You can scarcely figure a more loose and disorderly Court than a Committee of the House of Commons on Private Bills....1825

 

The letter transcribed below is a tiny fragment of the paperwork generated by a two-hundred -year-old dispute. Its chief interest is in the remarks it contains on the conduct of proceedings in the London House of Commons, though a modern reader might also note that such was the centralisation of power back then that a small-scale planning permission dispute in Scotland could only be resolved in far-away London.

In 1818 the wealthy landowner John Wauchope constructed the horse-drawn Edmonstone Waggonway to take coal from his mines to the outskirts of Edinburgh. The waggons ran on iron rails and the general idea was to make the coal cheaper at point of delivery than it had been when taken down by horse and cart. But in 1825 a newly formed Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway Company projected a new and longer route capable of taking coal from other mines but required Parliamentary consent to override Wauchope's objections to it passing through his land. Wauchope objected successfully in the 1825 case heard in London but in 1826 a compromise was reached under which Wauchope would receive wayleave – a toll payment – for all coals moved across his land and would also combine his waggonway with the new one. A new Private Bill was thus passed without opposition. 

Sometime later the new railway (still horse drawn) started carrying passengers and Wauchope claimed wayleave for them. This was disputed and the case went to the House of Lords (the passenger traffic was large) and Wauchope won his claim but also lost a fall-back procedural claim in a way significant enough for Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway Co v Wauchope (1842) still to figure in legal textbooks – I provide a reference at the end and have no intention of getting involved in the detail.

The writer of the letter, John Snith, was clearly Wauchope’s agent in London but the name, even with the address, has not led me to further information about him.

 

Transcription

Addressed to: John Wauchope Esqr of Edmonstone   Edinburgh

Datelined: 18 George Street Hanover Square   London 9^th May 1825

Docketing notes: Edinbr & Dalkeith Ry; Mr Smith to Wauchcope May 9 1825 / John Smith 9^th May 1825

Postmarks all smudged.

Dear Sir

I have just come from attending your Committee which sat today from 1. to 4. during which time they examined 1^st Mr Wm. Mackenzie, 2^nd John Grieve, 3^rd Mr James Jardine the Civil Engineer, and 4^th a Mr Wood from Killingworth Coalliery – and they are to examine more witnesses tomorrow when the Committee again meet at one o’clock. I was very much pleased today with both your Counsel who cross examined all the Witnesses and particularly the two first, very sharply, indeed I rather believe that Mr Mackenzie considered himself roughly handled. John Grieve made several bold and I rather think false assertions, amongst others that the Coalliery of Sheriffhall was half a mile nearer to Edinbr. Than that of Edmonstone [Wauchope’s Colliery] while Mr Mackenzie had previously stated that the latter was the nearest. Grieve however said in answer to a question from your Counsel that the Coal brought by the Union Canal, alone, was perfectly sufficient for the supply of the City of Edinbr. altho’ not one Cart load came from the County – an admission which shows that the Public have no interest and indeed the attempt to prove that, was a very feeble one. Your letters to Mr Mackenzie were read at full length, and in my mind, were a very compleat and Gentlemanlike answer to his letters to you, which were likewise read, You can scarcely figure a more loose and disorderly Court than a Committee of the House of Commons on Private Bills – the Judges, Members, come in and go out and are continually changing. Sir George Clerk sat as Chairman and Sir J. G. Suttie Sir James Wemyss Mackenzie (who is not for us)  & General Fergusson sat nearly the whole time – Lord Binning & Mr W^m Dundas were present for a considerable and several other Members looked in. General Fergusson seemed to be decidedly on our side and several times suggested questions to out Counsel and at other times when objections to our questions were made, he put them as a Member of the Committee, in short I was much pleased with him and consider them very friendly

Our Counsel seem to have got a right view of our Case and call the attempt of our Opponents a most iniquitous Job p in haste, I remain ever Dear Sir  Yours sincerely  John Smith

John Wauchope Esq of Edmonstone

References

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8c660d03e7f57ecd1a9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_and_Dalkeith_Railway

https://threadinburgh.scot/2022/12/28/the-thread-about-the-second-day-of-christmas-an-edinburgh-french-connection/