The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-12 00:00:00

JUNE 1.2, 1846.

petitioned against the line which by consent was absorbed in the
tther, and not having, petitioned against that which was retained as
a subject before the Committee.
The decision arrived at was, that, according to the standing orders
th• case could not be entertained, but the Chairman preferred to ask
any question which the counsel might propose.
Mr. Borthwlck, the engineer, was then examined as to the short.
ening of the trunk line to Norwich, and the objectionableness of the
gradients of 1 in 100, on that line on which the trains for carrying
cattle are very heavy.
To Mr. CRAWFORD, the witness replied that the line had been laid
out on the low grounds, with a view to get as near to Bury as pos•
sible, and to put the station where it would be most convenient for
the inhabitants. The distance by this line, and by the new line
from Norwich to Stowmarket to Londen would be much the same
about 113 miles.

To the CHAIRMAN, the witness replied that a gradient of 1 in 132
could easily be worked; that the profession had hardly acquiesced
in Mr. Locke's statement of last year that a gradient of 1 in 90 could
be worked with facility, and he believed that it was an universal
opinion among engineers and surveyors that it was always advisable
to go to additional cost to get a good gradient.
Some discussion then ensued with regard to the plans, part of
which were not before the Committee. It was ultimately stated,
that though beyond their line of deviation, the injury to Mr. Lee's
land might be avoided by a curve of ten chainl.
Mr. OUERDON then addressed the Committee on behalf of his
client, dwelling chiefly on the comparative routes to London
from Norwich, through the line just granted, from Norwich
to Stowmarket, and by the Ipswich and the Bury line.
lie accused the Ipswich and Bury Company of a species of artfulness
in having contested with the other company without giving any op-
portunity to the country to oppose them. On this ground chiefly he
conceived that the Committee might treat this Thetford and New-
market branch as an ,independent line, either opposing the other
lines, and therefore consider it as unnecessary, or they might reject
it altogether, on its demerits alone. _ . .

Mr. -o'3fsii.Er stated, that having answered the objections against
his appearance three times, he wished to know whether there was
any farther objection.
Mr. DANIEL objected as he had done before.
Mr. O'MALLEY said that he appeared for the Corporation and in-
habitants of Bury, as Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Alexander
did last year- in the Portsmouth Committee. There were numerous
other instances, and he had therefore
_named Sir John Walsham
and Mr. Bridgman.
Mr. Daragr. said that Sir John Walsham only appeared as trustee
of the school at Bury, and Mr. Bridgman was absolutely a petitioner
in favour of the line.

Mr. O'MALLEY had appeared before a Committee where Sir G. Grey
had been chairman, and there it was explicitly allowed that he had
not only a ground, but the best ground, for it was universally al-
lowed that an interference witk private rights was only justified on
some great public exigency, and on that ground alone, therefore, he
had a right to appear, without going at all into the case of the in-
habitants of Bury.
After considerable further discussion, it was decided
that Mr. O'Malley should be heard, and he proceeded
accordingly to address the Committee. lle stated that the control
between the opposing lines was, however, not of public utility, but,
as Mr. Bruff, the engineer, had allowed, one for private interest.
But the authorities and inhabitants of Bury appeared as entirely
disinterested parties. After touching on the several points of
the relative value of the price of coals, of the facility with
which they could be brought by Lynn to Ely, to which port there
was access for vessels of eighty tons, and several others, the Learned
Gentleman concluded a long and effective address, and the Com-
mittee adjourned till twelve o'clock to-morrow.

GROUP XXVIII.
LUTON AND ST. ALBANS.

The Committee assembled at the usual hour this morning.
Mr. Cubitt was examined with reference to this line. .

gergeiniiiiriangham summed up, and Mr. Denson replied.
The room was then ordered to be cleared, and the Committee de-
clared the preamble of the Bill promoted by the London and York
Company between St. Alban's and Hertford to be proved.
The Bill promoted by the London and Birmingham Company for
the same district, was declared not to be proved.
The Committee adjourned tin twelve o'clock to-morrow.

GROUP XXXI.
BRISTOL AND BIRMINGHAM (GLOUCES
TZR A.ND STONMHOUSE JUNCTION).
The Committee re-assembled this morning at 12 o'clock.

The different partieswere occupied during a considerable portion
of the day in arranging their various claims according to the in-
timation which the Committee threw out on a previous occasion,
that the acreement of 1843, between the Bristol and Gloucester and
the Great Western Companies, was to be made the basis of any fu-
ture arrangements that might be entered into between the two
companies. Terms and counter-terms were offered by the different
parties to the consideratien of the Committee for their decision, when
the room was ordered to be cleared.
On our re-admission, the CHAIRMAN stated that the Committee
inclined to the opinion that it would not be for the public advantage
to have a narrow gauge line made between the rails of the broad
gauge, neither would it be convenient to substitute the narrow line
for the broad gauge. They believed, however, that by the formation
of a narrow line of railway, in addition to the broad gauge line, the
interests of the public would be best subserved. They were under the
mpression that it would be an advantage to have a narrow gauge
line, but they did not wish to deprive the Great Western Company
of the broad gauge line from Bristol to Stonehouse.

Mr. R. Stephenson, the engineer, was then called by the pro-
moters, and deposed as to the elegibility of the construction of the
proposed lino.
Other evidence was gone into, and the Committee adjourned.

PRICE SD.

the subject of procuring such a line as this had long occupied his
thoughts. He considered that Shrewsbury stood in great need of a
railway communication with Wolverhampton, Birmingham, and
London. He believed that this line would be shorter than any other
yet devised. He had personally seen many of the inhabitants of
Shropshire, and they expressed themselves unanimously in favour of
this undertaking. This line would afford his constituents a direct
communication with Holyhead and Ireland. The station proposed
to be made at Birmingham by this company was a most convenient
one In every respect.
Cross-examined by Mr. CORBETT—I am aware that several land-
holders through whose property this line is proposed to pass have
petitioned againstit.

rooot.
the Mx
extent
any more evidence on that head.
The lion. CHAIRMAN —No ; I think we have had enough of evi-
dence of that description.
Mr. WoorarcHE—Then, I shall proceed to call evidence to show
the accommodation which this line will afford to the different towns
trhceasEh—relLebhuarvy etaragmrce,aitf number of witnesses to prove
the Committee wish to have
through which it will pass.
Mr. Osborne, magistrate's clerk, Shipnall, was accordingly called,
and proved the accommodation which the scheme would offer to the
people of that town, three-fourths of whom, he said, were
in favour of this line. The alternative line (the South Staffordshire)
would inflict great residential damage. Their station would be a
quarter of a mile distant from the Market-place of Shipnall. Mr.
Cope, one of the landholders whose property would be injured by the
opposing scheme, had petitioned against it.
Cross-examined by Mr. Roatssox—l am not authorised to give
evidence here on behalf of Mr. Cope, nor du I know whether he has
abandoned all opposition to the South Staffordshire line. The station
of the Shrewsbury and Birmingham line at Shipnall will be 100 yards
distant from the market-place. I should be much surprised to hear
that three-fourths of the people of Shipnall had petitioned against
this line.

Mr. Power, surveyor, Shipnall, gave similar evidence to the last
witness. The station there would be most conveniently situated.
The people of Shipnall had memorialised the Board of Trade in
favour of this line.

Mr. Simms, ironmaster, of Bay's-lane, in the parish of Shipnall,
was proceeding to give trilflic evidence in favour of the line, when a
messenger from the House of Commons announced that the Speaker
was at prayers, and the Committee accordingly adjourned until
twelve o'clock to-morrow.