The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-29 00:00:00

convenient for some of the passengers to have a line extending on to
Croker.
Mr. John Thorns, a merchant, of Iftainster, gave similar testimony.
Mr. Humphrey Brown, the gentleman who made out: the traffic
tables of the proposed line, proved that the traffic would yield a very
ample per tentage on the outlay.
The canal Acts ware then put in to prove that the Company had
the power to raise more money than would cover the estfmate for the
proposed railway.
Some other evidence of a general character was adduced, and the
Committee adjourned shortly after four c('clock.

GROUP X.Y.
The Committee met at twelve o'clock. Present, Mr. Bother=
(chairman), Sir R. Plgot, Lord W. Bentinck, Mr. Ross, and Mr.
Tancred.

wrAnvzs AND RICHMOND.
The returns necessary, according to the recent resolutions of the
House of Commons, were handed in.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS, 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 w.ts, in fact, a naetropolitan line. It was ten miles
its 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 lines 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,
twhoeu fl.donbedoen anmdeeWohinedeson;
epuiroepontseddistterrmietifneartiengstaattiKedniesghtsbridge, which
ant any of those commodities necessary for a community. respected
eoMair.
s
Chambers said there were other opponents, private proprietors and
others, and alluded generally to the character of their opposition,
which would resolve itself into a question of compensation.
Mr. T. R. Ward, a magistrate of Egham, and other gentlemen,
were then examined before the Committee as to traffic on the eourse
of
Thethe pe proposeda
ul tonne
0.
f witnesses had not finished when the Committee
adjourned.

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

NORTH smarrostassinz (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 and 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 district. 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. TOWNSEND, counsel on behalf of Mr. Wood and Mr. Warren,
two opposing petitioners, then addressed the Committee, and was
proceeding to enter into the general question of railway communica-
tion for the district, and to urge considerations which affected the
preamble of the Bill, when he was interrupted by
Sergeant WaAxensst, 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 lino, 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 en the point, and on eur re-admiision,

The COMMITTEE decided against the course proposed to be pursued
by counsel for the opposition.
Mr. SMITH 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 fide 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 other
companies from laying down lines which would afford better accom-
modation.
Mr. Challoner, solicitor to the Macclesfield and Lichfield Railway
(a projected line lost this session on the standing orders), was then
examined 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 present in abeyance.
Mr...ktririx then submitted that the petitioners had no right to be
heard, inasmuch as the petition was " got up" by the Macclesfield
and Lichfield Company, and did not emanate from the inhabitants
of Leek as a bona fidt. opposition to the line.
Mr. M. SMITH objected to such surmises, and said that the opposi-
tion of Leek was not prompted by the Macclesfield Company, but
that their opposition existed before that company was incorporated.
The Committee decided that evidence in favour of a competing
line could not be admitted.
The Committee then adjourned.

GROUP XXXVII.

SHEFFIELD, ROTHERHAM, BARNSLEY.
WAKEFIELD, HumnzusriELD, AND
GOOLE

The examination of Mr. G. Chambers (continued from our After-
noon Edition)—The town of Sheffield alone would save 83,0001. per
annum in the cost of its coal for manufacturing and other purposes,
by obtaining their coal by railway from this district. The railroads
as yet formed in the neighbourhood having driven off the stage-
coaches, without supplying other means of traffic to the district, had
done it considerable injury. The proposed line was greatly wanted,
and would be highly beneficial to all the towns in the West Riding of
Yorkshire.
The witness was shown a petition in favour of the Bill, signed by
2,500 persons, who were, he said, the most respectable inhabitants of
Sheffield.
Cross-examined by Mr. PEasms, on the part of certain petitioners
against the Bill —The Silkstone bed extended to Sheffield, but in a
convulsed or disrupted manner. There is a coal-pit at Sheffield,
from which the coal was sold for gas at 6e. 10d. per ton. There was
a great demand for lime :for manufacturing as well as agricultural
purposes throughout the district. But the cost of carriage was so
great, that " they did not know which way to turn themselves for
it," Projected branches of the Sheffield and Manchester line would
give some accommodation to this coal district, but not sufficient.
He was not altogether aware of the details of that branch.
He was not here to oppose the Barnsley branch of the
Sheffield and Manchester. As a director of the Company
now before the Committee, he had moved a resolution that the
Barnsley branch should not be opposed by them. This Company
i took neutral ground in respect to that branch. There was an agree-
ment with the South Yorkshire Company that the latter was to make
the line south of Barnsley.
Cross-examined by Mr. LEE, for the Midland, Barnsley, Sheffield,
Dewsbury, and Bradford line, which is the competing line with this,
running parallel to it for a considerable distance. The witness stated
although there was a circuitous water cemmnnication between Shef-
field and Barnsley, yet this did not touch the coal pits, which, in fact,
had no canal accommodation. Sheffield received the largest part of its
supply of coal from the estates of the Duke of Norfolk in the town
itself or immediate neighbourhood. The Manchester and Leeds
Company were to supply one-half of the capital. That was the ar-
rangement from the beginning.
The Committee then adjourned at a quarter-past four, and will
meet to-morrow in room No. 21.