The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-28 00:00:00

BRIDGWATER, AND TAUNTON RAIXAVA.T

AND HARBOUR.
The next case taken was that of the promoters of the Bridgwater
i
and Taunton Railway and Canal, which was opposed by theße.„rit
and Exeter Railway Company, who were represented by m
Talbot and Orbin, and several navigation proprietors and landholders
In the vicinity of the proposed line.
if Theth admiralty gavew i wished et
their
etior bc
consent
ninformed,theb e before
it would be
• were aware that
posed harbour at Taunton. The partiestoot.ththe
ecparsoe.,
consent. constructiongoingl into
ther with Messrs. hawkers
useless for the Committee to sanction the scheme without suet
plied by producing a letter
and Wells, appeared for the promoters,srieniing
Mr. Sergeant Waascriasr, who, toge
that the Lords of the
from the Secretary of the Admiralty,
- proceed at once with the case.
The CHAIRMAN said then they v,
the ease, said there were
' NGIIAM, in opening .
Admiralty approved of both the linoeual:nid the harbour.
Mr. Sergeant IN RA.
some very peculiar circumstances.
to the favourable consideration of Par-
• laich entitled it Committee,
this project, w connected with the promotion of
liavnent, and, with the
' Puemstances. So
makerslog ago as 1811 an Act was
'ssion of the he would go
into a detail of these circe,niiipany
to
passed for enabling. a
T aunt on ,
completion of so extensive a project, another Act
• but it being subsequently found that the traffic would not
justify theed
in
1524,
limiting the undertaking between Bridgwater
present Bill was for converting that canal
Athboeut the same time the Canal Company 'al
nnaidso TauntonP
aapassed
railway. ; a" d
ex-
pended 22,0001. in the improvement of the river Tone,
and in 1842 they obtained an Act to make the Chard canal and
docks ; and, in the end, the Company laid out 100,0001. in construct-
ing works for the public benefit. This money was raised by shares
and loans, and up to 1842, the Company flourishing beyond all pre-
vious expectation, they were enabled to pay the interest on their
debts, and a fair dividend to their proprietary. In 1342, however
the Bristol and Exeter Railway opened from Bridgwater to Taunton
and put a period to their success ; and, instead of now being able to
pay interest and dividends, they could hardly receive a sufficient
amount of traffic to enable them to maintain the canal. They therefore
determined to apply for an Act to convert their canal into a rail-
way, and thus enable them to fight in the same armour used by
their rival. They proposed to convert the canal into a railway, ex-
ten ling the line from Taunton on to Stollord, and to make a harbour
of refuge there, accessible at all times and under all circumstances.
The cost of these works was estimated at 390,0001., and to raise
this money under their existing Acts of Parliament, which gave

them power to raise in various ways 570,0001. ; but they had hitherto
only exercised those powers to the extent of 171,2001., and hence the
balance would cover the estimate of the proposed couversion and

. .
the construction of the other works attendant tkerespon.
The formal proofs, in accordance with Mr. Duncombe's resolution
last week, were then put in.
Mr. TALBOT, on behalf of the opponents of the Bill, took a preli-
minary objection to the further progress of the 8111, ou the ground
that even if the Committee granted the line, the promoters had no
power to raise funds to construct it. `fhe Committee would remem-
ber that the first Act alluded to by his Learned Friend, was an Act
passed in 1811, for making a Railway from Bristol to Taunton,
but that Act was abandoned, and another passed for making a
canal from Bridgwater to Taunton. Now the first Act gave the par-
ties power to raise 420,0001., but on the abandonment of this Act of
course the powers ceased. The ether Act gave them power to raise
520,0001., and of that sum they had already used 171,2001., leaving a
balance which in amount was 32,0001. less than the estimate for the
construction of the propcsal works.
Mr. Sergeant WBANGUAM contended that this was an objec-
tion which ought to have been urged is the Standing Orders. Corn-
mittee, and the present Committee had, therefore, no power to deal
with it.

Mr. TALBOT, relying upon the well-known Dublin and Galway
( aae, contendel that they had ; but the fact was the Standing Orders'
Committee left this matter to be decided by the Committee on
the Bill.

Ultimately, after a long discussion, it was decided that the Com-
mittee should adjourn till to-morrow at twelve o'clock, and in the
mealtime the decision of the Standing Orders' Committee was to be
ascertained from the Chairman of the Committee before whom the
matter was discussed.