The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-13 00:00:00

GROUP X-KVII.

This Committee reassembled this morning at the usual hour ; Sir
C. Lemon in the chair.

SOUTH r;Txxo LAN D.

Mr. Upton, a corn-factor from Bedford, was the first witness ex-
amined this morning. His evidence proved the benefit which the
proposed scheme would confer on the town of Bedford and the dis-
trict generally. He thought this line preferable to the competing
one, inasmuch as it was so constructed as to be more easily con-
nected with any southern communication to London.
The engineering evidence was then gone into.
Mr. Liddell, engineer of the line, examined by Mr. MAcArLAY,
described the course of the line, and stated that it was laid
out with a view to the accommodation of the district generally. Wit-
ne•3s then detailed the curves, gradients, tunnels, cuttings, and em-
bankments of the two schemes, the result of the codiyarison being
greatly in favour of the South Midland line as regards the construc-
tion of the works and the consequent saving of expense. He con-
firmed the evidence of Mr. Stephenson, which we have already re-
ported.

The cross-examination of this witness occupied the remainder of
the day, and the Committee adjourned till twelve to-morrow.

GROUP XX...X.
This Committee re-assembled to-day at the usual hour. Presen•
Lord Charles Wellesley (chairman), and the other members.

AYLESBURY AND THAME JUNCTION, AND

THE C./LTV/BRIDGE AND OXFORD.

Mr. CALvERT (on the part of the promoters of the Aylesbury and
Thame line) resumed his argu.i.ents in reply. lie felt satisfied that
the reason that the promoters of the opposing line had limited
their engineering evidence to Mr. Locke and his prote-Cie, Mr. Denton,
was that they could not obtain any other respectable engineering
evidence in support of a single line. It was well-known that the opi-
nion of scientific men was quite hostile to such, and he would take
the liberty of quoting a few authorities on this matter. (The Learned
Counsel here read the evidence of several eminent engineers depre-
cating strongly the principle of single lines.) lie hoped lie had now
shown the Committee that this single line was impracticable, and that
the Cambridge and Oxford line was deficient in that unity of
management which was held out lay the line he supported, which
the Board of Trade so strongly recommended last year. The A) les-
bury and Theme line would be worked by the London and Birming-
ham Company, to which they had heard Mr. Stephenson state he
intended to recommend it. The line also had the advantage of being
an almost perfect level, and the radius of the curve, to which such
frequent allusion had been made by his Learned Friends en the other
side, was not of that nature as to be a matter of serious objection to
the line. Though it had been said there was all epposition to
this Bill from landowners, there was not a shadow of evi-
dence adduced to prove that any fesidential injury would be
inflicted by this line. The level crossings had been preferred.
With respect to popularity, it would appear that the petitioners
at Aylesbury in favour of their line (Aylesbury and Theme) were as
three to one compared with those in lavour of the Cambridge and
Oxford line. The L' anted Couw el concluded by expressing a hope
that the Committee would reject the Cambridge and Oxford line, and
adopt the Aylesbury and Thame line.

Sergeant CLARKE replied.
The Committee then adjourned.

GROUP XXXV.
The Committee met to-day, at twelve o'clock, in room No. 27
(Grand Corridor)—present, Mr. George Bankes (chairman), Sir
A. L. Hay, Mr. Bruges, Sir Thos. Winnington, Sir R. W. Bulkeley
—and proceeded to consider the
EAST COAST LINE.

Mr. Corm, on the part of the promoters, stated to the Chairman,
that since the last sitting of the Committee, he had consulted with
his constituents, and he found, that in consequence of the evidence of
er ane orurtatanigi,emseirn tsw.hadrobweeknes,maandde
withMr .
the
c I ice
or
monnotshs lastn,rs doatyt,
hesevtie
other parties, hitherto opponents of the Bill, by which the objections
of those parties were removed.
The Learned Gentleman who appeared for the Commissioners of
the Nene, the Commissioners of the Bedford Level, Sir Thomas
Fowkes, and the Corporation of Wisbeach, severally and formally
withdrew their oppo Mon.
!Sir E. W. 11ULKELEY—Why, this was a very formidable opposition
at first, but it has dwindled away to nothing.
Mr. Coos wished to know whether his Learned Friend, Mr. Web-
ster, who appeared for ninety-eight petitioners, of whom twenty-six
were designated by their marks—(A laugh)—was instructed to with-
draw his opposition ?
Mr. WEBSTER said he was not. But if the promoters went on so
earnestly to work in removing objections by abandoning their line,
he would soon have nothing t:, oppose.—(Laughter.)
Mr. COOKE then called additiOnal witnesses to prove the traffic.
One of the witnesses, Secretary to the Yorkshire Agricultural
Society, stated that he and all the people in the neighbourhood in
Lincolnshire, being farmers and graziers, were always glad to avail
themselves of the railway, especially for the transport of fat cattle.
In Lincolnshire they would be greatly benefited by railways, and he
thought favourably of the East Coast line.
The wittiestes were erc,ss-examined by Mr. SANDERS, on behalf of
certain petitioners. They were of opinion that the proposed line
would be very valuable to an extensive grazing and importing dis-
trict, and would complete a most important chain of railway com-
munication with the north and west.
Mr TALBOT was proceeding to cross-examine a witness on the
behalf of certain petitioners, when
Mr. COCKBURN, for the promoters, submitted that the real oppo-
nents in this case were the Eastern Counties Railway Company, as
appeared on the face of the petition. •
The CHAIRMAN said that he would allow the question to be put,
without reference to any other railway, for it was the duty of the
Committee to withhold their sanction from any railway which did
not appear to be-the bust that could be constructed for the public
accommodation in its district.
Mr. T. Wyng, of Thornley, a magistrate of Cambridge, and agent
to the Duke of Bedford, gave evidence in Ihvour of the line, • o far as
the arrangements for maintaining the drainage were concerned.
Mr. Fulton, one of the engineers, was examined as to the merits of
the line in his department. There were no engineering difficulties.
The cross-examination did not materially affect his direct evidence.
The Committee then adjourned.