The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-29 00:00:00

JUNE 29, 1846.

PRICE SD.

curate that the railway could not be constructed according
to those plans.
Mr. HILDYARD, for the Warwickshire and London, again
raised the objection that this evidence was inadmissible.
After a prolonged discussion, during which the Committee
manifested considerable impatience—(if we may not say,
displeasure)—they yielded to the importunity of counsel,
and the room was cleared.
On the re-admission of the parties,
The CHAIRMAN stated that the Committee having given
every consideration to the objection, were unanimously of
opinion that the petitioners against the Worcester and
were then called
Weedon line should proceed with their evidence on the en-
gineering defects of that line.
Mr. Cooper, Mr. Smith, Mr. Osbourne, Mr. Wright, Mr.
Buckingham, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Bedford, civil engi-
neers,of that of Mr. Hughes.
Mr. COCKBURN then said that he. wished to give some
further evidence, but was not prepared to go on with it at
present.
Mr. AUSTIN wished to know what course the Committee
have,an d
tg h aevi
re evidence
whole
line i n c
roer
so übrovrea: odn?
supposed his clients must take with regard to the case now
set up ? Were they to
If so, they must have time.
The CitninmAN said that the Committee could not dic-
tate to the counsel what course they should take.
Mr. Cocxnuns—But that must not interfere with the
coming on of our case.
Mr. AugriN— Certainly not. All the landowners' cases on
our side can proceed.

It was accordingly agreed that Mr. Alexander should pro-
ceed with his case on the part of the Birmingham and War-
wick Canal and Lord Warwick, petitioning against the Bir-
mingham and Oxford Junction.
The only witness called was Mr. Collins, who put in a
plan of the line, representing the land of the assenting par-
ties in blue, and that of the dissenting parties in black
colours. The black certainly predominated. He got his
data from the assents and dissents put in by the promoters
of the Bill, and from the signatures to the several petitions.
He stated the number of miles belonging to assenting, to
dissenting, and to petitioning landowners on the line, be-
tween certain points on theAne. It is enough to stale; that
oftellace, 25 miles out of 30 mites, and in another, .18 odt
of 31, belonged to petitioners. In cross-examination, be ad-
mitted that many dissentients and some petitioners had
ceased to be opponents since the plan was made out, and that
many others might have done so, although he was not aware
of it. He was not aware whether in the Warwickshire and
London railway there were 4 miles of assent and 30 miles
of dissent.

Mr. ALEXANDER then addressed the Committee, on the
part of the Canal Company, the Earl of Warwick, and other
landowners. The Learned Counsel laid great stress on the
fact that the Birmingham and Oxford line crossed the canal
in four or five places ; destroyed the canal company's wharf
and two corn-mills in their possession, and passed through
their reservoir. Even if the Bill were passed, he hoped
clauses would be inserted to protect them, so that the rail-
way company would not be allowed, while entering into
competition with the canal company, to deprive the latter of
the power of competing with them, by destroying the reser-
voir by which the canal was supplied. They must, at least,
be bound to leave the same depth and area of the reservoir,
and to supply the loss of the wharf

Mr. MELLOR then proceeded to open the case on the part
of the trustees of the Independent Chapel at Birmingham
and other petitioners. The Learned Counsel reserved his
speech until after his evidence.
Mr. Hedge, architect and surveyor, gave evidence as to
the manner in which the line would injure the chapel. Ac-
cording to the plans it was to pass through the chapel, but
it had been proposed to pass under it in a tunnel, by a devi-
ation. If this were done, the roof of the tunnel would be
but five feet beneath the floor, and there would, therefore,
be a great noise and vibration in the chapel, and when a
train passed there would be a great interruption to the devo-
.

tions of the congregation. -
,Mr. Hine was then called to prove that he had made ex-
periments as to the amount of noise and vibration produced '
by trains passing through tunnels. It was his opinion that
the congregation would be very much disturbed. In cross-
examination he said, that he was an assistant at the Green-
wich observatory, and had made the experiments with a
view to ascertain the effect that would be produced on astro-
nomical instruments. If the railway was carried beyond the
chapel, so that no part was under the building, the noise
would be lessened, but the vibration would not.
Mr. Smith, the town surveyor of Birmingham, gave simi-
lar evidence. He had had considerable experience as to the
effect of railway tunnels on buildings, and indeed had once
lived in a house near which a railway passed within twenty
yards, a canal intervening. The vibration produced was so
great that a tumbler placed in the middle of a table found its
way off when a train passed. The inconvenience was so
great that he was compelled to leave the house.
Mr. Hope, an engineer at Birmingham, and Mr. James,
brother of the minister of the chapel and one of the trustees,
gave similar evidence.
Mr. COCKBURN here rose, and said that his clients did not
consider that the inconvenience to the congregation would be
anything like what the trustees of the chapel seemed to
anticipate, but at the same time they believed the latter to
be sincere in that anticipation, and they could not dispute
their right to compensation in case the injury was found to
be so great as they expected, lie therefore had to propose
that a clause should be inserted to the effect that if the in-
convenience was found to be so great as was expected by the
trustees, that the promoters should build another chapel on
any site that might be chosen by the trustees themselves.
Mr. BlEnnoa would be very happy to accept his learned
friend's proposition, if he saw any chance of arbitrating it
fairly. He must request time to consider the proposition.
The case for the chapel trustees therefore stood over.

•
Mr. MELLOR then proceeded with the case on the part of
Mr. Wyse, a petitioner.
Mr. Birchwell, a surveyor, gave evidence as to the nature
of the injury done to Mr.-Wyse's property.
A proposition for arrangement was here made by Mr.
COCKBURN, and this case also stood over, the Committee ex
pressing a hope that the matter would be arranged before
Monday.
Mr. MELLOn then proceeded with the case for Sir E.
Smythe, another petitioner against the Bill.
Mr. Jenkins gave evidence as to the manner in which the
property was affected.
Mr. Howton was called to prove the nature of the injury
done by the line to the property of Mr. Cresswell, a petitioner
against the Bill.
On the conclusion of this gentleman's evidence a discus-
sion arose as to the manner in which the question of the levels
should be disposed of, and it was agreed that an engineer
should be appointed by each party, and an umpire chosen,
to re-survey the line from a point beyond the Birmingham
and Gloucester Railway to Worcester, and that they should
report to the Committee on Wednesday next.
The Committee then rose at five o'clock, and adjourned till
Tuesday next.