The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-19 00:00:00

1V ENT AND Blciail—thiES.

Mr. Miller was recalled and examined respecting the Queensferry
branch. lie said the estimate of cost was 13a,0001., Of which 10.0001.
was for land. The amount of land was sixty-six imperial acres.
There was a tunnel 1,556 yards in length, through the coal forma-
tion. 'the worst gradient was one in sixty, at the QueensielTY ter-
initiation. This, could be easily worked, as similar gradients existed
at the Grand Junction Liverpool station,, and et the .Euston-square
station ; the latter was one in seventy. No accidents occurred on'
similar gradients. There was at present a considerable passenger
If ante, three being three or four coaches, and I, Might be. much in-
ct easea. Ihe object was to bring the carriagessof the train on to the
ferry at a 1”,e1. thy extending the tunnel the gradient could be Un-
proved, but the expense would be very great.
The Committee expressed a ;e:iire to h. ar some other engineer on
the practicability of tie gradient, and the further consideration of the
Bill was p,stponed in otter to hear Mr. Brunel on the point.

THZ: GIIN*XI.II.I. TZIME.T.LTUS AND ASGCNV

HA.1t30tT.1.1..

This Bill was then proceeded with, and witnesses on behalf of the
scheme called.
• Mr. Charles Gray, deputy-chairman of the Glasgow. River Trust,
was test called and examined. Ile said it would be a great conve-
nience to approach the harbour by rails, but the attempts hitherto
matte were defeated because it was fount that the schemes proposed
would seriously interfere with the general traffic. It was this that
caused the proposition of last seat to be defeated in its main features.
The present scheme would obviate the difficulty, as it approached the
harbour at a point that would not in the least degree interfere with
the general pane of the harbour. The other two schemes
did !tut approach the harbou; at such a good point. The
one wets, too hiele the other too low. The Grand Junc-
tion wee so far ep that the rails wouel interfe,e very much
with the general traffic ; end the Tedal Itstein aed the terminus of the
Giase.ote if Arthur Miecral was so low dove that they would .inter-
fere with the vessels liasseeg up Ana &hen tile river. The Gettend
Tennin:.9 Company had purchased th 6 laud for their purposes 1111 n
the River Trust, and the latter Were in sapport of the scheme as the
best 'mans of approaching the harbour without interfering with the
general traffic. The sale of the land had been unanimously con-
firmed by the masters at 0110 0f their meetings.'
Cross-examined by Mr. ehateoL, on the .part of the Glasgow
Harbour Mineral—The position of the IlArhour Mineral Company
tees decidedly objectionable, as it was too far down the river. It
was further down than the proposed docks of the hives Trust at
etoe Cross.. He did not think it was necessary to separate the
mineral from the other traffic by different harbours ; it could be done
in the same harbour. The vessels at present lay ou the south side
in tiers of three and four deep, and the traffic was very great. The
river opposite the general terminus was 48* met, and in the best part
of the river. He had never opposed the laying down of rails on
the quays, provided they did not interfere with the general traffic.
Cross-examined by Mr. HILL, on the part of the Glasgow Harbour
Grand Junction Company. lie considered the general terminus was
the Pixiper mediunt for Aeproaching the harbohr. The River Trust
was not bound to the general terminus beyond the agreement come
to in the purchase of the land. He Old not know how many of them
were shareholders. He only knew two or three,geldlenien who were
shareholders. The length of nosy ou the south side was 3,701 foci.
Ile had ten shares himself, an.i bought them at 9/. to. 101. premium..
Ile believed they were still = lett.
Mr. Charles Gray said, the General Terminus line would afford
In reply to a question from the Cuanterme
better amommodation to the coal traffic than the other two compa-
nies, as they would have to traverse a considerable portion of the
town in bringing minerals from the south-east to the harbour.
Mr. Dayid Chapman, another member .of the Rive, Trust, gave
evidence precisely to the same effect as the previous one. He con-
sidered thee the hnmense traffic of the harbour should he concen-
trated as touch es possible, vethont, •at the same time, incommoding
the general traffic, and this he thought would be hest done by the
Genersl Terminus scheme.
Mr. J. H. Payne, of the Glasgow Custom house, deposed as to the
inconvenience to the Custonehouse officers front the mineral traffic at
present on the quays. It was desirable to concentrate the mineral
traffic as much as possible. The General 1 erminus scheme would
do this the beat, and the least hicommodate the general traffic. As a
proot of the great increase of the foreign trade of Glasgow, he would
state that the Customs' revenuee which in 1833 was 97,000!., was
now 589,0001.
• The cross-examination of the witnesses elicited no point of a ma•
terhil character beyond this.
Mr. Dunlop, merchant and iron master, examined, and deposed as
to the mineral traffic of Glasgow. The exports of coals in 1542,
1843, and 1844 were 130,000 tons. The iron during the same Vine
was 84,0)0 tons.• The river steamers consumed 70,000 tons. The
General 'rerminus line, in his opinion, would supply the harbour is
a better manner than the ether two schemes.
Mr. King was briefly examined as to the expected traffic. He
estimated it at 7,4811. es., and deducting 1,000/., for working the
line, the residue would yield 6 per cent. on the capital the line would
cost. The expense of the line would be about 111,000/. The General
yermdidint
not believe sline:o ulathe was giver all
lthe n ceonanthiation that was required.
sufficient traffic to support a second
terminus.
Cross-examined—The powers in the Bill were to raise 200,0001.
He had not included harbour slues in the 3d. per ton. No doubt if
the Harbour :Mineral admitted coal into their basin with
would eout dues,
, partis
point.
waihwtaleysthrreeofetr thez '
cheapest it would tie an "advantae as
The further consideration of the Bill wa‘ then adjourned,

EDZINTAITEGIi AND GLASGOW AMEND-