The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-31 00:00:00

hollers, instead of getting an increased dividend, got a premium
in new shares. The present system of revision is hurtful to the
public. The promoters of the Great Western line had not an
opportunity of meeting that of their opponents, on the ques-
tion of gauge, before the Board of Trade. I disclaim
any intention of finding fault with the Board of Trade; but in
consequence of the pressure of business, they did us great injus-
tice. There were several interviews with the Board of Trade re-
specting a line in which the Great Western were interested. They
applied to us to explain the objects of the Oxford and Rugby line,
and to the Birmingham also. In October Mr. Lang sent to me,
and said, that what he was about to say was not to be taken as a
final decision. He then told me, on the authority of Lord Dal-
housie—
Mr. HILDYARD put it to the Committee whethe r Mr. Lang
ought not to be called ?
The C►►AIRMAN said Mr. Saunders did not throw any imputations
on the Board of Trade, and he thought he might be permitted to
go on. If any thing were given in evidence affecting Mr. Lang,
be might be furnished with a copy of the
_evidence and reply to it,
if he wished.

Mr. Saunders's evidence resumed—Mr. Lang told me with re-
ference to Oxford and Rugby, tie Board of Trade considered, on
public grounds, we ought to have it, as it was our interest to work
it most efficiently, but Lord Dalhousie had asked if we would lay
down both the broad and narrow gauge. I asked the object of the
question, if it was merely to remedy the inconvenience of
the shifting of the goods. He said it was. I
replied that the expense would be too great, and that other means
would be devised by Mr. Brunel, which were explained, and he
was desired to ask Lord Dalhousie if he thought it would answer
the purpose. He did so, and replied to me afterwards that they
did consider it would answer the purpose, and from that time until
they reported against us, we heard nothing further from them as to
the Oxford and Rugby line.
By the CHAIRMAN—He said that it was not a final decision, be-
cause they would not come to a final decision until the 30th NOVCHI-
ber. He said it was a provisional decision, and we heard nothing
further. When the decision of the Board of Trade came out
Mr. Russell and myself had an interview with Lord
Dalhousie, and represented the matter to him. He said
he could not undertake to recollect all that passed be-
tween them—that they would not alter the decision—that he was
sorry if we had been injured, but they must abide by the result of
any it qutry. I did not see Mr. Lang. We had no oppor-
tunity of bringing the merits of the broad and narrow
gauge on this line before the Board of Trade. I made frequent
communications on the subject of the broad and narrow gauge on
the Worcester and Wolverhampton line. In the latter commu-
nications I became aware that they attached importance as to
whether the change of guage should take place at Bir.
mingliam or Gloucester. I ascertained the Board of Trade
considered it was a question whether the broad gauge should be
carried to Birmingham or the narrow to Bristol, and I said
that it would be quite as easy for the broad gauge to be
carried to Birmingham. I explained to him the nature
of the agreement between the; Gloucester and the Great
'Western Company. I told him that, according to that agreement,
it would be impossible to carry the narrow gauge to Bristol. After
this negotiations took place, and the line was purchased by a nar.
row gauge company. I pointed out to Mr. Laing that the minerals
of South Wales being brought by a broad gauge line to Standish, it
would be Important to carry the broad gauge up to Birmingham.
We are the possessors of the line from Standish to Gloucester.—
( The witness then pointed out upon the map the relative positions
of the respective broad gauge and narrow gauge lines in connection
with the Gloucester Railways, and explained the rfghts of the
respective companies to the working of the respective fines).—He
pointed out to the Board of Trade that it would be mere ad-
vantageous to take the broad guage line to Birmingham,
than to bring the narrow guage down to Gloucester, and he
thought so still. The Great Western had completed the Gloucester
line, and they had bound down the Gloucester Company not to
brisrg down another line of railway to their injury,
after they had completed the line for them, and given
them the right of working it for ever. It would be
for the public advantage that in the Wolverhampton District
there should be a second line, which would enable the public to
exercise their option as to the broad or narrow gauge. The Bir-
mingham line would always have such advantages that, as long as it
acted fairly, we could not compete with them. I believe the Lon-
don and Birmingham Company to be as well conducted as any
other, but 1 believe it is for the benefit of the public, and of the
companies too that there should be something to keep them in
check. When I see the increase of traffic consequent upon the
lowering of fares, I have modified my opinions greatly on the subject
of competing lines. 1 think there is plenty of traffic for both. This
is the first time we have ever come in collision with the London and
Birmingham, but they have come in collisions with us on the
question of the Tring extension to Cheltenham. Where there is
a fair traffic that is likely to be remunerative it is for the Interests
of the public that lines of railways should be extended. (The wit-
ness stated from the population returns that the population on the
Great Western proposed line to Wolverhampton was 497,396, and
by the London and Birmingham proposed line it was
406,340). Between Oxford and Rugby by the Great Western
the population was was 01,950, and by the London and Birming-
ham, 82,613.) The miles of new railway, on the Great Western
scheme, were 148 miles to make. The London and Birmingham
would have to make 171 miles and 5-Bths of new railway, the dif-
ference being 23 miles and s.Sths from of the Great Western.—
(The witness then put in the traffic tables) We are
prepared, in case the Bill should pass, to con-
sent to a maximum rate for coal and other articles.
The present maximum was Id. per mile, and he was authorised
by the Directors to say, that they would admit as a maximum
%d. per ton per mile, wherever it should he carried more than
fifty unites. The, Company, in consideration of gaining this line,
were willing to accede to the terms proposed by the Board of
Trade —( file terms were then read by Mr. Cockburn, but so
rapidly that it was impossible to catch the purport.)

Cross .examined by Mr. HILDYARD.-1 do not think it would be
for the advantage of the London and Birmingham that the broad
gauge should becarried from London to Birmingham. We are acting
in harmoi.y with the Grand Junction. Ido not contemplate car-
rying the bread gauge further north than Wolverhampton,
but it may be done. In conversation it has been
suggested that the Grand Junction might think it advi-
sable to carry the broad gauge, as well as the narrow gauge,
on to Liverpool ; and it has been asked, if the Grand Junction
Company were to propose such a scheme, whether the Great
Western would assist them. (The witness was then cross-
examined as to the lines proposed by the South-Western in the
west of England, and pointed out their position on the map) The
Board of Trade re.mmmended the Great Western projects in that
system, and rejected the South-Western. They did not impose
any conditions upon us for their decisions as they did in the Bir-
mingham lines. We got the whole of taose lines without any
conditions from the Board of Trade. We also got a decision in favour
of our South Wales line. There is no instance in which the Board
of Trade has repotted against us except with regard to the present line.
With respect to the Newberry line, there were conflicting deci.
sions of Parliamentary Committees. Mr. Lang told the that it
was the opinion of Lord Dalhousie that we ought to have the
Oxford and Rugby line, if we would lay down the broad and
narrow gauge. I told him I had a plan which I thought would be
more economical, and which would equally answer the purpose.
I explained it to him. He said he thought it would answer
the purpose. I asked him to mention it to Lord Dalhousie; he told me
ho had done so, and that Lord Dalhousie said he thought it
would answer the purpose, and I never had any communication on
the subject. The plan which I proposed was, that we should be
at the whole expense of shifting the goods at Rugby. When I
saw Lord Dalhousie afterwards, he said he remembered the fact,
that he would not answer for what passed below ; that if we were
misled, he was sorry for it; that he was not prepared to state that
it would make any alteration in their decision; and that if we
had been wronged we should have an opportunity of being
righted elsewhere, and that they must abide by the consequences.
I certainly have strted my doubts as to the propriety of working
the broadguage and narrow guage together. If a narrow guage
line is to be carried from Standish to Bristol it will greatly incon-
venience our South Wales traffic. If they were subject to the
revision clause the Great Western Company would extend their
works so as to keep down their dividend at 10 per cent. The revision
clause would be imperative. The increased expenditure would
benefit the public, but not in the mode contemplated by the Act, be.
cause the public would not get the forced revision of the tolls.
(Questions were then put relative to the accommodation afforded
by the respective lines. To these questions, howeeer, he was not
pressed to return occurate answers, and the further cross-examin-
ation on the subject was deferred until Monday.)
Re-examined by Mr. COCKBURN.—From the commencement of
the scheme in 1836, the extension of the line through North
Wales always formed part oj the plan. I am not aware of any
cases in which the Board of Trade has sought to impose conditions,
they have been invariably offered by the companies.

Mr. COCKBURN—That is my case, Sir.
The CHAIRNIAN—You have exarhined 99 witnesses, it is a pity
you have not called another to make it 100,
The CHAIRMAN—Oh, by no means, Mr. Cockburn!
Mr. COCKBURN—We can indulge you, Sir.
The CHAIRMAN—Oh, by no means! 1 have no desire for it.
The Committee then adjourned at six o'clock to twelve on
Monday.

GROUP X.
LONDON AND YORK LINE.

The Committee assembled at twelve o'clock, and resumed
The engineering evidence, by continuing the cross-examination
of Mr. Cubitt. Previous to his being asked a question, an applica-
tion was made to that Committee to permit Mr. Cubitt's attendance
in another Committee for a few minutes, to prove a report, which
was granted. On his return,
Mr. TALBOT resumed his cross-examination--The 596,0001.
was the estimate for land on the main line, for 186 miles, at
3,200/. per mile—that included the forty-nine acres for the
King's-cross station. Could not say that he was aware of any line
on which the land was had for that; at Hornsey, the
line traversed ornamental property to some extent. Could not
say whether that was the case with the London and Birmingham.
At the commencement of the London and York line at London se-
veral small streets would be inclosed, but no existing accesses
would be taken away. The width of the Regent's Canal, where
witness proposed to cross it, was about 100 feet. He proposed to
abridge that considerably, but would allow space for the passage of
one boat, by an aqueduct. Had had an interview with the canal
engineer on the subject, but he did not say he was satisfied.
Here the model was produced, and the witness showed where
the alteration was proposed to be made. He proposed
to abridge the wharfage, which would be a matter for
claim for compensation. Had heard that the canal company were
petitioners against the Bill. He proposed to pass under the canal
without altering the level of the canal. If that should be found
to be an insurmountable objection, the bridge should be widened,
which would cost something in addition. . The estimate
for the cost of the proposed bridge was 7,0001. The level
of 1 in 108 was in a tunnel, and in London Clay.
There would not be a constant drip from it. Was
not aware that there was a drip at Primrose-hill tunnel,
which was made of London clay. Would take care to remedy the
defect by removing the water before he made the tunnel. London
clay was rather a rough customer to deal with. The drip from
it acted like soap on the rails. There arc six tunnels between
London and South Mimms, a distance of fifteen miles, but they
were very short. There were eight tunnels in the first twenty.
three miles. The first six tunnels were all of London clay. The
seventh and eighth tunnels are in chalk. The heaviest earthwork
was on the eighth mile from London. The cutting was
fifty-four feet deep, and eight furlongs long. The difficulties
in London clay increased in proportion to the depth ; the slope
would be 3to 1. The deepest embankment in London clay was
about a mile and a quarter—the depth of that was 36 feet ;Lit con-
tained 368,585 cubic yards of embankment. This was five miles
from King's-cross; it had a slope of 2 to I, which ought to be
sufficient to secure any embankment, even in London clay. The
total quantities of earth work were, on the main line, 12,619,261
cubic bards, and 1,926,516 aide cuttings in addition, making a
total of 4,545,839 cubic yards; the total spoil Wag
6,028,691 yards, and the total embankment about 8,000,000.
For the first 30 miles out of London there was not much ballast
to be had. Might have to bring it 14 or 15 miles. Was alloyed
2s. 6d. a yard for the ballast for the whole of the line. Is quite
sure that will be sufficient. Had no water communication for the
conveyance of material until he got to Huntingdon. Had put
down 6,000/. per mile as the cost of the transit of material for the
whole of the line. From Huntingdon to Peterborough the distt let
was singularly devoid of water communication, and that was the
reason they wanted railways.—(Laughter.) North of Hunting-
don there was very little water communication. The price he put
down for iron was 121. 10s. per ton delivered. The sleet ers
were to be the same as on the Dover line. The price was ss. 6d.
Per sleeper. They were laid down about one yard apart. Had not
put in his estimate the cost of maintenance. He would let that
question stand over. The South-Eastern line was 66 miles long.
Did not know that the line cost 29,000/. for maintenance for the
first year. Five times that would be a serious sum.—(Laughter.)
There was no London clay on the South-Eastern line; but there
was clay nearly as bad. Had made no estimate for temporary
police during the progress of the works. That never came under his
cognizance as an engineer ; but it formed a large item in
the expenditure, no doubt ; on the first 60 miles from London had
gradients of from I in 260, to 1 in 200 on the main line,