The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-28 00:00:00

derable length to show that the alternative line was not so good,
either in gradients or In facilities for public accommodation.
Mr. Smith's case here eosed, and witnesses were then called to
retut his opposition.
Robert Buchanan, Esq., was then examined by Mr. WILKINS—

Resided at Pontefract. Was a magistrate of the West Riding o►
Yorkshire ; was chairman of the proposed line. Accompanied an
engineer to see the chief d:ff►culties and features of the localities
of the line. When he heard of Mr. Smith's complaints, he went
himself to visit Mr. Smith's house and property, where the alleged
ivjuries would be sustained. There was a common close by Mr.
Smith's house, and there were also stone.quarriss. There was also
a canal, on which there was a great deal of traffic and
a high road, and also a blacksmith's shop. The embankment on
the line opposite Mr. Smith's house would not, in his opinion,
materially interfere with the view from the house, but as Chair •
man of the Company he had to state, on the part of
the Company, that there was every wish to obviate
any inconvenience Mr. Smith might sustain, or even to
compensate him for any loss he would suffer by the proposed line
passing through his property. He made a proposal to Mr. Smith
to submit the whole case between him and the Company to arbi-
tration. (The witness was then proceeding to reply to Mr Wil_

kins, to state some further particulars relative to the
nezotiations that had taken place between Mr. Marsden,
Mr. Smith's solicitor, and himself, but Mr. Hardy objected to this
on the ground of the communications being private.)
Cross-examined by Mr. HARDY—None of the objects which he
had described were to be seen from Mr. Smith's house, neither the
blacksmith's shop, nor the canal, &c. He did not know,

but thought that the front windows of Mr. Smith's house could be
seen from the bridge over Barnsley Canal. The embankment ran
close by this canal.

Mr. Martin, examined by Mr. KINGLAKB—Was an engineer
and surveyor. Surveyed the Leeds and York line. The embank.

rnent on the proposed line could be only seen by sligh

glimpses through the trees from

Mr. Smith's house.

He explored the country net only on the line as it was at present
projected, but in several other places. He did n,,t do this in con.

sequence of Mr. Smith's objection to the line as projected. The
railway.passed at a distance of ave-eighths of a mile from Mr.
Smith's house. That was the nearest point from which it

could be seen. Was perfectly confident that Sir Edward Dodsworth
would sustain far more injury by Mr. Birkenshaw's alternative line

than Mr. Smith would by the proposed line, as it would pas;
close by his house and preserves. He had no doubt but Sir
Edward would give such a line the most determined opposition.
. . .

Tile stations of the two proposed lines were more commodious for

the public on the Wakefield, Pontefract, and Goole line than upon.
the other suggested line.

Mr. Hawkshaw examined by Mr. KINGLAKE—Luid out the
northern portion of the London and York Railway. Had the ad-
_ .. . .

vantage of all the sections that had been made by that Company,
He considered that the advantage of the junction of several rail.
ways at such an important place as Wakefield would far more

than compensate for the greater facilities which the gradients
might afford were the line laid down in a more favourable part of
the country.

It being now four o'clock, the Committee adjourned till Thurs•
day, at twelve o'clock.

Group FF.
NORTH OF SCOTLAND DISTRICT
The Select Committee on thrs group re-assembled at the usual
hour this morning, and proceeded with the affirmative evidence in
the case for the promoters of the

EDINBURGH AND NORTHERN LINE,
A scherhe got up with a view of.supplying the northern districts
of Scotland with a general syqem of railway communication.
Mr Wiseman, one of the Board of Directors, who gave evidence
yesterday, in support of the Bill, was cross7examintd by Mr.
AYTON, on behalf of several landholders, whose property would
be disfigured or interfered with by the progress of the line, with a
view of showing that, if tbe Bill were, delayed till next session, the
scheme cou'd be rendered more complete in itself, and take

such a course as to remove the chiff objections of the landed
proprietors residing in the various tiistricts through which the

line'must necessarily pass, in the event of Parliament ultimately
sanctioning the sc!leme. The witness admitted that the promoters
would have to come to Parliament next session for a supplemental
Bill to extend and improve the line, but, nevertheles,, he thought

it ad.visable that one part of the line should be constructed before
another. , He denied that the main line would avoid the coal-
fields of Fifcshire, but admitted that the Company might be ha.
rassed by the proprietor of the Burnt Island and Granton Ferry, at
present in the possession of the Duke of Buccleuch; unless they
bound the Duke down to certain conditions by stringent clauses.
The Duke, however, was a large shareholder in the Company, and
of course it would be to his interest to accommodate instead of
embarrass the Company. He conceded to the Learned Cotinsel
that the present coach fairs between Coaper and Dunfermline were
exceedingly low, but at the same time he insisted upon the prin-
ciple that a railway invariably doubled the passenger traffic of the
district through which it passed, and it was always to the interest
of the Company to reduce as much as possible the former rates of
carriage.

On re-examination, Le said the Burnt Island Ferry was the most
available point on the coast fur terminating one part of
the line, but there were others which would be equally as conve-
nient, should the Ferry Company refuse to run ferry-boats cor-
responding with the trains on the railway. The interest however
of the Ferry Company was identical with that of the Railway
Company; but were it not, the Ferry-pier Bill contained a clause
for the protection of•any future railway.
Mr. Peter Cameron, a carrier at Edinburgh, who had este,
blishments at all the principal towns of Scotland, was well ac•
quainted with the traffic passing through Fifeshire. His establishment
carried upwards of 8,040 tons of goods annually along the route of
the proposed railway, and another firm that he was acquainted with
carried from 30 to 40 tons weekly. At present the traffic was con-
veyed by carts, and if a railway were made it would prove a sating
of nearly 50 per cent. to the towns of Perth and Dundee alone,
as well as tend generally to the advantage of the trade of the other
districts through which the line passed. He was a farmer as well
as a currier, and knew of his own knowledge that Fifeshire ex-
ported great quantities of grain. It was at present conveyed by
carts and such conveyances, but If a railway were made through
Fife, he had no doubt large quantities of farm-produce would pass
over thb line. There was only one stork market in Fifeshire, but
If the present line were made, it would, no doubt, lead to
If t
the goods
the establishment of a market at Cooper. The firm
to which
urn
tishiaend
Ferry
yig etdo
ifiettirrred, r r
yc,arbreyclanugsleh theirey
across B
more accommodation at the one than the other,
rails were
brought down to the pier, he had no doubt the carriages could be
ng
transferred to the steam-boats without injuri •
goods—indeed at
present all the loaded carts on the route were
the river. If there were a rail bodily carried over
way to Perth he did not
think any passen crs or goods would to that town
vie Dundee. The line, in fact, would have the effect of diverting
all the traffic that Was at present transmitted by water to Perth ;
and in his opinion it would be the best '"
paying line running north of
Edinburgh.

It being near four o'clock the Committee adjourned, in accord.
once with an arrangement matle yesterday, till Thursday at twelve.

Group E.
NEWCASTLE AND BERWICK

The Committee, on sitting this morning, proceedel with the
clauses of the Newcastle and Berwick Railway Bill. The fares
weresettled at 3d., ltd., and Id. per mile in the first, second, and
third classes respectively.
NEWCASTLE AND DARLINGTON (BRANDLING

JUNCTION).
Mr. Philipson was called, and examined by Air. TEMPLa--there

stated by Mr. Stovin as being received from this
traffic was 44,974/. in the year, In this calculation he only gave
25 per cent:, which was lower than the average on the. Brighton
and Dover lines. The goods carried from and to Gosport amounted
6,444 tons dui ing the year 1844. The coals, he calculated, would
be about 18,250 tons, and these came from Hemsworth and Chi-
chester at 11/2:1. per mile, those from Chichester going a distance of
23 % miles to Godalming. He thought that this communication
would be cheaper than that by the Avon Canal, which charged
five farthings for the carriage of a ton of coals.
• To the cross-examination of Mr. WADDINGTON, Mr Horne stated
that he conceived that the whole- of the passengers to Gosport
would be abstracted from the old line to the new line, and on that
he put 25 per cent. ; but with respect to goods he could say
nothing. Ile had taken the whole of the traffic from Bognor, but
none of that from Littlehampton ; and he expected that the coast
traffic would be good, but not the most productive on the line.
To the cr..ss-examination of Mr. FLOOD, Mr. Horne stated that
he believed there would be but one station, Petworth and Midburst;
but that would depend upon circum,tances.
To the re-examination of Mr. GURNET, the witness stated that
the distance from Petworth to Horsham was eiOneest miles.
Mr. Wm. Tite, the architect and surveyor, stated that he had
considerable experience in the purchaseand sale ofproperty, and he
had been employed with Mr. Osborne to surrey and value the land
required for the railway. It had been agreed upon between them
that the quantity of land required for the railway was 575 '( acres,
worth 114,0001., including an allowance of 10,000/. for contin-
gencies. He was acquainted with the extension line of the South-
Western Company, which would give great facilities at Hungerford-
bridge for water communication, as well as prove a great convenience
to the proposed railway. The terminus there was intended to occupy
ten acres, and the expense of forming that branch would be
420,0001. for land and 380,0001. for works and contingencies, mak-
ing 800,0001. for the whole expense.
To the cross-examination of Mr. Rawlinson, Mr. Tite stated
that the land from Guildford was good inclosed land, and some of
it excellent wheat land. In Portsea they took 14 acres, but to the
inquiry how much the witness calculated as the price fur the land
at Portsea per acre—

Mr., Sergeant WRANGFIAM, who arrared for the promoters, ob-
jected, and it was overruled by the Committee. - He knew nothing
of the place where the stations were to be situated, and the quanti-
ties of !and, as was usual in these cases, had been given to him by
the engincer.

Mr. Sergeant WRANGIIAM, at this stage of the proceedings,
stated that they had now brought the evidence, with the exception
of that on engineering points, to a close, and he therefore suggested
the adjournm, nt of the Committee.
After an inquiry from Mi. M. MILNES as to the time this evi.
deuce was likely to occupy, the adjournment was agreed to till
Thursday at one o'clock.

Group W.
WAKEFIELD, PONTEFRACT, AND GOOLE RAILWAY.
The Committee on this line re.assembled today at twelve o'clock,
Mr. Pakington in the chair.
Mr. KINGLAKE stated that, before the examination of witnesses
was proceeded with, he had to complain that the sections and plans,
which Mr. Hardy had engaged should be furnished to him, were
not delivered.
The CHAIRMAN said he considered that if that had not been done
fair play was not given to the promoters of the Bill.
Mr. Hardy said that he had given instructions to have the
sections and plans sent to the solicitor of the promoters, and he
was not aware, till he heard the complaint this morning, that this
bad not been done. He had no intention of withholding any plan
or section.
It appeared that there was a misunderstanding on the part of
Mr. Birkenshaw, the engineer for the alternative line, as to the
documents which Mr. Hardy engaged should be delivered. He
did not consider that the section as to which the complaint was
now made was one of the documents which he should have delivered.
The section was then handed to the engineers of the proposed line.
The adjourned examination of
Mr. Birkenshaw, the engineer of the alternative line, was then
proceeded with. He did not think that the line from Goole to
Wakefield was one which the public necessity required. A better
line might be formed joining to the Normanton station.
Cross.examined by Mr. KINGLARE—Took the levels of the
alternative line on Friday last. He did so when the objection to
tl►e Normanton station was first raised.
Mr. John Leather, civil engineer, examined by Mr. HARDY—
Had considerable experience in laying down railways, but not so
much as in other works. Was well acquainted with the country
through which the proposed Wakefield, Pontefract, and Goole Rail-
way was to pass. Knew that part of it between Wakefield and
Pontefract. Thought that a better line could be gOt. Had seen
Mr. Birkenshaw's plans and sections of the alternative line.
Thought from his general acquaintance with the country, that a line
could be easily made without going to Normanton station.
Cross-examined by Mr. KINGLAKR—Had not gone over the
ground of the alternative line proposed by Mr: Birkenshaw, but
examined the plans and sections of it. Was engineer of the
Goole and Doncaster line. Was not aware that the proprietors of
that line had any desire -to shut out the proposed line. Saw the
sections of Mr. Birkenshaw's alternative line yesterday for the
first time. Believed that surveyors were sent down on Friday
last to make the levels of that line, in consequence of the evidence
which had been given in that Committee relative to the inconve.•
niences and delays which took place at the Normanton station.
Mr. Gouch, civil engineer, examined by Mr. HARDY, stated that
I • had been employed as resident engineer for 36 miles on the
London and Birmingham line ; had constructed the Manchester
and Leeds line, and was since engaged on the Liverpool and Man-
chester line. Had had c•nsiderable experience in railway matters.
Heard Mr. Leather's evidence, and quite concurred with him on
the superiority of the alternative line to the proposed Wakefield,
Pontefract, and Goole line.
This witness was cross•examined• by Mr. KINGLARE at consi