The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-17 00:00:00

RAILWAY,- COMMITTEES.
(THIS DAY)

GROUP IX.

Members—Lord Horsley, chairman; Mr. R. Spooner, Mr. Milnes
Gaskell, Mr. Archbold, and Colonel Thomas Austen.
This Committee fleet to-day, at twelve o'clock, when the case for
the opposition to the Edinburgh and Glasgow Amendment and
Branches was resumed.

The following Bill, the Glasgow Harbour (Grand Junction Ter-
minus Railway) was annulled from the list of Bills given yesterday,
it having been just referred to this Cemmittee.
Mr. William Harvey, it proprietor and partner in two of
the distilleries on the banks of the canal, was the first
witness examined. The ground had been fenced or leased
for the works on the banks of the canal, with the right of road way
in front for their accommodation. The proposed branch would be a
serious inconvenience, as it touched the canal, at the angle at which
Mr. Gourley's distillery was placed, while in front of Messrs. Kidson
and Borrow's works it was but six feet from the canal. The branch
also touched on the footpath at another point. It was his opinion
that the trams on that side of the canal arising from
the public works would be seriously incommoded. A
great amount of the grain used by the distillers,
came by the canal, and would have to cross the branch line into the
works, as would also the goods sent from the works by the canal,
and hence a great impediment might arise. In fact, the inconve-
nience would be so great, that the effect would be to shut up the
works altogether. The line of railway would be to him no benefit
whatever, as he would have to use cartage as much as before. This
would also in his opinion be the case with the proprietors of the other
works. The south bank of the canal would be much preferable,
and the crossing of the canal by the branch would be avoided; and
in this opinion be believed all .ho proprietors on the north bank coin-
eided. Further, the branch would be of use in supplying Um works
with coal.

The witness was cress-exanthied at some length by Mr. IVNEIL,
in the course of which he maintained iu substance what he stated in
his examination in chief.l
Mr. Win. Geddies Bonn, was next examined—lle was a proprietor
of the glass bottle works at Port nuncios, at which the traffic was
very great. He was decidedly of opinion that the branch along the
bank of the canal would not only impede and inconvenience him but
all the other proprietors of works on the banks.
The CHAIRMAN said the Committee were of opinion that the peti-
tioners had made out a case of great inconvenience to their works,
and, therefore, they (the Committee) did not lequire any other evi-
dence on that point. It would be for the promoters to show that the
convenience and advantage to the pubic would be so great
as to justify this inconvenience of the petitioners.
Mr. M'NEin intimated they were prepared to do so if it should be
found necessary.
Mr. FORSYTH begged to remind the Learned Gentleman that his
case was closed.

Mr. Saunderson was then called and examined, to the effect, that
from his knowledge of the trade, he did not think the traffic coming
off or going on the canal at Port Dundas, would be carried by the
branch railway, but be still continued, and therefore that Bach a
branch was uncalled for.

Mr. IlopE then briefly addressed the Committee, to the effect that
it had not been shown that the convenience of the braneh to the
public was at all commensurate with the disadvantage it would im-
pose on private individuals. If there was no truffle there would be
no inconvenience, and the line was not required ; if the traffic was
considerable, then it had keen clearly shown the inconvenience would
be very great to the manufacturers on the bank of the canal, all of
whom opposed the branch, as entirely unnecessary.