The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-08 00:00:00

GROUP 200 C.

This Committee re-assembled to-day at the usual hour; present,
Lord Charles Wellesley (chairman) and the other Members.
AYLESBURY AND THAME 3-UNCTION.

The Committee proceeded with the hearing of the direct evidence
in support of this Bill.

Mr. Shripton, examined by Mr. WlLLS—Considered the railway
before the Committee preferable to the Cambridge and Oxford line.
Did not consider the latter line of any great advantage to Thame.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant CLARK—There were several
chair manufactories at Thame, at which there were a great number
of men employed. Would certainly send some barley from Thame
to Oxford if there were a proper mode of conveyance.
Mr. llewe, of Thame, examined by Mr. HILLS—Was a carrier at
Thame. It would be very important to have a communication be-
tween Thame and the London and Birmingham Railway, and it
would be very injurious to Thame to have a railway proceeding to
Oxford and Cambridge. There were from 3,000 to 4,000 tons of coal
annually consumed at Thame. There would be a great increase in
the consumption there if the Aylesbury and Thame Line were
established, though he could not say to what extent.

Cross-examined by Mr. WADDINGTON—CouId not say what advan.
tage would result from a railway to Oxford to the people on the Ox•
ford-road.

GROUP XXXV.

The Committee met again this day at twelve o'clock, in Room 37
(grand corridor) ; Mr. George Banker, -in the ehair, and all the
members present.

Mr. Dimson informed the Committee that the Northampton
Mansfield, and Midland Junction Railway Bill was withdrawn.
They then proceeded with the
EAST COAST.

Mr. Coox, with Messrs. Austin, Cockburn, and Johnson, ap-
peared for the promoters, and addressed the Committee at great
length In support of the preamble, pointing out the ad-
vantages which the proposed line would confer upon
the districts of which Wisbeech, Lynn, Ely, Boston, Lin-
coln, &c., are the principal towns. There was but one
case of residentiary opposition ; and in respect to that, as well as
to the opposition of Sir William Fowkes, and one or two other indi-
viduals who had only claims to just compensations for passing
through their lands, the company was willing to act with all due
liberality. The Lynn and Ely Company olaimed to be admitted as a
competing line ; but it had already been decided by the House of
Lords that they could not be admitted to be heard in that character.
There was also an opposition on the part of the Eastern Counties,
who claimed to be heard in the character of landowners, through
whose property this proposed line would pass. He
(Mr. Cook) believed the Committee would be convinced
that this claim of the Eastern Counties could not be sustained.
In conclusion, he called the attention of the Committee to the
fact that the trustees of Guy's Hospital, with Mr. Justice Patteson
at their head, holding considerable estates in the district, were highly
favourable to the line, and he trusted that the patronage of that im-
portant and disinterested body would outweigh the opposition which
he had mentioned.

The Learned Gentleman then put in the usual documentary evi.
dence, and called

Mr. Skelton, steward to the trustees of Guy's Hospital, who
stated his belief that the line would be of very great advantage to
the district from Lynn to Boston, Wisbeach, Ambergate, &c., open-
ing the valuable markets of the north and west to the products of the
rich lands through which it would pass, including the property of the
trustees, which was under his care. There was a bonding yard at
Sutton-bridge, and the railway would be of great benefit both to the
trade of Sutton and to the west of England, by facilitating the tran-
sit of timber to the west, where it was much wanted.
Mr. SLADE, on the part of the Corporation of Wisbeach, rose to
cross-examine the witness.
Mr. Coos required, to know on what ground the corporation could
have a locus slandi?
Mr. SLADE said that the corporation were, by charter and statute,
the guardians of the port of Wisbeach. They were prepared to show
that the railway would greatly tend to obstruct the navigation of
the port.
Mr. Coos said that it had been ruled in the House of Commons,
and had been provided for In the general Bill, that in such cases the
consent of the Admiralty and of the Tidal Harbour Commissioners
was sufficient, and that no persons in the condition of the corpora-
tion in this case, could offer such general opposition as was now pro-
posed to the preamble. It would be competent to the corporation to
come in when the clause relating to the bridge at Wisbeach was
under consideration.
Mr. SLADE, in reply, referred to the case of the Corporation of Car-
narvon, who had succeeded in compelling an alteration in the site of
Mr. Stephenson's bridge across the Menai, although it did not come
within nine miles of their port. The Corporations of Liverpool, White-
haven, and other places had repeatedly been allowed to appear
against measures which they deemed injurious to their ports.
The COMMITTEE ultimately decided that the Learned Counsel
should be heard on the part of the corporation against the preamble,
so far as it was his object to prove that no corresponding public ad-
vantage would be gained by the obstruction of the path at Wisbeach,
in consequence of a railway bridge being built across the river.
Mr. SLADE then cross-examined Mr. Shelton, with a view to Silo
that the traffic in the east coast district is not sufficiently extensi:v.e
to require a railway.