The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-31 00:00:00

TIONS AND BRANCHES).

Mr. PAGET having withdrawn his application for a postponement;
of Inc case, from its interference with the principle of the ninth re•
port of the Amalgamation Committee of Railways, on Mr. Talbot
giving him an assurance that the Oakham canal would not be inter.
fered with, for that pertion of the Bill was abandoned,
Mr. TALBOT briefly opened the case on the part of the promoters.

Mr. FLOW3CII3 appeared on behalf of the Earl of Harborough
against the proposed line, on the ground that it would do injury to
his property, and that another line might be selected to afford the
requisite public accommodation.
Mr. Charles Liddell, the engineer of the Midland Counties Railway
Company, was then examined.—Had laid out the original line. The
line of deviation now projected, was not 100 yards apart from the
tracings laid down in the one proposed by Lord Harborough's agent.
It was not necessary that by either the line itself, or its
construction, the surface of the Earl of Harborough's park
should be broken. The length of the tunnel would be 1,056
yards, nearly two-thirds of a mile. The length ci the tunnel
through Lord Harborough's park would be 18 chains—two chains
under a quarter of a mile. The difference in the distance was
about one hundred yards between the two lines. The reason why
he preferred the line projected was the shortness of the tunnel,
the less expensive n :turn of the cuttings, and that in either
case the damage to the park would be the same. Witness had
an interview with Lord Harborough last autumn, when he
submitted the two deviations to him, but he refused to listen to
either. The ground of his objection was that he did not like them,
and that another line might be selected—a line to the west of
Whissendine village. Witness looked over that line, but the works
were of such a character as to be impracticable at any cost.
The steepest gradient in all the new proposed lines was 1 in 138. The
total estimate fur all the deviation was 317,0001., and 75,0001. for
the branch to Wansford, which would be new capital.
Cross-examined by Mr. HiLL—There were several companies who
projected a line through Whissendlne. Lord Harborough might have
said that the promoters would have the line through Whissendine
at their own valuation. The steepest gradient on' the line was I in
200. The whole was a mere question of expense. Whisiendine
was a shorter line, but not so good for the public. It was 1% to 2
miles shorter.

Re-examined by Mr. MecauLex—The works were so impract

cable by the Whissendine line that no man. in his senses would
attempt them. There would be a cutting 70 feet deep through blue
clay, and one rutting would extend two miles, containing 2,000,000
cubic yards of stuff. The extra cost would be from 100,0001. to
150,0001.

In reply to the CHAIRMAN, witness said that proposals were made
to construct the line suggested by LOrd Harborough's engineer last
year, but he refused to accede to the proposal.
The formal proof of the estimates and the value of the land were
then put in.
Mr. HILL, with Whom was Mr. Flowers, opened the case for Lord
Ilarborough, and contended that the question was disposed of last
year when the Company then got their Act authorising them to con-
struct their line. That Bill was a contract entered into by the Com-
pany, and they could not now dissolve it. From the conduct evinced
by the Company, it appeared to him that it was their desire to come
before the public as litigants. It would be great injury to Lord
Ilarborough's park, and he would bring forward witnesses to prove
that the Whissendine lino was not so absurd or impracticable as had
been stated.