The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-05 00:00:00

--
port a direct Yeovil or Exeter line, he addition to the coast and
Wilts and Somerset lines, the preference given to the latter would
not have been conclusive against the sanction of the former; but
it appears to us to be perfectly well established that neither the
local or through-traffic are at present of sufficient amount to
enable the two schemes to exist in conjunction, and therefore, as
a consequence of the opinion we have expressed, that the Great
Western scheme affords, on the whole, decidedly greater pte,lic
advantages, it follows that we must equally express an opinion un.
favourable to the line from Salisbury to Yeovil.
It may, perhaps, be objected that the effect of the rejection of
the Salisbury and Yeovil line will be to create a monopoly of the
whole traffic of the west of England in the hands of the Great
Western Company. This objection, however, could only be
obviated by sanctionieg a great length of otherwise unproductive
line for the sake of competition, and by so doing defeating a scheme
greatly preferable both in respect of local accommodation and of na-
tional advantage. Nor does it appear to us that any monopoly
beyond what at present exists would be thus created, since if at any
time hereafter circumstances should so change, either by the in-
creasing importance of the through-traffic or by any possible abuse
of their powers on the part of the Great Western Company, as to
justify and require the construction of a shorter or competing line to
Exeter, there would be nothing in the present settiment to prevent
such line from being brought forward, either by the South-Western
Company, or by other parties.
The Heck Pit Deviation, by which the angle at Bishopstoke of
the Salisbury line, sanctioned last year, is proposed to be cut off,
and the distance from Salisbury to London shortened, might be
highly desirable. if the South-Western scheme of a central line
to the west of Salisbury were adopted. But if this scheme be re.
jected, there hardly appears a sufficient case for proposing a new
line to alter one so recently sanctioned, and which is not yet com-
pleted, more especially as it may be questionable whether, if it be a
sufficient object for the South-Western Company to. shorten their
line to Salisbury as much as possible, that object might not be
better attained by a line from Basingstoke by way of Andover,
which would at the same time accommodate a district now un-
provided with railway communication.
We have thus stated the grounds on which we should have been
induced to express a preference in favour of the lines of the Great
Western scheme over the competing lines of the South-Western
scheme, had both been brought forward for the sanction of Parlia-
ment. The latter scheme has, however, as we have already stated,
been withdrawn by its promoters. An arrangement has also been
entered into, by which the coast line from Southampton to Dor-
chester, which, although connected with the Great Western
scheme, is promoted by an independent Company, is proposed,
with the consent of the different parties interested, to be leased to
the South-Western instead of to the Great Western Company.
This arrangement appears to us advantageous for the public, in.
asmuch as from the position of the line in question, terminating
at Southampton, and having the South. Western Railway for the
outlet of all its metropolitan traffic, it may be worked more con-
veniently in connexion with the South-Western than with the
Great Western Company. A consequence of the former con.
nexion also is, that the narrow instead of the wide gauge will be
carried westward from Southampton to Dorchester; and although
this will be an inconvenience for all traffic from the westward of
Dorchester to Southampton, and places short of it, it will be a
great advantage for all traffic passing beyond Southampton to Lon
don, and, by the continuation of the coast line, towards Ports-
mouth and Brighton,
In order to obviate as far as possible the inevitable inconve-
nienees arising from the meeting of the two different gauges, it
may be well to insert clauses into the Bills of both Companies
enabling some public authority to enforce hereafter, at the request
of either Cetnpatry, the laying down of additional rails over por-
tions, of the other line, or such other provisions as may appear
practicable and desirable, sut ject to equitable conditions. For
instance, between Weymouth and Dorchester it may be very de-
sirable that additional rails should be laid down if practicable, so
as to allow narrow.gauge marriages, &c., to run on to London and
Southampton without interruption.
Some similar provision might be required at the meeting of the
two gauges at Salisbury ; and there also it is essential that pro-
vision should be made to ensure a proper junction of the two lines,
which is not shown on the plans.
!übject to these points, and to other provisions of detail, it ap-
pears to us that the system of lines, and the arrangements above
described, and which are now brought forward without opposition,
as far as the different railway interests are concerned, are well cal-
culated to promote public convenience and to provide fir the ac-
commodation of the district.
In conclusion, we be beg to draw attention to the passage 'of the
Fifth Report of the Select Committee of lad year, in which it is
stated, in recommending that reports should be made to Parliament
by this department upon railway schemes, " That no such report
should be held to prejudice the claims of private persons, the ex-
amination of which should be altogether reserved to the Houses of
the Legislature."
In submitting to Parliament, in conformity with the recommen.
datlons of that Committee, the results at which we have arrived,
with a view to the information and assistance of Parliament in
forming a judgment upon the schemes in question, in so far as our
report may be available for that purpose, we are anxious that it
should be distinctly understood that we have arrived at these re-
sults solely upon public grounds, and to the exclusion of all consi-
derations how far such results might require to be modified by a due
r. Bard for private rights and interests.
D ALIT OUSIE.
C. W. PASLEY. G. R. PORTER.
D. O'BRIEN. S. LAING.

RAILWAY BUSINESS IN PAR-
LIAMENT.
TUESDAY, Mancit 4.
Standing Orders Committe,—Resolutions reported ;
" That, in the case of the Thames and Medway Canal Pe.
tition. the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with."
2. " That, in the case of the Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock,
and Ayr Raiiway Petition, the Standing Orders ought to be
dispensed with :—That the parties be permitted to proceed
with their Bill."
3. "That, in the case of the Glasgow Junction Railway
Petition, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with :
That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
4. " That, in the case of the London, Worcester, and South
Staffordshire Railwav Petition, the Standing Orders ought to
be dispensed with :-That the parties be permitted to proceed
with their Bill."
5. " That, in the case of the York and North Midland
(Goole Branch) Railway Petition, the Standing Orders ought
...:4 hs.srucn3 OM, iv-,
on the plan."
. .

G. "That, in the case of the Cambridge and Lincoln Rail-
way Petition, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed
with :—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their
Bill, upon a memorandum of the radii of the two curves re-
ported on, not exceeding one mile in length, being forthwith
noted on the plans."

" That the 'Committees on this and the preceding Bill do
examine, in the first place, how far such order has been com-
plied with, and do report the same to the House on the report
of the Bill."

The second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth resolutions
agreed to. Report to lie on the table.
Cambridge and Lincoln Railway,—Report from Select
Committee on Standing Orders read; Bill ordered to be,
brought in by Mr. Manners Sutton, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Fitz-
william, and Mr. Eliott Yorke.

The following Mils were read a first time
The Newcastle and Berwick Railway.
The Scottish Central Railway.
The Belfast and Ballymena Railway.
The Lynn and Ely Railway.
The Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway.

The following Bills were read a second time, and coin.
mitted, and referred to the Committee of Selection :
Whitby and Piekering Railway.
Leeds and Third: Railway.
Barnsley Junction Railway.
Eastern Counties Railway (Ely and Whittlesea Deviation).
Blackburn, Burnloy,Accrington, and Colne Extension Railway.
Manchester, Billy, and Rossendale Railway (Heywood
Branch ).

NOTICES GIVEN AT THE PRIVATE BILL-OFFICE,

M.tncii 4.

Scottish Central Railway,—Second reading, Monday,
March 10.

Brighton and Chichester (Portsmouth Extension) Railway,
—Committee on petition, postponed from Thursday, 6th, till
Friday, ith March.
Southport and Euston Junction Railway,—Committee on
petition, Monday, March 17.

West Cornwall llailway-,—Petition for Bill reported, and
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Pendarves and Mr. Ed-
mund Turner.

Ulster Railway Extension,—Petition for Bill reported, and
Bill ordered to be brought in by Viscount Castlereagh and
the Earl of Ilillsborough.
Oxford and Rugby Railway,—Petition for Bill reported,
and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Charles Russell and
Mr. Hayter.
Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway,—Petition for bill
reported; report referred to the Select Committee on Stand-
ing Orders.
Clydesdale Junction Railway,--Petition for Bill reported;
report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Northumberland Railway,—Petition for Bill; referred to
the Select Committee on Petitions for Private Bills.

York and North Midland Railway (Goole Braneh),--Be-
port from Select Committee on Standing Orders read; Bill
ordered to be brought in by Sir John Lowther, Mr. Stuart
Wortiy, and Mr. Beckett.
Edinburgh and Northern Railway,—Petition for Bill; re-
ferr.:d to the Select Committee on Petitions for Private Bills.
So3thrrt and Euxton Junction Railway,—Petition for
Bill ; referred to the Select Committee on Petitions for Pri-
vate Bills