The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-23 00:00:00

TION BRANCH).

Mr. Walker, engineer to the Admiralty, was called and examined
by Mr. Sergeant 111LittNs on the part of the Surry Canal Company.
On Mr. Sergeant Wilkins putting some questions to the witness, with
reference to the docks, which forms one terminus of the proposed
line,

Mr. Ilawraxsosr objected to any such questions, on the ground that
he dock having been abandoned as a part of the Bill was no longer
before the Committee.
The Committee cleared the room on this point, and on our return
The CHAIRMAN said that no such questions could be put.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS—Very well, sir, we will proceed with the
chain and seals without the watch.
The Learned Counsel proceeded to examine the witness as to the
mischief that would result from the line crossing the canal on a swing
bridge so near the water as that which was proposed by the pro-
moters of the Bill. The witness was of opinion that, to cross the
canal in such a manner, would be highly objectionable. He was
cross--examined by Mr. Rawlinson on the part of the promoters.
_ lllr. FLUID inquired whether the Committee were of opinion that 1
h was entitled to examine witnesses as to the necessity for taking Il
ot". property within the walls of the dockyard, and as to the c
%,...8704
.I;:rotuivvein ?
belt' the Committee their 1
decision, thatonso
Bence he
he would withdraw.
w.
then
pro
p=
to asked as to the dock, applied to the kind of evi-
The Committee vrer:ithi
part of the railway iyits.ion
he that evidence with regard to the
or the dock itself
was only to the evidence as to thrrk was properly admissibuliiestv.
erpaslitts
that the objection on which they had decided-1r
Mr. Allen, a surveyor at Rotherbithe,
that in order to carry the line down to the banks called,
and
would be necessary to fill up a part of the dock which then; me
over.Rauw Mr.
Railway,
hi
e:gt b
esa
,i.t.e would
evidence
otiecoos ft aboutthwehi
e which
directorsl2,oool.w eat
cessity for the proposed line.
Mr. Sergeant the
to ofsh
o wL otnhdaot n
thereand
was no
a Greenwich.c
WILICINB then rose toaddress the Committee
the part of the Surrey C
a more clumsy, ill-conceived,and
this had never been submitted to a P
It was a line which the Bin afforded no
alter and remove a bridge which it contaliTredwern
remove a single plank of. He, on
incomplete plan than
parliamentary Committee.
as counsel, shoottlidvi
in case the Bill passed, to station a body of
Canal Company. He said that
sto make. It was to
men at bridge,thaTia
powers to alter er
should say, "You shall not touch a plank or a stick of that b
elients,
who
bridge."
Again, Mr. William Cubitt hail said that, in laying down the line, he
had not contemplated the alteration in the docks, or the works
in in connexion with them.. flow could this be reconciled
with Mr. Benjamin Cebitt s statement, that he allowed 50 , 00i.
for the clearing out of the dock? How could It he
with the fact that the greater part of the hill
reconciled
referred to the dock? What was their preamble about?
-bout ? Docks! docks!
docks! docks! What were their clauses k
docks ! What were their traffic tables—their estimates—their, evi-
" docked their scheme
dente about ? Docks! And now they had . . .
dwelt upon certain discrepancies be-
nicely. The Learned Counsel also
be-
tween the statements of Messrs. Win. and Benjamin Cubitt , and upon
the omission of coffer-dams, dock walls, purchase of certain land,
and erection of stations, from the estimates.
Upon the conclusion of Mr. Sergeant Wieeiss's speech,
Mr. Powea said that he had to withdraw the opposition of the
Tlermondsey, Rollierhithe, and Deptford-road Trustees, as regarded
Trundley-lane, and that the opposition of the Haberdashers Company
was also withdrawn, both parties having been satisfied by a clause
which was to be inserted in the Bill. As far as the opposition had
reference t i Grove-street. it depended en the result of certain Dego-
, tiations with the Admiralty. If the latter were satisfied with the
result of these negotiations, his clients would be satisfied also.
Mr. RAwbuisoN then replied to the speech of Mr. Willins. Ile
pointed out the fact that the Bill had now no opponent but the
Canal Company, and that all the persons whose land they would
traverse were in favour of the scheme. It was nut necessary to
remove the existing bridge over the canal if the proprietors of the
canal were anxious that it should remain, as the new bridge could
be built without touching the old one.
On the conclusion of th, Learned I !ounsers address, the Committee
ordered the roim to he clear,d. and after a consultation of less than
a on ;,-• e. of an hour, announced their opinion that the preamble (as
amended) was proved.
The clauses were then read : several new ones were introduced, of
which one ws, to give the power to cross Grove-lane on a level ;
of ethor way to carry the railway over the poll of Trunaley-lane,