The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-09 00:00:00

BRISTOL AND SaZIMTZR, maxLwalr.

The Lords' Select Committee reassembled this afternoon, and
passed the preamble, inserting clauses in the 13il1 to protect the in-
terests of the landholders who had opposed it.

COnlVViriliz2TA R.11.2:161.77.86.7.
(Cuitinued frEin our Afternoon Edition of yestriday )

Mr. Alfred Fox, a merchant residing at Falmouth, gave evidence
in favour of the projected line.
Mr. George Smith, of Carnborne, in Cornwall, inventor of the
patent safety fuse, likewise staled that he considered the Cornwall
line would be most desirable, and he supported his evidence by
reference to the traffic tables. 27,e00 persons were engaged in
worki,g mines in Cornwall, and the nimber of persons depending
on mining labour was 100,000. The population of Cornwall was
the most locomotive in England.
Mr. E. Sharp, customs' agent for Truro, in Cornwall, was next
examined—A large quantity of flour was yearly imported into the
mining districts. He approved of the projected Cornwall line.
Mr. Reynolds, a grocer at Truro, likewise gave evidence in
favour of the line.
The Committee adjourned soon after four o'clock.

THE oxpon-D, WORCIISTER, AND wom.
VERHAIVIPTON aluxivrAy.
BROAD AND NARROW GAUGES.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

Mr. COCKBURN proceeded to open the case for the promo-
ters of the Bill. He stated that the line was intended to connect
the important agricultural districts of the south with the mineral
districts of the north, so as to admit of an interchange of produce.
Having explained the nature of the route of the line, he then
stated that there was an opposition to the Bill from a Company
called the Tring, or London and Birmingham line. That line was
longer and more circuitous, and did not accommodate such populous
and wealthy districts, and would cost much more in the construc-
tion than that proposed by the Bill—the estimated expense of
the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton line being
1,500,0001.; and that of the Oxford and Rugby, 600,0001.,
making together 2,100,0001. ; whereas the rival lines were
estimated to cost 3,080,0001. With respect to the towns of
Stourbridge and Droitwich, the line proposed by the Bill accom-
modated Droitwich, which was an important place, with large
salt works, while Stourbridge was a place of little commercial
Importance. With- respect to that portion of the line from Oxford
to Abbotswood, it was proposed to lay it down with the broad gauge
exclusively; but with respect to that portion of the line
from Abbotswood to the north , it was proposed to
lay down two sets of rails on both the broad and narrow gauges, so
as to accommodate the important iron and coal districts of Stafford-
shire. the Learned Gentleman concluded by referring to the esti-
mated traffic, engineering peculiarities, &c., and proceeded to call
his witnesses.

Mr. Matthews, of Edgbaston, Birmingham, was the first witness
called. He was an ironmaster, and had works in the neighbourhood
cf Birmingham. He deposed to the circumstances which
led to the origin of the present scheme. It arose,
he said, from a number of gentlemen in the midland counties
being dissatisfied with the amount of railway accommodation
soliciting the Great Western Company to take steps to supply the
desideratum. After several interviews the present scheme was
the result. He believed the great majority of the iron-masters in
the district were in favour of the scheme under consideration.
The competing schemes were not thought of till the present one
was before the public. He had no hesitation in laying that the
present scheme was far more important for the public interests
than the other. It would accommodate a much greater number
of public works. He had a plan which would show this clearly.
The witness then put in the plan, and explained it at some
length to the Committee. He considered that all the concessions
that had been made to the public within the last year had been
occasioned by the fear of competition. There were about 140 fur.
naces in the district, of which 100 were in blast. Of these he
believed there were about 61 whose proprietors were in favour of
the Bill.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hors—At the last meeting of the iron-
masters he believed the majority were in favour of the Bill. The
subject of tolls was discussed, and he rebutted certain charges
of Mr. Sparrow, a considerable ironmaster in South Staffordshire.
This was about a fortnight ago. He (the witness) endeavoured to
show that Mr. Sparrow laboured under a misunderstanding re.
specting the toll clauses, and that if there was any ambiguity in
them, he believed that it was not intended. Mr. Sparrow's charges
against the Bill were very broadly and emphatically stated,
though he did not attempt to go into detail on the sub-
ject. He stated the result of an interview with the
Chairman of the Great Western Company, and also the
Chairman of the new, at which an agreement was come to expla-
natory of the true interpretation of the toll clauses, on which the
discussion had arisen. The witness was next subjected to a
very close cross-examination of the respective merits of the two
gauges to accommodate the mineral traffic of the district, during
which he maintained that not only for the advantage of the iron-
masters, but the interest of the public, the broad gauge was much
preferable to the narrow one.
The Committee then adjourned till to morrow, when the cross-
examination of the witness will be resumed.

LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER HAIL-

ViT.IIY.

The Committee on this line met to day at eleven o'clock, in
No. 5, Abingdon.street, Lord Chichester in the chair—present
Lords Foley, Caithorpe, Clancart}, and Lorton. _ .

Mr. Austin, with whom were Mr. Loftus and Mr. Lowndes,
appeared as counsel for the promoters of the Bill. The object of
the Bill is to enable the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Com-
pany to extend and enlarge the said railway, and to make certain
branch railways, and for amending and enlarging the power of the
several Acts relating to the said railway.
There being no opposition to the preamble of the Bill,
The CHLIRMLN said that the Committee would hear any peti-
tions against clauses or works that were to be executed.

Mr.COATES, of the firm of Dyson and Hall, then appeared in
support of a petition from certain inhabitants of the borough of
Salford, praying that their Lordships would not allow that cause
to be inserted in the Bill which referred to a certain bridge and
works made in the borough of Salford, for the construction of which
there was no authority in their Act of Parliament, and which were
now sought to be legalised.

Evidence was then submitted to prove the inconvenience of the
bridge and the obstruction which it caused.

Mr. Wood, engineer on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway,
was examined, to prove that no inconvenience resulted.
..

. .
The CHAIRMAN here suggested to the promoters the propriety of
ins oducing a clause which would have the effect of sufficiently
protecting the rights of the petitioners.
Mr. LOWNDES said that the Company had not the least objection.

. .
Mr. Newall, Parliamentary agent, said that he had very little
faith in the gentle:nen who composed the Committee, but, agree-
ably to the suggestion of the Noble Chairman, he would draw out a
clause protective of the rights of petitioners. He then submitted
his clause to the Committee, and the room was cleared. On our re-
admission—

The CHAIRMAN announced the decision of the Committee, that
the clause of the company should be retained.
Mr. MONTAGUE SAIITH then appeared on behalf of the Grand
Junction Company, to object to clauses 54 and 55, empowering the
promoters to lease the railway to other companies in contravention,
as he alleged, of a distinct agreement to the contrary with the Grand
Junction Company.
The Committee decided that in this case also the clauses should
stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Gregory, Parliamentary agent, appeared on behalf of Capt.
Williamson, whose property on the banks of the Leeds and Liver-
pool Canal he alleged would be damaged by the proposed railway,
but in this case also the Committee decided against the petitioners.
They were of opinion that sufficient compensation was provided for
any damage of that kind by the compensation clause in the Bill.
This having concluded the opposition, the preamble of the Liver-
pool and Manchester Railway Bill was then passed, and several
verbal amendments having been made to the clauses, the Com.
mittee broke up.

STANDING ORDERS COIVIIIIITTEE.
The Standing Orders Committee of the House of Lords sat at
four o'clock, the Earl of Shaftesbury in the chair.
The Runcorn and Preston Brook Railway Bill was reported to
have complied with the standing orders
The consideration of the Irish Great Western (Dublin and
Galway) Railway Bill was adjourned to Thursday next.

HOUSE OF COMiIONS.
GROUP A.
TENTERDEN AND RYE LINE.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

Mr. Smith was the only witness called. His evidence related
only to the traffic which might be expected upon the proposed line.
A long, but unimportant, discussion ensued, and the Committee
adjourned at half-past four o'clock.