The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-03 00:00:00

BIRMINGHAM and oxrout) JUNCTION
RAILWAY, with a BRANCH to STRATFORD-ON-AVON.
Capital £600,000 in Shares of £2O each.
Deposit £2 per Share.
Provisionally reglatered pursuant to Act 7th and Sth Vic., C. 110.
PROVISIONAL COMMITTEE.
The Mayor of Birmingham
The Mayor of Stratford-on-Avon
John Adams, Esq.. Sergeant-at law, London
J. T. Alston, Esq., Liverpool
W. C. Alston, Esq., Elmdon Hall, near Birmingham
John Aston, Esq., Birmingham
Robert James Atty, Esq., 'Ligon Hal', Stratford-on-Avon
P. P. Barlow, Esq., London
Colonel Charles Oldfield Bowles, North Aston Park
W. E. Boyes, Esq., Alkerton, near BanburY
James Butlin, Esq., Westfieklllonse, near Rugby
C. H. Corbitt, Esq, AdmingtOn .
John Crosthwaite, Esq., Liverpool -
Sir George Dashweod, Bart., Kirtlington Park. Oxon
William Dickens, Esq., Cherington, near Shipston
Rev. Edward Dudley, Broom Rectory, near Stourbridge
Rev. John Ellis, Wootton, Henley in Arden
John Branton Fere, Esq., Stratford-on-Avon
J. Gardiner, Esq., Southam
Darwin Galton, Esq., Euston Hall, near Stratford-on-Avon
Robertson Gladstone, Esq., Liverpool
John Greavea, Esq., Radford, near Warwick
John Griffiths, Esq., Alveston, near Stratford-on-Avon
J. Haddon, Esq., Leamington
William Judd Harding, Esq., Baraset House, near Stratford-
on-Avon
Lawrence Heyworth, Esq., Liverpool
Captain Hitchins, Edlicote, near Shipstene
Charles Lawrence, Esq., Liverpool
John Lechmere, Esq., Steeple Aston
George Lucy, Esq., Charlecote Park, near Stratford-on-Avon
Charles Maim, Esq., Leamington
William Marshall, Esq., Husbands Bosworth, Leicestershire
William Mathews; Esq., Edgbaston, Birmingham
J. W. Miles, Esq., Bristol
Rev. Robert Morris, Eatington, near Stratford-on-Avon
John Moss, Esq., Liverpool
Rev. Charles Palmer, Lighthorne
J. G. Reeves, Esq., Birmingham.
John Roskell, Esq., Bath
Francis Rufford, Esq., Bellbroughton, near gtourbridge
Charles Russell, Esq., London
Charles Shaw, Esq., Birmingham
Major General Smith, Rugby
Gustavus Thomas Smith, Esq., Goldicote, near Stratford-on-Avon
John Staunton, Esq., Tidmington, near Shipstone
Samuel Edward Steward, Esq., Leamington
T. 11. Thorne, Esq., Leamington
Rev. Townsend, llonnington, near Shipstone
George Richard Walker, Esq., Heathfield House, Bletchington,
Oxon
Charles Woodhampower'. Avonhurst, near Stratford-on-Avon
(With to add to their number.)
RANKERS.
Messrs. Robarts, Curtis, and Co., London.
Messrs. Attwood, Spooner, and Co. ; and the Birmingham Bank-
ing Company, Birmingham.
Messrs. Miles, Harford, and Co., Bristol.
Messrs. Moss and Co., Liverpool.
The Leamington Priors and Warwickshire Banking Company, and
The Warwick and Leamington Banking Company, Leamington
and Warwick.

SOLICITORS.
'Messrs. Patterson, Ilaymes, and llanbury, Leamington and
Warwick.
W. O. Hunt, Esq., and Charles Stevens, Esq., 10, Whitehall,

London.
Ileasrs. Clay and Swift, Liverpool.

The period having elapsed for making application for Shares, the
Provisional Directors beg to give notice that they are proceeding to
make the allotment with as little delay as possible ; but from the un-
precedented demand for Shares, amounting to ten times the capital
required, a few days must necessarily elapse before the letters of al-
lotment can be issued : and the Provisional Directors take this op-
portunity of intimating to all parties, who within fourteen days shall
not receive such letters, that they must understand their repuest can-
not be complied with for the reason above assigned.
London, 449, West Strand, April 1, 1845.

LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY.
The detailed Report of the Board of Trade having been pub-
lished, the Committee of Direction of the London and York Company
deem it right to observe upon a few of the most glaring mistakes, ap-
...

Parent on the face of it.
The Committee, however, must first acknowledge the favourable
opinions expressed of the London and York, compared with the
rival schemes in the following passages of the Report, viz.:—
"As regards local accommodation, we are of opinion that the
Merits of the two schemes are equally balanced, and that either
Would afford a very good Trunk Line between London and York ;"
and, again, " If we disregard for the present all considerations of ex-
pense, it may be considered that the London and York scheme, on the
whole, presents a larger and more comprehensive system of commu-
nication." The Report, nevertheless, rejects the London and York
scheme, upon the ground of its being too expensive, and asserts that
the same ends may be obtained at much less cost, by means of 218
sailed of new railway instead of 327, the length of the entire London
and York scheme. The Committee call attention to the fact, that
Whilst the report on this plea of economy rejects the London and
York 'theme, the whole of the lines actually recommended by that
report as ,nbstitntes, contain no less than 334 miles of new railway,
still leaving 1::!e public to travel from Cambridge to London (a dis-
tance of more the"' 5° miles) upon the existing Northern and Eastern
Railway, and ti GC the trunk lines into the hands of three sepa-
,

rate companies. port of the Board of Trade states
On the question of cost, the Ye
as now proposed, could not be
" That the London and York schei7e.
completed with stations, metropolitan terminus, and the requisite
'working stack of engines, carriages, &c., for a less sum than
8.000,0001." But the Committee beg id observe, that
the carrying establishment (which the report very much
over estimates, at an average of 3,3881. per mile, or about 1,000,0001.)
Was not included, not being required by Parliament to be included in
their estimate. The estimate sent to the Board, was for works only,
and amounted to 6,500,0001.,-the difference therefore between that es-
timate, and the estimate put forth by the Board, is only 500,000/. ;
and when the Committee state, that no question or explanation upon
the estimate was asked by the Board of Mr. Cubitt, their Engineer,
nor the slightest intimation given that its accuracy was in any de-
gree questioned ; when it is also well known to the Board, that upon
a capita! of 6,500,0001., Parliament gives the power of borrowing
2,1,7,,000/. further, the Committee deem themselves warranted in
saying,
the conclusion of the Board has been far too hastily
ar-
rived at.
Another economical detail given by the Report is, that whilst the
London and Yoe' .would cost 8,000,000/., the lines necessary to supply
its place would only 'enst 4,250,0001. On this head the
asteare kind of
i,
fallacy prevails: the LcZadon, anedrsYorlrciuliteonitehaistesexpme
nse. Moreoveincludinr
carrying establishment, the ith
instead of 218 miles at a cost of
(as will be seen by the table Wow)
4,250,0001., the Report recomm.`lids 334 miles at an expense of
"t. London and York esti-
-9,785,0001. (a sum only 715,0001. short . be added, at a
the
000,000/
mate), and if the carrying establishment C. 1,.
, cost of 6,785,0001., which would be only ;,-215,0001. short of the
8,000,000/., at which the Board estimates the London and York
scheme ; still leaving the trunk traffic to run over mare
than fifty
miles of the existing Northern and Eastern Railway.
the
• The London and York Committee are strongly impressed
fact that no one of the estimates for the lines approved in the repi.7l
of the Board of Trade exceeds 18,000/. a mile (excepting the Far-
ringdon-street Extension, and except also the North end of the Direct
11,,,.°a ~,,,,rtbern, which is estimated at 22,0001.), whilst two of them stand
a mile, the Midland schemes at 13,000/., and the Grimsby,
tsar miles through Lincolnshire, at 10,000/. per mile. The whole
of the lines north of Cambridge which traverse precisely the
la,n)° country as that of the London and York, do not average
per mile ; and there can be no reason for saying
that the London and York lines in those parts would on the whole be
finch more expensive. With regard to the London end of the line,
the Report, with peculiar inconsistency, charges the London and
York with 29,000/. per mile, whilst it sanctions the Eastern Counties
estimate from Itertford to Biggieswade, through twenty-five miles of
the same country, at 18,000/. per mile. The Committee are assured
bY Mn Cubitt, and the Board of Trade's Report Mrnishes additional
reason to rely upon his accuracy, that the original estimate of
6,soo,oooe—about 20,0001. a mile—will be sufficient for every part of
the work.
On the subject of traffic the Committee will only remark, that
as the Board of Trade is satisfied that the traffic, of the district
will not only remunerate the outlay of 6,785,0001.—the estimates
for the lines they approve—but that it will also pay a mileage
toll upon fifty miles of the Northern and Eastern—that toll would
be abundantly sufficient to remunerate the outlay of the additional
1,215,000/., making 8,000,0001., which would, even in the Board's
opinion, suffice to construct the integral line projected by the London
and York Company, ten miles shorter in its trunk, and more com-
prehensive in its local accommodation. By the schemes approved,
or rather suggested, by the Board of Trade, the traffic of the
district would be collected upon 334 + 50 = 384 miles of railway,
and the same traffic would be concentrated by the London and
York Railway upon 327 miles. The Committee are prepared to
show that the local traffic between Newark and Chesterfield, and
between Snaith and Wakefield, on the lines by the Board's Report
substituted for those lines from Bawtry to Sheffield, and from Don-
caster to Wakefield, would not add materially to the amount. The
Board's comparison of the London and York estimates of traffic with
the income of the Eastern Counties and Midlands, must be neces-
sarily inconclusive ; since the Eastern Counties is not sufficiently ad-
vanced to enjoy the benefits of a through line, or even what may be
termed an extended line ; and the Midland average of 411. per mile
per week is made up for the year ending June, 1843, (and not 1844, as
stated in the Report) of the aggregate of three lines—the North
Midland, 72 miles bringing 541. ; the Midland Counties, 57 miles,
bringing 421. ; and the iiirmingham and Derby. 48 miles, bringing
231. per mile—the last line being a competing line with the second.
The entire Midland returns for the half year ending December, 1844,
are equal to 59/. per mile per week for the year, and this includes only 41.
per mile for carriage of minerals, whereas, if, as the projectors of the
London and York assert, and the Board of Trade are pleased to ad-
mit, the district of the London and York and Eastern Counties will
be supplied with coal by those lines, the mineral traffic alone must
necessarily be equal to 201. per mile per week.
The Committee are not only fully prepared to prove the ample
traffic on their line—and that their estimated income of 1,000,000/.
is not, as alleged in the Report of the Board of Trade, exaggerated
—but so far from their income being dependent upon the difference
between three halfpence and twopence-farthing placed on part
of their passenger income, or noon their security from competition,
they are in a condition to show that even one-half of their whole
estimated passenger traffic, and 6/. instead of 201. per mile per week
for mineral traffic, would give an income of 5/. per cent. upon a
eevital of eight millions, after deducting 40/. per cent. for working
expenses.
In allusion to the accommodation of the great county of Lincoln,
the Report further states, that, "by a doubleline or loop, the London
and York scheme requires the making of 150 miles, partly of difficult
construction, to provide for the same traffic which would be accom-
modated in some respects better, and in others almost equally as well,
by about 100 miles, all of very easy construction." So far from this
being correct, the public will be surprised to find :the reverse is the
fact, for whilst that part of the London and York scheme which lies
within the county of Lincoln, comprises only 111% miles, the lines
proposed by the Board of Trade within the same county extend to
121 miles ! the measurement being taken in both instances from the
south border of Lincolnshire to Newark, and to Gainsborough on the
north. The accommodation afforded by the London and York lines
being preferred by the inhabitants.
The Report of the Board of Trade contains various other errors and
inconsistencies too numerous to be treated of here, but which the
London and York Committee will take care shall be fully set forth
when the merits of the case of the London and York shall be under
the consideration of the Parliamentary Committee on the re-
assembling of the House of Commons.
' In conclusion, the Committee beg leave to reiterate, that where
(es in the case of the London and York) the district through which
a new railway is projected, is urgent and unanimous in
its faN'otir, and the requisite capital is subscribed, they cannot be-
lieve that Parliament will refuse its sanction, out of regard to the in-
terests of exiting railways, which make the main trunk longer, and
the local accommodation neither so comprehensive nor satisfactory to
the inhabitants.
The feeling of ParliaNent and of the country, with reference to
the London and York Line, when coupled with the acknowledgment
of its merits by the Board of 'r tie, and the manifest misconception
under which the economical condlleions of that Board have been
drawn, give every confidence to the C.',9Tumittee of the ultimate sw-
eets of the scheme—and the Committee :re persuaded Parliament
will recognise the public importance of an iutdg-ral line under one
ranagement, and its vast superiority over a series of 1:A13, which in-
terpose obstacles to the traveller at every change.

LINES APPROVED OR SUGGESTED BY THE BOARD OF

TRADE.

LENGTH.

Total per
Nils. Chns. Cost. Mile,

1. Cambridge and Lincoln • ...... • 1
2. Parringdon-street Extension ••• • • • I
3. Direct Northern • •
4. Roston Branch... •• •• • •
• b. Stamford and Spalding ditto, sug-
gested by the Board of Trade 1
e. Eastern Counties Biggleswade, in
lieu of Loudon and York to Big-
gleswade • • .... ••••'•• • • • • • • •
7. Bedford, London and Birmingham
in lieu of London and York Bed-
ford Branch •• • .
iii. Swinton to Gainsborough, in lieu oft
London and York line to Doncaster j
9. Wakefield and Goole (part of) in
lieu of 21 miles the Wakefield
Branch of London and York.... • •
10. Newark and Chesterfield, withl
Branch .
11. To Sleaford and Grantham, sug-1
!Meted by the Board of Trade in
ieu of London and York Line, ,
through Grantham, Newark, Ret-
ford and Ilawtry, to Sheffield* .. • • ..,

X.
83 20 1,250,000115,000
5 16 800,000

57 20 1,306,0011 22,000
32 - 240, 000 8,000

24 50 I 150,0001 18,000

16 31 125,0001 8,000
33 - 430,000 13,000

22 - -:.270,000 12,000
32 60 500,0001, 15,000

N -

420,000'i 15,000

Total