RAILWAY COMMUNICATION.
A meeting of some of the principal inhabitants of the towns of Midhurst and Petworth, and the neighbourbourhood, was held at the Town Hall, Midhurst, on Tuesday, the 30th ult., for considering on the best method of obtaining the accommodation of a Railway between London and the towns of Midhurst and Petworth. Mr. Charles Caplen, the High Bailiff, in the Chair.
After some preliminary remarks had been made,
Mr Hollist proceeded to give some account of the proceedings of the Committee on this matter, since their appointment at the meeting held on this subject at Petworth, a short time since, and for this purpose recapitulated some of the resolutions there passed. He then proceeded to state that the answer received by the committee from the South Eastern Company had not been such as might be considered most favourable for their project, as there was but a majority of three to two in favour of it. Also, from private sources, he had learned there would be much opposition to be encountered in the line as at first proposed, viz., that going from Halfway Bridge to Shalford. There was a proposition made to carry a branch from the line proposed to go from Guildford, through Petersfield to Portsmouth, which might be brought to a point within half a mile to the west of Haslemere, in a direct line through the valley to Halfway-bridge. Mr Hollist then read from a paper he had received from Mr Roy (solicitor to the London and Portsmouth line), some rough estimates of the cost of the line proposed, and a statement that if shares were taken in the London and Portsmouth company to the amount of £25,000, that company would undertake to project a line to Halfway-bridge. Mr Hollist reminded the meeting that there were two points in this proposition of Mr. Roy which people should be quite clear about; one was that they were expected to take shares in the Portsmouth railway to a certain amount, but no gentleman would like to put his name down for shares in that line unless with a pledge for a line through this part of the country; the other was that this line positively can do what it proposes, not upon mere surmise, but after laying the matter before competent engineers. The bringing the line from Horsham to Petworth was then mentioned, and its expediency commented on, but in this case Mr Hollist observed it would be necessary to enlarge the powers of the committee appointed before they could treat on it. Mr Hollist concluded by offering to give any further information in his power.
It was stated by Mr Death, in answer to Mr Shirley, that the proposed direction of the line from Horsham might be to go to Ifield from Horsham, then out to Wisboro’ Green and into the glebe land at Petworth, the station to be on the new road, and might then pass through the lower part of the arable land at Tillington and out at Selham. By this course the station at Halfway-bridge would be avoided, to which he had no doubt Lord Egmont would be always opposed, making as it did the high road to the station through his park, and the station itself so near to the park. The Midhurst station by this new proposed line might be four and half miles from Petworth, and within half a mile of Midhurst.
Mr Shirley confirmed the great probability of an opposition from Lord Egmont, to a station at Halfway Bridge, observing that his Lordship was not opposed to railways in general; but it must be allowed that a railway through a gentleman’s park, was, to say the least of it, a great nuisance.
After some more remarks had been made—Mr Naish after a few observations of the desirability, and indeed necessity of a railway in this part of the country, both for the agriculturist and the trader, proposed the first resolution, which was
‟That it is the unanimous opinion of this meeting, founded on the experience the last eight years, that the want of railway communication from the towns of Petworth and Midhurst, as well as the adjacent district, to the metropolis in the first instance, has materially depreciated the value of all descriptions of property, including the trading and agricultural interests.”
This motion was seconded by Mr John Gosden, and carried unanimously.
The next resolution was proposed by Mr Albery which was
‟That it is the opinion of this meeting that it is most desirable and indeed of paramount importance, to obtain from the landowners some expression of their feelings as to the requirements of railway communication.”
Mr Court seconded this resolution, which was carried unanimously.
Mr Davis next proposed,
‟That it is now absolutely necessary, and of considerable public importance, to secure, if possible, a line of railway, which will afford Midhurst and Petworth, and the adjacent district, the most direct communication with the Metropolis. That the meeting pledge themselves to use their best endeavours to obtain so great a benefit, and that owners of land and of all other descriptions of property be requested to assist the general committee in carrying out their resolutions by giving the undertaking their strenuous co-operation and support.”
Seconded by Mr Monk and carried unanimously.
It was then proposed by Mr Death, and seconded by Mr Shirley, that
‟copies of the resolutions passed at this meeting be forwarded by the chairman to the principal landowners of the neighbourhood.”
Carried unanimously.
Mr Death then made some few remarks on the subject in hand; after which Mr Fisher proposed,
‟That this meeting is of opinion that increased powers should be given to the Committee, named at the general meeting, held at the Town Hall, Petworth, on the 1st November, so that they may consider what line of Railway will best provide for the requirements of the country.”
This proposition was seconded by Wells, and carried unanimously.
The business of the meeting was then concluded by vote of thanks to Mr Hollist, the chairman of the committee, and to the chairman of the meeting.