The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-16 00:00:00

GROUP SS.
COVENTRY, EEDVITORTII, AND NU EATON

RIIII.NITA.Y.

The Committee on this group re.assembled this morning at the
usual hour, and proceeded with the engineering evidence in the
case for the promoters of the Coventry, Bedworth, and Nuneaton
Railway.
Mr. MACAULAY announced that arrangements had been come to
with several landholders and the London and Birmingham Com-
pany, and the opposition to the line had accordingly been withdrawn.
Mr. George Rennie confirmed the evidence of Mr. Addison,
the engineer to the line. He believed the line presented no en.
gineering difficulties worth speaking of, and was quite certain it
could be made within the estimate of Mr. Addison.
The witness, in his cross-examination by Mr. DANIEL, admitted
that on some parts of the line minerals had been extracted from
under the surface, and the consequence had been that the land had
sunk, and might again sink. He did not think this ought to act
prejudicially to the railway; but, independently of that opinion, he
had been informed by those who had sufficient opportunities of as.
certaining the fact, that the sinking had subsided.
Mr. T. Gooch had also gone over the line, and fully coincided
in the statements which had been made by Mr. Addison. In his
opinion, Mr. Addison had fixed upon the best point for forming a
junction with the London and Birmingham line. He knew well
the neighbourhood of Coventry, and had no hesitation in saying
a junction to the eastward of the town was superior to one on
the westward. Both junctions, however, were feasible; but the
advantages on the whole, he thought, preponderated in favour of
the proposed junction, to the eastward.
On cross-examination, he said the fact of some portion of the
land over which the line would pass having sunk, or was in a sink-
ilninge:taanted mentioned one or two instances where embankments on
existing state, was not a sufficient obstacle to justify the removal of the
lines were constantly sinking. Plate layers were always
stationed near to these spots, and they were never at a loss to find
a remedy for the defect.
employed on British and foreign rail-
Mr.whayo
557,,7
dsa
osw a
willinge n
extensively
t o
tract
Sherwood, a railroad contractor of considerable experience,
Mr. Carenah, an ironmonger and collector of poor-rates at
Nuneaton, considered the proposed railway would be a
great advantage to that town, if the Trent Valley
were extended as far as Nuneaton. There was an ex-
whbie.
at
tensive traffic in ribbons, between Nuneaton and Co_
ventry, and it was evident to him that a railway between the two
places would be a great public advantage. He admitted having
signed a petition against the proposed railway, but it was under
the impression that the line would stop short of Nuneaton, at
Marston.
Dir. James Arnold, a ribbon-weaver at Nuneaton, had also
been induced to sign a petition against the proposed railway, under
the impression that it would not extend beyond Marston. The
Trent Valley line would immediately connect Nuneaton with Mar-
ston, and, of course, this fact removed his objection to the railway.
Mr. Shailor, an ins keeper, at Nuneaton, signed a petition against
the railway under precisely similar circumstances.
Mr. Edward Phillips, a land valuer, of Whitmore Park, near
Coventry, proved that the railway would require sixty acres of
land, which he estimated would cost 14,0001., including the
severance. This sum was for ninety years' purchase.
Mr. Banbury, Secretary to the Company, proved that the num-
ber of shares subscribed for was 3,574, being equal to 69,3501.
The amount of deposits already paid was 4,4671.
MI". PARKES here intimated that he was authorised to state that
the London and Birmingham Company were prepared to take a
lease in perpetuity of the line, but the terms had not teen fixed on.
Mr. DANIEL, before entering upon his opposition, wished the
Committee to draw from Mr. Parkes the fact that the London and
Birmingham Company had agreed to take a lease of the proposed
railway, on the condition that the promoters were prepared to aban-
don a portion of their line. If this were the case, the nature of
his opposition would be materially altered.
The CHAIRMAN remarked that there was no witness before them
who had spoken to the point, and of course there was no one to
whom they could put the question.