The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-09 00:00:00

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
(SATLRDAY.)

GW)CP FF.

The Committee met again this day at twelve o'clock, in Room
No. 7. Members present—Lord Ashley, chairman, Mr. Curteis,
Mr. B. Osborne, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Blackstone.
THE EDINIAIRGH AND NORTHERN
RAILWAY.

Mr. William Anderson, examined by Mr. lion—Has been for
some time guard of the mail coach from Edinburgh to Aberdeen.
The time occupied in crossing the river from Granton to Burnt.
island varies from forty-five minutes to an hour and twenty-five
minutes. The usual time in fine weather was forty-five minutes.
The passage was very rough in boisterous weather. The passen-
gers suffered from sea-sickness, and the water frequently washed
over them. The passage was very dangerous. The Granton pier
was not very safe. A gentleman fell off the pier into the water a
short time ago, and would have been drowned but from the nature
of his clothing, which kept him afloat. The mail was subject to
great delay in crossing the ferry, and witness had often complained
to the superintendent of the pier, and the answer was that it could
not i e remedied. The difficulty and danger could be got rid of by
going further up arid crossing at Queensferry, where it was only
one mile across.

Cross-examined by Mr. M'NEtt—The pier at Granton was not
adequate to the traffic which would arise from the construction of a
railway. It was greatly exposed to the sea. The gentleman who
fell into the sea from the pier was heavily clothed, but that was the
means of saving his life. Could not say be fell in from the many
cloaks he had on tripping him up ; such might have been the case,
but considered it owing to the boisterous weather and the exposure
of the pier to the beating:of the sea. The cloaks certainly kept him
aCoat.

The witness was briefly reexamined by Mr. HoPE, but nothing
of interest to the case at-issue was eicited.

Mr. John Latray, another guard of une of the Edinburgh and
Aberdeen mail coacher, was examined. His evidence was to the
same effect.

Mr. S. Barker was examined by Mr. Horx--He was a seafaring
man, and commanded a steam-♦essel plying ,between Burntislatid.
The passage was Roost dangerous, and would be more so when the
increased traffic of the railway came to it. Vessels very often
broke from their moorings in consequence of the great exposure to
the sea

The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Battasts, but
his evidence ill chief was not upset.

Mr John Ray, examined by Mr. CLARK—Was clerk to the
Duty.house at Granton-pier. The spray often washed over the
steamers plying at the pier. It was not a safe place for shipping or
landing cattle ; passengers were exposed to great danger from the
heavy swe 1 of the sea.
The witness was eross.examined by Mr. Sergeant BELLASIS.
Mr. A. G. Somerville, examined by Mr. Sergeant WRANGIII.II—
clerk in the Post.ottice at Edinburgh. The mans from
Quee. aferry were the most regular coming to E•linburgh. The
Borntislaud mail., were frequently very much behind in their
arriva,.

Cross examined by Mr. Sergeant BELLASIS—The delays since
the openi,:g of Granton-pier were 219. It was op n about nine
months. The delays on the ferry and on tie read were included
in :hat number. Could not say how many of those delays were
caused oy the ferry; many might have taken place on the road.
Re ex.,,minwi by Mr. Sergeant WRANGULII—fhe delays by the
Quoensferry were 86 in the same period. The difference of time
between the delays of the Queensterry and Burntisland was, Queens.
ferry ,i 4 hours behind, anti Burntisland, 44. _ _

The delays on the Burntisland were put down to the ferry, and
on the Queen's to the road. . .

Mr. Se•geaot BELLASIS—Hare not the guards an interest in
throwing the delays on the Burntisland ferry ? Witness could not
answer that ; they were very well-conducted men.
Mr. Andrew Dowie, examined by Mr. HOPE—Was factor to
Admiral Sir Charles Adam. Was frequently delayed when cross-
ing from Burntisland to Granton-pier. The delays in bringing
cattle were of very frequent occurrence, and occasioned much
expense.
Cross-examined by Mr. TALBOT—Was very much annoyed by
the delay just mentioned. _ _ _

Mr. T►Laor—Of course you would like this difficulty removed ?
Witness—l should most undoubtedly.

Mr. TALBOT—Then you are a friend to improvement? Witness
—I am.

Mr. TALBOT—Pray have ycu ever signalised yourself by a
lucubration on the great inconvenience of this ferry ? Witness—
I may have done so.
Mr. TALBOT—Come now, have you not written to the Caledonian
Mercury, and put your sign manual, as a friend to improvement ?
Witness—Eh-0 yes, I did mention the inconvenience I was sub-
jected to on one occasion.
Mr. TALBOT—And a very nice little essay it is.—(Laughter.)
I mast read at elegant extract from the Mercury of June the
sth instant ; here it is—
" Oranton.pier everybody must allow is a great improvement,
and no little praise is due to the spirited individuals who have car-
ried it through; but, from what has been stated, it is quite evident
that as yet it requires something more to constitute it an entirely
efficient low-water pier, and more particularly, as it is
intended to make this the crossing station for the
Northern Railway from Edinburgh to Perils. But let me add, that
should the railway by Queensferry to Perth be carried through (of
which there is every probability), the chance is, that few will sub-
mit to detentions of his nature at Granton, if they have the option
to go tie route to toe north. In short had the Queensferry and
Perth Rat way been in operation on Monday last, a pet son could
have lett Edinuurgh and been in Perth during the time that I, as
well as many others, were kept standing and starving 011 Granton-
pier, " I am, Sir, your moot obedient servant,
" A FRIEND 10 IMPROVEMENT."
I believe you are this friend to improvement ? Witness—Yes,
that was my complaint.
Mr. TALBOT—Have you any interest in the Q ,eensferry ? Wit.
ness—Not just now.
Mr. TALBOT—Nor any one with whom you are connected?
Witness—Admiral Sir Charles Adam has an interest in it.
Mr. TALBOT—Oh, indt.ed—that will do, Mr. Dewie.
Admirai Sir Charles Adam, examined by Mr. Hope—He was of

opinion that the projected brie of railway by the Queensferry
would be of greater advantage to the country traversed than the
line by Granton.pier and Burntisland. The Granton ferry was
most unsafe and inconveniesit. the greater amount of population
would be accommodated by the Queensterry.

Sir John Halkett, examined by Mr. HOPE—Was of opinion
that the Queensferry would be a preferable course for a line tel
railway.

Cross-examined by Mr. TALBOT-1-Us property lay on the line
of railway projected from Queensferry, and the construction of
that line would be of advantage to his property.

Lord Daimeny, examined by Mr. HOPE—There was a general
feeling of hostility in Dunfermline against the Edinburgh and
Northern Railway. Had no interest in either line. Knew no-
thing personally of the comparative merits of proposed railways;
his information was furnished by 00 constituents of Dunfermline."
Cross-examined by Mr. TALBOT -His constituents were con-
siderably interested in the Quernsterry line.
Mr. Mason, examined by Mr. HOPE— Was Superintendent of

Queen:feiry. The Granton.pier ferry was most dangerous in
heavy weather. Was in favour of the Queensierry projected line.
At this stage of the proceedings the Committee adjourned till
Monday, at half.past twelve o'ciock.

GROUP Mi.
LIVERPOOL AND BURY LINE.
The Committee met at the usual hour; Sir C. Lemon in the

After the production of some merely formal evidence, the ease
for the opposition was opened by
Mr. C•LVERT, who said he appeared there to protect the inte-
rests of a project—the Liverpool, Preston. and Ormskirk Railway—
which had the misfortune to be thrown out by the Standing Order,
Committee.

He now wished to ask the Committee what course

they would take ? If they took into consideration only the hne
from east to west, then he would withdraw from it, and not inter-
fere with his project; but if they took that from north to south,
then it would interfere with his line, and he must appear through-
out the case, and cross-examine each witness.

Mr. Lowsroxs, Q.C., said this was certainly a most extraordinary
applica.ion. One entire Bill was presented for the Liverpool and
Manchester Railway, and now they were asked, on behalf of a
project not before the Committee, to open only a portion of their
line, and divide their plan, a course to which he hoped the Com.
mittee would not consent.

The CHAIRMAN said they preferred that the case should be
fully opened.
Mr. LOWNDES then rose, and said he appeared for the Liver-
pool and Manchester Railway. In opening the project of this Com-
pany, he did not intend to institute any comparison between the
Liverpool and Bury line and his scheme. What he wished to
show was, that his line would afford ample facility of communi-
cation between the towns of Wigan, Bolton, Bury, and Liver.
pool. He cid not think it would form any part of
his business to show the defects of the Bury Railway, more espe.
cially as there were many portions of the evidence which had been
given in support of it which wes common to both schemes. But
though he admitted that there was a considerable traffic between
Bury, Bolton, and Wigan, he denied that the allegation of
intermediate traffic had any foundation in fact. He admitted that
there was a very large increase of traffic to Liverpool from those
towns--that there was not at present sufficient accommodation,
and that there was a neces,ity for greater, and, therefore, upon
these three grounds he asked the Committee to sanction the
sch, me which he would lay before them. 800,000/. was the sum
which would be required for carrying this plan into operation.
The Manchester and Liverpool Company expected no immediate
return from this expenditure, only what would result from the
increased facilities of communication between those impor-
tant trading towns. It had been for several years
in the power of the Manchester and Bolton Railway Company to
make a line between Bolton and Bury, but such was the smallness
of ,ornmunication between these towns, that that power had never
been carried into execution. The Company did not think the pro-
ject would compensate them. He thought the Manchester and Li.
verpool Company should meet with favour in the eyes of the Com-
mittee. It was the first established in this country. The first sum
expended by them was 800,0001. for the constructing the line be-
tween Manchester and Liverpool. From the improvements which
had since taken place, that line could have been constructed for
400,0001., so that they bought their experience at a cost of
400,000/. The Board of Trade had in their report admitted that the
Liverpool and Manchester Railway had, in conjunction with canals,
done much for the town and trade of Liverpool, but he
thought that was much too limited and qualified praise for a Com.
pany that had done so much. He had said that the original cost
was SOO.OOO/., but that sum had been, since 1931, doubled by the
Company, in order to facilitate communication, and to afford
grea•er convenience of trading and traveling to the public, for, in
January, 1845, the sum expended by this Company had reached
the turn of 1,700,0001. Cotton was the principal traffic, and might
he promoted by the advocates of the Liverpool and Bury line, but
it should he re-membered that cotton was not a species of com-
modity which required any great dispatch of communication ;
and there were no just complaints that there did not at
present exist i,hund Ince of communication between the towns of
Manchester, Bolton, and Bury. What was sought for was com-
munication haw,:en these towns and Liverpool. Bolton had a
line ditect to :Manchester. there was inprogress a direct line
hum Bury to Manchester; and Wigan had an indirect communi.
cation with Manchester.
The fiat
which
wouldhe a
wouldfrrd a
submit
continuity w as
the Patricroft and Clifton b
of communication between
Bury
and Liverpool, by Rossendale.
The length of this branch wasthree miles and a half, and the cost
of Its construction was estimated Boat dof Trade, was that this was proper line to be made. This
at 95,000'. The report of the
line would open a communication between Liverpool arid B
Hastingdon, Acklingdon, Blackburn, and a very large field to the
north of Bury, would, as Mr. Walker, ury,
had observed in his
y place Bury would not
evidence, he then well served. '
have direct communication with was Bolton. At Parkside
npocobl and Manchester,
the North Union Railway joined the
winding,ter, but it went
and then turned off in the direction of Meal.
is
by a circuitous course, and, in order to remedy teii
which would
proposed to add 26 chains of railroad at this junction,wi • they
form an elbow towards Liverpool, enabling the trains the
North Union to reach their destination without any stoppage eanadt
New ton or Parkside. The cost of this would be 3,8001P.,g
there was no opposition on the part of the landowners. The next
line would commence at, or near, St. Helen's, and pass up to Ruf.
ford. The obj-:ct of this line was to connect Southport with
Manchester and the whole country south of the Liverpool and
Manchester Railroad. The length of this branch was sixteen
miles, four furlongs, and three chains, and the cost 131,3141.
Thence there would be a branch line to Rainsforth,
nine miles, six furlongs, and three chains; the cost, 163,279/The
The cost of these two branches, therefore, would be 350,000/.
Board of Trade had reported that the St. Helen's and Rufford
branch was not necessary, as it only skirted the great coal.field ; but
this he would show was not a just remark. He would next call
the attention of tie Committee to the projected improvements at
Liveroot There were at present four stations there, viz., Edge-
hili, Crown.,Treet. Lime-street, and Wapping. The first was for
coal, the second for live stock, the third for passengers, the fourth