The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-31 00:00:00

EAST LINCOLNSHIRE.

The Bill was opposed.
Mr. WILMOKE appeared in support of the Bill. He said
that the object ox the railway then before the Committee
was to connect the towns of Great Grimsby and Boston.
The railway act out from Great Grimsby, and passed through
a district where there was coal, &c. The necessity of a railway like
the present was shown by the fact that there were nvo similar
schemes, of which the present only existed. Besides, there were no
engineering difficulties to be encountered, the gradient being only 1
in 304, except at one portion of the line, where there Wai a slight
excess.

Mr. Christopher, M.P., for North Lincolnshire, examined—Was of
opinion that this railway would be of great utility, not only to the
county of Lincoln, but to every part of England in that direction.
The want of the railway proposed was greatly felt in Lincolnshire,
there being In consequence no market on the spot for their produc-
tions. It wou'd benefit not only the agricultural, but the manufac-
turing districts also. The length of the line was forty-eight miles
one furlong.

The Rei. Mr. Dodson, had been a resident at Ilford for thirty
years, and was of opinion that the proposed railway would confer
the greatest benefits on the districts through which it was to
pass.
Mr. Fowler, engineer. examined—The estimated cost of the under-
taking was 582,0001. The roads would be crossed at the levels.
(The remaining evidence of this witness corroborated the preceding
testimony.)
The CHAIRMAN said they had sufficient evidence with respect to
the preamble, which the Committee subsequently found to be
proved.
The opposition was withdrawn.
The clauses were then gone through seriatim, in which some
amendments were made.

GREAT GRIMSEY AND SHEFFIELD JUNC-
TION RAILWAY (HUMBER FERRIES PURCHASE AND
IMPROVEMENT).
This Bill was opposed by the Corporation of Hull, as well as the
people of that town.
Mr. PAGET, who appeared for the Bill, said that with respect to
the Humber Ferries Railway, he would offer a few o' servations. The
present application was to construct a railway to commence at Gains-
borough and cross the number. The object contemplated by the
Legislature in this railway could only be obtained by crossing the
river Humber. There was a ferry on the river at the present mo-
ment, which facilitated the trains between New Holland and Hull.
Now, this being the case, he should have conceived that the interests
of the promoters and of the corporation were identical. Negotiations
were entered into between the two parties; but without success, as
the corporation of Hull refused to come to any terms with the %To-
moters unless the lattLr purchased the ferry, paying for rights they
could not exercise.
Mr. DEAIISLET represented the corporation of Hull.

Mr. Thomas Osweld was examined to show that the ferry in ques-
tion did exist. Its underwent a cross-examination with respect to
the ferries on the river in question, but nothing material was elicited.
The Committee adjourned at four o'clock till to-morrow.

Sub-Committee, No. I

The Committee mit this day at twelve o'clock In room No. 7,
Present, Air. Strutt (Chairman), Mr. Forbes, Mr. Beckett, and Mr.
Brotherton.

OXFORD, SOUTHAMPTON, GOSPORT, and PORTSMOUTH.
The Committee proceeded with the petitions against this Bill. A
number of allegations as to the incorrectness of the plans, sections,
and book of reference, were sustained.
THE AYRSHIRE AND CALEDONIAN

was withdrawn. The Committee then called en the
FORTH AND CLYDE JUNCTION.
The parties not being present the Committee adjourned the hearing
of the case until after Easter; and took the
WILTS, SOMERSET, AND SOUTHAMPTON.

SAD object of the Bill is to form a line from Salisbury to South-
ampton. The length is 22 miles—the estimated cost :350,0001.—
the engineers, Messrs. Burch—the solicitors, Coppock, Bell, and
Moppesy—the agent, Mr. Coppock. The opposing agents are
Messrs. Dorrington and Co.

The formula evidence was put in.
Petitions were gone into from owners and occupiers on the line,
alleging imperfections in the plans, &c. deposited, and insufficiency
of notice.

The Committee decided that the standing orders were not complied
with.