The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-09 00:00:00

GROUP IX.

This Committee met to-day at twelve o'clock, Lord Wcrs-
ley in the chair. All the members of the Committee present.

WEST OT SCOTLAND JUNCTION.

Mr. AItDRXWS then proceeded to reply on behalf of this
line of railway. He would occupy the time of the Commit-
tee as little as possible while he addressed himself to the ob-
jections brought forward against the Bill, and placed before
the Committee the principal grounds on which he submit-
ted the Bill for the favourable consideration of
the Committee. In doing so he was persuaded he
would be able to prove that these objeetions
were far from being unsuperable, and that 'the measure was
imperatively necessary. He would first address himself to
the objections brought forward. It had been said that the
promoters of the Bill had broken faith with the Glasgow and
Garnkirk Railway and the public of Glasgow, by the aban-
donment of the Harbour branch and the Queen-street
station. This was not so; they brought forward the scheme
in entire integrity, and it was only when the Clyde Trust en-
deavoured, by witnesses, to impress the mind of
the Committee with the idea of danger and inconvenience,
that the promoters abandoned the harbour branch and the
junction in the tunnel. He never said that the harbour
branch should not be made, or that it was valueless. No,
the promoters of the Bill gave it up because they thought
the junction over the Clyde was more important than the
harbour branch, and because it was intimated that the two
could not be made conjointly without danger to the public.
There was no breach of faith, therefore, either with the
Clyde trustees, or the Glasgow and Garnkirk Railway. He
denied, moreover, that the land for the Stob- cross docks bad
been purchased, because the Mineral Harbour branch was
carried last session ; for, from the evidence adduced, it ap-
peared that in maps of Glasgow, long before last year, these
docks were laid down ; and it had also been shown, that the
land was purchased not for docks to accommodate the
mineral traffic, but to give increased accommodation
to the general trade of the harbour, which at
present was so ill supplied with room. He regretted
that he had had to address the Committee before the natural
and understood period on which he expected to be called on
to do so, as he could then have better shown the character of
the opposition banded together. That the Greenock Railway
Company should oppose the Bill, would, if it were an inde-
pendent company, exhibit a shameful dereliction of duty, on
the part of the shareholders, in cutting off the great advan-
tages which the proposed connexion would confer on the
pert cf Greenock. But the true state of affairs
would have come out, had the Caledonian scheme
been gone into, as then it would have been shown
that the real motive was, not the general benefit of Glasgow,
but the advancement of the interests of a rival Company,
that did not appear in its real position before the Com-
mittee. With respect to the alleged inconvenience to the
harbour of Glasgow, that had been shown to be but little;
but even were it worse than represented, the real question
was, " what is good for the public?" If it had been shown
that Greenock, Ayrshire, Edinburgh, Perth, Dundee, and
Aberdeen, in fact, Scotland generally, would be greatly
benefited by the Baltic, then ought the public interest
to be consulted before that of Glasgow. The damage
done should not be allowed to neutralise and defeat a
great national measure like the present. That was the true
way in which to view the case. The letter of the Admiralty,
on which so much had been said, meant merely that the
Committee should hear all the evidence, and judge
according to the facts adduced. It meant that the
Committee should decide, and they (the Admiralty)
should then deal with the matter. If the Bill was
agreed to by the Committee, the power of veto
might still be exercised against the Bill, or it might be
stipulated by the Admiralty that the works should proceed
under their inspection, and upon such plans as they might
think best. With such a power in the hands of the Ad-
miralty all idea of danger to the harbour was at an end.
His Learned Friend Mr. Hope had talked a great deal of
the Provost of Edinburgh and Perth being anxious to have
the junction in order to get a good supply of capons and
eggs and bacon. He would only say in answer to that
attempt at wit, that the Provosts of those two cities were not
the only witnesses called to show the necessity of the junc-
tion, but commercial men bad been called from all parts of
Scotland, and some parts of England, to prove the absolute
necessity for the line ; and more would have been
called had not the Committee expressed their satisfaction
on this point. But those who lived in glass-houses
should take care how they threw stones. If the Provost
of Edinburgh liked good capons, his Learned Friend (Mr.
Hope) represented the Provost of the turtle-loving city
of Glasgow ; and perhaps the secret of much of the opposition
offered would be found in the fact of the pleasure arising from
a trip to town in the spring time of the year for a month or
two, living at a splendid hotel, and faring sumptuously every
day. That might have a great deal to do with the proceed-
ings before the Committee. The care of traffic had been
so satisfactorily made out to the Committee, that they
stopped the further examination of witnesses. The
Learned Gentleman then referred to the crossing
over the streets, commenting on the evidence, and main-
taining that no junction through Glasgow could be made
with less injury to a town than the present. So little injury
would be done that, notwithstanding the strong banded op-
position against the Bill, not a single inhabitant of Glasgow
had been called to prove any damage to property, or to
speak against the way in which they were to be affected by
the line. Last year it was complained of that the bridge was
too far down, and the arches were objected to; so to meet the
objections then urged, it had now been proposed that the
viaduct should be brought close to the present bridge, and
the arches and piers be made the same, so as to offer as little
obstruction as possible to the cnrrrent of the stream. The
space to be occupied by the viaduct would not be 108th part
of the harbour, while the Stob-cross docks, it had been
shown, would furnish every necessary accommodation that
might be required for the crowded shipping of the river.
But even with regard to the space to be occupied, it had been
shown, that from the height of the arches, the
smaller vessels, and the steam-boats would still
be able to use the space. Regarding the viaduct and the
opposition of the Bridge Trust, he would call the attention of
the Committee to the resolution of the Bridge Trust since
last year, to the effect that they would abandon their opposi-
tion if the promoters of the line would not pass over the top
of the existing bridge. This had been agreed to, and though,
in compliance with the desire of Lord Ellenborough,
the piers of the two bridges were proposed to
touch each other, the two bridges were essentially
independent, and would not interfere at all with each
other. Nor had it been shown that danger would arise from
the foundation of the bridge. The present bridge had been
built several years, and though the river had been deepened
two or three feet below the brick-work of the foundation,
yet the bridge was as firm as ever. The water was now
running daily against the top of the piles yet no sand es-
caped. and the bridge appeared to be as firm as any in the
kingdom. In respect to the foundation Mr. Walker
was called, and he only gave hearsay evidence, which had
been derived from Mr. Atherton. He had not examined
the foundations himself. Against the opinion of Mr.
Walker he would place that of Mr. Miller, who had planned
nearly all the great railway works in Scotland, and had
catrie 1 a great number of them into successful operation.
He had staked his reputation on constructing that bridge,
and he had no doubt satisfied himself that it could be erected
without difficulty. The opinion of Mr. Miller was fortified
by Mr. Lyon, the foreman of Mr. Gibb, the builder of the
present bridge, and Mr. Gibb, the son of the con-
tractor, both of whom affirmed that no foundation
could be better for a bridge—that it was good
hard sand. These were two witnesses of the greatest expe-
rience, against whom they had the statement of Mr.
Atherton, the resident engineer, who was looked up for
at the last hour to give evidence against the Bill. The two

former, he submitted, in taking their evidence into account

had much greater opportunities of knowing the nature of the
foundation than the latter, and were more entitled to influ-
ence the minds of the Committee. Clearly, then, the balance
of evidence on the point of foundation was in favour of his cli-
ents. But to put an end to all doubt, he was willing
that a clause ahould be inserted in the Bill to the effect that
whatever damage should be done should be made good, or
that the bridge should be rebuilt, if necessity should be seen
for it from any injury done to the present bridge. The
Learned Gentleman then addressed himself to the proposal
made for joining the two lines passing round the city. Con-
tending that it would be utterly useless as a passenger line,
from going over so many mineral lines, and could not be
seriously entertained as a measure to fill up the gap between
the north and south of Glasgow. The Learned Gentleman
having recapitulated the leading points of his case, concluded
by calling on the Committee to admit the preamble of the
Bill as proved. _ _ _

The room was then cleared. In a few minutes the par-
ties were called in, when
The CHAIRMAN said the Committee had come to the de-
cision that the preamble of the Bill was not proved.
The Committee then adjourned till after the Easter
holidays.

GROUP XIV.
SOUTH-3141.11TERN.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. CALVERT, on the part of Mr. Angerstein and Mr. Syd-
ney Smith, of Lewisham, cross-examined Mr. Stephenson,
with a view of showing that the property of those gentlemen
would be most materially injured by the proposed line.
Mr. BIGG elicited that a fresh station would have to be
erected in Maidstone (although there is one now in exist-
ence there) in consequence of the difference of the levels of
the proposed and the existing lines.
A solicitor in the body of the court put some questions for
Mr. _Edward Levett, of Sittingbourne.
Mr. ALEXANDER having re-examined, stated that be had
now concluded on the landowners' cases, and as it was im-
possible to conclude the re-examination on the whole case
that day, perhaps the Committee would see the propriety of
adjournment.
The CHAIRMAN assented, and the Committee rose for
the Easter recess.

BRIDGEWATER AND MINEBBAD RAIL-
WAY AND PIER.
(Ceatinaed from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
The consideration of this case was resumed (after a con-
versation arising from a motion made by Lord Granville
Somerset, last night, in the House of Commons, that the
sitting of all Committees on Railway Bills after Easter
should be deferred until the 27th of April), by the
further examination of Mr. Greene, an engineer.
and Mr. Thompson, likewise an engineer, who stated that
they were aequainted with the country laying respec-
tively between Bridgewater, Taunton, and Minehead, and con-
sidered that the. description and undulating state of the land
situated between the latter places offered greater facilities for
the construction of a railway than the proposed line now under
consideration. The evidence of these witnesses related en-