The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-15 00:00:00

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
(YESTERDAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
TEE CORNWALL RAILWAY.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

Charles Pearce had conducted the steam ferry-bridge at Tor-
point for upwards of eleven years. He worked from !six in the
morning till half-past nine at night. Was able at all times to
work the bridge. There was very considerable naviga-
tion there. Vessels of 180 tons went up to Morham.
Cross.examined—Collisions had sometimes occurred between
barges and the floating bridges. A lady was drowned on one oc-
casion, but it was from extreme carelessness on the part of the boat
conductors.

In answer to a question from Mr. MEURIVALE, witness said he
thought there would be no difficulty or danger in passing over a
railway train on this floating bridge.
The Marquis of BREADALBANE—Hew long does it occupy you
to cross the Hamoaze with a large load?
Witness—Not more than six or seven minutes.
The CHAIUMAN—Do you carry cattle over ?
Witness—Frequently.

The solicitor for the Bill then gave some formal evidence respect
ing the number and amount of shares. He was cross-examined at
considerable length by Mr. Rowe.
Witness explained to the Committee a conference which took
place between the promoters of the Bill and the Admiralty, when
it was satisfactorily arranged that several clauses should be intro-
duced into the Bill which would guarantee against all injurious in.
terfcrence with the navigation of the Hamoaze.

The Noble CHAIRMAN observed that it would be much better if
the Boards of Admiralty and Ordnance would carry on their com-
munications in writing than oral!y.
The case for the promoters of the Bill then closed.
The first witness called for the opposition to the Bill was J. W.
Tranaine, Esq., who stated that the line would pass through his
property and Near his residence. Did not think the line a good
one, and further considered that the county was not able to sup-
port two lines. Mr. Locke, the engineer, said it was the most dan-
gerous line he had ever seen, and that a floating_bridge for the
trains was possible, but a contrivance which he would do a great
deal to avoid. Such was witness's opinion likewise. The coast
line would be most difficult, and would cross several deep ravines at
right angles. The line would cross several rivers.

The witness was cross.examined at great length. He admitted
that population was the strong point in favour of the present Bill.
The line passed through a populous district. But it would be
utterly useless to the corn-growing country of the north. The bridge
at Lostwithiel would be a great nuisance to that town, as passing so
near their principal street. In 1840 and 1841 everybody in Corn-
wall was in favour of the central line, but many of them were now
in favour of the line before the Committee.

The Committee then adjourned till to-morrow morning.

viAzErxErao, PONTEFRACT, AND GOOLE

RAILWAY.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

Witnesses were then called, and the first, Mr. John Lister, gave
a brief retrospect of the rise, progress, and decline of the Goole
trade, in consequence of the superior advantages of the port of Hull.
The only thing that could balance those advantages would be the
construction of independent railways, of which this would be one.
There was a counter line proposed by the York and North Midland,
but in his opinion it would confer no benefit upon the town of
Goole.

Mr. Milner, M.P. for Pontefract, spoke to the feeling of the
borough in favour of the proposed railway.
Mr. Richard Patten, collector of Customs, furnished a return of
the trade of Goole, from which it appeared that while it had de-
creased that of Hull had greatly extended.
Mr. Palk and Capt. Laws gave similar evidence, and their Lord.
ships adjourned shortly before five o'clock.

OXFORD, WORCESTER, AND WOLVER-
HAMPTON.

The evidence of Mr. Brunel (in continuation from our Afternoon
Edit ion of yesterday)—The difference of capital between the present
scheme and the London and Birmingham was nearly a million of
money. He could not exactly explain the difference of capital, as
the works on the London and Birmingham line were heavier than
those on the Great Western. The scheme of the former was ten
miles longer than the latter, but this was not sufficient to explain
the difference of the estimates.

Mr. Sergeant WRANGRAM Said he would suggest a course that
would save the time of the Committee, as far as those estimates

acre concerned. He would furnish Mr. Brunel with a series of
written questions, to which he could furnish answers and explana-
tions, to be afterwards placed before the Committee.
Mr. Brunel had no objection to the course suggested, and it was
accordingly so arranged.
The witness was next cross-examined by counsel on behalf of
Lords Ward and Redesdale and the Birmingham Canal Company,
but without leading to any material result.

Mr. Cubitt and Air. Vignolles, civil engineers, were examined in
coroboration of the evidence of Mr. Brunel. They both certified
as to the ease with which the two sets of rails could be worked on
the same line of railway. With regard to the transhipment of
goods, they considered that it could be effected with dispatch, and
at a most reasonable expense, Mr. Cubitt stating that goods might
be transferred from one gauge to another at a farthing a ton.
After the witnesses were briefly examined on the evidence ad-
duced, the Committee adjourned till to-morrow at eleven o'clock.