The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-27 00:00:00

EXETER AND ZXMOITTIL

Mr. W. Kennedy, a magistrate and late mayor of Exeter,
was an advocate and supporter of this line, stating his prin-
cipal objection to the other route was the impediment created
on passing the canal.

kr. Gai'd, of Exeter, said the inhabitants of that city were
in favour of the proposed scheme, but would prefer the one
under consideration; the other crossing and likely to inter-
rupt the navigation of the canal.
It being now four o'clock, the Committee adjourned until
twelve o'clock to-morrow (Friday).

GROUP XXI.
LONDON AND OXFORD.

The Committee re-assembled this morning at the usual
hour, Mr. Finch in the chair.

-
The promoters proceeded to call witnesses in support of
their line.

The first witness called by Mr. Hildyard was
Mr. Thomas Treacher, who stated that he had resided in
High Wycombe all his life, and that he was a chair manu-
facturer, coal-merchant, and small farmer He said the
price of coals during the last four years was 40s, per ton.
The poor bought their coals in small quantities, and paid,
in consequence, 2s. to 2s. 2d. more per ton. About 1,000 tons
were annually consumed by the inhabitants. The proprie.
tors of paper-mills, of which there were a considerable num-
ber, bought their own coals, and not from the coal-merchants
in the town. If the coals they used were cheapened, these
manufactures would receive a great impetus. By the line,
or rather an extension of it towards the north, say to Ayles-
bury, a communication with the important coal districts of
the north would be opened up. He had made a calculation
as to the price of coals if they had the railway, and found
that the coals which he was now selling at 355. aught be
sold fur 275. or 28s. per ton. The reduction in price would
greatly increase the consumption. A cheap communication
with the north of England for chairs, of which a great num-
ber were manufactured in High Wycombe, and in the sur-
rounding districts, was required. About one-half of the
chairs manufactured there were sent to the northern districts,
to which they had no available water communication. If
they had the railway, they could send chairs to Lon-
don at threepence less each than their transmission now
cost. They had to send chairs intended for London to Tring,
19 miles from High Wycombe. The proposed branch of the
Great Western to the town would not be of great advantage.
[No point of any consequence was elicited in this witness's
cross-examination by Mr. Wells.]
Mr. W. Charsley, a farmer at Woburn, examined by Mr.
WARREN—He grew, on the average, annually 120 quarters
of wheat, 200 quarters of barley, and 100 quarters of oats,
which he generally sent by waggon, at considerable expense,
to the Uxbridge market. By the proposed railway he should
be enabled to send his corn to other markets, and to attend
them himself—Oxford and London, for instance—and to
compete more effectually with the great growers of corn.
The branch of the Great Western, not being direct, would not
be of much advantage.
By the CHAIRMAN—Had formed nolostimate of the ex-
pense of conveying goods by the Oxford and London or by
the branch of the Great Western, and along its course to
London. He could send flour to London by the proposed
line. Never uses the Bath coal.

Mr. R. S. Cuming, of the firm of Coming, Stoneham, and
Co., drapers, grocers, &c., Wycombe, received 700 tons of
goods annually, the carriage of which cost about 8001.
a year. They received grocery mostly from London, and a
great pOrtion of the drapery fi.inn Manchester, but they ge-
nerally bought them in the London market. If there was
a direct communication with Manchester they should buy
the greater part of their goods there. No doubt, in that
case, he should go to Manchester himself to purchase goods,
as that would save the expense of agency, &c. The railway
would be of great advantage to them in their business, as
the carriage of their goods would be consequently reduced ;
but he was of opinion that theproposed branch of the Great
Western would injure the trade of the town instead of
benefiting it, because the five coaches which now ran through
the town would be reduced it number; not more than two
trains would run each day, and the frequency of communica-
tion with London and Oxford consequently decreased.
After the examination of several other witnesses, the Com-
mittee adjourned till to-morrow,

GROUP XXV.
The Select Committee appointed to consider the merits of
he lines comprised' in this group, re-assembled at the usual
hour this morning in the Westminster Sessions House, the
Hon. Mr. Lascelle,s in the chair,
itartwicH AND EASTERN COUNTIES
strive TEON.
The examination of the merits of this scheme was re-
sumed. Mr. John Braithwaite, the engineer of the line, was
examined at some length by Mr. Ogle, on behalf of several
landholders, who complained that the line would inflict
more ix-jury on their property than the competing line.
Mr. JAMES submitted to the Committee that all the cases
were simply matter for compenimise.
The Committee concurring in this opinion, the cross-exa-
mination was not persisted in.
Mr. Biaithwaite was then examined at some length. He
said he had never heard, until he entered that Committee, of
there being any trade between Ipswich and Harwich. His
object had been to obtain the shortest line between Harwich
and the metropolis; but if it were thought that the line
ought to accommodate Ipswich, there would be no difficulty
in having a fork at the point ofjunetion with the Eastern
Union, one branch pointing te Ipswich and the other to
London. The distance from Ipswich to Harwich was twenty
miles by rail, while by the Orwell it was only nine miles, and
there WAS a cheap steam-boat communication; passengers
were carried, he believed, for sixpence a head.
Captain Richardson, one of the directors of the line, having
been one of the deputation that waited upon the Board of
Admiralty with reference to the two proposed lines, proved
that the Admiralty preferred Mr. Braithwaite's line to Mr.
Lock's, which ran along, the coast. The matter was discussed
in the presence of Captain Beaufort, who was decidedly in fa-
your of Braithwaite's line. He had seen the Captain that
morning, and asked him to attend before the Committee and
give evidence in favour of the line, but the Admiralty were
averse to his appearing before the Committee in the capacity
of a witness. He could state, 'however, positively that the
Admiralty had adopted their plan for the pier at Harwich,
and rejected the Eastern Union plan.
Mr. Ronsvas.a. objected to this evidence on behalf of the
Eastern Union Company, because he should be in a position
to show that the Admiralty had refused to receive a deputa-
tion from. the Company he represented.
-Mr. JAMES thought this could-hardly be possible.
The CHAIRMAN asked if the Eastern Union Company had
submitted any plan of a pier to the Admiralty?
Mr. RODWELL replied that they had sent to ask the Admi-
ralty to allow a deputation to wait upon them with plans;
but the Admiralty refused to receive it.
Mr. JAMES said he held in his hand a copy of a plan which
the Eastern Union Company submitted to the Admiralty,
and which the Admiralty rejected.
The CHAIRMAN submitted that if the Committee Nam-
tioned the Eastern Union line, how could it be carried out
if the Admiralty opposed it?
Mr. RODWELL said they were prepared to alter the plan
of their pier at Hare ich to ft o •t the views of the Admiralty.
Mr. Ja.stEs said it was impossible for the Eastern Union
Company to depart from their deposited plans and sections.
The CHAIRMAN—Then the case stands thus :—The Eastern
Union. Company
,say they have not been heard. Now if it
should turn out; or if it can be proved, that their line was
considered with the one now before us, and the latter was
adopted by the Admiralty, we shall be inclined to attach
importance to that opinion, although we are not bound by it
or at all disposed to surrender our functions to that board.
Mr. JAMES said the Admiralty had an objection to their
officer attending there in the capacity of a witness, and,
therefore, they could not prove the opinion of the board
from official authority, but there was this paragraph in one
of the reports of the Board of Trade, which was pretty con-
clusive on the point:—" But when the circumstances
of the port of Harwich are taken into considera-
tion, national interests become mixed up with
and form important ingredients in the question, especially as
such project contemplates the erection of a pier. A commu-
nication had, therefore, been made by this board to the Lords
of the Admiralty on the subject, and they have stated, that
though they do not consider their objections to the Eastern
Union scheme of such vital importance as to be at once fatal
to it, they think Braithwaite's is, upon the whole, the most
expedient, and the best for the public interests. Therefore,
notwithstanding the Eastern Union scheme only requires
eleven miles of new railway, we are of opinion that the state-
ment which we have received from the Admiralty is con-
clusive against it, and that on public grounds Braithwaite's
Harwich Pier Railway is preferable to either of the others."
Mr. TALBOT objected to the Committee assuming that the
Admiralty had decided against the Eastern Union line, with-
out first consulting the officers of that board on the subject;
and even supposing the board had, upon an ex parte state-
ment, decided against them, the Committee ought not to
adopt this decision as their own.
The Committee objected to having any private communi-
cation with the Admiralty on the subject, and ultimately it
was decided that a Speaker's order should be sent -for Capt.-
Beaufort to attend and give evidence on the point.
Captain RICHARDSON stated that lie understood the objec-
tion of the Board of Admiralty to the coast line was, that in
time of war it would be liable to Attack foul the enemy's
Teasels pealing up the Orwell.

Mr. H. Blanchard, a retired East India merchant, and the
owner of a large estate in the neighbourhood of the lire, gave
evidence of the local advantages of the sche:ne. Other ge-
neral evidence of this nature, showing that the majority of
the inhabitants of the district preferred Mr. Braithwaite's
lie to the coast, line was adduced, after which a
communication was put into the hands of the Chairman. who
intimated that its contents informed him, that as Captain
Beaufort was the confidential adviser of the Admiralty, it
would be utterly inconsistent with his office to appear before
the Committee to give evidence in his official capacity, and
therefore (added the Hon. Gentleman) they could only take
it for granted that the Admiralty assented to Mr. Braith-
waite'a line, but not to the one running along the coast.
Mr. COCKBURN stated that the Commissioners of Woods
and Forests bad been applied to for their opinion on the
subject of the two lines, but they declined giving a preference
to either line.

This closed the case for the promoters.
The Committee then adjourned till twelve o'clock to
morrow.

IMPERIAL PA RLIA MENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, March 26.
Their Lordships met at the usual hour.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
The Duke of RIOII MOND wished to ask the Noble
Duke (Wellington) when he should move the adjourn-
ment of the House for the Easter holidays ?
The Duke of WELLINGTON—I propose to move,
on Tuesday, the 7th, that your Lordships should adjourn
until Tuesday, the 21st of April.
The Duke of RICHMOND said it would also be very
convenient to their Lordships to know when it was likely
the Corn-law Repeal Bill would be brought up from the
House of Commons. He had thought it very probable
that it would be brought up before the 27th.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said, certainly not
before the 27th of April.
Lerd BROUGHAM—The Noble Duke must be aware
that it cannot be brought up before the 25th of April,
because they were going into " coercion" next week.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said it would cer-
tainly not be brought up before the 25th.
THE REGULATION OF CHARITIES.
A RIGHT REV. PRELATE presented a petition against
the second reading of this Bill, which stood fur to-
morrow.

Messengers from the Commons brought up several
Bills.

TIDAL HARBOURS' COMMISSION.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH presented a repot.'
from this

OUT PENSIONERS (GREENWICH.)
On the motion of the.NonLit EARL this Bill was read a
second time.

LINCOLNSHIRE JUNCTION RAILWAY.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition from a gentle-
man named Stamford (as we understood) against this
railway, on account of its separating his residence from
his garden, stables, and other property, by a deep cut
ting, and because there was a railway between the parts
of the country which it was propo,:ed to accommodate.

NORTH DEVON' RAILWAY.
Earl FORTESCUE presented a petition from certain
owners and occupiers of land in the county of Devon,
against the Exeter and Crediton Railway (as we under-
stood). The petioners complained that this scheme, if
allowed to proceed, would interfere with better lines,
and they prayed to be heard against the Bill.
The Noble Lord then proceeded to say that the line
which he appeared in favour of was one which he found
could not come before this House in the present session
owing to some engineering oversight or defect ; but if
the Bill which opposed that line, and which was nog•
before their Lordships' should pass this House, then they
would be passing a second best line for a best line, a::d
the great evil would exist of having two lines
competing with each other, without doing the least
good to themselves or to the country. He trusted
therefore that if the North Devon line should not come
before the House this year, they would suspend their
judgment upon the present Bill until they had heard
the merits of this.

MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.
A Messenger from the House of Commons appeared,
praying the permission of !heir Lordships' House to
Lord Malmesbury to give evidence before a Committee
of the House of Commons, to which their Lordship_-.
assented.