The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-30 00:00:00

GROUP XXIX.

This Committee assembled this morning for the first time, in
Room 19. The lines comprised in this group are the Systen and
Peterborough (Deviations and Branches), Rugby and Stamford,
Rugby and Huntingdon, the Stamford and Wisbeach, and the South
Midland lines. The Committee consists of the following Members :
The Right Hon. Mr. Labouchere (chairman), Sir W. Molesworth,
Sir J. Duckworth, and Colonel Bowdon.
After some discussion, it was arranged that the order in which the
Bills should be taken shoul • be the order in which they were read a
second time. The first three lines will, therefore, be taken in the
order in which they are now written.

SYSTON AND PETERHOILOUGH (DEVIA-
TIONS AND BRANCHES).

Mr. PAGET having withdrawn his application for a Postponement,
of the 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 portion of the Bill was abandoned,
Mr TALBOT briefly opened the case on the part of the promoters.

Mr. ELOWEIIS 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 of 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 nature of the cuttings, and that in either
case the damage to the park would be the same. Witness had
an interview with Lord flarborough 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 for all the deviation was 317,6001., and 75,0001. for
the branch to Wansford, which would be new capital.
Cross-examined by Mr. HlLL—There were several companies who
projected a line through Whissendine. 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 1 in
200. The whole was a mere question of expense. Whissendine
was a shorter line, but not so good for the public. It was 1% to 2
miles shorter.

Re-examined by Mr. llfacauLAY—The works were so impracti-
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 cutting 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 bald that proposals were made
to construct the line suggested by Lord Ilarborough'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
Harborough, 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 at great injury to Lord
Harborough's Park, and he would bring forward witnesses to prove
that the Whissendine line was not so absurd or impracticable as had
been stated.

Mr. Clayton, surveyor to Lerd Harborough, was then examinei—
Knew both lines, the projected one and the Whissendine line. The
tunnel by the former line would pass between Lord Harborough's
park and ornamental property, which would be very objectionable.
(Witness produced a plan of the grounds).
Cross-examined—No engineer was employed to survey the line
forty yards south of the park.
Mr. Gregory, another engineer, gave similar evidence. He sur-
veyed the Whissendine line on the part of the London and Notting-
ham Railway Company. It was a practicable line. He selected it
for the interests of the Company. The steepest gradient was one in
200. The cuttings and embankments would be more than by the
projected line, but there would be a saving, on the ether hand, from
the cheapness of the land, and the avoiding of all ornamental pro-
perty.
' Cross-examined—Made the survey between Oakham and Melton
with Lord Harborough's consent. His line was 15 feet higher then
than the level of the Syston and Peterborough line at Melton.
Re examined—The line by Whissendine was seleeted on account of
ground, not from any personal consideration to Lord Yarborough.
This closed the case.

The room was then cleared, and on our re-admission,

The CHAIRMAN announced the decision of the Committee to be that
the preamble of the Bill was proved, but they, the Committee, were
anxious that some course should be adopted, mot too onerous to the
promoters, by which Lord Harborough's park should be passed in a
way as little disagreeable as possible to that Nobleman. This they
left to the parties concerned on both sides ; and, if they could not
agree, the Committee would select the course themselves.
The Committee then adjourned till twelve o'clock to-morrow.

GROUP XXXIV.
EAST x.rxmOZNSIIIRE.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)

. .
The opposition was withdraw.
Tha clauses were then gone through seriatim, in which some
amendments were made.

GREAT GRIMSBY AND SZEFFIELD JUNC—
TION RAILWAY (HUMBER FERRIES PURCHASE AND
IMPROVEMENT).
This Bill was opposed by the Corporation of Hull, as well as jibe
people of that town.
Mr. PAGET, who appeared for the Bill, said that with respect to
the Humber Ferries Railway, he would offer a few of servations. The
present application was to construct a railway to commence at Gains-
borough and cross the Humber. The object contemplated by the
Legislature In this railway could only be obtained by crossing the
river Humber. There was a ferry on the river at the present mo-
ment, which facilitated the trains between New Holland and IBM.
Now, this being the case, he should have conceived that the interests
of the promoters and of the corporation were identical. Negotiations
were entered into between the two parties; but without success, as
the corporation of Hall refused to come to any terms with the pro-
moters unless the latter purchased the ferry, paying for rights they
could not exercise.

Mr. DEARSLEY represented the corporation of Hull.
•Mr. Thomas Osweld was examined to show that the ferry in ques-
tion did exist. He underwent a cross-examihetien with respect to
the ferries on the river in question, but nothing material was elicited.
The Committee adjourned at four o'clock till to-morrow.

Sub-Committee, No. 1.
WILTS, SOMERSET, AND SOUTHAMPTON.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)

Petitions were gone into from owners and occupiers on the line,
alleging imperfections in the plans, &c. deposited, and insufficiency
of notice.

The Committee decided that the standing orders were not complied
with

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, EDINBURGH, AND DIRECT

GLASGOW.

The object of the Bill is to connect Newcastle with Edingburgh
and Glasgow. The proposed length, twenty miles and a half. The
estimated cost, 220,000/. The engineers are Mr. Millar and Messrs.
Green ; Mr. J. Browne is the solicitor ; and the purliamentary agents
are Messrs. Spottiswood and Robinson.
The opposing agents are Messrs. Parkes and Co.
In the course of taking the usual formal evidence,
The Committee expressed an opinion that they must report that
the standing orders were not complied with, as the sum deposited in
the Court of Chancery was not equal to one-tenth of the subscribed
capital.

In answer to an explanation offered by the agent for the Bill,
The Committee said that the explanation might avail with the
Standing Orders Committee up stairs.
Mr. PARKES presented a petition against the Bill on the grounds of
imperfect plans, &c., and on one or two allegations of no great me-
awment, the standing orders were not compiled with.