The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, JULY 25, 1846.,

was very considerable, passed on to Bristol. He considered the lay-
ing down of the narrow gauge on this, portion of the line, and at thel
side of the broad gauge, so as to entirely disencumber it, a most essen-
tial step, if the narrow gauge was intended to be carried on
to Bristol. A narrow within a broad gauge would be most
inconvenient; but the Legislature seemed to be of opinion
that there should be a mixed gauge between Standish and
Bristol, which would have the effect of testing the practicability of
working two gauges in connexion with each other, and whether his
opinion as to the inconvenience and danger of such a practice was
sound or not. His opinion was, that this would be found so objec-
tionable, that narrow gauge lines would have to be laid down by the
side et the broad, and unconnected with It. Besides the
narrow gauge line traffic, if there were a mixed gauge,
would be under the control of the Great Western, and consequently
the whole traffic going north and south. A slip of land of from 24
to 34 feet would be required. The Rev. Mr. Niblet's case was simply
one for compensation. The estimate was 100,0001.
Mr. M'Connell, locomotive superintendent of the Birmingham and
Gloucester line, testified to Ilse inconvenience, expense, and danger of
the diversity of gauge at different portions of that line in its connexion
with the Great WesternrAt Gloucester two stations were necessary,
which would not be the case If there was a narrow gauge all the
way from Bristol, and, of course, the expei;e was increased
by making two lines and by two establishments, A mixed
gauge was highly objectionable under any circumstances, but
particularly where two would work over the same ground,
and if the traffic was very large it could not be
otherwise than exceedingly dangerous. In this case the
traffic would is got on both lines, and it would be increased when the
Monmouth and Hereford was opened. At Standish the Great
Western ran across the the Gloucester and Birmingham, and the
trains ran the risk of encountering trains coming from Bristol, owing
to the steepness of the gradient at that position and the speed of the
trains in consequence. A short time ago a collision between
a train from Bristol and another from Swindon was only pre-
vented by mere chance. There was another crossing at Gloucester,
which was also dangerous. Trains had got off the line there, and had
had the effect of stopping for some time both the narrow and broad
gauge lines. Great caution was necessary to prevent accidents, a
difficulty which he was of opinion would be obviated by this line.
This closed the case on the part of the promoter,.
Mr. AUSTIN then addressed the Committee against the project on
behalf of the Great Western Company, and contended that the
laying down of a new set of lines on another. gauge, and conse-
quent, interference with that portion of the Great Western line, was
in opposition to an agreement entered into betneen the two com-
panies, which set forth that the Gloucester and Birmingham Com-
pany should not lay down another line from Gloucester, or
divert the traffic of the line. They now proposed
to do Vils, and were, therefore, sufficiently dishonest to set at nought
this solemn compact which they had entered into. If a narrow gauge
was necessary from Gloucester to Stonehouse, or from Stonehouse to
Bristol—and he was not there to deny such a necessity, or to oppose
the laying down of the narrow gauge between those points—but be
maintained that the proper way to effect this was by having
a mixed guage— a narrow guage combined with the broad.
The Learned Gentleman concluded by calling on the Committee, If
they passed the Hill, to pass it In conformity with the arguments he had
adduced. He would call Mr. Brunel to show that there would be
neither difficul• y nor danger in having a mixed gauge.
Mr. Brunel was then examlued—He considered that the laying
down of narrow gauge lines within the broad would answer the
whole purpose sought by the Bill, and would not he dangerous. lie
saw no necessity for the laying down of narrow gauge lines at the
aide of the broad for this reason.

Mr. Vignoles agreed with Mr. Brunel that the narrow gauge could
be laid down easily, and could be as easily and safely worked as if
it were an independent gauge. He considered Mr. R. Stephenson
prejudiced in favour of the bread gauge.
Mr. Cnbitt gave similar testimony ; and Mr. Miller was called for

the same purpose, but the Committee considered it-Unnecessary to
multiply evidence on the point.

Mr: Saunders, secretary to the Great Western line, specified the
nature of the agreement between the two Companies.
The CHAIRMAN here intimated that the Committee would grant
the preamble of the Bill If the promoters would agree to lay down the
narrow within the broad gauge, in fact, agree to a mixed gauge.
Mr. HILDTABD declined to accede to the recommendation of the
Committee, and trusted that he should be able to show the Com-
mittee that a separate and entirely independent gauge was absolutely
necessary.

Sir T. PHiLLIPS then addressed the Committee in opposition to the
line on behalf of the Rev. Mr. Niblet, who opposes the Bill on the
ground that it will interfere with his property to a greater extent
than two years ago, when the existing line was completei, and when
he was freed from the presence of the " navies."
This closed the case on the part of the promoters.
Mr. HILDTARD then addressed the Committee, and reiterated his
arguments in favour of the Bill and an independent gauge.
The'room was then cleared, and the Committee deliberated.
DECISION.

After a few minutes parties were admitted, when
The CHATIMAN intimated that the Committee were quite ready to
pass the Bill on the understanding that the narrow gauge should he
made in connexion with the broad; but as that proposition was not
acceded to they felt bound to reject the preamble of the Blll.—Ad-
joarned until to-morrow.

Room No. 5.

lIIIPORTANT DECISION.
c NET/11E7.D, DANNSLET,
WAIL 1.-17IMILD, nunpratsrzELD, AND
GOOLE.
The Committee re-assembled this-morning at the usual hour in
No. 5, Abingdon. street, the Earl of Radnor in the chair.
The only witnesses exemined to-day were Mr. Hindle and Mr.
Locke, civil engineers. 'I he former deposed to the damage which the
line would cause Mr. Clarke's property, and the latter to the great
engineering difficulties which would attend its construction. He also
expressed an opinion that the promoters never intended to carry it out,
but were merelypromoting it to prevent the Barnsley Junction.
Sergeant WitAnoirms addressed the Committee at great length on
behalf of the opposition, and contended that the evidence submitted
was of such a character that the Committee could not sanction the
proposed line.

- Mr. Sergeant WILKINS did not reply. There was nothing advanced
on the other aide which would warrant him in taking up the time of
tire Committee. • - •

The case on behalf of the proposers and the opposition having new
closed,
The CHAIRMAN announced the decision of the Committee—" That
the preamble of the Sheffield, Rotherham, Barnsley, Wakefield,
Huddersfield, and Goole Railway Bill was proved."
The Cofnmittee having thus dispatched the business before them,
broke up.