SECOND READING. (Hansard, 8 March 1864)

§ MR. TITE
said, that this Bill proposed, among other objects, to run a short line through the Dulwich College estate. Bills for the formation of lines practically similar to this, had been before Committees in 1862 and 1863, and on both occasions the powers required had been refused on the opposition of the College. Last year the Company had succeeded in passing their Mitcham and Tooting line, after the Committee had negatived the preamble of the Bill, only through the assent of the College, that part of the scheme to which the College objected having been withdrawn. But this project was, for all practical purposes, the same as that then withdrawn; and, therefore, the application of the Company, an unfitting one, having been twice before rejected, now amounted to a breach of faith with the College. Five or six years ago new Governors were appointed to administer the affairs of Dulwich College. They had now 400 or 500 boys at school there, and were about to rebuild the school-house. It was very hard that the Governors should be put to the expense of opposing a third Bill promoted by the London and Brighton Company, and he therefore trusted that the House would protect the College by rejecting the Bill at its present stage. He would move that the Bill be read a second time to-day six months.

CAPTAIN JERVIS
seconded the Amendment.

§ MR. DODSON
said, that the Bill was not the same as those which had been promoted by the Company before. The London and Brighton Company's regular and authorized lines were debarred from access to their London Bridge Station; and the present line was intended to complete the connection between that terminus and Deptford Wharf, and thus to afford additional accommodation, not only to a large 1634 and most important suburban district, but to the inhabitants of more distant places on the Brighton lines. The only opposition to it was that from Dulwich College, the trustees of which alleged that it would pass through their estate, and had, on that account, been twice before rejected. But the line was entirely different from that which had been before rejected, would pass through an entirely different part of their estate, and had been so altered as to do as little damage as possible to their property. He trusted the objection of the College trustees would not be allowed to prevail.

§ MR. ARTHUR MILLS,
as Chairman of the Committee which threw out the Bill of last year, said, it was then understood that the College was not to be persecuted any more by such schemes. He did not say there was any foundation for a charge of bad faith; but if the Bill were substantially the same as that of last Session, he would advise the House to reject it.

§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD
said, that this was not the same line as that of last year, and that unless it passed, a new and valuable line of railway, belonging to the London and Brighton Company, would have no communication with the City and the Thames.