The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-17 00:00:00

GROUP XVI I.

This Committee re-assembled at the usual hour in Room
11; Sir J. Bulwer East in the chair.

GREAT NORTHERN (DEVIATIONS BE-
TWEEN LONDON and GRANTHAM).
Mr. Mather, surgeon, of Grgritham, was examined on
behalf of the opposition. He was of opinion that Grantham
did not require the proposed deviation, and that it would
materially injure Mr. Ostler's residence.
. .

Mr. Itz;strijk, C.E., on behalf of the Ambergate Company.
stated that the proposed deviation would greatly injure that
line, and would be of no advantage to the public as compared
with it.

Mr. Sergeant CLARKE replied on behalf of the Ambergatt
company, in opposition to the deviations at Grantham, anti
recapitulated in his address the various points elicited in the
evidence.

Mr. WILI MORE replied on behalf of Mr. Ostler, and dwelt
upon the great injury which the deviation would cause to
that gentleman's residence.
The Committee then adjourned till twelve o'clock to•
Morrow.

GROUP XVIII.

GLOUCESTER AND STONEHOUSE JUNG•

TION.

The Committee on this 'group assembled this morning at
twelve; the Earl of Lincoln in the chair, when they took the
line from Stonehouse to Gloucester, upon which
Mr. liinoytan was retained. lie said that this was an
undertaking of the very greatest importance, as it was tilt
only means of connecting the port of Bristol with the systen,
of narrow gauge lines of from 800 to 1,000 miles in length
There was now a power in the possession of the company tc
lay down a narrow gauge 'line between Stonehouse and
Gloucester, and then to lay down a narrow gauge lin(
concurrently with the broad gunge line between Stonehous(
and Bristol. For this purpose a line had been laid out it
1813, but the Act contained a clause that the compan'
should not interfere with the broad gauge line between tilt
two points for which this Bill was sought.
The Earl of LINCOLN thought that this Act had better b(
produced, in order that the Committee might clearly under
stand its provisions.
Mr. Ba, 5, the principal agents for Messrs. Pickford, the
carriers, was then called, and stated that his principals were
the largest carriers in England, and that great inconvenience
was felt from the break of gauge.
Mr. Saunders, the inspector of the Gloucester and Bir-
mingham line, was giving evidence of the inconvenience, when
The Earl of LiNcowr suggested that perhaps Mr. Stephen-
son might show some reason of an ergineering character why
a different system should be adopted between Gloucester and
Stonehouse from that between Cheltenham and Gloucester.
Mr. Daniel, on behalf of the Midland Company, said that
there were several objections beside the break of gauge.
There were the stations, the inconvenience of the number of
trains, beside a variety of other evils.
Mr. Cripps, on behalf of the Great Western Company, said
that there was already an agreement by which, the Midland
Company were bound to work over the broad gauge line.
Mr. Stephenson was then called.

The Earl of LINCOLN inquired what were the peculiar en-
gineeriag difficulties which prevented the same plan from
being adopted between Stonehouse and Gloucester as was
adopted between Cheltenham and Gloucester.
Mr. Stephenson replied that the saving of the expense was
so trifling, compared with the advantage derived from the
avoidance of danger and the equal benefit derived from the
separation of the stations. If be were the engineer of two
independent companies, both adopting the same gauge,
whether broad or narrow, he should still advise the formation
of two separate lines. To the inquiry as to why the same
system of management was not adopted throughout, he said
that below Gloucester there would be a necessity for using
different engines, a separate staff; and the expense would
consequently be very treat eat
couldTo not`Jir W
possiblyrE hsIES Mr. Stephenson replied, that that
be effected, as the engines and the carriages
could not pogaigi
would have to be Ychbae accomplished, as the buffers of all
Mr. DANlELstated'gtelt
give
the t the Narrow Gauge Company
were ready to
utmost compensation that could be
required for the breach of
aerrzonptcorlacttiht.
Mr. Saunders the secretp e Great Western Company
explained that if such a
suggested, there would be a far on as that which had been
any compensation could recomptvheseatef evil than any which
broad gauge traffic over those joint' °r unless there was a
southward of Bristol would be abstraT'teters all the business
rhe Earl of Lincoln suggested that some
Ir. entered if the case were to be adjournel till mraent might
m eruing.
to-marrow
The Committee sat there in a double capacity not only t
adjudicate fairly between two great contending parties, b
uot
ale ) to save a great expense to the public, an object which
in his capacity of a Member of Parliament, he was very
desirous to affect.
After a long conversation, in which
Mr. SAUNDERS stated, en behalf of the Great Western
Company, that they had no objection to the laying down of
the narrow gauge lines, provided the Midland Company
would consent to work a certain number of broad gauge
engines between Bristol and Gloucester,
Mr. DANIEL said that the Midland Company objected to
Vie working of the broad gauge engines, but were willing to
allow any compensation which the Committee might deem
air.

Some farther discussion ensaed, after which it was decided
that parties authorised on both sides shculd meet for an
agreement, and the Committee adjourned till twelYe to-
morrow.

GROUP SIX.
This Committee met to•day at twelve o'clock; Pa.. Den.
uistouu iu the chair, all the other Umbers present,

OXFORD, BANBURY, AND COVZNTRY
(COVENTRY AND SOUTECAIVE BRA.NCE.)
On the assembling of the parties the opposition against this
Bill was resumed.
Mr. R. Adams gave general evidence against the proposed
branch.
Mr. Robert Stephenson, C.E., was examined at some length
against the proposed scheme as unnecessary, and that the
district in question would be better supplied by the London
and North-Western Company.
After some further evidence for the opposition,
Mr. FLOOD replied on behalf of the promoters, going over
the evidence adduced for the Bill, and contending that no
case had been made DECISION.
against it.
The room was then cleared for a decision. On the read-
mission of the parties
The Citata.max said the Committee bad decided that the
preamble of the Bill was proved.
The consideration of the clauses WAS postponed till to-
morrow.