The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-19 00:00:00

GROUP XV.

The Committee met in the Vice-Chancellor of England's Court, at
twelve o'clock. Present, Mr. O'Connell (chairman), 21r It. Price,
Captain Hatton, Mr. Hindley, Mr. Mackinnon.
BRIGHTON AND CHICHESTER (BOGNOR
TO LITTLEHAMPTON), carcznasTEre,
AND BOGNOR.

The CHAIRMAN announced this morning that, in consequence of his
application to the Speaker, the Bill fur that one of the competing
lines which had not been read a second time, would be read a second
time to-night by special motion, that the sittings of the Committee
might not be interrupted. But, as some of the witnesses had been
sent home, the Committee postponed the consideration of these lines
to Monday next.

LONDON AND BRIGHTON (EAST.
GRINSTEAD).
NORTH EASTERN (GODSTONE TO EAST

GRINSTMAD). -----
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Lang continued the examination of wit-
nesses for the South Eastern.
Sir. Barlow, the engineer of the line was called, and stated that
the most unfavourable gradient on this line was 1 in 66, and it
would be more easily overcome than the gradient on the Brighton
branch at Trow Bridges, of one in eighty, and that this arose from
the circumstances attending the inclination of the plain.
The viaduct on the branch of 450 yards in length would
be constructed partly of brick, partly of timber, and
would be quite secure. There was a viaduct of the like construction
with a maximum height of 125 feet on the Sheffield and Manchester
line, and was found quite safe. The expense would be 22,0001., and
the working expenses of the line would be 3001. per mile. He
thought the gradient of 1 in 66 of 80 feet in a mile, which occurred on
the viaduct, was quite inappreciable in its effects on the travelling of
the trains.

Several other witnesses were called and examined, on behalf of the
South Eastern, to show the traffic of the neighbourhood towards the
east ; and this closed the case for that branch.

Mr. ROWE then addressed the Committee on behalf of Mrs. Phil-
lips, Mr. Hastie, and other proprietors on the South Eastern Branch,
in opposition to that :ine, and called witnesses to show that the great
damage done to private property would not be compensated by public
advantage.
Mr. Dizazwrrima having shortly addressed the Committee in
reply on behalf of the South-Eastern,
Mr. Mira.F.a was rising to reply en behalf of the Brighton Branch,
when

The Cnatanfax announcedf that he need not proceed as the
majority of the Committee were of opinion that the Brighton branch
should be passed, and the South-Eastern rejected. The Chairman
said he had spoken of the majority of the Committee, for his own
opinion was, that both lines should have been granted.
The preamble or the London and Brighton (East Grinstead) Branch
Bill was declared proved, and the several clauses of the Bill were
then read and passed.
The Committee adjourned till Monday next at twelve o'clock.

Sub-Comittee No. 1.
Members present, Mr. Strutt (Chairman), Mr. Forbes, And Mr.
Beckett.
The Committee met at twelve o'clock.
PRESTON AND WYRE, HARBOUR AND
DOCK COMPANY (LONGRIDGE JUNG.
TION).

The object of this Bill was to obtain powers to concentrate a line
i connecting the Preston and Wyre with the Preston and Longthige
Railways, and to sell or lease it to either of these lines.
The length of the line was one mile, and the estimated cost 93,0001.
Agents, Messrs. Dorrington and Co. ; Solicitors, Messrs. Nelson and
Wynne; Engineers, Mr. S. P. Bidder and Mr. Park.
The standing orders were declared to be complied with.
INVERNESS AND ELGIN.
This Bill sought powers to make a line from Nairne to Elgin, wins
branches to the three harbours of Findhorn, Burghead, and Lossie-
mouth.
The length of main line is twenty-two miles ; the branches
fourteen ; total length thirty-six miles. The estimated cost is
350,0001.
The railway is intended to form an important link in the chain
which connects London with the northern capital.
Agents, Messrs. Graham and Weymss, London ; Messrs. Ander-
son and Stewart, Inverness.
Consulting engineers, Messrs. Locke and Errington.
Acting engineer, Mr. Mitchell, Inverness.
The formal proofs, such as advertising in the newspapers published
in the several counties through which the proposed line shall pass,
&c., having been given In and supported by evidence,
The Committee decided that the standing, orders were complied with,
excepting with respect4o,2le fixed point referred to on the datum
line, which was at thK-Opirrittep-.of the academy at Inverness, a dis-
tance of fifteen miles
:.,,:..i4lte *rest terminus at Nairne.
-i.,..;,- - -.—,
PE '-,-, ~ 0 , ',; INVXRNESS.
This Bill sougle;?; •'.construCt .a line from the town of
Inverness to a2,:wi.tik 1
..gortou) live mites from Perth,
where it effected t iti1K114974 ' tile., qottish Midland Railway. The
Bill proposed also to nial4.4' 'lO. liwto Nairne. The length of
li
main line is 12514; the broxcia',4g; *4440 Miles. The estimated
cat is 4400,0004 . , ' :,-,t
.:,-,\,*-2-zi;;'
.• -•:`' . ..',1•...--,11.:;:;:i,,,--i-
-