The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-09 00:00:00

LONDON AND XIAXGIETON (DORZING

2/323ANCLC).

Mr. Rastriek, C.E., was under examination when the Committee
adjourned.

GIWITP XVIII.

The Committee on this group met this morning at twelve o'clock.
Mr. E. Detilson, chairman.

SONIMILSETSELIRE NIXDL.AND.
Mr. Sergeant KiNct.axx opene I the case for the opposition on the
part of Lord Coke, Mr. Somerville, and Mr. Figgins. lie dwelt
principally upon the inaccuracies in the levels of the sections pre-
pared by the engineer, Mr. Hill.
The first «fitness called was Mr. Gregory, engineer, who gave
evidence as to the above inaccuracies, and stated that there were
Instances in which the error was so great as to require an additional
outlay of 15,000/. more than stated in the est mati.s.
The examination of this witness occupied.the whole of the day, and
was not completed when the committee rose.

GROUP XIX.
BRIDOMITIATER aavn TAUNTON CANAL,
iTZ-1.12.1711.1r, .112 ID ZIAZ3OUR.
The Cofnmitice met this morning at twelve o'clock. Lcrd 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 both ra of the
Channel, but especially in that portion where the harbour is pro-
posed to be constructed. He stated that he had made soundings
in several places, and Wand occas onally 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 improviag it and the canal. The river
offered good navigation, but it was now much out of order, and
scarcely navigable, the gcotls traill.": going by the canal. The river
could have been made navigable by the expenditure of a considerable
snm of money, but he was not in a position to state the exact amount
with anything I,ke accuracy. A small portion of the river was now
uecd by the Canal Company. The maintenance of the present water
communication was much Cesired.

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 commonlcaticn 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 snow 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 promoters of the line had adopted, was to pro-
mote intercourse between Stolford and the South of Wales, on the
opposite sele of the channel, and could not be advantageously
coupled with a railway. Besides, it was evident that the tor-
penditnre 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 achluccel
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,Colia -
pally did not offer all the communication which was required. After
some further observations, lie concluded by calling on the Committee
to reject the preamble of the Bill.
Mr. Weei.e then addressed the Committee in reply, and held that
both the harbour and railway were required by the increased wants
of the district, that the evidence c f Mr. Hall, the engineer, and the
corroborating evidence of Mr. emelt, that both could be easily con-
(
structed and within the estimates, Lad not been attempted to be
disproved, and that the oppposition of the Bristol and Ex.-ter Rail.
way, after the great injury they had done to their canal, was both
unfair and uncalled for. Besides, the owners of the canal simply
sought to convert their property Into a railway, and considered
they were entitled to some consideration at their hand 3, inasmuch
as the competition which would take place in the event of their
acceding to the Bill, would not be of an unwholesome, but a partial
competition from Bridgwater to Taunton, for the benefit of the public,
and concluded by calling on the Committee to pees the preamble of
the Bill.

The room was then cleared, and on the admission of the parties,
The CHAIRMAN intimated that the Committee were of opinion that
the preambles of the Crewkerne brancl!, and the Bridgewater and
Taunton Railway, had not been proved, but they were of opinion that
the preambles of the Chard Canal Railway had been proved.
The Committee then proceeded with the clauses of the successful
Bill, which were agreed W, and they adjourned.