The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-24 00:00:00

GROUP LIII,

BIZEIVI3NGILit.7II AND sznIEVITSnUIVI, AND
BZEZI:INGEICAM, V7Ct:EzVISISHAIV PTOIT, AND
DUDLEY. -

. _
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
- - -

Mr. RicaLtans also cross-examined this witness on behalf of the
Shrewsbury and Birmingham Company, when lie admitted that he
was ashareholder in tate Oxford, We: center, and Wolverhampton
line, and • had been one of the witnesses called ,ou
behalf of the Great Western Company, on behalf of the
broad : gauge, and three hundred shares were allotted to him
for hit Services. Mr. Barter. Mr. Thorneycroft, and others, were
also sittfliarly rewarded for their trouble. He was a director in this,
the Bl:rmitigharn and Oxford, and South Staffordshire Companies,
and in ,fiCt every line which proposed to afford an independent
railway communication to the district In which his works were
situated: Ile was decidedly an advocate of the broad gauge, but It was
not because this line would be constructed an the broad gauge that he
advocat&l it. The question of gauge had, in fact, been kept in abey-
ance by the promoters. He at one time admitted that he should
rejoice to see the day when the broad gauge would be extended from
London to Liverpool, and he had no doubt: that that would be
the case. He was certainly an enemy of monopoly, and he would
disapprove of a Great Western monopoly being carried out in the
district with which he was connected, but be had stated at the
meetings of this company that he saw no objection to their being
amaleamated with the Great Western Company. That com-
' Trany had an interest In this scheme, and would also be the
leseees of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton and
Oxford and Birmingham lines, which would have the
effect of putting the whole of the districts through which
they passed under the control of the Great Western Company. He
believed that even if those lines were formed, the Birmingham
Canal would continue to maintain its existence, sail that the proposed
combination of the Shrewsbury and Birmingham Company with the
Canal Company would have a more prejudicial effect on those now
interested in the canal than the success of the Birmingham, Wolver-
hampton, and Dudley scheme. He did riot think that the clause in
the Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway Bill, placing that com-
pany under the control of the Board of Trade, would give
much protection to the public against the attempts of adroit
men. The Shrewsbury and Birmingham scheme he believed to be
a complete piracy. .The prospectus of the company of which he
was an advocate was published about the Ist- of October. He be.
lieved that the Shrewsbury and Birmingham scheme originated in
1844. lie totally departed from the report of the Gauge Commis-
sioners as to the difficulties of a break of gauge. Of course he would
rather have a continuity of gauge, but he did not think the disad-
vantage so great as had been represented by commercial men.
Mr. SELF, on the part of certain landowners along the line, wished
to cross-examine the witness, to show the injury which the line
would inflict on them, but

.....
Mr. Roeirrsote doubted whether their petition had been properly
presented, in which case he had no locus standi.
The petition was produced, and after being inspected It was agreed
that. Mr.-Sriat might cross-examine the witness, who stated that he
did not believe that the promoters of this line proposed to have any
side lines. He could not say which of the two lines would most in-
tercept the passages between the iron works of Wolverhampton and
the canal.

Cross-examined—The side lines might be provided for by a clause,
or some arrangement. Although Darleston would not be accommo-
dated by this line, Creat-bridge, which was of much greater impor-
tance, and which was left entirely nnaccommodated by the Sbrews-
bury and DiFmingliam, 'would be passed through by this 1 ne.

Mr. George Frederick Muntz, M.P. for Birmingham, was next
called, and stated that he was extensively engaged in marufactures
there. The people of that district differed mcch upon railway com-
munication with the other parts of the country. He had considered
the retati've merits of the different lines before the Committee, and he
thought that this line would give the best accommodation.
He had - originally been a supporter of the other line, but
finding that the promoters would not form an inde-
pendent company, he had come over to this, which would be
an independent company. He considered that Snow-hill was Use
better situation of the two proposed for stations at Birmingham,
but both were good sites. The majority of people and goods enter-
ing Birmingham from Wolverhampton entered and stopped in the
neighbourhood of Snow-hill. He was of the same opinion as the pre-
ceding witness as to the prejudicial effects of the control which the
London and Birmingham Company would have over the Shrewsbury
and Birmingham. The construction of this line would have the
effect of reducing the price of coal in Birmingham, and particularly
so, because it was an independent line. The directors of this line
were gentlemen largely interested in the district over which it Would
pass. Mr. Spooner as well as himself had been induced by the ur-
gent representations of their constituents, to become converts to this
scheme.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mecums-1U had been a supporter of
the Shrewsbury and Birmingham line, because it was the first in the
market, put after the Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Dudley
came out, he saw that it was decidedly a better line. It v gold
not beitader the control of any canal or railway company, and it
would best verve the interests ()this constituents. No public dem in-
stration had been made in favour of thisAine by the people
of Birmingham, but he had been
:applied to by several
of his : constituents personally to support it. The Snow-hill
station was decidedly the beater one. He knew instances
in which competition had not served the interests of the public, and
he was therefore not always in favour of competition. He Aid not
think that low tolls was the most important point to be considered
in those matters ; economy, combined with time, was the most im-
i,ertaut. Ifthese things could be obtained by arratigetnehts between
tWo companies he should Ise content, but he did not think that. the
London and Birmingham had properly served the public, and he
should therefore look suspiciously upon any union with them.
Re-elarnined by Mr. Roeueson—From what he had" seen, he
belleVed that nothing but competition would compel the London and
Binninghant Railway Company to act rightly towards the public.
To Mr. It, CLAYTON—I am merely looking upon this line as a
means cf giving accommodation to the people between Wolver-
hampton-and Birmingham, and not as a line calculated to give a
direct communication with London.
Mr: Johti Barker, ironinastert Staffordshire, stated that he manu-
factured about 25,000 tons of iron, and used 150,000 tons of coal.
He and his,partners employed between 1,100 and 1,300 men, as well
as his neighbours. Ills works were in the township of _.Wolver-
hamptom end would be much better accommodated by this than its
rival lines.' This would be a competing line, and therefore very
beneficial to the public. Clauses In Acts of Parliament did not, In
his opinion, protect the public against abuses on the parts of railway
proprietors.

The- witness was cross-examined at some length by the_ Learned
Counsel for the Shrewsbury and Birmingham scheme, but nothing
very material was elicited, further than the admission that this
company • had made no provision against its amalgamation with
other companies.
At four o'clock the Committee adjourned until twelve to-morrow.

GROUP LVIII.

ZIRISTOL A.N'l3 BIRMINGHAM AND MID-
LAND AMALGAMATION.

The Committee proceeded with the clauses of this Bill at some
length. Their consideration occupied the greater portion of the day.

GROUP LIX,

The chairman (Mr. E. Buller) and the other members of this
Committee re-assembled to-day at twelve o'clock, in ltoom 22.

I.IVEUPOOL AND DUET AND IYIANCIIES.•
TEn AND LEEDS RAILWAYS AMAIscrA..
IVIATION.
The formal preliminary proceedings in the Bill were gone through.
Mr. Hors applied, on behalf of certain shareholders In this under-
taking, to be heard against the preamble of the Bill, which led to a
long disenssion, and terminated in the Committee deciding against
the petitioners.

za-ismltti,oom min JIMMY, AND IVE itTirCUZZI-
Mit - AND LEEDS AMALGAMATION; AND MAN-
CHESTER AND BOLTON, AND BURY CANAL
NAVIGATION .AND RAILW ; AND MANCHES-
TER AND LEEDS AMALGAMATION.

Mr..LAING described the advantages that would result from the
proposed amalgamation.

Some general evidence in support of the Bill was then adduced,
after whk h the Committee adjourned.

GROUP Ltit.

CA.MEDONZAN, GLASGOW, AND GARN-
Ran= AND COATBRXDGE PURCHASE.
The Committee met this day at twelve o'clock, Sir John Duck.
worth, chairman.
Several of the clauses of the above-named Rill were gone through,
and after some amendments, were agreed to, the remaining clauses
were postponed.
The Committee adjourned at three o'clock till twelve to-marrow.
THE CAIMBOISMATZ, POLLOC, AND GOVAN,