g GEEAT EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. STATEMENT or THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, IN REFERENCE TO THE GREAT EASTERN NORTHERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL; ACCOMPANIED BY A MAP OF THE GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY SYSTEM, SHEWING THE PROPOSED NEW EINE TO THE NORTH OE ENGLAND, THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE DOCKS LONDON, AND THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS TO BE SERVED. LONDON: PRINTED BY WATERLOW & SONS, LONDON WALL. 1804. HC 30X0 a-í The Great Eastern Railway Company, Secretary's Office, Bishopsgate Station, London, N.E. June, 186é. Sir, By desire of the Board of Directors, I send you herewith a Statement they have thought it right to make public, in reference to the recent rejection of the Great Eastern Northern Junction Railway Bill. I am. Sir, Your most obedient servant, J. B. OWEN, Secretary. 1J3ÍÍAFÍY BUREAU OF RAILWAY cCONOMICS, WASHINGTON, D. C. DtC 28 Í910 < GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. STATEMENT OF THE BOAED OF DIEECTOES OP THE GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY IN REFERENCE TO THE GREAT EASTERN NORTHERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL; ACCOMPANIED BY A MAP OF THE GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY SYSTEM SPIEWING TPIE PEOPOSED NEW LINE TO THE NORTH OF ENGLAND, THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE DOCKS OF LONDON, AND THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS TO BE SERVED. LONDON: FEINTED BY WATEELOW à SONS, LONDON WALL. 1864. : ■ ^ '{ .'.t - .-cî; ¡ir-" ^ ^ Sotiih^-all ïùm:K mA/J/(i/ILh'V Marliet Wci^liton Síívorlov / In« RlNi^.EY vrrn l^nnirl Htücii imKLEY BRADFORD^ utnsfx iHmTF.mJirT mrnnuHEFiKL Penis txine STAI/EYBKIBQE ROTHEIIUAM '*nou,rfU7rp l)islrud jPixrple Ory^Mt/ JiaziiorTi/ /)? D *^ Braw/v pomFLETOJsr SLEAFORD AsliboiiTUL 'IIANLEÏ BfJSTCdf NOTTINGHAM DERBY FoUtjin \SmFFOJLD BrilTON\ 11% Ash by Mpde la Zoncli BOURN "^FUoridMowi GREAT ^ARWOUTI:^ Stauxfhrd iTERBORO VTON ySidton/ yjpldñt Mia-ke iIIairl>oroug3i CAMBRiDOE WO/tr/lAMPTOdF BEDFOiD WNetvpari/Jdfjfnxd/ To Rotterdam 120 Miles "1° xJIilGhm i Feiphtotv \ ^Jii/yzzcody ' Grrat Ed,s'tFf71 J^FoiDw/^i rJunràdm sJicmi/ th/di x=z: (TTf'dB KorfJd77i rornpetùdj/Id/u'à' ßlacÄ' Luie,i npirprnt cmslmp FaiJmx^tS DoiU'd niach !, fíy/üways Wy course, oF constnzrdiorb Th,e,port¿(m/oF ike Map UnedylEus^^^^^^shrws tJicDwtn'xdy of the (h'eaf Eastyerrty Canipa/iy. Scale of 10 Miles to ¡ai hull to et70S* 3 iio w -w tir i<> 'Íiái/Di fí/VEfí THAl\,f£s C. B .(hefhh6. hfh '. 'Iß, - WrAff/n/Pdt/r. êreat êMkxn STATEMENT OF THE BOAED OF DIEECTOES OP THE GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY IN BBFEEENCB TO THE GREAT EASTERN NORTHERN JUNCTION RAILWAY. The transactions in the Committee of the House of Commons which, in the present session of Parlia¬ ment, sat upon the Great Eastern Northern Junc¬ tion Railway Bill, present, perhaps, one of the most singular chapters to be found in the history of railway legislation. A company acting conjointly with the Great Eastern Railway Company presented a Bill for the making of a line which may be shortly described as a great trunk line to connect the Great Eastern system with the North of England in the neigh¬ bourhood of Honcaster. The utility and advantages of such a scheme, both to the public and to the Great Eastern Com¬ pany, were obvious enough. The Great Eastern system consists of lines of railway upwards of 600 miles in extent, embracing a population which re¬ quires large supplies of coal and of manufactured articles from the north, and which on the other hand produces in abundance the staples of food and raw material which are required in the manufacturing districts. The Great Eastern Railway likewise forms a connection with important ports on the East 4 Coast which are advantageously situated for the foreign trade of the Lancashire and Yorkshire dis¬ tricts. The metropolitan communications of the Great Eastern Railway are unrivalled in the excep¬ tional advantages which they offer to foreign trade. No other railway presents equal convenience of access to the shipping places of the Thames. The connec¬ tion of the Great Eastern Railway with the Victoria Docks and other places of shipment gives it in this respect a pre-eminence over all other systems of railway entering the metropolis. There is still an¬ other feature in the metropolitan communication of the Great Eastern Railway to be remarked, viz., that, unlike the other great railway systems north of the Thames, whose termini in London are at no great distance from one another, the Great Eastern has a metropolitan terminal district of its own, of which it is almost the sole feeder. Such being the natural advantages of the Great Eastern Railway system, it may he a matter of surprise that it has not as yet developed a traffic more proportionate to its resources. The cause of this, however, must he obvious to any one who re- ñects that hitherto that railroad has been excluded from access to the legitimate sources of traffic by which alone its full capabilities can be developed. The London and North Western system developes an enormous traffic by direct lines, reaching the great centres of trade at Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, &c., and extending far beyond, so as to command the traffic of Scotland, and even, by recent arrangements, to engross a large portion of the traffic of Ireland. The same thing is true of the Midland Rail¬ way system, which besides its own wealthy dis¬ trict in the Midland counties, extends to Bristol on the south-west; to the great towns of the West Riding on the north ; reaching, by recent legisla- 5 tion, to Manchester and Liverpool ; and now esta¬ blished in an independent position in the metropolis, to which, in the present session of Parliament, it has added a share in the lease of the Lancaster and Carlisle, which practically places it in a position to divide the traffic of Scotland. The Great Northern in like manner, which was originally projected as a simple trunk line from London to York, never rested till it had fought its way to all the great towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire, which are now the main feeders of its great and remunerative traffic. It likewise, by its connections with the North Eastern Company, com¬ mands the traffic of the East Coast route to Scot¬ land, and enjoys the monopoly of the railroad coal traffic from the northern coal fields. In all these cases the Companies have found it advisable to ask, and Parliament has seen it expe¬ dient to grant to the several independent systems direct access to the productive sources of traffic ; and in none of these cases has it been thought right to deny to other Companies that which was clearly for the advantage both of themselves and of the public, solely in the interest of any particular Company which might be already established in the field which it was sought to enter. If such a doctrine had heretofore been thought sustainable, the Great Northern Railway would never have existed. Pounding themselves on the same principles, and aiming at the same objects, the GreatEastern Railway Company thought themselves entitled to ask at the hands of Parliament the same unfettered freedom of commercial action which had been conceded without exception to all their rivals in trade. The plan by which the Great Eastern Company sought to accomplish this legitimate object, was sim¬ ple and effectual. Their scheme was as follows :— A glance at the map will show that for all traffic 6 coming from and tending in the direction of the north, Peterborough is the natural point of concen¬ tration on the Great Eastern system. A direct line from Cambridge to Peterborough was therefore laid out to supersede the circuit by Ely and March. This was a cheap, easy, and highly useful line. There was not a shadow of opposition to it from any landowner or from anyone else, except the Great Northern Railway, who, if it had stood by itself, could not even have had a locus standi against it. It was a mere simple amendment of the existing Great Eastern system, affording a most advantageous communication for the whole of the southern portion of the Great Eastern district, which seeks access to the various lines in all direc¬ tions converging at Peterborough; and it further presented an improved and direct communication by the Great Eastern route from Peterborough to London. The fate of this small piece of line, which at so cheap a cost offered such large advantages to the traffic of a great district, will be observed upon hereafter. Besides this, it had been accepted by the persons locally interested in the district of Ramsey, as a substitute for a line of their own which they were actually promoting in Parliament. Erom Peterborough the line proceeded nearly in a straight line to a placed called Askern, in the neigh¬ bourhood of Boncaster. This northern terminus of the line was selected as a point where the northern trunk of the Great Eastern could form a complete and independent junction— 1. With the Lancashire and Yorkshire system, penetrating all the great manufacturing districts of the north. 2. With the North Eastern system, which reaches the coal fields and industrial towns of North York¬ shire, Durham and Northumberland. 7 3. Witli the South Yorkshire coal field, which offers one of the best and most abundant supplies of coal fit for the markets of the Great Eastern dis¬ trict and of the metropolis. 4. With the West Riding and Grimsby Railway, which affords the best and shortest route from Don- caster to Wakefield, which is the key of the West Riding of Yorkshire. 5. With the new line from Doncaster, which gives the most direct communication with the im¬ portant port of Hull. 6. With the Midland System at Peterborough and Lincoln. 7. With the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln¬ shire System at Lincoln. The line, therefore, may be considered as a great direct trunk line, tapping at every point the main sources of traffic which lie north of the County of Cambridge, and giving the best and most direct ac¬ cess to the great district of the Eastern Counties, as well as to that large and populous district of the metropolis to which the Great Eastern offers special accommodation. Owing to the peculiarly favourable nature of the country traversed the proposed line accomplished these great objects at a singularly inexpensive rate, and by a method unprecedentedly efficient. The main line with its branches was in length 134 miles, and the total cost was estimated at £1,500,000 ; fe., less than £12,000 per mile. The landowners' opposition was so small and insignificant that it may be practically disregarded, especially as no evidence on their behalf was tendered against the Bill. One of the main features of the case was the engineering superiority of the line to any system of similar length as yet constructed. The cha- 8 racter of the country admitted of its construction throughout uj)on gradients of 1 in 400. The effect of such a construction was practically nearly to double the load which an engine could carry as compared with the load actually carried on the existing line of the Great Northern Railway. It was, in fact, the invention of a machine which could effect the same work at a reduction of one-third of the cost, yielding at the same time a larger profit. Upon this mechanical advantage in the means of transport was founded the immense boon offered to the Avhole communitv in the extraordinarily low rates which were ten¬ dered to the public in the Bill. It was proved to demonstration—and, indeed, not denied—that on the gradient of 1 in 400, the same engine which on the present Great Northern line between Doncaster and London carries a load of about 240 tons would, on the Great Eastern line between the same points, (with the exception of a short space, where assistant power would he employed) be enabled to carry a load of 400 tons and upwards. The Great North¬ ern rate on their load of 240 tons is three-eighths of a penny per ton per mile. The proposed rate on the projected line of the Great Eastern was one-fourth of a penny per ton per mile. Now it is a matter of simple arithmetical calculation that a train of 400 tons at one farthing per ton per mile will yield on each mile travelled with the load lOd. more than a train carrying 240 tons at the rate of three-eighths of a penny per ton per mile, giving for the total distance ofl76 miles a gain of £6 lis. 8d. per train above what would be earned by carrying only 240 tons in a train, at 3-8ths of a penny per ton per mile. Thus while the public would derive the advantage of the reduction of one-eighth of a penny per ton per mile, the Company working the traffic would earn lOci. per mile more upon each train mile 9 travelled with the load than is now earned by the Great Northern at their existing rates. The lowness of rate was, therefore, not a reckless system of underbidding in trade, but was a prudent and pro¬ fitable calculation, founded on the production by a better machine of the same article at a less cost, and which consequently permitted greater profits to he realised at lower rates. The effect of this proposal, thus doubly advan¬ tageous both to the consumer and to the carrier, would have been as between Doncaster and Lon¬ don to reduce the cost of carriage upon coal to the metropolis by a sum equal to Is. 4(i. per ton ; that is to say, it would have had an effect upon the price of coal carried by such a line to London more than equivalent to the absolute repeal of the metro¬ politan coal tax. But this is by no means the whole of the ad¬ vantage offered by the Great Eastern scheme in respect of the metropolitan coal traffic. It has been already pointed out that the terminus of the Great Eastern system serves a wholly distinct district of the metropolis from that which is reached by the Great Northern at King's Cross. This circle (as delineated on the map) is one of the most densely populated districts of London. It is also the centre of very important trades and manufactures which require large supplies of fuel. Every ton of coal brought to King's Cross by the Great Northern destined to these districts has to be transported through the metropolis at a considerable cost ; that cost was proved to he at the very least 2s. per ton. The case, then, of the Great Eastern proposal as compared with the existing methods of transport was simply this : On every ton of coal carried by the Great Eastern from Doncaster and places north of Doncaster to what might be properly called 10 their metropolitan district, a saving would have been effected of not less than 3s. 4d. per ton. Now, this district was estimated as containing a popula¬ tion of not less than 600,000 persons, and the pro¬ bable quantity of coal to he supplied annually by the Great Eastern Railway at 1,000,000 tons. The saving effected on this commodity alone would have been £166,600 annually as compared with the same amount of coal carried to the same district by the Great Northern route. These things are not matters of hypothesis or speculation, but simple arithmetical conclusions derived from undisputed facts. A similar, though not equally extensive saving would have been effected to all the districts of the Eastern Counties served by the Great Eastern Railway system. It was suggested, indeed, that the reduction of railway rates for coal would be ineffective, because the competition of sea-borne coal would always be too powerful. But such a suggestion is directly contra¬ dicted by facts, for while the railway carriage of coal to London has increased from 8,000 tons in the year 1845 to 1,700,000 tons in 1863 the carriage of sea¬ borne coal in the same period has decreased from 3,400,000 to 3,300,000 tons. It is therefore obvious that at lower rates the trafiBc in railway-borne coal would increase in a still higher ratio. It is not surprising, therefore, that the coal owners of the Durham, Leeds and Barnsley districts, re¬ presenting firms raising upwards of 10,000,000 tons per annum, came to reinforce the petition of the Great Eastern Company for a scheme which offers equal advantages to the producer, the carrier, and the consumer. Such being the case of coal traffic by the proposed scheme of the Great Eastern Railway, the advan¬ tages which it offered for the transport of raw ma- 11 terial and manufactured products between tbe metropolis and the industrial districts of the West Riding of Yorkshire were not less obvious. The wools of Australia would have had a cheap and speedy means of transport to the wool markets of Yorkshire, whilst the heavy iron and other manufactures of the West Riding would have found the best communication with the ship- ping trade of London hy the connection of the Great Eastern system with the Thames. It was natural, therefore, that representatives of the great trading and manufacturing interests of Yorkshire should come in large numbers—in numbers indeed so large as almost to exhaust the patience of the Committee—to entreat at the hands of Parlia¬ ment the concession of a boon in which they were so deeply interested. It remains to consider the interests of the district proper to the Great Eastern. That is a district of great extent, comprising one of the largest and most fertile agricultural areas in the kingdom. The natural markets for their wool and their corn, in addition to London, are the consum¬ ing populations of Lancashire and Yorkshire. The enormous fish trade of Yarmouth, Lowestoft, and the other ports seeks access to the same points ; whilst Harwich and other places offer advanta¬ geous ports of shipment for the continental trade of the North. Peterborough is obviously the natural point to which such traffic would flow for distri¬ bution in each direction. But it was proved hy witnesses who had experience of the matter that so dilatory and inconvenient are the present means of interchange of traffic by the Great Northern Rail¬ way that traffic from Colchester and other places in the southern parts of the Eastern Counties district is actually obliged to go to London in order to find a route to the north. The first and most obvious 12 requisite for this traffic was the proposed direct line from Cambridge to Peterborough, which has been unaccountably rejected. The second requisite was an independent route, by which this large traffic might flow from Peterborough to the North under one management direct and unimpeded to its natural markets. This would have been effected by the direct line from Peterborough to Doncaster, where a junction would have been effected with the lines permeating the sources of traffic. Such were the advantages offered by the Great Eastern scheme. 1. To the consuming public the benefit of cheapening the cost of the first necessaries of life by lightening the expense of transport. 2. To the trading and agricultural commu¬ nity the advantage of new, more convenient and more economical access to their sources of supply, their consuming markets, and to their ports of exportation. 3. To the promoters of the bill a profitable in¬ vestment of their new capital, and an additional remuneration on the capital already invested by the natural development of their system and the employment of new and improved methods of transport, which enable greater profits tobe achieved at lower rates. A project more complete in all its points, and founded upon a sounder economical basis, it would be difficult to imagine. It is now proper to consider what was the rival scheme of the Great Northern Railway. It was admitted on all hands that the present direct Great Northern route from its gradients and the nature of its traffic was inadequate to the neces¬ sities of the case. It was therefore absolutely necessary that the Great Northern should in some. 13 form or other offer a new route. Nevertheless it was obviously their object and interest, if they could, to keep in their own hands and control the whole of the traffic between the Eastern Counties and the country north of Peterborough, and also to secure to themselves efficient protection against the trade between the Eastern metropolitan district and the North being permitted to flow in its natural direction over the Great Eastern system, and thus to secure to themselves the whole of the northern coal traffic along their own line between Peterborough and King's Cross. The scheme of the Great Northern consisted, therefore, of two parts. 1. A connection between their loop line at Gainsborough with Doncaster, so as to estab¬ lish the route from Doncaster to Peterborough by the circuitous line via Lincoln, Boston, and Spalding. 2. By a system of single disjointed loop lines ostensibly destined for local accommodation, but really devised in order to block up the district and prevent the establishment of a superior direct through route. ( Vide map.) The inferiority of the first part of the Great Northern scheme was proved by facts beyond dis¬ pute. In the first plaee, taking Cambridge as the common-point of concentration for the traffic to and from the southern and metropolitan sections of the Great Eastern district, the distance to Doncaster by the Great Northern loop line was 17 miles greater. Every ton of traffic, therefore, passing to or from the northern districts to the southern districts of the Great Eastern system or to the eastern districts of the metropolis would be taxed to the amount of the rate on the additional 17 miles. In the seeond place, it was proved that the loop line was broken up into a number of small sections of gradients worse that 14 1 in 400, and consequently was meclianieally in¬ ferior to the proposed direct line of the Great Eastern, and eould only he improved at considerable cost, whilst the line from Peterborough to London was incapable of improvement in gradients which at present confined the train load to 240 tons. Irrespective, therefore, of the length, it was a line which could not he so economically and advan¬ tageously worked. In the third place, the Great Northern having a longer and worse line could not and would not undertake to work the trafile at the cheap rates to which in consequence of their supe¬ rior hue the Great Eastern were willing to be re¬ stricted. In the fourth place, and which is perhaps the most material consideration of all, the plan of the Great Northern placed the absolute control of the whole trafdc in the hands of their own Com¬ pany, whose interests as respects the districts in question are directly opposed to permitting trafile to flow in the most advantageous and economical course. A glance at the map will explain this. Supposing coal destined for the Minories or Whitechapel to be in the hands of the Great Northern upon their loop line, it is obviously their paramount interest to force such traffic on their own line viâ Peterborough and Hitchin to London instead of permitting it to reach its metropolitan destination by the direct and convenient route through Peterborough via Cambridge to London. The same thing would he equally true of traffic between the "West Piding and the shipping places on the Thames. The Great Northern can, and obviously will, direct all such traffic to Kiug's Cross, to be thence distributed as best it may. Or, take again traffic to Harwich from the North, and com¬ pare the route ofiered by the direct line of the Great Eastern from Cambridge to Doncaster, with the zig¬ zag presented by the Great Northern, via Ely, March, 15 Spalding, Boston, and Lincoln. The map is the con¬ clusive answer to the Great Northern scheme. It is further to he observed that the nature of the existing traffic on the Great Eastern line from Cambridge is such as to afford facilities for the development of a greatly increased trade in heavy commodities ; whilst in that respect the line of the Great Northern Railway, between Peterborough and London, crowded as it is with fast trains, is far less capable of developing an increased traffic in a convenient and economical manner. Eor it is notorious that heavy traffic can be worked to the greatest advantage at low speeds, a condition of things which is possible upon the Great Eastern system, but impracticable beyond a limited extent on a great express pas¬ senger line like that of the Great Northern. The inferiority of the second part of the Great Northern project was not less apparent, viz., that portion of it which professed to give local accommodation to the central districts of Lincolnshire. On the one hand, the Great Northern offered little disjointed lines to be worked as local branches; on the other the Great Eastern project served the same district by a direct through line, giving im¬ mediate access to London, the Eastern Counties, and the North. It is not surprising, therefore, that the local evidence was overwhelmingly in favour of the local superiority of the Great Eastern scheme. Such were the rival schemes for the accommoda¬ tion of a traffic second to none in the United Kingdom which were submitted to the judgment of the Committee. They pronounced it against the Great Eastern scheme, and in favour of a portion of the Great Northern, promoted as a block to the Great Eastern project. It is difficult to understand how it was possible on such premises to arrive at such a conclusion. It is possible to conceive various arguments 16 by wbicli tbe advantages offered by the Great Eastern scheme might have been refuted. The opponents might have shown that the parties pro¬ moting the line could not accomplish the benefits they held out. First, they might have attempted to prove that financially they would be unable to construct the line. But in the face of the fact that the Great Eastern Company was ready to find half of the capital and to guarantee five per cent, interest on the remainder, and work the line when made, such an argument was hopeless and was hardly suggested. Secondly ; they might have endeavoured to show that the line, when constructed, could not pay ; but in the face of the fact that it was estimated to cost less than half what had been expended on the loop line of the Great Northern, and that it would when made be the best and most direct trunk line for the conveyance of an enormous traffic, such a proposi¬ tion could not be maintained. For there is no trunk line in the kingdom so perfect as the proposed line would have been, or which carries anything like the traffic which such a line must command without being highly remunerative. The figures adduced in evidence proved conclusively that it would not only yield a large dividend on the new line to be constructed, but also tend greatly to increase the profits on the capital of £20,000,000 already ex¬ pended upon the Great Eastern system, whose general traffic this important communication must immensely develope. It may be confidently affirmed that there is no line in the kingdom constructed at anything like this cost on which so great a traffic could be profitably developed at low rates, and, consequently, so large a dividend be earned. These facts, indeed, are so clear that it was liardly thought worth while to dispute them. Thirdly ; it might have been argued that the 17 mechanical advantages offered by the Great Eastern line were a delusion; that loads of 400 tons could not be carried, and consequently that the low rates prof¬ fered must either he delusive or ruinous. But upon the mechanical proposition that upon a line with gradients of 1 in 400 loads of 400 tons could be carried there was actually no dispute. And that such loads could he profitably carried at the rates offered was a simple and irresistible arithmetical conclusion from that fact, coupled with the present loads and rates on the Great Northern line. This conclusion was established by the concurrent testi¬ mony of Messrs. Bidder, Hawkshaw, Eowler, and Stephenson ; certainly four as competent authorities on such a point as are anywhere to be found. Mr. Bidder reinforced his opinion as to the cost of working the traffic by the actual experience of the existing Blythe and Tyne Railway. Mr. Bidder had put the cost of working coal traffic at Is. 8d. per train mile. Mr. Tone, the engineer of that Railway, was called before the Committee, and proved that the working of the Blythe and Tyne Railway cost from Is. 4d. to Is. 6d. per train mile, and gave as his deliberate opinion that the working of the proposed Great Eastern line would be amply covered by a charge of Is. 6d. per train mile for all kinds of traffic. The persons charged with the conduct of the Great Northern case, who cer¬ tainly understood the real operation and bearing of this evidence against their case, and in favour of the Great Eastern scheme, were anxious to get rid of and to rebut this pregnant and conclusive fact ; but strangely enough the Committee declared that they considered the evidence as to the aetual cost of working, as given by Mr. Tone (upon which it is evident the whole question of economical advantage, both to the company and to the public essentially hinged) as tabula rasa, and as a matter which did 18 not enter into their consideration in the conclusion at which they were about to arrive. If this question was not material to the inquiry, it is difficult to conceive how any other question could beso, unless, indeed, protection to the Great Northern Railway was the only object deemed worthy of consideration by the Committee. Under such circumstances it might have been difficult to divine upon what grounds the Commit¬ tee proceeded in the decision which they announced, were it not that these grounds are very distinctly indicated at the close of the case, in a dialogue which took place between the Chairman and Mr. Powler, who was the last witness examined. This conversation is in all respects so remarkable, as showing the views which governed the decision of this important case, that it may be well to set it out in extenso, as it appears in the shorthand writer's notes :— "10,189. CS AIRMAN : You have got very favourable gradients ; at least, you propose to have them, such as no other railway in England has ob¬ tained ? "ANSWER: Yes. " 10,190. CHAIRMAN : And you want to have a rate of a farthing, which you say you can only render profitable to yourselves upon such a fiat gradient; unless you could carry coals in trains of 400 tons loads, you coidd not do this at a profit ? " ANSWER : That is true. "10,191. CHAIRMAN: Then, is it fair to other Companies that you are to have a maximum of two- eighths, so that y Olí may by force pull them down, whereas they have not the conditions, or anything like them, upon which alone you say you can carry at a profit ? If they had the same gradients as you, well and good ; but they have not got them, and cannot get them, except at a very large expense. I 19 do not see the justice of this proposition of a far' thing ? " ANSWEU : I apprehend that nothing can be more fair and proper than such a proposi¬ tion on such a principle. It is only in that way that you can have improved machines from time to time. Every man who has got a machine or a railway in this country, must always he liable to somebody else superseding his machine or railway by a newer and a better one. Eor instance, take all the improvements in the manufacture of cotton. Every man who builds a cotton mill, or puts machinery in his cotton mill, does it, not only at the risk, hut almost in the expectation that at some comparatively short period of time that machinery wiU he superseded by newer and more economical machinery ; and so, step by step, we have carried out the improvement and development of this country. If a man is to be pro¬ tected by reason of his having an imperfect machine, and improvements are to be stopped, and newer and cheaper machines forbidden lest they should inter¬ fere with old machines, that would at once put a stop to all improvements in the country. " 10,192. CHAIRMAN : The parallel seems hardly to hold good. Suppose you and I are cotton spinners^ and you set up a much better mill than mime, there is nothing to hinder me setting up a ditto of yours. These Railway Companies cannot do that, because they are tied hard and fast to the gradients that they have already ; or, at all events, they cannot improve them without a very large expenditure. You cannot pretend to say that all the railways existing im the country are to be superseded, or rather, not to have any consideration given them for the capital they have expended, and the great services they render the country from time to time ? " ANSWER: Quite the contrary. I am not a 20 revolutionist in railvray matters. It is only when you have certain conditions that you can give this boon to the public as well as do the business profit¬ ably for yourselves. " 10,193. CSAIMMÄN: If you like to carry at a farthing a ton, having a higher maximum, I do not see why you should not. At present I object to a farthing per ton, because I do not think it is fair to other Companies who have not the same gradients and cannot get them. "ANSWER : I know there is a certain feel¬ ing with existing Eailway Companies on that point. I have myself been spoken to, and remonstrated with, as supporting a proposition which would be injurious to railway property. I deny it altogether. I should be very sorry indeed, as my friend Mr. Hawkshaw would be very sorry, to take any step that would be calculated to injure railway property or decrease its stability in this country. I am quite sure that in this proposition I am doing no such thing. Allow me to revert to wEat I said with regard to the gradients of 1 in 200, and 1 in 400. If we left the gradients of this line at 1 in 200, we could only have carried coal at three-eighths of a penny per ton with the same profit that we are noAV able to carry at a farthing per ton per mile with the improved gradients. It seems to me that it would be a great mistake for ourselves, and, I think, an in¬ justice to the public, if we had refrained from avail¬ ing ourselves of the means of carrying at that rate ; and I really do not see the difference between the improved gradients enabling us to carry this larger trade at a profit, and improved machines, such as have been referred to in the case of Mr. Sturrock. That is one of the means by which, step by step, we shall go on diminishing the cost in this country." Thus it appears that the scheme of the Great Eastern was to be rejected, not because they 21 had not proved their case, but because they had proved it too well ; not because they had failed to prove that they could accomplish what they pretended, but because they had demonstrated that they could accomplish it too completely ; not because their line was not good enough, but because it was too good. It is obvious that if the line had been worse the objection thus urged to its concession would have been removed, and it should seem that if it had worse gradients and less economical advantages, it would have been regarded with less disfavour. In short, that if the line had been in all respects worse the Com¬ mittee would have thought better of it. It is impossible not to observe that such a line of reasoning is incompatible with sound commercial piânciples, and destructive of all improvement and progress. If that which is better is rejected, simply because it may offer an inconvenient rivalry to that which is worse, the perpetuation of inferio¬ rity is certain. All incentives to improvement which are the wholesome fruit of conscious in¬ feriority and apprehended competition are removed. It is obvious that the reasons on which the project of the Great Eastern was rejected were such as must always insure the rejection of a shorter and better line between any two places where an existing line has been already constructed. And it is certainly sufficiently surprising that such an argument should have prevailed in favour of the Great Northern Eail- way, which came into existence on the very principles which are now urged against the Great Eastern pro¬ ject. If the fact that capital has been expended on inferior routes is a conclusive reason against the con¬ struction of shorter and better lines, grievous injus¬ tice was done in 1846 to the Midland Railway Com¬ pany when the Great Northern was permitted to swecj^the traffic from its line by its superior route 22 and lower rates. The rates proposed by the Great Northern in 1846 on coal, were three farthings per ton per mile; that is, one half the rate then charged on existing railways. It was vehemently contended that such a rate was ruinous and impossible, yet the Great Northern are now carrying atone half the pro¬ posed rate of three farthings. And who wiU venture to say that it would not have been a great public evil if the opponents of the Great Northern in 1846 had achieved the same success which has attended the opposition of the Great Northern in 1864? There was in those days the same outcry against low rates and injustice to existing systems, but, happily for the public interests, these arguments were not permitted to prevail. The consequence was the construction of the Great Northern Line, which, though it has had the promised effect of enormously reducing the cost of transpo]4, has nevertheless been found en¬ tirely compatible with the prosperity and well- being of its rivals in trade. The Great Eastern proposes to do in 1864 what the Great Northern succeeded in accomplishing in 1846. Their plan is based upon the same principles of improved route and superior economy. In addition to the argu¬ ments urged in favour of the Great Northern scheme in 1846, the Great Eastern can appeal to the striking success of the Great Northern experi¬ ment. The existence and the prosperity, not only of the Great Northern, but of their rivals, is in itself a complete refutation of the arguments which were urged against the Great Eastern scheme. The reasoning on behalf of the Great Northern is, in fact, nothing else than the old economical fallacy of protection applied to railway traffic. If it were well founded, it should have operated to prevent railroads themselves from superseding the capital invested in canals and turnpike trusts. They, too, are " tied 23 down" to their inherent imperfections, yet it was not thought necessary to deny to the public the benefit of an improved method of locomotion, simply be¬ cause the old roads and canals might suffer by the improvement. Suppose some inventor were to dis¬ cover a new and cheaper fuel which should entirely supersede coal and gas, and should supply heat and light at a far eheaper rate than any at present in practice, what would he thought of the Attorney- General who should refuse a patent for such an in¬ vention, or the Parliament which refused to sanction the means of carrying it into effect because the capital expended by the gas eompanies and the coal- owners was not to be superseded, hut " consideration was to be shown for the great services they had ren¬ dered to the country from time to time." And yet in what respect do the coalowners and the gas com¬ panies in such a case differ from the position of a railway company which suffers from the introduc¬ tion of a shorter and better line with cheaper rates ? If such an argument as this had been urged on behalf of a great landowner instead of a great company, would it have been for an instant entertained ? Can any one he heard to say that the whole community shall he deprived of a distinctly proved advantage, because some individual derives profit from supplying the same commodity in an in¬ ferior manner and at a greater cost ? If this is so then the cultivation of more fertile soils ought not to he permitted, lest those who have expended their capital upon poorer land should suffer by the com¬ petition. It might he urged, as was done in this case, " If they had as good land as you, well and good ; hut they have not got it and cannot get it except at a very large expense ;" they are tied hand and foot to their poor soils. They have rendered good service to the country from time to time, and 24 they ought not to he superseded. "We do not think it is fair to those who have not as good land and cannot get it." This sort of reasoning has been refuted hy argument and exploded by experience in the commercial policy of the country, and it is strange, at this time of day, to see it revived in our railway legislation. It is difficult to understand why the law of demand and supply, which is ac¬ cepted as the true rule of trade, should be con¬ sidered as inapplicable to the traffic in the transport of commodities. It is the more remarkable that this proposition should be contested by the Great Northern Hallway, who for years past have been making the Great Eastern district the object of per¬ petual attack and competition. Upon such grounds, the Committee preferred the Great Northern to the Great Eastern scheme, or rather it would be more correct to saythey sanctioned a part of the Great Northern scheme ; for by reject¬ ing both plans as betAveen Sleaford and Bourne, they deprived the whole of that district of the ad¬ vantages of railway communication. They thereby sanctioned a large expenditure in the construction of a route 17 miles longer, with worse gradients, and which neither could nor even pretended to supply the public at a better or cheaper rate ; and they rejected a plan which would have given a short, direct, cheap, and efficient route. By this decision, the public are deprived of a clear and certain advantage which the Committee had it in their power to have con¬ ferred upon them, solely, as it should seem, in order that the Great Northern may be confirmed in the absolute monopoly of a great and daily increasing traffic. But then it will be said that facility clauses have been introduced into the Bill in order to secure to the Great Eastern Company free access to the Great 25 Northern system for all tlieiî traffic. But in the first place, if these facilities had been as efficient as they are notoriously delusive, they would be but a poor substitute for the line proposed by the Great Eastern Railway. TJie facilities, even if they could be worked, will have to be worked over a longer line with inferior gradients. No amount of facilities can ever give to the Eastern Counties district the advantage of a line seventeen miles shorter, with flat gradients, neither will any amount of facilities give to central Lincolnshire the advantage of having their district served by a great through line of railway. But every one conversant with the working of railway traffic is well aware that these facility clauses under such circumstances are neither more nor less than a " mockery, a delusion, and a snare." And it is just because the Great Northern Railway know that while they appear to do something they in effect do nothing, that they have been so eager to force them into the Bill. They hope, by an appearance which they know to be illusory, to protect them¬ selves from that reality which they so much appre¬ hend. Eacility clauses may and do work well enough in the case of continuous lines, where there is no com¬ petitive interest in the line which has the control of the traffic. But where such a comj)etitive interest prevails no form of words has yet been devised which can restrain the party who controls the traffic from diverting its stream into the course most consonant with their advantage. Now, for all traffic between London and the North it is obvious that the direct interest of the Great Northern will be to prevent such traffic from flowing over the system of the Great Eastern Railway, and to force it on their orvn line between Peterborough and London. To talk of facilities as a remedy for such an antagonism of in- 26 terest is a sort of cMld's play, of wliich the Great Northern cannot expect the Great Eastern to he the dupes. It was proved in evidence that for the development of such a traffic on that of the Great Eastern even running powers would be ineffective from a want of the requisite means of accommodating the rates at a short notice to the varying exigencies of the traffic. But to sup¬ pose that such a traffic as that under discussion could be developed by facilities rendered by a rival in trade is a proposition which it is diffi¬ cult to conceive could he gravely made or seriously entertained. Supposing that the Great Eastern found it for their interest to carry coal to London from Peterborough at one farthing per ton per mile, whilst the Great Northern were carrying it from the same point at three-eighths of a penny per ton per mile, what sort of facilities is it likely that coal traffic destined for the Great Eastern at Peter¬ borough would receive at the hands of the' Great Northern? Does any one doubt that the obstacles which they would find the means to interpose would not speedily countervail the lower rate offered to the trader P It is an axiom of railway management that the party which collects and controls the traffic at its source can and will regulate its route. Eor all competitive traffic, such as the traffic to London, the interest of the Great Northern would be to di¬ vert it from the Great Eastern route ; and even in the case of the non-competitive traffic of the Great Eastern it was proved (as in the instance of the fish traffic) that the Great Eastern would he necessarily sacrificed to the more direct in¬ terest of the through traffic of the Great Northern. These are things which no facility clauses can alter or remedy. Self interest, like the atmospheric pressure, is all pervading and acts at every point ; imperceptible in its operation, yet sen- 27 sible in its results, it always has prevailed, and always will prevail against all statutory provisions designed to regulate and control it. It is needless to say that the Great Eastern Railway Company could he no party to that which they knew was neither more nor less than a sham compromise ; which, whilst it seemed to give something to them, in fact gave everything to the Great Northern. It is, however, worthy of remark that if this scheme of facilities had heen as real and sincere as it was obviously hollow and inefficient, it would have heen effectually defeated by the de¬ cision of the Committee. In order that the suggested facilities might he effectually rendered, it was of course in the first instance essential that the traffic should he brought by the shortest and best route to the point of interchange. Now from the greater part of the Great Eastern district it is clear that the proposed section of the line from Cambridge to Peterborough would have presented the best route for traffic seeking an ac¬ cess to the north by communication with the Great Northern system at Peterborough. It is impossible therefore to reconcile the rejection of this unopposed section of the line with any real intention to give effectual facilities for traffic from the Great Eastern over the Great Northern system. To grant facili¬ ties for traffic from Harwich, for instance, and yet to condemn that traffic to take the circuitous detour by Ely and March, instead of passing direct from Cambridge to Peterborough, is simply to defeat that which it is intended to bestow. It can hardly be expected that the advisers of the Great Eastern Railway Company should acquiesce in a decision which they believe to be so entirely at variance with the public merits of the case they have disclosed. They are 28 unable to accept as final a determination which they believe to have been founded, partly on an imperfect apprehension of the real conditions of the question, and partly as has been shown upon fundamental economical errors. They have a complete confidence in the substantial advan¬ tage of the scheme they have propounded, and a temporary want of success cannot shake their faith in its ultimate triumph. A really meritorious case cannot suffer from a single defeat, and when the cause is solid, failure is only the vestibule of success. The Directors of the Great Eastern Railway cannot believe that Parliament will finally refuse to sanction a scheme which offers to the public the advantage of the best and cheapest trunk line which has yet been devised between the North of England on the one hand and the Eastern Counties and eastern districts of the Metropolis on the other. Repeated discus¬ sion, founded on the trutlis of economical science, and illustrated by the lessons of experience, have heretofore achieved success over interests far more powerful and extensive in their infiu- ence even than the Great Northern Company. In such cases patience and perseverance are all that are required to ensure conviction. A proved case of public advantage is in the end certain to com¬ mand an intelligent hearing, and a favourable decision. The task of overcoming prejudice and removing error is sometimes tedious and pro¬ longed, but it is ultimately successful; and the Great Eastern Railway Company may rest satis¬ fied that the legislature in the end will not feel justified in refusing to the public at large a great and unquestionable advantage, simply because it may be to the interest of a particular railway company that it should be denied. The temporary failure of 29 this Bill is but the commencement of a discussion which will close only when reason, experience, and evidence shall have produced the effect which, in the long run, they never fail of achieving. Signed on behalf of the Board of Directors, JAMES GOODSON, Chairman. Great Eastern Railway, Bishopsgate Terminus, London, ISth June, 1864. Waterlow& Sons, Printers, Carpenters' Hall, London Wall,