The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-09 00:00:00

position against the Bill, not a single inhabitant of Glasgow
had been called to prove any damage to property, or to
speak against the way in which they were to be afficted by
the Inie. Last year it was complained of that the bridge was
to? far down, and the arches were objected to; so to meet the
objections then urged, it had now been proposed that the
viaduct should be brought close to the present bridge, and
the arches and piers be made the same, so 55 to offer as little
obstruction as possible to the currrent of the stream. The
space to be occupied by the viaduct would not be 108th part
of the harbour, while the Stob-cross decks, it had been
shown, would furnish every necessary accommodation that
might be required for the crowded shipping of the river.
But even with regard to the space to be occupied, it had been
shown, that from the height of the arches, the
smaller vessels, and the steam-boats would still
be able to use the space. Regarding the viaduct and the
opposition of the Bridge Trust, he would call the attention of
the Committee to the resolution of the Bridge Trust since
last year, to the effect that they would abandon their opposi-
tion if the promoters of the line would not pass over the top
of the exiting bridge. This had been agreed to, and though,
in compliance with the desire of Lord Ellenborough,
the piers of the two bridges were proposed to
touch each other, the two bridges were essentially
independent, and would not interfere at all with each
other. Nor had it been shownthat danger would arise from
the foundation of the bridge. The present bridge had been
built several years, and though the river had been deepened
two or three feet below the brick-work of the foundation,
yet the bridge was as firm as ever. The water was now
running daily against the top of the piles yet no sand es-
caped, and the bridge appeared to be as firm as any in the
kingdom In respect to the foundation Mr. Walker
was called, and be only gave hearsay evidence, which had
been derived from Mr. Atherton. He had not examined
the foundations himself. Against the opinion of Mr.
Walker he would place that of Mr. Miller, who had planned
nearly all the great railway works in Scotland, and
.had
carnea great number of them into successful operation.
He had staked his reputation on constructing that bridge,
and he had no doubt satisfied himself that it could be erected
without difficulty. The opinion of Mr. Miller was fortified
by Mr. Lyon, the foreman of Mr. Gibb, the builder of the
present bridge, and Mr. Gibb, the son of the con-
tractor, both of whom affirmed that no foundation
could be better for a bridge—that it was good
hard sand. These were two witnesses of the greatest expe-
rience, against whom they had the statement of Dlr.
Atherton, the resident engineer, who was looked up for
at the last hour to give evidence against the Bill. The two
former, he submitted, in taking their evidence into account,
had much greater opportunities of knowing the nature of the
foundation than the latter, and were more entitled to influ-
ence the minds of the Committee. Clearly, then, the balance
of evidence on the point of foundation was in favour of his cli-
ents. But to put an end to all doubt, he was willing
that a clause should be inserted in the Bill to the effect that
whatever damage should be done should be made good, or
that the bridge should be rebuilt, if necessity should be seen
for it from any injury done to the present bridge. The
Learned Gentleman then addressed himself to the proposal
made for joining the two lines passing round the sty. Con-
tending that it would be utterly useless as a passenger line,
from going over so many mineral lines, and could not be
seriously entertained as a measure to fill up the gap between
the north and south of Glasgow. The Learned Gentleman
having recapitulated the leading points of his case, concluded
by calling on the Committee to admit the preamble of the
Bill as proved.
The room was then cleared. In a few minutes the par-
ties were called in, when
The CHAIRMAN said the Committee had come to the de-
cision that the preamble of the Bill was not proved.
The Committee then adjourned till after the Easter
holidays.

GROUP XIV.
SOUTE-ZASTIII&N.

The Committee met to-day at twelve o'clock; present Mr.
Protheroe (Chairman), Lord EmlYn, General Lygon, Mr. J.
O'Connell, and Mr. Grogan.
The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee were so strongly
of opinion that the business should be proceeded with at as
early a period as possible, that he would go into the House
to give notice that on Friday week, when the House of
Commons re-assembled, he should move for leave for the
Committee to sit on the Tuesday. following, instead of ad-
journing to the 27th, as was originally intended. On his re-
turn the Chairman said that he had given notice of his in-
tention, but he had received an intimation from Sir George
.
Clerk that it would not be in power to do so, unless the
shareholders gave a written notice that they were desirous
of proceeding at that time, and did not wish to wind up the
affairs of the Company by a mutual arrangement.
Mr. CALVERT, on the part of Mr. Angerstein and Mr. Syd-
ney Smith, of Lewisham, cross-examined Mr. Stephenson,
with a view of showing that the property of those gentlemen
would be most materially injured by the proposed line.
Mr. IIiGG elicited that a fresh station would have to be
erected in Maidstone (although there is one now in exist-
ence there) in consequence of the difference of the levels of
the proposed and the existing lines.
A solicitor in the body of the court put some questions for
Mr. Edward Lovett. of Sittingbourne.
re-examined, ALEXANDER having re-exned, stated that he had
now concluded on the landowners cases, and as it was im-
possible to conclude the re-examination on the whole case
that day, perhaps the Committee would see the propriety of
adjournment.
The CHAIRMAN assented, and the Committee rose for
the Easter recess.