The Sun.
London, England, 1831-01-25 00:00:00

REPORT
BY GEORGE STEPHENSON, ESQ.
CIVIL ENGINEER, ON LINE OF EDINBURGH, GLA:!;-
GONV, AND LEICII RAILWAY•

TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE PROPOSED EDINBURGH,
GLASGOW, AND LEITH RAILWAY,
ENTLEMEN,—Having received your instructions,
" to take an impartial and complete survey of the
country," between, Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Leith,
" and report my opinion of what line I might think
most likely to be beneficial to the public and the
subscriber;, and most likely to give ultimate and
complete satisfaction to them, and the Committees
of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Leith :"
I proceeded, in obedience to these instructions,
to obtain, both by my own observation, and from
authentic sources, such information as should enable
me to come to a just conclusion upon the matters
referred to my consideration.
In collecting the necessary information, my atten-
tion was, in the first instance, naturally directed to
the two lines which have been particularly surveyed
for a Railway,—the one by Mr. Jardine, which may
be denominated the Old or South Line,—the other
by Messrs. Grainger and Miller, which may be dis-
tinguished as the New or North Line.
I will now proceed to inquire which of these lines
is likely to be the most beneficial to the public, arid
the subscribers. In this inquiry, the points of com-
parison most necessary to be considered, are,—the
cast of executing the lines, so as to render the cost
of working them, when executed, equal—facility of
access, and general convenience to the public.
The cost of execution is dependant mainly upon
the length and upon the height of summit level.—
With respect to length , it appears that there is a
difference of two miles in favour of the North Line
to the same point at the Breomielaw. The summit
level of the South Line, as shown on the section, is
804 feet, whilst that of the North Line is 635 feet.
It appears, therefore, that, even if the two lines
were of equal length, it would be necessary to re-
duce the summit level from 804 feet to 635 feet,
in order to render the one line capable of being
worked as cheaply as the other; and this reduction
of the summit would involve the necessity of a
deep cutting and tunnelling for a distance of seven
miles ; asd the nature of the ground on the west
side of the summit, even beyond the end of the
tunnelling, appears, by the section, to he such as not
to allow of its being passed, except by means of
inclined plains, the objectionableness of which, on a
line intended to be used for the extensive carriage
of passengers, you are too well aware of, to need my
enlarging upon it.
But it may be asked, admitting that the reduc-
tion of the higher summit to the level of the lower
one, would be ruinously expensive, where is the ne-
cessity of obtaining a low summit level ;—although
certainly desirable, it may be added, it surely is not
desirable to incur any great expense in making this
retli.e ion ? I would answer that it would he more
ecoaornical to carry goods and passengers over an
additional distance of six miles than to raise them
to the height of 174 feet in one mile.
You are aware that Mr. Jardine proposes two
lines. The leading feature of the one, we have
already discussed; the other, in its most important
feature, resembles it : the height of the summit
level being about 790 feet, and it must, in like
manner, be subject to long tunnelling and inclined
planes. As far as can be ascertained from the sec-
tions, there is no reason to conclude that the coun-
try, upon each side of the summit of the old line, is
more favourable than the corresponding portions of
the new line; on the contrary, in approachins, the
points of termination, the cities of Edinburgh" and
Glasgow, and the port of Leith, the advantage of
the new line over the old one, in poiist of facility of
access, and general convenience to the public, I
consider as decided as its superiority in point of
cheapness of execution.
Without taking up the south line from its com-
mencement in Leith, and following it along its
course through the etreets intermediate between the
harbour and Leven Lodge, in many of which streets,
from the circumstance of their running at right
angles to each other, it would require that turn rails
he fixed, or curves of a very objectionable nature
lie made, for continuing the communication from one
street to another, it will be sufficient for me to ob-
serve, that I consider the approach to Leith, as pro-
posed by the new line, to be decidedly the hest that
can be obtained in point of directness, and likewise'
in point of convenience to the public, inasmuch as
it will prove of great benefit to the extensive range
of mills situated in its course, and will approach the
docks and harbour of Leith in a manner which will
afford the greatest facility for the shipment and un-
shipmerit of goods.
The approach to Leith by the new line thus ap-
pears to be the most advantageous, as far as the
cheap and expeditious conveyance of goods is con-
cerned. I likewise conceive that there cannot be a
el'
restion that the convenience of passengers will
he better consulted by terminating the line at the
west end of, and close upon the city of Edinburgh,
and in a situation from which, at some future period,
it may be continued along Prince's-street, into the
very heart of the city, than by carrying it round the
south side of the city, by a circuitous route, and
causing it to terminate in the very outskirts. I do
not think that it hi necessary to continue the com-
parison between die two lines farther, as I have now
stated the leading features of distinction between
them.
I will proceed to make a few general remarks
upon such portions of the new line as have not been
already noticed. After leaving Edinburgh, the line
is carried as far as the summit, through a country
extremely favourable, and with inclinations suds
ciently gentle for the advantageous employment of
locomotive engines. In descending on the west
side of the summit of the country Messrs. Grainger
and Miller propose two tunnels, in all, about 1,100 •
yards, which I think it is advisable to do.
From such examination as the limited period of
my visit would enable me to make, I believe, that
by deviating from the proposed line to the north, a
lower summit level may be obtained ; but nothing
definite or satisfactory on this subject can be pro-
posed at present. Any deviation which may be re-
quired can, I have no doubt, be wade hereafter,
with the consent of the landowners.
After crossing the summit, the line stretches far-
ward towards the Garnkirk Railway, through a
country which, as far as my observation can extend,
is the best that can be obtained.
The line then proceeds along the Garnkirk
Rail-
way, which presents a fine level surface for the dis-
tance of five miles,—diverges from the Garnkirk
Railway before arriving at the west end thereof,—
descends the projected Tunnel under the City of
Glasgow, and terminates at the 13romielaw, in an
extremely eligible situation, for the purpose of
shipping and unshipping goods into and out of
vessels lying in the Clyde; and as the Railway may
be continued along the quay in each direction,
without causing any interruption to the thorough-
fares along it, goods may be shipped and unshipped
at any point on the quay,—a convenience which
►
cannot fail to enhance the advantage afforded by the
Railway, in the estimation of every one engaged ex-
tensively IA mercantile pursuits.
With respect to the formation of the Tunnel, no
applaionsions need be entertained ; as it is a plain
practicable work, unattended by danger or annoy-
ance to the houses or other property under which
it may pass. in support of which opinion, I would
appeal to the instance of the Tunnel made under
the town of Liverpool, for the Liverpool. and Man-
chester Railway, in which a far nearer approach to
the foundations of the buildings has been made,
ahun it is propose'} to make in the Glasgow Tunnel;
In the comparison entered into above, betweeu
the Dora' and south line, I have said nothing as to
the comparative, revenue derivable from the traffic
upon each line ; asnt although it is not within my
into
province to enter s n detail upon this subject,
it may perhaps be expected that I should, in a
matter materially affecting the question of compaerara-
tive eligibility to the subscribers, ode! atfew genl
remarks. On head, it is urged in orsour of the

‘liv
south line, that k /Asia throughs
iron field, and that the north line does not. But
any advantage which this circumstance may seem
to give to the south line, will, I imagine, be can-
celled by the disadvantage arising from the neces-
sity of raising almost all the minerals, from the
points at which they are obtained, up to the main
line; whereas the branches which would be made
from the Benhar and other coal-fields, and from the
Bathgate and other lime-works, to join the new
line, would descend towards it. The desirability of
passing through the western coal-field, admitting
that, under other circumstances, it would be advis-
able to sacrifice something to accomplish this, is
very mueh diminished by the circumstance of the
Wishaw and Coltness, and the Monkland and Kir-
kintulloch Railways passing through a central por-
tion of the rich mineral district of Lanarkshire,
and connecting it with Glasgow, by means of the
Garnkirk Railway. But even did these means of
communication not exist, it is my decided opinion
that the general superiority of the north over the
south line, should not have been sacrificed to the
attainment of this object ;—the expeditious, safe,
arid cheap conveyance of passengers being, as I con-
ceive, the object which, in all undertakings of this
description, should be especially aimed at.
Though not pretending to say, from my own per-
sonal knowledge on the subject, what will be the
probable revenue ariaing from the carriage of pas-
sengers between Edinburgh and Glasgow, or from
the carriage of goods between Leith and the
Broomielaw, and along the intermediate distance,
yet, I think, when we consider that, within ten
weeks from the opening of the Liverpool and Man-
chester Railway, at a time, too, when prejudice
against the safety of Railway conveyance was great,
the enormous sum of 18,0001. has been received
for the carriage of passengers alone ; and that, pre-
viously to that period, twenty-seven Coaches passed
to and from Manchester in each direction; and
whereas thirteen coaches, I understand, pass at pre-
sent between Edinburgh and Glasgow, in addition
to the canal boats, the number of passengers in
"which, per diem, may, I suppose, be estimated at
from 25 to 30, or equal to 2f coaches, judging, I say
from analogy upon these facts a revenue will arise from
this source of income, proportionate to that received
on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, and
which will, therefore, amount to upwards of 45,0001.;
and the subscribers, in obtaining for themselves this
ample remuneration for the expenditure, will afford
to the public the advantages of a much diminished
cost, and a vast facility of travelling: nor is it from
this source alone that the subscribers may expect
to enrich themselves, whilst benefiting the public.
A copious source of income is the certain conse-
quence of the operation of a Railway, affording a
cheap and expeditious communication for merchan-
dize, and other heavy commodities, in place of the
dilatory, and indeed expensive one at present in ex-
istence, uniting the populous cities of Edinburgh
and Glasgow—the London with the Liverpool and
Manchester of the north,—affording to the first
of these, at a cheap rate, an increased supply of one
of the most necessary articles of manufactory and
domestic economy—Coal ; together with an abun-
dant supply of Lime and Stone, and terminating, at
either end, in a situation so well calculated to afford
every facility for the forwarding of merchandize from
vessels entering the port of Leith, to vessels lying
in the Clyde, and the reverse ;—a facility which
cannot fail to prove of the utmost value, in promot-
ing an increased activity of the trade between the
Eastern and Western Seas.

Indeed, so important do the advantages accruing
to the merchants and the public, generally appear to
me to be, that I cannot but regret that any division
should exist between the parties, whose interest it
is to promote this great measure; and being satis-
fied that two Railways are not required fur the pur-
pose of the public, and that a fair remuneration can-
not be obtaimed for the outlay upon two Railways, I
cannot refrain from urging, in the strongest terms,
the advisability of reconciliation, and a junction of all
parties interested in obtaining the best Railway be-
tween the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow.
I am, Gentlemen, your most obedient servant,
(Signed) GEO. STEPHENSON.
Liverpool, 30th Dec. 1830.

RIGHTS OF THE PATENT THEATRES.

The argument on Mr. Arnold's petition was re-
newed last night in the Vice-Chancellor's Court,
before the L6RD CHANCELLOR, assisted by the
VICE-CHANCELLOR, the Chief Justice TINDAL, and
Mr. Justice JAMES PARKE.

Mr. HARRiSON continued his argument. He had
intended next to allude to the report of Lord Sid-
mouth; but on looking over the case he thought it
better to go on with a description of the sums that
had beer. laid out on the two theatres. In
1793 it was found necessary to rebuild Drury-
lane theatre, and a sum of nearly 300,0001. was ex-
pended on it. In 1809 the theatre was burnt
down, and at that time the sum involved was
190,000/. Considerable difficulties arose in conse-
quence, till at length the sum, of 305,000/. was
raised, and Mr. Whitbread compounded the debts
for 183,000/., by which there was left about
120,000/. for rebuilding the theatre; but this was
found not to be sufficient, and in consequence an ad-
ditional sum of 62,000/. was wanted ; and the sum
which was subsequently raised had its interest now
charged on every night's performance. In addition
to this, there were other claims arising out of the
sale of boxes by Mr. Whitbread; and with the ex-
ception of 71 and 5 per cent. which had been paid on
the rent-charges, nothing had been paid on that one
series of sums that had been raised. lie would now
exile to the case of Capt. Polhill and Mr. Lee, who
were the present lessees of Drury-lane, at the rent of
9,0001. a year, betides being subject to several oner-
ous covenants. The affidavit of those gentlemen
wilco stated, that they had entered into other en-
gagements, to the amount of 50,000/. a year, so
that their weekly expellees were 1,100/. ;
and they also pozitively stated, that had
they had any intimation that Mr. Arnold's
license was to be enlarged, they never would have
undertaken the coneati. With respect to Covent-
garden, the rebuilding of that theatre had cost
300,6001.; and there was now a debt of 14,000/.
remaining Gil the rent charges, besides 50,0001. due
to general creditors. Measrs. Forbes and Willer
had also advanced to the araor,t of 19,000/. Mr.
C. 'kernble the sum of 9,000/. One ot;rzr interest
to be considered was that of the Noble ground tend-
lord, whose charge on the two theatres amounted
to very nearly 4,000/. All these persons, therefore,
were, ia their respective degrees, deeply- itite,rested
in the concerns standing as they did at present;
besides which, he might add, that not less than five
hundred persons were also interected in the well-
being of the theatres. After such a statement as
this, he need not remind their Lordships that no
change ought to be sanctioned but nn very efficient
ground, This also was certain—that unlets it had
been univefsally supposed that the two theatres
were to be left in the enjoyment of their rights, no
o:;e would have been mad enough to advance his
money for the rebuilding; and after what passed in
1793 and 18i0, it might almost be said. that the
King's word was pledged and embarked in the
maintenance of the present position of the theatres.
The Learned Counsel then went over a ree„.pitula-
tion of the prirfeipal features that had attended Mr.
Arnold's license, marl which have already been given
to the public in our reports of the arguments on this
petition. /n consequence of what took place with
respect to that license, the report of LordSalrnouth
was made in April, 1816, from which it appeared
that his Lordship called on Mr. Arno!d to reply to'
certain nueries which his Lordship sent to him in
consequence of the petitions of the large theatres
that were presented on than subject.
In consequence of rtz... objection made by the S.
LICIToR-GENERAL to Mr. liarrison's allusion to the
documents before Lord Sidrnonth'
The LORD CHANCELLOR took occasion to
serve, that he had cast his eye over the papers in-
the Secretary of State's Office, and he thought
that they fairly had a right to assume that the whole

\N.
"ease, es §OANod at that time, was Lid before Lord
Sidmouth.
Mr. HARRISON then continued to comment on
Lord Sidmouth's report to the Lord Chamberlain.
The report observed, that though it was true that
Mr. Arnold had had his theatre opened for four
winter seasons, yet that did not give any claim to
Mr. Arnold, because those performances had not
been on his account, but for the benefit of the
Drury-lane company : at the same time his Lord-
ship observed, that Mr. Arnold had not lost all claim
on his Majesty, and it, therefore, might be still a
question for consideration. The Learned Counsel
contended, that on the face of this report it might be
safely said, that the whole question had, on that oc-
sasion, been examined, and Lord Sidmouth's report
might be looked upon in the light of a decision.
Now, in what situation did this place his clients
In what situation was theatrical property placed, if,
after fourteen years, when all the circumstances re-
mained the same, the whole question was to be
opened again, merely because there was a new Sove-
reign on the Throne? Surely he had a right to assume
that the whole of the documents laid before the
Secretary of State were in the Lord Chamberlain's
Office. In fact, it was clear that they were ; and
it was therefore a matter of no little astonishment
to him to find a gentleman holding a high situation
in that office volunteering an affidavit, ►n which he
stated, that " for reasons unexplained to him," the
license of Mr. Arnold was altered from an unlimited
licence to one only allowing his performances during
four months in the year. With the certainty of
these documents being in the Lord Chamberlain's
office, he could not help expressing his surprise that
a decision was not immediately come to, without
troubling his Lordship (the Lord Chancellor) for
his opinion on the subject. He believed, that had
those matters been so represented to the Lord
Chamberlain, the question would not have been re-
ferred to their Lordships. If the property em-
barked upon the faith of such solemn decisions were
to be endangered by the reversal of those decisions
without any new grounds, there could be no security
for any theatrical property. The question put on
that occasion to the law officers respected the legal
right which Mr. Arnold claimed to an unlimited
licence. To establish that he put forward every
available argument. The parties on that occasion
had been the same who were concerned in the
present application; and no fresh circumstances
had been produced to justify the change which
was required. Had that decision come under
the cognizance of the Crown, his (Mr. Harrison's)
clients would not have been brought to that Court.
He expressed his astonishment that an officer under
the Lord Chamberlain should have held back all
those facts, the knowledge of which would have
prevented their being sent there. Although Lord
Sidmouth had not stated all the reasons upon which
his decision had been founded, yet he had stated
them more fully than is usual on similar occasions,
and certainly more fully than could warrant Mr.
Mash to deny all knowledge of those reasons. He
would next beg their Lordships' attention to the
license under which Drury-lane theatre continued
open for twenty-one years, notwithstanding that the
proprietors possessed Killigrew's patent. That fact
Sir Edward Sugden had referred to triumphantly, as
proving that the proprietors themselves were con-
scious of the invalidity of the patent. But, in
reality, they, during that time, had need of the
authority of a license, as they did not legally and
completely possess the patent, until it was trans-
ferred to them in 1793 with the express sanction of
the Lord Chamberlain, the Duke of Bedford, and
the Parliament. Sir E. Sugden, although not an
actor, had shown that in the course of his argument
he was at least very fond of stage effect.---(Much
laughing.) Ile had complained of the great size of
the Winter Theatres, and of the consequent incon-
venience to persons in the side boxes, who could not
whisper during the performance to their friends off
the opposite side. But these, and the other incon-
veniences complained of by the Solicitor-General,
had nothing to do with the present subject, which
related only to the performance of musical dramas,
and of ballets of action ; and for such performances
the great size of the theatre is a positive advantage.
It had also been complained that the Winter
Theatres neglected the regular drama, and intro-
duced horses, elephants, and dogs upon the stage,
to compensate for the want of rational attractions.
In that complaint Mr. Arnold's theatre ought to
have been included with the patent theatres. l❑
the battle of the " Flints and Dungs," one party
appeared upon the stage mounted upon donkeys and
the other upon poneys.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—What is the date of
the latest stock play in this country ? What I
mean is, when was the last play written, which, in
consequence of its merit, is usually played on those
nights called stock nights, or which is considered a
sensible, rational drama ?
Mr. HARnasoN mentioned Lord Byron's Werner
and Miss Mitford's Fazio, as belonging to the class
respecting which his Lordship inquired, and as being
now acted very frequently and with great success.
LORD CHANCELLoR—But the success of Werner
has yet continued but for a few weeks. What I
wish to know is, when was the last play produced
at either of the patent theatres which has stood the
test of years ?

Mr. ataittsoN mentioned Speed the Plough and
A Cure for the Heart-ache, by Morton, and a num-
ber of the most popular dramas by Coleman,
Knowles, Maturin, and Howard Payne. Now his
friend (Sir W. Horne) had mentioned Cibber as an
instance of the inadequate encouragement afforded
to native talent by tue patentees ; and he had
spoken of that actor and dramatist having only 30s.
a week salary, with which he could not have main-
tained his family with so prolific a wife, had not his
Muse been equally prolific—(Laughter)—but this
complaint would not apply to the present rate of
theatrical remuneration. Mr. Arnold professed his
object to be, to encourage English musical talent in
competition with foreign. But Mr. Arnold had not
yet produced a single eminent English musician, or
an approved English musical work; whereas the
patentees had brought forward upwards of fifty
works of English musicians, with various success,
since the year 1790; besides that, they had brought
out an immense number of performers, who received
the highest salaries. There was at present perform-
ing with great success, at one of these theatres, a
young English lady, of whose musical promise the
highest expectations were entertained. It had
been said that increased competition would not
be injurious, but beneficial to the theatres, and
tlutt their decline was attributable to the want of
energy in tbei: management, caused by the absence
of competition. But the decline in the receipts of
the theatres during the last thirty years was owing
to very different causes. An opinion had of late
been mach spread, that dramatic amusements are
frivolous ; and some want so far as to call them im-
moral. Besides, the excessive taxation by which
the middle classes were pressed down and restricted
in their comforts and amusements, would go far to
explain their inability to maintain the theatres as
they were maintained thirty years ago. Even the
alteration in the dinner-hour of the nobility had con-
tributed mucli tt-) the falling off in the patronage of
the drama—the present hen of dining being in-
compatible with visiting the theatre. 1-ileilce Co-
vent-garden was closed a short time ago from want
of the funds to maintain it but having been opened
by the aid of public contributions, it; had since been
prosperous in consequence of a brilliant star that had
appeared there. Drury-lane had also been put in a
state to r..ttraet the public, and the two theatres were •
now in a sate of prosperity which could not con-
tinue if the proposed competition were let in. Such
competition must end in the %veers:: of monopoly
which is established, when, of several corapetit,2rp,
all are ruined and beaten out of the field, except one,
who is then enabled to make his own terms with the
public. The Learned Gentleman concluded by de-
claring his confide;-;,,e that the protection hitherto
afforded to the Winter Theatres under the sanction
of the Crown and Parliament, would not be with-

drawn, to the ruin of the property which bad been
embarked in them in confidence of that protection.
Mr. ADAst said that he would not occupy the
time of their Lordships in discussing the question
of the legality of the patents, but confine himself to
those particulars of the case which came strictly
within the jurisdiction of that Court. He proceeded
to read the petition of Mr. Arnold, and expressed
his astonishment that Mr. Arnold should have stated
that he had originally enjoyed a licence unlimited as
to season, whereas it had been shown that although
the licence contained no express limitation, yet he
was positively restricted in its use. In the year that
the complaint was made by Mr. Greville, with re-
ference to the Italian Opera, it was distinctly said
that Mr. Arnold was only to open his theatre for
the summer months, during which musical pieces
were to be performed. When he found this, there-
fore, he could not understand how an affidavit had
been put in, purporting to be made by Mr. Mush,
the Chamberlain's eflicer, in which it was said that
a licence was given to Mr. Arnold for twelve months.
He could not understand it, and he never should,
had he not been informed that Mr. Mash was now
ready to come forward and state, that he understood
the license was only granted fur twelve months,
with the understanding that it would be used for
the summer months alone. The license was like-
wise given with the express understanding that
it should not interfere with the rights of the
Patent Theatres. Yet Sir Edward Sugden had
argued, that in the license itself a power was
given to Mr. Arnold to open his theatre for
the year round. The Learned Counsel then referred
to the time when Mr. Greville made his complaint
of a patent being given to Mr. Arnold, although a
promise had been made to him, and contended that
the license to Mr. Arnold was originally for twelve
months only, with the understanding that it would
be renewed according to the way in which the
theatre was conducted. He should, therefore, say
that Mr. Arnold never had a license which entitled
hint to make the present application. In 1812, a
communication was made to Mr. Arnold from the
Chamberlain, that his license would, in future, be
uncertain. Mr. Arnold wrote back that he was
aware of that. Mr. Adam then proceeded to argue
on this point in the same way as Mr. Harrison had.
He then expressed his confidence that their Lord-
ships would not advise an extension of the license,
when it had been refused on more than one occa-
sion, the case of both parties being fully detailed at
the time. The Learned Counsel was occupied during
the latter part of the night in reading extracts from
the decisions of Lord Sidmouth, on the cases pre-
sented to his notice, the substance of which has been
already before the public.