The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-03 00:00:00

EVIDENCE ON REHILF OP VIE PETITIONER.

Mr. Rowe then called Mr. Humphrey Williams, of Truro, a
banker, and connected with th• copper trade there and in Wales—
For the last thirty years he had been acquainted with the agri-
cultural and commercial interests of Cornwall. A line from Fal-
mouth, avoiding Penryn, to Truro, and avoiding Mr. Thomas's
property altogether, passing on eastward to Bodmin, by Liskeard,
Saltash, &c., and so on to its destination, could be constructed
with equal if not greater advantage to the public.
The greater portion of the ores raised were shipped
and would not go by the coast line, as was stated. The agricul-
tural produce of Neybrldge and its neighbourhood, which was a
considerable corn-growing country, would not go by the line.
Granite, instead of going by the line, would be shipped at Penryn—
it could be conveyed cheaper to London and other places in this
way. The population of Cornwall was 350,000. The majority of
those residing in the south were opposed to it. Sir Joseph Saul,
Mr. Tremaine, and other large landed proprietors, were among
the number. There would be no difficulty in raising
the money for such a line as he had pointed out.
If the coast line were constructed, it would be a great obstacle to
other railway accommodation for a great many years to come.
The mining interest were decidedly opposed to it.
By Mr. M. SMITH—Was the banker for a rival scheme. The
district through which it was proposed to carry the line did not
produce one-sixth of the ore raised in the mines between Falmouth
and Plymouth.

Mr. Tremaine—Had represented the county in Parliament, and
was a large landowner, having his principal residence at two or three
miles from St. Austel. He was conversant with the mines in that
part of Cornwall, and was of opinion that none of the mineral pro.
duce would go by the line, nor the materials consumed in the
mines. A line like that alluded to in the examination of the last
witness would be of greater advantage to the country than the pro.
posed one. They were desirous of having a direct communi-
cation with Falmouth from Exeter, and would no doubt obtain it
if the south scheme were abandoned.

By Mr. M. SMITH—Had been desirous of obtaining railway ac-
commodation in Cornwall since 1830. He was a friend of rail-
ways, and held a number of shares in the Great Western. Had
said that it wou'd be desirable if the Great Western would carry
on their line direct from Exeter to Falmouth.

Re-examined by Mr. ROWE—Was desirous of having efficient
railway accommodation into Cornwall, and would bear a share in
the expense of surveying the country for that purpose. The
avoidance of the Hameaze would be an advantage in railway ac-
commodation.

Mr. Pendarves, M.P. for the western division of the county,
a chairman of the quarter sessions, and generally acquainted with
the county. He said he was a considerable holder of shares, and
was familiar with the south coast between Plymouth and Pal.
mouth. He was of opinion that the coast line would not carry
much of the ore or much of the materials used in the mines. The
other line indicated on the map by a red line would offer far
greater facilities. St. Columb, Collington, and other districts which
did nut grow sufficient agricultural produce for their own consump_
would have such produce by the line of which he was in
Savour in place of the coast line. He was in favour of a line which
would not cram thF Hamoafe, and avoiding the or4natic ct tin ro 4 e
• •

at Devonport. The inhabitants of Penryn were adverse to its pass-
ing that creek. He would do all he could to aid a proper and effi-
cient line of communication to the country.

Mr. Richard Davie, of Redruth (which is on the line of the
West Cornwall), examined—His brother and he were owners of
mines. He was well acquainted with the mines in the south, and
agreed with Mr. Williams and Mr. Pendaives that the proposed
line would not carry the ores or the materials used in the mines in
that district. The other line would be used to a great extent, and
would offer far greater facilities.
Mr. Aviary, timber-merchant, said he imported timber from the
north as well as the south coast. He imported timber between
Falmouth and Truro, and along the south coast generally. He
agreed in the opinions expressed by the other witnesses called on
behalf of Mr. Thomas, the petitioner against the Bill, that tha coast
line would no,t offer so many inconveniences for the transit cf these
and other materials as the ether tine specified in the map as the
" red" or " northern line."
The Committee then adjourned.

GROUP F.

The Committee met this day at twelve o'clock, in Room No.
the Right Hon. F. Shaw in the chair. The Committee resumer
the inquiry into

THM MOLTDCN, WORCESIVISTZ, AND SOUTiE

STOLDIX sir. R.IIICLVJAY.

Mr. Sanders, examined by Mr. COCKBURN—With regard to
that part of the report of the Board of Trade referring to our inten-
tion of guaranteeing the Severn navigation from loss, the Board
reports that we have not done so, but it is our intention to carry
out that guarantee.

Cross-examined by Mr. DANIEL—With regard to the population
on both lines, I have since prepared tables of the population, and
they are as follows:

Population from Oxford to Evesham :—Headington, 1,668—
Marston, 396—Elsfield, 185—Wood Eaton, 62—Wolvercott, 470
—Wytham, 189—Ensham, I,B93—Cassington, 381—Yarnton, 302
--Begbroke, 110—Kidlington, I,3o3—South Leigh, 326—Church
Handborough, I,oo9—Bladon, 687—North Leigh, 6l7—Combe,
605—Woodstock, I,4l2—Wilcote, 9—Stonefield, 553—Hurley,
I,44o—Claarlbury, 2,9B2—Spilsbury, 597—Ascot, 463—Sars-
den, 179—Shipton under Wychwood, 2,624—Fyfield, 213
Idbury, 207—Westcote, 240—Bledington, 354—Kingham, 555--
Churchill, 651—Cornwell, 97—Daylesford, 81—A ddleshop, 200—
Churtleton, 239—Stowe.on-the-Wold, 2,l4o—Upper Swell, 80
_Broadwell, 345—Little Compton, 301--Evenlosle, 325
Loughborough, 625—Seizincote, 67—Moreton in the Marsh, 1,345
—Batsford, 79—Great Walford, 585—Todenham, 474—Blockley,
2,l36—Shelton on Foss, 434—Chipping Campden, 2,oB7—Elring-
ton, 583 Saintbury, 133—Weston Subedge, 134—Mickleton,
698—Long Marston, or Marston Sicca, 337—Pebworth, 829.
Total, 37,378.

Population of Places between Marsworth and Bicester, and be-
tween Fenny Compton and Evesham, on the London and Wor-
cester and South Staffordshire Railway, exclusive of the two

Termini.

From Marsworth to Aylesbury :—Cheddington, 439—Drayton
Beauchamp, 231—Buckland, 534—Aston Abbots, 356—Win-
grave, 814—Puttenham, 136—Aston Clinton, I,o2s—Weston
Turville, 718—Hulcot, 133—Bierton, 605—Aylesbury, 5,429.
Total, 10,420.

From Aylesbury to Bicester:—Hartwell, 138—Stone, 809—
Quarrington, 64—Fleet Marston, LS—Hardwick, 747—Whit.
church, 930—Oving, 391—Pitchcott, 68—Quainton, I,oBl—
I,7so—VVooton Underwood, 265—Grendon Under.
wood, 384—Luggershall, 566—Piddington,427—Ambroseden, 892
—Edgcott, 195—Marsh Gibbon, 863—Stratton Audley, 319—Staun-
ton, 619—Wendlebury, 214—Chesterton, 393—Middleton Stoney,
309—Bicester, 2,022. Total 14,484.
From near Fenny Compton to Petworth Gaydon, 276
Chadshunt, 36—Lighthorne, 384—Kineton, 1,248 Butler's
Marston, 313—Radley, 397—Radway, 374—Oxkill, 348
W hatecote, 182—Pillerton Percy, 217—Loxley, 318—Upper
and Lower Eatington, 704—Alderminster, 508—Whit.
church, 247—Preston.on-Stour, 394—Atherstone-on .Stour, 93--
Clifford Chambers, 309—Stratford-on-Avon, 3,32l—Lower Quin-
ton, 666—Weston.upon-Avon, 161—Welford, 738—Binton, 269
—Bidford, I,s67—Dorsington, 141—Long Marston, or Marston
Sicca, 337—Pebworth, 829. Total, 14,377.

Population of places within three miles on either side of the
Moreton-in-the-Marsh and Stratford-on-Avon Railway :—Lower
Leamington, 53—Great Wolford, 311—Toddenham, 474—Bur.
mington, 720—Tidmington, 70 Barchetton, 44—Shipton-on-
Stour, I,B46—Honington, 335—Tredington, 287—Flirnington,
873—Halford, 425—Lower Eatington and Upper Eatington, 704
—Alderminster, 508— Whitchurch, 247—Preston-on-Stour, 394
Lower Quinton, 666—Atherstone-on-Stour, 93—Clifford Cham-
bers, 309—Weston-upon-Avon, 161—Stratford-on-Avon, 3,321.
Total, 11,841.

Crose.examination continued—l have been guided by a diagram
drawn up some time since.
Mr. D &NIEL- We knew nothing of it.
Mr. COCILBURN-It was made by the London and Birmingham
Company, and surely you cannot disown it.
Mr. Saunders—lt was made about seven years ago by the London
and Birmingham Company, in promotion of their line from Chel-
tenham to Tring.

Mr. DANIELS—We cannot take it as evidence; it is not your
own getting up, and it was got up by us for a totally different
purpose to this inquiry, with which it has nothing to do.

The Cualawsx—We had better not examine Mr. Saunders on
it, as it is not his own evidence.

Mr. Saunders then retired,

The evidence on both sides having closed,

Mr. COCKBURN addressed the Committee. The time had at
length arrived when he would have an opportunity of laying before
the Committee in argument the case which he had to urge on behalf
of the promoters of the Wolverhampton, Worcester, and Oxford-
shire, and of the Rugby and Oxford line of railway, and he was
glad that this opportunity had arrived, for he could not but regret, on
behalf of his clients, that that period had been so long deferred. He
did not express his satisfaction that the time had come from
any belief on his part that his humble powers would do much fer
his clients, but he really did feel that the great delays which
had taken place in giving him an opportunity of making his ob.
servations on their behalf, had greatly tended to their disadvantage.
First, there had been before the Committee, from their first
sitting, a report of the Board of Trade, and no doubt that was
a competent authority to make such a report, but it was the means,
to a certain extent, of prejudicing the case, for it was, he con-
sidered, assumed by the Committee that that report was founded
on a full consideration of the subject at issue. He thought
the result of the evidence, as far even as it legitimately
went, must have satisfied the Committee, without casting
the slightest imputation upon the Honourable Board, that 'they
had not sifted the case, inasmuch as it was proved they had not
heard the statement of one of the parties in comparison
with the other. They could not have made oat a prima facie
case for their report, which was not based on cogent reasoning.
Yet he could not but feel that a report of that nature, emanating
from such an authority, and having the semblance of reason in its
favour, and apparently in some degree supported by evidence,
would naturally be calculated to produce a strong impression
on the minds of Honourable Members. Again he could not
but remember that the case for the other side was opened by his
Learned Friend Mr. Austin, in a speech calculated to uphold the
conclusions at which the Board of Trade had arrived. He did
think, looking at the report on which the case for the other
side was based, accompanied with all the elaborate ornamentation
in which the exuberant playfulness of his Learned Friend's fancy
abounded, and the singular grace which he imparted to all these
matters, that it was calculated to possess a degree of favour
in the eyes of the Committee which he thought
under no other circumstances it would have received.
His Learned Friend opened this case in a speech of some two hours,
and certainly a most eloquent opening it was, for though he (Mr.
Cockburn) had not had the advantage of hearing it, he had read it
word for word, and he was convinced that more able argu-
ments never were addressed to this or any other Committee.
And he could not disguise from himself that the effect of that
address, coming upon that report, and followed up by evidence
which, no doubt, was calculated to give it a form of solidity and
substance—with all this to contend against, he could not conceal
from himself that there must necessarily have been much less
chance for their case meeting with a favourable reception from the
hands of the Committee, than their case would have had but for
those circumstances, by which the others have, in the first place, ob-
tained a footing and ingratiated themselves with the Committee.
He, therefore, did not disguise it from himself—and, If he should
happen to be mistaken, be should sincerely rejoice—but he could
not help thinking (and he was sure the Committee would under.
stand that he did not use words, which in any case, could be tortured
into a want of respect to the Committee) that their case was to
some extent prejudiced in the minds of some Hon. Members en
the Committee. By the time their adversary's case was completed,
there was an impression on the minds of the Committee prejudi-
cial to the case he was engaged for. It was natural
that it should be so, for their opponent's case had been recom-
mended by the report. It was supported by a most able address,
and aided by a series of evidence which undoubtedly required
strong evidence on their part to break down. The result was, that
there was, to a certain extent, a determination on the question in
some of the Hon. Members' minds before they had heard the other
side of the question, and he well knew the difficulty which that
placed on a party, however strong his case might be ; not but he did
every Hon. Member of the Committee the full justice to believe that
he and they, one and all, had moral courage enough to avow
to themselves—ay, and to others—if they had expressed an opinion
based upon one view of the case, that that opinion should be
eradicated from their minds, if they once became satisfied that that
opinion so formed and so conveyed was founded upon error.
The CHAIRMAN said he could assure Mr. Cockburn that he was
in error if he supposed that any such opinion was formed.
Mr. COCKBURN received that statement with great joyfulness
and thankfulness, and he begged to assure them that he had
formed that opinion in common with his colleagues.
He rejoiced to think it was not so, and he entered on the discussion
of the case with, he owned, a weight relieved from his mind, for
which he could not be sufficiently thankful. He would proceed
now at once to the case. It was one undoubtedly of very great
importance ; and he did not know that he took an erroneous view
of the case, but it did not appear to him to be one of that magni.
tude and importance which the other side sought to invest it with.
It appeared to him, that as far as the Board of Trade was con-
cerned, there never was a more complete mystification
han that which had been practised upon their minds.
It had been sought to make this a question of national importance
with regard to the two gauges—whether the preference should
be given to the wide or narrow gauge. It seemed to him
that that was not the question at all. The simple question
here was, whether one of two lines communicating between the
Staffordshire mineral district on the one hand, and Oxfordshire and
the district around it on the other—and here it has been that
the cunning, the artifice of the adversary had succeeded fo an
extraordinary degree in their endeavour to persuade the Board
of Trade and the Committee that that was not the ques.
tion, but that the question was to be viewed with
another, as he submitted, wholly foreign to it, and which had not
the remotest bearing whatever upon the case. The question be-
fore them was that of two competing lines, to connect, by means of
railway communication, the mineral districts of South Staffordshire
with Worcester and Oxford, and the districts around. The
question was, which of the two systems was the better.
It was very true that it did so happen that one
line was to be en the broad and the other on the narrow
gauge. It might be incidental to the question to determine which
of the twe the Committee would give the preference. If they
thought one so superior to the other as that that
superiority should alone entitle one line to the
preference over the other. But that is not the question which the
Board of Trade had taken up, which appeared to be, that in one
line with which this has no connexion whatever, except that it runs
into it, the narrow gauge should be substituted for the broad. He
did not dispute but that that might be a grave question. but it did
net arise upon this inquiry, and he should presently show why. But
before lie entered into the discussion of the gauges, let the question
be considered as if there were no gauges at all—let them put aside the
question as to whether on the Birmingham and Bristol lines of
railway they would prefer the broad or narrow gauge, and consider
which line they would prefer, irrespective of that question. Then
he would have no diffiulty to show to the Committee that, viewed
alone on that which appeared to him the legitimate scope of in.
quiry, the line which he advocated was decidedly entitled to a
preference at their hands. After that question, then, he would
come to the ether. He would then submit whether
the Great Western line was to be entitled to the prefer.
ence of the Committee irrespectively of the question of gauge.
Then he thought he should be able to show that the question of
guage cannot deprive the Great Western line of that preference to
which he should submit to them, on the whole of the evidence, it
was entitled. Take the first question now. The line advocated by
the Great Western Company proposed to connect the mineral dis-
tricts of South Devonshire with Oxfordshire and the.surrounding
districts. No one can appreciate too highly the importance of con.
necting the South Staffordshire district, both with the North and
the South, and the neighbourhood of Oxfordshire.
. .

The Learned Counsel, after going into the evidence submitted
on the other ide, closed a very able address by calling on the
Committee to pass the preamble of the Bill._
. . . .

The Committee rose at (our o'clock And adjourned to twelve
o'clock to-morrow,