The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-30 00:00:00

THE BERKS AND HANTS RAILWAY.

The Bill for tin.; Railway was taken into consideration in Group
G and G 9.. this day at two o'clock, by the Committee, composed of
the Hon. T. H. Lidd.,ll, Chairman ; Mr. Christopher, Sir E.
Hayes, Mr. Entwisle, and Mr. H. R. Yorke. Mr. Austin, and
Mr. R. Gurney appeared for the Railway. Mr. Whateley op_
posed it on behalf of Mr. Fowke, of Midghaim. The object of the
Bill is to make a railway from the Reading station of the South-
Western Railway to Newbury, and also to Hungerford, with a
branch, southward from Reading to Basingstoke, the length of the
line being •';',9 miles, and the estimated cost 400,001111. and the
supposed return 40,0001. a year.
In reply to Mr. GURNEY, Mr. Brunei, who is the engineer of the
line, stated that there were rie tunnels, and th.it the gradients were
easy, and the cost of construction small, while the returns were
sure to be considerable, and the advantages of opening up a better
comm inic.ition with the port of Southampton very great.
In reply to Mr. WIIATELEY, Mr. Brunel stated that his reason for
not carrying the railway nearer to the Kennet Canal, as was de.
sired by some of the landed proprietors, was the crookedness and
consequent inconvenience of the line of the canal, but in corn.
pliawe with the wishes of Mr. Fowke, a large landed proprietor, a
considerable deviation had been made from the original line, in
order to avoid the severance of a portion of his property. The
Company had made as great a deviation to effect this object as they
possibly could, and every care had been taken to provide for the
irrigation and drainage of the meadow land through which the line
passed.
Mr. Saunders, Secretary to the Great. Western Railway, stated
that to the best of his belief the whole of the wishes of Mr. Fowke,
over whose land he had been with Mr. Brunel anti that gentleman,
had been complied with. The Bill sought a power to raise
330,000 E of which 300,000!. had been subscribed for. The deposit
was 15,000/., and the whole of the list of Shareholders had
been properly specified in the schedule. There was but one
shareholder locally interested in the line, and his shares amounted
to 00,000/. There were two other shareholders interested for
similar amounts.
In reply to Mr. PARKES, the solicitor, of Great George street,
who opposed the line, Mr. Saunders stated that the Great Western
Company never had dropped any portion of their lines, and with
respect to the only portion regarding which such a supposition
could be entertained, via., the Trowbridge and Blandford line,
the fact was that branch had been suffered to drop in consequence'
of the peculiar circumstances of the time, but that branch had
been renewed, and not only renewed but extended. Mr. Saunders
said that Mr. Fowke had asserted that if the line was taken
which was now laid out, he would not oppose the line, and he sup.
posed that Mr. Fowke would come there rather as a supporter than
as an opponent of the line.
Mr. AUSTIN said that was the whole of the case for the Com.
parry, and unless the Committee desired it he would offer no further
evidence.
Mr., WHATELEV, on behalf of Mr. Fowke, said that that gen-
tleman had had the misfortune to purchase a very beautiful estate
in Berkshire about two years ago, and now, when he had
hail time to spend his money and get attached to the place,
the Railway Company came and went right through the
whole of it. On this estate there were some very beauti-
ful water meadows, and
..
irrigation,
several peat-fields, the
former requiring considerable.rrigation, for which there were,
under existing circumstances, peculiar advantages, and
the latter requiring a perfect drainage, and for which also there
was every opportunity ; but this railway would entirely destroy all
those advantages. The Learned Counsel then cited several letters
to show that good faith had not been kept with Mr. Fowke in some
partiticulars, and to prove that the engineer had refused to meet
Mr. Fowke and make such arrangements as would save much
of the injury to that gentleman's property, One of the injuries in
consequence of the refusal of the Company to alter their line
was the preclusion of access to part of Mr. Fowke's land,
which was shut ix by a piece of ground belonging to Lord Fai_
mouth, and which by this railway would be entirely cut off from
the other property of Mr. Fowke. The protection which the
Company asserted would be given by the 67th clause of the Rail.
way Clauses Consolidation Bill was quite sufficient to meet this
case, as in this instance the water was turned on to the land from
the Kennet Canal, and then turned off again through the medium
of a fall of .6 feet, which pervaded Mr. Fowke's land. The
rail Way quite intercepted the connexion with the canal,
and the clause, though it provided for draining
the water off the land, it made no provision for putting the water
on the land, and he thought that, if the Company desired to act
sincerely, they should give a particular clause to protect Mr.
Fowke.

In reply to an observation by the Chairman, Mr. WUaTELEY
stated that the construction of the works necessary f w securing the
advantages now enjoyed by Mr. Fowke would in no way interfere
with the formation of the railway.
Mr. Wm. Gravatt, an engineer, who had had considerable expe-
rience in railway engineering, t,,..tcti that the proposed line would
run for about two miles through Mr. Fowke's property. He pro.
duced a plan laid down from a large plan of Mr. Fowke's estate,
on which lines were traced to show the plan of the Company, and
the line which he proposed to obviate the injury, or at least a
great portion of it, likely to accrue through the formation of the
that
hihnaeet
Company.ht oNhlard.
mFowke'sad
eßy hisrpe rpoopprl eat rntt
oya,
tsahpneadeceix:pfpr
Company
6snssye expressed
fahrdi
hiss wl
aaits. opinion that his
alteration would in no way disadvantageously affect the works of
secured for
communicating with the line of ground which would otherwise be
altogether cut off—of course very injuriously cut off. He stated
On cross-examination by Mr. AUSTIN, Mr. Gravatt stated
that he was aware that it was a convenience to obtain the consent
of the landowners before he constructed a line. He thought that, if
there was a good bottom, a communication of twelve or fourteen feet
wide would answer every purpose • but lie generally gave sixteen
feet, as the engineers were now liberal.
Mr. AUSTIN said that having now ascertained what was a good
communication, what was a sufficient, and what was a liberal
space, lie was prepared to say that the Company were ready to give
the sixteen feet.

Mr, WIIATELEY objected that this communication was to be in
the way cf easement or right of way over a part of Lord Falmouth's
property, His client had a right to the land itself.
Mr. AUSTIN' thought that it would be unjust to take the land
from one party a 'id give it to another.
Mr. • conceived that as they had the power to take the
land from Lord Fah.nouth, and if this communication was only in
the shape of an casen.lent, and not an absolute property, it would
lead to continual broils.
Mr. Gravatt said that his plan would in no way affect the canal.
Mr. Brunel, in reply to the Chairman, stated that a difficulty
would arise with the Kennet Canal Company if Gm carried the
line nearer to the canal ,than Bitty yards, and they had agreed to
giveclauses to enable the Cou.oan y to secure the traffic on their canal.
The room was then cleared, said, after deliberation, the Chair-
man stated that the differences I ietween Mr. Fowke and the Rail-
way CGrnpany were so trifling, th at the Committee conceived they
might be arranged privately.
A conversation ensued betwee sa the Counsel for both sides, and
the preamble was allowed to be proved.
The clauses were gone through to clause 20, when
Mr. WHATELEY proposed a clause, the effect of which was to
preclude the Company from for truing any small houses or sheds en
part of the line passing throng h Mr. Fowke's property, but it was
ultimately withdrawn, upon z m agreement that no such places
.1110111 d be built by the Company*.

Before going to the schedule- -
f.Jr. WHATELEY proposed a c Wise for securing the irrigation of
the water meadows.
In order to show the necessity for this clause, Thomas Cooper,
the waterman of the Midgham vstate, who slated that he had

been waterman on the property more than forty years, and that
they took the water from the canal whenever they thought proper,
the custom being to dam up the water and turn it over upon the
carriages.

Mr. GURNEY alleged that this right had been disputed, and the
Company were unwilling to give a greater right than had been
previously enjoyed, and which they might not be able to secure.
Mr. Frankum, of Wolverhampton, had known this estate ever
since he could recollect, and he believed that the peat, which was a
very valuable property, could not be got at without a drain, and the
drain on Mr. Fowke's property ought to be eleven feet deep to be
sufficiently serviceable.

Mr. Gravatt stated that if the peat was fifteen feet deep, the
drain ought to be equally deep, and there was no alternative be.
tween that and steam power to lift the water. The drain ought to
be made before the railway was formed, as otherwise the drain
would be likely to lower the rail on the side on which it was made,
and he conceived that an injunction might be obtained against it.
Mr. WHATELEY then proposed a clause to accomplish this ob-
ject.

Mr. GURNEY objected that Mr. Fowke was in no different posi.
tion to any other landowner, and was entitled to no especial pro-
tection. There was already a dispute about the rights of irrigation,
and the rights claimed by him of forming the works under his own
engineer were unreasonable. The Railway Clauses Consolidation
Act had already met the difficulty by providing that when any
dispute arose about drains it should be decided by two neighbour-
ing justices. With respect to the drainage, the Company were
willing to give as good drainage as that now possessed.

After considerable discussion between the Counsel, a clause was
adopted to secure a sufficient drainage for the estate.

Mr. WHATELEY then sought a clause for the purpose of corn-
pelting the Company to make drains after five years, the time
allowed for the formation of the railway; but there being consi.
derable difference of opinion,

The CfIAIRNIAN suggested that the Counsel should prepare a
clause, and submit it for the decision of the Committee at the
next meeting.

A Gentleman intimated that he appeared on behalf of the Paving
Commissioners of the borough of Reading for the preservation of
certain footways, the discussion of which was deferred.
The Committee then adjourned the consideration of the Berks
and Hants Railway till Thursday, and the Chairman intimated that
they would take the Wilts and Somerset Bill to-morrow.

SCOTTISH CENTRAL RAILWAY.
Group DD.
(Continued horn our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

Mr. CRAWFORD, who appeared to support a petition against
the preamble of the proposed line, on behalf of several land pro.
prietors and road trustees, was about to cross.examlne the last wit
ness, when he was interrupted by

Mr. Cocitatiax, who contended that the road trustees and others,
whose names were appended to the petition had no right to be
heard before the Committee in their individual capacity, as land
owners, but only in the aggregate in their official character of
trustees. Many of the noblemen and gentlemen who had signed
the petition were, in fact, extensive shareholders, and even directors
in the very line they now sought to oppose. Lord Abercrombie
was a director of the Company, and yet his name appeared the first
on the opposing petition. It would also be recollected that a Bill
had been passed during the present session having special refer-
ence to Scottish railways, in which several clauses having regard
to compensation for turnpike-roads, had been introduced. On
these grounds he maintained that the petitioners could have no
"locus standi" before the Committee. The object of the individuals
who had signed the petition, was to endeavour to drive the pro-
moters of the line into a co.npromise, at the expense of time and
money, and he therefore trusted the Committee would not allow
his Learned Friend to proceed in his opposition.
Mr. CRAWFORD having replied in general terms,
The CHAIRMAN said the Committee were clearly of opinion that
they could not entertain the petition, which had been signed by
several noblemen and gentlemen, except in their aggregate capacity
as trustees of the roads ; and as it appeared no petition of that
nature had been presented, the Committee considered that Mr.
Crawford was not competent to be heard in opposition to the
preamble.

The cross-examination of Mr. Geddes was then proceeded with by
Sir THOMAS PIIILLIPS, who appeared to oppose the Bill on
behalf of the Edidburgh and Glasgow Railway, with a branch
to Sterling, and the Dumfries and Carlisle Branch; but nothing
of public interest was elicited.

This witness was also subjected to cross-examination by Mr.
Tytler and Mr. Hope, but the result was precisely similar to the
statements that have already appeared in Mr. Mitchell's exami-
nation.

Mr. Cameron, carrier, was then called and examined by Mr.
HOPE, in proof of the estimates of the goods and traffic expected
along the line. He said he could confirm Mr. Mitchell's evidence
in every particular; but in his statements he had omitted to men-
tion a good deal of traffic in first-class goods, which, though it was
not conveyed at present along the direct road, would, in his opi..
nion, almost certainly be carried by the railway if it were made.
Mr. M`Neil, Mr. Clark, Mr. Crawford, and Mr. Hope, generally
cross-examined the last witness, whose evidence merely tended to
corroborate the statements of previous witnesses.

Mr. TALBOT then called Mr. Wallace, coach proprietor and
builder, of Perth. He considered that Mr. Mitchell's tables with
regard to the traffic along the proposed line were not exaggerated,
but had been calculated on fair and sound principles. He had
heard them read in evidence, and was satisfied they were correct.
Mr. CLARK cross-examined this witness at some length on
behalf of the inhabitants of Perth, as to the eligibility of erect.
ing a station on the South Inch. In his opinim, there was no oh.
jection to the station being removed to some other spot, if one
equally convenient could be found. The close approximation of
the river to the proposed station rendered it particularly suitable for
the purposes of the railway.
Mr. Thorns, tanker, was examined by Mr. TALBOT as to the
present means for the transmission of goods from Dundee to
Perth, Stirling, and eventually to Liverpool. He considered
that a continuous communication between those places would be
highly advantageous, even at the sacrifice of a moderate extra
charge for conveyance; and was further decidedly of opinion that
the establishment of a line of railway, inasmuch as it would faci-
litate the conveyance of traffic, and would tend in a considerable
degree to increase the trade and commercial enterprise of Dumfries
and the surrounding towns.

This witness was cross-examined at some length, but the main
features of his evidence were not al ered.

Mr. Nelson, flesher, at Glasgow, was examined as to the traffic
in cattle. lie considered that the traffic, as represented in Mr.
Mitchell's tables, had been greatly understated, and a railway
would convey cattle in better condition, and at less expense, than
any of the present modes of transmission.

At the close of the proceedings, Mr. llstnvknn made an applica-
tion to the Committee to know if they could give him some intima-
tion of the course they intended to pursue with regard to the order
in which they would take the Bills before them. There were nume-
rous witnesses now in town who were living at great expense, and
it would be a great relief to the several companies if they could be
dismissed as speedily as possible.
The CHAIRMAN said that the Bills would be taken in the order
in which they were at present arranged. Any future alteration,
that might suggest itself to the Committee would not be entertained
until after the expiration of the Whitsun holidays, during which
period the Committee would not sit,

A messenger then announced that the Speaker was at prayers;
when the Committee was adjourned till twelve to-morrow.

(Sub-Committee, No. 3.)
I(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

HARWICH AND EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY (No. 2).
The parties in this case having been called,
Mr. HAYWARD, for the opponents, said he had to request that
the inquiry should be adjourned to Friday, as the nature of the
petitions for which he had the honour to appear contained a large
number of allegations, which it would Pe much better to have opened
at an earlier hour of the day, it being then near three o'clock.
The CHAIRMAN said that the formal notices could be gone into
to-day, after which the day for the further hearing of the case could
be named.

This order of proceeding was adopted.
Mr. Venables, and Mr. John Duncan, of Lombard-street, appeared
For the promoters of the Bill.

Mr. 'Hayward appeared on behalf of the owners and occupiers of
land on the line, and also on behalf of Mr. Frederick Clarke against
the Bill.

There was a petition presented, signed Mr. Henry Mess, for
which no appearance was entered, and it consequently falls to the
ground.

Mr. VENIBLES briefly stated the objects of the Bill. It was to
give power to the promoters to construct a line of railway,
from the Eastern Counties Railway terminus at Colchester to
Harwich. The line was to be fifteen miles in length, and
would end at Harwich, where would be constructed a pier in
deep water. The cost of construction was estimated at 210,0001.,
and the engineer of the works was Mr. John Braithwaite_
The formal notices were then put in and proved, and
The CHAIRMAN said that the further hearing of the case would
stand adjourned to twelve o'clock on Friday.
The Committee rose at half past three o'clock.
The disposal of the allegations against this scheme will occupy
at least two days,

STANDING ORDERS COMNITTTEE.
IMPORTANT DECISIONS.-BILLS THROWN OUT.

The following important decisions were given to-day in the
Standing Orders Committee:—

THE DIRECT NORTHERN RAILWAY,

The standing orders not to be dispensed with. Bill thrown
out for this session. This scheme was most favourably re-
ported by the Board of Trade, and it is impossible to
describe the consternation of the parties interested,
who crowded the passages to the Committee-room.
The decision was contrary to general expectation, and the Bill
was set down to be argued in Group X Committee which Is now
sitting.

WELLS AND DEREHAM RAILWAY.
The standing orders in this case are not to be dispensed with.-•s
Bill thrown out for this session.
DUBLIN AND GALWAY RAILWAY.
The standing orders not to be dispensed with, and Bill thrown
out for this session.

BILLS PASSED-STANDING ORDERS.
LONDONDERRY AND ENNISKILLEN RAILWAY.

The Committee decided that in this case the standing orders
would be dispensed with. Bill to be reported, and go into Com-

rnittee.
TOTTENHAM AND FARRINGDON-STREET EXTENSION
RAILWAY.
The standing orders to bedispensed with. The Bill to be allowed
to proceed.

LONDONDERRY AND COLERAINE RAILWAY.
The standing orders in this case are also to be dispensed with, and
the Committee will report, after which it will be committed as a
Bill before a Committee.

It is expected that an appeal on behalf of the cases thrown out
will be made to the House; but those best acquainted with such a
proceeding are not over sanguine as to the result.

COURSE OP EXCHA
Amsterdam CF. 12 8
Ditto, at sight l2 6i
Rotterdam 2U. 12 9
Antwerp
Elamburgh M.B. 14 0
Altona
Paris, 3 days' sight 25 90
Ditto, 3 months 26 10
Marseilles
Bourdeaux 26 15
Frankfort on Maine 123
Petersburgh, 3Us —
Berlin
Vienna, effee. fl. 3 M lO 2
Trieste, ditto
Madrid 36i
Cadiz
Bilbao
Barcelona

NGE.—(YESTERDAY.)
Gibraltar... .
Leghorn ..., 3l
Genoa ..... ...... 26 10
Milan
Venice.................
Naples .. .
Palernso, oz ll9 '
Lisbon s2i
Oporto ~ . 53
Rio Janeiro .. . 23
Bahia • • • •
Buenos
NewYorft.:.:2dyssight
Philad& [41;4 „
RULLION, PER oz.
Foreign 4 ;1,2, bars.£3 17 9
Portu,a' Gold Coin 3 17 5
New Poubbons .... 0 0 0
New D(,l.lals 0 4 9i
Silver 4) tiara . 4 10i

Seville ~

A highly influential deputation of the salt trade of
Cheshire and Worcestershire, consisting of Mr. Worth-
ington, Chairman, Mr. Cheshire, Mr. Ashton, Mr. John-
son (Runcorn), Mr. Falk, Mr. Fardon, Mr. Lea, and
Mr. Granshields, attended by the Right Hon, E. J.
Stanley, Mr. Gsorge Wilbraham, Mr. Tatton Egerton,
M.P., Mr. G. C. Legh, M.P., Mr. Tollemache, M.P.,
Mr. Ireland Blackburne, M.P., Sir Howard Douglas,
Bart., M.P., &c. &c., had a lengthened interview with
the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the East India
Company, at the India House, yesterday, on the subject
of the extension and introduction of British manufac-
tured salt into India.

RAIL WAY INTELLIGENCE.
REPORT OF THE RAILWAY DEPARTMENT
OF THE BOARD OF TRADE ON SCHEMES
FOR EXTENDING RAILWAY COMMUNICA-
TION IN VARIOUS DISTRICTS.

(Concluded from our Paper of April 23.)
SOUTH DEVON AMENDMENT AND TAVIS-
T CX RAILWAY.
This line partakes of the character of the Launceston
and South Devon Railway last described, and with which
it is intended to form a junction : its length is 13 miles
and 35 chains.
Leaving the main line of the South Devon Railway at
three miles eight chains from its terminus at Stonehouse
it takes a northerly course to Tavistock, which is cir-
cuitous, and makes the distance between Plymouth and
Tavistock greater by three miles than it would be if a
more direct course were adopted.
The curves are, some of them, severe. Of the whole
35 there are-
-5 of 15 chains radius.
2of 16 „
16 of 20 „
IP
3of 25 „
3of 30 „
The gradients also are severe, being at an inclination
of 1 in 30 for 1 mile 3 chains, following 1 in 45 for 60
chains ; 1 in 41 for 1 mile 30 chains ; 13 in 42 for 60
chains ; altogether more than one-half of the line is
steeper than lin 100. There are three tunnels of 1,342
yards aggregate length, and a viaduct of 110 yards, and
58 feet high. There are, besides, cuttings of from 32 to
81 feet in extreme depth, and embankments of from 36
to 80 feet in extreme height.
On the same grounds that are set forth with respect to
the Launceston Railway, and with the like hope of some
means being found for lessening the disadvantages of the
scheme as now proposed, we must express our opinion
that it is desirable, on public grounds, to postpone the
consideration of this scheme also in the present session.
There are five short branches of the South Devon
Railway included in the plans, the aggregate length of
which is 4 miles 49 chains, which partake of the character
of the Tavistock branch as respects their gradients, and
we consider that the delay recommended in the case of
that branch may be desirable as regards these also:—
Darfield to Worsbrough,
Ditto to Elsecar,
Chevet to Horbury,
Oakenshaw to Wakefield,
Ambergate to Crich.
The first-named of these branches is five miles six
chains in length. It commences near the Darfield sta-
tion of the North Midland Railway, and at the first
mile approaches the Dearne and Dove Canal, the course
of which it follows to Worsbrough-bridge after once
crossing the canal.
The branch from Darfield to Elsecar is the same as
the former branch for the first half-mile, but then bend-
ing southward it follows the south branch of the Else-
car branch of the Dove and Pearce Canal. Its length
is three miles thirty-five chains.
The branch from Chevet to Horbury, three miles
thirty-nine chains in length, betins in the North Mid-
land Railway, near Walton, and terminates at the Man-
chester and Leeds Railway, near Horbury.
The branch from Oakenshaw to Wakefield, one mile
and fifty chains long, connects the North Midland with
the Manchester and Leeds Railway, at the stations re-
spectively named of the two lines. In the event of the
projected Wakefield, Pontefract, and Goole Railway re-
ceiving Parliamentary sanction, this branch, which is
identical with the Wakefield end of that undertaking,
will be of course. unnecessary.
The Ambergate and Crich branch, 2 miles and 25
chains, appears to be intended for mineral traffic only,
the severity of the gradients being such as to unfit it for
locomotive traction. It will form an extension of an
existing tramway, having gradients of 1 in 6, 1 in si-,
lin 4, and lin 31. The proposed branch has gradients
of lin 27, and lin 13. The object appears to be the
connexion of some ]imekilns with the limestone quarries.
Its course is northerly.
We are of opinion that, with the exception of the
contingency affecting the Wakefield and Oakenshaw
branch, as before stated, there are not any public rea
sons which should lead us to recommend to Parliament
to withhold its sanction from these five short branches
of an existing and important railway.
NE WC ASTLE-UPON-TYNE and NORTII SHIELDS
RAILWAY—EXTENSION TO TYNEMOUTII—
BRANCH TO QUAY AT NEWCASTLE.
The first of these is a scheme for prolonging the New-
castle and North Shields Railway through the present
terminus at North Shields, and under a part of that
town, to a new terminus at the bathing-village of Tyne-
mouth.
To effect this object a tunnel, 761 yards in length,
must be constructed under circumstances attended with
some difficulty ; as the line of rails will be only from 17
feet to 20 feet 6 inches under the streets of North
Shields. There is also a ravine, 60 feet deep to be
filled up.
The length of the extension is one mile. Involving
works such as have been described, the propriety of the
scheme would be very doubtful if it had been projected
by an independent company ; but proposed as it is by
the managers of an existing railway, upon which 800,000
persons are conveyed during the year, it may be pre-
sumed that they are adequate judges of the case, and
that they would not propose the outlay of a considerable
sum of money but with the hope of a profitable return.
The branch to the quay at Newcastle has for its object
the connexion of the shipping in the River Tyne at New-
castle, with the Newcastle and Carlisle, and the New-
castle and Darlington Railways, as well as with the line
to the north now before Parliament. This object can
only be accomplished by the construction of a railway
which shall connect the North Shields line with the
railways running to the south and west, as a part of the
project for carrying a line from Newcastle, northward,
to join the North British Railway at Berwick; the ex-
pensive nature of the work being such that it could not
be justifiably undertaken, except as a part of a more con-
siderable undertaking. The sanction of this branch must
consequently be dependent upon the sanction of the pro-
ject for traversing the town of Newcastle, and connecting
the other existing railways with the North Shields
line, with a view to proceeding thence to Berwick.
The length of the proposed branch is only 36 chains,
more than one half of which (443 yards) consists of a
tunnel, constructed in a gradient of 1 in 14 for nearly
the whole of its length, for which reason it must be
worked by means of a stationary engine. It is proposed
that the cargoes of vessels at the quay of Newcastle
shall be at once discharged into the railway waggons,
and again that goods from these waggons may be put
directly into the ships ; which would doubtless be pro-
ductive of economy and convenience. The work will
necessarily be expensive ; but the promoters state their
conviction that the revenue will furnish an adequate re-
turn for the outlay.
We have to express our opinion that there are not any
public grounds for withholding Parliamentary sanction
from these projects.
NORTH UNION RAILWAY—BRANCH TO THE

1 of 35 chains radius.
2of 40 „ 91
2of 64 ~ f 9
1 of 65 „ 9)

Midland Railway branches

VICTORIA QUAYS ON DIE RIVER RIBBLK—
This branch, which is of 64 chains in length, proceeds
out of the North Union Railway, near the station in the
town of Preston. There do not appear to be any public
grounds of objection to the construction of this branch.
SHEFFIELD •AND ROTHERHAM RAILWAY—
BRANCH TO CONNECT THAT LINE WITH
THE SHEFFIELD AND MANCHESTER RAIL-
WAY.

This connecting branch, 32 chains long, consists in
part of a tunnel 363 yards in length, under the town of
Sheffield. It is a work of evident utility, and there are
not, in our opinion, any public grounds of objection to
the sanctioning of its construction.
WEST LONDON RAILWAY—THAMES EXTEN-
SION—KNIGHTSBRIDGE EXTENSION.
The first-named of these extensions, one mile forty-
three chains in length, proceeding out of the terminus
of the West London Railway, near the head of the basin
of the Kensington Canal, anal passing 'along the eastern
side of the London and Westminster Cemetery, termi-
nates on the bank of the Thames, a short distance above
Battersea-bridge.
This railway has passed into the hands of the London
and Birmingham Railway Company, and the proposed
branch would in various ways be useful to that Company.
There are not any public reasons which, in our opinion,
should lead to the rejection of this project.
With regard to the proposed Knightsbridge Extension,
the case is altogether different. It could only be carried
out at an enormous expense, and without offering any
general benefit as a compensation for this evil. These
reasons are, in our opinion, sufficient to justify us, on
public grounds, in recommending that the Knightsbridge
branch of the West London Railway should not receive
Parliamentary sanction.
YORK AND SCARBOROUGH DEVIATION,
NEAR THE CITY OF YORK.
The line as sanctioned by Parliament proposed, after
crossing the Ouse River, to terminate in a. curve of 15
chains radius; which, after crossing the coal branch of
the Great North of England Railway, was to be united
with the main line of that railway, and to enter with it
the passenger station common to all the present York
railways.
The proposed deviation, which is three miles five
chains in length, is to cross the river Ouse, at York,
about a quarter of a mile south of the spot selected for
the crossing originally. It will then proceed in nearly a
straight line across both the coal branch and the main
trunk of the Great North of England Railway—both
crossings being on a level—and will join the York and
North Midland Railway about 27 chains distant from
the before-mentioned passenger station.
The Directors of the Great North of England Railway
object to the proposal now made of crossing their line
and branch, on the ground of the interruption which
would thus be occasioned to their traffic. If the York
and Scarborough line were carried over the Great North
of England Railway, which might be done by incurrinz
additional expense, all difficulty would of course be
thereby avoided ; but the crossing ou a level having
been proposed by both companies, who only differ as to
the mode of effecting this object, it is therefore neces-
sary to examine the matter in order to determine which
of the two methods proposed would be attended by the
least amount of inconvenience, delay,
and danger to the
traffic of the companies interested.
According to the showing of the York and North
Midland Company, the point of crossing the main line
of the (Teeat North of England Railway is where trains
eomi,ag from the north always stop in order to collect
tee passengers' tickets. The point of crossing their coal
branch is distant about a quarter of a mile from the coal
dny epots, a space
coal which is never likely to be Occupied by
a train of waggons when at rest. It does not,
therefore, appear likely that, with the use of ordinary
caution, any danger or inconvenience could result from
the adoption of the proposed deviation.
The proposal of the Great North of England Com-
pany is, that trains coming from Scarborough shall
enter the coal branch, and proceed along it to the junc-
tion with the main line, when they shall back along the
latter (till it joins the York and North Midland line) by