The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-19 00:00:00

GROUP XXXI.

BRISTOL AND DIRAITATGRADI (ASH**
CHURCH, TEVTICESBURY, AND MALVERN).
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
The engineering evidence was then gone into, and the Committee
adjourned.

GROUP MM.
WORCESTER AND WEEDON,
HAMPTON AND ASHCHITECH,
HAMPTON AND BANBURY.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Other witnesses were examined to the same effect as the Hon.
Baronet ; amongst others, the land agent of the marquis of Hertford,
who said that the poor lands through which the lines would pass
would be greatly benefited because such was always the effect of
railways. Persons of capital were by means of this mode of convey-
ance made acquainted with the extent to which poor lands were ne-
glected, and were induced to employ their capital upon them.
The Committee adjourned till twelve o'clock to•morrew.

GROUP XXXVII I.
LEEDS, DEVZSDITRY, AND W.TANCHESTER

Mr. Acland, chairman.
Mr. Grainger, the engineer to the line, was examined at
length.consider-
The total length of the line was seven miles live fur-
alobk ngs' . The gradients were of a favourable nature. The estimated
cost of the line was 280,000!. The line would be easily constructed,
and the traffic would make it a remunerative line to the shareholders.
After hearing some further evidence, the Committee adjourned till
twelve c'clnek to-morrow.

GROUP XXXIX.
HUDDERSFIELD AND MANCHESTER
corms am DISTRICT).
The Committee met at twelve o'clock.
Evidence was adduced in support of the Bill, and the case on the
part of the promoters having been closed,
The Committee adjourned until Monday.

GROUP XLI.

This committee re-assembled to-day at twelve o'clock.

MANCHESTER, BOLTON, AND BURY CA-

NAL AND NIA.ILIVAY.

The cage for the opponents of this Bill was entered into.

Mr. HOPE (on the part of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway
Company) said he trusted that the Committee would not sanction
such a Bill as that before them—a Bill which interfered most mate-
rially with the rights of another company without affording any ade-
quate advantage to the public. The company he represented had not
only expended a large sum in the construction of their works, bat
also had paid 41,0001. for a free way, and it was now sought by the
promoters of the is esent Bill to cross their line and divert their
traffic, and by the establishment of a station at Manchester to reap
the advantages of his clients',toil and money. No' case ever came
before Parliament involving such an interference with the rights of a
putlic Company. Level crossings had been sanctioned in other
parts of the country, but never without a necessity far greater than
could be shown in the present case to exist, and never on a line
crowded with traffic, like the Liverpool and Manchester. On that
line there were no less than ninety trains passing daily ; in addition
to which, the prices of conveyance were the lowest that had ever
been charged. In support of what he had advanced as to
the amount of traffic, he would just advert to one item,
namely, the pleasure traffic. This was already very consider-
able, and Ras daily increasing in tile ratio of the population,
as would be shown by the evidence. Such was the traffic of
his clients' line. What was the case with their opponents'. Why,
they had wily thirty trains. Was it, then, not preposterous
that they should seek to pass through the very centre of
the most thriving district in the country, when railway traffic was
.laily developing itself, and that at the disadvantage of delay, if not
of danger? for there were instances where disasters had re•
suited from these very level crossings. From these considerations,
'le trusted that the Committee would not sanction the present Bill on
these grounds : first, that his clients had afforded the public great
convenience, and in the next place that the line proposed was not
only not required, but that it was not even a proper line.

. .
After hearing some evidence In support of the petitioners agains,
l
,Le Bill the Committee adjourned.