The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-12 00:00:00

GROUP XXX.

GROUP VIII.
The Committee met to-day at twelve o'clock, Sir William Clay
in the chair. Members present, Earl Jerilyn, Lord Shelburne, Mr.
James Ainsworth, and Mr. Curteis.
GLASGOW, DTP-MPILIENS, AND CARLISLE.
The case on behalf of this line having closed on Friday last, the
case for the opposition commenced this morning on the assembling
of the Committee.
Mr. COCKBURN said he appeared on behalf of the Glasgow and
Carlisle road trustees, and the grounds on which he did so were that
the line crossed their road twice on the level, between Dumfries and
Carlisle, whereas the Caledonian crossed the road by bridges. The
petitioners likewise thought that the Caledonian served the wants of
the district better than the Dumfries scheme. The case of Scotland,
in regard to compensation, was also different to that of England, and
the petitioners complained that due compensation was not given to
the road trustees for the abstraction of traffic which the Dumfries
line would occasion.
The CHAIRMAN suggested that those points were more subjects
for clauses than to be brought against the preamble of the Bill.
Clauses ought to be drawn up toaneet the objections submitted to
the Committee, when, if the preamble was agreed to, they would be
considered.
This course being assented to, the Committee proceeded to the
consideration of the
CALEDONIAN (EXTENSION AND
BRANCHES).
Counsel for the promoters, Mr. Sergeant Wranghanl, Mr.
Cockburn, Mr. Hope, Mr. Rickards, and Mr. Pickering.
Mr. Graham, the agent of the Bill, was examined as to compliance
with Mr. T. Duncombe's resolutions, and the necessary documents
In relation thereto put in and received.
Mr. COCKBURN opened the proceedings for the opposition of the
Caledonian against the Dumfries scheme, and also on behalf of the
Dumfries branch of the former Company. He said he would reserve
his statement till the chase of the evidence he intended to call, when
he would make a review of the whole. Ile hoped also, before the
close of the evidence for this Dumfries branch, that the Caledonian
Extension Bill would he read a second time, and ready to proceed
with in Committee, in which case it would not be expedient or just
to give any decision till that was likewise gone into, as it formed a
material point in the Caledonian case.
Mr. Locke, civil engineer, said he was the engineer of the Cale-
donian Company. His attention had been called to railway commu-
nication with Scotland in 1836 or 1837. Some time after that a com-
mission was appointed, for which he made a survey, and laid a re-
port before the commissienere. The Caledonian trunk line was the
result of his survey. This line was substantially adopted by the com-
missioners. When the Caledonian Company was formed, witness
was appointed its engineer, and the present Caledonian scheme was
brought out. His scheme was brought under the considera-
tion of the Board of Trade, as was also the Dumfries
line on the one side, and the Hawick branch, in connexion with the
North British, on the other. He quite agreed with the passage in
the Board of Trade report, that there was not traffic to support two
through lines. With careful consideration that was his deliberate
opinion. Last year, he believed, he estimated the Caledonian to
yield but 3!4 per cent., after paying working expenses. That esti-
mate included all the Glasgow and Carlisle traffic, and a consb
derahie portion of the Edinburgh traffic also. He calculated the
whole receipts of the Caledonian to be 224,0001. Deduct-
ing 107,000/. for working expenses, that left 117,0001., which
was a!S per cent. on the whole capital. He was quite sure that the
Dumfries line and this could not pay together. The Caledonian
Company had already expended from 200,0001. to 300,0001., and the
expenditure was now about 50,0001., and would soon he double. At
the present moment 7,000 men were at work. All the works were
contracted for and the land bargained and paid for as it was used.
Ile calculated that the line would be completed by 18 months unless
a great number of Bills were carried and workmen could
not be obtained. Had he conceived last year that this
Dainfries Use on the one side and the Hawick Extension
on the other, would be granted this year, he would not have advised
those contracts to be entered into. It was his opinion that the Cale-
donian line was the best line to the north as well as to Glasgow and
Edinburgh. The Edinburgh and Glasgow traffic would be much
crippled by rival lines, but the north traffic could never be taken
away. The north tsaftic, however, would not at all compensate the
Company for the capital expended. Last year, after long and anxious
Inquiries in both Houses, and after the examination of about a
hundred witnesses, both Committees decided in favour of the Cale-
donian scheme. The Dumfries branch was then struck out as not
being sufficiently digested, and being strongly opposed by the Annan
people, because it did not touch there. This year a branch
was proposed which went from Dumfries, by Annan, to Gretna.
Even, as between Dumfries and Glasgow, the distance by
the Caledonian scheme was shorter than the Dumfries scheme,
the Caledonian scheme also connected Dumfries in a better manner
with Edinburgh. The inhabitants of Paisley would also, he believed,
be at least as well accommodated as by the Nithsdale scheme. As it
respects Dumfries, the inhabitants of Ayr, Mayhole, and Girvan,
would be accommodated by the Ayrshire and Galloway line from
Ayr to Castle Douglas. He considered the inhabitants of Carlisle
and Canonhie would also be better accommodated by the Caledonian
scheme than by the Nithsdale. Should the Caledonian extension
line be granted Ayrshire generally would be well supplied, and there
would exist no reason whatever for the formation of the Nithsdale
line, on the plea of accommodating local traffic. He had kept in
view from the beginning that the Dumfries traffic would be an im-
portant item in connexion with the Caledonian scheme.
He had estimated last year to run through front end to
• end four passenger trains and two goods trains; the passenger trains
to carry twenty persons each. He applied the same data to the
• Vnmfries branch. He had made allowance for all possible traffic,
.and this was the result. He was quite certain that the two lines
could not exist on the traffic, and had he thought that two such lines
would be sanctioned he would net have advised any of his friends to
take a share, or have taken one himself. The competition that must
ensue would only end in a combination, from which the public would
greatly suffer. Looking at the table of the towns from which the
Dumfries and 2fithsdale scheme expected their traffic, he saw many
places from which the Caledonian line took credit for traffic last year.
Cross-examined by Mr. FORSYTH—He would not say that the
- Ayrshire and Galloway line would be the best route from
Dumfries into Ayrshire, but It would be a convenient
one. He did not know what sort of line that was, as he
: had nothing to do with it. He had no objection to a line
from Kilmarnock and Dumfries if it could be shown that the local
- traffic would warrant it, and if the Caledonian scheme and extension
were opened, and not likely to suffer from the competition of this
Nithsdale line. Still he thought the two lines too near, and the
country too thinly populated, to warrant the construction of both.
He was decidedly of opinion that there was not traffic for two lines.
If the Caledonian line was opened and paying 10 per cent., his views
would be very much modified ; then his opinion might be, that there
was room for another line. At present it would be hard on those
who had embarked their capital in the Caledonian scheme to allow
another line of railway without waiting to see what the traffic of
line already granted would be. The Caledonian promoters as-
sumed the whole of the Dumfries traffic last year. He admitted the
branch now proposed was substantially the same as the south portion
of the Nithsdale scheme of 1a"
,?;ietr. Until the issue of the
Caledonian was tried he not think any new
scheme of the kind like the n
No did notlthsdal think e
should
kud
sanctioned by Parliament. In doing this,
theui lnt be
e-
rects of Ayrshire would be sactineed. as they would be consulted by
the Caledonian Extension. He thought
should be done that would damagethe constructionn° nothing at present
of a great national scheme like the Caledonian. The
capitalwhole out
the Caledonian Extension with which Ayrshire was to bee es,,Sm the whole. The Ayrshire'
dated, portion of
was about 1,700,0001. in whole
this
would be more expensive than that to Peebles. The expense would be
from 12,0001. to 14,0001. per mile. lie did not recollect the terms of
the prospectus of the Caledonian issued in 1844, which set forth that
the returns would be 8 per cent. He understood the capital stated
there was 1,300,0001., whereas the capital in the Bill, when it went
before Parliament, was 2,100,0001. This made a considerable differ-
ence in the calculation of returns. If Dumfries was not named in
the prospectus, he had always calculated for a considerable amount of
traffic from there.
Re-examined—He was satisfied the estimates, when brought
before Parliament last year, were fairly made. The amount of
capital had been Increased in order to meet the case, which close in-
vestigation subsequent to the issuing of the prospectus required. He
was quite sure 514 per cent. was a fair calculation. He would not
like to guarautee even that.
In answer to a request of the Chairman,
Mr. Locks promised to prepare by to-morrow a table of tht, dis-
tance from London to Edinburgh, by the east coast route, in Mills
parison with the London and Birmingham Grand Junction and Cale-
donian schemes ; also the distance from London to Glasgow by tlle
Caledonian, compared with the Dumfries and Ayrshire route, both
by Dolry as well as by the Barrhead and Neilston direct route.
Mr. Hope Johnstone, 3f.P., for Dumfriesshire, examined—Said lie
Was chairman of the Caledonian Company. It had always been In
view to accommodate Dumfries, but the main object was
a direct communication between the north and the
south. He did not believe the Nithsdale line could co-exist
with the Caledonian, so as both to pay. Had both lines been granted
last year he could not have advised the shareholders to proceed with
the works. With his knowledge of the country, he considered if the
Dumfries Branch was formed along with the Caledonian Extension
that an abundant accommodation would be given—he would not
say a complete, still it would be ample. The portion that would not
be so well supplied was the district between Dumfries and Cumnock,
which was a thinly-populated agricultural district. He agreed in the
estimate that the profits would not exceed 5% per cent.
The witness was cross-examined by Mr. LIDDELL, 011 behalf of the
Duke of nuccleuch, the Marquis of Queensberry, and Lord Mansfield,
who petition against the Dumfries Branch ; also on behalf of the
Glasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisle scheme, but no point of importance
was elicited.
Mr. Smith, of Deanston, deposed as to the character of the valley of
the Nii h. The country at the Ayrshire end, near to Cumnock,
was very good, and abounded In minerals, but after leaving New Cum-
nock, the valley of the Nith became very
it expanded
sterile, and
continued so
till near to Dumfries, n
vi
of S anqu h
a r
andftn
Thorn-
bill
dbec a m rich. The population in the neighbourhood
was very thin—both the agricultural and village population—
theai well
tHe wa s
route only supported one two-horse'
co
ac-
quainted with the draining, and he thought the he
m of traffic under
this head, calculated by the Nithsdale Company, preposterous. He
did not believe that 12,810 tons of tiles would be taken from Cu GROG? XLIII.
to Dumfries. He believed they could be made conveniently- ina mek
acwsznsETsmanE MIDLAND.
Dumfries. Besides, the draining could be as well carried out wither (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
stones as by tiles. To allow for such a tile traffic, there would he
Mr. F. Fox.: was then examined by Mr. Sergeant KINGLAKE,
ail necessary. To use the number of tiles estimated for, 2,391 acres and proved tiae accuracy of the levels r
Crass-exan tined by Mr. GURNEY—In his cross-examination he ad-
eferred to by Mr. Gregory.
required 33 tile works to be started at Cumnock, which was not at
would require to be drained yearly, at an expense of 24,0001. line of
The cross-examination of the witness did not materially vary the mitted that the line could not be made within the deviation,
points elicited by his examination in chief, beyond the admission that unless in the form of a corkscrew.
he did not know for a fact there was clay for tiles to be found in the Mr. Sturge seas the next witness examined, who stated that lie
valley of the Nlth, though, judging from the geological character of went over the..ground with Mr. Fox, and spoke to the accuracy of
the levels takana by hlm,

GIZOI P XVXN I
GOOLE AND DOArCASTER.

GROUP XXXVII,

This Committee re-assembled to-day, at the usual hour, present
Lord Charles Wellesley (chairman), and the other Members.
AITI.ZSBUILY AND THANE JUNCTION.
Mr, CORRY, on the part of the Duke of Buckingham, was heard
to-day. The Learned Counsel contended that the statements with
respect to the Cambridge and Oxford Railway, which were put for-
ward by the counsel for that Bill, were not sustained by the evi-
dence. The line was, to speak in general terms, defective in its geo-
graphical situation, and the advantages that would result to literature
and science, even according to the showing of the learned gentlemen
who had been examined in support of the Bill, were too
trifling to call for a railway. The other advantages that would result
from this railway were quite speculative. For instance, with re-
ference to coals, could any one that had listened to the evidence
be satisfied that there would be such a traffic in that commodity
as was contended for by his Learned Friends ? It was
necessary for him to say a word as to the description of
evidence that had been adduced to prove the nega-
tive of what he advanced. His Learned Friend did not call coal-
merchants to give evidence on this subject, though one would have
supposed they would have been the most eligible witnesses, but
straw-plait !manufactures, though, when they had to make
good any statement respecting farms, they were sure to call
farmers. But, coming at another point, it was stated by
the promoters of the Oxford and Cambridge Railway, that
there would be a profit of 6 per cent. on the total capital. Now,
he felt satisfied that he could prove to the Committee from the evi-
dence, that instead of realising this profit of 634 per cent.
from this railway, there would be a deficiency of 3
per cent. on the capital to be laid out on the
undertaking. The gross profit was stated by Mr. Pilch,
upon whose evidence such stress had been laid, as 53,6731., while the
working of the line would be 33,407/. This calculation was made on
a sum somewhere about 8.00,0001. New the fact was, that
the capital reouired for this (the Cambridge and Oxford Rail-
way), was shown by the most unauestionabie evidence
to be 1,200,0001. It was also proved from the evidence before the
Committee, that the income to be derived from this railway would
not exceed 26,5001. It was also shown that the working of this line
would be upwards of 30,0001. or 40,000/. The Learned Counsel here
read copious extracts from the evidence of Mr. Stephenson and the
other witnesses in support of the Aylesbnry- and 'flume Junction
Railway, and having offered a few observations with reference to the
engineering features of the line, which he described as being ex-
tremely unfavourable, concluded by calling on the Committee, in
mercy to the promoters themselves, of the Oxford and Cambridge
Railway, to reject the Bill.
At the request of Counsel Mr. Bryce was called, and denied what
had been attributed to him by one of the witnesses (Mr. Chase)—
namely, that the Oxford and Cambridge would never pay a farthing,
and that he was opposed to the line.
Mr. ILswxtns said he appeared, on the part of the landowners, to
oppose the Aylesbury and Thame Junction line. lie denied that
though a railway might be required in the district through which
this railway proposed to pass, the present line would meet adequately
these requirements, or in any way offer advantages to be
compared with the Oxford and Cambridge line. Only three
persons at Aylesbury and Thame had become shareholders in
this railway, so that it did not appear that the people there were
very favourable to this undertaking, for there were no meetings held
in support of it, but at a meeting held in favour of the other
line several people from Aylesbury and Theme attended, and
were unanimous in supporting it (the Oxford and Cambridge
Railway). There could net he a traffic on this line that
would justify an outlay of 100,0001., as proposed in this rail-
way, and the Committee would require considerably more evi-
dence before they could entertain such a Bill as the present.
There was not an advantage held out by this contemptible little line
that was not offered ten-fold by the Oxford and Cambridge line.
(The Learned Gentleman, after a few further observations, con-
cluded).

Mr. CALCEAFT, on the part of the Aylesbury and Tharae line,
having replied,
The Committee adjourned till twelve o'clock to-morrow.

This Committee, hating bat this one Bill upon their list, met to-
day at half-past three o'clock. They sat only for a few minutes, and
adjourned till Friday next, when they will meet at twelve o'clock.