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

GROUP XIX,

graiDGEWATER AND TAUNTON CANAL,
RAILWAY, AND HARBOUR.
The Committee met this morning at twelve o'clock. Lord Harry
Vane in the chair.

Mr. Lee, a pilot, employed in the Bristol Channel, but particularly
in the vicinity of Bridgewater, was called and examined at great
length by the counsel of the opponents of the line and harbour (the
Bristol and Exeter Company), with respect to the bottom of the
Channel, but especially in that portion where the harbour is pro-
posed to be constructed. Be stated that he had made soundings
in several places, and found occasionally shallow water, where a
secure foundation could not easily be obtained, but he was not cer-
tain that ships using the. harbour would have to traverse that part
of the Channel where he found shoals and shallow water.

Mr. King, one of the conservators of the River Tone, was also
examined with respect to its navigation, and the amount of money
which had been expended in improving it and the canal. The river
offered good navigation, but it was now much out of order, and
scarcely navigable, the goods traffic going by the canal. The river
could have been made navigable by the expenditure of a considerable
sum of money, but he was not in a position to state the exact amount
with anything like accuracy. A small portion of the river was now
used by the Canal Company. The maintenance of tke present water
communication was much desired.

Mr. Bunter, a banker at Taunton, and a conservator of the River
Tone, said the inhabitants of Taunton, he believed, were most anxious
to preserve the water communication between that town and Bridge-
water.

The examination of this witness concluded the case on the part of
the opponents of the project.
Mr. OSBORNE proceeded to address the Committee on behalf of the
Bristol and Exeter Railway, in opposition to the project. He held
that the evidence which had been adduced went to show that neither
the extent of the navigation of the Bristol Channel, nor the
traffic of the district, required the construction of the
proposed harbour, or the conversion of the existing canal into a rail-
way. The object which Mr. Telford had in view in his plan for an
harbour, which the prom)ters of the line had adopted, was to pro-
mote intercourse between Stolford and the South of Wales, on the
opposite sde of the channel, and could not be advantageously
coupled with a railway. Besides, it was evident that the ex-
penditure of 390,000/. for the construction of a harbour and
pier, and the conversion of the canal into a railway, was clearly not
required by the wants of the district. Then the only parties who
had given evidence in favour of these projects, were interested in so
doing ; whereas, on the other hand, their opponents had adduced
evidence to show that the present water communication fully satisfied
the wants of the whole of the district. Then let the Committee con-
sider the great expense which had been incurred by the Bristol and
Exeter in offering nearly the same communication which their oppo-
nents now offered, and in fact it had not been shown that that, Com
pany did not offer all the communication which was required. After
some further observations, he concluded by calling on the Committee
to reject the preamble of the Bill.