The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-27 00:00:00

3UN CTXON.

The examination of the merits of this scheme was re-
sumed. Mr. John Braithwaite, the engineer of the line, was
examined at some length by Mr. Ogle, on behalf of several
landholders, who complained that the line would inflict
leo-e irjury on their property than the competing.line.
Mr. JAMES submitted to .the Committee that all the cases
were simply matter for compensation.
The Committee concurring in this opinion, the cross•exa-

minaiien was not persisted in.
Mr. I3raithwaite was then examined at some length. He
said he had never heard, until he entered that Committee, of
there being any trade between Ipswich and Harwich. His
object had been to obtain the shortest line between Harwich
anti the metropolis; but if it .‘ ere thought that the line
ought to accommodate Ipswich, there would be no difficulty
in having a fork at the point of junction with the Eastern
Union, one branch pointing to Ipswich and the other to
London. Tho distance from Ipswich to Harwich, was twenty
miles by rail, while by the Orwell it was only nine miles, and
there was a cheap steam-boat communication; passengers
were carried, he believed, for sixpence a head.
Captain Richardson, one of the directors of the line, having
been one of the deputation that waited upon the Board of
Admiralty with reference to the two proposed lines, proved
that the Admiralty preferred Mr. Braithwaite's line to Mr.
Lock's, which ran along the coast. The matter was discussed
in the presence of Ceptain Beaufort, who was decidedly in fa-
vourof Braithwaite's line. He had seen the Captain that
morning, and asked him to attend before the Committee and
• give evidence in favour of the line, but the Admiralty were
averse to his appearing before the Committee in the capacity
of a witness. He could state, however, positively that th::
.Admiralty had adopted their plan for the pier at Harwich,
and rejected the Eastern Ut ion plan.
Mr. RODWELL objeuted to this evidence on behalf of the
Eastern Union Company, because he should be in a position
to show that the Admiralty had refused to receive a deputa-
tion from the Company lie represented.
Mr. JAMES thought this could hardly be possible.
The CHAIRMAN asked if the Eastern Union Company had
submitted any plan of a pier to the Admiralty? •
Mr. Romvem, replied that they had sent to ask the Admi-
ralty to allow a deputation to wait upon them with plans;
but the Admiralty refused to receive it.

Mr. JAMES said he held in his hand a copy of a plan which
the Eastern Union Company submitted to the Admiralty,
and wnich the Admiralty rejected.
The Cu:sin:um; submitted that if the Committee sanc-
tioned the Eastern Union line, how could it be carried out
if the Admiralty opposed it?
Mr. RODWELL said they were prepared to alter the plan
of their pier at Harwich to r. it!t the views of the Admiralty.
Mr. JAMES said it was impos,ible for the Eastern Union
Company to depart from their deposited plans and sections.
TheCnammate—Then the case stands thus :—The Eastern
Union Company say they have not h-en heard. Now if it
should turn out, or if it can be proven, that their line was
considered with the one now before us, and the latter me,
adopted by the Admiralty, we shall be inchned to attach
importance to that opinion, although we are-not bound by it
or at all disposed to surrender our functions to that board.
Mr. JAMES said the Admiralty had an objection to their
officer attending there in the capacity of a witness, and,
therefore, they could not prOve the opinion of the board
from official authority, but there was this paragraph in one
of the reports of the Board of Trade, which was pretty con-
clusive on the point:—" But when the circumstances
of the port of Harwich are taken into consi&ra-
tion, national interests become mixed up with
and form important ingredients in the question, especially as
such project contemplates the erection of a pier. A commu-
nication had, therefore, been made by this board to the Lords
of the Admiralty on the subject, and they have stated, that
though they do not consider their objections to the Eastern
Union scheme of such vital importance as to be at once fatal
to it, they think Braithwaite's is, upon the whole, the most
expedient, and the best for the
_public interests. Therefore,
notwithstanding the Eastern Union scheme only requires
eleven miles of new railway, we are of opinion that the state-
ment which we have received from the Admiralty is con-
clusive against it, and that on public grounds Braithwaite's
Harwich Pier Railway is preferable to either of the others."
Mr. TALBOT objected to the Committee assuming that the
Admiralty had decided against the Eastern Union line, with-
out first consulting the officers of that board on the subject;
and even supposing the board had, upon an ex parte state-
ment, decided against them, the Committee ought not to
adopt this decision as their own.
The Committee objected to having any private 'communi-
cation with the Admiralty on the subject, and ultimately it
was decided that a Speaker's order should be sent for Capt.
Beaufort to attend and give evidence on the point.

Captain RicsiunDsoistated that he understood the objec-
tion of the Board of Admiralty to the coast line was, that in
time of war it would be liable to attack from the enemy's
vessels passing up the Orw,ll.
Mr. H. Blanchard, a retired East India merchant, and the
owner of a large estate in the neighbourhood of the gave
evidence of the local advantages of the scheme. Other ge-
neral evidence of this nature, showing that the majority of
the inhabitants of the district preferred Lir. Braithwaite's
lie to the coast, line was adduced, after which a
communication was put into the hands of the Chairman, who

intimated that its contents informed him, that as Captain
Beaufort was the confidential adviser of the Admiralty, it
would be utterly inconsistent with his office to appear before
the Committee to give evidence in his official capacity, and
therefore (added the Hon. Gentleman) they could only take
it for granted that the Admiralty assented to Mr. Braith-
waite's line, but not to the one running along the coast.

Mr. COCIMURN stated that the aintnisliioners of Woods
and Forests had been applied to for their opinion on the
subject of the tw•o lines, but they declined giving a preference
to tither line.

_
Thie closed the case for the promoters.
The Committee then adjourned till twelve o'clock to-
morrow.

PARLIAMENTAH V BUSINESS.

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.)
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25.
Railways and Canals Amalgamation,—Committee nominated:—
Sir George Clerk, Sir George Grey, Mr. Pakington, Mt. E. Denison,
Mr. G. Hope, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Patten.
The following Petitions tor Railways ►ere reported, and the Bills
ordered to be brought in kr the undernamed lion. 31einhers :
Leeds Central Railway Station—Mr. B. Denison, Mr. Beckett, and
Mr. Aldsm.
Kilmarnock and Troon—Lord G. Bentick and Mr. Oswald.
Kilmarnock and Ayr Direct—Lord J. Stuart and Mr. Bouverie.

STANDING ORDERS' CO3I3IITTEE.

The following resolutions were reported from this Committee:-
1. That, in the case of the Wakefield Improvement petition, the
standing orders ought not to be dispensed with.
2. That, in the case of the Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire
Junction Railway petition, the standing ceders ought to be dis-
pensed with :—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill.
3. "chat, in the ease of the Hull and Lincoln Railway petition, the
standing orders ought to be Ispensed with :—That the parties be
ctiioi
ls depositedpermittedtopocweeid with
thew clerksiththe of the peace their Bill opnaempr theding county'thepl oansf
theand
apcecaocred
fowrl h
flag e
parts pl aoifis
La
in•
ndd
ssee3c.
teliotn sodeposited ,ws°it last ttlot emclaekrek tol m e
and on inserting in figures on the cross sections the present rates of
inclination of the pubic carrier, roads passed by the railway.
4. That, in the case of the Newport and Pillgwenly Waterworks
petition, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with :—That the
parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill on procuring adds.
tional subscribers, duly bound according to the provisions of the
standing orders, to the amount of 1501. at the least.
That the Committees on this and the preceding Bill do examine,
in the first place, how far such order %has been complied with,
and do report the same to the House on the report of the Bill.
Second, third, and fourth resolutions agreed te.—Report to He on
the table.

SECOND READINGS OF RAILWAY BILLS.
WEDNICSDAY, APRIL 1.
Preston and Wyre Harbour and Dock (New Deck and Railway).
Preston and Wyre Harbour and Dock (Longridge Junction).

THE BELGIAN EASTERN JUNC-

TION R ‘ILWAY.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Str,—ln the report of the meeting held at the London
Tavern yesterday, which appeared in The Sun of last night,
it is stated that " The meeting shortly after separated?
having come to no determination ; but the understanding ap-
peared to be that the work should go on, as there appeared
to be no legal mode of dissolving the Company."
Now, Sir, this is the very reverse of that which took place;
it is true there was some discussion as to whether the Com-
pany could be dissolved legally, but at length Mr. La Mert,
the chairman of the committee appointed by the share-
holders, proposed a resolution for the immediate dissolution,
which was seconded by Mr. Field, and carried by an over-
whelming
majority,
I trust you will insert this contradiction in your paper of
this evening, and remain, Sir, your obedient servant,
HEISTRYPEIILIPPS,

Solicitor to the Committee.
F.S. I refer you for a corroboration of the above to the
report in the Morning Herald of this day.
No. 4, Sise-lanv, March 26, 1846.

Lord Brougham received at dinner, on Wednesday,
the Marquis and Marchioness of Clanricarde, the Earl of Auckland,
and Miss Eden, Viscount Goderich, the Vice-Chancellor of England,
Mr. and Mrs. A. Montgomery, Mr. and Mrs. Stanley and Lady
Dillon, and Jiro, J. Tewuley.