The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-30 00:00:00

GROUP XX,

The Committee met at twelve o'clock. Present, Mr. Sotheron
(chairman), Sir R. Pigot, Lord W. Bentinck, Mr, Rosa, and Mr.
Tancred.
-- -

STAINES AND RICZBIOND.

The returns necessary, according to the recent resolutions of the
House of Commons, were handed in.
Mr. M. Cuamszas, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Calvert and Mr.
Cowan) opened very briefly the merits of the line. In consequence of
the line which was being constructed between Richmond and London,
the present project was, in fact, a metropolitan line. It was ten miles
ix length, and would be executed at less than 150,0001., although the
proposed capital was 200,0001. The people of Staines were almost
unanimous in favour of the proposed line, and were earnest to have
it passed by the House ; for since the construction of the South-
Western and the Great Western Railways in the neighbourhood, that
town, through which sixty or seventy coaches used to
pass daily, had suffered exceedingly; and, moreover, the
fact of the importance of a railway from Staines was
witnessed by there being two other Bills before the House for the
same purpose. The proposed line passed the Thames near Rich-
mond, and from that place proceeded on to Hungerford-bridge, by the
Richmond and London Railway, through several important towns.
The competing linos were the London and Hounslow, the London
and Windsor, and the Henley and Staines ; but these were encum-
bered with great expense and engineering difficulties; besides that,
the London and Windsor proposed terminating at Knightsbridge, which
anti any
nb e a inostinconvenientid
necessarystri o
fora station
a community.respectedtionas coalsm
y of f those commodities
Mr.
proprietors and
oCthhaentearnsdsaaildludthederegewneerraile oythwer
tohpeNenhaenrthaCteprrivoaftetheir opposition,
which would resolve itself into a
of E
questili
m and
oaf other
compensation.
Mr. T. H. Ward, a magistrate gentlemen,
wer% then examined before the Committee as to traffic on the source
of the proposed line.

Thd -exfimivation of witnesses had not ilnisked when the Committee
adjourned.

GROUP XXVII.
This Committee re-assembled this morning at the usual hour; Sir
Charles Lemon in the chair.

NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE (THREE LINES);
The engineering evidence on this scheme was resumed this morn.:
ing by the examination of Mr. John Hawkshaw, the engineer of the
Leeds arid Manchester Railway, who deposed at great length to the
practicability of continuing' the line, and to the great accommodation
they would afford to the traffic of the dietrict. It was merely a cor-
roboration of the evidence given by Mr. Bidder, which we have
already given.

This closed the case for the promoters.
Mr. Towsseso, counsel on behalf of Mr. Wood and Mr. Warren,
two opposing petitioners, then addressel the Committee, and was
proceeding to enter into the general question of railway eommunicat
tion for the district, and to urge considerations which affected the
preamble of the Bill, when he was interrupted by
Sergeant WRANGKAN, on behalf of promoters, who contended that
the opposing petitioner (Mr. Wood) had no right to enter into the
general question at all, that his objection to the line, as far as it
affected his own property, was all that could be gone into ; and this,
he again asserted, was merely a question for compensation.
The room was cleared in the point, and on our re-admilsion,
The CorasurreE decided agabist the course proposed to be pursued
by counsel for the opposition.
Mr. SMITS then addressed the Committee, on behalf of Lord Begot
and the Inhabitants of Leek, against the Churnet 'Valley line, and
contended that it would not afford the accommodation which the
district required ; that it was not a bona Ale undertaking, for the
directors last year would give no guarantee (when called upon to do
so) that it would be then carried out, and that the promoters were
merely desirous to pre-occupy the district, so as to prevent of ier
companies from laying down lines which would afford better accom-
modation.

Mr. Ohs Honer, solicitor to the Macclesfield and Lichfield Railway
(a projected line lost this session on the standing orders), was then
exainthed by Mr. Austin, for the purpose of showing that the pre-
sent opposition, though ostensibly from Lord Bagot and the inha-
bitants of Leek, was in reality from that Company, whose project
was at pre=ent in abeyance.

Mr. iIISTIN then submitted that the petitioners had no right to be
heard, inasmuch as the petition was " got up" by the Macclesfield
and Lichtlel.l Company, and did not emanate from the Inhabitants
of Leek as a bone fide opposition to the line.

Mr. ➢I. SMITH objected to such surmises, and said that the opposi
tion of Leek was not prompted by the Macclesfield Company, bu
that their opposition existed before that company was incorporated.
The Committee decided that evidence its favour of a competini
line could not be admitted.
The Committee then adjourned.