The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-25 00:00:00

WALES) RAILWAY,

Mr. Talbot appeared for the promoters, and Mr. Wordsworth, for
the Canal Company, which runs parallel with a part of the line.
Mr. TALBOT briefly opened the case on the part of the pro.
moters, and detailed at length the advantages which would accrue
to the districts through which it would pass. Although it was
opposed by some landowners, he apprehended that it would do
them no serious injury. _ .

_ .
The further hearing of the case was then adjourned until to-
morrow, on account of some of the witnesses, owing to the unex-
pected termination of the former Bill, not being in attendance.

THE GLASGOW =NOTION RAILWAY.

The Committee met this morning at 11 o'clock.

The first witness called was

Mr. Cebitt, the eminent engineer, who was examined at great
length with respect to that portion of the line which is proposed to
be laid down on a level on the quays at Glasgow. He was of
opinion that the adoption of this plan would materially interrupt
the business of that part of the city ; and that the navigation, but
more particularly the landing of coals, would be seriously impeded.
He even doubted the practicability of the scheme crossing the
quays this way at all.
On his cross-examination by Mr. ANDREWS, on babalf of the
promoters, he stated that much of the inconvenience which could
not fail to arise from constructing the line along the
quays might be obviated by carrying the rails completely
above the quays ; but what he strongly recommended
was that they should construct a quay and docks for
their sole use. The quay should be from twelve to fifteen feet
above the water. By effecting this, they would increase their
traffic, and by charging a small additional tonnage on the goods
which they would convey, they would be fully remunerated for this
additional outlay.
Mr. Sergeant WRANGHAM then proceeded to address the Com-
mittee on behalf of Mr. Campbell, the proprietor of the Blythes-
wood's estate and on behalf of the " feuars." To show the in-
creasing value of this estate, he stated that upwards of thirty years
ago it let at 601. an acre, but that during the last few years por.
tions of it had been let at 7501., and that a sixth part of it, equally as
valuable, had not yet been " feued," which would DB doubt realise
a rental of about 10,000/. per annum. By the line passing through
the ground the property would be greatly reduced ; and, hesides,
there was a general feeling amongst the " feuars " against it. He
therefore hoped that they would not press the preamble of the Bill.
The CHAIRMAN then desired the room to be cleared, that the
Committee might deliberate whether they should hear any further
evidence.

On the admission of the parties,
The CHAIRMAN intimated that they were prepared to bear addi.
tional evidence on the line before them, and not with reipect to
any other.

The following witnesses were then called :
Mr. Douglas said he had been land-agent for the Blytheswood es-
tate for the last twenty-five years. The " unfeued" portion was the
most valuable part of the estate, and he had no hesitation in saying
that at least nine tenths of the most valuable buildings of Glasgow
were built on the Blytheswood estate. The carrying of the pro.
posed tunnels through the estate would be highly detrimental to
it, and nothing could warrant the carrying of a tunnel through
a portion of such a thickly populated city as Glasgow but the most
urgent necessity. He understood that the Company would not pay
Mr. Campbell for the land which they proposed to take for the
tunnel.

Mr. ANDaEws said they would pay for what land they took.
They would reimburse the owner for any damage or injury which
they might cause from the construction of the tunnel. They would
secure compensation to Mr. Campbell by a clause in their Bill.
Mr. Thomas Kyle, surveyor, of Glasgow, said he had been well
acquainted with Blytheswood estate in his professional capacity for
many years. The line would pass through a quarry and other
valuable property, to their great injury. Ile had no doubt that
the houses at Wellington Arcade would be rendered dangerous by
constructing the line in that direction, the soil being clayey and
the houses apt to sink. At the spot where they proposed com-
mencing the construction he found soft clay. By drawing off the
water they would endanger the safety of large manufactories
erected over its prepared route. A very good line might be made
without interfering with the thickly.populated parts of the city.
On cross examination by Mr. ANDREWS, he admitted that a
quiet possession of the tunnel in the Blytheswood estate would pass
through a strata of firm blue clay.
Mr. Locke, civil engineer, knew the town of Glasgow well, and
had had his attention particularly directed to this line, and it ap-
peared to him that the line had not been judiciously selected—
that a better one might be constructed. There was an objection-
able curve in the tunnel.
Cross-examine?—The difference between a curve in a tunnel
and one in the other part of a line was this—that if an accident
happened it would occur in the dark, and a train corning in a
contrary direction might come in collision with the other, and
serious accidents might be the result.
The Committee then adjourned until to-morrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
GROUP X.
IMPORTANT DECISION.

CAMBRIDGE AND HUNTINGDON LINE.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

Mr. Sergeant WRANGHAM denied that it was an unopposed
Bill, as it was undeniably a competing line with the London and
York.

Mr. AUSTIN protested against the injustice of such a proposi-
tion. It was monstrous, after they had been refused, to oppose
the London and York line, because they did not compete
to be told by that very Company that first suggested their non-
competition, that they had no right to be considered unopposed,
because, forsooth, they were competing lines. Why, if the argu.
ment was good in the first instance, that the London and York
was not a competing line with the Milford and Doncaster,
and therefore the latter could not oppose, the converse was surely
tenable, that the Milford and Doncaster did not compete with the
London and York, and therefore could not be opposed by the latter.
The Committee having retired to deliberate, after half an hour's
absence, _ . _

The CHAIRMAN having returned with his colleagues, said tl at
he Committee were of opinion that the Milford and Doncaster
int did pot compete With the LOnClon Mid York, in