The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, APRIL 23, 1845.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.
MONDAY, APRIL 21.
The following Bills were read a second time, and committed,
and referred to the Committee of Selection :
Coventry, Bedworth, and Nuneaton Railway.
Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth Railway.
Direct London and Portsmouth Railway.
Chester and Holyhead Railway (Mold Branch and Purchase
of Chester and Birkenhead Railway) (No. 2).
Liverpool and Bury Railway (Bolton, Wigan, and Liverpool
Railway and Bury Extension ).
Southampton and Dorchester Railway.
Lynn and Dereham Railway.
Dunstable and London and Birmingham Railway.
Northumberland Railway.
Edinburgh and Northern Railway (No. 2).
Saint Ives Junction Railway.

The following Bills were referred to the Select Committee
on Standing Orders :
South Easton Railway (Ashford to Hastings).
Kingstown and Bray Railway.
London and South Western Railway (Epsom Branch).

Erewash Valley Railway (No. 2),—Report from Select
Committee on Standing Orders read; Bill ordered to be
brought in by Colonel Rolleston, Mr. Gaily Knight, and Mr.
Evans.
South Eastern Railway (Maidstone to Rochester),—Re.
port from Select Committee on Petitions for Private Bills
read ; Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Plumptre and
Mr. William Henry Bodkin. -
South Eastern Railway (Branch to Deal and Extension of
the South Eastern, Canterbury, Ramsgate, and Margate
Railway),—Report from Select Committee on Petitions for
Private Bills read ; Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr.
William Henry- Bodkin and Mr. Elphinstone.
Harwich Railway,— Petition for Bill; referred to the Select
Committee on Petitions for Private Bills.

NOTICES GIVEN AT THE PRIVATE BILL OFFICE'
SATURDAY, APRIL 19.
Cambridge and Lincoln Railway,—Committee on petition,
for additional provision, Tuesday, April 22.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne and North Shields Railway (Tyne-
mouth Extension ),—Committee on Bill, Tuesday, April 29,
at twelve.
Hull and Gainsborough Railway,—Committee on project,
Tuesday, April 29, at twelve.
Direct Northern Railway,—Committee on project, Monday,
April 28, at twelve.

MONDAY, APRIL 21.
Newry and Enniskillen Railway,—Second reading, Friday,
April 25.
Dublin and Belfast Junction Railway,—Second reading,
Friday, April 25.
Wexford, Carlow, and Dublin Junction Railway,—Second
reading, Friday, April 25.
Midland Railways Company (Birmingham and Gloucester
and Bristol and Gloucester Bailway Purchase),—Committee
on petition, adjourned till Friday, April 25.
Bristol and Gloucester and Birmingham and Gloucester
Railways,—Committee on petition, postponed from Wednes-
day 23d till Monday, April 28.
Goole and Doncaster Railway,—Committee on petition,
postponed from Wednesday 23d till Thursday, April 24.
Cork and Bandon Railway,—Second reading, Friday,
April 25.
Mrnchester and Leeds Railway (Burnley Branch and Old-
ham and Heywood Branches Extension),—Report, Wednes-
day, April 23.
Guildford Junction Railway,—Committee on petition, ad-
journed till Monday, April 28.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
Sub-Committee (No. 1.)
The Committee, consisting of Mr. Strutt, Chairman, Mr
Vin.etStinuarroto,m MNr.o.C;o3m,epsttoenrd,abylr.
DISS AND COLCHESTER RAILWAY.. Beckett, and Mr. Cavendish.
The case was resumed this morning, and the Committee
proceeded with a great number of allegations respecting the
plans. These were all of a technical character, and a great
number were sustained.
LYNN AND ELY.
The Committee met yesterday some time after twelve
o'clock ; Lord Palmerston in the chair.
The Committee proceeded to hear evidence on the part of
the South Level and Eaubrink Commissioners. The first
witness called was—
Josiah Human, who was examined by Mr. PAGET. His
evidence was to the effect that the water of the Ouse was
confined between embankments called the' New Cut," which
prevented the water from overflowing the country. There
were also puddle walls, which were impervious to the water.
If any injury was done to the puddle walls the water would
permeate and lay the railway three or four feet under water.
Very strong vibration, or an unequal pressure upon the em-
bankments, would be injurious to those walls. No embank-
ments ought to be made within 100 feet of the puddle walls.
After this witness had given his evidence, it was agreed
between the parties that the engineers on both sides should
confer together, and come to some arrangement as to the
distance at which the line of railway was to be carried which
would protect the embankments from injury.
Mr. Little, the superintendent of the works of the Eau-
brink Commissioners, was then examined, and gave evidence
of the same character with respect to the injury which would
accrue to the surrounding country, if any injury was done
to the cuts. The land in the neighbourhood of the Eaubrink
is very valuable.
Mr. C. Pemberton, the treasurer of the Eaubrink Com-
missioners was next examined—He had been treasurer for
more than forty years. He had received 335,0001. from the
Exchequer Loan Commissioners for the construction of the
works. More than that had been expended on them. There
was a debt due now of 38,2411. There was a total income of
11,720/. derived from a tax of sixpence an acre on land, and
the navigation tolls. They were paying off the residue of
the debt and the interest upon it, at the rate of 6,2001. a
year. The ordinary repairs cost, for the last five years,
about 1,2001. a year. The present debt would be paid off in
about six years. The taxation for the works in other places
was heavier than for the Eaubrink works. lie heard that
there would not be more than 4501. available for the main-
tenance of the works when the railroad was constructed. •
Other witnesses wore then called with regard to the bridge
which ought to be constructed by the projectors of the line;
after which
Mr. Sergeant WRANGHAM replied on behalf of the pro-
moters of the Bill.—The Committee then adjourned.

GROUP T.
This Committee, which has several projected railways in
the Midland counties committed to its consideration, met yes-
terday at twelve o'clock ; Sir George Grey in the chair. There
were five Members present.
The CHAIRMAN said they would take the London, Bed-
ford, and Birmingham first, as it was unopposed.
This is a branch line proposed to be formed from the town
of Bedford to connect it with the London and Birmingham
of
Trade.
Mr. BURKE appeared for the company, and called evidence
the Bd
line. It has been favourably reported on y
b
on their behalf to show the advantages that would result to
Bedfordshire by this line, and that the standing orders had
been complied with.
The Committee decided the preamble of the Bill to be
proved, and then proceeded to the consideration of the clauses.
Clauses from 41 to 47, which have reference to the levying of
fares and tolls on the line, were postponed until the decision
of the House was known respecting the rate of fares that
should be imposed on railways generally. Several other
clauses and amendments were- agreed to, and the further
consideration of the Bill was adjourned.
THE PETERBOROUGH AND SYSTON RAILWAY.
Mr. AUSTIN appeared in favour of this Bill, which has
been favourably reported on by the Board of Trade. The
Learned Gentleman stated at some length the advantages that
would result to the inhabitants of the east coast by the con-
struction of this line. The engineering difficulties were very
in wasth
e proposednam eof
ot
no e beof
their taken
solicitors,b y the
few, and the prospect of a profitable return for the investment
lliinnee,
of capital very great.
Petitions were presented against the direction in which the
ber of the inhabitants of Stamford, and Lord Harborough.
The London and York Company also petitioned against the
irl.l
rfraormsonas. num-
Mr. AUSTIN objected to the reception of the latter petition,
as being irregular, as the parties ought to have appeared in
their own name.
Mr. Sergeant WRANGIIAM replied at some length, on the
other side, in which he endeavoured to show that the two
lines were competing lines, and that though the petition
might not be according to the usual rules, yet the necessity
of the case should warrant the Committee in going into it.
The Committee decided against receiving the petition in
the name of "John Parsons," and the consideration of the
Bill wUas then formally gone into.
HUDDERSFIELD AND SHEFFIELD JUNCTION
RAILWAY.
The further consideration of this railway was taken before
ester
Mr. Barneby and the Committee on GrouP C, Yday, at
twelve o'clock. anxious to correct a
Mr. WHATELET stated, Mr. Cope was
mistake into which he had fallen y-esterdav, with respect to
the radius within which he had estimated the carriage of
coals.
Mr. COPE stated that the radius was one of three miles,
and not one mile, as he had said yesterday ; that the whole
amount of the revenue from coals would be in his estima-
tion 19,2801. 17s. Bd., that the whole quantity of coal he
calculated would be 401,000 tons, but the net quantity was
219,572 tons.
Mr. Hall, engineer to the Huddersfield Canal Company,
stated that one of the chief feeders was the Flockton coal-
field, the distance of which from the Manchester and Leeds
Railway was about a mile and a half, that the
Flockton field was the main source for which
Huddersfield was supplied, and that there was no means by
which the market at Huddersfield could be supplied without
considerable expense and loss of time.
On inquiries from Mr. TEMPLE, Mr. Hall explained that
the West Riding Junction Railway did not afford sufficient
convenience ; that the quantity of coals carried on the
Barnesby Canal from the Silkestone coal-field was 82,000
tons ; and that this was the only communication be-
tween the Silkestone coal-field
laces and Huddersfield, which
was too circuitous, and the p too distant from each
other ; that the tolls were Is.ld. per ton, and that. the haulage
was generally double that amount. .
In reply to a question from the Chairman,
Mr. WHATELEY said that the total cost of carriage by the
railway would be Is. sd. per ton, including every expense of
railway rates and locomotive power, except putting the coal
on the line and taking it off.
In reply to Mr. Whateley,
distance
Mr. Hall stated that the by canal to Hud-
dersfield. was about thirty miles ; that the Flockton coal was
thin, though he could not say whether it was so little as 18
inches, and that the Silkestone coal was about 4 feet 6 inches
thick.
Mr. Locke stated, in reply to
.Mr. Ternple, that one of
the chief reason for carrying the line_ in its present course
was to effect a junction with the Manchester and Hudders-
field Railway at Huddersfield.
Mr. TEMPLE then proceeded to state that it was a
great mistake to suppose that the promoters of the opposition
were induced by any desire of impeding the project, or in-
deed any other motives than those arising from a desire to
prevent the line going through their property at all. He
then cited the passage from the report of the Board of Trade
on this railway, in which they stated their doubts of the
extent of the traffic proving sufficient to remunerate the
shareholders; and he thought that it was but right
that the Company have roved all th • oint
most satisfactorily beforeshould they to p it
he from his client thpe pro-
s
petty which she desired to retain. This property consisted
andwo gardens, a plantation, a road, a shrubbery, stackyards,
a barns. By the power of deviation given by Parliament
they would hare the right to take not only a part but
the whole of this property. He complained of the way in
which the Company had obtained the evidence on which
they grounded their allegations before the Committee.
They had not obtained the account of the traffic
from the Directors of the Leeds and Manchester
Railway, but they had employed persons who had under-
taken to count the number of persons who got into the car-
riages of that railway at Manchester. This, to say the
least, was a very insufficient ground on which to. base their
assertions. With respect to the carriage of coals, the quan-
tity of which was likely to be carried on the railway was es-
timated at '401,000 tons, and the revenue more than
19,000.; but this wai AoweTer, were afaugaption.