The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-03 00:00:00

RUGBY AND STABIFORD RAILWAY.

The evidence on the part of the promoters of this project was re-
sumed, and as the Committee had yesterday expressed themselves
satisfied with the sufficiency of the evidence which had been brought
before them, as to traffic and the accomm-dation required by the
country through which the line would pass, the engineering evi-
dence was gone into this morning, and the first witness called was

Mr. Charles Liddell, who was engineer for the line, deposed to the
general course of the railway, and that It would be a complete and
integral line between the London and Birmingham Railway at
Ru gUy, and the Syston and Peterborough Railway near Stamford.
That there were no peculiar engineering difficulties—that there
would be one tunnel of 440 yards in length which would not be diffi-
cult of construction, as the strata through which it would run was
indurated blue clay tending to shales—that the steepest gradient on
the line was 1 in 148, and the sharpest curve three furlongs, which
occurs at the junction with the London and Birmingham Railway,
at Rugby. The length of the proposed line was 34 miles and 7 fur-
longs—there were no branches—that a number of highways would
be c-ossed on the level, the general reason of which was stated to be,
the greater inconvenience that would arise to the public from carry-
ing the roads by bridges over that line, which, from the level nature
of the country, would occasion an ascent and descent in crossing such
bridges—and that tke traffic on many of these roads was so small
that the convenience of a level crossing would be scarcely felt.
The following was the expense of the different works required :
Excavations, 114,0091. ; tunnels, 26,4901. ; fencing, 14,9711. ; bridges
and level crossing for turnpike and public roads, 29,1371.; for occu-
pation roads, 17,0001. ; river bridges, 14,320/. ; culverts and common
drainage, 9,537/. ; stations, 35,0001. ; permanent way, 187,0001. ;
purchase of land, severance, and building, 99,345/. ; Parliamentary
and contingent expenses about 10 per cent., or 55,2811., making a
total of 600,005/. The estimated expense of maintaining the railway
was about 10,0001. a year, inclusive of the cost of working, but en-
tirely depending on the amount of traffic. There were of owners
33 assents, embracing 11 miles 6 furlongs, 47 dissents, 10 miles 6 fur-
longs ; neuters, 1 mile 2 furlongs. Of lessees, there was I assent and
I dissent ; of occupiers, there were 53 assents, 198 dissents ; and
neuters, 6.
This witness was cross-examined by Mr. noon, on 1 ehalf of Mr.
Marshall, a landowner on the line, as to the length of railway com-
munication constructed by and under the control of the Leaden and
Birmingham Railway Company, when he was interrupted by the
CHAIRMAN, who asked what was tke object of the present line of
examination ?

Mr. noon explained that he wished to show that the present
project militated against the report of the Amalgamation Com-
mittee, and was an attempt by the London and Birmingham Com-
pany to obtain a new main line in the direction of the northeast.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to continue the:eross•examina-
tion as to the different communications to Wisbeach and the East to
be effected by the present line, when he was again interrupted.
Counsel then confined himself in his cross-examination to the injury
which would be sustained by Mr. Marshall in consequence of the in-
terference of the line with certain ornamental property belonging
to him.

Witness denied that there was any refusal to give Mr. Marshall
information as to the line, or that if any was refused by the parties
employed by witness, the refusal was not by his orders. He laid out
the line by direction of Mr. Stephenson.
Mr. DE Jax, on behalf of Mrs. Jane West and Sophia Mary West,
also cross-examined witness as to the injury his clients would sustain
by the line passing elose to their mansion-house.
Mr. C. P. Berkely, a land valuer, was then examined as to the
value of the land. The valuation was estimated at 99,3451.
Mr. FLooD then addressed the Committee at great length on the
injury which Mr. Marshall, his client, would sustain. He contended
that the proposed line formed part of a chain of communication
east and west, and referred to the superior advantages that the
Rugby and Huntingdon line presented as a means of such communi-
cation. He called upon the Committee, though the latter line was
not then before them, not to lose sight of its objects.
Mr. HILDTAILD here intimated that the promoters had Just settled
the differences between them and Mrs. Jane and Mary Sophia West,
and the only matter therefore remaining for the consideration of the
Committee would be the case of Mr. Marshall.

Mr. Squirrel], eland valuer, was then examined by Mr. Flood in
proof of the allegation of Mr. Marshall's petition.
Mr. Gibbs, the engineer of the Rugby and Huntingdon line, was
called to prove that a better line might be selected, by which the pro-
perty of Mr. Marshall would be avoided.
This closed the case on hehaif of the opposition.
Mr. HILDYABD briefly replied.
The room was then cleared for the deliberation of the Committee.

On our re-admission,
The CHAIRMAN announced the decision of the Committee—" That
the preamble of the Rugby and Stamford Railway was proved, but
that the Committee would not report it to the House till they had
heard the case of the Rugby and Huntingdon Railway." . . ..

..... - .
Mr. Sergeant WRANGHAM, who had made an application before the
room was cleared that the Committee would postpone their decision
on this line till the case of the Rugby and Huntingdon was heard,
proceeded to open the case of the
RUGBY AND RITNTINGDON,

He went into lengthened details to prove the great advantage which
would result in opening out increased facilities for the conveyance of
the eastern, northern. and midland traffic.

At the conclusion of the Learned Counsel's speech. the Committee
adjourned till to-morrow.

Bub-Committee No. 1.

The Committee met at 12 o'clock, in Room No. 7. Present Mr.
Strutt (chairman), Mr. Beckett, Mr. Cavendish, and Mr. Clive, and
disposed Ilrst of the Cambridge Improvement Bill, which affects rail-
ways in an important manner, by a provision that goods carried into
Cambridge by railways, should not be subject to the local tolls.
Upon this clause the Bill was opposed by the trustees for turnpike
and other tolls, on this account, and by the commissioners of paving,
cleansing, &c., who are interested in certain tolls.
On one of the allegations the Committee decided that in the case
of tolls, as of other property, the standing orders required that notice
should be served on the trustees.
The further consideration of the Bill was then postponed till to-
morrow.
The Committee then proceeded with the