The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-02 00:00:00

GROUP XLII.

This Committee re-assembled to-day at twelve o'clock.
LIVERPOOL, OILIVISICIRE, AND PRESTON.
After some discussion on an objection raised by the counsel
for the opponents of the Bill (the preamble of which( was
proved on Tuesday), the remaining clauses were proceeded
with, after which the Committee adjourned.

GROUP LIII.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)

El-RMINGNAIV/, WOLVERHAMPTON, AND
STOUR VALLEY (BIRMINGHAM WOL-
VERHAMPTON, AND DUDLEY LINES.)

A long discussion ensued between the engineers of the two
companies ; but eventually an arrangement satisfactory to
both parties was entered into, and the station clause, together
with the remaining clauses, were agreed to, as well as the
report.
The Hon. CHAIRMAN intimated that, if the Shrewsbury
andp3irmingham parties were not prepared with their case,
the Committee would most probably adjourn for a week.

SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE JUNCTION (SIMS-
TON AND PRESTFIELD BRANCH).

The promoters of this Bill announced that they did not
intend proceeding with it.
The Bill was accordingly withdrawn.
SOUTH STAFFORDSHISLE JUNCTION
LENEALL AND nLoxicAza. BRANCH).

This Bill was also withdrawn.
DERDYSHIItiI, STAFFOILDSNIRE, AND

WORCESTER JUNCTION.

This Bill being called on,,
Mr. ALEXANDER, Q.C., objected to the Committee pro-
ceeding to entertain the Bill, inasmuch as it had been twice
called upon, and the parties were not prepared to go on with
it. In fact, he doubted whether any appearance had ever
been entered for the parties. He appeared for the
Birminghom Canal Company, in opposition to the scheme,
because it proposed to pass his clients' property about five or
six times in the most objectionable manner. His clients had
regularly attended before the Committee until the case
had been called on by the Committee, and as the promoters
were not prepared to proceed, they took it for granted that
the scheme had become defunct. That was the general im-
pression, and it was only in consequence of the solicitor of
the Bill waiting upon his clients the previous day, and stating
that the Bill was intended to be proceeded with, that they
were now in attendance to oppose it.
On reference to the minutes of the Committee Clerk, it
was ascertained that an appearance had been regularly
entered for the Bill, and it was accordingly suffered to be
proceeded with.
The Hon. Mr. TALBOT, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Mat-
thews), proceeded to state the case on behalf of the promoters.
He stated that the Bill was in effect unopposed, because,
although his Learned Friend, Mr. Alexander, was instructed
to appear on behalf of the Birmingham Canal Company to
appear against the preamble, when they came to look into the
petition of his clients, the Committee would find that his
grievances were very inconsiderable and easy of adjustment.
The line would commence at Rudgely, upon the Trent Valley
line, and would pass through the mineral district in that neigh-
bourhood. which was a most important one. It then passed
throughCannock, and so down to a place called Rushall, on the
line of the South Staffordshire Railway, and afterwards formed
a junction with the Grand Junction Company, and thence
it proceeded to Birmingham and Wolverhampton. The length
of the line, he believed, was between 14 and 15 miles. The
whole estimate would amount to 260,0001. There would be
two unimportant tunnels. The object of it was to introduce
into the country already mentioned a railway which would
give them a communication with the important district of
Bilston, Wednesbury, &c. Having descanted upon the oppo-
sition offered to the line by the proprietors of the Birmingham
Canal, who he stated were the only opponents of the line, the
Learned Counsel proceeded to call, in support of his case,
Mr. George Remington, who stated that he and Sir John
Rennie were the joint engineers of the line, and having de-
scribed the route of the line, and the character of the coun-
try, as far as regarded the traffic, he said that this was the
best engineering line the country could admit of. The
worst gradient on the line would be 1 in 90, and the ruling
gradient lin 230. It would be a double line, and he had no
doubt that the traffic of the county would justify the con-
struction of a double line. He then gave a detail of the
estimates, and afterwards described the mode in which the
promoters proposed to cross the Birmingham Canal Company.
Cross-examined by Mr. ALEXANDER—There was not a
single building along the line between Brewaston and Kent.
He had never laid Gown a line along so thinly a populated
district as this would pass through ; but he expected great
passenger-traffic between Wednesbury, &c., and the Pot-
teries. He did not know that there was great connexion
between the people of the Potteries and Wednesbury, &c.,
and yet the passenger-traffic between the two places was
relied on as one of the principal sources of profit. Lord
Hatherton had some coal-pits along the proposed line.
The Hon. Mr. TALBOT submitted that his Learned Friend
was not entitled to cross-examine the witness as to the
general merits of the line.
The Hon. CHAIRMAN said that Mr. Alexander was, of
course, entitled to continue his cross-examination as long as
his clients had petitioned against the preamble.
Re examination resumed—The length of the large tunnel
would be 711, and he did not know whether it would have to
pass through free stone; he had not bored the land through
which that or the other tunnel (264 yards long) would have
to pass. He did not know whether there was a good traffic
on the canal. The witness having undergone a lengthy
cross-examination as to the estimates,

This witness was re-examined by the Hon. Mr. TALBOT,
and said that the Carnock Chase, on which Mr. Alexander
had dwelt at so much length and with so much drollery, was
by no means more unpopulated than Chat Moss, over which
the Liverpool and Manchester Railway passed. The line he
had no doubt would be a source of great profit to the share-
holder, and advantage to the public.
The Committee adjourned until twelve o'clock to-morrow.