The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-28 00:00:00

GROUP XIX.

This Committees assembled this day at twelve o'clock ; present,
Lord Harry Vane (chairman), the Earl of Marsh, the Hon. Frances
Scott, Mr. David Morris, and Mr. Phillip Bennett.
The further consideration of the proposed line of the
EX.ETLE, AND EX: MOUTH

was proceeded with.
Mr. Rowe and Mr. COCKBURN appeared on the part of this Bill,
who produced several witnesses, residents in Exeter, Exmouth, and
Topsham, all of whom advecated the present line now
under consideration, as it afforded more facility and ac-
commodation to ;the public than the opposite scheme. The
principal objections they advanced against the rival Bill were—the
passing the canal, and the stations they had selected, more parties
arty the one at Topsham, on account of its being so far removed
from the quay.
Mr. Locke, engineer of the Exeter and Exmouth Railway, did not
approve of the application of the atmospheric principle in crossing
the canal, and considered that when an equally advantageous corn-
municatior ,ould be effected without, it ought to be selected in pre-
fererca. His estimate for the construction of this line was 100,0001.
Mr. Winter had been on the Croydon Railway, in order to ascer-
tain the success of the atmospheric principle on that line. A long
discussion ensued relative to the respective merits and advantages
of the locomotive and atmospheric principles.
This witness was still tinder examination, when at four o'clock the
Committee adjourned till twelve o'clock on Monday next.

GROUP XXI.
LONDON AND ozronn.

The Committee re-assembled this morning at the usual hour.
The promoters proceeded to call evidence in support of the Bill.
Mr. Grace; a large farmer at Wardrobe, and nine miles from Wy-
combe, on Lord Harry Vane's estate, spoke to the disadvantages
under which he and others laboured on account of the expense of tran-
sit to Uxbridge market, and the want of direct communication to
London and Oxford. On account of this expense he was compelled
to sell his produce In the Wycombe and Aylesbury markets at consi-
derable disadvantoge, as Uxbridge was the best corn-market. The
railway would greatly reduce the expense of carriage to and from
London, would enhance the beech trade, improve the value of
the property in the districts through whieh it would pass,
and be of general advantage to the inhabitants. In his own case, he
should save 7s. per acre ; others ss. per acre, or 25 percent. on their
rents. Sends 400 head of cattle of all kinds to London, at consider-
able expense, and with great injury to the animals, which he should
be able to avoid if the proposed railway were made.
Mr. J, Guy, farmer, at Austin-Rowen, Northington, Oxfordshire,
said he was a tenant of Sir ll:Lambert. That he was fourteen miles
from the Great Western Railway, and that he had lost 1001. a year
since its construction. Tile had to send to Henley-en-Thames, four-
teen miles distant, for manure. Neither the " spur" of the Great
Western from Maidenhead to Wycombe, nor the Uxbridge branch,
would be of much advantag3 to him. The proposed line would en-
able him to attend the London, Oxford, and Uxbridge markets more
frequently than he now did; and, besides, it would increase the
value of pre/Arty contiguous to it ss. per acre
Mr. Wm. Hatton, farmer and carrier, in the parish of Ashton
Rowell, 11 miles from High Wycombe, said he carried 700 or 800
tons of goods a year, which he should send by the line if it were made.
The line to Wycombe proposed by the Great Western Company would
be of no advantage to him as it would be 11 miles from his place of
business and was indirect. The station of the London and Brighton
offered advantages which the Great Western station did not possess
because it was near Newgate and Smithfield markets.
_ _

Mr. VENABLES, who appeared on behalf of the landowners who
have petitioned against the line, inquired of the promoters of the line
if they intended to proceed with the Southall branch ?
Mr. CALVIERT said he was not in a position to say that they would
not,proceed with this branch. He believed, however, that Parlia-
ment would adopt such a course as to preclude its construction, on
account of the diversity of gauge.
Mr. Payne, a farmer,' at Saunderton Lea, six miles from High
Wycombe, spoke to the advantages which the line would confer on
the inhabitants and trade of the districts through which it was de-
signed to pass.
Mr. Simmonds, chemist and gas manufacturer, at Thame, stated
that he used 115 tons of coals a year, which he had from Newcastle,
for which he paid 15s. Bd. per ton in the pool. The cost of transits
would be materially reduced if the line to Aylesbury were continued
to Thame.

Mr. Tiploci, a linen-draper at Thame, said he bought his woollen
goods in London, as they got them better there. Thinks if they had
a line from Thame to the north that they .hould still buy them In
London. He now went four times to London yearly ; but if the line
were made he should go twelve times in the same period.
Mr. R. H. Cowland, carrier, Thame, said he now sent the goods he
had to convey, at three tons a week, to Aylesbury, and so on to
London by the London and Birmingham line, or by the same line
to the nerth. A line from Thame to join the Aylesbury line would
be very beneficial. Trade bad greatly fallen off in Thame, owing to
the Great Western and Birmingham lines.

Mr. I. Stone, also a carrier, ard Mr. PhiHipps, cattle-dealer,
Thame, gave evidence in support of the line.
Mr. TALBOT inquired if the promoters of the Bill intended to pro-
ceed with the short branch into Oxford, which is proposed to form a
junction with the Great Western?
Mr. HILDYARD said, as he stated in opening the case, the branches
to the Great Western were proposed in order to obviate the difficulty
in which they were placed by the report of the Gauge Commissioners.
lle would answer the question of his Learned Friend if he would tell
him whether the broad or narrow gauge would be adopted or not on
all the lines in the Company.
Mr. TALBOT said the question was one which the Prime Minister
could not answer. It wa,% important that the question should be then
decided, as the construction of the branches would affect the es-
timates.
After a shOrt discussion,

Mr. limnyaan undertook, at the request of the Committee, to re-
reply to the question, if possible, on Monday,
The Committee then adjourned until that day.

GROUP XXV.

. The Select Committee apppointed to consider the merits of this
group' re-assembled at the usual hour this morning, in the West-
minster sessions House, the Hen. M. Lascelles in the chair.

HARWICH AND EASTERN UNION.

. The business of this morning was commenced by Mr. AUSTIN
opening the case on behalf of the promoters of.the Esate6 a Urien . rid
Harwich Junction Railway. 6 It was clear, he said, rrom the fair and
very creditable evidence of .Mr. , Braithtvaite, that, so far from-
shortening the distance between Harwich and the metropolis, the
advantages of the two lines were about equal ; but between Har-
wich and Ipswich the Eastern Union line had a great advantage over
its rival, in so far as it shortened the distance by six miles. It
shortened, in fact, the present distance between Harwich and Ips-
wich, which was nineteen miles by six miles. It must
be remembered too that formerly parties wishing to go from
Ilarwich to the midland counties, and the centre of Eng-
land, had to go round by way of London, but this he hoped
would never occur again ; indeed it could not, for there was a line in
the course of construction from Ipswich to Bury St. Edmund's,
which was now reported to be extended to Norwich and Cambridge,
passing by way of Stowmarket and other important towns, and
between all these places and llarwich the distance by the
line lie was now advocating would be shortened by six
miles. It was clear, therefore, that the Eastern Union line
was upon broad merits the best of the two ; but some incl.
dental opposition had been raised to it, by bringing forward some-
thing which had taken place with respect to the Admiralty. Now,
lie wished to have this point cleared up. He would admit that
the Admiralty could stop the construction of this portion of the
the project; but the Committee ought to discard this consideration,
and look at the two Bills and decide upon either upon its merits, as
adduced by evidence. This was the course adopted last session in
the case of the Great Western and South Wales Railway, which
proposed to cross the Severn a little below Gloucester, by means of a
bridge, planned by Mr. Brunel; but the Admiralty, who were
extremely jealous of schemes which could be in any way supposed
to obstruct the navigation of the Severn, objected to this bridge.
The Committee, however, saw that the proposed line would be of
great public advantage, and they determined upon reporting to the
House in favour of this railway, including the project for the bridge ;
but the Admiralty's objection was supported by the Government, and
the consequence was that the Bill was ordered to be re-
committed. Accordingly the Bill was recommitted, and
the Committee again reported in favour of the Bill,
leaving out the bridge. It was afterwards sanctioned by the
Legislature, and now the use was being made without the bridge.
Now that was precisely the course which the present Committee
ought to adopt. Let them report en the merits of the two Bills, and
if they did so, he was sure they would decide in favour of the Eastern
Union line. Now with regard to the matter of the Admiralty, ho
contended that the Board of Admiralty had given no adverse deci-
sion in respect of the Eastern Union line, but he would admit that they
had declined to receive a deputation from its promoters. But it was
said that the Admiralty had sanctioned the rival line, aufa if they
had, he could assure the Committee, that if such were the case, it
must apply only to the pier at Harwich ; anti if the Com-
mittee would just look at the plan, they would see that
Mr. Locke had so prepared them, that he could snake Mr.
Braithwaite's pier within his own limits of deviation. But
without wishing to impute anything improper to the Admiralty, he
complained that if they had given any opinion at all in favour of
the rival line they had arrived at that opinion through ex parte
statements and ex parte information. It was just as if the judge
had called in the plaintiff and the jury into a private room, and there
decided the case in the absence of the defendant, and when
the poor defendant applied for permission to urge his
defence, instead of obtaining a hearing, the door was slammed in his
fate. lie could not help thinking, therefore, that the Board of Ad-
miralty's opinion in favour of the rival line bad been obtained through
the manoeuvring of the promoters ; indeed, the correspodence which
had passed between the promoters and the Admiralty bore out this
conclusion. The Committee, he trusted, would throw overboard this
opinion, and decide upon the merits of the two Bills. If they did so,
he was satisfied they could not do otherwise than pass the Eastern
Union Bill, because the evidence preponderated in its favour.
Evidence of a general character was then adduced in favour of the
line. Witnesses from Manningtree, Ipswich, and liarwich, were
called to prove that the Eastern Union line would offord more ac-
commodation to those towns than the Harwich and Eastern Counties
Junction line.
Mr. Ransom, an extensive ironmonger at Ipswich, who was well
acquainted with the trade of the East Anglican districts, preferred
the Eastern Union line, because while it gives a direct communi-
cation with the metropolis, it also shortened the distance between
Harwich and Ipswich. At present, the steam-boat communication
between those places was extremely uncertain.

On cross-examinatiGn, the witness admitted that there was a
project before the present Committee, known as the Stour Valley
Railway, which would carry that traffic from the midland counties
and the north, altogether away from Ipswich, but he thought it
would be more advantageous to take the traffic through Ipswich.
The Stour Valley line ran to Sudbury. The local authorities of
Ipswich had laid out 120,0001. in the improvement of the port, and
it was altogether a rival port with Harwich.
The Committee adjourned, at four o'clock, until one o'clock on
Monday.

Sob Coromitto No. 2.

This Committee assembled to-day at twelve o'clock ; present, Sir
Sir J. Y. Buller (chairman), Mr. Kemble, and Mr. Walker.
LEEDS AND THIRSK RAILWAY.

The evidence which was mt forthcoming on Wednesday was pro-
dnced, and the Committee found that the standing orders were com-
plied with.
BRITISH AND IRISH UNION RAILWAY.

- - -
The consideration of the allegations in the petition against this Bill
was resumed.

The following (among several other) allegations were admitted—
namely, that there was an error in the Dumfries plan at one furlong ;
that the furlongs were omitted from the same plan, as well as the
furlengs on the Wigtown branch ; that the road 65 was omitted ;
that the height and span of the arches at Stranraer were not
marked, &c.

The Petition then alleged that on the Gretna Extension braneh A

public road was set forth on the plans as being 14 feet above the
height, whereas on the sections the same was marked 13 feet.
This allegation was sustained.
An error in the cross sections was next alleged and sustained.
Two allegation., the first that there was an omission of the cut-
ting at the 74th mile Ist furlong, and -the next, that there was a
similar omission with respect to an embankment, were sustained.
It was alleged that, on the 18th mile, No. 10, in the parish of
Crossmichael, where the railway crossed the turnpike, there was an
thaecuracy in the plan.
Mr. Thompson, an assistant engineer, said that he had levelled the
part of the line in question, and found an error on the plan of 12 feet
6 inches.
Mr. White, :assistant engineer, corroborated the testimony of
the preceding witness.
Mr. Baker gave similar evidence.
. _

The Committee found that this allegation was sustained.
The next class of allegations had reference to discrepancies be-
tween the plans in the Private Bill-office and those deposited at
Dumfries.

Several allegations were abandoned, and some were admitted.
The next class of allegations was to the effect that the lands, &0.,
on the line were not numbered on the plans.
Some instances of the alleged omission were adduced and sus-
tained, which concluded the case for the petition.
The Committee found that in the case of this Bill the standing
orders had not been complied with.
GREAT EASTERN AND WESTERN.
. .

The object of this Bill was to connect the iron district of South
Wales with Herefordshire and the maufacturing districts of Stafford-
shire. The length of the line was about seventy miles, and the
amount of capital 1,280,0001. Engineer, Mr. Griffin; Parliamentary
agents, Messrs. Burke and Co. •
There were two petitions against the Bill.
Mr. Bruns said that, with respect to one part of the formal proofs,
he had to solicit the indulgence of the Committee. It was that which
related to depositing the plans. These plans had unfortunately not
been deposited until the Ist of December, in consequence of the illness
of the engineer, who broke down through physical debility ; but he
was prepared to produce evidence to show that neither money nor
labour had been spared to make the deposits as soon as possible.
After some deliberation the CHAIRMAN (Mr. E. Yorke) agreed to
hear the evidence in question.
Evidence was then given that all due diligence had been used by
the promoters, who had succeeded in depositing their plansbefore the
office hours on the Ist of December.
Mr. Shepherd, a surgeon, residing at,Towcester, was also examined—
He stated that he attended Mr. Garvatt, at that time engineer of the
Company, at Worcester, in October. Mr. Garvatt was labouring
under a severe diserkse, calculated to produce nervous irritation, and
was quite unfitted to attend to his business.
Cross-examined—On the Nth of October and 2d of November Mr.
Garvatt was able to go to London and to attend business, and during
his attendance he found him with maps and other documents before
him, and surrounded by clerks.
The CHAIRMAN said, that as far as the fact went they must find
that the standing orders had net been complied with, with reference
to their non-deposits of the plans in the proper time. The mitigating
circunoslances might be stated above stairs.
The other formal proofs were then proceeded with and concluded.
One of the petitions had relation to the non-deposit of the plans, and
was therefore not pressed.
hi r. BAXTER, solicitor, appeared for the next petition, from John
Colburn, which stated that he was one of the subscribers to the
Company.
The first allegat:on was that the plan originally proposed to go
from Yarmouth to Swansea, whereas it now proposed to effect a
junction with the Vale of Neath Railway, and, therefore, that the
petitioner was exonerated from all liability.
The Committee decided that in this case the standing orders had
been complied with.
An allegation with reference to an error in the supplemental con-
tract was sustained.
The Committee then adjourned.

Sub-Committee No 4.
This Committee met to-day at twelve o'clock in Room No. 11 I
present Sir William Heathcote (chairman), Mr. Legh, and Mr. Hope
Johnstone, and resumed the consideration of the

WHITEHAVEN AND FURNESS JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
Mr. THOhfAS, for the promoters, put in a letter from Mr. Thomas
Scott, of Hokeham, a petitioner against the line, which the Learned
Gentleman submitted was in fact a revocation of the petition.
After hearing Mr. Pam, who contended that the latter was not a
sufficient revocation,
The Committee decided to proceed with the allegations of the
petitioner.
The drat allegation, that the property of the petitioner being
within the limits of deviation was not set forth in the book of refer-
ence, was sustained. . .

Other allegations of a similar nature were sustainer].
In the case of another petition, the CHAIRMAN expressed a doubt
that the petitioner was entitled to he heard unless he had a direct or
indirect interest in property within the limits of deviation.
Mr. PRITT submitted that In other Committees in bad been ruled
that any person could petition on behalf the public.
The point was ultimately reserved, and the Committee adjourned.

Sub• Committee No. 5.
This Committee re-assembled at the usual hour, when the follow-
ing Members were present:—Mr. Home Drummond (chairman), Mr.
Packe, Mr. Egerton, and Mr. Mackenzie.
THETFORD, BURY ST. EDMUNDS, AND NEWMARKET.
A petition, that of several owners and occupiers [of land on the
line, the allegations of which were more numerous than interesting
to the public, was disposed of in about an hour.
The next petition taken was that of John Biker and others,
owners, occupiers, and lessees of land which would bo taken by the
proposed line.
One of the allegations was, that two fields marked as No. 1 and
No. 5, in the parish of Ingham, were in fact in the parish of Tim-
worth, adjoining the parish of Ingham. A witness was called to
prove that the fields in question were In the parish of Timworth.
The allegation was partly answered by the agent for the promoters
pointing out the fact that the figure 5 was not a mark applying to
the field, but that it was part of the mileage, and represented
"five flirlongs."
A witness was then called to prove that the ether field was pro-
perly marked.
The Committee decided that the allegation was proved in reference
to the field marked No. 1.
It was next alleged that the boundary between the parish of
Ingham and the adjoining parish of Cowford was incorrectly marked.
The owner of some property in the parishes of Ingham and Cow-
ford, one of the petitioners, was called to prove the inaccuracy of the
boundary as marked in the plans.
A surveyor was called on the part of the promoters of the Bill to
prove that he applied to the last witness for information as to the
boundary of the two parishes, which he refused to give. He had
also applied to the parish clerk and to several other persons, but re-
ceiving no answer from any of them, was obliged to rely on the in-
formation given him by the labourers in the fields.
The Committee declared the allegation proved and the standing
orders not complied with.
The next allegation was that no notice had been served on the
surveyor of highways in respect of a certain road which would be
crossed by the line. The surveyor himself was called to prove that
he had received no notice, and the Committee declared the allegation
proved, no evidence being given on the other side.
The remaining allegation of this petition were utterly uninteresting
to the public.
The petition of David Barty and others was next taken. It de-
pended chiefly on discrepancies in the gradients, &c.
Several of the allegations were dismissed, as not being properly
worded, and several were declared to be proved. The Committee
refused to admit several objections as to minute discrepancies in the
plans.
It appeared in the course of the day that the petitioner, Mr.
Barty, was the secretary of a rival railway company.
Only one allegation of the next petition, that of a Mr. Benion, was
entered into, the others being identical with those of Mr. Barty's
petition.
This allegation was that the junction of the proposed tine with the
Norfolk Railway was differently narked in the plans and sections. its
distance from the principal station not being the same. This allega-
tion was delared proved.
After disposing of several other points, the Committee gave their
decision that the standing orders were not complied with.
They then rose at four o'clock, and adjourned to Monday at
twelve.

STANDING ORDEttS' COMMITTEES.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Their Lordships resumed their lab Ours at the usual hour. Present,
the Earl of Shaftesbury (in the chair), and Lords Itedesdale, Hood,
and Ilawarden.