The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-07 00:00:00

RAILWAY COMMIITEES
(YESTERDA Y.)

Group U.—Room No. 16.
GREAT GRIMSBY AND SHEFFIELD, AND HULL AND
G AINSBOROUGH PROJECTIONS.
The Committee assembled this day, shortly after Twelve o'clock,
having adjourned over from Friday last, at the request of Counsel
on both sides, who, as we announced inlour first edition of that slay,
stated that they made the request hi the hope that, as there was no
difference between the promoters of the lines and the petitioners
against them as to the principle, they would be able to make
mutual arrangements as to details.
Upon the Caatemax taking his seat,
Mr. EVEYNCOURT said he was happy to inform the Committee that
Al further opposition from the projectors of the Hull and Gains-
borough had been withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN wished to know if there was not some opposition
by landowners? He had heard that Lord Scarborough was one of
those.

Mr. D'ErareotraT said he was not sure whether Lord Scarborough
would appear at all.
The CHAIRMAN asked if Mr. Duckle had withdrawn his oppo•
sition ?
Mr. Duckle's agent said he would be able to give an answer in
a few minutes; an agreement had been drawn up, and it only re-
mained to be signed.
The Clerk said the next petitioners were the proprietors of the
Gainsborough bridge.
The agent for the Company said he had no opposition to the
preamble; he only wished to propose a clause.
The CHAIRMAN wished to know if any person appeared on behalf
of Lord Scarborough.
The agent stated he believed that Lord Scarborough would not
appear by counsel. His Lordship did not oppose the preamble.
His was a claim for compensation.
The Clerk said the next petitioners were the trustees of the
Barton Waterside Road.
Mr. HILL said he appeared merely on a clause.
The Rev. Mr. Williams said he would not appear by counsels
but would leave his case in the hands of the Committee.
The Clerk said the next petition was from the proprietors of the
River Trent, but there had been ne appearance to it.
The CHAIRMAN then asked if any person appeared for the Hull
and Gainsborough Company ?
Mr. WEBSTER said he did, and begged to announce that_ they
would offer no further opposition.
The CHAIRMAN then said the Committee were of opinion, that
the preamble of the Bill had been proved. Ho then stated, that
an application had been made to increase the capital from
600,0001. to 800,000/.
Mr. PICKERING said they merely wished to alter that portion of
the 4th clause, so as to increase the capital by 200,000/. in order to
have funds at their command to make a double line of rail
all through.
The CHAIRMAN doubted if they had the power to make The
alteration.—Some discussion having followed upon this point, it
was agreed upon to frame a separaee clause to meet the difficulty
and the Chairman left the room for the purpose of consulting the
Speaker as to the consistency of such a course with the standing
orders. He returned in about half an hour, at.d stated that having
consulted the highest authority to which he could refer, the result
was, that the Bill must either be proceeded with as it stood ; or
if they intended to increase their stated capital, they would have to
go before the Standing Orders Committee again, aid in fact go
through all the steps again in reference to the estimates, &c.
Mr. P CKERINU said that under these circumstances they would
proceed with their Bill as it stood.
The Clerk then proceeded to read the clauses. Clauses IC and
17 were postponed for the appearance of Mr. Dunkle'a agent. On
clause 18 being read,
Mr. HILL, on behalf of certain turnpike trusts, in opposition to
the proposed crossing by the proposed line of the levels of the
turnpike roads passing betwe m Hull and Lincoln through Brigg
It was the main line to llrigg, a very populous town, and the cross-
ing, would bring the trains so near as to cause risk to the people
living in that locality, 'who were constantly in the habit of walking
there, and pas ing and repassing with cattle, children, &c.
Mr. R. Ouston, one of the turnpike trustees, deposed -that the
line proposed to be crossed was a great thoroughfare for carriers,
cattle, children, &c. ; this would be the third crossing proposed to
be made within a mile. There was no difficulty to making bridges
at the crossings except the expense to the Company.
To the CHAIRMAN—Has had no personal experience of danger
attending level crossings; his alarm is from a general supposition
as to inconvenience and danger. There would be four trains pass.
ing each way every day,
Mr. Fowler, engineer, on behalf of the promoters of the line,
deposed that if the Company su ere compelled to make bridges at
those crossings, the expense would amount to nearly 12,0001.
To the CHAIRMAN—The precautions to be taken by the pro.
meters would be sufficient to guard against danger. The Company
were willing to leave the matter to the Board of Trade.
The CHAIRMAN said, the Committee were of opinion
that no case ,of danger had been made out ; and
some of the Members had travelled in other countries where alt the
crossings were crossings on a level, and no danger was apprehended.
Indeed, he (the Chairman); himself knew instances where bridges
had been built at crossings, and applications were made to have
them taken down again...-(Laughter.)
The other clauses were then proceeded with, as far as the clause
requiring the Committee to fix the maximum rate of charges as
tolls.

11 The CHAIRMAN asked the Counsel upon what principle be had
fixed the rates at the amount stated in the clause?
A witness was.called, who deposed that the charges were below
the average, taking into account the charges made by other
companies.
The further consideration of the clause was then postponed in
order to afford time for the correction of some inconsistencies.
The manuscript clauses were then taken up, one of which was a
proposition from the Duchy of Lancaster claiming compensation for
certain damages which the line would do.
The River Trent Navigation Company's opposition was arranged.
Certain remedies in case of obstruction having been agreed to,
Mr. WEBSTER proposed a clause containing certain modifica-
tions, by which to lessen the inconvenience that the Rev. Mr.
Wilton would sustain by having an embankment formed, and the
line run through the lawn in front of his school.
No person appeared on behalf of the school; Mr. Willan was
only master for life.
Mr. PICKERING contended that Mr. Willan bad no locus standi
before the Committee, he being only tenant for life. The school
was called the Free Grammar School of Gainsborough ; and the
clause proposed either the formation of a bridge, or that the
Company should purchase the property within six months. None
of the trustees of the school appeared before the Committee.
Mr. PICKERING objected to the Company being compelled to
purchase the property.
Mr. William Bernard Hayton, one of the trustees, was then
called, and deposed that the alteration would damage the pro-
perty. The Rev. Mr. Wilian was not appointed for life, but
would not be turned out unless for misconduct; he had a fixed salary.
It was finally agreed upon to insert a clause compelling the Com-
pany to build a wall, if requisite, and the question of da..
images to be left to a jury.
Mr. Weasrsa next appeared on behalf of the Gainsborough
Bridge Commissioners, who apprehended that their tolls would be
injured by the proposed bridge of the Railway Company and.
therefore, they demanded the insertion of a clause by which they
could claim compensation upon an average of three years, in the
event of the new bridge injuring the tolls by going through the
protected property of the Bridge Commissioners.
Mr. PICKERING said the petition was upon the line of deviation.
but the Company would give up that line.
The CHAIRMAN said the Committee were cf opinion that they
could give no compensation; but would insert a clause protecting
the limits of the Commissioners, and leaving the question of amount
to a jury.
The Bridge Commissioners' Counsel would not agree to the pro.
position, and it was postponed, and the Committee adjourned.

Group 0
TRENT VALLEY.

The clauses of this Bill were proceeded with at the sitting of the
Committee.

tenst w
toe rcel
aatg,,reeeld6,t owwhiitchbo ustt
aot
epspo si
thatt ion.
CAlnauasmesenldtmo
any shareholder
holding shares to the amount of 60,000/., may be at liberty to call
an extraosdinary meeting of the Company, was proposed by Mr.
Forsyth, on the part of the Grand Junction, to the effect that any
shareholder holding 500 shares, to the amount of 25,0001. or up.
wards, might require an extraordinary meeting to be convened.
Mr. TALBOT, for the Tient Valley Company, contended that the
proposed qualification was not too large, and that Shareholders
holding shares to a less amount than 60,0001., ought not to be at
liberty to put the Company to so much inconvenience.
The Committee was of opinion that the original clause should
stand.—An amendment was also proposed to clause 17, respecting
the number of shares necessary to give votes, which was not enter.
tamed by the Committee.
Clauses up to 32 (with the exception of clause 20) having been
agreed to, an amendment was proposed by Mr. Coe/Levers, on the
part of the Grand Junction, that the Trent Valley Company should
execute the whole of the line between Stafford and Rugby accord.
ing to certain agreements entered into, and to prove which Captain
Huish and Mr. Swift, the solicitor to the Grand Junction Railway,
were examined, and testified to certain transactions which had
taken place between the Trent Valley and the London and Bir.
mingham Railway, which were contended to have broken good
faith with the Grand Junction.
After considerable discussion the clause was amended as pro.
posed.
Clauses 40 to 46 were postponed.
On clause 47 being read, the question of leasing the line and
tolls was argued at considerable length.
Mr. Hawes thought it would be advisable to refer the matter
to arbitration. The great question was the protection to be afforded
to the public against interested parties. It was evident from what
had come out that the London and Birmingham Railway was
stretching its hand over a great part of the line, and it was his duty
not,to act adversely to one party and to favour another.
The subject was then adjourned until to-morrow.

Group F.

The Committee appointed to investigate the Bills comprised in
this group re-assembled this morning—present Mr. Shaw, Chair.
man, Mr. V. Stuart, Mr. Lockhart, Mr. Bramston, Mr. Home
Drummond.
LONDON, WORCESTER, AND SOUTH STAFFORD.
SHIRE RAILWAY.

stationpromoters
o t
of this line The line commenced
Railway,a crossed the coun.
the London and Birminghammon
Mr. AUSTIN proceeded to open the ctaseth
to Dudley. There was
for
rT
ri theng
try to Worcester, and so
an extension to
m.
there was a branch from Dudley to Sedgley, which was Bill nu
Wolverhampton, which was Bill number two, and
ber three. These lines would be through valley courses, would
have easy gradients, and would accommodate a most important and
thickly populated district. The line for which he appeared was
opposed by one proposed by the Great Western Company—the one
line being on the broad guage, and the other, the London and Bir.
mingham line, on the narrow guage. The Learned Gentleman then
proceeded to point out the local advantages of the line he advocated.
He next addressed himself to the question of the guage. He read
an extract from the report of the Board of Trade, showing that
with respect to to the gradients and engineering peculiarities there
was little to choose between the contending lines, but that the
great point at issue was the broad and narrow guages. The broad
guage was 7 feet between rail and rail ; whereas the narrow guest
was but 4 feet Si inches. The Learned Gentleman said
he would address himself to this question of guage, as it
was the great matter which the Committee had to settle.

lie would engage to show beyond all :1C:1; that the narrow
guage was, on the whole, far better for all general purposes,
re,luiring less extensive cuttings, less expense in the management
of lines, and as being much more economical in the construction
of carriages. In a few great lines the broad guage might be
most advisable, but for branch lines, of which this was one, the
narrow guage was decided!y to be preferred. If England were
divided as it was during the Heptarehy, there would be but a
seventh part of England with the broad gauge laid down on IL
The boundary line of the broad gauge was from Dorchester,
through Basingstoke, up to London ; from the latter down the
Great Western up to Oxford, trout Oxford up to Glou-
cester, and from thence to the western counties. This
was the commonwealth of Mr. Brunel, while all the rest
of England and all Scotland had the narrow guage. The
number of miles of the broad guagc laid down was 333 miles;
the number of miles prop.,sed 600, making a total of 933 ; while
the Dumber of miles of the narrow gunge, already formed, was
1,530 ; with 1,9.64 projected, making a total completed and pro.
posed of 9.,794. The question, therefore, was, whether the broad
guage should be allowed to diverge from the west into the north,
into the territory of the narrow guage. He (Mr. Austin) said no ;
as he was sure from the nature of the evidence Le would call he
should show there were difficulties in the way
broad guage that would satisfy the Committee
eins.- Site' ni
their decision in his favour. The Learnedthe Gentt mates
the
proceeded to show that the two points
ffoordr break
of extending re
and Bristol, iflllteld
broad to the narrow gauge ought tob
quotedeOtzhe report of the Board of
of Rugby and Birmingham,
tragsitiOn of go
that far less confliston In
bking gig ctiza wwid tae plea
Arum the- Ca. POP
Trade in support of this viewanodf the matter, the reason assigned