The line, as originally laid out, was to have had its London terminus at Maiden Lane, King's Cross, the site of the present Great Northern Station: it passed through Cashiobury and Grove Parks, the seats of Lord Essex and Lord Clarendon, and along the Hemel Hempstead and Little Goddesden valleys, in Hertfordshire. This latter portion of the project excited a vehement opposition on the part of the landowners, who formed a powerful confederacy against the bill. The principal parties who took an active part in the opposition were Lady Bridgwater and her trustees, Lord Essex and Sir Astley Cooper, supported by the Grand Junction Canal Company. By their influence the landowners throughout the counties of Hertford and Buckingham were completely organised in opposition to the measure. The time for preparing the plans to be deposited with the several clerks of the peace, as required by the standing orders of Parliament, being very limited, the necessary documents were prepared in great haste, and were deposited in such an imperfect state as to give just grounds for presuming that they would not pass the ordeal of the Standing Orders Committee. It was also thought that alterations might be made in some parts of the railway which would remove the objections of the principal landowners, and it was therefore determined to postpone the application to Parliament until the following session.

In the meantime the opponents of the bill out of doors were not idle. Public meetings were held in most of the districts through which the line was projected to pass, under the presidency of the nobility and gentry, when it was unanimously determined that railways were wholly unnecessary. Numerous pamphlets were published, calling on the public to "beware of the bubbles," and holding up the promoters of railways to ridicule. They were compared to Sir John Long and similar quacks, and pronounced fitter for

CHAP. XXV.]

.OPPOSITION TO THE SURVEY.

327

Bedlam than to be left at large. The canal proprietors, landowners, and road trustees, made common cause in decrying and opposing the projected line. The failure of railways was still confidently predicted, notwithstanding the success of the Liverpool Railway; and it was industriously spread abroad that the locomotive engines, having proved a failure there, were immediately to be abandoned !—a rumour which the directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Company considered it necessary publicly to contradict.

The feeling of opposition excited in the districts through which the line was intended to pass, was so great that it was with difficulty the surveys could be made. could be made. At one point the vigilance of the landowners and their servants was such, that the surveyors were effectually prevented making the surveys by the light of day; and it was only at length accomplished at night by means of dark lanthorns. Mr. Lecount mentions. another instance of a clergyman, who made such alarming demonstrations of his opposition, that the extraordinary expedient was resorted to of surveying his property during the time he was engaged in the pulpit. This was accomplished by having a strong force of surveyors in readiness to commence their operations, and entering the clergyman's grounds on the one side at the same moment that they saw him fairly off them on the other; by a well organised and systematic arrangement, each man concluded his allotted task just as the reverend gentleman concluded his sermon; so that, before he left the church, the deed was done, and the sinners had all decamped. Similar opposition was offered at many other points, but ineffectually. The perseverance of Mr. R. Stephenson (who, in examining the country to ascertain the best line, walked over the whole intervening districts between London and Birmingham upwards of twenty times), and the patient industry of his surveyors, under the direction of Mr. Gooch, overcame all obstacles; and by the

end of 1831, the requisite plans were deposited preparatory to an application being made to Parliament in the ensuing

session.

The principal alterations made in the new line were at the London end; the terminus being changed from Maiden Lane to a large piece of open land adjoining the Regent's Canal — the site of the present London and North-western Goods Station; and also at Watford, where the direction of the line was altered so as entirely to avoid the parks of Lords Essex and Clarendon. This diversion, however, inflicted upon the public the inconvenience of the Watford Tunnel, about a mile in length, and upon the company a largely increased outlay for its construction. The Hemel Hempstead and Goddesden valleys were also avoided, and the line proceeded by the towns of Berkhampstead and Tring. It was expected that these alterations would have the effect of mitigating, if not of entirely averting, the powerful opposition of the landowners; but it was found that, on the contrary, it was now more violent than ever, although all grounds of complaint in regard to their parks and residences had been entirely removed. The most exaggerated alarms continued to be entertained, especially by those who had never seen a railway; and although there were a few country gentlemen who took a different view of the subject, when the bill for the altered line was introduced into Parliament in the session of 1832, the owners of nearly seven-eighths of the land required for the railway were returned as dissentients. It was, however, a noticeable fact, that Lords Derby and Sefton, who had so vehemently opposed the Liverpool Railway in all its stages, were found amongst the assentients to the London and Birmingham line. The scheme had, it is true, many warm friends and supporters, but these were principally confined to classes possessing more intelligence than influence. Indeed, the change which was rapidly taking place in public opinion on the subject of

CHAP. XXV.]

THE BILL IN COMMITTEE.

329

railways, induced the promoters to anticipate a favourable issue to their application, notwithstanding the hostility of the landowners. They drew a favourable augury from the fact that the Grand Junction Canal Company, although still opposing the measure as strenuously as ever, so far as the influence of its proprietors collectively and individually extended, and watching all the proceedings of the bill with a jealous eye, did not openly appear in the ranks of its opponents, and, what was of still greater significance, did not open their purse-strings to supply funds for the opposition.

When the bill went before the Committee of the Commons, a formidable array of evidence was produced; all the railway experience of the day was brought to bear in support of the measure, and all that interested opposition could do was set against it. The necessity for an improved mode of communication between London and Birmingham was clearly demonstrated; and the engineering evidence was regarded as quite satisfactory. So strong an impression was made upon the Committee, that the result was no longer doubtful so far as the Commons were concerned; but it was considered very desirable that the case should be fully brought out in evidence for the information of the public, and the whole of the witnesses in support of the bill, about a hundred in number, were examined at great length. The opponents confined themselves principally to cross-examination, without producing direct evidence of their own; reserving their main opposition for the House of Lords, where they knew that their strength lay. Not a single fact was proved against the great utility of the measure, and the bill passed the Committee, and afterwards the third reading in the Commons, by large majorities.

It was then sent to the House of Lords, and went into Committee, when a similar mass of testimony was again gone

through iure seven favs. An overwhelming use was made ut is before: hough in uttempt vas naie to break down the evidence of the witnesses on cross-examination. The feasibility of the mute vas ioubted, and the greatest conceivatie Lifficulties were restei Their lordships seemed to take quite a aternal interest in the protection of the public against possible loss by the formation of the line. The Committee required that the promoters should prove the traffic to be brought upon the milway, and that the profits ierived from the working would pay a lividend or from six to sight per tent. pon the money invested. A few years after, the policy of Parliament completely changed in this respect. When the landed interest found railway companies paying from six to ten times the marketable value of the land taken, they were ready to grant duplicate lines through the same districts, without proving any traffic whatever!

It soon became evident, after the proceedings had been opened before the Committee, that the fate of the bill had been determined before a word of the evidence had been heard. At that time the committees of the Lords were open to all peers; and the promoters of the bill found, to their dismay, many of the peers who were avowed opponents of the measure as landowners, sitting as judges to decide its fate. Their principal object seemed to be, to bring the proceedings to a termination as quickly as possible. An attempt at negotiation was made in the course of the proceedings in committee, but failed. One party offered to the promoters to withdraw their opposition on payment to them of 10,0007. This disgraceful proposal was scouted; the directors would not bribe high enough; and the bill was lost, on the motion of Earl Brownlow," That the case for the promoters of the bill having been concluded, it does not appear to the Committee that they have made out such a case as would warrant the forcing of the proposed railway through the land and