The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-02 00:00:00

GROUP XXIX

This Committee re-assembled this morning in Room 19 ; present,
the Right Hon. H. Labouchere (chairman), Sir William Molesworth,
Sir T. Duckworth, Mr. John A. Smith. and Colonel Rawdon.
SOUTLI Ali Y AND (HUNTINGDON
Balk CH).

The evidence on behalf of the promoters of this scheme was re-
sumed.
Mr. Robert Stephenson, the engineer, was the first witness
examined —His attention generally had been called to the district
south of Leicester, with a view to railway accommodation. He was
asked to become engineer to the Rugby and Huntingdon (competing)
line, but he refused on the ground that the scheme was uncalled for,
and wont.' prove ruinous to the shareholders. Ills reason was,
first, the exceedingly difficult nature of the country which
he had surveyed before that for the Loud,n and Birmingham line.
He also thought it would not be so good a line as others that might
be selected for the accommodation of the district. The proposed
branch had been laid out in connexion with the scheme of the South
Midland Railway Company, and would in his opinion be much pre-
ferable to the competing scheme. Witness then went into
a comparative statement of the relative merits of both
projects, from which he concluded that the South Midland
was preferable, on the the ground of the greater accommodation it
would afford, the less distance which would require to be con-
structed, and t: e consequent less expense which the branch
would cost. The promoters •of the present line would start
with a balance in their favour of 7001. per mile over their
competitors. The one scheme would take only an outlay of new
capital of 300,0001., while the other line would take an outlay of
700,0001. It must there:ore be evident that the former would be able
to charge le_ fares, and at the same time be a more remunerative
unae.reking. The gradients 'of the projected line were much more
and though the other scheme was six miles shorter,
favourable,
the distance bet.. fen Huntingdon and Rugby would be accomplished
sooner by the proposes. scheme in consequence of the easier gradients.
Cross •examined—There ,:sald nut be much difference in the rela-
tive meritS of the two schemes e. 2 regarded the communication with
d o
What line,e vieiefer which
mpaer at hpwee.ns
penny.
ytoh.
t,
the south-west. The Rugby and Hunt;g
may not have been the present Company
no direct line from Huntingdon to Rugby woub:
Considerable time was here spent in discussing' the. propriety of
competing lines per se, or to view them in connexion with oll.ler more
confining the questions to witness to the relative men: of the two
extended hues, of which they in reality form a portion.
The Committee was of opinion that it would be better for cetniSei
on both sides to confine themselves as much as possible to the
branches immediately under the consideration of the Committee.
The CIIAIIIXAN again intimated that it was the wish of the Com-
mittee that the counsel for promoters should confine the question as
to gradients to that part of the scheme between Huntingdon and
St
as compared with the competing scheme. By this means
the investigation would be considerably narrowed.
tiddel, civil engineer, was then examined, and corroborated
the evidence of the last witness. The steepe t gradient on the whole
of the proposed branch wee lin 100. It was on the west side of the
Blisworth and Peterborough Railway. The length of it was one mile
and three-quarters. From Huntingdon to titanwick the steepest
gradient was 1 in 144. There was no gradient so severe as that
en the existing line. On the competing line between Kettering
and Starwich the steepest gradient was one in a hundred. The
length of that gradient was one mile. Witness then gave the formal
prooftf as to th curves, estimates, &c.

Cross-examined —The worst gradient on the competing lino was
o:ie in a hundred, and Its length was one mile. There was a gradient
in the proposed line of one in a hundred, the length of which was
one mile and three-quarters.
Mr. Morrison, superintendent of the goods' department of the
London and Birmingham Railway, was examined, with the view of
proving that that Company charged by the line from Northampton
to Peterborough, as well as to London, by the geographical distance,
or "as the crow flies," for all goods.
Mr. Charles I'. Berkeley, a land valuer, deposed to having valued
the land over which the proposed line passes. 72,653/. was the
amount of the total valuation. That was a high average for the land.
This closed the case for the -promoters, subject to putting in a list
of gradients.
Mr. DEJEX, on the part of Lord Sandwich, addressed the Com-
mittee against the proposed line. lie complained that it ran for a
considerable distance along his park, and unless public necessity
made it imperative, he did not wish either the proposed or the com-
peting line to be made, but of the two he would prfeLr
othrde competing
one. If the Loudon and York line were carried,
would be completely hemmed in. The Learned Counsel concluded
by entreating the Committee to take his Lordship's petition into their
consideration, as they did that of Lord liarboroagh in the case of
the Syston and Peterborough line, and give him that protection Which
his case require d.
There being no other opposition this case closed.
Some discussion then took place as to what line should be taken
next in order. and the Committee, on referring to the minutes of
the first day's proceedings, found that they had decided
on taking the projects in the onler they were read the second thne,
imspective of any oth. r consideration and whether they were com-
peting lines or not. In conformity With this decision, the next Bill
was ttio