The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-30 00:00:00

Mr. PAGET then proposed to hand in the passenger traffic table.

Mr. DARBY said he had never heard of an instance where such
tables bad been handed in.

Mr. HILDYARD said, he had never met with an instance of such,
and therefore he would object to this course. He subsequently-
withdrew his objection ; but counsel for other lines having pressed
it, the room was ordered to be cleared, and after a lapse of about
half an hour, the parties were re.admitted, when
The CaAntmsw announced that the Committee had decided on
admitting the tables, reserving to itself the right to call upon the
promoters of the Bill at a future period to amend these tables.

Tte examination of the witness was then resumed—Had 12
men employed from September to October taking the
traffic on the main line from. Stamford to Selby ; took
no atm unt of the cattle passing to Rotherham and Wakefield_
The enti,-e distance was ninety miles, and that between Tattershall
and Panthlg, forty-six miles, and the total number of passengers
was 4,899.4,82 ; the expected traffic was estimated at 9,000,000;
and the in•cume at 73,5421. ; this did not include anything
south of Hu.lt;.ngdon ; the passenger traffic by water presented
numbers equall)' extensive, all of which would travel by the
London and Fork' line if it were made.
After some unimportant questions in cross-examination of this
witness, the Commi...tee adjourned.

Group W,

WAKEFIELD, PONTEFitACT, AND GOOLE RAILWAY.
The Committee on this line re, assembled to-day at twelve o'clock ;
Mr. Pakington in the Chair.

Evidence was then brought foriCard, on the part of the pro..

scoters, to rebut the case which had been made against the pro-
posed railway on Tuesday last by Mr. Smith, one of the dissentient
landowners on the line.
The first witness called was
Mr. Hawkshaw, civil engineer, whose examination was re-
sumed from Tuesday last. He stated that he had a strong ob-
jection to the line suggested by Mr. Gooch, on the ground of its
throwing them back on two Companies. Considered the gradients
of the Wakefield, Pontefract, and Goole line perfect,:y unobjection.
able, and any desirable rate of speed could be obtained
on them. He did not consider that even if the
other suggested lines could be made with more A vourable
gradients (which he was not prepared to admit), that the advan-
tages which the proposed line held out were to be abandons.'d be-
cause of its less favourable gradients. The Manchester and I.."cds
Railway engines would be large enough for the locomotive of 11.13,
traffic on the proposed line, and would be able to work.
with as much facility and celerity as they did upon
their own line. He did not think that the traffic on the Wake—
field, Pontefract, and Goole line, would exceed that upon the Man.
chester and Leeds.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hawn—There were gradients on the
Manchester and Leeds line of lin 150. The average rate of speed
of the fastest carriages on that line was 9.3 miles an hour ; but that
was not necessarily the speed. They might be made to go at the
rate of fifty miles an hour.
By Mr. WILLINS—Had heard that all the projected lines had
been suggested in consequence of the obstruction of view which.
the proposed line would give from Mr. Smith's house. Could
not say which of the two houses, Mr. Smith's or Sir Edward
Dodsworth's, was the best. Thought that the suggested line of
Mr. Biskenshaw would run as close to Sir Edward Dods worth's
property as the proposed line would to Mr. Smith's, and be as in.
jurious to that gentleman's property.
Mr. Vignoll es, civil engineer—Was well acquainteo with tbedis.
trict. Saw on the map the three suggested lines that had been laid out

by Messrs. Gooch, Birkenshaw, and Leather. Believed that those

lines, as compared with the proposed Wakefield, Pontefract, and
Goole line, were very much inferior. He had come to this con-
clusion from his knowledge of the country, the inconveniences at
the Normanton station, and the circumstance of the proposed line
forming a more direct communication with the south.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hasinv—The gradients on Mr. Birken.
shaw's line, he believed, would be more favourable, and the works.
much lighter.
Mr. Cubitt, civil engineer, heard the evidence of last witness,
and concurred in it. His principal reason for preferring the proposed

. -
line was that it formed an integral line between Wakefield and Poole.
Cross.examined by Mr. HlLDVARD—Believed that if the line laid
out by Mr. Birkenshaw was more favourable in its gradients
lighter in its works—not longer in distance, and formed an integral
line—that it would be preferable to the proposed line. Did
not hear Mr. Vignoles state that the line of country through
which the suggested line would pass was a more favourable one.
Messrs. Rastrick and Harris, engineers, were then called, and as
their examination only tended to confirm the evidence of the two
last witnesses,

The CHAIRMAN here interfered, and said that he thought that
they had had enough of engineering evidence on those points.
Capt. Laws was examined at considerable length as to the effect
which both lines would have with regard to the coal districts,
Mr. John Walker, land agent and surveyor, stated that he had
been sent down expressly by the promotors of the Bill to examine
the alleged injuries which would be sustained by Mr. Smith's house
and property in consequence of the proposed line. He had carefully
executed the survey yesterday. Two portions of the rail could
be seen from Mr. Smith's house. He had marked them upon
a map (which he produced). One portion of the rail which
could be seen from the house was a cutting of 246 yards_
and the other 168 yards of an embankment. The cutting
was not so deep but that the engines might be seen. He
thought that a little plantation would in a few years completelT
obscure one portion that was visible, and a small embankment the
other. - - -

Cross-examined by Mr. HILLIARD, as to the way in which he
obtained the results which he had given in evidence—Had not
given notice to Mr. Smith of his intended survey. Made some of
his observations from the inside of Mr. Smith's house. Obtained
access by stating that he wished to view the toll-house at Agbray.
Thought the workman would not admit him if he knew that his
object was to give evidence against Mr. Smith.
Mr. Barff, woolstapler—Had resided 40 years at Wakefield.
Knew the neighbourhood of Mr. Smith's house well, and did not
think that the proposed railway would interfere with the view from
Mr. Smith's house. As one of the Directors of the line he had to
state on the part of the Company, that they w mild have no objec-
tion to submit the matters in dispute to any of the lion. Members
of the House of Commons.
By Mr. HILDYARD—Had a slight idea of the picturesque. In
the opinion of some people the view of a railway traits rather
heightened the pro,pect than otherwise.—(A laugh.)
Mr. Moxon, of Pontefract, was then examined as to the re_
ative merits of the accommodation of the stations of the proposed
line and the suggested one.
R. Pemberton Milnes, Esq., was next examined—Lived at
Freston Hall. Had been Member of Parliament for Pontefract,
and was the father of the present Member. In his opinion, the
case between Mr. Smith and a Director of the Company was a
question of compensation. He thought no objection Mr. Smith
could bring forward was sufficient to be fatal to the formation of
the line.

This closei the reply to Mr. Smith's case.
On Mr. HARDY rising to reply to the rebutting evidence brought
forward by the promoters,
Mr. WILKINS objected, and said that it was contrary to the rules
laid down by the House in reference to Committees on railways.
The CHAIRMAN was not aware of any rule which bound the
Committee to any particular line of conduct on the matter ; and he
thought counsel should have the right of reply.
Mr. HARDY then replied to the evidence at considerable length.
The Committee then proceeded to consider the merits of the
competing line,