding those provided for by 
 the foregoing enactments, are sought, the Referees will 
 necessarily be guided by the peculiar circumstances of each 
 case. The following cases show the various headways 
 which have been sanctioned for particular streets. In the 
 Edgivare, Highgate, and London Railway Bill, 1865,90, 
 in which the proposed railway would cross the Hornsey 
 Road by a bridge of 25 feet span, and 15 feet of headway, 
 and the Green Lanes by bridges of 35 feet span and 15 
 feet headway, the Referees reported that " it was not proved 
 that the height and span of these bridges was insufficient." 
 In the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway 
 {Central Station and Lines) BUI, 1866, 297, the Referees 
 reported that " the several bridges over the roads aftermeu- 
 tioned should be constructed with the several headways 
 placed opposite them, instead of the heights shown on the 
 deposited plans ; viz. :
 
 176 
 
 HEADWAY OF BRIDGES OVER ROADS AND STREETS. 
 
 David Street - - 
 Abiiigdon Street - 
 Sackville Street - 
 Charlton Street - 
 Minslndl Street - 
 Fetter Lane - 
 Aytoun Street - 
 Circus Street - 
 Piccadilly - - - 
 Back Piccadilly - 
 Dale Street - - 
 
 Height 
 in feet. 
 
 - 25 
 
 - 25 
 
 - 23 
 
 - 23 
 
 - 21 
 
 - 21 
 
 ■ 22 
 
 - 22 
 
 - 21 
 
 - 21 
 
 ■ 19 
 
 Lees Street - - • 
 Lomax Street - • 
 Matlier Street - • 
 Back Mather Street- 
 Store Street - 
 Meadow Street - 
 Worthington Street - 
 Chapel Sti'eet- - 
 Long Street - 
 Watson Street - ■ 
 
 Height 
 in feet. 
 
 - 20 
 
 - 23 
 
 - 26 
 
 - 28 
 
 - 28 
 
 - 24 
 
 - 24 
 
 - 20 
 
 - 17 
 
 - 16 
 
 " With these heights they will be efficient in an engineer- 
 ing point of view, and they can be so constructed under 
 the powers contained in the Bill." And in the Same Bill, 
 ibid, the Referees also reported that " Should Railway No. 
 3 be sanctioned, provision should be made that no obstruc- 
 tion should be offered to the widening of Watson Street to 
 a breadth of 60 feet, as contemplated. In the North Bri- 
 tish Railway {Glasgow Branches) Bill, 1866, 221, the 
 Glasgow Parochial Board objected " that the provisions 
 made by the promoters for carrying the railways over Carn- 
 tyne and Cumbernauld Roads, and under Garngad Road, 
 with regard to the span and headway of the bridges, were 
 insufficient." By certain Acts of Parliament for the regu- 
 lation of roads within the Jurisdiction of the petitioners, 
 as applicable to the above roads, it was provided that no 
 buildings should be erected within 80 feet of the centre 
 of the two former roads, or within 25 feet of the centre 
 of the Garngad Road, and that a headway of 18 feet had 
 been ordinarily provided in railway bridges within the city 
 of Glasgow. The Referees reported that this restriction as 
 to buildings should apply to the works in question ; and tliat 
 these bridges should be constructed, as to the two former 
 roads, with the span of GO feet and a headway of IS feet, 
 and with a width of 50 feet as to the Garngad Road, under 
 which the railway would pass." And in the Rhymney
 
 SCREENS FOR TURNPIKE ROADS. 177 
 
 Railway Bill, 1866, 216, the Bill proposed to widen 
 several bridges by which the present line is carried over 
 several roads and streets in Cardiff, the Referees were 
 of opinion that " in so widening- said bridges, the promoters 
 ought to be restrained from carrying any addition to the 
 existing abutments beyond the present line or contour of 
 the roads or footpaths crossed by the said bridges ; and 
 that, if by reason of the widening of Windsor Road Bridge, 
 anv diversion of Linton Road or the sewers now made 
 therein should become necessary, the promoters should be 
 bound to pay the expense thereof" 
 
 Sect. IV. 
 
 SCREENS FOR TURNPIKE ROADS. 
 
 By the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, it is provided (sect. 
 63) {a) that " If the Commissioners or Trustees of any Screens for 
 turnpike road, or the surveyor of any highway, apprehend ^^"'^''"'^ 
 danger to the passengers on such road, in consequence of 
 horses being frightened by the sight of the engines or car- To be made, if 
 riages travelling upon the railway, it shall be lawful for i]^ Hoard of 
 such commissioners, or trustees, or surveyor, after giving 14 Trade, 
 days' notice to the company, to apply to the Board of 
 Trade with respect thereto ; and if it shall appear to the 
 said Board that such danger might be obviated or lessened 
 by the construction of any works in the nature of a screen 
 near to or adjoining the side of such road, it shall be lawful 
 for them, if they shall think fit, to certify the Avorks neces- 
 sary or proper to be executed by the company, for the pur- 
 pose of obviating or lessening such danger, and by such 
 certificate to require the company to execute such works 
 within a certain time after the service of such certificate, to 
 
 (a) See Himilar provisions, applicable to Scotland, in Railways Clauses 
 (Scotland) Act, sect. 55. 
 
 N
 
 178 
 
 SCREENS FOR TURNPIKE ROADS. 
 
 Railway 
 beside road 
 for 2 miles. 
 
 be appointed by the said board ; and sect. 64 contains a 
 provision for penalty. In the Leeds, North YorksJiii^e, and 
 Durham Railway Bill, 1865, 219, the promoters proposed 
 to divert the Leeds and Collinghara Road, which, when 
 so diverted, would run close along and on the eastern side 
 of said railway for a distance of 2 miles. The Referees re- 
 ported that " this would be an engineering defect, unless a 
 proper screen, such as may conceal such railway from view, 
 be provided along said road." In the Ahoyne and Brae- 
 mar Railway Bill, 1865, 216, the petitioners' main objec- 
 tions were (1) generally that the line was laid out in such 
 close proximity to a much-frequented public road, passing 
 vip a narrow valley by the side of the River Dee, as to 
 render the use of that road by persons with horses and car- 
 riages incommodious and dangerous, especially where it was 
 intended to be carried on the north side of the said road, 
 where the road adjoins the river and is insufficiently fenced ; 
 (2) that at a narrow part of the valley there was a sharp 
 curve of 15 chains radius, so situated as to make it impos- 
 sible to screen a train coming in the opposite direction from 
 the sight of horses descending the road. The promoters re- 
 plied, that, in a narrow valley already traversed by a road 
 and a river, it was not possible to carry the line otherwise 
 than as proposed ; and that, by putting screens in certain 
 places by the side of the road, and in others by the side of 
 the railway, the view of the trains might be effectually pre- 
 vented. The Referees reported, " On the question whether 
 the line can be worked as laid down without possible dan- 
 ger to the public using the road in such close proximity 
 both to the railway and the river, the Referees pronounce 
 no opinion ; but it was proved to their satisfaction that 
 screens as proposed by the promoters could be erected ; and 
 they have further to report that there are no engineering 
 objections to the construction of the j)roposed line." In the 
 Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Additional Powers) 
 Bill, 1865, 239, it was objected "that from about 1 mile 2^ 
 furlongs up to 1 mile 3f furlongs there was a curve of 12 
 chains in a deep cutting, of 43 feet in some parts, and that,
 
 LOWERING ROAD BELOW LEVEL OF STREAM. 179 
 
 at the termination of this curve, the railway would come 
 upon a turnpike road and run parallel with it on a slightly 
 higher level for about 60 chains, at a distance of only 30 
 yards," The promoters replied that the valley was only 60 
 yards wide, and that the proximity to the road could not be 
 avoided. The Referees reported that " the line could not 
 well be carried in any other way than that proposed ; but 
 they consider that a screen should be erected and kept up 
 by the railway company (if requested to do so) between the 
 turnpike road and the railway." 
 
 Sect. V. 
 
 LOWERING ROAD BELOW LEVEL OF ADJACENT STREAM. 
 
 To lower a road below the level of an adjoining stream, 
 in such a way as to prevent the possibility of draining the 
 road, would, doubtless, be considered an objection in an en- 
 gineering point of view. This question arose in the Leeds, 
 Nmih Yorkshire, and Durham Raihvay Bill, 1865, 219, 
 where the Leeds and Collingham Road Trustees objected 
 that it was proposed to lower that turnpike road 8 feet, and 
 pass it under the railway ; and it was alleged that, by such 
 lowering, the road would be brought beneath the level of an 
 adjacent stream ; but, it having been proved that, when 
 altered, the road would still be 12 feet above level of the 
 stream, the Referees reported that the proposed mode of 
 deaUng mth the road was not objectionable. See also the 
 Leeds, NoHh Yoi^hhire, and Durham Railway Bill, 1865, 
 219 (on objection of the Tadcaster, &;c. Road Trustees) cited 
 p. IGS. 
 
 N 2
 
 180 SHUTTING UP STREETS. 
 
 Sect. VI. 
 
 RAILWAY PROPOSIKQ TO OCCUPY SITE OF ROAD. 
 
 This objection Avill not be sustained where, within the 
 limits of deviation, another road sufficiently efficient can be 
 substituted. Thus, in the Leeds, North Yorkshire, and 
 Durham Railway Bill, 1865, 219, it was objected that the 
 centre of the railway as laid down touches the west side of 
 the Leeds and Collingham Road, and that the slope of the 
 cutting would extend across the same. In reply it was 
 stated, " that the limits of deviation would allow the 
 direction of either the railway or the road to be so altered 
 as to avoid any interference." The Referees reported that 
 no engineering objection existed. 
 
 Sect VII. 
 
 SHUTTING-UP STREETS — PROVIDING JSEW STREET IN PLACE 
 
 THEREOF. 
 
 In lines~^which it is proposed to carry through or into 
 towns, it is obvious that there must be more or less inter- 
 ference with the streets and possibly also with the gas, 
 water, and drainage pipes under the streets. Whether the 
 public advantage to result from such interference being 
 sanctioned outweighs any inconvenience likely to be caused 
 thereby is, of course, a question for the Committee. The 
 Referees are only concerned with the preliminary questions 
 of engineering and amount of estimate. 
 
 Usually when several streets are proposed to be shut up, 
 the promoters, in order to obviate objections on that ground,
 
 SHUTTING UP STREETS. 181 
 
 provide for the construction of one new street of sufficient 
 width to supply the demands of the traffic which passed 
 over the streets to be shut up. The Caledonian Railway 
 {Glasgoiu South Side Railway, &c.) Bill, 1865, 105, affords 
 an illustration of the spirit in which the Referees are inclined 
 to deal with Bills of this nature. In that case the Glasgow 
 authorities having charge of the streets, having opposed on 
 the ground of injury to the streets and obstructions to their 
 traffic, the Referees reported, on this point, " The company, 
 however, would undertake to construct a new road 60 feet 
 in width, which would, to a great extent, compensate for 
 some of the thoroughfares which they would stop up or 
 absorb. It may be considered also that one of the pro- 
 fessed objects and probable results of the inter-communica- 
 tion of railways at Glasgow would be to relieve the traffic 
 of the now crowded thoroughfares, and, upon the whole, 
 the Referees consider that in case the scheme of railways 
 proposed by the Bill should appear upon its own merits 
 deserving of Parliamentary sanction, the interference with 
 the streets which would be thereby occasioned may be 
 regarded, in an engineering point of view, as of secondary 
 importance." In the Regent's Canal (Limehouse Basin 
 and Cut) Bill, 1865, 173, the Limehouse Board of Works 
 objected " that the promoters took power to stop up several 
 streets and alleys, particularly a part of Ristre's Ropewalk 
 and the whole of Tyte's Alley, by which last arrangement 
 an alternative route (which traffic might and does now fre- 
 quently take to avoid passing over a fixed and narrow 
 bridge at Limehouse Cut entrance, and where the narrow- 
 ness of Narrow Street causes frequent delay), would be 
 entirely destroyed, and the convenience of foot passengers 
 and carriages passing from east to west by Ristre's Rope- 
 walk and Tyte's Alley irremediably prejudiced ; " they 
 further objected that under an Act of George the Third 
 powers were vested in them to construct a new street from 
 Queen Street through Ristre's Ropewalk to Northey Street, 
 which powers they intended now to exercise, but which 
 powers tlie Bill proposed to repeal, thus rendering the
 
 182 SHUTTING UP STREETS. 
 
 carrying out of a great local improvement impossible. The 
 promoters replied that in lieu of Tyte's Alley, which was 
 10 feet wide, and so much of Ristre's Ropewalk (26 feet 
 wide in some parts as would be stopped up, they proposed 
 to substitute a new street of 30 feet in width throughout 
 and to widen Narrow Street, which was in the widest part 
 only 25 feet wide, to an uniform width of 30 feet ; and 
 that this new street would answer all the objects of the 
 street which the petitioners were proposing to construct. 
 The Referees reported on this point, that " the new street 
 would, by the stopping up of an alternative route, and 
 rendering the larger improvement impossible, only in a 
 limited degree relieve the existing croAvded state of the 
 thoroughfares ; " and that subject to this observation, there 
 were no engineering objections to the works proposed. In 
 the Midland Raihvay {New Lines, &g) Bill, 1865, 223, 
 the Corporation of Bradford complained that the promoters 
 proposed to stop up and discontinue, and appropriate to 
 the purposes of their undertaking, a street in Bradford, 
 called Commercial Street, and also a public footpath. The 
 petitioners stated that Commercial Street was an impor- 
 , tant public street, and afforded the most convenient access 
 from that part of the borough which is situate towards the 
 south of the Midland Station with Railroad Street Canal 
 and Leeming Street, and the district of the borough lying 
 to the north-east of the said station. Commercial Street 
 has a descending gi-adient of 4 feet towards Railroad Street 
 and Canal Street ; but if it were stopped up, the traffic 
 from the south-west must be carried a greater distance to 
 these streets by passing along Mill Street and up School 
 Street, which has a gradient of I in J 3. The footpath ran 
 alongside of and might be considered part of Commercial 
 Street. The promoters represented that the increase 
 of distance by Mill Street would not be above 30 yards, 
 and that the gradients of School Street would be to some 
 extent, improved by widening it as proposed, to 70 feet at 
 one end and 90 feet at the other. The Referees reported 
 that " there were no reasons, in an engineering point of
 
 SHUTTING UP STREETS. 183 
 
 view, for stopping up Commercial Street and the footpath." 
 In the Edinburgh cmd Glasgow Raihvay {No. 2) Bill, 
 1865, 359, it was proposed to stop up the northern portion 
 of Hunter Street, Glasgow (which was the main connecting 
 street between Duke Street and Gallowgate, two of the 
 leading thoroughfares and centres of population in Glasgow, 
 there being no other connecting street between it and High 
 Street, which was distant 600 yards), and it Avas proposed 
 to substitute a new street in continuation of Barrack Street 
 for it. The Referees reported, " This will move the point 
 of connection between Duke Street and Gallowgate, about 
 1 66 yards further to the east in Gallowgate, and 60 yards 
 to the east in Duke Street from the existing point, and so 
 much the more distant from High Street. From the pro- 
 posed railways being in cutting, where they cross Hunter 
 Street and the works of the Glasgow Union Railway, which 
 have been previously sanctioned, it will be impossible to 
 carry Hunter Street either over or under the proposed 
 railways ; and there are no engineering objections to the 
 construction of the railways in manner proposed." In the 
 Lancashire and Yorkshire Raihvay {West Riding 
 Branches) Bill, 1866, 161, it was objected that it was 
 intended to stop up a part of Oxford Street, in the town of 
 Huddersfield. The Referees reported that " Evidence was 
 given that this street can, if required, be kept open by 
 covering it over for a length of 150 feet, preserving its pre- 
 sent breadth, and leaving a clear headway of at least 18 
 feet." In the Manchester, Shejjield, and Lincolnshire 
 Railway {Central Station and Lines) Bill, 18()6, 261, the 
 Corporation of Manchester and others objected that Rail- 
 way No. 1 would cover Smith Street for a length of 220 feet. 
 The promoters expressed their willingness, if required, to 
 construct a new street in lieu of Smith Street. It having 
 also been objected that Albion Street would be narrowed 
 2 feet 4 inches where it was to be crossed by the line, and 
 the promoters having undertaken to preserve the existing 
 width of that street, the Referees reported, " With these 
 alterations there are no engineering (objections to Railway 
 No. 1."
 
 18* 
 
 INTERFERENCE WITH GAS, WATER, AND DRAINAGE PIPES. 
 
 Sect. VIII. 
 
 INTKRFERENCE WITH GAS, WATEE, AND DRAINAGE PIPES. 
 
 Altering 
 positiou of 
 water and gas 
 pipes. 
 
 Before 
 disturbing 
 pipes, otliers 
 to be laid 
 down. 
 
 Pipes not to 
 be laid con- 
 trary to Acts, 
 and 18 inches 
 surface to be 
 retained. 
 
 Damage to 
 water and gas 
 companies to 
 be made good. 
 
 When rail- 
 way crosses 
 pipes culvert 
 to be made. 
 
 " It sliall be lawful for the company for the purpose of 
 constructing the railway, to raise, sink, or otherwise alter 
 the position of any of the water courses, water pipes, or 
 gas pipes belonging to any of the houses adjoining or near 
 to the railway, and also the mains or other pipes. ..." 
 (Railways Clauses Act, 184-5, (a) Sect, xviii.) "Provided 
 always that it shall not be lawful for the company to remove 
 or displace any of the mains or pipes, (other than private 
 
 service pipes) syphons, plugs, or other works 
 
 until good and sufficient mains, or pipes, syphons, plugs, 
 and all other works necessary or proper for continuing the 
 supply of water or gas .... shall, at the expense 
 of the company, have been first made and laid down in 
 lieu thereof." .... (Sect. 19.) Section 20 provides 
 that such pipes shall not be laid down contrary to the 
 regulations of any Act relating to water or gas, and that it 
 shall not be lawful to cause any road to be lowered with- 
 out leaving a covering of not. less than 18 inches over 
 such mains or pipes. By section 21 the company are to 
 make good all damage to water and gas companies' pro- 
 perty, and to make full compensation to all parties for any 
 loss or damage to them by reason of interference with 
 mains or pipes, or with the private service pipes. And 
 section 22 provides that when a railway passes over such 
 mains or pipes, the railway company shall construct a 
 sufficient culvert so as to leave the same accessible for the 
 purposes of repairs. 
 
 See also section 53, which provides that before roads are 
 interfered with, so as to render the same impassable or 'dan- 
 gerous, other roads shall be provided by the company. 
 
 (a) See Railways Clauses (Scotland) Act, sect. 18, et seq.
 
 LAYING A TRAMWAY IN A NARROW STREET. 185 
 
 In the Caledonian Raihvay {Glasgoiv South SideJtail- 
 way, &c., Bill, 1865, 106, one of the grounds of opposition 
 urged by the Glasgow authorities having charge of the 
 streets and sewers, was, " the interference with the drainage 
 of the city, which the works, if executed, might occasion." 
 The Referees reported that " any interference that might 
 be caused by the construction of the proposed works, would 
 admit of remedy which might, under proper regulations, be 
 applied ; and which, in the event of the works being sanc- 
 tioned, should be made obligatory upon the company." In 
 the Edinburgh and Glasgow Raihvay (No. 2) Bill, 1865, 
 359, the Corporation and Board of Police of Glasgow ob- 
 jected that by the construction of said railway, " the proper 
 drainage and sewerage of district to the north thereof would 
 be prevented." The Referees, in this instance, indicated the 
 remedy, reporting that " By the construction of an inter- 
 cepting sewer at the north side of No. 1 Railway, the drain- 
 age of the district in question can be completely preserved 
 and carried into the existing outlets." And see London, 
 Chatharti, and Dover, and South Eadern {Kennington, 
 Claphani, and Brixton) Railways Bill, 1866, 163, 
 (Chap. X.) where, in regard to a tunnel of 1,293 yards, it 
 was objected that the difference between the level of the 
 rails and that of the neighbouring sewer would be such as 
 to render the drainage difficult and defective. 
 
 Sect. IX. 
 
 LAYING A TKAMVVAY IN A NARROW STREET. 
 
 The Referees considered this objectionable in the Great 
 Western Railivay (Further Povjcrs) Dill, 1866, 233, 
 where it was objected that Tramway No. 2 would pass 
 along St. Martin's Street, the width of which was only 20 
 feet 6 inches, including footways of, together, 6 feet 6 inches,
 
 186 SWING BRIDGES IN CROWDED THOROUGHFARES. 
 
 and would seriously interfere with the use of the street. 
 The Referees reported " that the works of Tramway No. 2 
 would seriously interfere with the use of the street, and en- 
 danger the safety of the public, and therefore, in an engi- 
 neering point of view, are ineflScient. 
 
 Sect. X. 
 
 SWING BRIDGES IN CROWDED THOROUGHFARES. 
 
 In the Regent's Canal {LimeJiouse Basin and Cut) 
 Bill, 1865, 173, which was a Bill to authorise the proprie- 
 tors of the Regent's Canal to improve their Limehouse 
 Basin, and to make a new entrance thereto from the 
 Thames, and for other purposes, the Limehouse Board of 
 Works and certain owners and occupiers in the parish 
 objected " that the proposed construction of another swing 
 bridge would greatly aggravate the inconvenience already 
 sustained by the petitioners, who had now to use two swing 
 bridges/' The promoters answered "that the opening 
 bridsfe will be over the dock chamber, the area of which 
 will allow many barges and vessels to be above the bridge, 
 which will not be kept open for more than twelve minutes 
 at one time, and that a platform will be constructed for 
 foot passengers on the dock gates." The Referees reported 
 that " unless some very strong necessity for the construc- 
 tion of the proposed works be shown to the satisfaction of 
 the Committee, the introduction of a third swing bridge into 
 these crowded thoroughfares . . . would be a very 
 serious interruption to the use of the streets."
 
 PROPOSED STATION 120 FEET BELOW STREET. 187 
 
 Sect. XI. 
 
 IMPKOVEMENT BILL — WIDTH OF A PROPOSED NEW STREET 
 IN THE METROPOLIS. 
 
 In the Piccadilly and Park Lane New Road Bill, 
 1865, J 96, by which it was proposed to open a corarauni- 
 tion through Hamilton Place, between Park Lane and 
 Piccadilly, the width of the new roadway would allow no 
 more than 28 feet 4 inches at the narrowest point for the 
 carriage-way, measured between the kerbstones. The Re- 
 ferees reported " that these dimensions may no doubt be 
 regarded as less ample than, with a view to public con- 
 venience, might be desu-ed. It should, however, be ob- 
 served, that the proposed width is the utmost that can be 
 afforded between the houses on either side of Hamilton 
 Place, as they now stand, and that greater width could not 
 be obtained without sacrificing property of large value. 
 It appears to the Referees, under the circumstances, that 
 the question in this respect is not to be regarded as one of 
 mere engineering merits or details, but involves considera- 
 tions affecting the expediency of the proposed route, and 
 the general merits of the scheme, which belong properly to 
 the Committee on the Bill, and not to the Referees." 
 
 Sect. XII. 
 
 PROPOSED STATION 120 FEET BELOW STREET. 
 
 In the Edgiuare, Ilic/hr/ate, and London Raihvay Bill, 
 1866, 193, it was objected that the hne (to Barnet) would 
 be constructed in such a manner that the station would be 
 in a deep cutting, and 120 feet below the main street of
 
 188 PROPOSED STATION 120 FEET BELOW STREET. 
 
 Barnet. The promoters proved that this street descended 
 in a direct line with a steep gradient to the same level as 
 the proposed railway at the point where the station was in- 
 tended to be erected. The Referees reported that there 
 was no engineering objection, (a) 
 
 (a) " The nature and magnitude of the traffic likely to occur, and the 
 pecularities of site and locality for the intended station, involve the main 
 considerations, and must determine most of the details required. The site 
 may be determined by the contiguity of the town or place to be accommo- 
 dated, facility or economy of purchase, &c. ; and besides these, the question 
 of relative levels arises, and deserves most especial regard. Indeed, the 
 commercial value of the station may be said to be made or marred by the 
 facility or the difficulty of communicating with the adjoining thorough- 
 fares. Whether the station is above or below the neighbouring level, a 
 similar amount of expense and trouble will be incurred in transferring the 
 luggage, and of inconvenience in transferring the passenger traffic." — 
 Dempsey's Practical Railway Engineer, 4th edit. p. 290 — 1.
 
 189 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 TIDAL AND NAVIGABLE WATERS- -WORKS IN, ON, AND 
 OVER SAME.— OBSTRUCTION TO NAVIGATION.— RECLA- 
 MATION BILLS. 
 
 Sect. I. 
 
 BRIDGES OR VIADUCTS OVER TIDAL OR NAVIGABLE WATERS. 
 
 The objections, which it is possible to take to such 
 bridges, are numerous ; and have reference to such matters 
 as span, headway, foundations, material, effect on the chan- 
 nel, silting up of sand, and interference with navigation 
 generally. 
 
 In reference to the span of such bridges, it is provided Span, 
 by the Railways Clauses Act, 1863, sect. 14 : — 
 
 " Where the company is authorised, or required by the 
 special Act to coustruct a bridge over a navigable tiilal 
 water, and the special Act does not make express provision 
 raspecting the span or spans thereof, then the conn)auy 
 shall construct the same with a span or spans of such liead- 
 way and waterway, and with such opening, span, or si)an3 
 (if any), and according to such plan, as the Board of Trade 
 directs or tqiproves." 
 
 The amount of headway desirable must depend upon the Headway, 
 class of vessels navigating the water. See the several cases 
 noticed in the sequel. 
 
 The first important case, of this class, with which the
 
 192 BRIDGES OR VIADUCTS OVER TIDAL WATERS. 
 
 compel the larger class of vessels to lowei' their topgallant 
 masts, in order to joass under ; which would give rise to 
 delay and inconvenience, loss of the tide, &c. ; and would 
 result in a diminution of the trade of Gloucester, The Re- 
 ferees, after much conflicting evidence, reported that, (1) as 
 regards the restriction of the waterway, they had " not been 
 led to conclude that any material addition to the dangers of 
 the Severn or any inconvenience too great to be reasonably 
 imposed upon those who make use of the navigation, would 
 be occasioned by the proposed structure, in case the general 
 interests of the public justify the interference. It would 
 add to the risks of the river in bad weather, and in times of 
 fog ; and it might interfere with the navigation during the 
 night, a practice which is said to be occasionally resorted to 
 by small vessels. Some inconvenience might also be caused 
 to vessels beating against a headwind, and standing out 
 over the sands. The additional dangers which might arise 
 from these causes do not, however, appear to the Referees 
 to be serious. The position of the bridge in a straight 
 reach some length, and in a part where the channel appears 
 from the charts to have been for a long time constant, is. 
 favourable for the purpose. The span of the main arch, 
 600 feet in width, exceeds that of any bridge in the King- 
 dom, and is considerably wider than the actual channel in 
 some parts of other navigable rivers ; and, assuming the 
 use of lights (a) and other suitable precautions, the risk of 
 collision with the piers does not appear to justify serious 
 apprehensions : (2) As regards the headway, assuming, as 
 it appears fair to do upon the balance of evidence, the 
 minimum period of one hour before high water as the time 
 at which vessels going up would reach the site of the bridge, 
 the available headway at spring tides would range from 
 104 feet 3 inches to 109 feet 5 inches, according to the 
 heioht of the tides. The former figure is calculated upon 
 the highest tide ever observed of late years. It is admit- 
 ted, on the part of the promoters, that vessels beyond a 
 
 (a) The Board of Trade have power to require lights to be exhibited on 
 all such works. See Railways Clauses Act, 1863, sect. 13.
 
 BRIDGES OR VIADUCTS OVER TIDAL WATERS. 193 
 
 certain size — which may be taken at 400 tons register — As to lowering 
 could not pass under without lowering their top-gallant ^asfs^ 
 masts. The evidence is very conflicting as to the existing 
 practice in this respect, and also as to the degree of incon- 
 venience and delay involved in the operation. Upon the 
 whole, the Referees are led to believe that the masters of 
 vessels going up to Gloucester seldom lower their masts ; 
 and that they feel considerable repugnance to being com- 
 pelled to do so. Under certain circumstances, with a short 
 crew, and under pressure to save a tide, the obligation 
 would probably be inconvenient ; and it might be seriously 
 so in the case of vessels of large burden, when the top of a 
 sjDring-tide might be incurred. On the other hand, it is 
 enforced as a rule in some harbours ; and was so, until 
 within a few years, at Gloucester. It is necessarily done at 
 the Menai Straits, where the height of the Britannia Bridge 
 is ] 00 feet above ordinary spring tides. It was proved to 
 the Referees that this bridge had not prevented the resort 
 to the port of Carnarvon of vessels of as large tonnage as 
 those wliicli now go to Gloucester. Though the practice 
 may involve some trouble and occasional delay, it cannot 
 be regarded as a serious impediment to navigation." The 
 Referees' report then proceeds to notice the statistics of the 
 shipping of the Port of Gloucester, and the number of ves- 
 sels which in the course of a year would probably be put to 
 the necessity of lowering their top-gallant masts ; — wliich 
 number they placed at 67. (See further, I860, 357.) And 
 in tlie Severn Junction Railway Bill, 1805, 361, it was Severn IJiidge, 
 proposed to cross the River Severn by a high level bridge of ^'^^ ^' 
 16 arches — 2 of 200 feet span, 1 of 150 feet span, and 13 of 
 ] 00 feet span ; the maximum headway being 68 feet, the 
 minimum 50 feet. The Corporation of Gloucester and 
 several other petitioners alleged that the proposed bridge 
 would be dangerous to the navigation, prejudicial to the 
 course and conformation of the river ; and would be the 
 cause of serious obstruction to a large and important river 
 traffic. The opponents contended that the width of the 
 spans was insufficient ; that the sands and rocks at the site 
 
 o
 
 BRIDGES OR VIADUCTS OVER TIDAL WATERS. 
 
 of the proposed bridge caused, at all periods of the tide, 
 eddies and dangerous whirls, which the bridge would 
 increase ; that it Avould lead to the formation of fresh sand 
 banks, and possibly change the position of those already 
 existing. They further contended " that the headway pro- 
 posed would necessitate the striking of the topmasts of all 
 vessels passing under the bridge, and thus deprive them of 
 the use of a portion of their sails, which might place them 
 in a position of danger/' The promoters offered evidence 
 to show that the indisputable channel of the river was on 
 the Welsh shore. The Referees reported that, " should the 
 Committee allow the scheme to proceed, the promoters 
 should be legally bound to construct the second arch of the 
 bridge, from the western or Welsh shore, of a span of 300 
 feet, and the third arch of a span of 1 80 feet. Should this 
 requirement be carried out, there would be no engineering 
 objection to the construction of the proposed bridge." 
 
 Opening Bridges. — In the Fareham and Netley Rail- 
 way Bill, 1865, 72, it was proposed to cross the Hamble, a 
 tidal river, by a viaduct. The owners of wharves and quays 
 and the Southampton Harbour Board alleged, that the 
 viaduct would create a serious obstruction to the great ma- 
 jority of vessels now trading up and down the river. The 
 viaduct would consist of 17 arches of 30 feet span, which 
 would afford a maximum headway of 46 feet at low water 
 spring tides, and of 19 feet at high water spring tides. The 
 promoters proposed to make, in the viaduct, an opening- 
 bridge of 40 feet span. The estimate was sufficient to cover 
 the expense of the same, or of such other Bridge as the 
 Board of Trade might require. The petitioners disputed the 
 sufficiency of the proposed bridge, the Hamble being navi- 
 gated by vessels of from 100 to 400 tons, having a beam of 
 from 21 to 28 feet ; steam tugs being also employed, 
 having a breadth of from 36 feet to 38 feet 4 inches. The 
 Referees reported that, " were an opening bridge of 40 
 feet in width only constructed, the navigation would be 
 seriously interfered with and materially obstructed." In 
 the Furness Railway Bill, 1865, 79, Railway No, 1
 
 BRIDGES OR VIADUCTS OVER TIDAL WATERS. 195 
 
 would be carried across the Duddon Estuary by a viaduct, 
 2,618 yards long, of open piling throughout, with an open- 
 ing bridge of 36 feet span. The channel of the river, where 
 it was proposed to place the viaduct, had shifted to the north- 
 ward 700 feet since the year 1843, and it was alleged that 
 its tendency was still to shift ; but it was proposed to fix 
 the channel to the site where the opening bridge is to be 
 made, by consolidating the remainder of the sands beneath 
 the viaduct by the deposit of stone, so as to prevent the 
 river from cutting a new channel. The proposed opening 
 of the bridge was also alleged to be much too narrow, and 
 it was proved that there was a large and increasing trade 
 with the Harbour of Borwick. The Referees reported that, 
 " in an engineering point of view, the proposed opeaing is 
 insufficient, and the works will be defective, unless such an 
 opening bridge be constructed therein, as the Board of 
 Trade may think requisite, for the preserving of free navi- 
 gation to Borwick Harbour." In the Aberystivith and 
 Welsh Coast liaihvay Bill, 1865, 293, a proposed viaduct Kher Dovey 
 over the River Dovey was objected to as obstructing the ^^ ^^^' 
 waterway, and on the ground that the opening bridge 
 proposed therein, of 25 feet span, was insufficient for the 
 purposes of navigation. The promoters expressed their 
 willingness to substitute an opening bridge of any width, 
 which might be directed by the Board of Trade ; and, with 
 this provision, the Referees reported that there were no 
 engineering'objcctions. 
 
 By the 14th section of the Railways Clauses Act, 1863 
 (supra), the Board of Trade have power to order the con- When Board 
 struction of opening span or spans in bridges over tidal require" '^'^^ 
 waters, in cases where the spans, &c., of such bridges have opening spans, 
 not been tlie subject of expre.ss enactment in the special 
 Act. Section 15 provides that, " Where the company con- Bridge with 
 structs a bridge with an opening span, it shall not be lawful ''P'^°"'e span, 
 for the company to detain any vessel, barge, or boat at a Vessels not to 
 bridge, for a longer time than may be necessary for admit- detained.^ 
 ting a carriage or engine traversing the railway and approacli- 
 ing the bridge to cross the bridge, and for opening the 
 
 02
 
 196 
 
 EMBANKMENT ACROSS OR ALONG TIDAL WATERS. 
 
 bridge to admit the vessel, barge, or boat to pass; and the 
 company shall be subject to and shall abide by such regu- 
 lations, with regard to the use of the bridge, as may from 
 time to time be made by the Board of Trade." (Herefol- 
 loius ijrovision for Penalty?) 
 
 Sect. II. 
 
 Duddon 
 Estuary 
 Embankment 
 
 EMBANKMENTS ACROSS OE ALONG TIDAL WATERS. 
 
 In the Whitehaven and Furness Junction Railway Bill, 
 1865, 80, the Furness Railway objected, that it was proposed 
 to carry the line across the Duddon Estuary for upwards of 
 2f miles, upon a solid embankment, with only 350 yards of 
 open viaduct, and that, if so constructed, the effect of the 
 works would be to silt up the sands above the embankment 
 diminish the area of the tidal basin, and eventually injure 
 materially the Duddon and Barrow channels. The pro- 
 moters admitted that some silting would take place. The 
 Referees reported that, as the amount and effect of such 
 silting must be very doubtful, they were of opinion, that the 
 engineering works would be defective, unless the Board of 
 Trade were empowered to require that an open viaduct 
 should be substituted for so much of the said solid embank- 
 ment as they might think requisite. They further reported, 
 that the estimate was sufficient for the works as proposed, 
 and that some margin had been provided for contingencies ; 
 but that, if an open viaduct should have to be substituted 
 for a large portion of the embankment, the sum estimated 
 would be insufficient to defray the increased cost. In the 
 ConnaKs Quay Raihuay and Docks Bill, 1865, 258, it 
 Embankment "^'^s objected, that the continuation of a certain guide-wall 
 
 m Dee below qj. embankment in the River Dee, below Connah's Ouav 
 Connahs ^ Jj 
 
 Quay. would SO Contract the entrance of the River Dee, as to ren- 
 
 der the navigation thereof dangerous ; but the promoters 
 agreed to alter the direction of said guide-wall or embank-
 
 TUNNELS UNDER RIVERS, TIDAL WATERS, AND CANALS. 197 
 
 ment so as to obviate the objections of the petitioners. The 
 Eeferees reported that, " if the said guide-wall or embank- 
 ment be constructed in such place as may be agreed upon 
 with the petitioners, there would not be any engineering 
 objections thereto." In the Aherystiuith and Welsh Coast 
 Railway Bill, I860, 293, it was objected that by the con- Aberdovey 
 struction of a certain embankment along the estuary in Embankment. 
 front of Aberdovey, vessels would be compelled to lie 
 upon shifting sands instead of the hard beach, upon which 
 they can now lie ; but it was replied that, if it should be 
 found tliat vessels should so be removed to the sandy places, 
 the same could be rendered firm by the layiug down of 
 rubble, which could easily be procured in the vicinity. 
 With this provision, the Referees reported that there were 
 no engineering objections to the construction of the pro- 
 posed embankment. 
 
 See as to the reclamation of tidal lands, p. 206'. 
 
 Seot. III. 
 
 TUNNELS UNDER RIVERS, TIDAL WATERS, AND CANALS. 
 
 In the Birkenhead and Liverpool Baihvay Bill, 1805, 
 285, it was proposed to construct a tunnel between Birken- 
 head and Liverpool, under the Mersey. The Referees re- Mersey 
 ported, that evidence had been given that extraordinary TunncL 
 difficulties might be encountered by the meeting with 
 faults, and strata charged with water, or other serious 
 obstacles in the execution of tlie tunnel ; and that it was 
 possible that such extraordinary difficulties might arise ; 
 but that they were of opinion " that the occurrence of them 
 will be so uncertain that it would not be just to require the 
 promoters to provide against them in their estimate." In 
 the North Wales and Birkenhead and Liverpool Railway 
 Bill, 1866, 106, the company proposed to carry Railway
 
 198 TUNNELS UNDER RIVERS, TIDAL WATERS, AND CANALS. 
 
 Dee Tunnel No. 1 under the River Dee, at right angles, by a tunnel of 
 ^ ^' ^' 400 yards long, at a point about half a mile below Ashton 
 
 Quay, where the waterway is 150 yards wide. The part of 
 the tunnel beneath the bed of the river was to be con- 
 structed of brickwork, within a timber cofferdam, in three 
 successive portions, by which a third of the waterway would 
 at one time be occupied ; and it was proposed to secure a 
 sufficient depth for the passage of vessels during the con- 
 struction of the centre portion by excavating the foreland 
 on the Flintshire side. It was proved that these works 
 during their construction would seriously impede the navi- 
 gation of the river, by narrowing the channel and by 
 increasing the velocity of the current ; and that the bed of 
 sand, through which the tunnel would be carried, was of so 
 volatile a character as to render the construction of both 
 the tunnel and the approaches exceedingly difficult. It 
 was also proved that the calculations on which the estimate 
 was based, while sufficient for works of an ordinary descrip- 
 tion, were not such as to provide for the effective execution 
 of these works, either in respect of the construction of the 
 tunnel or the maintenance of the slopes of the approaches 
 to it. The Referees reported that the works were inefficient, 
 and the estimate insufficient. In the Wrexham, Mold, 
 and Connah's Quay and Hoylake Raihoays Bill, 1866, 
 Dee Tunnel 107, another tunnel under the River Dee was proposed, 
 ^ ' '' 352 yards in length, about a mile above Connah's Quay, 
 
 and close to the mouth of the Wepre Brook. The part of 
 the tunnel beneath the bed of the river would be con- 
 structed of brick, lined throughout with an iron casing, ren- 
 dering it watertight, within a cofferdam of iron cylinders ; 
 and the work would be canied on in such successive por- 
 tions as might be found necessary. No objection was taken 
 to the efficiency of the proposed works or to the estimate ; 
 but the petitioners alleged that the navigation of the River 
 Dee would be materially interfered with during the con- 
 struction of the works, and that permanent injury would 
 result to the bed of the river. The promoters stated that 
 the works would be so carried on as to secure a waterway
 
 SINKING CYLINDERS IN NAVIGABLE RIVER. 199 
 
 of never less than 300 feet, and a navigable channel of 200 
 feet wide. The Referees reported " that this arrangement 
 would afford a sufficient temporary accommodation for the 
 navigation ; and that, after the completion of the works, 
 the bed of the river would not be injuriously affected. The 
 promoters stated that the construction of the works neces- 
 sitating the occupation of the bed of the river in the man- 
 ner described, would be completed within a period of 18 Limiting time 
 months ; and the Referees are of opinion that the time for Y,Qd of river 
 the execution of these works should be limited.'' See also to be occu- 
 the Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway Bill, Tumiei under 
 1865, 425 (p. 88), in which it was proposed to carry the gi^f^TcS' 
 line under the Glamorganshire Canal at a depth of 16 feet 
 below the bottom of the water, it was objected that the 
 traffic of the canal must necessarily be stopped during the 
 construction of the proposed bridge under the canal, and 
 that no provision had been made by the promoters to 
 obviate this difficulty; but the promoters proved that, 
 during the construction, no interference would be caused to 
 the traffic. 
 
 Sect. IV. 
 
 SINKINa CYLINDERS IN NAVIGABLE RIVER TO FORM SUBWAY. 
 
 In the Thames Subiuay Bill, 1866, 429, it was proposed Tliamcs 
 to construct a subway from Deptford, under the Thames, ^^^''"'"■^y- 
 to the IsUj of Dogs. The Referees reported that there were 
 no engineering objections to the works proposed ; that they 
 would be efficient for their object ; and that there would 
 not be any material obstruction to navigation during the 
 construction of the works.
 
 200 POSSIBLE SILTING UP OF SAND. 
 
 Sect. V. 
 
 IMT£RFERE]SCE WITH ANCHORAGE GROUND. 
 
 In the Bute Docks, Cardiff {No. 1) Bill, 1865, 805, the 
 Glamorganshire Canal Company objected that the proposed 
 works " would injure the access to the petitioners' canal, 
 and interfere with the anchorage ground of vessels." The 
 Keferees reported " that the proposed works might, under 
 certain conditions of wind and tide, slightly interfere with 
 the passage of small vessels to or from the entrance to the 
 Glamorganshire Canal ; but that very few and only small 
 vessels ever take such a course as could be so interfered 
 with ; " that " the proposed works will occupy a portion of 
 the foreshore of Cardiff Flats to the extend of 112 acres, 
 but the works lie entirely within the half tide line within 
 which few vessels ever lie ; and the Referees are of opinion 
 that there will not be any substantial interference with the 
 anchorage ground." See also the Buckley Railway {Docks, 
 &c.). Bill, 1866, 105 {infra, p. 202) ; the Llanelly Rail- 
 way and Dock Bill, 1866, 271 {infra, p. 203) ; and the 
 Holderness Embankme7it and Reclamation Bill, 1866, 
 507 {infra, p. 207). 
 
 Sect. VI. 
 
 POSSIBLE SILTING UP OF SAND, ETC. 
 
 On this subject see Furness Railway Bill, 1865, 79, 
 cited p. 194 ; Whitehaven and Furness Raihvay Bill, 
 1865, 80, cited p. 196 ; Dee and Mersey Junction Rail- 
 uuy Bill, 1865, 269, cited p. 190 ; Severn Junction Rail- 
 way Bill, 1865, 361, cited p. 193 ; Llanelly Railway and 
 Dock Bill, 1866, 271, cited p. 203 ; Holderness Embank-
 
 POSSIBLE SILTING UP OF SAND. 201 
 
 ment and Reclamation Bill, 186(5, 507, cited p. 207; and the 
 following cases : In the South Wales and Great Western Di- 
 rect Raihvay Bill, 1865, 353, (see facts stated p. 191) the 
 Referees observed in their report, "Some evidence was given 
 by the opponents as to the physical effect likely to be produced 
 by the interposition of so large an amount of solid structure 
 in the waterway upon the sands in the bed of the river, 
 and eventually upon the course of the channel itself The 
 extent to which such an influence might operate was ad- 
 mitted to be problematical. That some effect is likely to 
 be produced by the altered action of the current upon the 
 bed of the river, appears highly probable. Such a result 
 must follow, more or less, from the construction of every 
 bridge fixed upon piers in a river. In the present instance, 
 the evidence offered was not such as to satisfy the Referees 
 that any extensive change was likely to result which ought 
 to form an objection, _29er se, to the proposed structure." 
 In the Bute Docks, Cardiff, {No. J) Bill, 1865, 805, 
 the Penarth Harbour, &c. Company objected (1) that the 
 execution of the proposed works would tend to the silting 
 up of the access to the petitioners' harbour ; and (2) that 
 if the promoters should apply to the purposes of their dock 
 any portion of the waters of the River Taff, the petitioners' 
 undertaking would be injured. The Referees reported "that 
 there is at present a certain amount of silting going on, on 
 the Penarth and East Mud-flats, but they do not think 
 that the execution of the proposed works will have any 
 sensible effect upon the same." . . . . " That should 
 any part of the waters of the Taff be diverted for the use 
 of the proposed dock, an injury will be caused to the 
 Penarth Dock by the probable silting up of the entrance to 
 the same. But the undertakers declare that it is not their 
 intention to divert any of the said waters ; and no powers 
 are taken in this Bill to do so." The estimate was, how- 
 ever, reported insufficient. The Bute Docks, Cardiff, Bill, 
 1866, 122, was again opposed by the Penarth Harbour, &c. 
 Company, who alleged that the construction of the proposed 
 basin and dock would injure the lying ground on Cardiff
 
 202 
 
 DOCKS OR PIER INTERFERING WITH NAVIGATION. 
 
 Flats at present used by shipping ; and that the works and 
 dredging proposed to be executed would tend to silt up the 
 access to their docks ; and that the taking of water for the 
 use of the docks, by means of a certain feeder, would tend 
 to cause the silting up of the channel of the Taff and 
 estuary. The Referees reported that the construction of 
 the works would not cause any injury to the lying grounds 
 on Cardiff Flats, nor would they produce any injurious effect 
 upon the access to Penarth Docks : that " should a large 
 portion of the annual flow of the Taff, especially of the 
 flood waters, be taken, a silting up of the channel and 
 estuary might to some extent be caused ; but it was proved 
 *' that although the feeder, in very dry weather, does take 
 all the waters of the Taff, yet the entire amount of water 
 which will be annually taken bears so small a proportion to 
 the whole quantity which passes down the Taff, that the 
 abstraction of water proposed will have no appreciable 
 effect on the channel or estuary." 
 
 Sect. VII. 
 
 PROPOSED DOCKS OR PIER INTERFERING WITH NAVIGATION. 
 
 Contracting 
 waterway 
 Increasing 
 current. 
 
 Anchorage, 
 &c., reduced. 
 
 In the Buckley Railway {Docks, &c) Bill, 1866, 105, 
 the Corporation of Chester alleged that the construction of 
 the walls of certain docks &c. would materially interfere 
 with the navigation of the river, by contracting the sec- 
 tional area of the waterway, and thereby increasing the 
 velocity of the current ; and that the accommodation for 
 mooring and anchorage would be reduced. The Referees 
 reported that, although the velocity of the current would 
 be somewhat increased by the construction of the walls, as 
 shown in the deposited plans, the advantage gained by the 
 removal of the groins, and the consequent imjDrovement of 
 the navigable channel, would compensate for this objection ;
 
 PROVISIONS OF GENERAL ACT. 203 
 
 that, to secure the increased width of the channel, they 
 
 considered^that the foot of the sloping wall on the north 
 
 side should not be extended into the river beyond a certain 
 
 point ; that the promoters were willing to provide for 
 
 mooring and anchorage ; and that they were of opinion 
 
 that mooring posts should be placed along the walls at 
 
 intervals, and facilities be given for their use. 
 
 In the Llanelly Railway and Dock Bill, 1866, 271, the 
 
 Swansea Harbour Trustees objected that the proposed pier 
 
 to the Mumbles would obstruct and divert the set of the Diverting set 
 
 tide round Swansea Bay, and through the inner and outer 
 
 sounds at the Mumbles Head ; that by this interference the Increasing a 
 
 shoal on the Mixon Sands would be fm-ther raised ; and 
 
 that by this pier the navigation would be obstructed, and Navigation 
 .1 r 1 1 • 1 1 • 1 . obstructed by 
 
 tne passage oi vessels approaching and leavmg the inner pier. 
 
 roadstead rendered difficult. The promoters stated that the 
 
 pier was to be constructed of open timber-work, so as not to 
 
 interfere with the set of the tide ; that it was to be 180 yards 
 
 in length ; and that a channel 200 feet wide would be 
 
 dredged from it seaward, so as always to secure a depth of 
 
 12 feet at low Avater. The Referees reported that " if the 
 
 pier is not carried out beyond the length above-stated, it 
 
 will have no injurious effect upon the anchorage ; and that, 
 
 as by the 19th clause of the Bill the pier cannot be extended 
 
 without the approval of the Board of Trade, the navigation 
 
 will, by such provision, be sufficiently protected." 
 
 Sect. VIII. 
 
 PROVISIONS OF GENERAL ACT OF 1863, AS TO WORKS IN OR 
 ACROSS TIDAL WATERS, ETC. 
 
 The construction of works in and over tidal waters has 
 l>ecn fenced about by the legislature with a number of pro-
 
 204? PROVISIONS OF GENERAL ACT. 
 
 visions calculated to secure the safety and efficiency of such 
 works. 
 
 The 14th and 15th sections of the Railways Clauses Act, 
 1863 (a) — as to the spans of bridges and the power of the 
 Board of Trade to order the construction of opening 
 bridges ; and as to the detaining of vessels at opening 
 bridges — are noticed in sect. 1 of this chapter. 
 
 By sect. 18 of the same Act it is provided — 
 
 " Protection op Navigation, 
 
 Lights on " "VVliere tlie company is authorised by the special act to 
 
 over tidal construct, alter, or extend any work on, in, over, through, 
 
 ■"'^.ters. QY across tidal lauds or a tidal water, the company shall, on 
 
 or near the work, durmg the whole time of the construct- 
 ing, altering, or extenchng thereof, exhibit and keep burn- 
 mg, at their own exjiense, every night from sunset to sun- 
 rise, such hghts (if any) as the Board of Trade from time 
 to time requhes or approves ; and (notwithstanding the 
 enactments for the time being in force respecting light- 
 houses) shall also on or near the work, when completed, 
 always maintain, exhibit, and keep burning, at then- own 
 expense, every night from sunset to sunrise, such lights (if 
 any) for the guidance of sliips as the Board of Trade fi-om 
 time to time requires or approves. If the company fails to 
 comply in any respect with the provisions of the present 
 section, they shall, for each night in which they so fail, be 
 hable to a jienalty not exceeding twenty pounds." 
 
 Access to shore By sect. 16 it is provided that where the railway cuts oif 
 railway. ^ access between the land and tidal waters, the company shall 
 make and maintain, free of toll or other charge, all such 
 footways and carriageways over, under, or across the rail- 
 way, or on a level therewith, as the Board of Trade from 
 time to time directs or approves. 
 Prohibition of Sect. 17 contains a prohibition of deviation of railway 
 skirting tidal waters, without consent of Board of Trade. 
 (See this section in extenso, p. SO.) 
 
 (a) This Act extends to Scotland. 
 
 deviation.
 
 PROVISIONS OF GENERAL ACT. 205 
 
 Sect. 1 8 empowers the Board of Trade to abate or re- Eemoval of 
 move^ works on tidal lands abandoned or suffered to fall decajxTTOr'ks. 
 into decay. 
 
 Section 19. " If at any time the board of trade deems it Survey of 
 expedient, for the purposes of the special act or of this pax-t ^*^^ ^ ? 
 of this act, to order a survey and examination of a work Trade, 
 constnicted by the company on, in, over, through, or across 
 tidal lands or tidal water, or of the intended site of any 
 such work, the company shall defray the expense of the 
 survey and examination ; and the amount thereof shall be 
 a debt due from the Comjiany to the crown, and be recover- 
 able accordingly, with costs, or the same may be recovered, 
 with costs, as a penalty is recoverable from the company." 
 
 The IGth section (a) of the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, 
 giving general powers to companies for the execution of 
 works, enacts, ioiter alia. 
 
 " They may alter the course of any rivers not navigable, Altering 
 brooks, streams, or watercourses, and of any branches of course of 
 navigable rivers, such bi-auches not being themselves navi- navi'^able^' 
 gable, within such lands, for the purpose of constructing 
 and maintaining tunnels, bridges, passages, or other works 
 over or under the same ; and divert or alter, as well tem- 
 porarily as peimanently, the course of any such rivei-s or 
 streams of water, roads, streets, or ways, or raise or sink 
 the level of any sucli nvers or streams, roads, streets, or 
 ways, in order the more conveniently to carry the same 
 over or under or by the side of the railway, as they may 
 think proper. 
 
 (a) See similar provifiion'in the Railways Clauses (Scotland) Act, 
 HCCt. 16.
 
 206 
 
 PROPOSED RECLAMATION OF TIDAL LANDS. 
 
 Sect. IX. 
 
 PROPOSED RECLAMATION OF TIDAL LANDS. 
 
 Objection 'that 
 sands unstable. 
 
 Embankments 
 could not 
 resist sea, 
 nor prevent 
 filtration of sea 
 water under 
 them. 
 
 The conduits 
 and pumping 
 stations. 
 
 Fall of 1 foot 
 per mile. 
 Velocity 1^ 
 mile per hour. 
 
 Extent of 
 embankments. 
 
 Distance of 
 embankments 
 from present 
 coast line. 
 Height of 
 embankments. 
 9 feet of water 
 on .same at 
 spring tides. 
 
 The Metropolis Sewage and Essex Reclamation Bill, 
 1865, 117, was a Bill for reclaimiiig, from the sea, certain 
 sands on the east coast of Essex ; for making conduits from 
 the North London Main discharging sewers to the coast of 
 Essex ; for utilising the sewage of North London, and for 
 other purposes. The Corporation of London objected that 
 the Maplin and Dengie Sands to be retained were so loose 
 and unstable that the embankments could not be constructed 
 upon them, unless at a much greater cost than the estimate 
 would provide for, while they would neither be able to 
 resist the sea on so exposed a coast, nor to prevent the 
 filtration of the sea-water under them. They also objected 
 that there was not sufficient fall in the conduits for the 
 proper flow of the sewage. The Referees in their report 
 detail the proposed arrangement of conduits and pumping 
 stations ; and reported that, " As the pumping stations on 
 the main conduit will raise the sewage 32 feet (20 and 12 
 feet respectively), while the distance the sewage is to be 
 conveyed in a direct line is 44 miles, there Avill be a fall of 
 about 1 foot per mile to the points of discharge, which will 
 give a velocity of about 1^ mile per hour. This fall and 
 velocity are sufficient for the proper flow of the sewage." 
 In regard to the embankments, the Referees reported that 
 on the Maplin Sands it was proposed to enclose an area of 
 5,000 acres, by an embankment 12 miles in length ; and 
 that on the Dengie Sands it was proposed to enclose an 
 area of 3,000 acres by a similar embankment of 9 miles in 
 length ; that these embankments were to be placed from 
 1^ to 2 miles seaward of the present coast line; that they 
 would be 15 feet in height towards the sea, and would vary 
 at the ends from that height to 6 feet, where they join the 
 present sea-walls ; that there would be 9 feet of water on
 
 PKOPOSED RECLAMATION OF TIDAL LANDS. 207 
 
 the embankment at spring tides ; that the sand was of the 
 
 same description at both places ; and that it was proved 
 
 that it was soKd and tenacious, having a considerable Sands solid 
 , . „ , , , , , ...... , and tenacious. 
 
 admixture oi clay and other substance in it, which render 
 
 it sufficiently firm for the construction of the embankments 
 upon it ; that there were no quicksands, and that it was not ^^ quick- 
 likely that there would be filtration from the sea under the Filtration 
 embankments to any great extent ; that the estimate was ^anknumt not 
 £2,100,000 ; and that they Avere of opinion that there were likely. 
 no objections in an engineering point of view to the pro- favour, 
 posed works, and that the estimate was sufficient. 
 
 In the Holderness Embankment and Reclamation 
 Bill, 1806, 507, the Referees reported that "the proposed 
 works will not cause any deterioration in the main chan- 
 nels of the Humber, nor in the entrances thereto, nor will 
 they cause any injury to Spurm Point, either by cutting it 
 away or causing it to elongate to the southward. But, as 
 apprehensions are entertained by the Board of Trade as to 
 the effect of the works, it would be advisable, should this 
 Bill pass, that the promoters should be put under terms to 
 make and maintain such works at Spurm Point, as may be 
 found necessary for the safety of the lighthouses, when re- Safety of 
 quired so to do by the Board of Trade. And the promoters liglit-liouses. 
 have expressed their willingness to insert a clause in the 
 Bill to that effect. From the evidence given, tlic Referees 
 are of opinion that the North Channel is at present silting 
 up ; and that the effect of the proposed works would be to 
 accelerate such silting. That it is at present resorted to as 
 an anchorage by fishing vessels and small craft, there being 
 a depth of water there at low water of from 1 2 to G feet for 
 1,500 yards from its entrance. The Kilnsea Flats are at 
 present used as a laying place by coasting and small craft 
 in considerable numbers ; and the proposed works would 
 to a great extent deprive such craft of such laying place. 
 Partington Channel is already considerably silted up and 
 likely to become useless in a short time. The Referees are 
 of opinion that the estimate is not sufficient for the execu- 
 tion of the proposed works."
 
 208 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 POWERS TAKEN BY THE BILL INSUFFICIENT FOR THE 
 CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED WORKS. 
 
 The Referees, having no power to insert clauses, cannot 
 look beyond the Bill, as it comes before them, and the 
 general Acts, for the intended powers of the promoters. If, 
 therefore, in order to accomplish their object, it should be 
 necessary for the promoters to construct any work, effect 
 any junction, acquire any running powers, or make any 
 alteration on the works as laid down on the deposited plans, 
 which work, junction, or other matters are not specially 
 authorised by the proposed Bill, and are not within the 
 powers of the general Acts, in any such case the Referees 
 will report that the works cannot be constructed within the 
 powers of the Bill, and that they are, therefore, in an engi- 
 neering point of view, inefficient. 
 
 Sect. I. 
 
 NO PROVISION FOR STATIONS, SIDINGS, STANDAGE, ETC. 
 
 No provision Thus, it is a fatal engineering objection, that the pro- 
 for stations. moters have not provided for any stations on their line, no 
 powers to use the stations of other companies being taken. 
 In the North Surrey Railuuy Bill, 1865, 110, the pro- 
 moters proposed a line to run from a junction with the
 
 NO PROVISION FOR STATIONS, ETC. 
 
 209 
 
 Balham and Croydon Line of the London, Brighton, and 
 South Coast Railway, near Streatham Station, to a junc- 
 tion with the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, at 
 Clapham Station. The line would be 2 miles 16 chains 
 long, and would be for 2,090 yards in tunnel or covered 
 way, running under and along the South Road, King's 
 Road, and Loat's Road. The Referees reported, " No land 
 has been provided at either end for. stations, nor are any 
 powers taken to run into any stations on any other line, 
 and, in this respect, the engineering details are, in the 
 opinion of the Referees, deficient." 
 
 In the Hornsey and Kingdand Junction Railway No provision 
 Bin, 1865, 91, the proposed railway Was intended to be a f°J J,*^^^*^""^ ^"^ 
 double line ; and it appeared that no provision had been traffic 
 made either for stations or for the down traffic. The line 
 would effect a junction with the up-line of the Edgware, 
 Highgate, and London Railway, at the east side of the Great 
 Northern Railway, near the Seven Sisters Road Station, 
 where it is only a single line, and no provision was made 
 for the carrying on of the down-traffic, as the down line of 
 the Edcrware, Highgate, and London Line was at the west 
 side of the Great Northern Railway. It was also proposed 
 to effect a junction with the North London Railway, but no 
 station was proposed to be erected at such junction, nor No station. 
 were any powers taken by the Bill to run into any station 
 upon the North London Railway. The Referees reported, 
 " For the.se reasons, the Referees are of opinion that the 
 engineering of this railway is defective." 
 
 The Leeds, North Yorkshire, and Durham Railway 
 Bill, 1865, 219, was singularly deficient in these respects. 
 Railway No. I), which was a junction line from Line No. 1, 
 to the North Eastern Railway, near their Wethcrby Sta- 
 tion, was objected to by that line, upon tlie grounds that the 
 junction would be effected upon a gradient of 1 in 60, Nostandagc 
 rising towards the North Eastern Railway, without the lor trains, 
 intervention of any level space upon wliich a train could 
 stand, and that no powers were taken to run into the No powers to 
 Wetherby Station, nor were any sidmgs provided tor stand- no sidings. 
 
 P
 
 210 
 
 NO PROVISION FOR STATIONS, ETC. 
 
 Similar 
 objections. 
 
 No standage 
 at points of 
 junction. 
 
 No provision 
 for stations. 
 
 Nor for 
 sidings. 
 
 No provision 
 for stations 
 or sidings. 
 
 age at this point of junction. The Referees reported, " All 
 the facts were admitted, and the Referees are of opinion 
 that, whilst there are no engineering obstacles to the effect- 
 ing of a junction as proposed, it is a defect that no standage 
 is provided, nor are powers taken to run into the North 
 Eastern sidings at the Wetherby Station." The North 
 Eastern further objected to a proposed junction of Railway 
 No. 10, with their line in the township of Eirk-Hammer- 
 ton, upon the same grounds as in the case of Railway 
 No. 9. The Referees reported, " The Referees have the same 
 observations to apply thereto, with the addition that there 
 is not any station near the point where the junction is pro- 
 posed to be effected." The Referees further reported that, 
 " The same defect as to the absence of any provision for 
 standage at the several points of junction, applies to the 
 several Railways Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, and 21, in manner 
 similar to that mentioned in respect of Railway No. 9." 
 The Bill proposed the construction of 21 railways. The 
 Referees thus concluded their report, " It has been admitted 
 that no provision has been made for providing station land 
 or buildings at the termini of said railways, nor at any in- 
 termediate points along said lines, nor has any provision 
 been made for sidings at any of the proposed junctions, and 
 the Referees are of opinion that, without those several 
 matters being provided, the intended works will not be 
 efficient for their proposed object." 
 
 In the South Lancashire Railways and Dock Bill, 
 1865, 273, the Referees reported that, "no provision has 
 been made for providing station land or buildings, nor has 
 any provision been made for sidings at any of the proposed 
 junctions or at the dock, and the Referees are of opinion 
 that, without those several matters being provided, the in- 
 tended works would not be efficient for their proposed ob- 
 ject." 
 
 And in the Watford and Edgware Junction Raihvay 
 Bill, 1866, 90, where the proposed line was intended to pass 
 throuo-h, upon the level, a piece of land acquired by the 
 Edgware, Highgate, and London Railway, for the purpose
 
 NO JUNCTION WITH ANOTHER LINE. 211 
 
 of constructing theii' station at Edgware, and that line 
 having opposed, the promoters expressed an intention of 
 making a joint station at Edgware; but the Referees re- 
 ported that, " no powers are taken in any Bill to do so." 
 
 No provision for Stations on Mineral Lines. — In the 
 following cases, the objection having been taken that no 
 provision had been made for stations, it was held a suffi- 
 cient answer that the proposed railways were mineral lines 
 only. In the Ogmore Valley Railway (No. 2) Bill, 1866, 
 152, the sufficiency of the estimate was questioned on the 
 ground, inter alia, that no provision had been made for 
 stations. The promoters replied, that it was not intended 
 to erect any stations on this line, which was for mineral 
 purposes. The Referees reported that the estimate was 
 sufficient. And in the Llantrissart and Taff Vale Junc- 
 tion Raihvay Bill, 1866, 153, it was objected that no pro- 
 vision had been made in the estimate for stations. As in 
 the last case, the promoters replied, that it was not their 
 intention to erect stations, the line being one for mineral 
 purposes ; and the Referees reported the estimate suffi- 
 cient. 
 
 Sect. II. 
 
 NO PHYSICAL JUNCTION EFFECTED WITH ANOTHER LINE 
 WHICH IT IS INTENDED TO JOIN. 
 
 In the Kinrfs Lynn Docks and Railway Bill, 1865, 
 73, the Bill proposed the construction of a short railway 
 from Fisher's Hut to the Harljour Branch of the Great 
 Eastern Railway at PurHeet. The Referees reported that 
 a junction of the proposed railway with the Harbour Branch 
 could easily be made, in an engineering point of view ; 
 " but," that, " as to whether the promoters take power by 
 their Bill to effect the same, the Referees express no 
 opinion." 
 
 In the Ogmore Valley Railiuay {No. 2) Bill, 1 866, 1 52, it 
 was objected that no junction was made between this line and 
 
 p2
 
 212 NO RUNNING POWERS. 
 
 that proposed by the Ogmore Valley Raihuay (No. 1) Bill, 
 It was shown in reply, " that the two lines would occupy 
 precisely the same ground, with a very slight difference of 
 gradient at one or two points ;" and the Referees reported 
 that there was " no engineering difficulty in effecting the 
 junction." And in the Wrexham and Minera Railway 
 Bill, 1865, 263, it was objected that, although the line was 
 professedly an extension of the Wrexham and Minera Rail- 
 way, it had no physical junction with that line. The 
 promoters replied, that though there was no physical junc- 
 tion with the Wrexham and Minera Railway, inasmuch as 
 12 chains of the Great Western Branch intervened, the Bill 
 authorised the company to enter into arrangements for the 
 user of that line, and the Great Western Railway to sub- 
 scribe to the undertaking. The Referees reported that 
 there was no engineering objection 
 
 Sect. III. 
 
 NO POWERS TAKEN TO ALTER OR AFFECT GRADIENTS OF 
 ROADS AND STREETS. 
 
 As to the absence of special powers to alter levels or 
 inclinations of roads and streets, or approaches to bridges. 
 
 See p. 171. 
 
 As to the necessity for special authority in order to effect 
 level crossings, see Railways Clauses Act, 1845, sect. 46, (a) 
 and p. 160, et seq. 
 
 Sect. IV. 
 
 OBJECTION THAT NO RUNNING POWERS TAKEN OVER ANOTHER 
 LINE, IN ORDER TO CONNECT PROPOSED LINE WITH SOME 
 OTHER LINE INTENDED TO BE JOINED. 
 
 As one railway cannot lawfully run on the rails of 
 another company without parliamentary sanction, it follows 
 
 (a) Railways Clauses (Scotland) Act, 1845, sect. 39.
 
 NO RUNNING POWERS. 213 
 
 that if, in order to effect a junction with another line, 
 or with some branch of their own Hne, it should be 
 necessary for the promoters to pass, even for a few yards 
 only, over the line of some other railway, and no powers 
 are taken by the special Act for that purpose, this will 
 be an engineering objection, because the proposed junc- 
 tion cannot be effected. In the Bisliop's Castle Rail- 
 way (Extensions to Craven Arms) Bill, 1865, 194!, a 
 junction was proposed to be effected with the main line of 
 the Knighton Railway, at the south end of the platform 
 shed of the Shrewsbury and Hereford Railway, which plat- 
 form was used by both the Shrewsbury and Hereford and 
 the Knighton Railways for interchange of passenger traiSc. 
 If compelled to make the junction at the point shown, the 
 promoters could only reach the platform before-mentioned 
 by running along the main line of the Knighton Railway, 
 and making a back shunt to the platform ; and, as they 
 had taken no powers in the Bill to use any portion of the 
 Knighton Railway, but only to use the Shrewsbury and 
 Hereford Station, the Referees reported " that this is an 
 engineering defect, if not remedied." And in the Man- 
 chester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Mailway {Central 
 Station arid Lines) Bill, 18GG, 261 and 297, where it 
 appeared that, by agreement with the Midland Railway, 
 the promoters had arranged that Railway No. 3 should be 
 constructed only up to a certain point from its commence- 
 ment, and that a junction should there be effected with 
 the authorised Midland Line, the rest of No. 3 being 
 abandoned, the Referees reported that, in an engineering 
 point of view, such junction could be effected; " but no 
 powers are taken in the Bill to run over the portion of the 
 Midland Railway between the point of junction of No. 3 
 with it, and the junction of the Midland Railway with the 
 promoters' line at Gordon Lane Bridge ; and that without 
 such running powers, Railway No. 3 would not be efficient 
 for the object proposed,'' And see Wrexliam and Minera 
 Railway Bill, 1865, 263, cited p. 212.
 
 214 CONSTRUCTION OF WORKS CONTINGENT. 
 
 Sect. V. 
 
 WHERE CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED WORKS CONTINGENT ON 
 CONSTRUCTION OP SOME OTHER WORKS BEFORE PARLIAMENT, 
 AND NOT YET SANCTIONED. 
 
 In the Caledonian Raihvay (Greenock and Gouroch 
 Extensions) Bill, 1866, 109, the Referees reported that, 
 " It is admitted by the promoters that No. 1 Railway was 
 laid out partly for the jDurpose of obtaining access to a 
 steamboat quay to be erected by the trustees of the 
 harbour of Greenock, and, for the construction of which, 
 powers are sought by a Bill now before Parliament, and 
 that if such powers should not be granted, such access 
 could not be obtained, and said Railway No. 1 would be 
 diminished in length by 900 feet ;" and, subject to this and 
 certain other remarks, they reported that the works were 
 efficient. And in the Greenock and Ayrshire Railway 
 Bill, 1866, 287, Railway No. 1 was intended to commence 
 by a junction with the promoters' authorised line near 
 Brougham Street, Greenock ; and, after passing along a 
 quay proposed to be constructed by the Greenock Harbour 
 Trustees, would terminate in the Clyde, so as to extend the 
 promoters' railway accommodation to the traffic of steamers. 
 The Caledonian Railway objected that the works would be 
 inefficient, " inasmuch as the construction of the quay by the 
 Harbour Trustees had been abandoned for the present 
 Session." The Referees reported " that the construction of 
 the quay being abandoned, the works of Railway No. 1 
 should be diminished in length by 1,000 feet at its termi- 
 nation in the Clyde."
 
 215 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 TUNNELS. 
 
 Sect. I. 
 
 VENTILATION, GRADIENTS, HEADWAY, DRAINAGE, ETC., OF 
 
 TUNNELS. 
 
 In the North Surrey Railway Bill, 1865, 110, a line 
 was proposed from a junction with the Balham and Croy- 
 don line of the London, Brighton, and South Coast Rail- 
 way, near the Streatham Station, to a junction with the 
 London, Chatham, and Dover Railway at Clapham Station. 
 The line for 2,090 yards would be in tunnel or covered way, Tunnel of 
 running under and along the South Road, King's Road, ^cr roads. 
 and Loat's Road, with gradients varying from 1 in 100 to 
 1 in 130. The Referees reported, that the tunnel in one 
 place could not be at the utmost more than 15 feet high, as Headway, 
 no powers had been taken to alter the level of the roads ^^ f*^*^*" 
 under which it passed, and to lower the level of the rails 
 would make the gradient (there 1 in 100) more steep ; that No ventilating 
 no ventilating shafts were intended to be made, nor could '*^^^^^®- 
 they be consti-ucted ; and that, con.sidering the length and 
 height of this tunnel, it was very doubtful whether the ven- 
 tilation in it would be sufficient. They further reported 
 that no land had been provided at either end for stations, 
 nor were any powers taken to run into any station on any 
 other line, and that, in this respect, the engineering details 
 were, in their opinion, deficient.
 
 216 
 
 VENTILATION, ETC., OF TUNNELS. 
 
 Three tunnels, 
 2083 yards, 
 930 yards, 
 1293 yards. 
 
 Gradients 
 objectionable. 
 
 Ventilation 
 deficient. 
 
 Gradient. 
 
 Ventilation. 
 
 Drainage 
 
 defective. 
 
 In the London, Chatham, and Dover, and South 
 Eastern {Kennington, Cla^jham, and Brixton) Railways 
 Bill, 1866, 163, the petitioners objected that the three 
 tunnels prop.osed to be made in Railway No. 4, of the respec- 
 tive lengths of 2,083 yards, 930 yards, and 1,293 yards, 
 would be highly defective in an engineering point of view ; 
 that, as to the tunnel of 2,083 yards, the gradients of 1 in 
 60 for more than half of it, and of 1 in 70 for the re- 
 mainder, would be objectionable and inconvenient for the 
 heavy trains of the suburban traffic ; that owing to its 
 length and limited headway of ] 5 feet only, in some places, 
 the ventilation would be deficient, and that the provision 
 made for obviating this objection, namely, by making shafts 
 into the Brixton Road (under which it was intended to 
 make the tunnel), would be inadequate, and objectionable, 
 as obstructing the traffic in the road. That as to the tun- 
 nel of 930 yards, the gradient of 1 in 70 for three-quarters 
 of a furlong was also objectionable for the same reason 
 alleged as to the last-mentioned tunnel ; and that as to the 
 tunnel of 1,293 yards, although there was no objection to 
 the gradients, there would be great difficulty in ventilating 
 it, from the absence of the upward draught of an incline, 
 and from the limited headway of a minimum height of 14 
 feet, and that the difference between the level of the rails 
 and that of the neighbouring sewer would be such as to 
 render the drainage difficult and defective. The promoters 
 replied that there would be no difficulty in working the 
 traffic over the gradients objected to ; that the means they 
 proposed for ventilation would be sufficient, and that, espe- 
 cially as to the tunnel of 2,083 yards under the Brixton 
 Road, the ornamental shafts which (by arrangement with 
 the District and Metropolitan Boards of Works), it was in- 
 tended should be made, would be adequate for the purpose ; 
 and also, with regard to the tunnel of 1293 yards, that 
 the drainage of the surrounding soil being carried at once 
 to the sewer, the leakage through the brickwork into the 
 tunnel would be all for which they would have to provide 
 permanently, and that this, being gathered by a culvert
 
 JUNCTIONS IN TUNNELS. * 217 
 
 laid along the railway, could always be discharged into the 
 neighbouring sewers, except in times of flood, and, that in 
 case of necessity, the company would be ready to provide a 
 steam pump to carry off the surplus drainage.^ The Refe- 
 rees reported that they were of opinion that the company 
 should undertake to make this provision, and also that the 
 works were efficient for the objects proposed. 
 
 Sect. II. 
 
 ALLEGED DANGEROUS PROXIMITY OF TWO TUNNELS. 
 
 In the London, Brighton, and South Coast Raihvay 
 {St. Leonards and Hastings Lines) Bill, 1866, 254, the 
 South Eastern Railway alleged that the safety of their tun- 
 nel, near the St. Leonards Station would be endangered by 
 the construction of an intended tunnel in the close proximity 
 of 50 feet only between the centres of the proposed and 
 existing railways at its commencement. The Referees re- 
 ported, that it was proved to their satisfaction, " that 
 tunnels in similar positions have been made without injuring 
 existing contiguous works, and that the ordinary precau- 
 tions in the construction of the proposed tunnel at its 
 commencement would secure the safety of the petitioners' 
 tunnel." 
 
 Sect. III. 
 
 JUNCTIONS IN TUNNELS. 
 
 See Barnet, Hendon, Hampstead, and London Rail- 
 way Bill, 1865, 69 {ante p. 130), where such a junction 
 was sanctioned by the Referees.
 
 218 TUNNELS UNDEK RIVERS AND TIDAL WATERS. 
 
 Sect. IV. 
 
 TUNNELS CLOSE TO JUNCTIONS OR TO STATIONS PREVENTING 
 
 VIEW OF SIGNALS. 
 
 In the WolveTliampton and Bridgnorth Eaihuay Bill, 
 1865, 234 (see fully p. 119), a tunnel of 500 yards in length 
 would intervene between a point of junction and the station, 
 the mouth of such tunnel being 17 chains from the 
 station : sanctioned. In the Lancashire and Yorkshire 
 Raihvay (Additional Powers) Bill, 1865, 239 (see fully 
 p. 114), the proposed Eipponden Branch would enter a 
 tunnel of 530 yards at 14 chains from its junction with the 
 promoters' main line, thus rendering it difficult to see the 
 junction signals : sanctioned. In the Hadlow Railway 
 Bill, 18G6, QQ, (see fully p. 115), a junction was proposed 
 with the Tonbridge Wells Branch of the South Eastern 
 Railway, at a point only 7^ chains from the mouth of a 
 tunnel : sanctioned. In the London, Worcester, and South 
 Wales Railway Bill, 1865, 86, (see<^ fully p. 85), an over- 
 bridge was proposed over the petitioners' main line, between 
 their Worcester Station and a tunnel of 300 yards, such 
 overbridge being 20 yards from the north end of the tun- 
 nel, and it was alleged that the said bridge would intercept 
 the view of the signal at the south end of the tunnel : sanc- 
 tioned, repeating signals to be provided. 
 
 Sect. V. 
 
 TUNNELS UNDER NAVIGABLE RIVERS AND TIDAL WATERS. 
 
 See Birkenhead and Liverpool Railway Bill, 1865, 285, 
 p. 197; North Wales and Birkenhead and Liverpool
 
 TUNNEL UNDER CANAL. 219 
 
 Railway Bill, 1866, 106, p. 197; Wrexham, Mold, and 
 Connah's Quay and Hoylake Railways Bill, 1866, 107, 
 p. 198. 
 
 Sect. VI. 
 
 SUBWAY UNDER THAMES FORMED BY SUNK CYLINDERS. 
 
 See Thames Subway Bill, 1866, 429, p. 199. 
 
 Sect. VII. 
 
 TUNNEL UNDER CANAL. 
 
 See Brecon and Merthyr Tydjil Junction Railway Bill^ 
 1865, 425, p. 88.
 
 220 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 DOCK BILLS. 
 
 Taking water from the same source as another Dock 
 Company. — Alleged deprivation of supply. — In the 
 Aleocandra {Newport) Docks Bill, 1865, 292, the Newport 
 Dock Company complained that it was proposed to divert 
 into the proposed docks the waters of the River Ebbw, 
 which would have an injurious effect upon the dock of the 
 petitioners. The point of the river from which such supply 
 would be drawn being lower down than the culverts by 
 which the petitioners derive their supply, the Referees re- 
 ported that no injurious effect would be produced on the 
 dock of the petitioners. 
 
 Construction of Dock narrowing Waterway and 
 increasing velocity of Current. See the Buckley Railway 
 {Docks, &c.) Bill, 1866, 105, ante, p. 202. 
 
 Interference with Anchorage Ground. See the Bute 
 Docks, Cardiff {No. 1) Bill, 1865, 305 {ante, p. 200) ; 
 Buckley Railway {Docks, &c.) Bill, 1866, 105 {ante, p. 
 202) ; Llanelly Railway and Dock Bill, 1866, 271 {ante, 
 p. 203). 
 
 Taking Private Tramways, no objection in an engi- 
 neering point of view. See the Hull Docks Bill, 1866, 
 91 {ante, p. 97). 
 
 Causing Silting up and consequent injury to Channel, 
 &c. See the Bute Docks, Cardiff {No. 1) Bill, 1865, 305, 
 p. 201 ; the Bute Docks {Cardiff Bill) 1866, 122, p. 20i ; 
 and the Llanelly Railway and Dock Bill, 1866, 271, 
 p. 203.
 
 DOCK BILLS. 221 
 
 Pier Obstructing and Diverting set of the Tide. See 
 the Llanelly Raihuay and Doch Bill, 1866, 271, p. 203. 
 
 Docks as designed reported inefficient. In the Mary- 
 •port Improvement, Harbour, and Doch Bill, 1866, 61, it 
 was proposed to construct (among other works) a basin and 
 dock. The Referees reported, in regard to the basin and 
 dock, that the same as designed would not be efficient. 
 (The reasons for this decision are not stated in their report.) 
 The estimate was also reported insufficient. 
 
 Doch Company seeking powers to supply Shipping 
 ivith Water. In the Bute Docks, Cardiff {No. 2) Bill, 
 1865, 313, the undertakers sought powers to supply water 
 to ships using the docks. The Cardiff Waterworks Com- 
 pany alleged that they had always supplied the shipping in 
 these docks with a quantity of pure and wholesome water 
 far exceeding the demand ; and that the Bill would legalise 
 the supply of impure and unwholesome water. It was 
 proved that the petitioners could supply a quantity of pure 
 water to the town of Cardiff and the shipping resorting to 
 the docks, far exceeding any demand which was likely to 
 arise. The mode of supply proposed by the promoters was 
 as follows : — A waterboat would draw water from the 
 feeder flowing from the River Tafif into the Bute West 
 Dock, at a jioint in the said dock a few feet from the 
 entrance of the said feeder into the dock ; and, the water 
 after having been passed through a charcoal filter into 
 tanks in the boat, would then be supplied from the boat to 
 the shijiping. The Referees reported "that it is very doubt- 
 ful whether the water, which cannot be pure when taken 
 into the said boat, is efficiently filtered by its jDassage 
 through the charcoal filter ; and they are of opinion that, if 
 the water of such feeder from the Taff is to be used, it 
 should be drawn by a service pipe from said feeder at a 
 point near the weir, across the River Taff, and beyond the 
 contaminating influence of the water of the West Dock. 
 The River Tatf, from wliich said feeder is derived, im- 
 doubteclly receives the drainage and impurities of a large 
 population ; but it was not proved to the satisfaction of the
 
 222 DOCK BILLS. 
 
 Referees that it was rendered so impure or unwholesome as 
 to be unfit for domestic use/' 
 
 Landing Passengers and Goods by means of a Pontoon. 
 By the Llanelly Maihuay and Dock {Extension to Mum- 
 bles) Bill, 1865, 494, a railway was proposed which would 
 run to the Mumbles ; and it was objected that there was no 
 provision for a pier or landing place at the termination of 
 the proposed line. According to the deposited plans the 
 line would terminate at the line of low water of ordinary 
 spring tides ; and it was proposed to dredge at that point to 
 the depth of 1 2 feet, and to effect the landing of goods and 
 passengers by means of a pontoon to be connected with the 
 end of the proposed line of railway. The Referees reported 
 that there were not any engineering objections to the exe- 
 cution of the proposed works. In the following session an 
 Extension Bill was brought in, the main object of which 
 was the construction of a pier to the Mumbles ; — Llanelly 
 Railway and Dock Bill, 1866, 271, p. 203. 
 
 Lock at Entrance to Dock too small. In the South 
 Lancashire Raihuays and Dock Bill, 1865, 273, it was 
 objected that the dimensions of the lock at the entrance of 
 the dock, as shown on the deposited plans, were too small 
 for the purposes of the dock ; and to this the promoters re- 
 plied, that they could construct what was shown in said 
 plans as a tide entrance in the form of a lock of sufficient 
 dimensions (200 feet by 50) by removing the site of the 
 dock 100 feet further back from the river. The Referees 
 reported that the lock as shown was too small ; but that 
 probaljly the additional accommodation required could be 
 gained by such removal ; and that the same could be 
 effected upon the land contained within the limits of devi- 
 ation, and possibly at but small additional cost ; but that no 
 plans or sections of the dock works as proposed to be 
 altered had been deposited.
 
 223 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 ESTIMATES.-OBJECTIONS IN RESPECT TO PRICES AND 
 
 QUxiNTITIES. 
 
 Sect. I. 
 
 IMPORTANCE OF ACCURACY IN ESTIMATES, FORM, ETC. 
 
 When it is remembered that objections to the estimates of 
 proposed works are of constant occurrence in the Courts of 
 the Referees, and that by Standing Order 9 6 it is provided that 
 in case the Referees shall report, with reference to any Bill, 
 that the estimate deposited in respect thereof is insufficient, 
 " the Bill shall not be further proceeded with, unless the 
 House shall otherwise order," — the importance of this sub- 
 ject is at once manifest. 
 
 Estimates are made up in a form prescribed by Standing 
 Order 4o ; which, for convenience of reference, is here 
 inserted : — 
 
 " 45. The estimate for any works proposed to be authoi-iscd porm of 
 by any Railway, Dock, or Harboin- Bill, shall be iia the fullow- estimate. 
 ing form, or as near thcx'cto as cii'cumstanccs may jiermit : —
 
 22 1 
 
 IMPORTANCE OF ACCURACY IN ESTIMATES. 
 
 Line, 'No. 
 
 Length of line 
 Earthworks: 
 
 Cuttings — Eock 
 
 Soft Soil 
 Eoads 
 
 Total . 
 
 Estimate op the pko posed 
 
 Miles, f. ch. 
 
 (Railway). 
 
 Whether 
 Single or Double. 
 
 Cubic yds. 
 
 Price per Id. 
 
 Embankment, including roads . Cubic yds 
 Bridges — Public Roads . . . NuTnber 
 
 Accommodation Bridges and Works 
 
 Viaducts 
 
 Culverts and Drains 
 
 Metallings of roads and level crossings 
 
 Gatekeepers' houses at level crossings 
 
 Permanent way, including fencing: 
 
 Cost per Mile 
 Miles, fgs. chs. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 at 
 
 Permanent way for sidings, and cost of junctions 
 Stations 
 
 Contingencies per cent. 
 
 Land and Buildings: 
 
 A. K. p. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 Total 
 
 The same details for each Branch, and General Summary 
 of Total Cost." 
 
 As to the powers of the Keferees to enquire into the 
 sufficiency of estimates, see Standing Order No. 92. 
 
 Objections to estimates may be classed under two general 
 divisions. (I) Objections to quantities and prices ; and (2) 
 objections on account of the omission or under-estimate of 
 claims of compensation.
 
 JUNCTIONS, ETC., NOT PROVIDED FOR IN ESTIMATE. 225 
 
 Sect. II. 
 
 OBJECTION THAT QUANTITIES UNDERSTATED. 
 
 In the Maoyport Imj^rovement, Harbour, and Dock 
 Bill, 1866, 61, it was proposed, inter alia, to construct a 
 basin and dock and an open breakwater. The Referees 
 reported that the estimate for the same was " insufficient, 
 inasmuch as the quantities, as given in evidence, largely, 
 exceed those upon which the deposited estimate was based." 
 And in the Craven Junction Raihuay Bill, 1866, 110, the 
 promoters proposed to substitute a viaduct for 800 feet of 
 embankment The Referees reported, inter alia, that, as 
 there was a deficiency of 323,083 cubic yards of material 
 for the same, the estimate was insufficient for the construc- 
 tion of the works proposed, even giving credit for the sum 
 of i?l 4,000 taken for the viaduct. 
 
 Sect. III. 
 
 JUNCTIONS, SIGNALS, SIDINGS, ETC., NOT PROVIDED FOR IN 
 
 ESTIMATE. 
 
 In the Devon and Somerset Railway {Deviations) Bill, 
 1866, 101, the Referees reported that the sum mentioned 
 in the estimate would be insufficient for the execution of the 
 works contained in this Bill, " inasmuch as several necessary 
 works, viz., junctions, signals, and sidings, have been left 
 unprovided for, and the sum provided for other works is 
 also inadequate." In the London, Chatham, and Dover, 
 and South Eastern {Bromley, Farnhorouyh,, and West 
 Wickham) Railways Bill, 1 866, 31 5, the London, Brighton, 
 and South Cf^st Railway objected that the estimatt^ was 
 insuffici(;nt, in Railway No. 1, for making provision for the 
 
 Q
 
 226 NO PROVISION FOR STATIONS. 
 
 disposal of the spoil or surplus soil, and for the cost of 
 permanent way, for sidings, junctions, and signals ; and, in 
 Eailway No. 4, for the sum required for earthwork in 
 cutting, which they alleged was incorrectly calculated in 
 quantity. After hearing evidence adduced by both parties 
 on these points, the Referees reported that the estimate was 
 insufficient. 
 
 In the Leeds, North Yorkshire, and Durham Railway 
 Bill, 1865, 219, however, by which 21 railways were pro- 
 posed to be constructed, the Referees reported as follows : — 
 " The Referees have carefully examined the estimate, and 
 are of opinion that, with rigid economy, the sum estimated 
 will be sufficient for the execution of the works contem- 
 plated in the deposited plans, and perhaps for the carrying 
 such of the roads now proposed to be crossed upon the 
 level over the proposed railways, as may be hereafter re- 
 quired ; but it has been admitted that no provision has been 
 made for providing station land or buildings at the termini 
 of said railways, nor at any intermediate points along said 
 lines, nor has any provision been made for sidings at any of 
 the proposed junctions, and the Referees are of opinion that, 
 without those several matters being provided, the intended 
 works will not be efficient for their proposed object." 
 
 Sect. IV. 
 
 OBJECTION THAT NO PROVISION FOR STATIONS, ANSWERED BY 
 FACT THAT LINE FOR MINERAL PURPOSES. 
 
 In the Ogmore Valley Raihuay (Ko. 2) Bill, 1866, 152 
 the sufficiency of the estimate was questioned on the 
 ground, inter alia, that no provision had been made for 
 stations. The promoters replied that it was not intended to 
 erect any stations on this line, which was for mineral pur- 
 poses. The Referees reported that the estimate was 
 sufficient. And in the Llantrissart and Taff Vale June-
 
 RUBBISH FOR EARTHWORK. 227 
 
 Hon Railway Bill, 1866, 153, a precisely similar objection 
 was taken, to which the same answer was given ; and the 
 Referees reported the estimate sufficient. 
 
 Sect. V. 
 
 NO PROVISION FOR DEPOSIT OF SURPLUS CUTTING. 
 
 In the North British Railway (Glasgoiu Branches) 
 Bill, J 866, 221, the City of Glasgow Union Railway 
 alleged that in the estimated quantity of land required, no 
 provision had been made for the deposit of the large 
 amount of surplus cutting. The promoters stated, in reply, 
 that they had intentionally omitted to make such provision, 
 inasmuch as they would be enabled to dispose of this sur- 
 plus cutting in the construction of their own adjoining line, 
 the Coatbridge Railway. The Referees reported that the 
 es timate wassufficient. See also the London, Chatham, 
 and Dover &c. Bill, referred to supra, p. 225, 
 
 Sect. VI. 
 
 CASES WHERE PROMOTERS CALCULATED ON GETTINQ RUBBISH 
 GRATUITOUSLY FOR EARTHWORK. 
 
 In the Bute Docks, Cardiff [No. \) Bill, 1865, 305, the 
 proposed dock was intended to be formed by embankment, 
 requiring 2,224,712 cubic yards of earthwork. Of this, 
 300,000 were proposed to be procured by excavation, and 
 the expense thuret^f was provided for in the estimate ; the 
 remaining 1,944,712 yards were intended to be derived 
 from the ballast discharged from the vessels frequenting 
 the Port of Cardiff, and no sum was provided for obtaining 
 the same, "inasmuch as it is a.ssumed that it would be 
 delivered to the undertakers and laid down where required 
 
 Q2
 
 226 NO PROVISION FOR STATIONS. 
 
 disposal of the spoil or surplus soil, and for the cost of 
 permanent way, for sidings, junctions, and signals ; and, in 
 Kailway No. 4, for the sum required for earthwork in 
 cutting, which they alleged was incorrectly calculated in 
 quantity. After hearing evidence adduced by both parties 
 on these points, the Keferees reported that the estimate was 
 insufficient. 
 
 In the Leeds, North Yorkshire, and Durham Railway 
 Bill, 1865, 219, however, by which 21 railways were pro- 
 posed to be constructed, the Keferees reported as follows: — 
 " The Referees have carefully examined the estimate, and 
 are of opinion that, with rigid economy, the sum estimated 
 will be sufficient for the execution of the works contem- 
 plated in the deposited plans, and perhaps for the carrying 
 such of the roads now proposed to be crossed upon the 
 level over the proposed railways, as may be hereafter re- 
 quired ; but it has been admitted that no provision has been 
 made for providing station land or buildings at the termini 
 of said railways, nor at any intermediate points along said 
 lines, nor has any provision been made for sidings at any of 
 the proposed junctions, and the Referees are of opinion that, 
 without those several matters being provided, the intended 
 works will not be efficient for their proposed object." 
 
 Sect. IV. 
 
 OBJECTION THAT NO PROVISION FOR STATIONS, ANSWERED BY 
 FACT THAT LINE FOR MINERAL PURPOSES. 
 
 In the Ogmore Valley Raihuay (No. 2) Bill, 1866, 152 
 the sufficiency of the estimate was questioned on the 
 ground, inter alia, that no provision had been made for 
 stations. The promoters replied that it was not intended to 
 erect any stations on this line, which was for mineral pur- 
 poses. The Referees reported that the estimate was 
 sufficient. And in the Llantrissart and Taff Vale June-
 
 RUBBISH FOR EARTHWORK. 227 
 
 tion Baihuay Bill, 1866, 153, a precisely similar objection 
 was taken, to which the same answer was given ; and the 
 Referees reported the estimate sufficient. 
 
 Sect. V. 
 
 NO PROVISION FOR DEPOSIT OF SURPLUS CUTTING. 
 
 In the North British Railway (Glasgoiu Branches) 
 Bill, 1866, 221, the City of Glasgow Union Railway 
 alleged that in the estimated quantity of land reqidred, no 
 provision had been made for the deposit of the large 
 amount of surplus cutting. The promoters stated, in reply, 
 that they had intentionally omitted to make such provision, 
 inasmuch as they would be enabled to dispose of this sur- 
 plus cutting in the construction of their own adjoining line, 
 the Coatbridge Railway. The Referees reported that the 
 es timate wassufficient. See also the London, Chatham, 
 and Dover &c. Bill, referred to supra, p. 225. 
 
 Sect. VI. 
 
 CASES WHERE PROMOTERS CALCULATED ON GETTING RUBBISH 
 GRATUITOUSLY FOR EARTHWORK. 
 
 In the Bute Docks, Cardiff {No. 1) Bill, 1865, 305, the 
 proposed dock was intended to be formed by eml^ankment, 
 requiring 2,224,712 cubic yards of earthwork. Of this, 
 300,000 were proposed to be procured by excavation, and 
 the expense thereof was provided for in the estimate ; the 
 remaining 1,94<4<,712 yards were intended to be derived 
 from the ballast discharged from the vessels frequenting 
 the Port of Cardiff, and no sum wa.s provided for obtaining 
 the same, " inasmuch as it is assumed that it would be 
 delivered to the undertakers and laid down Avhere required 
 
 Q2
 
 228 ESTIMATE FOR TUNNEL UNDER RIVER. 
 
 by them, free of charge." Upon enquiry as to the amount 
 which might annually be so obtained, the Keferees found 
 that it would take a period of seven years for the comple- 
 tion of the proposed works, if no other supply should be 
 obtained ; and they reported that the estimate was insuffi- 
 cient. And in the Greenock Harbour Bill, 1866, 98, it 
 was proposed to construct a quay or sea-wall to the west of 
 Albert Quay, and in front of the esplanade at Greenock. 
 The Referees reported that the quantity of material for filling 
 up the embankment provided from the sources contained 
 in the estimate would fall short of the quantity required for 
 the purpose by 342,000 cubic yards, even giving credit for 
 60,000 yards to be derived from the Albert Basin. That 
 an agreement, dated the 8th of March, 1866 (the Referees' 
 report bears date the 14;th of the same month), between 
 the trustees of the Port of Greenock and the Board of 
 Police of Greenock of the first part, and the Greenock and 
 Ayrshire Railway of the second part, was offered to show- 
 that the said railway company had agreed to fill up, free 
 of expense to the Trustees, the space between the embank- 
 ment and the esplanade and sea-wall ; but that, "inasmuch 
 as the Referees cannot assume that the said railway com- 
 pany is authorised to enter into such an agreement, or has 
 any means of fulfilling the same, the Referees are of 
 opinion that the estimate is insufficient " for executing the 
 said quay or sea-wall. 
 
 Sect. VII. 
 
 INSUFFICIENCY OF ESTIMATE FOR TUNNEL UNDER RIVER. 
 
 In the North Wales and Birhenhead and Liverpool 
 Railway Bill, 1866, 106, the company proposed to carry 
 the line under the River Dee, at right angles, by a tunnel 
 of 400 yards long, at a point about half a mile below 
 Ashton Quay, where the waterway is 150 yards wide. The 
 part of the tunnel beneath the bed of the river would be
 
 NO SUM IN ESTIMATE FOE FORESHORE. 229 
 
 constructed of brickwork, within a timber coffer-dam, in 
 three successive portions. The bed of sand through which 
 the tunnel would be carried was of so volatile a character, 
 as to render the construction of both the tunnel and the 
 approaches to it exceedingly difficult. The Referees re- 
 ported that "the calculations on which the estimate was 
 based, while sufficient for works of an ordinary description, 
 are not such as to provide for the effective execution of 
 these works, either in respect of the construction of the 
 tunnel, or the maintenance of the slopes of the approaches 
 to it. The Referees are of opinion that the works above 
 referred to are inefficient, and the estimate insufficient." 
 
 Sect. VIII. 
 no provision for expense of dredginq in order to 
 
 CONSTRUCT HARBOUR OF REFUGE. 
 
 In the Mary port Improvement, Harbour, and Dock 
 Bill, 1806, 61, it was proposed, inter alia, to construct a 
 harbour of refuge of the extent of 60 acres. The Referees 
 reported that it was proved that " the proposed harbour of 
 refuge will not be available (the site of it being a gravel 
 beach, dry at low water) unless it be dredged to a consider- 
 able depth, and for that purpose no sum of money is taken 
 by the Bill or included in the estimate." 
 
 Sect. IX. 
 
 FORESHORE — PROMOTERS ASSUMING SAME TO BELONG TO THEM 
 AN]) INCLUDING NO SUM THEREFOR IN ESTIMATE. 
 
 In the Bute Docks, Cardiff {Ko. 1) Bill, 1865, 305, the 
 proposed works would occupy a portion of the foreshore of 
 Cardiff Flats to the extent of 112 acres. In the estimate
 
 230 LARGER WORKS THAN ON PLANS. 
 
 it was assumed that the foreshore was the property of the 
 Marquis of Bute (on whose behalf this Bill was pro- 
 moted, and who was the proprietor of the adjacent land), 
 and no sum was provided for the acquisition of land. 
 The Referees reported that they "are not in a position 
 to form any opinion as to whether the said foreshore is or 
 is not the property of the Marquis of Bute." (a) 
 
 Sect. X. 
 
 LARGER AND MORE EXPENSIVE WORKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED 
 THAN SHOWN ON PLANS : BUT ESTIMATE ORIGINALLY PRE- 
 PARED FOR SUCH LARGER WORKS. 
 
 In the Alexandra (Newport) Docks Bill, 1865, 292, the 
 Referees reported, " It was stated and proved that the docks 
 now proiDOsed to be constructed would be of larger dimensions 
 (viz., the basin or outer dock 650 feet long by 550 feet 
 wide, and the inner dock 2,150 feet long by 550 feet wide) 
 than they are shown to be upon the plan deposited, and 
 the inner dock is intended to be lengthened 50 feet ; and, 
 in consequence of those alterations, evidence was given as 
 to the insufficiency of the estimate ; but upon careful con- 
 sideration the Referees are of opinion that the sum 
 estimated will be sufficient for the execution of the pro- 
 posed enlarged works, which are all within the limits of 
 deviation. It was given in evidence that the estimate 
 lodged was prepared for the enlarged works/' 
 
 (a) The foreshore of the sea is prima facie the property of the Crown. 
 Individuals can have no right thereto, except by express grant from the 
 Crown or by prescription. By one or other of these titles, however, it is 
 not unfrequently vested in the Lord of the adjoining Manor. In the above 
 case the Referees reported the estimate insufficient for other reasons (see 
 p. 227).
 
 ROCK CUITINGS 231 
 
 Sect. XI. 
 
 DIFFERENT MATERIAL TO BE USED FROM THAT CONTEM- 
 PLATED IN ESTIMATE. 
 
 In the Connah's Quay Railway and Docks Bill, 1865, 
 258, which was a Bill to enable the Wrexham, Mold, and 
 Connah's Quay Raihvay to extend their line to Connah's 
 Quay, and to construct docks there, the original estimate 
 for the works proposed by the Bill, exclusive of railways, 
 was d£'275,000 ; but this included a certain diversion of the 
 course of the River Dee, which had been abandoned, and 
 the cost of which was estimated at d£'50,647. The estimate 
 for the remaining works was therefore ^£^224,353. The 
 Referees reported , " In the course of the enquiry before the 
 Referees, works were proposed to be executed in material 
 different from that contemplated by the estimate ; and it 
 was admitted that the estimates were not made for the 
 execution of the works according to the sections contained 
 in the deposited plans ; in fact, the Referees are of opinion 
 that the estimates have been so loosely made, that no 
 reliance could be placed upon them." 
 
 Sect. XII. 
 
 ROCK CUTTINGS — VAGUE AND UNSATISFACTORY EVIDENCE 
 AS TO SAME — ESTIMATE REPORTED INSUFFICENT. 
 
 In the Greenock Railway Bill, 1865, 187, a line of 15 
 miles in length was proposed from the Albert Harbour to 
 the Glasgow and South Western and Bridge of Weir Rail- 
 ways. In the view of the petitioners, the works could not 
 be executed for less than d£'38],170, including 10 per cent, 
 for contiugencies ; while the estimate for the promoters
 
 232 ESTIMATE FOR PORTION OF WORKS INSUFFICIENT. 
 
 amounted to no more than .^£'281, 890, without any specific 
 allowance for contingencies. The difference between these 
 sums was distributed over various items of expense, and 
 arose in a great measure from the different views enter- 
 tained as to the nature of the rocks through which the 
 works must be carried. Much of the evidence on either 
 side, on this point, was conjectural. It was stated by one 
 of the promoters' witnesses that trial-borings had been made 
 throughout the line, but no evidence was produced before 
 the Referees on this point. It was, however, stated on the 
 part of the promoters that their estimate was in a great 
 measure founded on the actual cost of a small tunnel and 
 the earthworks and the rock-cuttings on the Wemyss Bay 
 Railway, in course of construction in the immediate neigh- 
 bourhood. The Referees reported, " The Referees consider 
 that the promoters' estimate is vague and unsatisfactory for 
 works of such an expensive and heavy character. The 
 estimate for rock-cuttings and tunnels seem low, compai-ed 
 with the cost of similar works already constructed on other 
 railways. The margin for contingencies was stated by the 
 promoters to be satisfied by the prices allowed for the 
 works respectively. Taking the cost of land as given in 
 evidence at ^62,505, and the rest of the works at X^281,000, 
 the estimate being .^£'350,000, the Referees are of opinion 
 that the remaining surplus of =^0,605 bears a small pro- 
 portion to the expenditure on the works sought to be 
 authorised by the Bill." 
 
 Sect. XIII. 
 
 TAKING SCHEME AS A WHOLE, ESTIMATE SUPFICIENT ; THOUGH 
 ESTIMATE FOIl PARTICULAR PORTIONS OF WORKS INSUF- 
 FICIENT. 
 
 If, for example, the Bill propose to construct several 
 lines forming one scheme, and if the estimate for one of
 
 ESTIMATE FOR PORTION OF WORKS INSUFFICIENT. 233 
 
 them (a) prove insufficient, yet if the amount provided for 
 contingencies be large enough to cover the insufficiency, the 
 Referees may treat the whole as one scheme, and report that 
 the estimate, as for the whole intended works, is sufficient. 
 Thus, in the South Eastern and London, Chatham, and 
 Dover {London, Lewes, and Brighton) Raihuays Bill, 
 1866, ISi, it was admitted by the promoters that the slopes 
 for the cuttings and embankments on the Westerham 
 Branch Line must be rendered less steep than proposed ; 
 and that the alteration would involve an additional expense 
 of .^5,0 00, which would render the estimate for this branch, 
 if taken separately, insufficient for the execution of the 
 works. A similar alteration was also admitted to be neces- 
 sary on Xo. 4 Junction Line, at an additional cost of =£'4,000, 
 which would render the estimate for it, if taken separately, 
 insufficient. The Eeferees' report runs thus : — " The Re- 
 ferees, however, consider that all the lines proposed by this 
 Bill form parts of one whole scheme ; and as the aggregate 
 amount of contingencies (vCl 15,031} is so large, the Re- 
 ferees consider it may be proper to allow part thereof to be 
 applied towards the deficiencies which may occur in the 
 foregoing lines.'' In the Same Bill, ibid, it was further 
 objected as to Railway No. 4, that there would be a de- 
 ficiency of 663,000 cubic yards in the material required for 
 the embankments on this line. This was admitted to be 
 true, if this line were taken separately ; but it was a con- 
 tinuous lino with Nos. 3 and 5, and it was proved that 
 there would be a surplus of excavation upon those and 
 other adjacent lines belonging to this company sufficient to 
 make up the said deficiency. " The Referees therefore " — as 
 their report bears — " considering those lines as parts of one 
 scheme, are of opinion that sufficient provision has been 
 made for the construction of No. 4 Railway, and that the 
 estimate for the same is sufficient." The Referees adopted 
 a similar course in the Brixton, Glapham, and Balhani Ex- 
 tension Railway Bill, 1866, 165, where, it having been ob- 
 
 (a) It has been seen that a separate estimate must be made for each, ante, 
 p. 224.
 
 234 SEPAEATE ESTIMATE FOR PORTION OF LINK 
 
 jected that the sums taken in the estimate for earthworks 
 was insufficient, the Referees reported that, "taking the 
 railways " (5 in number) " proposed by the Bill as one 
 work, with regard to the cuttings and embankments, the 
 sums taken for earthworks are sufficient." And they again 
 followed the same rule in the City, Kingston, and Rich- 
 mond Railiuay Bill, 1866, 177. In this Bill the promoters 
 had agreed to carry Railway No. 2 across Fairfield recre- 
 ation grounds by a viaduct instead of an embankment, as 
 shown on the deposited plans, and that the cutting in which 
 that railway was to be carried across Ham Common should 
 be covered in with slopes at the sides of such covering not 
 exceeding 1 in 20, turfed over. The Referees reported that 
 the first of these alterations would add .^2,000, and the 
 latter .£'10,000 to the cost of construction ; and that if they 
 should be required by Parliament, and Line No. 2 were 
 taken as a separate line, the estimate for the same would 
 be insufficient ; but that they considered it to be a continu- 
 ation of Line No. 1, and an integral part of same ; that any 
 deficiency which might arise would occur from alteration of 
 the mode of construction proposed in the original estimate, 
 and not from any insufficiency of the estimate to execute 
 the works as proposed ; and that the sum provided for con- 
 tingencies (1 .5 per cent, on both lines) would in their opinion 
 be sufficient to execute the proposed amended works, if re- 
 quired. 
 
 Sect. XIV. 
 
 PLEA THAT PORTION OF LINE PROVIDED FOR BY ANOTHER 
 BILL BEFORE PARLIAMENT AND BY A SEPARATE ESTIMATE. 
 
 In the Acton and TivicTcenham Railway Bill, 1865, 
 193, the deposited estimate was o^ 120,000. The Referees 
 reported, " It was proved to the satisfaction of the Referees 
 that the works could not be constructed and the land pur- 
 chased for a less sum than d£' 200,000 ; and in case of a
 
 SEPARATE ESTIMATE FOR PORTION OF LINE. 235 
 
 culvert being required for drainage of a portion of the line 
 which was carried by a cutting under the Uxbridge Road, 
 a further sum of i^SjOOO would have to be provided. The 
 insufficiency of the estimate for the whole of the works pro- 
 posed to be constructed under this Bill was admitted on the 
 part of the promoters ; but it was stated that a portion of 
 the railway, namely, that from Acton to Brentford, was 
 provided for by another Bill now before Parliament ; and 
 that the plans and sections of this portion were deposited 
 in duplicate. It was stated that a sejDarate estimate of 
 .£'80,000 was deposited for that portion of the line ; and 
 that the estimate of ^^^ 120,000 was only intended for the 
 remaining works included in the Bill. It does not, how- 
 ever, appear that the deposited estimate for this Bill con- 
 tained any such limitations as to the works to which it was 
 to be applied. It is described as the estimate of the ex- 
 pense of the imdertaking comprised in the Bill, according 
 to the deposited plans and sections ; and, as these plans 
 refer to all the railways described in this Bill, the estimate 
 of .£'120,000 was wholly insufficient for the construction of 
 the works. If, however. Railway No. 1 is to be considered 
 as provided for by the separate estimate under the other 
 Bill, the Referees are of opinion that the estimate of 
 i?l 20,000 is sufficient for the remaining works." (a) 
 
 (a) The committee on this Bill reported (ISC'), 271) "that a report 
 from the Referees on Private Bills on the said 13111 had been referred to the 
 Committee, and had been considered by them. That it appeared by the 
 said report that the estimate was not sufficient for the proposed under- 
 taking. That, in consequence of the said report, the Committee did not 
 further examine the allegations contained in the preamble of the Bill, and 
 had determined to report that the same had not been proved to their satis- 
 faction." Later in the session the Bill was recommitted (for what reason 
 does not appear), when the Committee reported " that they had further 
 examined the allegations contained in the preamble of the Bill ; but that 
 the same had not been proved to their satisfaction."
 
 236 POETION OF PEOPOSED WORKS ABANDONED. 
 
 Sect. XY. 
 
 whether necessary to deposit estimate for the 
 expense of laying down an additional line upon 
 an existing line. 
 
 In the Swansea Vale Raihvay Bill, 1866, 245, power 
 was taken to lay down an additional rail or rails, so as to 
 allow the passage of carriages adapted to the narrow gauge, 
 over a certain part of the South Wales Railway, and the 
 whole of the Swansea Harbour Railway. The cost of la3dng 
 such rails would amount to ,^5,250. It was admitted that tiie 
 expense of laying said rails was not included in the estimate, 
 and that no estimate had been made or deposited for the 
 same, the promoters stating that they were under the im- 
 pression that an estimate was not necessary. The Referees 
 reported that " if it were necessary that the cost of laying 
 the said rails should be included in the estimate, the de- 
 posited estimate is insufficient ; but the Referees have every 
 reason to believe that it has not been the practice to deposit 
 an estimate of the expense of laying down an additional rail 
 upon an existing line, and are therefore of opinion that the 
 estimate is sufficient." 
 
 Sect. XVI. 
 
 HOW ESTIMATE, AS DEPOSITED, DEALT WITH WHERE 
 PORTION OF PROPOSED WORKS ABANDONED. 
 
 By the Glasgoiv and North Western Railway Bill, 
 1865, 369, it was originally proposed to make seven rail- 
 ways of the aggregate length of 33 miles ; and the de- 
 posited estimate was £300,000. The promoters, however, 
 abandoned 17 miles 62 chains of railway, leaving only 15 
 miles 18 chains to be constructed. The Referees' report
 
 PORTION OF PROPOSED WORKS ABANDONED, -gSy 
 
 bears, " the Referees received evidence from the petitioners 
 and the promoters upon the sufficiency of the deposited 
 estimate for the whole works in the Bill, and also of the 
 amount of it to be apportioned to the works which are to 
 be constructed. The estimate of the promoters for these 
 works is .^£'184,290, the original estimate being ^£^300,000, 
 and the sum required for the construction of the works now 
 remaining to be authorised by the Bill being £134,290. 
 The Referees are of opinion that the deposited estimate 
 would have been sufficient, and that the works which have 
 not been abandoned can be constructed at the estimated 
 cost of £134,290/^ (a) 
 
 (a) Extract from the evidence before the Select Committee on the 
 Ketcrees, vide Report, p. 20. 
 
 "179. Mr. WooDD (to Mr. Hassard). Has it ever occurred to you that 
 parties have, when making their estimate insufficient, proposed to cut off 
 part of the works, so that the estimate should be sufficient '\ Yes, when 
 presiding over a Committee. 
 
 " 180. But as Referee ] I do not think so in that case ; it did occur in 
 a case where a double work was contemplated by the Bill, but in that case 
 there was a portion of the estimate assigned for that work ; that work waa 
 abandoned ; we struck out the correlative part of the estimate, and pro- 
 ceeded upon the part left ; we always adopted the practice of striking out 
 an equivalent portion of the estimate. 
 
 "181. The case I referred to was that in which the estimate was found 
 to be insufficient, and where they proposed to leave out a part of the work, 
 so that the money should be sufficient for the remainder] {Mr. Adair.) 
 A case occurred before me this session which, in practice, may lead to a 
 disregard of the Standing Orders of Parliament. A Scotch company pro- 
 posed to construct a certain work, the estimate for which was a certain 
 sum ; the company abandoned a considerable poi-tion of their work in 
 deference, as was stated, to the opposition they met with from other com- 
 panies, and they then came before us with a reduced estimate; we had to con- 
 sider the whole estimate for the original scheme, and then to subtract, as 
 well as we could, the value of the abandoned part of the scheme, and then 
 to find whether the residuum of the estimate was sufficient for the resi- 
 duum of the works; but the consequence might have been that the 
 original estimate would have been quite insufficient for the whole scheme, 
 and yet they got through a portion of the scheme by abandoning that for 
 which their whole estimate would not have been sufficient. I only direct 
 the attention of the Committee to that, because it is one of the numerous 
 ways in which great difficulties may arise."
 
 238 PRICE PAID FOR SIMILAR WORK. 
 
 Sect. XVII. 
 
 EVIDENCE — PRICE PAID FOR LAND IN THE DISTRICT BY 
 OTHER COMPANIES, PROVED. 
 
 In the Cannock Chase and Wolverhampton Railway 
 {Hednesford Extension) Bill, 1866, 118, the petitioners 
 objected that, in the estimate for the proposed railway, the 
 amounts taken for land, &c., was insufficient. The promoters 
 proved that the price for the land " was equal to that given 
 for the purposes of mauy railways in the district/' The 
 Referees reported that the estimate was sufficient. 
 
 Sect. XVIII. 
 
 EVIDENCE — PRICE PAID FOR SIMILAR WORK IN NEIGHBOUR- 
 HOOD, PROVED. 
 
 In the Croydon, Mitcham, and Kingston Railway 
 Bill, 1866, 92, the sufficiency of the estimate having been 
 questioned, the Referees received evidence, " that for similar 
 works now under construction in the same neighbourhood, 
 the prices were less than those contained in the estimate," 
 and that the land generally was of a quality not calculated 
 to command a higher price than that stated in the estimate ; 
 and they reported that the estimate was sufficient. See also 
 the Macclesfield, Knutsford, and Warrington Railway 
 Bill, 1865, 93, where the sufficiency of the estimate was ques- 
 tioned in regard, inter alia, to bridges over public roads. 
 The Referees " received evidence to show that the bridges 
 for public roads were of the same description and price as 
 those built for railways constructed in the neighbouring 
 districts, by the engineer of the company ; " and they 
 reported that the estimate was sufficient.
 
 ESTIMATE INSUFFICIENT IF OPEN VIADUCT REQUIRED. 239 
 
 Sect. XIX. 
 
 EVIDENCE — INCLINATION OF SLOPES OF EMBANOIENTS OF 
 NEIGHBOURING RAILWAYS ON SIMILAR SOIL, PROVED. 
 
 In the Pembroke and Tenby Railway Bill, 1866, 256, 
 which was a Bill to extend the Pembroke and Tenby Rail- 
 way to Caermarthen and Milford Haven, the Great 
 Western objected that the estimate was insufficient, both 
 for the quantity and price of earthworks and for the 
 bridges, especially the bridge over the River Towy. The 
 promoters contended that the petitioners' objection to the 
 estimate for cuttings resolved itself, as far as quantity was 
 concerned, into the question of the feasibility of the inclina- 
 tion of the slopes and embankments of the railways, which 
 they maintained were similar to those through similar soil 
 in neighbouring railways, and that the sums set down in 
 this respect, and also for the River Towy and other bridges, 
 would be sufficient. The Referees reported that the esti- 
 mate was sufficient. 
 
 Sect. XX. 
 
 ESTIMATE REPORTED SUFFICIENT FOR WORKS PROPOSED, 
 BUT INSUFFICIENT IF BOARD OF TRADE SHOULD ORDER 
 VIADUCT INSTEAD OF SOLID EMBANKMENT. 
 
 In the Whitehaven and Furness Junction Raihvay 
 Bill, 1865, 80, the Furness Railway objected that it was 
 proposed to carry the railway across the Duddon estuary 
 for upwards of 2f miles upon a solid embankment, with 
 only .350 yards of open viaduct, and that, if so constructed, 
 the effect of the works would be to silt up the sands above 
 the embankment, diminish the area of the tidal basin, and 
 eventually injure materially the Duddon and Barrow
 
 240 EXPENSE OF SUBSTITUTING OTHER ROADS. 
 
 Channels. The Referees reported that the engineering works 
 would be defective, unless the Board of Trade were em- 
 powered to require that an open viaduct be substituted for 
 so much of the solid embankment as they might think 
 requisite ; and they further reported, " The estimate is 
 sufficient for the works as proposed, and some margin has 
 been provided for contingencies ; but if an open viaduct 
 should have to be substituted for a large portion of the em- 
 bankment, the sum estimated would be insufficient to de- 
 fray the increased cost." 
 
 Sect. XXI. 
 
 ESTIMATE REPORTED SUFFICIENT "WITH ECONOMY." 
 
 In the Leeds, Yorkshire, and Durham, Railway Bill, 
 1865, 219, which was a Bill to authorise the construction of 
 21 railways, the Eeferees reported that, having carefully 
 examined the estimate, they were of opinion that, " with 
 rigid economy,'' the same would be sufficient: and in 
 the North British Raihuay (Lasswade, &c., Branches, 
 Bill, 1865, 174, they reported the estimate sufficient, "if 
 economy be exercised ; but very little margin has been pro- 
 vided.'^ 
 
 Sect. XXII. 
 
 EXPENSE OF SUBSTITUTING OTHER ROADS FOR THOSE TO 
 BE INTERFERED WITH. 
 
 By the Railway Clauses Act, 1845, sect. 53-4 (a), it is pro- 
 vided that before cutting through, raising, sinking, or using 
 any part of any road, whether carriage road, horse road, 
 tram road, or railway, either public or private, so as to 
 
 (rt) Similar provisions in Railways Clauses (Scotland) Act, 1845, sects. 
 40, 47.
 
 EXPENSE OF GAS AND WATER PIPES. 241 
 
 render it impassable, the company must cause a sufficient 
 road to be substituted. The expense of compliance with 
 this section must necessarily be considerable where a 
 number of roads are to be interfered with, as in the Leeds, 
 N(yrth Yw^kshire, and Durham Raihvay Bill, 1865, 219, 
 in which it was matter of complaint that " the proposed 
 railways will cross 73 public roads on the level." 
 
 Sect. XXIIL 
 
 expense of providing other gas and water pipes 
 before interfering with existing pipes. 
 
 By the 19th section of the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, (a) 
 good and sufficient mains or pipes, syphons, plugs, and all 
 other works necessary or proper for continuing tlie supply 
 of water or gas, must at the expense of the company have 
 been first laid down in lieu of existing ones, before such 
 existing mains, pipes, &c., can be removed or displaced. 
 The expense Avhich this provision is likely to entail on the 
 company, may no doubt be, in most cases, inconsiderable. 
 But in lines running for any distance in towns, and particu- 
 larly in metropolitan lines, it may become necessary to 
 scrutinize the estimate in respect to this matter. 
 
 (n) Similar provision in Railways Clauses (Scotland) Act, 1845, sect.. 10. 
 
 n
 
 242 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 ESTIMATES.— OBJECTIONS IN RESPECT OF THE OMISSION 
 OR UNDER-ESTIMATE OF CLAIMS OF COMPENSATION. 
 
 In a previous chapter on the subject of proposed interfe- 
 rence with the private property of individuals, it was pointed 
 out that such interference, though amounting to the total ac- 
 quisition or destruction of the property, did not constitute 
 any objection to the proposed line in an engineering point of 
 view, but was merely matter for compensation under the 
 Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, ]845. In all cases, 
 therefore, where the property of individuals is proposed to be 
 acquired or " injuriously affected," the estimate, if not suffi- 
 cient to cover claims for compensation, is open to objection. 
 
 Sect. I. 
 
 ESTIMATE INSUFFICIENT, LOOKING TO AMOUNT OF COM- 
 PENSATION CLAIMABLE. 
 
 In the East and West Junction Railway Bill, 1865, 66, 
 the Referees reported, " that upon a careful examination of 
 the estimated and probable cost of the proposed works, and 
 after having examined experienced land and house valuers 
 on behalf of both promoters and opponents," they were of 
 opinion that the proposed line could not be constructed for 
 the sum in the estimate, " sufficient provision not having
 
 WHERE PRIVATE PROPERTY INTERFERED WITH. 243 
 
 been made for the purchase of valuable property in the 
 town of Northamjoton and for eontiugencies." 
 
 In the Truro Water Bill, 1866, 94, certain owners and 
 occupiers of mills on the River Allen, alleged that they 
 would be deprived of their supply of water, and no pro- 
 vision was made for a compensation reservoir for their 
 benefit. The promoters stated that they were prepared to 
 make compensation, in water and money, to the petitioners- 
 The Referees reported, that " taking into account the 
 amount of compensation the promoters will be liable to pay> 
 the estimate is insufficient for the objects proposed by the 
 Bill." From a report of the same case, which appears in 
 the 14 Lavj Times, 151, it appears that the opponents 
 having proposed to ask the promoters' engineer what money 
 compensation had been provided for those injuriously affected 
 by the works, no compensation reservoir appearing on the 
 deposited plans, it was objected for the promoters that such 
 an enquiry was beyond the province of the Referees, but 
 the Court held that they had jurisdiction to inquire into 
 and report upon the money compensation. 
 
 Sect. II. 
 
 WHERE PRIVATE PROPERTY INTERFERED WITH, PETITIONERS 
 SHOULD ATTACK ESTIMATES RATHER THAN ENGINEERING 
 DETAILS. 
 
 This follows from the rule already stated. In a num- 
 ber of cases, however, so far as appears, objections were 
 stated to the engineering details only, and not to the esti- 
 mates. Thus, in the Leeds, North Yorkshire, and Durham 
 RailvKty Bill, 1865, 119, it was objected that the proposed 
 raising of a certain bridge 7 feet for Railway No. ] , would 
 cause the approaches to M.'s land to be more steep, and that 
 Railway No. 1 would destroy a certain plot of land which 
 has been laid out for the erection of mills and wharves. 
 
 R 2
 
 244 WHERE PRIVATE PROPERTY INTERFERED WITH. 
 
 The Referees reported thus, " The Referees are of opinion 
 that the matters complained of relate to a claim for com- 
 pensation rather than to an engineering defect, and they 
 do not consider that, so far as this petition is concerned^ 
 there are any engineering obstacles to the execution of the 
 proposed railway." And in the Same Bill, p. 220, the 
 Referees further reported, " A petition was also presented 
 on behalf of the owners of Ampleforth College, in the 
 county of York, but the subject of their complaint being, 
 in the opinion of the Referees, rather a question of residen- 
 tial damage, the Referees do not offer any opinion thereon." 
 And in the North of England Union Railway Bill, 1865, 
 235, where a petition was presented on behalf of the Keld 
 Head Mining Company, complaining that tlie proposed 
 railway would pass through the works of the petitioners, 
 take away their water supply, and cut up their dressing 
 floor, the Referees reported, " Evidence was given that the 
 proposed railway passes through the works of the petitioners, 
 causing a very small amount of inconvenience or damage, 
 that it is not intended to interfere with the water supply, 
 and that other dressing floors can be provided upon the 
 premises. The Referees are of opinion that there are not 
 any engineering objections to carrying the said railway 
 through the said works." 
 
 In one case, however — the South Lancashire Railways 
 and Dock Bill, 1865, 273 — the Referees considered the 
 petitioners' objections as of so weighty a nature, that they 
 reported the proposed line defective in an engineering point 
 of view in that respect. The facts were these : — The 
 lessees of the Ince and Hindley Colliery objected that Rail- 
 way No. 2 would cut off their access to Top Pit, by crossing 
 their tramway leading to the same, and would cut through 
 and destroy a triple set of sidings now used for marshalling 
 their coal waggons, with a cutting of three feet in depth so 
 as to necessitate the alteration of those lines. The pro_ 
 meters stated that those sidings could be re-arranged, but 
 they admitted that they had not made any provision for 
 such re-arrangement, nor had they made any provision in
 
 VALUE OF PHOPERTY IN TOWNS. 245 
 
 their estimate for any compensation to the petitioners. The 
 E«ferees reported, that " the proposed mode of dealing with 
 the tramway to the Top Pit and the marshalUng sidings is 
 defective in an engineering point of view." Soon after, a 
 similar question arose in the Afon Valley Raihvay Bill, 
 1865, 315. Certain petitioners having objected that Rail- 
 way No. 2 would cross several mineral tramways belonging 
 to them, in such a manner that the levels of the said tram- 
 ways would require to be altered, in order to give sufficient 
 headway for locomotive engines to pass under them ; the 
 promoters admitted that the said tramways had been treated 
 as if they were private roads, and that no specific arrange- 
 ments had been made for the alteration thereof, neither had 
 any sum been included in the estimate for such alteration. 
 The Referees reported, " The collieries to which the said 
 tramways give access are of considerable value (estimated 
 by the owners as of the value of i?50,000), and unless 
 suitable provision be made for working them, a very heavy 
 sum may have to be paid for compensation for damage 
 thereto. But there are no engineering difficulties in the 
 construction of that part of Railway No. 2." They further 
 reported, that " the sum estimated is sufficient for the exe- 
 cution of the works proposed," 
 
 Sect. 111. 
 value of property in towns. — contingent and remote 
 
 INJURY. 
 
 The evidence on this subject fas in compensation cases), 
 is often of the most conflicting nature. The two cases 
 which immediately follow will illustrate the wide flifference 
 which sometimes appears between the estimate of the pro- 
 moters' witnesses and that of the witnesses for the peti- 
 tioners. In the Belfast New Streets Bill, 1865, 2U1, the 
 sufficiency of the deposited estimate, of65,300, was disputed
 
 246 VALUE OF PROPERTY IN TOWNS. 
 
 Two surveyors for the petitioners placed the amount at 
 ,^1 15,795, but they stated that they had not taken into 
 consideration any sum to be derived from the resale of such 
 portions of the property taken as were not required for the 
 contemplated works. For the promoters two valuators 
 placed the amount at £64,570 and .£'59,657 respectively. 
 The Referees reported that the estimate was sufficient. And 
 in the North London, Highgate, and A lexandra Park 
 Railway Bill, 1865, 172, the estimate for the railway, which 
 was a line of four miles from the Caledonian Road Station of 
 the North London Railway to the Alexandra Park, was ob- 
 jected to on the ground that the value set down for land to 
 be taken was inadequate. On this point, evidence was given 
 on either side by surveyors and land valuers of great expe- 
 rience in the metropolis, and who were frequently engaged 
 in valuations and purchasing property taken by railway 
 companies. The value of the property to be taken was 
 estimated by the petitioners at the several sums of ^£'180,980 
 and £176,000. A valuation agreed upon by some of the 
 different surveyors consulted by the promoters, placed it at 
 about o£'84,400, while the maximum estimate of any sur- 
 veyor consulted by the promoters was .£'89,370. The 
 Referees were of opinion that the estimates of the pro- 
 moters were founded on a more accurate knowledge of the 
 property to be taken, and it, moreover, appeared that in 
 the case of one property, the value of which and the inte- 
 rest belonging to which were much in dispute, it had 
 been valued by a surveyor who had actually arranged 
 with the occupiers, except in one instance; and that gene- 
 rally greater care was taken to ascertain in detail the value 
 of the different premises. The deposited estimate is 
 d£'29O,000, and the estimate of the value of the works 
 agreed upon by both parties was £180,325. There remains 
 ,^^109,672 for the purchase of land to satisfy the promoters' 
 highest estimate of £89,370. The Referees, therefore, are 
 of opinion that the estimate of the promoters is suffi- 
 cient." 
 
 " Fancy " In the Piccadilly and Park Lane New Road Bill, 1 865, 
 
 value.
 
 VALUE OF PROPERTY IN TOWNS. 247 
 
 196, the proposed roadway through Hamilton Place to Park 
 Lane would cut off a small portion (about 20 superficial 
 feet), from the garden of house No. 5, and it would intersect 
 and take away a large portion of the garden of house No. 6. 
 According to the arrangement proposed by the promoters, 
 the space taken from the garden of No. 5 would be com- 
 pensated for by throwing into it a much larger piece of 
 ground (about 1,000 superficial feet), and they considered that 
 by so doing they would indemnify the proprietors, and leave 
 no further claim for compensation in respect of No. 5. The 
 deterioration which would be caused to No. 6 by the loss of 
 garden ground and other injury was estimated by them at 
 £6,600, which their estimate would be just sufficient to 
 cover. According to the valuations of the witnesses for the 
 petitioners, on the other hand, there would be a deteriora- 
 tion in value of No. 5, amounting to £8,000, and of No, 6, 
 amounting to £6,000. The Referees reported, that " The 
 evidence on this part of the case was very conflicting, but it 
 appeared to the Referees that the houses in question, from 
 their peculiar character and the circumstances of their posi- 
 tion, possess to a considerable extent what may be called a 
 " fancy " or speculative value, depending on individual taste 
 and sentiment, and, therefore, not capable of being esti- 
 mated according to a sti'ict standard of market value. Such 
 being the case, the Referees, feeling the difficulty of arriving 
 at a precise conclusi(jn, and of determining beforehand what 
 the value of the })roperty in question may be, in case the 
 proposed roadway should be constructed, are not prepared 
 to pronounce a positive opinion that the estimate of the 
 promoters will prove insufficient for the purpose of the re. 
 quired compensation." 
 
 In the Saine Bill, among the opponents were certain Contingent 
 lessees under the crown of houses in Hamilton Place, and ^^^ remote 
 in the part of Piccadilly adjoining thereto, which were not 
 actually taken or physically interfered with, but which it 
 was alleged Avould be injuriously affected and depreciated in 
 value by the conversion of Hamilton Place from a cul de
 
 248 LAND INCREASED IN VALUE SINCE ESTIMATE MADE. 
 
 eac into a public thoroughfare. The Referees reported that 
 this class of petitioners, " in order to make good their claims 
 to compensation, would have to bring their respective cases 
 ■within the operation of the 68th section of the Lands 
 Clauses Consolidation Aet, under the category of lands or 
 houses ' injuriously affected ' by tlie construction of the 
 works. Such cases may involve some important questions 
 of law, and may possibly come under the adjudication of 
 the legal tribunals, and the Referees desire to refrain from 
 giving any opinion as to the validity or invalidity of such 
 claims, but it appears to them that claims of this nature 
 founded ujion allegations of contingent and consequential 
 injury, in respect of which the promoters entirely deny their 
 liability, are not such expenses as they (the promoters), are 
 required to provide for in their parliamentary estimate/' 
 
 Sect. IV. 
 
 WHAT IF THE LAND HAS INCREASED IN VALUE SINCE 
 
 ESTIMATE MADK 
 
 In the Caledonian Railway {Lanarkshire, &e. Branches) 
 Bill, 1866, 215, it was admitted by the promoters that the 
 estimate for the land required for Railway No. 10, would be 
 deficient by a sum of about ^£'1,500 ; " but the land through 
 which the said railway is to run has been feued and greatly 
 developed since the making of the survey for the said line, 
 so as to cause a great difference between its present value 
 and the apparent value at the time of the said survey ; and 
 in addition to the per-centage (15 per cent, on the works), 
 provided in the estimate for Railway No. 10, a sum of 
 £8,400 was provided for general contingencies which may 
 occur in the execution of all the railways comprised in this 
 Bill. The Referees are of opinion that, under all the cir- 
 cumstances, a portion of the said sum of £8,400 may be
 
 LAND ON WHICH WORKS PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED. 249 
 
 fairly applied to supply the defect on No. 10, and that in 
 such case the estimate for the same will be sufficient." 
 
 (See South Eastern, &c., Bill, and other cases cited 
 pp. 233—4.) 
 
 Sect. V. 
 
 WHAT IF NO ACTUAL VALUATION OF LAND, ETC., MADE 
 
 FOR ESTIMATE. 
 
 In the Huddersfield and Halifax Railxvay Bill, 1866, 
 162, the Referees reported "The estimate is, in the opinion 
 of the Referees, insufficient for the execution of the works 
 proposed ; in fact no actual valuation of the lands required 
 to be taken was* made previous to the deposit of the esti- 
 mate, or until some months afterwards." 
 
 Sect, VI. 
 
 VALUE OF LAND ON WHICH ANOTHER COMPANY HAVE 
 PARTIALLY CONSTRITCTED WORKS. 
 
 In the Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway 
 {Northern Lines) Bill, 186G, 223, the Mid Wales Railway 
 objected to the estimates under the following circum- 
 stances : — The proposed line between Tal-y-Uyn and the 
 Three Cocks Junction would be laid down for its whole 
 length over lands purchased by the petitioners for doubling 
 their line ; and at the stations at Treifeinon and Talgarth it 
 would occupy their second line of rail : the promoters re- 
 plied that the object of their railway was the doulding of 
 the petitioners' single lino of railway, over which they liad 
 running powers : the petitioners " also objected to the esti- 
 mate as insufficient in both the price and quantity of the 
 land, especially with reference to its enhanced value, by 
 reason of the works already executed upon it, the amount of
 
 250 TAKING PART OF HOUSE, ETC. 
 
 excavation, and the overbridges/' It was admitted by the 
 promoters that they had made their estimate for the laud 
 at its agricultural value only. The Referees reported that 
 the estimate was insufficient. 
 
 Sect. VII. 
 
 WHEN PROMOTERS TAKING PART OF HOUSE, MANUFACTORY, 
 ETC., MAY BE REQUIRED TO TAKE WHOLE. 
 
 The Lauds Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 Vict. c. 18), 
 sect, 92 (a) provides. 
 
 No paHy to " A.nd be it enacted. That no party shall at any time 
 
 he required to \jq reniiu'ed to sell or convey to the promoters of the under- 
 
 sea part of a "^ ^ 
 
 house, d-c. taking a part only of any house or other building or manu- 
 
 factory, if such jiarty be wilHug and able to sell and convey 
 the whole thereof" 
 
 In the Glasgow and South Western Raihuay (Kilmar- 
 nock Direct) Bill, 1865, 78, it was objected that the esti- 
 mate was insufficient for that, inasmuch as Railway No. 1 
 passes over the lands of Mr. Dixon, now occupied as the 
 Govan Ironworks, and which works, with the land, were 
 valued at <i6'350,000, the company could be compelled to 
 purchase the entire of Mr. Dixon's interest in the said 
 works and land," The Referees reported that, "If the 
 company should be compelled so to do, the estimate will be 
 insufficient ; but, if not, the Referees are of opinion that the 
 estimate is sufficient for the works proposed. The Govan 
 Ironworks are already divided by a jDarish road." In the 
 Buckley Railway (Docks, etc,) Bill, 1866, 105, the Con- 
 nah's Quay Chemical Company alleged that the construc- 
 tion of the docks would injuriously affect their property ; 
 that by the proximity of the excavation to the foundation 
 of their condenser, the safety of the building would be en- 
 
 (a) Similar provision in Lauds Clauses (Scotland) Act, sect. 90.
 
 TAKING PART OF HOUSE, ETC. 251 
 
 dangered ; that the drainage from their works would be 
 intercepted, their access to the River Dee be stopped, their 
 supply of water from the Wepre Brook be cut off, and the 
 ground on which they deposit the debris produced by their 
 manufactory, taken from them. They also objected that the 
 sidings of the railway were inconvenient and objectionable, 
 both owing to their level, which was 3 feet above the floor 
 of their buildings, and because they had been so laid out as 
 to involve the necessity of taking the condenser. The pro- 
 moters stated that " they expected to carry out their works 
 of excavation without injury to the condenser, but that 
 they were prepared, if necessary, to rebuild it elsewhere on 
 the premises of the petitioners ; that the drainage from the 
 manufactory could be carried by a pipe to the river, and a 
 supply of water by similar means could be obtained from 
 the Wepre Brook for their use ; that access to the dock 
 could be afforded by a siding ; and sufficient land, within 
 the limits of deviation, could be provided for the deposit of 
 the debris." The Referees reported that " The estimate 
 is sufficient for the works as proposed, including the re- 
 moval of the condenser, if necessary ; but that, in the event 
 of the entire chemical works, on which <£*'iO,000 have been 
 expended, being taken by the promoters, no provision has 
 been made in the estimate for this purpose. Subject to the 
 foregoing remark, the Referees are of opinion that the esti- 
 mate is sufficient." 
 
 In the Siuansea and C'lydach Railway Bill, 1866, 263, Proposal to 
 which was a Bill for making a railway from the South o^LamiV 
 Wales Railway near Swansea to Clydach, it was objected Clauses Act. 
 that the estimate for land and buildings was insufficient. 
 The Referees reported, " In incorporating ' The Lands 
 Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,' in tlieir Bill, the pro- 
 moters propose to omit sect. 92 ; and they admitted that if 
 this omission should not be sanctioned by the Committee on 
 the Bill, their estimate for land and liuildings will be insuffi- 
 cient. Subject to this remark, the Referees arc of opinion 
 . . . . that the estimate is sufficient.' 
 
 While, however, in all cases where part of a manufactory Promoters 
 
 may deduct
 
 252 CONTINGENCIES IN CONSTRUCTION OF WORKS. 
 
 value of (as in the North of England Union Railway Bill, ante, 
 
 &c^ where ' P* 244), 01" where part of " Houses " — which term includes 
 required to gardens attached to houses — (as in the Piccadilly and 
 Park Lam Neiu Road Bill, ante, p. 246) is proposed to be 
 taken, it is competent to the opponents to object that suffi- 
 cient compensation has not been provided in the estimate 
 for the whole property, yet it must be borne in mind that 
 it is competent for the promoters to deduct, from the value 
 of the property as a whole, such sum as the portions thereof 
 not required by them for the purposes of their undertaking, 
 would fetch when resold. The company are required by the 
 127th section of the Lands Clauses Act, to sell surplus 
 land within ten years after the time limited for the com- 
 pletion of the works, or within such time as may have been 
 prescribed by the special Act for this purpose. In the 
 North London, Highgate, and Alexandra Park Railway 
 Bill (1 S. & G. 118), the question first arose, whether the 
 promoters were so entitled to deduct the value of surplus 
 land. The point was specially argued before the Referees, 
 who, after taking time to consider, gave their decision that 
 "■' the promoters of a Bill are at liberty to include in their 
 estimate the expected proceeds of a resale of land not re- 
 quired for the purposes of the undertaking." The point, 
 therefore, may now be considered as settled. The same 
 practice was followed in the Belfast Neiu Streets Bill, 1865, 
 291, ante, p. 245, 
 
 Sect. VIII. 
 
 ESTIMATE NEED NOT PROVIDE FOR REMOTE CONTINGENCIES 
 IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF WORKS. 
 
 In the Birkenhead and Liverpool Raihvay Bill, 1865, 
 285, the estimates were alleged to be insufficient ; and 
 evidence was given that extraordinary difficulties might be 
 encountered by the meeting with faults and strata charged 
 with water and other serious obstacles in the execution of
 
 PROMOTERS REQUIRED TO TAKE INTERSECTED LANDS. 253 
 
 the tunnel under the River Mersey, (a) The Referees reported 
 that " it is possible that such extraordinary difficulties may 
 arise ; but the Referees are of opinion that the occurrence 
 of them will be so uncertain that it would not be just to 
 require the promoters to provide against them in the 
 estimate."' 
 
 Sect. IX. 
 
 WHEN PROMOTERS MAY BE REQUIRED TO TAKE WHOLE 
 OF INTERSECTED LANDS. 
 
 By the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,(6) the 
 following provisions are made in regard hereto : — 
 
 " And with respect to small portions of intei-sected intersected 
 
 land, be it enacted as follows : lands. 
 
 "93. If any lands, not being situate in a town or Oioners of 
 
 built upon, shall be so cut throui(h and divided by the ^'^^'^■"''^^^^ 
 ^ ' " ■' lands may 
 
 works as to leave, either on both sides or on one side require pro- 
 
 thereof, a less quantity of land than half a statute acre, and '"^ ^T^ ° ,, 
 ^ i- J ' purchase the 
 
 if the owner of such small parcel of land require the pro- same, 
 moters of undertaking to purchase the same along with the 
 othf-r land required for the purposes of the special act, the 
 promoteifi of tlie undertaking shall purcha.se the same ac- 
 cordingly, luilfss the owner thereof have other land adjoin- 
 ing to that so left into which the same can be thrown, so 
 aa to be conveniently occupied therewith ; and, if such or to throw 
 owner have any other land so adjoining, the promoters of ^^to adjoining 
 the undertaking shall, if so required by the owner, at their 
 own expense, throw the j)iece of land so left into such 
 adjoining land, by removing the fences and levelling the 
 sites thereof, and by aoihng the same in a sufficient and 
 workmanlike manner. 
 
 " 'J 4. If any sucli land shall be so cut through and ^'•""'."'T^ 
 
 '' ° mai/ i7istst on 
 
 purchase of 
 
 1 71 t€7*SCCt€(i' 
 
 (a) Tlii.s tunnel would be for 4,278 yards under the high water mark of lands where 
 the river. See p. 6. expense of 
 
 {h) Similar provisions in I^^nds Clauses (Scotland') Act, 184.5, sects, iridoes ic 
 ' exceeds the 
 
 value.
 
 254 
 
 COMPENSATION FOR TEMPORARY USE OF LAND. 
 
 divided as to leave on either side of tlie works a piece of 
 land of less extent than half a statute acre, or of less value 
 than the exj)ense of making a bridge, culvert, or such 
 other communication between the land so divided as the 
 promoters of the undertaking are, under the provisions of 
 this or the special act, or any act incorporated therewith, 
 compellable to make, and if the owner of such lands have 
 not other lands adjoining such piece of land, and require 
 the promoters of the undertaking to make such communica- 
 tion, then the promoters of the undertaking may require 
 such owner to sell to them such piece of land. . . . " 
 
 Sect. X. 
 
 COMPENSATION FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF LAND, 
 
 ROADS, ETC. 
 
 Temporary 
 use of land. 
 
 Companj' 
 may be 
 compelled to 
 purchase. 
 
 The temporary use of lands &c,, is not unfreqiiently 
 necessary for tlie construction of the proposed line and 
 works. The estimate should be sufficient to cover claims 
 for compensation in respect of such temporary use. The 
 enactments on this subject are contained in the Kailways 
 Clauses Act, 1845 {a). Section SO provides that the com- 
 pany may occupy temporarily private roads within 500 
 yards of the railway, paying compensation to the owners 
 and occupiers. By section 32 the company may take tem- 
 porary possession of land for the purposes of taking earth 
 or soil by side cuttings therefrom ; or of depositing soil 
 thereon ; or of obtaining materials therefrom for the construc- 
 tion or repair of the railway and accommodation works ; or 
 of forming roads thereon. By section 42, owners of lands 
 so temporarily occupied may compel the company to pur- 
 chase the said lands. Section 48 provides that where the 
 company shall not be required to purchase such lands, they 
 
 (rt) Similar provisions in Kailways Clauses (Scotland) Act, 1845, sect. 
 25, et seq.
 
 ACCOMMODATION WORKS. 255 
 
 are to make compensation for such temporary occupation, 
 to pay rent and pay the full value of all clay, stone, gravel, 
 sand, and other things taken from such lands. 
 
 Sect. XL 
 
 ACCOMMODATION WORKS. 
 
 As to the works which it is necessary to provide for the 
 accommodation of proprietors and tenants through whose 
 lands the line passes, see p. 102. 
 
 In the Macclesfield, Knutsford, and Warrington Rail- 
 ivay Bill, 1866, 93, the estimate was objected to as being 
 insufficient for the execution of accommodation and other 
 works. As to the accommodation works, the promoters 
 adduced evidence to show that the reason why they had not 
 included the usual amount per mile for such works, other 
 than those specified on the plans and sections, " was be- 
 cause by communication with the greater part of the owners 
 and occupiers, they had already ascertained and provided 
 for their actual requirements in this respect." The Referees 
 reported the estimate sufficient. 
 
 In the Ilalesotven and Brortisgrove Railway Bill, 1866, 
 23-5, the estimate was alleged to be " insufficient for ac- 
 commodation bridges and works, culverts, drains, and river 
 bridge, and for land and buildings." It was shown that 
 the sum sot down in these respects in the estimate for 
 Railway No. 1 , and especially for the severance of land and 
 buililings (for which no provision appeared to have been 
 made), would be inadequate. The Referees reported the 
 estimate for No. 1 was insufficient.
 
 256 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 ESTIMATES.— FOR WHAT COMPENSATION IS CLAIMABLE. 
 
 Sect. I. 
 
 THE SUBJECT GENERALLY. 
 
 The Referees having no power to adjudicate on points of 
 law, it is, of course, not within their province to decide 
 whether particular petitioners are entitled to compensation 
 under the Lands Clauses Act, or whether in consequence they 
 are entitled to challenge the estimates on the ground that 
 such compensation has not been provided for in the estimate. 
 In the Piccadilly and Park Lane New Road Bill, 1865, 
 1 96, for example, where the promoters disputed whether 
 the lands, &c-, of certain petitioners were " injuriously- 
 affected " within the meaning of the 68th section, the 
 Referees reported " that such cases might involve some im- 
 portant questions of law, and may possibly come under the 
 adjudication of the legal tribunals. The Referees desired 
 to refrain from giving any opinion as to the validity or 
 invalidity of such claims ; but it appears clear to them that 
 claims of this nature, founded upon contingent and conse- 
 quential injury, in respect of which the promoters entirely 
 deny their liabiUty, are not such expenses as they (the pro- 
 moters) are required to provide for in their parliamentary 
 estimate."
 
 COMPENSATION FOR INTERFERENCE WITH RO^UDS. 257 
 
 In cases, however, where from decisions of the courts of 
 law it appears tliat the i)etitioners are so "injuriously 
 affected " as to be undoubtedly entitled to compensation, it 
 is apprehended that the Referees will take judicial notice of 
 such decisions, and will act on them. 
 
 There are two distinct classes of cases in which compen- 
 sation must be paid by the company, (1) where land, &c. 
 is actually taken, and (2) where land, &c. is " injuriously 
 affected," although not actually taken. In the first case, by 
 section 63 of the Lands Clauses Act, the purchase money or 
 compensation shall include the damage caused by severance 
 or by " injuriously affecting " other lands adjoining. Difficult Meaning of 
 questions, however, have arisen as to when lands, &c. are to aSccted/"^ ^ 
 be considered as " injuriously affected." In Chamberlain 
 V. West End of London and Crystal Palace Railway 
 Convpany, .'il, L. J. Q. B. 201, it was observed by Cock- 
 burn, C. J., "The test now laid down in this Court and which 
 appears to me to be the true one, is, whether an action 
 would have lain for the injury but for the statute autho- 
 rising the formation of the railway ; and if it would, then 
 the land is injuriously affected, and compensation may be 
 required and awarded." 
 
 The various decisions on this subject are, in this chapter, 
 collected and arranged for convenient reference in the Court 
 Rooms of the Referees. 
 
 Sect. II. 
 
 COMPENSATION CONSEQUENT ON INTERFERENCE WlTTT 
 ROADS AND STREETS. 
 
 Where the plaintiff possessed a cottage and a small piece ^^J'^'^J^Ji^J ™''''' 
 of land on a level with and aljutting on a public high road, 7 feet, 
 from which a short way or passage over the plaintiff's land 
 afforded access to his cottage ; and a railway company, in 
 the execution of the works of their railway, lowered the 
 public high road 7 feet, leaving the plaintiff's land and 
 
 s
 
 258 
 
 COMPENSATION FOR INTERFERENCE WITH ROADS. 
 
 Leaving cot- 
 tage on edge 
 of precipice. 
 
 Raising road 
 past house 10 
 feet. 
 
 House ren- 
 dered damp, 
 &c. 
 
 Crossing on 
 level a private 
 road over 
 which plain- 
 tiff has right 
 of way to his 
 land. 
 
 Crossing on 
 level j^ubllc 
 road forming 
 access to 
 house. 
 
 cottage on the edge of a precipice of that height, and 
 thereby obliging the plaintiff to make use of a step-ladder 
 in order to obtain access from the public high road to the 
 way or passage leading over his land to bis cottage ; it was 
 decided that in such a case compensation was claimable 
 {Moore v. The Great Southern and Western {of Ireland) 
 Railway Gornpany, 1 Ir. Com. Law Rep, 46 ; see also jR. 
 V. Eastern Counties Railway Company, 2 Q. B. 847 ; 2 
 Rail. Cases, 736). 
 
 "Where the plaintiff possessed a dwelling-house abutting 
 on a public high road, and a railway company, in the 
 execution of their works, raised the public high road to the 
 height of 1 feet opposite to the plaintiff's house, so that 
 the access to the house was thus impeded, and the house 
 was rendered damp and unwholesome by rain and mud 
 which penetrated into it from an adjoining bridge, whereby 
 the plaintiff lost his health, it was held that the railway 
 were liable in compensation {Tuohey v. The Great Southern 
 and Western Raihvay Company {of Ireland), 10 Ir. Com. 
 Law Rep. 98). 
 
 Where the plaintiff was owner of land appertaining to 
 which was a right of way over a private road on the land 
 of third persons, and a railway company, under the provi- 
 sions of their Act, constructed a railway crossing the road 
 on the level, and erected gates on the road at each side of 
 the line, which were kept locked, under the provisions of 
 the Act, the servant of the company keeping a key, and 
 the plaintiff also having a key, the Court held that the 
 plaintiff's land was "injuriously affected" within the mean- 
 ing of the Consolidation Acts {Glover v. The North Staf- 
 fordshire Railway Company, 16 Q. B. N. S. 912). 
 
 But the case is otherwise where the road crossed is a 
 public road, for then a level crossing is a grievance to be 
 endured without complaint by private persons from a con- 
 sideration of the benefit gained by the public. Hence, 
 where a railway passed within a few yards of a gentleman's 
 lodge, across a public road forming the chief access to his 
 residence, although he was liable to constant stoppages by
 
 COMPENSATION FOR INTERFERENCE WITH ROADS. 259 
 
 the closing of the gates on the level crossing, and other 
 
 inconvenience, it was held by the House of Lords (reversing 
 
 the decision of the Court of Session in Scotland) that the No compen- 
 
 railway com23any were not liable to pay compensation ^ ^°°' 
 
 {Caledonian Railway Company v. Ogilvy, 2 Macqueen's 
 
 H. of L. Rep. 22.9). This i^rinciple was acted on in the case 
 
 of Wood V. The Stourhridge Railway Company, 16 C. B. 
 
 N. S. 222. In this case it was also decided that one who Secm where a 
 
 sustains a private and particular injury from the diversion "P^jateand 
 \ ^ J J ^ particular m» 
 
 or obstruction of a public road by the works of a railway jury " sus- 
 company, which diversion or obstruction, if done withovit ^^^^ ' 
 the sanction of an Act of Parliament, would give a right of 
 action, is entitled to compensation, although if the inconve- 
 nience or annoyance sustained is such only as is common to 
 all the Queen's subjects, no action would lie, and therefore 
 that where the plaintiffs enjoyed access to their works by a 
 certain road which the company had stopped up, they were 
 entitled to compensation. 
 
 It has been held that if a railway company, in construct- Obstruction 
 ing their railway, block up a thoroughfare leading to a ° ^ ^^^ ' 
 shop, so as to occasion loss to the shopkeeper in his 
 business, by preventing the passing of customers to his No compen- 
 shop, the loss of business is not the subject of compen- conse!]ucnt 
 satiou. Therefore, where a railway company, in the execu- tlimiuution of 
 tion of authorised work.s, interfered with and obstructed a public-house, 
 highway leading to a public-house of which the plaintiff 
 was lessee, thereby causing such a diminution in the number 
 of the plaintiff's customers as to cause to him in his business 
 as a licensed victualler, damage to the extent of £100, it 
 was held, in the Exchequer Chamber (two learned judges 
 dissenting) that as a claimant's title to compensation, under 
 the 68th section of the Lands Clauses Act, is only in 
 respect of land, or an interest therein which has been 
 " injuriously affected," this damage did not accrue to the 
 plaintiff in his capacity of owner of an estate in land, for 
 that the hause was not injuriously affected by the profits of 
 the plaintiffs trade carried on therein being diminished by 
 the obstruction {Ricket v. The Metropolitan Railway 
 
 s2
 
 260 
 
 COMPENSATION FOR INTERFERENCE WITH ROADS. 
 
 But where by 
 diversion of 
 street, value 
 of houses as 
 residences 
 lessened. 
 
 Company, 5 B. & Sm. 149. A contrary doctrine had pre- 
 viously prevailed on this subject : see the earlier cases of 
 Senior v. The Metropolitan Raihvay Conpany, 32 L. J. 
 Ex. 225, and Cameron v. Charing Cross Railway Com- 
 pany, 16 C. B. N. S. 430, reversed 13 W. R 390. 
 
 The following case must, however, be distinguished from 
 that of Ricket. A railway company, under the powers of 
 their Act, took, for the purposes of their railway, a portion 
 of a highway, and constructed a railway across it, and a 
 deviation road and bridge over the railway. Plaintiff 
 alleged that by the said highway being wholly blocked up, 
 the company had "injuriously affected " certain houses of 
 which the plaintiff was lessee, being four houses on the 
 highway, and eight other houses which, at the time of the 
 execution of the works, were in the course of erection for 
 the purpose of being used as dwelling-houses, fronting a 
 new road running at right angles to the highway, and that 
 by reason of the obstruction of the highway, through the 
 construction of the railway across the same, the access to 
 the houses of the plaintiff was, notwithstanding the sub- 
 stitution of the deviation road, rendered less convenient 
 for the occupiers ; and many persons would be prevented 
 from passing the same, and the houses had thereby been 
 rendered less suitable for being used and occupied as shops, 
 and the value of the houses had been greatly diminished. 
 On demurrer it was held by the Court of Queen's Bench, 
 and affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber, that the houses 
 of the plaintiff were " injuriously affected," and that there- 
 fore the plaintiff was entitled to compensation {Chamber- 
 lain V. The West End of London and Crystal Palace 
 Railway Company, 2 Best & Smith, 605. The principle 
 on which this case was decided was, that the compensation 
 was claimed, not as for loss of profits, but for the deprecia- 
 tion in value of the houses. In commenting on this case, 
 in the course of his judgment in Ricket v. The Metropolitan 
 Railway Company, Erle, C. J., observed, " The principle 
 is that the value of a house is affected by the relation of its 
 situation to the adjoining highway ; that is, by the conveni-
 
 COMPENSATION FOR INTERFERENCE WITH ROADS. 261 
 
 ence of the private rights of ingress and egress from the 
 one to the other, and by the circumstances of the highway 
 itself tending to make it useful and agreeable to the occu- 
 pier of the *house. If a house on a level with a commo- 
 dious, beautiful, and well-frequented street, be either lifted 
 or sunk by the railway 20 feet above or below the level of 
 that street, the house would be injuriously affected, both 
 for pleasure and profit, by reason of the change in the 
 access to and from the house ; or if a house frontingf to a 
 street of that description should be turned round so as to 
 front to a dark back alley, the house would be injuriously 
 affected. The site of the house would be altered for the 
 worse. In these cases here suggested, the house is supposed 
 to be removed, to make the meaning more clear ; but if, 
 instead of lifting or sinking the house, or turning its front 
 from a grand street to a back alley, the street is lifted or 
 sunk or changed in its character, the relation of the house 
 to its highway is affected precisely to the same degree as it 
 would be by altering the relative position of the house 
 itself in respect of that highway. Such is the principle of 
 Chamberlain v. The West End of London and Crystal 
 Palace Railvxiy Company. Tlie frontage had been to a 
 wide well-frequented road leading direct to and from im- 
 portant towns ; by the execution of the railway works, it 
 was made to front to a dumb alley sunk below the level of 
 the substituted thoroughfare over a railway bridge, along 
 which the stream of passengers would be compelled to 
 flow." 
 
 In accordance with the principle laid down in Ricket v. 
 The Metropolitan Raihvay Company, it was decided that 
 where the Metropolitan Board of Works, in exercise of the 
 powers conferred on them by their Act, and for the pur- 
 pose of enabling them to reconstruct a sewer running under Hoarding 
 
 a street, erected a hoarding in such street, which rendered ejected in 
 
 • street. 
 
 the access to the plaintiff's livery stables less convenient Obstructing 
 
 tlian it had been before, but no part of such premises were g^^kg*^*^ 
 taken, nor did it appear that the hoarding was kept up be- 
 yond a reasonable time, it was held that the plaintiff was
 
 262 
 
 COMPENSATION FOR INTERFERENCE WITH WATER. 
 
 Loss of busi- 
 ness where 
 premises 
 taken. 
 
 Destruction 
 of houses, &c., 
 near public- 
 house. 
 
 not entitled to compensation for the damage he had sus- 
 tained by the erection of such hoarding {Herring v. The 
 Metropolitan Board of Works, 34 L. J., Mag. Ca. 224). 
 
 But where the premises in which a business is carried on 
 are actually taken, compensation may properly be claimed 
 for the loss of business. Thus, in Juhh v. The Hull Dock 
 Com'pany, 9 Q. B., 443, where a brewery had been taken 
 by the defendants, and the plaintiff claimed to be compen- 
 sated for the loss he would sustain by having to give up his 
 business as a brewer until he could obtain other suitable pre- 
 mises for carrying it on, the Court held he was so entitled. 
 
 The destruction of houses and public roads in the neigh- 
 bourhood of a jDublic house, by which the custom of the 
 house was diminished, is not matter for compensation {Rex 
 V. London Dock Company, 5 Ad. & Ellis, 163. 
 
 Sect. III. 
 
 COMPENSATION CONSEQUENT ON INTERFERENCE WITH 
 
 WATER. 
 
 Diverting 
 stream. 
 
 Diverting 
 water fi'om 
 tan-yard. 
 
 In Ferrand v. The Corporation of Bradford, 21 Beavan, 
 412, it was decided that the diversion of a stream is a 
 " taking and using it " within the meaning of the Lands 
 Clauses Act (which is incorporated in the Waterworks 
 Clauses Act), and that the owners and occupiers of the 
 land through which the stream passed were entitled to 
 compensation. 
 
 In Mortimer v. The South Wales Railway Company, 
 1 E. & E. 375, the plaintiffs were lessees of a tan-yard, and 
 enjoyed the flow of certain water into the same ; and the 
 defendants, under their Act, partially diverted the water 
 and deprived the plaintiffs of the benefit thereof, the plain- 
 tiffs claimed and obtained compensation on the ground that 
 their tan-yard and premises were "injuriously affected."
 
 COMPENSATION FOR INTERFERENCE WITH WATER/ 263 
 
 In Ware v. Regenfs Canal Go'tnimny, 3 De G. & J. 21 2, Occasional 
 it was held that an occasional flooding of lands, caused by la'^Tds'throuich 
 works properly executed by the defendants within their par- constmctioa 
 liamentary powers, was within the 68th section of the Lands 
 Clauses Act, and was, therefore, the subject of compensa- 
 tion. 
 
 Where the plaintiff was owner of a farm, and employed Diverting 
 a stream, which flowed through the same, for the purposes fo|.^hTi"^aUng 
 of irrigation and the use of his cattle, and the defendants, faim, and for 
 having taken part of the said farm, cut off and diverted the 
 said stream to the plaintiff's loss, it was held that was a case 
 for compensation {Little v. The Dublin and Drogheda 
 Raihuay Comjxcny 7 Ir. Law Rep. 82). 
 
 Where the working of a mill was impeded and its value Impeding 
 became lessened by the removal of a certain weir by the ^iiiJ^y" ° 
 company, they were held liable in compensation {R. v. removing 
 Nottingham Old Wateriuorks Comjxtny, 6 A. & E. 356). 
 
 In Bell v. The Hull, &c., Railway Company, 6 M. & interfering 
 
 W. 699, the plaintiff had a wharf on the River Humber, ^ith com- 
 ' ^ ' munication 
 
 between which and the low water mark the defendants between wliarf 
 constructed their railway, thereby rendering the communi- ^^ "^'^^" 
 cation between the wharf and the river inconvenient and 
 dangerous, it was held that the plaintiff's wharf was " in- 
 jured " within the meaning of the provisions in the defend- 
 ants' special Act. See also, on this point, Macey v. The 
 Metropolitan Board of Works, 33 L. J., Ch. 377, which 
 was a case under the Thames Embankment Act, 1862. 
 
 In the Queen v. Tlie Great Northern Railway Company^ Obstructing 
 14 Q. B., 25, where the claimant enjoyed a certain ancient piaj^n^tpa 
 ferry across a river as appurtenant to his houses and ferry, 
 premises on the east bank, and had always kept a ferry 
 boat and taken toll from passengers, and the company, by 
 constructing their line along the opposite bank of the river, 
 obstructed the access to the river on that side, it was not 
 disputed that the claimant's jjroperty was " injuriously 
 affected," and that he was entitled to compensation, the 
 question before the court being in regard to the local juris- 
 diction only.
 
 264 
 
 COMPENSATION FOR INTERFERENCE WITH WATER. 
 
 Raising level 
 of brook, and 
 thereby 
 causing coal 
 mine to be 
 inundated. 
 
 Diverting 
 channel of 
 river, and so 
 destroying 
 profit of 
 towing path. 
 
 Subterraneous 
 water. 
 
 Drawing off 
 water from a 
 well. 
 
 In R. V, North Midland Railway Company, 2 Railway- 
 Cases 1 , the defendants (under an Act which gave power to 
 divert rivers, &c.), had raised the level of a brook, into which 
 the sough of a coal mine had been accustomed to empty 
 itself, and thereby caused the water of the brook to flow 
 into the sough and inundate and stop the coal works, the 
 owner of the works obtained a mandamus for a jury to 
 ascertain and compensate him for the injury done, although 
 the defendants had restored the brook to its former level. 
 
 In R. V. The Commissioners of the Navigation of the 
 Thames and I sis, 5 A. & E 804, it appeared that the 
 claimant possessed an ancient towing-path on a part of the 
 river, and the exclusive right of towing barges on that 
 part, taking tolls for so doing ; that the defendants made a 
 " cut " in the river, by which barges were enabled to avoid 
 that part of the river, and dispense with the use of the 
 claimant's horses, and so avoid the payment of the tolls, 
 and that by diverting the old channel of the river they had 
 made the towing path wholly unprofitable ; the claimant 
 was held entitled to compensation. 
 
 In The Neiu River Com2Jany v. Johnson, 29 L. J., Mag. 
 Ca. 93, in the execution of certain works authorised by the 
 Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, incorporated with their 
 special Act, the company intercepted water which would 
 other^vise have percolated through the strata of earth into 
 a well upon the premises of the claimant, and drained off 
 water which had accumulated in the well. It was held, 
 that inasmuch as no action would lie against the com- 
 pany (a), in respect of either quantity of Avater, supposing 
 no Act authorising the execution of the works had been 
 passed, a claim for compensation could not be sustained. 
 
 (a) In Chasemore v. Richards, 29 L. J. Exeh. 81, it was decided that 
 the owner of an ancient water-mill on a river has no right of action against 
 an owner of land adjacent, who digs a deep well on his land, and thereby 
 diverts the underground waters, not known to be formed into a stream 
 flowing in a defined channel, which otherwise would have percolated into 
 the river, although the landowner does not use the water for purposes con- 
 nected with his land, but pumps it up, and carries it oft' in pipes, to supply 
 persons resident in the neighbourhood, many of whom had no right as 
 owners to the use of the waters at all.
 
 COMPENSATION FOR VIBRATION AND NOISE. 265 
 
 And in Galgay v. The Great Southern and Western Rail- 
 %vay Company, 4 Irish Law Rep. 4!o6, where the defendants 
 had con.strueted a tunnel under their own land, and thereby Tuunel 
 diverted the subterranean water from plaintiffs land con- subterraneous 
 tiguous to the tuunel, it was held that the defendants were ^'^ter. 
 not liable for the diversion of this underground water. See 
 also TJte Queen v. The Metropolitan Board of Works, 3 Best 
 & Sm. 710, where it was held that, independently of the 
 special provisions of the defendants' Act, the~ owner of an 
 estate was not entitled to compensation, in respect that the 
 defendants, by the construction of a certain sewer, inter- 
 cepted springs which would otherwise have risen to tho 
 surface and flowed into the claimant's pond. 
 
 In a case decided in 1810, R. v. the Bristol Dock Com- Waterof 
 pany, 1 2 East, 429, the defendants being bound under "ver polluted 
 their Act, to make compensation for injury &c., it was unfit for 
 decided that no compensation was due to the owners of a ^r<^^"iiS' 
 brewery for a loss arising to them in their business from 
 the deterioration of the water of the public river Avon, 
 from which the brewery had been before supplied by means 
 of pipes laid under low -water mark ; the use of the water 
 having been common to all the King's subjects, and not 
 claimed as an easement to the particular tenement. 
 
 Sect. IV. 
 
 COMPENSATIOX IN RESPECT OF VIBRATION, NOISE, ETC. 
 
 In regard to compensation for vibration caused by the 
 passing of trains, the law stands thus : — In estimating the 
 compensation to be paid to an owner for part of his pro- 
 perty taken, the damage likely to arise through vibration to 
 the rest of his property, may legitimately be taken into 
 account ; as, for instance, where the company tunnel under 
 a house. See Croft v. London and North Western Rail- 
 way Company, 3 Best & Sm. 436, and 32 L. J. Q. B. 113.
 
 266 COMPENSATION FOR VIBRATION AND NOISE. 
 
 But where no part of the property alleged to be injured by 
 vibration has been taken by the company, and compensa- 
 tion is claimed in respect of vibration only, the claim 
 cannot be sustained. Thus, in Penny v. South Eastern 
 Raihvay Coni'pany, 7 E. & B. 660, the plaintiff alleged 
 deterioration in the value of his property " from the close 
 approximation of the railway to the property, and the 
 constant noise and shaking and annoyance by day and 
 night caused by the passage of the trains, particularly the 
 special luggage and ballast trains, and by or from the 
 circumstance of the back windows and gardens being over- 
 looked by the passengers on the railway and railway plat- 
 form, and by the servants and workmen employed by the 
 company, and the privacy of the plaintiff and his family, 
 and of his tenants being thereby invaded and disturbed ; and 
 also by the effluvium arising from the waste water which is 
 frequently let out of the engines or boilers on the trains 
 staying to take up and set down passengers at the railway 
 station." The Court held that no compensation could be 
 claimed. In the more recent case of Brand v. the Ham- 
 mersmith and City Railway Company, 1 Law Keports, 
 C. L. 1 80, it was held that the owner of a house, none of 
 whose lands had been taken for the purposes of the railway, 
 could not recover compensation in respect of injury to the 
 house, depreciating its value, caused by vibration, smoke, 
 and noise in running locomotives with trains in the ordinary 
 manner, after the construction of the railway. It is settled, 
 however, by both these cases, that compensation may be 
 claimed for such injury arising during the construction 
 of the works. See particularly the judgment of Mellor, J., 
 in the latter case.
 
 TAKING PART OF A HOUSE, ETC. 267 
 
 Sect. V, 
 
 COMPENSATION FOR DANGER TO COTTON MILL THROUGH 
 PROXIMITY OF RAILWAY. 
 
 Althongh it is an undoubted general rule that compensa- 
 tion for injury caused by the works of a railway company 
 can only be claimed where, but for the authority of the 
 special Act, an action would have lain ; yet this rule does 
 not extend to the case of a party seeking compensation for 
 injury resulting to a portion of his lands by reason of acts 
 done on another portion of them which has been taken 
 from him for the purposes of the railway. Where, there- 
 fore, a railway company took some land of L. under their 
 Act, and proposed to make their railway on it, so close to a 
 cotton -mill belonging to him that, by reason of the proximity 
 of the railway and the danger of fire from the trains using 
 the line, the building was less suitable for a cotton -mill, and 
 could only be insured at an increased premium, and was 
 rendered of less saleable value, it was held that L. was 
 entitled to compensation in respect of the mill being so 
 " injuriously affected." In re the Stoclqwrt, Timperley, 
 and Altringham Raihvay Company, 33 L. J. Q. B. 251 ; 
 reported as R. v. The Clerk of the Peace of Cheshire in 4 
 New Rep. 167. 
 
 Sect. VI. 
 
 COMPANY TAKING PART OF HOUSE, MANUFACTORY, ETC., MAY 
 BE COMPELLED TO TAKE WHOLE. 
 
 It is enacted by the 92nd section of the Lands Clauses 
 Act, (a) that " No party shall at any time be required to 
 
 (a) Similar provision in Lands Clauses (Scotland) Act, 1845, sect. 90'.
 
 2GS 
 
 TAKING PART OF A HOUSE, ETC. 
 
 Case of St. 
 
 Thomas's 
 
 Hospital. 
 
 The St. 
 Pancras Alms- 
 house case. 
 
 Taking part of 
 workshop. 
 
 sell or convey to the promoters of the undertaking a part 
 only of any house or other building or manufactory, if such 
 party be willing and able to sell and convey the whole 
 thereof" 
 
 The word "house " in this section has been held to com- 
 prise all that would pass by the grant of a messuage, which 
 includes not only the curtilage but also the garden, and all 
 that is necessary to the enjoyment of the house, if within 
 one ambit, whether attached to the main building or not, 
 and though purchased subsequently to the erection of the 
 main building. The Governors of St. Thomas's Hospital 
 V. TJte Charing Cross Raihvay Company, 30 L. J. Chan. 
 395. In this case the company proposed to take only a 
 small portion of the hospital precincts, the proposed line 
 passing over a corner of the inclosed garden ground to the 
 north wing of the hospital, the centre line of railway being 
 23 feet from the northwest corner of the wing. The com- 
 pany having been required to take the whole hospital under 
 section 92, were held bound to do so. 
 
 In the St. Pancras Almshouses case the trustees, having 
 acquired land for the purpose, had erected a building, in- 
 tending to complete the same by the erection of a wing on 
 either side when they should have funds sufficient for the 
 purpose. The company gave notice of their intention to 
 take part of the land on which one of the wings would be 
 erected according to the plan. It was held that, although 
 the company did not propose to touch the actual building, 
 they would be taking part of a " house." Grosvenor v. 
 The Hampstead Junction Railway Company, 26 L. J. 
 Chan. 731. In the course of his judgment in this case, Vice- 
 Chancellor Wood cited an unreported case, Dakin v. The 
 North Western Railway Confipany, in which it was pro- 
 posed to take the privy which accommodated a house, and 
 which was in a corner of the curtilage quite separate from 
 the house, and the Court decided that this was taking " part 
 of a house.'' 
 
 Part only of a workshop cannot be taken, wdiere the 
 owner gives the necessary counter-notice to take the whole.
 
 TAKING PART OF A HOUSE, ETC. 269 
 
 Gilefi V. The London, Chatham, and Dover Railway 
 Company, 80 L. J. Chan. 603. 
 
 Where the company proposed taking a part of the garden Taking part of 
 attached to a dwelling house, thereby cutting off the end of attached to 
 the garden and summer house, it was held that they were l^ouse. 
 bound to take the whole property. Cole v. The West of 
 London and Crystal Palace Railway Company, 27 
 Beavan, 242. 
 
 Where a property consisted of a house and stables, &c. Taking 
 with a garden, pleasure grounds, and orchard, standing on ^[{a^|!|[gj ^^ 
 1} acres of ground, and a railway company proposed to house, 
 take part of the orchard and a corner of the garden, it was 
 held that they were bound to take the whole. King v. 
 The Wycombe Railway Company, 28 Beavan, 104. 
 
 Where the plaintiff had erected and covered in three new Taking land 
 houses, but while they were in an unfinished state a railway garden. 
 company required a portion of the land which was intended 
 to be attached to them as gardens, the Court held that the 
 company was bound to purchase the whole of the pro- 
 perty, although the houses had never been completed, and 
 had fallen into a state of great dilapidation. Alexander v. 
 The Crystal Palace Railway Company, 30 Beavan, 556. 
 
 Where a house had attached to it a shrubbery and a Taking fur- 
 series of gardens separated by walls, but all connected by a ^^^f^ ^'^?' 
 gravel walk passing through the dividing walls, it was held dens, 
 that the garden furthest from the house, and inclosed at a 
 more recent period than the others, was part of the " house " 
 within the meaning of the Act. Hewson v. The London 
 and South Western Railivay Company, 8 W. R. 467. 
 
 The word "house" in the 92nd section is to be read in Test to be 
 its ordinary and legal sense, and not in a more limited ^JanTn-'^of" 
 sense than that in which the law generally, if not universally, " house." 
 understands it (per Lord Justice Kntght Bruce, in Oros- 
 venor's Case, supra) ; and, therefore, whenever doubt arises 
 as to whether a particular piece of land, &;c., forms part of 
 the " house," the test to be applied is, whether the same 
 would pass as part of the appurtenances in a conveyance of 
 the house (per the Master of the Rolls, in Ferguson v.
 
 270 
 
 TAKING PART OF A HOUSE, ETC. 
 
 Taking land 
 to which 
 plaintiff has 
 a prospective 
 right. 
 
 Taking field 
 separated by 
 public road 
 fi'om house. 
 
 Taking land 
 separated by 
 public road 
 from house. 
 
 Taking field 
 
 The London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Com- 
 pany, 2 New Rep. 50-i). 
 
 Cases where Connpany held not hound to take whole. — 
 The following cases were held to be not within the meaning 
 of the 92nd section, and the company where held not bound 
 to take the whole : — AVhere the lessee of a house acquired 
 the right to obtain at a future time a lease of land in the 
 rear of his house, with the view of extending his garden, 
 and before the time arrived, the company served him with 
 a notice for part of this land, it was held that the land, not 
 being at the time when notice was served, nor having been 
 previously, appurtenant to the house, did not form part 
 of the "house" {Ghamhers v. London, Chatham, and 
 Dover Raihvay ComiJany, 1 N, R. 517). 
 
 And where a field in front of a house was used by the 
 inmates as a meadow and cricket-ground, but was separated 
 from the house and garden by a public road, a company 
 proposing to take the field were held not bound to take 
 the house and garden also ; and the court held that it made 
 no difference that the field and house were included in the 
 same demise to the lessee and occupier {Fergusson v. The 
 London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company, 
 2 New Rep. 503, and 83 Beavan, 103). 
 
 In Steele v. The Midland Railway Company, 1 Law 
 Rep. C. L. 275, the plaintiff was owner and occupier of a 
 house and 6 acres of meadow land on the west of the Edg- 
 ware Road. He had a large family, and, the ground he 
 had being insufficient for the horses and cows which he 
 kept for their use, he bought 6j acres on the other side of 
 the road, the nearest point being distant 120 yards from 
 his entrance-gate. At the nearest point of this land were 
 a cow-house, loose-box, and a cottage, which was occupied 
 by his grooms, because he had no accommodation for them 
 on his own side of the road, and he, for a number of years, 
 occupied the laud for the purpose of feeding the horses and 
 cows requisite for his establishment. It was decided that 
 the Q\ acres could not be considered part of the "house."' 
 
 Where a field occupied with a house was separated from
 
 COMPENSATION FOR TUNNELLING. 271 
 
 the gardens by a sunk fence, crossed by two ornamental separated from 
 bridges, and a gravel walk under a row of trees led across funk^gnce. 
 the field to a cottage occupied by the owner's coachman, 
 and to a gate leading into a public road, and one or two 
 cows were kept in the field, and the field was also used for 
 various out-door amusements, it was held that it was not 
 part of the " house " {Pulling v. The London, Chatham, 
 and Dover Raihvay Gomi^any, 4 New Reports, S86). 
 
 In Reddin v. The Metropolitan Board of Works, 1 Business of 
 
 . „ , a uust-con- 
 
 W. R 764, it was decided that the business ot dust con- tractor not a 
 tractor is not a manufacture, and that a detached "tot- "manufac- 
 shop," where the dust and rubbish were collected and sorted, 
 was not incident to or a j)art of a. manufactory, althougli, in 
 other parts of the business premises, some of the materials 
 thus sorted were subjected to manufacturing processes. But 
 in Sparroiu v. The Oxford, Worcester, &c., Raihvay Com- 
 pany, 2 D. M. & G. 94, the land proposed to be taken by 
 the defendants was included within the same waUfs with 
 certain tin-j)late works, and was used for the deposit of Land for de- 
 ashes from the works ; and it was held to be part of the ^"'JinpMf ^^ 
 manufactory. works. 
 
 As to tunnelling uoder, or throwing an ^arch over, part 
 of a manufactory, see infra. 
 
 Sect. VII. 
 
 whether a company tunnelling under may be com- 
 pelled to take the whole land and buildings on 
 
 THE SURFACE. 
 
 The question whether a compan}'^ proposing to tunnel 
 under laud may be compelled, under the 92ud section of 
 the Lands Clauses Act, to take the surface also, and all 
 buildings, &c., tliat may be upon the surface, has not at all 
 times been free from doubt. In Ramsden v. Manchester, 
 &c., Raihvay Company, 1 Exch. 723, the defendants
 
 272 COMPENSATION FOR TUNNELLING. 
 
 having made a tunnel under a certain public road without 
 having paid comj)ensation before entry, as required by the 
 Lands Clauses Act, the plaintiff brought an action of tres- 
 pass, alleging that he was entitled to the close for a term of 
 999 years, subject to the public right of way over the same. 
 It was held that the plaintiff being entitled to compensa- 
 tion for the permanent occupation of his land, and the 
 defendants having entered on the land without having first 
 paid compensation, they were guilty of the trespass, and 
 judgment went for the plaintiff. Although this case has 
 been sometimes cited as an authority for saying that a 
 company tunnelling may be compelled to take the surface 
 as well, yet this was not the real point decided, which was 
 simply that compensation was payable and ought to have 
 been paid before entry. In Sparrow v. The Oxford, etc., 
 Railway Company, 2 De Gex M. & G. 108, the point 
 incidentally arose, and the Lord Chancellor (Lord Cran- 
 WORTk), although he did not decide it, yet took occasion to 
 observe, in reference to the question, " It was said, suppose 
 the manufactory was at the top of the hill, and you were 
 burrowing under it at the distance of 1,000 feet, are you 
 then taking part of the manufactory ? I do not feel myself 
 called upon to answer that question ; but if I were, I 
 should incline to the opinion that you are, on the principle 
 of the maxim cujus est solum ejus est usque ad inferos. 
 Can it be said that if you were an inch below the surface, 
 you would not take a part of the manufactory ? I am 
 inclined to think that, however deep the tunnel was made, 
 it would be within the enactment." In the case of Pinchin 
 V. The London and Blaclwall Railway Company, 1 Kay 
 & Johnson, 34, however, Vice- Chancellor Wood, referring 
 to the same point, expressed a contrary opinion. There 
 the company intended to throw a railway bridge over a 
 yard belonging to a manufactory, within the walls of the 
 manufactory, and used for the preparation of colours, a pro- 
 cess which required air and light. They would not, how- 
 ever, take or touch any part of the soil. The decision, 
 however, did not turn on this point. On appeal. Lord
 
 COMPENSATION FOR MINERALS. 273 
 
 Cranworth expressed views similar to those he had before 
 expressed in the case of Sparrow. Although there has 
 not been any positive decision on the subject, the better 
 opinion in the profession is, that the company may be com- 
 pelled to purchase the land under which they tunnel or over 
 which they throw an arch ; for cujus est solum ejus est 
 usque ad coeluni et ad inferos. See Frend & Ware's 
 Railway Precedents, p. 153. It is understood that this has 
 been the opinion followed in practice in a great number of 
 Metropolitan cases, although there exists no express deci- 
 sion. This view is confirmed by the recent case of Mac- 
 gregor v. Tlie Metropolitan Railway Company, ] 4 Law 
 Times, N. S. 354, in which plaintiff was the owner of a 
 house and garden under which the defendants proposed to 
 tunnel. The garden consisted originally of two distinct 
 parcels of land, and the plaintiff held them under different 
 titles. The defendants offered compensation for the house 
 and that parcel of the garden under which they tunnelled. 
 The point at issue was whether they could be compelled to 
 take the Avhole garden, consisting as it did of distinct 
 premises. Vice-Chancellor Wood was of opinion that they 
 were so bound. It thus appears to have been taken for 
 granted, by all parties in the case, that the company weie 
 compellable to take the surfnce of the land under which 
 they tnniiollod, as well as any buildings thereon. 
 
 Sect. VIII. 
 
 COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF MINERALS UNDER LINE. 
 
 See Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, section 
 77 to 85 inclusive (a) 
 
 (a) Similar provisions in Railways Clauses (Scotland) Act, 1845, sect. 
 70 to 78 inclusive.
 
 274 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 WATERWORKS BILLS. 
 
 Sect. I. 
 
 STANDING ORDER 92, AND ITS CONSTRUCTION, qUOad hoC. 
 
 The jurisdiction of the Eeferees, as defined by Standing 
 Order 92, (a) is, in the case of Waterworks Bills, to inquire 
 into all or any of the following matters as to which parties 
 petitioning desire to be heard in opposition : viz. — 
 
 1. The nature and amount of the existing supply. 
 
 2. The nature and amount of the proposed supply. 
 
 3. The pressure. 
 
 4. The proposed mode of service. 
 
 5. The quality of the water in each case. 
 
 6. The provisions as to storage reservoirs. 
 
 On the construction of this Standing Order, in so far as it 
 relates to Waterworks Bills, the question has been raised 
 whether the second paragraph is to be read in connection 
 with the first, and whether, as a consequence of that, if a 
 Bill is not "a Bill for authorising the construction of 
 woi-ks," the Referees have power to inquire into the same 
 at all. This point arose in the Bute Docks, Cardiff {No. 2) 
 Bill, 1 S. & G. ]6. In that case a dock had been con- 
 structed by the promoters without parliamentary sanction ; 
 
 (a) See the Standing Order in extenso, p. 2.
 
 WATERWORKS BILLS. 275 
 
 and it was supplied with water by a feeder from the River 
 TafF. The feeder and a weir had been constructed in pur- 
 suance of the provisions of an Act of Parliament, but in a 
 manner not authorised by that Act. By the present Bill 
 it was proposed to legalise the feeder and weir in their 
 present state, and to authorise the promoters to supply 
 water from the feeder to ships in the dock. The Bill did 
 not authorise the construction of any works, nor were there 
 any plans or estimates deposited. It was contended for the 
 promoters that this was not a " Waterworks Bill '" within 
 the meaning of the Standing Order, as no works were pro- 
 posed to be constructed. The Referees overruled the ob- 
 jection. 
 
 The question has also been raised whether, where a 
 Waterworks Bill does authorise the construction of works, 
 the Referees have power, under the first paragraph of the 
 Standing Order, to enquire into the engineering details, 
 efficiency of works, and sufficiency of estimates, as well as 
 into the matters specified in the second paragraph of the 
 Standing Order (see Evidence before Select Committee, 
 p. 16). It has, however, invariably been the practice of 
 the Referees, in such cases, to enquire as well into the 
 matters specified in the first paragraph, as into those 
 specified in the second paragraph of the Standing Order. 
 
 Each Water Bill which has come before the Referees, 
 having necessarily been attended by its own peculiar sur- 
 rounding circumstances, and the Referees' decision liaviiig 
 depended entirely upon those circumstances, the cases with 
 which they have had to deal cannot be cited as precedents 
 of universal applicability. It is thought, however, that a 
 methodical review of the more important points of the 
 Referees' decisions on such Bill will be of material assistance 
 hereafter, as illustrating the way in which the Referees 
 have been accustomed to deal with particular objections. 
 
 t2
 
 27j5 depriving millowners, etc., of supply. 
 
 Sect. II. 
 
 objections by millowners and individuals about to be 
 deprived of their supply. 
 
 No class of objections to Waterworks Bills is of more fre- 
 quent occurrence than those made by owners and occupiers 
 of mills, alleging that they will be deprived by the proposed 
 works of the water supply which they have been previously 
 accustomed to enjoy. The practice of the Referees has 
 been to enquire into and report upon the amount of water 
 compensation which ought to be provided for such peti- 
 tioners. The Referees, not having themselves any power 
 to insert clauses, cannot do more than set out in their 
 Report the provisions necessary to be made for securing such 
 water compensation. The general policy of Committees is, 
 by the insertion of a clause, to require such water compen- 
 sation to be provided. Very frequently, indeed, the sugges- 
 tions of the Referees are adopted by the promoters, and 
 turned into clauses settled by the parties themselves, and 
 thus further opposition to the Bill is obviated (see Evidence 
 of Mr. Hassard before Select Committee, p. 132). 
 
 In the Bristol Water Bill, 1855, 49, the companj^ pro- 
 posed to take the whole of certain springs called the 
 Chelvey and Midgal Springs. The petitioners were owners 
 and occupiers of land in the neighbourhood of these springs, 
 and of the district adjacent to the River Kenn. They alleged 
 that these springs were the chief feeders of the River Kenn, 
 which waters an area of 6,000 acres used for dairy and 
 grazing purposes, and that the abstraction of the water from 
 the springs, if exercised according to the powers given by the 
 Bill, would do them great injury. The promoters did not 
 dispute the prior claim of the inhabitants of the district to 
 a sufficient supply of water from their own springs. The 
 requirements of the district they represented to be 3,000,000 
 gallons per day, and they admitted that it would be reason- 
 able that such arrangements should be made for the pro-
 
 DEPRIVING MILLOWNERS, ETC., OF SUPPLY. 277 
 
 tection of the district as would secure it against abstraction 
 of the water for the use of the waterworks, when the effect 
 of doing so would be to reduce the supply for local purposes 
 below a minimum amount of 3,000,000 gallons per day. 
 The Referees reported, " It will be for the Committee on 
 the Bill to consider this suggestion." 
 
 In the BirminghaTYi Water Bill, 1865, Hi, the existing 
 company proposed to divert and appropriate certain streams 
 flowing from Sutton Park, together with two pools in the 
 said park, and also to sink a shaft, and make a drift adit or 
 tunnel from such shaft, and provide means for raising water 
 therefrom for the purpose of better supplying the town of 
 Birmingham. Certain petitioners alleged that they were 
 owners and occupiers of mills upon the streams which flow 
 from the pools proposed to be appropriated, and that they 
 would be injured by the proposed works. The Referees 
 reported, "This the promoters admitted, as they avowed 
 that they intended to appropriate the entire supply of water, 
 and to convert the pools into storage reservoirs." The 
 inhabitants of Sutton Coldfield contended that thev ouerht 
 not to be injured by the taking away of their supply of 
 water ; that the present supjily was sufficient for them; 
 and that the small reservoir designed for the supply of 
 Sutton Coldfield was unnecessary. The Referees reported 
 that "Those allegations, so far as concerns the inhabitants 
 of Sutton Coldfield, seem to be well founded." The Warden 
 and Society of the town of Sutton Coldfield, alleged, among 
 other ol)jections, that the works would diminish or wholly take 
 away the supply of water from the springs in Sutton Park, 
 and also from the wells in Sutton Coldfield. Tlio promoters 
 denied that tlie springs in Sutton Park would be affected, but 
 admitted that the effect of sinking the shaft and driving the 
 adit at Sutton Coldfield might have the effect of drying up 
 some of the wells at present existing there. The Referees 
 reported that, "from the evidence adduced, the Referees 
 are of opinion that the promoters are correct in their views 
 upon both these matters." Notwithstanding the above 
 and other objections, the Referees further reported, " that
 
 278 DEPRIVING MILLOWNERS, ETC., OF SUPPLY. 
 
 there are no objections to the engineering details of the works 
 proposed," and that " they are efficient for their object." 
 
 In the Glossop Water Bill, 1865, 157, a millowner on 
 the Glossop Brook, about 1^ miles below the town of 
 Glossop, had the use of the whole of the water of the 
 Glossop Brook, and had occasionally found that it was all 
 required. He stored the water to the amount of 1 8,000,000 
 or 19,000,000 gallons, which had sometimes been exhausted 
 to within a few hours' supply. Besides a large quantity 
 of water to supply the engines and boilers, he required 
 8,000,000 gallons a day for washing purposes, all of which 
 should be clean water. He objected that he would be 
 deprived of part of his present supply of water, and that 
 the water proposed to be delivered into the stream as com- 
 pensation for that abstracted would be inadequate. It was 
 proposed to give the millowners a compensation supply of 
 21 cubic feet a minute during the twenty-four hours and 
 the whole year. The Referees reported, " that this supply 
 of 21 cubic feet is a fair compensation for the water to be 
 Water com- abstracted. The rainfall of the 340 acres, which will pass 
 
 pensation one- through the reservoirs, is calculated to afford 38,823,420 
 
 third of ram- ■, . n p ^ • ^ • • • • 
 
 fall. cubic feet, of which it is intended that two-thirds, or 
 
 22,215,600 cubic feet, should be supplied to the inhabitants 
 of Glossop, and one -third, or 11,107,000 cubic feet, to the 
 millowners." This compensation of 21 cubic feet a minute, 
 the promoters proposed to deliver from the Blackshaw 
 Clough Reservoir, which would be fed from the reservoirs 
 above it. The petitioners further objected that by the pro- 
 posed situation of the gauge, the moiety of the water of the 
 Blackshaw Clough stream, which ought to be left for the 
 free use of the millowners, would be taken credit for in the 
 21 cubic feet to be allowed them ; but the promoters agreed 
 that the gauge should be so placed and arranged as to 
 ensure the millowners having that moiety in addition to the 
 21 cubic feet of compensation. 
 
 In the Nelson Local Board Bill, 1866, 62, the pro- 
 moters proposed to supply the town of Nelson with water. 
 They would take by means of gauges 3 inches deep, and of
 
 DEPRIVING MILLOWNERS, ETC., OF SUPPLY. 279 
 
 the aggregate widtli of 12 inches, the water of the Tatlow 
 Brook, the Potloe Beck and the Ringstone Beck, until the 
 same should overflow such gauges, and to carry the water 
 so taken to a service reservoir near Marsden by iron pipes, 
 without interfering with the drainage of the intermediate 
 lands. These gauges would pass 220,000 gallons per day. 
 The amount of water required for the town of Nelson was 
 estimated at 130,000 gallons per day. A compensation 
 reservoir of the capacity of 18,700,000 gallons was pro- 
 posed to be constructed at Walverdon "Water, to be supplied 
 fn)m the stream formed from the overflow of the before- 
 mentioned brooks, after filling a gauge 1 2 inches wide by 
 4^ inches deep, provided for securing a supply of water to 
 the millowners, &c. below the compensation reservoir. This 
 compensating reservoir, it was proved, would restore the 
 volume of the Walverdon water to its existing volume 
 in dry seasons for 100 days. The Referees reported that 
 " the works will be efficient for the proposed objects." 
 
 In the Huddersfield Water Bill, 1866, 63, the pro- 
 moters proposed to form a reservoir of 85 acres, containing 
 more than 500,000.000gallons supplied from an area of 1,573 
 acres, and to make the necessary works connected there- 
 with. The millowners on Brow Grains Dike and other 
 streams alleged tliat they would be deprived of the supply 
 of water necessary for the working of their mills ; and that 
 the water compensation proposed by the Bill, viz., 680 
 gallons per minute for a working day of 12 hours, was in- 
 sufficient. This compensation was calculated on the amount Water com- 
 of one-third of an availal>le rainfall of 16 inches per ^0?'^°"°' 
 annum on an area of 1,264' acres. From the evidence fall, 
 given of the quantities indicated by the various rain gauges 
 in tlie neighbourhood, the Referees reported that the pro- 
 moters' estimate of the rainfall was too low ; and that con- 
 sidering the advantacfes which would be derived from a 
 constant and regulated, in place of a fluctuating and irre- 
 gular supply, sufficient compen.sation would be given to the 
 stream on which the petitioners' nulls were situated, by the 
 amount calculated on one-third of an available rainfall of
 
 280 
 
 DEPRIVING MILLOWNERS, ETC., OF SUPPLY. 
 
 No provision 
 for compen- 
 sation reser- 
 voir. 
 
 21 inches. Certain other petitioners complained that no 
 water compensation was given to the stream above their 
 mill. It was admitted by the promoters that S09 acres was 
 the area of catchment in which the petitioners were in- 
 terested, taken for the purposes of the Bill. The Referees 
 reported " that the water compensation to this stream 
 should be on the same scale as that given to the first peti- 
 tioners." 
 
 In the Cambridge University and Toivn Water Bill, 
 1866, 55, it was proposed to take certain lands and springs 
 (not the property of the petitioner) ; and it was alleged 
 (1) that by so doing they would lessen the supply of water 
 to the petitioner's lands ; and (2) that particularly by the 
 removal of a gauge to a lower level, the petitioner would 
 be deprived of the supjjly of 140 gallons jaer minute, to 
 which he was entitled by an existing Act. The Referees 
 reported that the general supply of water to the lands of 
 the petitioner would not be diminished by the powers of the 
 Bill ; and that it was proposed to I'emove the gauge from a 
 point in the brook where the quantity of water might be 
 tested which Hows into the grounds of the petitioner, to a 
 point further down the stream where the water flows out of 
 the said grounds and at a lower level ; and that it appeared 
 to the Referees that, " By this change the petitioner will be 
 unable to ascertain that he receives from the company the 
 guaranteed supply at such a point on his lands as to secure 
 his present right." 
 
 In the Truro Water Bill, 1866, 94, certain millowners 
 alleged that they would be deprived of the supply of water 
 necessary for their mills ; and that no provision was made 
 for a compensation reservoir, by which a sufficient stream of 
 water would be always sent down the River Allen. The 
 promoters stated that they had taken land for the formation 
 of an additional reservoir, and that they were prepared to 
 make compensation in water and money to the owners and oc- 
 cupiers of the mills on the River Allen. The Referees reported 
 that '• no provision being made in the Bill for a compensa- 
 tion reservoir, the interests of the owners and occupiers of
 
 DEPRIVING MILLOWNERS, ETC., OF SUPPLY. 281 
 
 the mills on the river would be materially injured." There 
 were other objections (for which see p. 284). The Re- 
 ferees further reported that the works were inefficient, the 
 engineering details defective, the provisions as to storage 
 reservoirs inadequate, and taking into account the amount Estimate in- 
 of compensation the promoters would be liable to pay, account of 
 
 that the estimate was insufficient for the objects proposed money com- 
 
 ^.,, « i a. pensation. 
 
 by the Bill. ^ 
 
 In the Rochdale Water Bill, 1866, 133, certain mill- 
 owners complained that they would be deprived of jDart of 
 the water necessary for their works, that an adequate com- 
 pensation supply would not be given them, especially as 
 some of their fulling-mills frequently worked over-hours, 
 and sometimes (when there was sufficient water) all night, 
 while the compensation supply would only be during 
 12 hours each day. The proposed compensation supjjly 
 amounted to 750,000 gallons, which would be given before 
 any water would be taken for the population. The pro- 
 moters and the petitioners agreed that the rainfall of the 
 district was about 42 inches per annum. The Referees Compensation 
 reported that as it was shown that 750,000 gallons would be ouc-third of 
 one-third of the available water from the catchment areas 
 of the reservoirs, they considered that quantity was a proper 
 compensation to millowners. 
 
 In the Manchester Corporation Water Bill, 1865, 145, 
 the prom<jters proposed to construct two new reservoirs in 
 the valley of the Etherow, in order to obtain an increased 
 supply. Various millowners having opjiused, the Referees 
 reported, " In addition to thesuj)plying of Manchester with 
 water, it is necessary for the promoters to supply a (juantity 
 of water equivalent to 55 cubic feet per second for 12 hours, 
 during 6 days in each week, to the millowners upon that 
 part i)f the Etherow River situated beluw their water- 
 works." Messrs. A., who were proprietors of a mill 536 
 yards from the lower reservoir, complained that they were 
 entitled to and enjoyed the benefits of the water Hewing 
 down the River Etherow, which, if the propijsed works 
 were fijrmed, would be abstracted, and of the use of which
 
 282 DEPEIVING MILLOWNERS, ETC., OF SUPPLY, 
 
 they would be deprived ; and they further objected 
 that, whereas they required clean water for the use of 
 their boilers, they would be deprived of the same during 
 the progress of the works. The Eeferees reported, " Very 
 great difficulty has been experienced in arriving at any 
 conclusion as to the actual amount of water which the 
 petitioners now derive and enjoy from the River Etherow, 
 and which would be abstracted from them ; and on the most 
 careful consideration, the Referees are of opinion that they 
 will be as near the truth as it is possible to attain to, if they 
 estimate such quantity as equivalent to a supply of 4 cubic 
 feet per second for 12 hours during 6 days in each week ; " 
 and in regard to the supply of clean water, the Referees 
 reported that " a service of clean water through a 4 or 5 inch 
 pipe would suffice for their boilers. This supply could 
 be easily afforded by the promoters." 
 
 In the South StafordsJdre Water Bill, 180G, 67, the 
 promoters at present had a right to pump the water from 
 a certain well upon lands which they were now seeking 
 powers to purchase. The shaft of this well was sunk within 
 GO yards of the shaft of the well situate on the brewery 
 premises of certain jDetitioners, who complained that the 
 sujjply of water in that well had been materially diminished 
 by the pumping therefrom. The promoters proposed to 
 sink the shaft of the petitioners' well to the same depth as 
 the shaft of the promoters' well, to connect both shafts by 
 an adit near the bottom of those shafts, to place their 
 pumping machinery so that they should not be able to raise 
 any water until the depth of water in the petitioners' well 
 should exceed 1 feet, and to compensate the petitioners for 
 any additional expense which they might incur by having to 
 raise the water from their well so to be increased in depth. 
 The Referees reported, that if those stipulations were car- 
 ried out, the petitioners would not sustain any injury. 
 
 In the Huddersficld Water Bill, 1866, 63, certain peti- 
 tioners complained that by certain existing works for which the 
 promoters, the Huddersficld Water Commissioners, proposed 
 to obtain parliamentary sanction, the natural supply to tlieir
 
 OBJECTIONS TO SUPPLY, STORAGE, ETC. 283 
 
 compension reservoir had been diminisLed. The Referees 
 reported, " It was proved that out of 500 acres, the drain- 
 age of which originally found its way into this reservoir, 
 that of 125 acres was now carried to the reservoirs of the 
 Huddersfield Water Commissioners. The Referees are of 
 opinion that they were precluded from considering the 
 question of parliamentary sanction/' 
 
 In the Glasgow Corporation Water Bill, 1866, 191, 
 Messrs M. alleged that, by the works proposed, the supply 
 of water which they now derived from the River Clyde 
 would be diminished, and also that it would be rendered 
 impure. The Referees reported that neither the supply 
 nor the quality of water would be affected as regarded the 
 petitioners' works, " save so far as that it may be necessary 
 for them to extend the pipe by which they derive their 
 supply of water a little further and deeper into the River 
 Clyde." 
 
 Sect. III. 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE AMOUNT OF PROPOSED SUPPLY, PROVISIONS 
 
 FOR STORAGE, ETC. 
 
 In the Chesterfield Water and Gas Bill, 1 865, 89, the 
 Borough authorities and others complained that the Linacre 
 Brook from which the company (who already had an Act 
 for supplying the town of Clustcrfield), obtained their 
 supply, could not afford a sufficient quantity for the parishes 
 which the company asked for jjower to supply. The Referees 
 reported, that the present supply was collected for storage 
 by means of a reservoir containing 2(»,0()0,()00 gallons, and 
 a surface reservoir capable of containing 6,0()0,<)0() gallons ; 
 that this present sup[)ly was for the service of only 19,000 
 inhabitants ; that the company proposed to construct another 
 reservoir which would contain 100,0()0,0()0 galloii.s, so that 
 there would be storage for 132,000,000 gallons; that the 
 company proposed to supply 20 gallons per head per day
 
 284 OBJECTIONS TO SUPPLY, STORAGE, ETC. 
 
 to a population of 38,000, which was larger than the exist- 
 ing population of Chesterfield and the district to be sup- 
 plied ; and that the amount of storage and the quantity 
 to be supplied were sufficient. 
 
 In the Glosso'p Water Bill, 186-5, 157, among other ob- 
 jections, it urged that the proposed supply to the town 
 of Glossop was insufficient for the probable increase of the 
 population. The Referees reported, that the rainfall of the 
 S4-0 acres which would pass through the reservoirs was cal- 
 culated to afford 83,323,420 cubic feet, of which it was 
 intended that two-thirds or 22,215,600 cubic feet should be 
 supplied to the inhabitants of Glossop, aud one-third or 
 11,107,000 cubic feet to the millowners ; .and that the 
 quantity of water retained for Glossop would give a supply 
 of 20 gallons a day to 18,513 people, or 50 per cent, above 
 the present population, which was 12,000 ; and that the 
 storage capacity of the reservoirs, when enlarged as pro- 
 posed, would be 6,999,940 cubic feet, which would give a 
 storage of three months' supply. 
 
 In the Maryport Improvement Harbour and Dock 
 Bill, 1866, 61, it was proposed, i7iter alia, to provide a 
 supply of water for the use of the town of Maryport. The 
 supply would be derived by pumping from a mill-race lead- 
 ing out of the River Derwent (discharging at its driest 
 season over 26,000,000 gallons per day), as also from the 
 residue of the River Derwent, and the stream of the 
 Cocker. The population of Maryport was 6,000. The 
 Referees reported that the quality of the water was not 
 objected to, and that they considered the works efficient 
 for the proposed object. 
 
 In the Truro Water Bill, 1866, 94, it appeared that the 
 population was 1 2,000. The promoters proposed to make a 
 depositing reservoir and a service reservoir, containing 
 together 1,698,948 gallons, which, it was calculated, would 
 yield a daily supply of 20 gallons per head. A pipe of 10 
 inches diameter would be used, and a pressure sufficient to 
 reach the houses situated in the highest part of Truro ob- 
 tained. The petitioners alleged that the depositing reser-
 
 OBJECTIONS TO SUPPLY, STORAGE, ETC. 285 
 
 voir was inadequate for the requirements of Truro ; that 
 the proposed works were defective in engineering details, 
 and that the estimate was insufficient. The promoters 
 stated that they had taken land for the formation of 
 an additional reservoir ; that their depositing reservoir 
 would be replenished from a gathering ground of 1,000 
 acres, from which they anticipated a continuous supply of 
 15 cubic feet per minute, in addition to the quantity stored, 
 (No provision, however, had been made for a compensation 
 reservoir, whereby the interests of the owners and occupiers 
 of the mills on the river would be materially injured.) 
 In further support of the evidence of the injury done to 
 the petitioners, it was also shown that the company would 
 divert the whole of the River Allen into their depositing 
 reservoir, and that, in the summer and dry seasons, the 
 quantity of water flowing into it might be only 1.5 cubic 
 feet per minute, or little more than half the amount of 
 27 cubic feet per minute, which is the quantity estimated 
 for the requirements of the population of Truro. It was 
 also shown that the capacity of the reservoir being only 
 sufficient for a consumption of six weeks, would give no 
 security for an adequate and constant supply. The Refe- 
 rees reported that the works were inefficient, the engineer- 
 ing details defective, the provision as to storage reservoirs 
 inadequate, and that, taking into account the amount of 
 compensation the promoters would be liable to pay, the 
 estimate was insufficient. 
 
 In the Birminfjham Water Bill, 1865, 111, the Referees 
 reported that the promoters W(juld obtain a su])ply of 
 2,000,000 gallons per day from the streams flowing from 
 Sutton Park, and an equal amount from the proposed shaft 
 and adit ; and that the present supply for the service of the 
 town of Birmingham was, in the dry season, 7,000,000 
 gallons a day, an amount barely suffirient for its present 
 population ; that, of this quantity, 4,000,000 gallons were 
 daily derived from tlie River Tame, which was becoming 
 more and more imjDure every da}', so that that source of 
 supply must soon be abandoned ; and that it was absolutely
 
 286 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO QUALITY OF WATER. 
 
 necessary to procure a further and better supply, especially 
 as it had become necessary to afford a supply of water to 
 districts lying outside the present district of the company ; 
 and that the present supply for Birmiugham was insuflS- 
 cient and that the works were efficient. 
 
 In the Birmingham Water Bill, 1866, 56, the pro- 
 moters proposed to obtain an additional quantity of water 
 for the use of the to^vn of Birmingham, and to discontinue 
 gradually the use of the River Tame, now one of the sources 
 of supply. The amount of water supplied by the company 
 was stated to be about 7,o 00,000 gallons per day at its 
 maximum, and of this about 4,000,000 gallons were derived 
 from the River Tame, the quality of which, particularly in 
 dry seasons, was very impure and unsuitable for domestic 
 uses, without a considerable admixture of purer water 
 derived from other sources. The Referees reported, " From 
 the evidence laid before them, the Referees are of opinion 
 that the works intended will be efficient for the objects pro- 
 posed by the Bill." 
 
 Sect. IV. 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO QUALITY OF PROPO.^ED SUPPLY. 
 
 In the Cheltenham Water Bill, 1865, 137, the company 
 proposed to take a supply of water from the Severn at a 
 point called Mythe, i) miles from Cheltenham. The peti- 
 tioners alleged that the Severn water at the proposed point of 
 supply was of an impure and unwholesome quality, and 
 unfit to be drunk. They adduced evidence to show that 
 the water taken from the Severn above Worcester (16 
 miles higher up than Mythe), and supplied to that town, 
 was of bad quality ; that at Mjthe the water was less 
 suited for consumption, inasmuch as before reaching that 
 point it received the sewage of Worcester and Upton; 
 that immediately below Mythe it was joined by the Avon, 
 a turbid stream which drains a considerable district ; that
 
 OBJECTIONS TO QUALITY OF WATER. 287 
 
 a weir erected about half-a-milc below the junction retarded 
 the flow of water which, beino; rendered almost stagnant in 
 summer when the river is low, became very offensive ; that 
 at high tides, more especially at equinoctial spring-tides, 
 not only was the water of the Avon forced upwards, but the 
 sewage of Gloucester was carried over the weir into the 
 river above. For the promoters, witnesses were called to 
 show that the Severn water was used at Worcester not only 
 for domestic purposes but frequently for drinking, and that 
 no injurious consequences had been complained of; that 
 below "Worcester, the Tame, a considerable river and purer 
 than the Severn, falls into it ; that the water at the proposed 
 source of sujDply was not inferior to that supplied to Wor- 
 cester ; that although the river might at times, owing to 
 freshes, unusually high tides, or other exceptional circum- 
 stances, be in a condition unfavourable for consumption, no 
 bad consequences need ensue, inasmuch as the company 
 possessed storage reservoirs equal to 34 days' supply for the 
 town of Cheltenham, and could therefore abstain from 
 pumping for a period. It was also stated that the Severn 
 at Mythe compares favourably with the Thames above 
 Teddington Lock (the point from which London -is in a 
 great measure supplied), and with other rivers ; and that 
 although, as is commonly the case with river water, inferior 
 in freshness to spring water, it was in some respects superior 
 to the company's present supply. The Referees reported 
 "that there were no sufficient objections to the proposed 
 source of supply and the quality of the water." 
 
 In the Bir7ninghcmi Water Bill, LS65, 111, it was ob- 
 jected that the water to be supplied would be taken from 
 two distinct sources, one the ujDper measure of new red 
 sandstone which contains good water, the other the lower 
 measure, in which the water is hard and unfit for domestic 
 consumption. The Referees liowever reported that, "Much 
 evidence was given with respect to the quality of the water 
 in both the upper and lower measures of new red sand- 
 stone ; and, in the opinion of the Referees, the water from 
 both sources is well fitted for domestic consumjiition."
 
 288 oruECTiONS as to pressure. 
 
 See also Bute Docks, Cardiff {No. 2) Bill, 1865, 313, 
 ante, p. 122, where the dock proprietors sought powers to 
 supply the shipping with water which was alleged to be 
 impure and unwholesome. 
 Impiirity of As to impurity of the existing source of supply, see Bir- 
 
 exis mg sup- ^i^gf^^^ Water Bill, 1 865, 111, p. 285 ; and Birmingham 
 Water Bill, 1866, 56, p. 286. 
 
 Sect. V. 
 
 OBJECTIONS IN REFERENCE TO PRESSURE. 
 
 By the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, it is provided that 
 " the undertakers shall provide and keep in the pipes to be 
 laid down by them a supply of pure and wholesome water, 
 sufficient for the domestic use of all the inhabitants of the 
 town or district within the limits of the special Act, who, 
 as hereinafter provided, shall be entitled to demand a 
 supply, and shall be willing to pay water-rate for the same ; 
 and such supply shall be constantly laid on at such a pres- 
 sure as will make the water reach the top story of the 
 highest houses within the said limits, unless it is provided 
 by the Sj^ecial Act that the water to be supplied by the 
 undertakers need not be constantly laid on under pres- 
 sure . . . ." 
 
 The question of pressure has been raised in several cases. 
 In the Glossop Water Bill, 1865, 157, it was objected that 
 the proposed supply was brought from too low a level. 
 The Referees reported, " There are 2,580 houses in Glossop 
 and the district round it, and there are not above 100 
 houses which are above the level of the surface-water of the 
 Swinehaw Reservoir. These (some of them being farm- 
 houses) have their own supplies of water.'' In the Bir- 
 mingham Water Bill, 1806, 56, the Referees reported that 
 " The present supply is not available for high service to all 
 the houses in Birmingham, the extreme height to which it
 
 PREFERABLE SUPPLY OBTAIXABLE. • 289 
 
 is raised being 311 feet. It is not proposed to construct any 
 reservoir at a liigher level than the existing reservoirs, 
 except one at Upper Edgbaston for local purposes ;" and 
 they also reported that the proposed works would be 
 efficient. In the Wewrdale and Shildon District Water 
 Bill, 1866, 182, the Referees reported that, " from the un- 
 dulating nature of the country, the amount of pressure 
 would vary in different places ; but that as the water was 
 conveyed from 1,100 feet above the level of the sea down 
 to 400 feet, the pressure would require to be controlled to 
 prevent the bursting of the pipes ;" and they also reported 
 that the proposed works Avould be efficient. In the Truro 
 Water BUI, 1866, 94, the Referees report, among other 
 matters, that a pressure would be obtained " sufficient to 
 reach the houses situated in the highest part of Truro." 
 
 Sect. VI. 
 
 OBJECTION THAT PREFERABLE SUPPLY MIGHT BK OBTAINED 
 FROM OTHER SOURCES. 
 
 As in raihvay IMlh, the Referees will not entertain any 
 objection tliat a preferable route beyond the Hmits of devia- 
 tion might have been taken, so in Waterworks Bills, tlie 
 Referees consider themselves precluded from entering ujDon 
 any enquiry as to whether a preferable supply of water 
 might not Ite obtained from a different source. This point 
 directly arose in the Cheltenham Water Bill, 1865, 137 
 (see p. 286), where, objections having been strenuously 
 urged to the quality of the propo.sed supply, the Referees 
 reported, " Evidence was tendered by the petitioners to 
 show that preferable supplies might be derived from other 
 sources. The Referees did not, however, consider them- 
 selves at liberty to enter into an enquiry on the subject." 
 At first sight, this decision appears to militate against the 
 earlier decision in the Chesterfield Water, &c., Bill, 1865, 
 
 u
 
 290 . MONEY COMPENSATION. 
 
 89, where the Referees reported that the proposed supply 
 was " as good as can be procured in that locality ;" but, on 
 a closer examination into the facts, the two decisions would 
 appear to be reconcileable. The facts of the latter case 
 were these : by the Bill it was proposed to confer furtlier 
 powers upon the Chesterfield Waterworks, &c., Company, 
 to construct additional works. The existing and proposed 
 source of supply was the Linacre Brook. The corporation 
 and the ratepayers of the borough complained that "the 
 present supply of water was impure, and unwholesome, and 
 unfit for storage purposes ;" and that " the upper reservoir 
 proposed to be constructed on the said stream would only 
 collect surface water, impregnated with animal and vege- 
 table matter." On this point the Referees reported, " The 
 Referees are satisfied that the water of the Linacre Brook 
 is as good as can be procured in that locality. It is soft, 
 which is rather an advantage for general use ; and there 
 was evidence given that it would be improved by being 
 stored and aerated in large open reservoirs." Although, 
 therefore, the Referees, in their report, use an expression 
 implying comparison, yet it does not appear from the report 
 that any other source of supply was suggested by the peti- 
 tioners. 
 
 Sect. VII. 
 
 ESTIMATE INSUEFICENT LOOKING TO AMOUNT OF MONEY 
 COMPENSATION CLAIMABLE BY MILLOWNERS, ETC. 
 
 The estimate in Waterworks Bills, as in other cases, 
 must be sufficient to cover claims of money compensation. 
 In the Truro Water Bill, 1866, 94, certain millowners and 
 occupiers on the River Allen objected that they would be 
 de[)rived of the supply of water necessary for the working 
 of their mills, and that no provision had been made for a 
 compensation reservoir by which a sufficient stream of 
 water would be always sent down the river. The promoters
 
 EFFECT OF REFEREES' DECISION. 291 
 
 stated that they had taken land for the formation of an 
 additional reservoir, and that they were prepared to make 
 compensation in water and money to the petitioners. The 
 Eeferees reported that, " taking into account of compensa- 
 tion the promoters will be liable to pay, the estimate was 
 insufficient for the objects proposed by the Bill." 
 
 Sect. VIIL 
 effect of adverse report by referees. 
 
 If the Referees report that the engineering is inefficient 
 for the proposed object, or that the estimate is insufficient, 
 then, by Standing Order No. 96, the Bill cannot be further 
 proceeded with unless the House shall otherwise order. 
 But if the Referees reported adversely in regard to either 
 the nature and amount of the existing and proposed supply, 
 the pressure, proposed mode of service, the quality of the 
 water, or the provisions as to storage reservoirs, then, 
 although the Bill may be further proceeded with, and 
 brought for consideration before the Committee, yet the 
 findings of the Referees on these points are conclusive 
 l>efore the Committee, it being provided by Standing 
 Order No. 95, that, " No further evidence shall be taken by 
 the Committee upon any of the matters reported upon by 
 the Referees." 
 
 u2
 
 292 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 GAS BILLS. 
 
 Sect. I. 
 
 STANDING ORDER 92, AND ITS CONSTRUCTION. 
 
 The matters into which the Referees are directed, by 
 Standing Order 92, to enquire in reference to Gas Bills, 
 are — 
 
 1 . The quality of the gas ; 
 
 2. The existing supply ; 
 
 3. Its price ; (a) 
 
 4. The amount of pressure ; 
 
 5. The cost of production ; 
 
 6. The modes of testing the purity and illuminating 
 power of the gas ; and, 
 
 7. The proposed maximum price to be charged. 
 
 There existed, at first, considerable doubt as to whether 
 the Referees had power to enquire into the engineering 
 details, &c., of Gas Bills. As the Standing Order was 
 originally worded (see Standing Order 9.3 for 1865), the 
 Referees were only empowered to enquire into such matters 
 " in the case of Bills of the second class for authorising the 
 
 (a) By sections 29 to 35 of tlie Gas- Works Ckuses Act, 1847, certain 
 provisions are made in regard to the profits of gas companies, the maximum 
 rate of dividend to be paid, the application of profits, when more than 
 prescribed amount, towards reduction in price of gas, &c.
 
 GAS BILLS. 
 
 construction of works ;" and, as Gas Bills are of the first 
 class (see Standing Order 11), the Referees considered that 
 the effect of the words above quoted was to preclude them 
 from entertaining questions of engineering in connection 
 with Gas Bills, {a) 
 
 In the Standing Order for Session 1866, however, as 
 well as in that for Session 1867, the words " of the second 
 class " have been omitted ; so that there cannot now, it is 
 apprehended, be any question as to tlie jurisdiction of the 
 Referees over the engineering details of Gas Bills. 
 
 But even in the Session 1865, where a Gas Bill took also 
 power to construct a work properly belonging to the second 
 class, the Referees enquired into the engineering details of 
 such work. By the Bath Gas Bill, 1865, 43, it was pro- 
 posed to construct a tramway or railway for the purpose of 
 connecting the gas-works with the Midland Railway, which 
 was to be effected by means of a bridge over the River 
 Avon, consisting of two spans 70 feet each, with a pier in 
 the centre of the river. The Great Western Railway 
 opposed, and alleged obstruction to navigation (see p. 191), 
 but the Referees reported that tliey " did not consider this 
 alleo-ation well founded, and did not consider that there 
 was any objection to the engineering details, or the suffi- 
 ciency of the works proposed." 
 
 (a) " With regard to gas bills there is very great doubt whether the 
 Referees have the power to inquire into the engineering. There is such a 
 tiling as the laying of mains; and actually upon that will sometimes 
 depend the site of the Gas Works, — as to whether they have to overcome a 
 hill between the manufacturer of the gas and the point of supply. As I 
 have read the Standing Order;;. I tliink that wo are i)roclu(led from going 
 into that question. The words are ' the amount of the pressure.' In fact 
 that question of pressure has never been rai.scd for that reason. 
 
 Chairman. Surely the amount of pressure is .strictly engineering 1 But 
 engineering is not included under tiiis paragraph of the St;uiding Order; 
 tiie engineering details seem to be confined to the first paragraph of the 
 Staiiding Order, and tliat is in the case of Bills of tjie second class. Now 
 (ias Bills are not iu that class, and that is a question which is continually 
 raised. 
 
 Mr. Milner Oibwn. Docs it not apply also to waterworks ] — It docs to 
 some extent; but I think that waterworks are included in Bills of the 
 second cla.s8." (See Eiidcnce of Mr. Hansard bffore 6'elecl CviiiiaiUcc (Sth 
 June, I8G5), Q. 142-4.) 
 
 293
 
 294 
 
 GAS BILLS IN PAST SESSIONS. 
 
 Sect. II. 
 
 GAS BILLS IN PAST SESSIONS. 
 
 3s. 9d. per 
 1000 feet. 
 
 Power 13 
 candles. 
 5s. per 1000 
 feet. 
 
 Illuminating 
 power. 
 
 In the Bath Gas Bill, 1865, 43, the only question raised 
 (other than the question of engineering before referred to) 
 was in regard to the cost of production. The Referees 
 reported that, according to the evidence of the secretary of 
 the company, the total cost was 2s. 7^d per 1,000 feet, 
 and that by adding a sum of Is. 2d. per 1,000 feet, the 
 sum required to pay 8 per cent, on the company's capital 
 (being the maximum dividend which they were allowed to 
 divide), the cost of production was brought up to 3s. 9^d. 
 per 1,000 feet; that in this estimate no credit had been 
 given for the residuary matter sold ; and that 3s. 9d, per 
 1,000 feet was the amount actually charged to consumers 
 in Bath. 
 
 In the Torquay Gas Bill, 1865, 138, the Eeferees re- 
 ported, " It was agreed upon by the promoters and peti- 
 tioners that the Referees should report that the illuminating 
 power of the gas at present supplied in the district of 
 Tormoham is equivalent to 13 sperm candles, and that the 
 price charged to private consumers is 5s. per ] ,000 feet." 
 
 In the Exeter Gas {No. 1) Bill, 1865, 139, which was a 
 Bill to repeal and consolidate existing Acts, and for other 
 purposes, the inhabitants of Exeter complained that the gas 
 supplied was inferior in quality, insufficient in quantity, and 
 high in price. The Referees reported that it was proved 
 by many witnesses that up to a period of six or seven 
 months ago, many and well-grounded complaints had been 
 made as to the quality of the gas ; but that within the 
 latter period a marked improvement had taken place ; that 
 within that period several analyses of the illuminating 
 power of the gas supplied had been made ; and these 
 analyses the Referees detailed, showing that the illuminat-
 
 GAS BILLS IN PAST SESSIONS. 295 
 
 ing power fluctuated up to 1'^ sperm candles, and was 
 usually equal to 13 or 14 candles; they further reported 
 that the quantity of sulphur found upon those analyses Quantity of 
 varied much (from 4 to 19 grains per 100 feet), but that 
 the larofest amount had been within the amount allowed 
 by the Consolidated Gas Act ; that, as regards the quantity Experiments 
 supplied, experiments had been made to ascertain the ^^ ^'^ suppb' 
 quantity supplied to the public lamps of Exeter ; that by lamps. 
 the contract under which the company had undertaken to Tlietestap- 
 supply the public lamps, it was provided that the flame of 
 the lamps should be of a given size, therein specified, and 
 the experiment was made by comparing a brass plate cut Brass plate 
 to the size and form specified in the contract with the si2e. 
 flame of the lamps ; that this mode of testing was liable to 
 some error, but that the Referees were of opinion that, on 
 the whole, the conclusions arrived at by the persons who 
 made the experiments were substantially correct ; that the Kesults of 
 results of the experiment were as follows : of 5G3 lamps experiments, 
 experimented upon, the flame of 147 lamjas was of full 
 contract size, that of 18G lamps of three-fourths the con- 
 tract size, that of 9 lamps of two-thirds, that of 115 of one- 
 half, and that of 4 of one-fourth the contract size ; that it had Supply insuffi- 
 been abundantly proved that the suj^ply of gas had been ^^^^^' 
 insufficient to supply stoves by day, or to afford a sufficient 
 supply to manufacturing establishments which required to 
 be lighted throughout the night ; that the price chai'ged 
 to consumers had been reduced to 4s. per 1,000 feet, meter Price is. per 
 rent being included in that charge ; and that the cost of tuc cost of 
 coals had been returned by the company as 16s. 2d. per *^"'^'^- 
 ton for the year 1863. 
 
 In the Folkestone Gas Bill, 1865, 141, on the opposition 
 of the Corporation of Folkestone, the Referees reported as 
 follows: — "The petition complained that no means were Supply fco 
 provided in the Bill for testing the quantity of gas P"^'^^ ^'^"^P"- 
 consumed by the public lamps. It was agi'ced upon be- 
 tween the promoters and petitioners that the present charge 
 of £3 lO.s. 8d. per annum for lighting each puijlic lamp is 
 equivalent to a charge of 4s. 6d. per 1,000 feet. The price 5*. Gd. per 
 charged to ordinary consumers is 5s. 6d. per 1,000 feet. ^'^^^ ^^^^'
 
 296 
 
 GAS BILLS IN PAST SESSIONS. 
 
 Price of coal. 
 
 Power 14 can- 
 dles. 
 
 Parties agreeing 
 on facts to be 
 repoi'ted. 
 
 Power 16 
 candles. 
 
 3s. 6d. per 
 
 1,000 feet. 
 
 In the Gosport Gas Bill, 1865, 142, A. complained "that 
 the quality of the gas hitherto supplied had been inferior, 
 and that the supply had been wholly inadequate." It ap- 
 peared that the gas cooking apparatus at Haslar Hospital 
 had had to be discontinued in consequence of the deficiency 
 of the supply. The price of gas coal in Gosport was 14s. 
 per ton; and 15s. 6d. delivered at the works. The pro- 
 moters in reply offered no evidence on the point of the 
 supply ; but proved that the illuminating power throughout 
 the last year had given an average to equal 14 candles. The 
 Referees reported that the present supplj'' was inadequate, 
 and that the quality now supplied was good. 
 
 In the Preston Gas Bill, 1865, 147, the Corporation of 
 Preston and other petitioners complained that the gas sup- 
 plied was inferior in quality and quantity ; that the means 
 of testing the purity of the gas required alteration ; that 
 the price was too high ; and that there was needless ex- 
 penditure in the manufacture and distribution of the gas. 
 The promoters and the several petitioners agreed to a 
 detailed statement of facts (embodied in the Referees' Re- 
 port), entitled " Questions for Court of Referees, with 
 answers thereto agreed upon, &c." This statement had 
 reference to the existing supply, its quality and its price, as 
 well as to pressure, cost of production, and modes of testing 
 the illuminating power and purity. 
 
 In the Sheffield United Gas Bill, 1866, 57, the Corpora- 
 tion of Sheffield alleged that the illuminating power was 
 not sufficient, and might be increased without addition to 
 the price. The illuminating power required by the existing 
 Act was equal to ]0^ sperm candles ; but the gas actually 
 supplied was of an average of 16 sperm candles. The 
 price was 3s. per 1,000 feet on an annual consumption ex- 
 ceeding 500,000 feet, and 3s. 6d per 1,000 feet to all con- 
 sumers of less than that amount. Evidence was given that 
 the cost of increased illuminating power might be estimated 
 at l\d. per 1,000 feet for each additional candle. Upon 
 these grounds, the Referees reported that the minimum 
 illuminating power of 15 sperm candles would be a reason- 
 able amount under the circumstances of the case.
 
 GAS BILLS IN PAST SESSIONS. 297 
 
 In the Brighton and Hove General Gas Bill, 18G6, 77, 
 it was proposed to increase the limits of the Company's 
 district. The Keferees reported that the gas at present 
 suppHed by the Company had upon the average an ilkimi- 
 nating power equal to 121 candles, and it was of a sufficiently Power 124 
 pure quality ; that the supply was sufficient in quantity ; 
 that the prices charged were, at Brighton and Hove 4s., at 4^., 5^., and 65, 
 New Shoreham, Kingston, and Southwick, 5s., and at P^^ ^'^*^^ ^^®*- 
 Portslade Us. per ] ,000 feet ; for the public lamps at Price for pub- 
 Brighton £4, at Hove £4 10s., and at New Shoreham, "« ^^^^Ps- 
 JB2 OS. each per annum. That the pressure at the Town pressure 
 Hall and also at the company's office, Ship Street, was 
 sufficient for all purposes, being at its minimum about the 
 pressure due to ^''^ of an inch of water; that the present Cost of pro- 
 cost of production is 2s. 9d. per 1,000 feet, exclusive of any 
 charge for interest on capital ; that the present place of present place 
 
 testing pressure and illuminating power at the company's of testing 
 
 , , . . . i- -^ pressure, &c. 
 
 offices in Ship Street (which is about two miles from the Two miles 
 
 place of manufacture) is well suited for tliat jiurpose, being y'^anufacture* 
 at a distance (over 1,000 yards) from- the place of manu- 
 facture, but that an officer to be appointed for that purpose 
 ought to have access at all reasonable times to said office, 
 for the purpose of testing, without giving previous notice to 
 
 the comT)any ; that the testing-burner described in the Bill [testing 
 _ ^ "' ' ° _ burner. 
 
 was suitable for the purpose, Ijut that a model of it shall be Model should 
 
 deposited. The Referees also reported certain facts cou- ^^ ' t-'po^ite . 
 
 nected with the cost of supply ; and in regard to a certain Suitableness 
 
 piece of land, they reported that the same was well suited gitg ™^°^*' 
 
 for gas works, but that no powers were taken in the Bill to No access 
 
 obtain access from same to the high road. ^^^^ ^^^^-a a 
 
 o road provided.
 
 298 GAS BILLS WHOLLY REFERRED. 
 
 Sect. III. 
 
 CASES WHERE ALL QUESTIONS IN GAS BILLS SUBMITTED TO 
 
 REFEREES. 
 
 Hitherto, the only Bills in reference to which parties 
 have availed themselves of the provisions of Standing 
 Order 94 (by which, if the promoters and opponents of 
 any Bill shall agree to that course, all the questions in issue 
 may be submitted to the Referees), have been Gas Bills. 
 There have been two such instances. In the Neath New 
 Gas Bill. 1866, 316, all questions having been so referred, 
 the Referees rej)orted " that subject to certain proposed 
 amendments made in and annexed to the Bill, which the Re- 
 ferees recommend should be made therein, they are of 
 opinion that the said Bill ought to be proceeded with." And 
 in the Worksoj) and SJdreoaks Gas Bill, 1866, 317, which 
 was in like manner wholly referred, the Referees reported 
 " that the quality of the gas supplied by the existing com- 
 pany is sufficiently good, the illuminating power being 
 equal to that required by their Act, and that the supply is 
 also sufficient ; and the Referees are of opinion that this 
 Bill ought not to be proceeded with, the opponents under- 
 taking to reduce the price of gas to 4s, per 1,000 feet from 
 the 1st January next,"
 
 299 
 
 INDEX or BILLS 
 
 EEFEEEED TO I^^ THE TEXT. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Aberdare Valley and Caerphilly Junction Eailway Bill (1866, 115) 78 
 
 Aberystwith and Welsh Coast Eailway (1865, 293) 195, 197 
 
 AboyueTand Braemar Eailway Bill (1865, 216) ... 154,158,178 
 
 Acton and Twickenham Eailway Bill (1865, 193) 234 
 
 Afon Valley Eailway Bill (1865, 315) 98,110,135,245 
 
 Alexandra;'(Newport) Docks Bill (1865, 292) 15,220,230 
 
 Barnet, Hendon, and Midland Junction Eailway Bill (1866, 205) 16, 32, 76 
 Barnet, Hendon, Hampstead, and Loudon Eailway Bill (1865, 69) 11, 81, 
 
 93, 94 112, 130, 217 
 Barry Eailway (Penarth and Cardiff Extension) Bill (1866, 132) ... 120 
 
 Bath Gas Bill (1865, 43) 5, 10, 191, 293, 294 
 
 Bedford, Northampton, and Weedon Eailway Bill (1865, 67) 31, 82, 126, 
 
 162, 165, 171 
 
 Belfast New Streets Bill (1865, 291) 245,252 
 
 Birkenhead and Liverpool Eailway Bill (1865, 285) 6, 122, 197, 218, 252 
 
 Birmingham Water^Bill (1865, 111) 277,285,287 
 
 Birmingham Water Bill (1866, 56) 286,288 
 
 Bishop's Castle Eailway (Extensions to Craven Arms) Bill (1865, 
 
 194) 213 
 
 Bo'uess, Grangemouth, and South Alloa Junction Eailway Bill (1866, 
 
 264) 76,158,162 
 
 Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Eailway Bill (1865, 425) 88, 91, 114, 
 
 125, 159, 199, 219 
 Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Eailway (Northern Lines) Bill 
 
 (1866,223) 40,52,^49 
 
 Brighton and Hove General Gas Bill (1866, 77) 297 
 
 Bristol and North Somerset Railway (Deviation) Bill (1866, 121) 99, 102 
 Bristol and North Somerset Eailway (Southern Extension) Bill 
 
 (1866,323) 21 
 
 Bristol Water Bill (1865, 49) 276
 
 300 INDEX OF BILLS KEFERRED TO, 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Brixton, Clapham, and Balham Extension Railway Bill (1866, 165) 
 
 76, ill, 233 
 Bromyard and Hereford Railway Bill (1866, 88) 16, 36, 54, 70, 74, 81, 110 
 
 Buckley Railway (Docks, &c.) Bill (1866, 105) 200, 202, 220, 250 
 
 Burton-upon-Trent and Nottingham Railway Bill (1865, 217) 17, 66, 76, 
 
 78, 81, 147 
 Bute Docks, Cardiff (No. 1) Bill (1865, 305) 7,23,35,38,89,200,201,220, 
 
 227, 229 
 
 Bute Docks, Cardiff (No. 2) Bill (1865, 313) 221, 274 
 
 Bute Docks, Cardiff, Bill (1866, 122) 201, 220' 
 
 Caledonian Railway (Balerno and Penicuik Branches) Bill (1865, 175) 
 
 31, 104, 119 
 Caledonian Rt\ilway (Glasgow South Side Railways, &c.) Bill (1865, 
 
 106) 31,41,155,181,185 
 
 Caledonian Railway (Greenock and Gourock Extensions) Bill (1866, 
 
 109) 32,67,75,78,214 
 
 Caledonian Railway (Lanarkshire, &o.. Branches) Bill (1866, 215) ... 248 
 
 Callander and Oban Railway Bill (1865, 176) ... ' 22, 133, 166 
 
 Cambridge University and Town Water Bill (1866, 55) 280 
 
 Cannock Chase and Wolverhampton Railway (Hednesford Extension) 
 
 Bill (1866, 118) 238 
 
 Cannock Chase Railway (Extension) Bill (1866, 116) 99,102 
 
 Central Wales and Staffordshire Junction Railway Bill (1865, 215) 
 
 31, 152, 157 
 
 Cheltenham Water Bill (1865, 137) 286,289 
 
 Chester and West Cheshiie Railway Junction Bill (1866, 89) 87, 91 
 
 Chesterfield Water and Gas Bill (1865, 89) 283, 289 
 
 Chichester and Midhurst Railway Bill (1865, 50) 140,150 
 
 Chipping Norton, Banbury, and East and West Junction Railway 
 
 Bill (1865, 195) 42,115,121,133 
 
 City, Kingston, and Richmond Railway Bill (1866, 177) ... 115, 234 
 
 Colnbrook Railway Bill (1866, 189) ... 105 
 
 Connah's Quay Railways and Docks Bill (1865, 258) ... 62, 196, 231 
 
 Craven Junction Railway Bill (1866, 110) ... 24 225 
 
 Crofthead and Kilmarnock Extension Railway Bill (1865, 77) 31, 62, 132, 
 
 135 
 Croydon, Mitcham, and Kingston Railway Bill (1866, 92) 74, 75, 111, 
 
 124, 238 
 Crystal Palace New Railways Bill (1865, 159) 36, 65, 82, 156 
 
 Deal and Dover Railway Bill (1865, 54) 32 
 
 Dee and Mersey Junction Railway Bill (1865, 269) 45, 190, 200 
 
 Devon and Somerset Railway (Deviations) Bill (1866, 101) 225
 
 INDEX OF BILLS REFERRED TO, 301 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Dover, Deal, and Sandwich Eaihvay Bill (1865, 54) 32 
 
 East and West Junction Enilway Bill (1865, 66) 31, 39, 242 
 
 East and West Yorkshire Uuion Railway Bill (1865,237) ... 31, 149, 152 
 
 East Loudon Railway Bill (1865, 113) 64,127 
 
 East Loudon Railway (South Western Extension) Bill (1866, 167) 38, 115 
 
 Edgware, Highgate, and London Railway Bill (1865, 90) 175 
 
 Edgware, Highgate, and London Railway Bill (1866, 193) ... 32, 187 
 
 Pdiuburgh and Glasgow Railway (No. 2) Bill (1865, 359) ... 90, 183, 185 
 
 Edmburgh and Glasgow Railway (No. 3) Bill (1865, 457) 38 
 
 Ely and Ogmore Valleys Junction Railway Bill (1865, 423) 41,55, 134 
 Ely Valley and Vale of Neath Junction Railways Bill (1866, 90) 131,136 
 
 Evesham and Redditch Railway Bill (1865, 85) 58, 79 
 
 Exeter Gas (No. 1) Bill (1865, 139) 294 
 
 Fareham and Netley Riilway Bill (1865, 72) 47, 194 
 
 Folkestone Gas Bill (1865, 141) 295 
 
 Forth Bridge Bill (1865) 6,9 
 
 Fulbam Railway Bill (1865, 127) 70,170 
 
 Furness Railway Bill (1865, 79) 47,194,200 
 
 Garth Quarry Railways Bill (1865, 314) 38,171 
 
 Glasgow and North Western Railway Bill (1865, 369) 236 
 
 Glasgow and South Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill 
 
 (1865, 373) 95 
 
 Glasgow and South Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill 
 
 (1866, 192) 121 
 
 Glasgow and South Western (Kilmarnock Direct) Bill (1865, 78) 31, 250 
 Glasgow City, Suburban, and Harbour Railway Bill (1865, 186) 19, 125 
 
 Glasgow (City) Uuion Railway Bill (1865, 105) 31, 151, 155 
 
 Glasgow Corporation Water Bill (1866, 191) 283 
 
 Glossop Water Bill (1865, 157) 278,284,288 
 
 Gosport Gas Bill (1865, 142) 296 
 
 Great Northoru Railway (Additional Powers) Bill (1 S. & G. 5) ... 12 
 Great Northern Railway (Potter's Bar, Baruet, and Hendon) Bill 
 
 (1866,194) 32,120 
 
 Great Wfstei'u Railway Bill (1 S.& G. 124) 94 
 
 Great Western Railway (Furtt.er Powers) I'.ill (1866, 233) ... 33, 185 
 
 Greenock and Ayrsbire Railway Bill (1866, 287) 32, 116, 214 
 
 Greenock Harbour Bill (1866, 98) 228 
 
 Greenock Railway Bill (1865, 187) 37,152,157,231 
 
 Hadlow Railway Bill (1865, 51) 61 
 
 Had low R'lilway Bill (1866, 66) 85,106,115,173,218
 
 302 INDEX OF BILLS EEFEREED TO, 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Halesowen and Bromsgrove Branch Railway Bill (1866, 235) 95, 255 
 
 Havant, Hambledon, and Droxford Railway Bill (1865, 45) 16, 69, 116, 164 
 Holderness Embankment and Reclamation Bill (1866, 507) ...200, 201,207 
 Hornsey and Kingsland Junction Railway Bill (1865, 91) ... 45, 209 
 
 Huddersfield and Halifax Railway Bill (1866, 162) 249 
 
 Huddersfield Water Bill (1866, 63) 279,282 
 
 Hull Docks Bill (1866, 91) 97,220 
 
 Isle of Wight Railway Bill (1865, 493) 148 
 
 Kingsbridge Railway BiU (1866, 123) 148 
 
 King's Lynn Docks and Railway Bill (1865, 73) 211 
 
 Lancashire and Yorkshire and Midland and Leeds^ Bradford, and 
 
 Halifax Junction Bill (1 S. & G. 3) 12 
 
 Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Additional Powers) Bill (1865, 239) 
 
 86,114,122,154, 178,218 
 Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (West Riding Branches) Bill 
 
 (1866,161) 116,158,183 
 
 Lancashire Union Railways Bill (1865, 276) 31,148,149 
 
 Launceston, Bodmin, and Wadebridge Junction Railway Bill (1865, 
 
 375) 17,36,53 
 
 Leeds, North Yorkshire, and Durham Railway Bill (1865, 219) 44, 50, 
 84, 93, 112, 113, 122, 138, 141, 164, 165, 168, 178, 179, 180, 209, 226, 240, 
 241, 243 
 Llanelly Railway and Dock Bill (1866, 271)... 200,203,220,221,222 
 Llanelly Railway and Dock (Extension to Mumbles) Bill (1865, 494) 
 
 97, 222 
 Llantrissart and Taff Vale Junction Railway Bill (1865, 422) 19,43, 139 
 Llantrissart and Tatf Vale Junction Railway Bill (1866, 153) 32, 124, 211, 
 
 226 
 London and Noi'th Western and Midland Counties Coal Fields 
 
 Railway Bill (1866, 195) 14,63,123 
 
 London and North Western Railway (New Works, &c.) [England 
 
 and Scotland] Bill (1865, 242) 60,148 
 
 London and South Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill 
 
 (1866, 178) 167 
 
 London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway (Additional Powers) 
 
 Bill (1865, 143) ... 64,119,128,129 
 
 London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway (St. Leonard's Line 
 
 and Hastings Lines) Bill (1866, 254) 58,217 
 
 London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway (St. Leonard's and 
 
 Deviations) Bill (1865, 57) 106,150
 
 INDEX OF BILLS REFERRED TO. 803 
 
 PAGE 
 
 London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway (Various Powers) Bill 
 
 (1866,255) 164,173 
 
 London, Chatham, and Dover and South Eastern (Bromlej, Farn- 
 
 borough, and West Wickham) Railways Bill (1866, 315) 111,225,227 
 
 London, Chatham, and Dover, and South Eastern (Kennington, Clap- 
 ham, and Brixton) Railways Bill (1866, 163) 76, 185, 216 
 
 London, Chatham, and Dover Railway (No. 2) Bill (1865, 59) ... 64 
 
 London, Worcester, and South Wales Railway Bill (1865, 86) 54, 79, 85, 
 
 132, 156, 218 
 
 Louth and Lincoln Railway Bill (1866, 234) 33, 105 
 
 Lynn and Sutton Bridge Railway Bill (1865, 74) 71 
 
 Macclesfield, Knutsford, and Warrington Railway Bill (1866, 93) 238, 255 
 
 Maidstone and Ashford Railway Bill (1866, 65) 19, 57, 120 
 
 Manchester Corporation Water Bill (1865, 145) ,. 281 
 
 Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway (Central Station 
 
 and Lines) Bill (1866, 261 and 297) 21, 25, 36, 48, 126, 175, 176, 183, 213 
 Maryport Improvement Harbour and Dock Bill (1866, 61) 8, 10, 221, 
 
 225, 229, 284 
 
 Metropolis Sewage and Essex Reclamation Bill (1865, 117) 206 
 
 Metropolitan and St. Ji)hn's Wood Railway Bill (1865, 109) 146 
 
 Midland Railway (Ashby to Nuneaton, &c.,) Bill (1866, 117) 164, 168 
 
 Midland Railway (Barnsley to Kirkburton) Bill (1865, 241) 153 
 
 Midland Railway (Branches, &c.,) Bill (1866, 119) 91,96 
 
 Midland Railway (New Lines, &c.,) Bill (1865, 223) 100, 147, 164, 166, 182 
 
 Midland Ivailway (Settle to Carlisle) Bill (1866, 213) 20 
 
 Mold and Denbigh Junction Railway (Extensions) Bill (1865, 264) 41, 53, 
 
 65, 71, 138 
 
 Mold and Denbigh Railway (Branches) Bill (1866, 220) 56 
 
 Moses Gate and Ringley Branch Road Bill (1865, 294) 172 
 
 Neath New Gas Bill (1866, 316) 49 298 
 
 Nelson Local Board Bill (1866, 62) 277 
 
 Newport and Usk Railway Bill (1865, 299) 19, 110 
 
 North British Railway (Additional Powers) Bill (1S65, 178) 163 
 
 North British Railway (Camjts, &c.. Branches) Bill, (1866, 375) 63, 123 
 North British Paulway (Carlisle (.'itadel Station Branch) Bill (1865, 
 
 297) 41, ijy, 66, 68, 69, 73, 97 
 
 North British Railway (Glasgow Branches) Bill (1866, 221) 34, 67, 119, 
 
 176, 227 
 North British lUilway (Lasswade Branches) Bill (1865, 174) 21?i, 31, 118, 
 
 157, 240 
 North British Railway (Tay Bridge) Bill (1866, 246) 1 1, 190
 
 304 INDEX OF BILLS KEFERRED TO. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 North Keut Railway Bill (18U5, 511) 158 
 
 North Lontlou, Highgate, aud Alexaudra Park lUihvay Bill (1866, 
 
 172) 246, 252 
 
 North of England Union Railway Bill (1865, 235) 31, 95, 116, 148, 
 
 149, 244 
 
 North Surrey Railway Bill (1865, 110) 44, 72, 172, 208, 215 
 
 North Wales, Birkenhead, and Liverpool Railway Bill (1866, 106) 37, 
 
 197, 218, 228 
 
 Ogmore Valley Railways (No. 1) Bill (1865, 420) ... 35, 59, 109, 131 
 
 Ogmore Valley Rixilway (No. 1) Bill (1866, 152) 100,134 
 
 Ogmore Valley Railway (No. 2) Bill (1866, 152) 31, 211, 226 
 
 Okehampton Railway Bill (1865, 92) 36,52,156,171 
 
 Pembroke and Tenby Railway Bill (1866, 256) 61, 239 
 
 Perth General Railway Station Bill (1865, 180) 41,68 
 
 Perth General Railway Station, Scottish Central, &c., Railway Com- 
 panies Bill (1865, 179) 42,133 
 
 Peterborough, Wisbeach, and Sutton Railway Bill (1865, 119) ... 61 
 Piccadilly and Park Lane New Road Bill (1865, 196; 187, 246, 247, 256 
 
 Poole and Bournemouth Railway Bill (1865, 5.3) 42,108 
 
 Preston Gas Bill (1865, 147) 296 
 
 Regent's Canal (Limehouse Basin aud Cut) Bill (1865, 173)... 181, 186 
 
 Rhymney Railway Bill (1866, 216) 24,176 
 
 Rochdale Water Bill (1866, 133) 281 
 
 Ryde Station and Railway Bill (1866, 399) 34, 97 
 
 Severn Junction Railway Bill (1865, 361) 22 n, 193, 200 
 
 Sheflield United Ga.s Bill (1865, 57) 2Uti 
 
 Shrewsbury aud Potteries Junction Railway Bill (1865, 257) ... 54 
 
 Southam Railway Bill (1866, 359) 100 
 
 South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover (London, Lewes, 
 
 and Biigliton) Riiilways Bill (1866, 1.54) 233 
 
 South Lancasliire Railways and Dock Bill (1865, 273) 15, 17, 31, 38, 4.5, 
 
 98, 99, 101, 111, 149, 210, 222, 244 
 
 South Staffordshire Water Bill (1866, 67) 282 
 
 South Wales and Great Western Direct Railway Bill (1865, 353) 6, 9, 14, 
 
 191, 201 
 
 Spalding and Bourn Railway Bill (1865, 286) 135 
 
 Surrey and Sussex Junction Rsiilway Bill (1865, 75) 43, 64, 136 
 
 Swansea and Aberystwith .Tunclion Railway Bill (1865, 419) 19, 43, 55 
 
 109, 141 
 Swansea and Clydach Rjvilway Bill (1866, 263) ... 32, 90, 91, 171, 251
 
 DfDEX OF BILLS REFERRED TO. 305 
 
 PXOB 
 
 Swansea Vale and Neath aad 'Brecon Janction Bailway Bill (1865, 
 
 372) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 60 
 
 Swanaea Vale Railway Billd*^, 215} 236 
 
 Thamea Snbway BiU (1866, 429) 199,219 
 
 Torrjaay Gaa Bill 1^5, 138, 294 
 
 Tottenham and Hampetead .Joaction Eailway 0*ew Lines) Bill 
 
 (186.5,128) 20,42,106 
 
 TrowBe Eoad Bill '186-5, 41) 21n, 22 
 
 Tmro Water Bill '1-^, 94) 24.3,280,284,2^9,290 
 
 Vale of Crickhowell Eailway (Western Extensi/jn, Bill (1865, .368; 13, 
 
 23 n, 117, 121, 155 
 Vale of Neath Eailway (Swansea Lines) Bill '1865, 367) ... 63, 89, 101 
 
 Watford and Edgware .Junction Bailway Bill '1866, 190> SI, 210 
 
 Weardale ajud Shild'/n DLftrict Water BUI 1866, 182; 289 
 
 West Bromwich and Waleall BaiJway Bdl 1866, 217) 34, .36, 56, 59, 79 
 Whitehaven and Furuesa Janction Railway Bill ^86-5, 80) 46, 196, 
 
 200, 239 
 
 Wolrerharripton and Bri ' ^ ^' - ' ; t^ ■ ' : ^^5, 234} 31, 85, 119, 218 
 
 Wolverhampton Jind Xor. - . jU Eailway Bill ^1 S. 
 
 &G.125) 154 
 
 Wood Green, WincLmore HUl, and Enfield Railway BUI (1865, 106) 43, 
 
 75, 137 
 
 Worksop and Shire^xik* Gas Bill (1866, 317) 49, 298 
 
 Wrexham and itinera Eailway BUI (186.5, 263; 18, 141, 162, 212, 213 
 
 Wrexharij, Mold, and O^nnah'e Quay and Hoylake Railways Bill 
 
 (1866, 107, 198 
 
 Wrexliam, Mold, and Connab's Qiay Eailway Bill (1865, 260) 62, 83, 
 
 109, 117, 123, lai, 149, 163
 
 307 
 
 GENERAL INDEX. 
 
 ABANDONMENT, 
 
 of Bill on account of adverse report, 38. 
 
 of part of scheme before Eeferees, 25, 39. 
 
 Estimates, how dealt with when portion of line abandoned, 236. 
 
 ACCESS, 
 
 to private property, Interference with, 93, 94 
 
 ACCOMMODATION, 
 
 at another company's stations, Interference with, 64, 
 
 ACCOMMODATION WOEKS, 
 
 Provisions of General Acts as to, 102. 
 Cases as to, 255. 
 
 ADDITIONAL, 
 
 Line or sidings laid down by petitioners after promoters' plans 
 
 deposited, 72. 
 Rail, estimate for expense of laying an, 236. 
 
 ALLEGATIONS IN PETITION, 
 opponents confined to, 11. 
 vagueness of, 11. 
 Line "ill contrived," 11. 
 Line "better defined," 12. 
 
 ALTERATION, 
 
 of plans before the Referees, 12. 
 
 must be within limits of deviation, 13. 
 
 may be proposed by either promoters or opponents, 12. 
 
 on plans of bridges and viaducts, 14. 
 
 docks, 15. 
 in position of junctions, 16. 
 
 X2
 
 308 INDEX. 
 
 ALT^RATlOl^l— continued. 
 
 Mutual alteration of gradients, &c. where opposing line not yet 
 
 constructed, 74. 
 
 See Gradients, Curves, Junctions, Level Crossings. 
 of engineering works under General Acts after sanctioned, 29. 
 one suggested proving impracticable, can another be proposed, 25. 
 
 ALTEEN'ATIVE, 
 
 lines or routes, Petitioners suggesting, 21. 
 
 Eeconmiendation of Select Committee as to, 22. 
 source of water supply, 289. 
 
 AMENDMENT ON PLANS,— see Alteration. 
 
 ANCHOPAGE, 
 
 Literference with, 200. 
 
 APPEAPANCE, 
 Certificate of, 4. 
 
 leaving counsel's name blank in, 10. 
 
 APPEOACHES, 
 
 to another company's station, &c.. Interference with, 64. 
 to private property. Injury to, 93. 
 
 ARCH,— See Span. 
 
 Deviation from line or level of, under General Acts, 29. 
 Substitution of other engineering works for, under General 
 
 Acts, 29. 
 Interference with another company's, 66. 
 thrown over land. Compensation for, 272. 
 
 AUTHORISED LINE, 
 
 Interference with an, 74, 
 
 BACK SHUNTS, 
 
 When objectionable, 132, 
 
 Effect on Bill of unfavourable report as to, 42. 
 
 BEGIN, 
 
 Right to, 5. . ■ ■ 
 
 Exceptions to rule, 5. 
 nf petitioners inter se, 7. 
 
 BILL, 
 
 Effect on, of Referees' report, 37 e^ seq. 
 
 Cases where not proceeded with after adverse report, 38.
 
 INDEX. S09 
 
 BILL — continued. 
 
 Jurisdiction over whole subject matter by consent, 48. 
 
 Keferees cannot insert clauses in, 13. 
 
 Powers taken by, insufficient for construction of works, 208. 
 
 BLIND SIDING, 
 
 when objections to jimctions remedied by, 135. 
 
 BOAED OF TRADE, 
 
 objecting to plans of bridge over tidal waters, 14. 
 
 Power of, as to sanctioning alteration of gradients, 28. 
 
 Power of, as to sanctioning substitution of other engineering 
 works, 28, 29. 
 
 Power of, to require bridge instead of level crossing over roads, 1 62. 
 
 Power of, as to deviation of works skirting tidal waters, 30. 
 
 Power of, to require opening span, 195. 
 
 Power of, to require lights to be exhibited on tidal waters, 204. 
 
 Power of, to survey works in tidal ivaters, 205. 
 
 Estimate insufficient if open viaduct required by, instead of em- 
 bankment, 239. 
 
 BOOK OF REFERENCE, 
 
 No deviation into lands of persons not mentioned in, 29. 
 
 BRIDGES, 
 
 Alteration of spans and headways before Referees, 14, 
 Proposing to use bridges constructed for petitioners' railway, 52. 
 swinging. Destroying points at, GO. 
 Span and Headway of, over other lines, 77. 
 Headway of, under other lines, 80. 
 obstructing view of signals or of line, 82. 
 
 Headway, span, &c., of, over and imder private lines and tram- 
 ways, 101. 
 Headway, .span, &c., of, over and under roads and streets, 173. 
 over tidal or navigable waters, 189. 
 Opening, 194. 
 
 Powers of Board of Trade to order, 195. 
 
 CANAL, 
 
 Interference ^vith land of, 87. 
 Proposed line nmning close to, 88. 
 
 passing under, 88. 
 Passage of vessels to, interfered with, 99.
 
 310 * INDEX. 
 
 CANAL — coyitinued. 
 
 Interference mth towing paths of, 89, 
 Headway and span of bridges over, 90. 
 Interference with private, 96. 
 Interference with private tramway of, 102. 
 Proposed line below level of, 158. 
 
 CEETIFICATE OF APPEAEANCE, 
 
 to be produced from Private Bill Office, 4. 
 Leaving counsel's name blank in, 11. 
 
 CAEE, 
 
 Referees reporting favourably of engineering, with qualification 
 that care necessary in working, 61, 115, 116, 117, 150, 151. 
 
 CHAIRMAN- OF REFEREES, 
 must be Member of House, 1. 
 
 CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, 
 to appoint Referees, 1. 
 to frame rules for practice and procedure, 3. 
 
 CHANNEL, 
 
 Interference with, — see Navigation, Silting. 
 
 CLAUSES, 
 
 Referees have no power to insert, 13. 
 
 COLLIERY, 
 
 Interference with tramway to, 101, 102. 
 
 COMMITTEE ON BILL, 
 
 Referees' report to stand referred to, 8. 
 
 Proceedings before, when estimate reported insufficient, 37. 
 
 when engineering reported objectionable, 39. 
 
 when undue interference with navigation re- 
 ported, 45. ..^ ■ 
 Power to refer questions arising to Referees, 47. 
 may investigate questions of engineering incidentally arising, 48. 
 or engineering merits of alternative routes, 48. 
 
 COMPARISON, 
 
 of proposed line and others suggested, 21, 30. 
 
 of proposed and some other source of water supply, 289.
 
 INDEX. 311 
 
 compensatio:jt, 
 
 Insufficient provision for, in estimate, 242. 
 
 Where private property interfered with, 243. 
 
 for town property taken, 245. 
 
 for remote injury or contingencies need not be provided, 247, 
 
 252. 
 for land increased in value since survey, 248. 
 !No valuation at all made, 249. 
 for land on which another line have partially constructed works, 
 
 249. 
 Taking part of a house, manufactory, &c., 250, 267. 
 for intersected lands, 253. 
 for temporary use of land, roads, &c., 254. 
 Law of, 256. 
 for interference with roads and streets, 257. 
 
 water, 262. 
 for vibration, noise, &c., 265. 
 for danger to cotton mill through proximity, 267. 
 when company tunnel under land, 271. 
 for minerals, 273. 
 to mill-owners in water, 276. 
 
 in money, Estimate must be sufficient to cover, 
 290. 
 
 COMPETIXG LINES, 
 
 Powers of the Eeferees, 30. 
 Instances of, 31. 
 
 COMPULSORY POWERS, 
 
 Delay of opponents in taking land now sought by promoters, 57. 
 Promoters seeking land, after expiry of petitioners' powers, 57. 
 
 CONCESSIONS, 
 
 to opponents, 12. 
 
 CONSENT, 
 
 of petitioners to works, Eeferees' report subject to, 34. 
 of parties to jurisdiction over whole subject matter, 48. 
 
 CONSTITUTION, 
 of the courts, 1 .
 
 812 INDEX. 
 
 CONSTEUCTION, 
 
 of petitioners' railway, Preventing or obstructing, 52. 
 of proposed works "depending on construction of other distinct 
 proposed works,°'2 1 4. 
 
 CONTEMPLATED WOEKS, 
 
 of petitioners, objections in respect of, 36, 79. 
 
 CONTmGENCY, 
 
 Construction of proposed works dependent on, 214. 
 when not necessary to provide for in estimate, 245, 252. 
 
 COST OF PEODUCTION, 
 
 Eeferees to enquire into, of gas, 292. 
 Cases, 294, et seq. 
 
 COUNSEL, 
 
 Speeches of, 7. 
 
 only one heard for each party, 9. 
 
 but more than one may attend, 10. 
 
 Eecommendation of Select Committee, 9. 
 
 COUETS OF THE EEFEEEES, 
 number and constitution of, 1. 
 
 CEOSSING, — see Level Crossing. 
 
 CUEEENT, 
 
 Construction of docks, increasing velocity of, 220. 
 See Tidal Waters, Bridges. 
 
 CUEVES, 
 
 Junctions proposed on sharp. 111, 
 
 Instances where allowed, 112. 
 
 Objections remediable within limits of deviation, 116. 
 
 Exceptional cases where such junctions usually allowed, 118. 
 
 Engineering rules as to, 143. 
 
 Objections to sharpness of, on lines, 146. 
 
 Eemediable within limits of deviation, 148. 
 
 CUTTrN"GS, 
 
 When tunnels may be made in place of, 28 
 no provision in estimate for surplus, 227. 
 Eock, estimate for, vague, 231.
 
 INDEX. 313 
 
 CYLINDEES, 
 
 Subway under Thames formed by sunk, 199. 
 Cofferdam formed by, 1 98. 
 
 DAMAGE, 
 
 to otter lines, — see Eailway Opposing. 
 to. private property, no engineering objection, 92. 
 Attacking estimates, in such cases, 95, 243. 
 See Private Property. 
 
 DANGEE, 
 
 to adjacent gunpowder mills, 104. 
 
 to adjacent cotton mills, 267. 
 
 to another railway thi'ough landslips, 71. 
 
 to district from floods through insufiicient waterway of viaduct 
 
 over river, 105, 
 through proximity of two tunnels, 217. 
 
 DECISION, 
 
 of Eeferees, Effect on BiU of, 37, et seq. 
 
 in Water Bills, 291. 
 
 DEPOSIT, 
 
 of petitions against, 4. 
 
 of surplus cutting, No provision in estimate for, 227. 
 
 DESTEUCTION, 
 
 of another railway's sidings and other works, 58 et seq. 
 of points at swinging bridge, 60. 
 of points at junctions, 69 
 
 DEVIATION, LIMITS OF, 
 Extent of, 26. 
 
 where works skirting tidal waters, 30. 
 Alteration on plans competent witliin, 12. 
 When Eeferees will recommend restriction of, 67. 
 
 DIFFICULTIES IN CONSTEUCTION, 
 Country presenting unusual, 150 et seq.
 
 314 INDEX. 
 
 DISTEICT, 
 
 Interference with drainage of, 105. 
 
 danger to, from floods through insufficient waterway of viaduct 
 over river, 105. 
 
 DIYERSIOX, 
 
 of street proposed by petitioners, 24. 
 
 of road, — see Eoads. 
 
 of channels, tide, &c., — see Navigation. 
 
 
 
 DOCKS, 
 
 Alteration before Referees, of plans of, 1 5. 
 Alleged undue interference with navigation, 220. 
 
 See Navigation, Silting. 
 depriving another dock company of water supply, 220. 
 Proposed docks reported inefficient, 221, 
 Dock company seeking powers to supply shipping with water, 
 
 221. 
 Landing passengers by pontoons, 222. 
 Lock at entrance to dock too small, 222. 
 
 DOWN TRAFnC, 
 
 No provisions made for, 209. 
 
 DRAENTAGE, 
 
 of a district, Interference with, 105. 
 of line below level of stream, 158, 88. 
 of a town. Tunnel interfering with, 216. 
 of road lowered below level of adjoining stream, 179. 
 pipes, Interference with, 184. 
 of tunnels, 215. 
 
 DREDGING, 
 
 No provision for, to construct harbour of refuge, 229. 
 
 EARTHWORK, 
 
 Quantity understated in estimate, 225. 
 
 Promoters calculating on getting rubbish gratuitously for same, 
 227. 
 
 ECONOMY, 
 
 Referees reporting estimate sufficient with, 240.
 
 INDEX. SI 5 
 
 EFFICIENCY OF WOEKS, 
 
 See Engineering Details, 
 
 ELIGIBILITY 
 
 cf other sites, routes, &c., 21, £3, 289. 
 
 EMBANKMENT, 
 
 Viaduct proposed before Referees instead of, 24. 
 "When viaducts may be constructed in place of, 28, 
 Interference Avith slopes of another company's, 76. 
 obstruction to view of junction caused by, 84, 85. 
 interfering with private tramway, 99. 
 across or along tidal waters, 196. 
 construction of, to reclaim lands from sea, 206, 
 slopes of similar, in neighbourhood, proved, 239, 
 estimate reported insufficient if Board of Trade require viaduct in 
 place of, 239. 
 
 ENDORSEMENT, 
 
 of petitions against, necessary, 4. 
 
 ENGINEER, 
 
 of promoters may be called by opponents, 5. 
 
 Speaker's order for his attendance, 5. 
 Referees' report subject to reference to, 33. 
 
 ENGINEERING DETAILS, 
 
 Jurisdiction of Referees as to, 2. 
 
 Powers still possessed by Committee on Bill, 48. 
 
 Effect on Bill of adverse report as to, 39. 
 
 ENGINEERING WORKS, 
 
 Powers to alter after sanctioned, 26. 
 
 ENGINE SUED, 
 
 Interference with another company's, 58. 
 
 ESTATE, — See Private Property. 
 
 ESTIMATE, 
 
 Jurisdiction of the Referees as to, 2. 
 insufficient, Effect on Bill of report that, 37, 223. 
 Form of, 224.
 
 316 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 ESTIMATE— continued. 
 
 Quantities understated in, 225. 
 
 JSTo provision in, for junctions, signals, sidings, &c., 225. 
 
 nor for stations, where lines mineral, 226. 
 
 nor for deposit of surplus cutting, 227. 
 
 nor for land for docks, the promoters claiming to be owners, 229. 
 
 Larger works to he constructed than on plans, 230. 
 
 Different material to he used than contemplated in, 231. 
 
 for rock cuttings. Vagueness of, 231. 
 
 for whole scheme sufficient, hut insiif&cient for a part, 232. 
 
 Portion of line provided for in separate Bill and estimate, 234. 
 
 Whether necessary to deposit estimate for laying additional rails, 
 
 236. 
 How dealt with when portion of line abandoned, 236. 
 Sufficient " with economy," 240. 
 Expense of substituting other roads, 240. 
 
 gas and water pipes, 241. 
 Compensation should be provided for in, — see Compensation. 
 
 EVIDENCE, 
 
 Price paid for land in district, 238. 
 
 Price paid for similar work in district, 238. 
 
 Slopes of similar embankments in district, 239. 
 
 EXISTING WOEKS, 
 
 Eeferees cannot decide on legality of, 35. 
 Interference with another company's, 58. 
 
 EXPENSE,— see Estimate. 
 
 entailed on another company through proposed works, 69. 
 
 EXTRAOEDINAEY DIFFICULTIES, 
 Country presenting, 150 e^ seq. 
 
 FACING POINTS, 
 
 Effect on Bill of adverse report as to, 43. 
 Objectionable on main lines, 136. 
 Allowed where speed of trains slow, 140. 
 
 junction on level, 140. 
 Two sets of, on a single, "highly objectionable," 141.
 
 INDEX. 317 
 
 riLTRATIOJ^, 
 
 of sea water under embankments constructed to reclaini lands, 206. 
 
 FLOODS, 
 
 danger to district tlirough, caused by insufficient waterway, 105. 
 
 rOKESHORE, 
 
 Promoters claiming ownership of, 35, 229. 
 
 GAS BILLS, 
 
 Jurisdiction of Referees as to, 2, 292. 
 
 Power of Referees to enquire into engineering details, 292. 
 
 in past sessions, 294 e^ seq. 
 
 Illuminating power, supply, pressure, price, &c., 294 et seq. 
 
 Cases in which all questions submitted to Referees, 298. 
 
 GAS PIPES, 
 
 Interference of railway with, 184. 
 
 Expense of substituting other, to be provided for, 241. 
 
 GATES, 
 
 to be erected at level crossings over roads, 161. 
 
 GAUGE, 
 
 proposed junction of broad with narrow, and vice versA, 131. 
 
 GENERAL ACTS, 
 
 Petitioners' objections may be obviated within powers of, 16. 
 Provisions of, as to powers of deviation and alteration of engi- 
 neering works, 27 — 30, 
 Provisions of, as to headway and span over other lines, 77. 
 
 headway \mder other lines, 80. 
 
 Accommodation Works, 102. 
 
 junctions, 107. 
 
 crossing roads and streets on level, 160. 
 
 altering inclination of roads and streets, 160. 
 
 headway, &c., of bridges, under and over 
 road, &c., 173. 
 
 screens for turnpike roads, 177. 
 
 interference Avith gas, water, <fec., pipes, 184. 
 
 bridges over tidal or navigable waters, 189. 
 
 works in same, 203.
 
 318 INDEX. 
 
 GIRDER BRIDGE, 
 
 Junction proposed on, 1 7. 
 
 GOODS STATIONS, 
 
 Interference with another company's, 60, 64, 73. 
 
 GRADIENTS, 
 
 Deviation from, allowed by General Acts, 28. 
 of other lines, proposed works disturbing, 77, 80. 
 Junctions on irreconcileable, 108. 
 on steep. 111. 
 
 no level space for standage. 111. 
 Instances where junctions on steep, allowed, 112. 
 objections remedied within limits of deviation, 116. 
 exceptional circumstances in which such junctions 
 usually allowed, 118. 
 Engineering Rules as to Gradients generally, 143. 
 Table of Gradients, 145. 
 Steepness of Gradients on Line, 146, 
 
 when remedied within limits of deviation, 148. 
 Lines through country of extraordinary difficulty, 150. 
 Stations on or near to steep, 156. 
 of roads and streets, alteration of, 169. 
 
 Cases where power sought to alter, 170. 
 Cases where such powers omitted to be 
 sought, 171. 
 in tunnel, 215, 
 
 GUNPOWDER MILLS, 
 
 Endangering, through proximity of line, 104. 
 
 HARBOUR,— see Docks. 
 
 No provision in estimate for dredging, to construct, 229. 
 
 HEADWAY, 
 
 Alteration of, from height originally proposed, 14. 
 
 over other lines, 77. 
 
 under other Lines, 80. 
 
 over canals, 90. 
 
 over and under private tramways, 101. 
 
 over and under roads and streets, 1 73.
 
 INDEX. 319 
 
 WEADW AY— continued. 
 
 over tidal or navigable waters, 189, 196. 
 of tunnels, 215, 
 
 HIGHWAYS,— see Eoads. 
 Level crossings over, 161. 
 
 HOUSE, 
 
 Taking part of a, 250, 267. 
 
 HOURS OF MEETING, 
 of the Eeferees, 4. 
 
 ILLUMINATING POWER, 
 
 of gas, 294 et eeq, — see Gas. 
 
 IMPERILLING, 
 
 another line through danger from slips, &c., 71. 
 
 IMPRACTICABILITY, 
 
 of junctions, — see Junctions, Gradients. 
 Effect on Bill of report of, 42. 
 
 IMPROVEMENT BILL. 
 
 Reclamation of lands, 206. 
 
 Street improvements, 187, 245, 246 — 7. 
 
 Width of a proposed new street in metropolis, 187. 
 
 INCLINATION, 
 
 of roads and streets, provisions of General Acts as to, 169. 
 
 Cases where powers sought to alter, 170. 
 Cases where promoters omitted to seek 
 power to alter, 171. 
 of slopes of embankments, 239. 
 
 INCOMPATIBILITY, 
 
 of gradients, — see Gradients. 
 
 remediable by mutual alteration where petitioners' 
 
 line not yet constructed, 74. 
 of levels, 75, 125. 
 
 INDIVIDUALS, — see Private Property,- 
 
 Injury to, through shutting up public street, 95. 
 thi'ough deprivation of water supply, 276.
 
 322 INDEX. 
 
 LAND, 
 
 Legality of promoters' claim to ownership of, 35. 
 of another company, Proposing to take, 50 et seq. 
 
 Land intended for another company's station, 50, 
 
 for doubling petitioners' line, 52. 
 
 for petitioners' sidings, 55. 
 
 But where petitioners have delayed to use, 56. 
 
 or their compulsory powers have expired, 57. 
 
 Land which another line authorised to take, 57. 
 of canal company, Proposing to take, 87 et seq. 
 of private individuals and companies, 92 et seq. 
 
 Damage to, not enguieering objection, 92. 
 
 Eesidential damage, 93, 94. 
 
 Injury to approaches to land, 93, 
 
 to private road or sewers, 94. • 
 
 Accommodation "Works, 102, 255. 
 Tidal, Works on, 189 et seq. 
 
 None provided for stations, standage, &c., 208 — 211. 
 nor for deposit of surplus cuttmg, 227. 
 Price paid for similar land in district. Evidence, 238. 
 Value of, in towns, 245. 
 increased in value since estimate made, 248. 
 no actual valuation of, mado for estimate, 249. 
 value of, on wMch another railway have partially constructed 
 
 works, 249. 
 Deducting value of surplus, from estimate, 252. 
 Intersected, 253. 
 
 Compensation for temporary use of, 254. 
 Law of Compensation regarding injury to, — see Compensation. 
 
 LATERAL DEVIATION, 
 
 Powers of, under General Acts, 28 e^ seq. 
 
 LEGALITY, 
 
 of existing works. Court cannot decide as to, 35. 
 of promoters' claim to ownersliip of land, 35. 
 
 LEVEL, 
 
 Incompatibility of, at proposed points of jtmction, 125. 
 Pacing poiats allowed where jimction on, 140, 
 of adjacent river or canal, line below, 158, 
 Deviation from levels on plans, 27, 29,
 
 INDEX. 323 
 
 LEVEL CROSSING (OVER RAILWAYS), 
 over another company's line proposed, 6L 
 over an abandoned line, G2, 
 wliere speed of trains slow, 62. 
 where lines mineral, 63. 
 over local lines to join main Hnes, 127 — 129. 
 over main lines, 127 — 129. 
 over private tramways, 98, 99, 100. 
 
 LEVEL CROSSING (OVER ROADS AND STREETS), 
 Provisions of General Acts on this subject, 160. 
 Must be specially authorised, 160. 
 Gates to be erected, 161, 
 Speed of trains at crossings near stations, 161. 
 Over bridle-ways and footways, 161. 
 Shunting trains over, 161. 
 Bridge may be required by Board of Trade, 162. 
 over roads, 162. 
 
 close to one already existing allowed, 162. 
 not used Avith wlieels, 162. 
 or with little traffic, 163. 
 additional line of rails allowed, 163, 167. 
 Petitioners proposing bridge instead of, 163. 
 or a diversion instead of, 164. 
 73 proposed by one Bill, 165. 
 alloAved where near stations, 168. 
 over streets, 165. 
 
 LIGHTS. 
 
 Exhibition of, on works in or across tidal or navigable waters, 
 204. 
 
 LIGHTHOUSES, 
 
 Their safety protected in Reclamation Bill, 207. 
 
 LIMITS OF DEVIATION,— see Deviation. 
 Alterations or amendments to be within, 12. 
 Extent of, 26. 
 
 Alternative lines beyond, 21. 
 Alternative sites beyond, 23. 
 when ^vill be restricted, 67. 
 
 t2
 
 324 INDEX. 
 
 LINE, 
 
 deviation from, allowed by General Act, 26, 
 
 Preventing doubling of another company's, 52. 
 
 view of, obstructed, 82, 
 
 alternative proposed by petitioners', 21, 
 
 alteration on petitioners', after promoters' plans deposited, 72. 
 
 Private, Interference with, 96 — 102. 
 
 Local, crossing same on level to join main lines, 127 — 9, 
 
 LOCK, 
 
 Objections to dimensions of, 15, 222. 
 
 LOWERING LINE, 
 
 Preventing opposing company from hereafter lowering their line, 
 70. 
 
 MAIN LINES, 
 
 Promoters' trains standing on petitioners', 68. 
 or blocking same, 68. 
 Junctions mth crowded, 126. 
 
 in general objectionable, 126, 
 
 not so when with promoters' own line, 128. 
 
 nor where line joined has complete control of signals, 
 
 130. 
 Crossing main lines on level, 126, 
 Crossing local lines on level to join main lines^ 127 — 9. 
 Facing points on, objectionable, 136. 
 Secns if where speed slow, 140. 
 or Junction on level, 140. 
 
 Two sets on a single Hne, highly objectionable, 147. 
 See Junctions, Blind Siding, Back Shunts. 
 
 MANUFACTORY (PRIVATE), 
 
 Interference with, 95, 244, 245, 250—252. 
 
 Proposal to take part of a, 250. 
 
 Law of Compensation as to taking part of a, 267. 
 
 MATERIAL, 
 
 Different material proposed to be used from that contemplated in 
 estimates, 231.
 
 INDEX. 325 
 
 Objections to Water Bills by, 276. 
 
 "Water and money Compensation to, 276 et seq. 
 
 Water compensation usually one-tliird of rainfall, 278, 279, 281. 
 
 No compensation reservoir provided, 280. 
 
 Estimate must be sufl&cient to cover money compensation, 290. 
 
 MILL, 
 
 danger to, through proximity of line, 104. 
 Compensation for such proximity, 267. 
 
 Interference with private property intended "for mills and 
 wharves," 93. 
 
 :mdteeal lines. 
 
 Level crossings over, 63. 
 
 Level crossings over private, 98, 99, 100. 
 
 Junctions with, 123. 
 
 Objection that no provisions for stations on, 211, 226. 
 
 MINEEALS, 
 
 Compensation for, under line, 273. 
 
 MODIFICATIONS, 
 
 on plans before Eeferees, — see Alteration. 
 
 MOOEY GEOUND, 
 
 Lino proposed through, 150. 
 
 MULTIPLICITY OF JUNCTIONS, 
 at the same place, 123. 
 
 NAVIGATION, 
 
 Deviation of railway skirting tidal waters, 30. 
 
 Effect on Bill of adverse report as to Interference with, 45. 
 
 Bridges or viaducts over navigable waters, 189. 
 
 Provisions of General Act as to headway and span, 189. 
 
 Schemes of past Sessions, 190 — 196. 
 
 Vessels having to lower top-gallant masts to pass under 
 bridge, 191. 
 
 Opening bridges, 194. 
 
 Wlien Board of Trade may require opening spans, 195. 
 Embankment along or across navigable rivers, 196.
 
 326 INDEX. 
 
 :^AYIGAT10'N— continued. 
 
 Tunnels under navigable waters, 197. 
 
 Limiting time during wMcli bed of river to be occupied, 199. 
 Tunnel under canal, 199. 
 
 Sinking cylinders in navigable river to form subway, 199. 
 interfering with anchorage gTound, 200. 
 Silting up of sand, 200. 
 Dock or pier interfering with, 202, 
 Provisions of General Act as to works in navigable rivers, 203. 
 
 NOISE, 
 
 Whether compensation claimable for, caused by locomotive 
 trains, &c., 265. 
 
 NOTICE, 
 
 of hearing before Eeferees, 4. 
 
 OBJECTIONS, 
 
 Petitioners restricted to those alleged in petition, 11, 
 
 vagueness of, 11, 
 that proposed line "ill-contrived," 11. 
 that petitioners' line " better defined," 12. 
 in respect of works contemplated by petitioners, 36, 55, 79. 
 
 OBVIATING OBJECTIONS, 
 
 Competent within limits of deviation, 12, 25. 
 by mutual alteration where petitioners' line not yet constructed, 
 74. 
 
 OBSTEUCTION, 
 
 to navigation, — see Navigation. 
 
 to view of signals or of line, &c,, 82^-86, 218. 
 
 OPENING BEIDGE, 
 
 over tidal or navigable waters, 194. 
 
 Provisions of General Acts as to, 195. 
 When Board of Trade may require, 195. 
 
 OPPONENTS,— see Petitioners. 
 
 OKDER OF CASES, 
 in which heard, 4.
 
 - INDEX. 327 
 
 OVEEBEIDGE, 
 
 obstructing view of signals or of line, &c., 82 — 86. 
 
 interfering with sidings, line, &c. — see Sidings, Eailway Opposing. 
 
 OWNERSHIP, 
 
 of land, &c., legality of promoters' claim to, 25, 229, 
 
 PASSAGE, 
 
 of vessels, Interference with, — see Navigation. 
 to Canal, 89. 
 
 PATHS, -see Towma Paths. 
 
 PETITION, 
 
 deposit of, endorsed, 4. 
 
 Petitioners confined to allegations in, 11. 
 
 PETITIONEES, 
 
 Eight to begia inter se, 7. 
 restricted to allegations in petitions, 11. 
 proposing alteration on plans as deposited, 12 ef seq. 
 Consent of, Eeferees' report subject to, 34. 
 PIEE, 
 
 Preventing construction of tramway at, 97. 
 interfering with navigation, 202, 221. 
 
 PLANS, 
 
 Alterations on, as deposited, 12 e^ seq. 
 
 Deviation from, allowed by General Acts, 26 ei seq. 
 
 POINTS, 
 
 Facing, — see Facing Points. 
 Destruction of, at s"\vinguig bridge, 60. 
 Destruction of, at junctions, 69. 
 
 PONTOON, 
 
 Dock company proposing to land passengers by means of, 222. 
 
 POWEES, 
 
 of Board of Trade, — see Board op Trade. 
 
 taken by Bill insufficient for construction of efficient works, 208 
 
 et scrj. 
 Effect on Bill of report thereof, 44. 
 of vertical and lateral deviation, 26 et seq. 
 of Eeferees, — see Jurisdiction.
 
 328 INDEX. 
 
 PEEFEEABLE, 
 
 route for line, 21. 
 
 source of water supply, 289. 
 PEESSUEE, 
 
 of water, 288. 
 
 of gas, 297. 
 PEEVENTING, 
 
 doubling of petitioners' line, 52. 
 
 extension of petitioners' sidings, 55. 
 
 lowering of petitioners' line, 70. 
 
 petitioners' using running powers over another line, 70. 
 PEICE, 
 
 of gas, 294: et seq. 
 
 PEIVATE PEOPEETY, 
 
 Interference with, 92 e^ seq. 
 
 not an engineering objection, 92. 
 residential damage, 93, 94. 
 injury to approaches to land, 93, 94. 
 land laid out for mills and wharves, 93. 
 private road, 94. 
 private sewers, 94. 
 
 Works of a manufactory, &c., 95, 244, 245, 250. 
 When estimates should be challenged, 95, 243. 
 Destroying private canal, 96. 
 private tramways and sidings, 96, 98, 99. 
 not an engineering objection, 96. 
 Unnecessary or avoido.ble interference with private property, 98. 
 What if private sidings interfered with are on promoters' own 
 
 land, 100. 
 Crossing private lines on level, 98, 99, 100. 
 Headway, span, width, &c., of bridges over and under private 
 
 lines, 101. 
 Accommodation works, 102, 255. 
 
 Provisions of General Act as to, 102. 
 Cases as to, 255. 
 Endangering private gunpowder mills by proximity of lines, 104, 
 
 267. 
 Where private property interfered with, petitioners should attack 
 estimates rather than engineering details, 243. 
 See Compensation. Land,
 
 INDEX. S29 
 
 PEOCEDURE, 
 
 Chairman of "Ways and Means to issue Rules of, 3. 
 
 Rules issued by him, 3. 
 
 Right to begin, 5. 
 
 Rights inter se of petitioners to begin, 7. 
 
 Course of procedure at hearing, 7. 
 
 One counsel on each side, 9. 
 
 Opponents restricted to allegations in petition, 11. 
 
 Alterations and modifications \vitliin limits of deviation, 12. See 
 
 Alteration. 
 Competing Hues, 30. 
 
 PROJECTED LINE, 
 
 Interference mth a, 74 — 77. 
 
 PROMOTERS, 
 
 Their engineer may be called by opponents, 5. 
 
 Speaker's Order for his attendance, 5. 
 
 Right to alter plans before Referees, 12 et seq. 
 
 PROPERTY,— see Private Property. 
 
 PROPOSED LINE, 
 
 Interference vnth. a, 74 — 77. 
 
 PROXIMITY, 
 
 of line to petitioners' railway, 52, 55, 217. 
 to canals, 88. 
 to roads, — see Roads. 
 to gunpowder mills, 104. 
 of two tunnels, 217. 
 to cotton mill, compensation for, 267. 
 
 PURITY, 
 
 of gas, 292, 294—297. 
 
 QUALITY OF GAS, 
 
 Jurisdiction of Referees as to, 292. 
 Objections as to, 294—297. 
 
 QUALITY OF WATER, 
 
 Jurisdiction of Referees as to, 274. 
 Objections as to, 286. 
 Preferable source of supply, 289.
 
 380 INDEX. 
 
 QUANTITIES, 
 
 tmderstated in estimate, 225. 
 See Estimate. 
 
 QUAY, 
 
 Cutting off communication between petitioners' railway and a, 
 71. 
 
 QUESTION, 
 
 arising before Committee and submitted to Eeferees, 26, 47. 
 sucb questions may be investigated by Committee, 48. 
 
 EADIUS OF CURVES, 
 
 how far may be diminished under General Act, 28. 
 Objections to sharpness of, — see Curves. 
 
 EAILWAY (OPPOSING). 
 
 Interference with property, rights, &c., of, 50 et seq. 
 Interference with land of, 50. 
 
 Taking land intended for another railway's station, 50. 
 for doubling opponents' line, 52. 
 for opponents' sidings, 55. 
 
 Neglect or delay of opponents to use the land, 56. 
 
 Taking land wliich opponents authorised to take, 57. 
 
 Opponents' compulsory powers expired, 57. 
 Interference "with another company's existing sidings, 58. 
 Destroying points at swinging bridge, 60. 
 Crossmg another company's line on level, 61. 
 
 See Level Crossing. 
 Interference with another company's station arrangements or 
 
 approaches, 64. 
 or with arch constructed by them, 66. 
 When promoters' powers of deviation will be restricted, 67. 
 Promoters' trains standing on petitioners' main line, 68. 
 Destroying petitioners' junction points, 69. 
 
 Entailing expense on petitioners without countervaUing advan- 
 tage, 69. 
 Preventing petitioners from lowering their line, 70. 
 Preventing petitioners from using running powers over another 
 
 line, 70. 
 Cutting off communication between petitioners' line and quay, 71.
 
 INDEX. 331 
 
 KAILWAY (OPPOSING)— cow/mMe^;. 
 
 Causing danger to petitioners' line from land-slips, 71. 
 
 Wliere condition of petitioners' line altered subsequently to 
 
 deposit of plans, 72. 
 Interference with authorised railway, 74. 
 
 proposed railway, 74. 
 Headway and span over other lines, 77. 
 Disturbing gradients of other lines, 77, 80. 
 Headway under other lines, 80. 
 Obstruction caused to view of signals, line, or station, 82. 
 
 See also Junctions, Gradients, Curves, Tunnels, Facing 
 Points, Back Shunts, Blind Sidings. 
 
 RAINFALL, 
 
 Water compensation to millowners usually one-tliird of, 278, 
 279, 281. 
 
 EECLAMATION, 
 
 of tidal lands, 206 et seq. 
 
 EEFEEEES, 
 
 Powers of, — ^see Jurisdiction. 
 
 Chairman of, 1. 
 
 Number of, and number of courts, 1. 
 
 Their report, 8. 
 
 stands referred to Committee on Bill, 8. 
 
 Effect of their report on Bill, 8, 37, 291. 
 
 Question referred to, by Committee, 47. 
 
 All questions may be referred to, 48. 
 
 REFERENCE, 
 
 by Referees to Engineers to settle alteration on plan to obviate 
 objections, 33. 
 
 EEMOVAL, 
 
 of point of junction from position on plan, 16. 
 
 REPORT OF REFEREES,— sec Referees. 
 
 RESERVOIR (COMPENSATION), 
 No provision for, an objection, 280.
 
 332 INDEX. 
 
 EESIDENTIAL DAMAGE,— see Peivate Property. 
 
 KESTEICTION, 
 
 of promoters' powers of deviation, 67. 
 of waterway, — see Navigation. 
 
 EIGHT TO BEGm, 
 
 Eixle as to, and exceptions, 5. 
 
 EULES, 
 
 for Practice and Procedure of the Courts, 3. 
 
 EIVEE, 
 
 Insufficient waterway over, danger to district from floods, 105. 
 
 Objection that line below level of, 158. 
 
 Proposing to lower road below level of, 1 79. 
 
 Tunnels under, 197. 
 
 Works in navigable, — see Navigation. 
 
 Subway imder Thames, 199. 
 
 not navigable, Power to alter course of, 205. 
 
 Insufficiency of estimate for tunnel under, 228. 
 
 Compensation for interference with, 262. 
 
 EOAD, 
 
 Better route suggested by petitioners, 22. 
 Interference with private, 94. 
 Interference with public, 160 e^ seq. 
 Crossing roads on level, — see Level Crossing. 
 Altering inclination of roads, 169. 
 
 Provisions of General Act as to, 169. 
 
 Instances where powers sought to alter, 170. 
 
 Instances where such powers omitted to be sought, 171. 
 headway, span, width, &c., of bridges over and under roads, 173. 
 screens for tiu'upike, 177. 
 Lowering, below level of stream, 179. 
 Site of, proposed to be occupied by line, 180. 
 
 See Street. 
 Expense of substituting other roads should be provided for in 
 
 estimate, 240. 
 What compensation for interference with, 257 e^ seq.
 
 INDEX. 333 
 
 ROCK CUTTINGS, 
 Estimate for, 231. 
 
 EOUTE, 
 
 Alternative proposed, cannot be considered, 21, 
 
 Eecommendation of Select Committee on Referees 
 
 as to, 22. 
 for road, 22. 
 
 RUBBISH, 
 
 Promoters calculating on getting, gratuitously for eartliwork, 227. 
 
 RUNNING POWERS, 
 
 Preventing petitioners' using such powers over a third line, 70. 
 Promoters not taking, over piece of another line necessary to 
 effect intended junction, 212. 
 
 SAND, 
 
 Possible silting up of, 200, 220. 
 
 unstable natui'o of, Impossibility of constructing embankment, 
 
 206. 
 
 \ 
 
 SCREENS, 
 
 for turnpike roads, 177. 
 
 SELECT COMMITTEE ON REFEREES, 
 
 Their recommendation as to nimiber of counsel, 10. 
 
 as to alternative lines, 22. 
 as to competing lines, 30. 
 
 SELECT COMMITTEE ON BILL,— see Committee. 
 
 SERVICE, 
 
 in Waterworks Bills, Jurisdiction of Referees as to mode of, 274. 
 Cases, 283, 288. 
 
 SEWER, 
 
 Interference with private, 94, 
 
 with public, 184, 215. 
 
 SHARPNESS OF CURVES,— see Curves. 
 
 SHORE — see FoREsnoRE, 
 
 Access to, over or under railway, 204.
 
 334 INDEX. 
 
 SHUNTS,— see Back Shunts. 
 
 SIDINGS, 
 
 Legality of existing, questioned, 35. 
 
 contemplated by petitioners. Objections in respect of, 36, 55, 79. 
 
 taking land intended by another company for, 55, 56. 
 
 Interference with another company's existing, 57. 
 
 New, laid down subsequently to deposit of plans, 72. 
 
 private. Interference with, dQ et seq. 
 
 when on promoters' own. land, 100. 
 Blind, 135. 
 
 No provision for, by BUI, a defect, 208. 
 No provision for, in estimates, 225. 
 
 SIGNALS, 
 
 Obstruction to view of, 82, 218. 
 
 at junctions, by whom erected and controlled, 107. 
 
 at junctions. Expense by whom borne, 107. 
 
 at junctions entirely under control of line joined, effect of, 120. 
 
 Tunnels obstructing view of, 218. 
 
 No provision for in estimate, 225. 
 
 SILTING UP, 
 
 of sand, &c., Objections on account of, 200, 220. 
 
 SINGLE LINE, 
 
 Preventing doubling of petitioners', 52. 
 
 Promoters proposing to double petitioners', 249. 
 
 Two sets of facing points on a, "highly objectionable," 141. 
 
 SITE, 
 
 of docks altered when before Eeferees, 15. 
 
 alternative or superior, suggested for docks, 23. 
 
 of petitioners' authorised station, Promoters proj)osing to change, 
 
 76. 
 of road proposed to be occupied, 180. 
 
 SITTINGS, 
 
 of the Eeferees, 4. 
 
 SLIPS, LAND, 
 
 Danger caused to another line, through, 71.
 
 INDEX. 335 
 
 SLOPES, 
 
 of embankment, — see Embankment. 
 
 SLOWKESS, 
 
 Speed, — see Speed, 
 
 SPAN OF BEEDGES, 
 
 Alteration of yndth. from that originally intended, 14. 
 
 over other lines, 77 
 
 over canals, 90. 
 
 over private lines and tramways, 101. 
 
 over roads and streets, 173. 
 
 over tidal or navigable waters, 189. 
 
 opening, over tidal waters, 194, 195. 
 
 SPEAKER OF HOUSE, 
 Referees appointed by, 1. 
 His order for attendance of promoters' engineer, 5. 
 
 SPEECHES, 
 
 of counsel, 7. 
 
 SPEED OE TRAIN'S, 
 
 Level crossings where slow, 62. 
 
 Junctions on steep gradients and sharp curves, where slow, 121. 
 
 Facing points, where slow, 140. 
 
 not to exceed 4 miles an hour at level crossings near stations, IGl. 
 
 SPOIL, 
 
 No provision made for deposit of surplus, 227. 
 
 STANDAGE, 
 
 for trains at stations. Interference with, 66. 
 at points of junction not provided, 111, 208. 
 at stations, No provision for, 208. 
 
 STANDING ORDER, 
 No. 45, 223. 
 No. 90, 1, 9. 
 No. 91, 3. 
 
 No. 92, 2, 274, 292. 
 No. 93, 2. 
 No. 94, 48. 
 No. 95, 8.
 
 336 INDEX. 
 
 STANDING Om)'E'R—co7iUnued. 
 No. 96—37. 
 No. 97—47. 
 
 STATION, 
 
 Taking land intended "by another company for, 50, 57. 
 
 Interference with another company's existing, 64. 
 
 Promoters proposing to change site of petitioners' authorised, 76. 
 
 Obstructing view of signals at, 82, 218. 
 
 Junctions on steep gradients or sharp curves near to, 121. 
 
 with crowded main lines near to, 126 et seq. 
 
 Gradients at, engineering rule, 144. 
 
 on or near to steep gradients, 156. 
 
 Level crossings over roads near to, 168. 
 
 120 feet below level of adjoining street, 187. 
 
 No provision in Bill to erect or use, 208 — 211. 
 
 Tliis no objection where line mineral, 211, 226. 
 
 Tunnels close to, 218. 
 
 STEEPNESS, 
 
 of gradients, — see Gradients. 
 
 STORAGE, 
 
 in Water BiUs, 283—286. 
 
 reservoirs, Provision for inadequate, 281. 
 
 STEAM,— See Eiyer. 
 
 STEEET, 
 
 Petitioners proposing that promoters should divert, 24. 
 Injuiy to individuals through shutting up public, 95. 
 Interference with, 160 et seq. 
 Crossing on level, — Level Crossing. 
 Altering inclinations of, 169. 
 
 Provisions of General Acts, 169. 
 
 Instances where powers sought to alter, 170. 
 
 where promoters omitted to do so, 171. 
 Headway, span, width, &c., of bridges under and over, 173. 
 Screens, 177. 
 
 Shutting up, Providing new street, 180. 
 Gas and water pipes under. Interference with, 184, 241. 
 Proposing to lay tramway in a narrow, 185.
 
 INDEX. 337 
 
 STBEET— continued. 
 
 Width of a new, in metropolis, 187. 
 
 Proposed station 120 feet below, 187. 
 
 Compensation arising from interference with, 257 et seq. 
 
 SUBWAY, 
 
 under Thames, 199. 
 
 SUPPLY, 
 
 in Water Bills, 274. 
 
 See Water. 
 in Gas Bills, 292. 
 
 See Gas. 
 
 SURPLUS CUTTINGj—see Cutting. 
 
 SWIiTGIl^G BEIDGE, 
 
 Destroying points at, 60. 
 
 in crowded thoroughfares, 186. 
 
 TESTING, 
 
 Gas, 294 et seq. 
 
 TE^IPOEAEY USE, 
 
 of land, roads, &c., Compensation for, 254. 
 
 TIDAL WATERS, 
 
 Deviation of works skirting, 30. 
 
 Efiect on Bill of adverse report as to Interference with, 45. 
 Bridges or viaducts over, 189. 
 Vessels compelled to lower top-gallant masts, 191. 
 Opening bridges over, 194, 
 Embankment across or along, 196. 
 Tumiels under, 197. 
 Subway under, 199. 
 
 Interference v/ith anchorage ground, 200. 
 Possible silting up of sand, 200. 
 Pier, 202. 
 
 Provisions of General Act as to works in, 203. 
 Board of Trade may require lights, 204. 
 may survey works, 205. 
 Eeclamation of tidal lands, 206. 
 Lighthouses protected, 207. 
 
 z
 
 338 INDEX. 
 
 TOP-GALLAKT MASTS, 
 
 Vessels being compelled to lower, under bridge, 191. 
 
 TOWmG PATHS^ 
 
 of canal, Interference with, 89. 
 Compensation for destroying profit of, 264. 
 
 TOWN, 
 
 Estimate 'for property taken in, 245 et seq. 
 
 TRAFFIC, 
 
 No provision for down, 209. 
 
 TRA]\IWAY, 
 
 Private, Interference with, 96, 98, 99, 220. 
 
 Headway over or under, 101. 
 Pi-oposing to lay in a narrow street. 185. 
 
 TURNPIIvE,— see Roads. 
 
 TUNNEL, 
 
 Wlien may be made in place of cuttings, under General Acts, 28. 
 
 Deviation from line or level of, 29. 
 
 Substitution of other engineering works for, under General Acts, 
 
 29. 
 Junction near mouth of, 85. 
 under canal, 88. 
 Junction in, 130. 
 
 under rivers, tidal waters, &c., 197. 
 Ventilation, gradients, headway, drainage, &c., of, 215. 
 Proximity of two, 217. 
 
 close to junctions or stations, preventing view of signals, 218. 
 under river, Estimate for, proved insufficient, 228. 
 under land, whether promoters compellable to take surface and 
 buildings, 271. 
 
 VAGUENESS, 
 
 of petitioners' objections, 11. 
 of evidence as to estimate, 231. 
 
 VALUE, — see Compensation. 
 
 VENTILATION, 
 
 of tunnels, 215.
 
 INDEX, 339 
 
 VEETICAL DEVIATIOIT, 
 . allowed by General Act, 27. 
 
 \t:ssels, 
 
 Interference vnth. passage of, to canals, 89. 
 obliged to lower top-gaUant-masts under bridge, 191. 
 See Navigation. 
 
 VIADUCT, 
 
 alteration of spans, proposed before Referees, 14. 
 
 proposed by promoters in place of embankment, 24 
 
 •wben^ may be made in place of embankment under General 
 
 Act, 28. 
 Deviation from line or level of, 29. 
 Substitution of otber engineering works for, under General Acts, 
 
 29. 
 over tidal or navigable waters, 189 — 196. 
 
 See Navigation. 
 Estimate insufficient if Board of Trade should order, Instead of 
 
 solid embankment, 239. 
 
 VIBEATION, 
 
 Wliether compensation claimable for, 265. 
 
 VIEW, 
 
 of station, signals or line. Obstruction of, 82. 
 
 VOTING, 
 
 Mode of, by Eeferees, 4. 
 
 WATCHMiVN, 
 
 may be appointed at junctions by Line joined, at expense of com- 
 pany joining, 107. 
 
 WATEE, 
 
 pipes. Interference of proposed lino with, 184, 241. 
 
 Expense of substituting others to bo provided for, 241. 
 Dock company seeking j^owera to supply Shipping with, 221. 
 Compensation for interference with, 262, et eeq. 
 
 subterraneous water, whether claimable, 264. 
 bOls, Extent of Eeferees' jurisdiction, 274. 
 
 Depriving miJlowners and individuals of supply, 276 et seq. 
 Water compensation usually one-third of rainfall, 278, 279, 
 281.
 
 §40 ' INDEX. 
 
 WATEE — continued. 
 
 Money compensation, estimate must be sufficient for, 290. 
 
 Objections to proposed supply and storage, 283. 
 
 Objections to quality, 286. 
 
 Pressure, 288. 
 
 Preferable source of supply, 289. 
 
 Effect on Bill of adverse report, 291. 
 
 WATEEWAY, 
 
 of private canal, destruction of, 96. 
 
 of viaduct, danger to district from floods tbrougli insufficiency 
 
 of, 105. 
 narrowing, tbrougb construction of docks, 220. 
 
 See Navigation. 
 
 WHAEVES, 
 
 Interference witb land laid out for, 93. 
 
 Compensation for cutting off communication between, and river, 
 263. 
 
 WIDEKUS-G, 
 
 of petitioners' viaduct, rendering same impossible, 53. 
 
 WITHDEAWAL, 
 
 of Bill in consequence of adverse report of Eeferees, 38. 
 
 WITNESS, 
 
 Examination and cross-examination of, 7. 
 
 Promoters' engineer may be called as a, by petitioners, 5. 
 
 WOEKS, 
 
 Alteration of, after sanctioned, 26. 
 
 Legality of existing, 35. 
 
 contemplated by petitioners, Objections in respect of, 36, 55, 79. 
 
 inefficient. Effect on Bill of report that, 39. 
 
 Interference with, another company's existing, — see Eailway 
 
 Opposing. 
 private. Interference with, 95, 98, 101. 
 Price paid for executing similar, in neighbourhood, 238, 
 
 Printed by C. W. Stb?b»8, 5 Great Qneen Street, Lincoln's Inn STelds.
 
 m M 
 
 WORKS PUBLISHED BY STEVENS AND SONS, 
 
 Arnould's Law of Marine Insurance.— Third Edition. 
 
 By D. MACLACHLAN, Esq. 2 vols, royal 8vo, ISGG. Price £2 12s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 Russell on Crimes and Misdemeanours. — Fourth Edition. 
 
 By C. S GREAVES, Esq., Q C, 3 vols, royal Svo. Price 5/. 15s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 Smith's Mercantile Law. — Seventh Edition. By G. M. 
 
 DOWDESWELL, Esq. Roya cloth. Price 1/. 16s. 
 
 Phillips's Law of Copyright. — The Law of Copyright in 
 
 Works of Literature and Art, and in the application of Designs. With the 
 Statutes relating therebo. By CHARLES PALMER PHILLIPS, of Lincoln's 
 Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. In Svo. Price 12s. cloth. 
 
 "Mr. PhLllips has sliown, not only great diligence iu collecting cases bearing upon the 
 various topics which he has treated, but coasideiable judgment in the manner in which he has 
 dealt with thein. He has spared no pains to mal^e his worlc reliable as a legal text-book, and at 
 the same time equally useful to publishers, authors, artists, and other persons who are interested 
 in works of literature, art, or design. In a word, such a book lias long been wanted, and :Mr. 
 Phillips has given abundaut proof of his ability to meet the desideratum." — Solicitor's Journal, 
 Nov. 14, 1863. 
 
 Braithwaite's Oaths in Chancery. — A Manual for the use 
 
 of " Commissioners to administer Oaths in Chancery ;" being a collection of officially 
 recognized Forms of Jurats and Oaths, with Explanatory Notes and Observations. 
 Second Edition. By TKOIHAS W. BRAITHWAITE, of the Record and Writ 
 Clerks' Office. Fcap. Svo. 1864. Price 3s. M. cloth, lettered. 
 
 The Law relating to Mines, Minerals, and Quarries in 
 
 Great Britain and Ireland ; with a Summary of the Laws of Foreign States, and 
 practical directions for obtaining Government Grants to work Foreign Mines. By 
 ARUNDEL ROGERS, Esq., of the Imier Temple, Barrister-at-Law. In Svo. 1804. 
 Price 30s. cloth. 
 
 Levi's Commercial Law. — International Commercial Law. 
 
 Being the Principles of Mercantile Law of the following and other Countries, viz.:— 
 
 England, Scotland, Ireland, British India, British Colonies, 
 
 Austria, Denmark, Hans Towns, Portugal, Sweden, 
 
 Belgium, France, Italy, Prussia, Switzerland, 
 
 Brazil, Germany, Netherlands, Russia, United States, 
 
 Buenos Ayres, Greece, Norway, Spain, Wurtemburg. 
 
 By LEONE LEVI, Esq., F.S.A., F.S.S., of Lincoln's-Inn, Barrister-at-Law, Pro- 
 fessor of the Principles and Practice of Commerce at King's College, Loudon, &c. 
 In 2 vols, royal Svo. Price 35s. cloth, lettered. 
 
 Pritchard's Admiralty Digest. — Second Edition. By 
 
 R. A. PRITCHARD, D.C.L., and W. T. PHITCHARD. With Xotes of 
 Cases from French Maritime Law, by ALGERNON JONES, in 2 vols, cloth. 
 Price 3/. 
 
 Greenhow's Shipping Law Manual, 1863. — A Concise 
 
 Treatise on the Law governing the Interests of Shipo\raers, Merchants, Masters, 
 Seamen, and other Persons connected with British Ships ; together with the Acts 
 of ParUament, Forms, and Precedents relative to the subject, being specially m- 
 tended for popular Use in Seaport Towns. By WILLIAM THOMAS GREEN- 
 HOW, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 1 vol. Svo. Price 20s. cloth. 
 
 Shelford's Law of Highways, 1862.— The Law of High- 
 ways ; including the General Highway Acts for England and Wales, and other 
 Statutes, with copious Notes of the Decisions thereon ; with Forms. The Third 
 Edition, corrected and enlarged. By LEONARD SHELFORD, Esq. of the Miu.Ue 
 Temple, Barrister- at-Law. With Supplement to 1804, by C. MANLEY bMITH. 
 1 vol. 12mo. Price 15s. cloth. 
 
 *^* 'Bhar^iimTMilftmpniwiiav in liad jeuaratclv, price 3s. sewed. 
 
 « 
 
 UNIVERSITY (^^ CU^J^RNIA- 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 IKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 ity-S Action at Law. — An 
 
 /Proceedings in an Action at Law. Ninth Edition, 
 'practice, by S. PRENTICE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 
 Adapted to the present 
 12mo. cloth. Price 12s. 
 
 uUing's Law of Attorneys, Notaries, &c. —Third Edi 
 
 tion. A Summary of the Law and Practice relating to Attorneys, General and 
 Special, Attorneys-at-Law, Solicitors, Notaries, Proctors, Conveyancers, Scri- 
 veners, Land Agents, Honse Agents, &c., and the Offices and Appointments usually 
 held by them. Their several qualifications and legitimate Province, Rights, Duties, 
 Privileges, Exemptions, Disabilities, and Lial)ilities in the general Practice of the 
 Law, in Legal Proceedings, in Legal Negotiations, and Legal Formalities. And the 
 Law of Costs as l)etween Party and Party and Attorney and Client. By ALEX- 
 ANDER PULLING, of the Inner Temple, Serjeaut-at-Law, Third Edition. In 
 Svo. 1862. Price I85. cloth. 
 
 Thring's Companies Act, 1862. — A Supplement to the 
 
 Law and Practice of Joint-Stock Companies ; containing the Companies Act, 1862 ; 
 the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1852 ; and the Rules of the Court of 
 Chancery for Regulating the Mode of Proceeding under the Companies Act, 1862. 
 With an Introduction, Practical Notes, and Eorms. By HENRY THRING, 
 M.A., of the lunar Temple, Barrister-at-Law. In 1 vol. 12mo. Price 7s. (id. 
 cloth. 
 
 Selwyn's Abridgment of the Law of Nisi Prius.— 
 
 Twelfth Edition. With a Supplement containing a Summary of the Law of Bank- 
 ruptcy with reference to Questions that arise in Actions at Law as amended by 
 the Bankruptcy Act, 18!jl. In 2 vols, royal 8vo., ISot)— 61. Price 2^. 16s. cloth. 
 By DAVID POWER, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel. 
 
 *** The Sujijikiiwnt may be had st'i>aratcli/. Price lOs. 6d. cloth. 
 
 Thring's Criminal Law of the Navy, comprising an 
 
 Iiitroiluctory Sketch of the Early State and Discipline of the Navy ; the Naval Dis- 
 cipline Act of 18G0, with Notes ; Criminal Offences and their Punishment ; the 
 Constitution and Jui-:sdictiou of Courts Martial ; the Forms of I'rocedure, and Law 
 of Evidence, applicable to Trials by Courts Martial, witli the New Regulations of 
 the Achniralty, and a coi)ious index. By THEODORE THPING, Esq., of the 
 Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. In 12mo. Price 8s. 6rf. cloth. 
 
 Millar and Collier's Bills of Sale. — Second Edition. 
 
 A Treatise on Bills of Sale, with an Apjtendix, containing the Registration Act, 17 
 & 18 Vict. c. 30, and Precedents, &c. Second E.lition. By F. C. J. MILLAR, 
 Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 1 vol 12mo, 18<i0. Price 9a'. cloth. 
 
 Gough on the Land Registry and Declaration of Titles 
 
 Acts, 1862.— The Acts to facilitate tlie Proof of Title t«, and the Conveyance of. 
 Real Estates, and foi Obtaining a Declaration of Title (2.^ & 26 Vict. cc. 5'.i and 
 67). Together with tile General Orders, Table of Costs, and Forms for carrying the 
 first-named Act into effect ; also an Introduction, Practical Notes, and a full index. 
 ByHENKY GOUGH, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 1 vol. 12mo. Price 5i'. 6t/. clotli. 
 
 Eoscoe's Criminal Evidence, 1862. — Iloscoe's Dio-est of 
 
 tlie Law of Evi<lcnce in Criminal Cases. Sixth Edition, with considerable Additions. 
 By W. MARK BY, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. In royal 12cio. Price 30s. cloth. 
 
 Scott's Costs in Common Law, Conveyancing, &c. 1860. 
 
 — Bills of Costs in the Superior Courts of Common Law, the New Courts of l'iol)ato 
 and Divorce, also in Parliament, the Crown Office, and tlie (^'lecn's Rcmeudtrancei-'s 
 Office, and in tJankruittcy, Insolvency, Conveyancing, Criminal Prosecutions on 
 Circuit anil at Sessions, &c., iuclu<ling Costs of Interhjcutory Rules and Orders 
 under the Common I^aw Procedure Acts (18.52 and 1854), and Hills of Exchange Act, 
 1855. By JOHN SCOTT, Esq., Jiarristcr-at-Law. Second Edition. In royal 
 12mo. Price 1/. cloth. 
 
 " Taxation of t'o.sta. In re Foster. Vice-Chancellor Wood said that Mr. Scott's book was 
 a c-ompctent autliority upon tlie sulijcct."— JVjjkw, Uec. 13, 1859. 
 
 Parliamentary Costs, Relative to Private Bills, Election 
 
 ,, ».... Ajipeal Causes; together with Allowances to Witnesses. By 
 ID WEBSTER, Esq., Clerk to tin' Taxing ( )fficer of the House of Commons 
 he Examiners for Standing Orders. Second Edition. Post Svo. 1864. 
 
 m 
 
 10/5/6. 
 
 I'etitioii 
 
 EDWAl 
 
 and to th 
 
 Price 12s. Hd. chHli 
 
 .t/^N 
 
 — ?%i^ 
 
 [BouDd hy Kelly & Sous, Water Street,3traad.