The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-17 00:00:00

the Committee. On looking at the petition of Lord Grantley he
saw that there was no allegation of errors in the sections whatever.
By the 66th standing order it appeared that no petition on a private
Bill shall be laid before the Committee which did not distinctly
allege the objection to such private Bill ; and that no petitioner

should be heard, except on the points stated in the peti-
tion. If a distinct ground were alleged in the petition, hut
not accurately stated, that then it should be in the discretion of the

Committee to allow the bounds of inquiry. As there wau no alle-
gation of error in the sections, clearly the counsel could not be
heard upon it.

The CIIAIRNIAN apprehended that the object of the standing
orders which had been cited was for one party to give nctice to the
other of the ground of objection which it was intended to allege.
Mr. GUNNING conceived that the error in those sections was
so great as to be fatal to the line, and that therefore he wis en-

titled to put in evidence to that effect—especia:ly as there was a
distinct statement in the petition that the line by Guildford was
the batter line of the two, and on this ground he conceived he was
justified in objecting against any evidence for the atmospheric line,
and these sections were certainly part of the evidence. The Corn.
mittee might see that the line was impossible from the sections : they
would be entitled to decide against the line.
Mr. AUSTIN said that the objection must go to the extent of
stating that the line could not be constructed at all. Consequently,
if the objection was that the other line was better than this, it was
nothing more than saying that the other line was better than one
which never came into existence, which was an absurdity. There
was nothing in the petition to show that there was an objection
to the plans and sections, and therefore there was, to use the ex-
pression, " nothing to amend the Court," and the objection of the
other side was, therefore, untenable.
The CHAIRMAN decided that Mr. Gunning should proceed.
Mr. AUSTIN then claimed that they should have the original
plan deposited with the clerk of the peace.
Mr. Oswald and Mt. M. Milnes thought that the copy before the
Committee was sufficient.

The CHAIRMAN thought that the point was of sufficient import.
ance to justify Mr. Austin in calling for the original.

Mr .GUNNING pleaded that the question ought to be decided just
as a case at nisi prius.

Mr. AUSTIN said that if this question were to be decided for the
opposing party, he ought to recal the engineers, and that Mr,
Gunning should proceed suo periculo.
To this the Chairman assented, and Mr. Gunning was proceed-
ing with the examination of the witness when the Committee
debated whether they should receive this act upon the plan which
had been laid before them. At length Mr. Gunning proceeded, and
Mr. Denton stated that in page 11, where a length of five fur-
'

longs was stated, as horizontal there was at one end a difference of
eight feet; four pages, consequently, were irregular as to the da.
turn line. It was stated in one page that a portion of the line was
315 feet, when it was really only 206 feet. The further distance
might be explained because there was another datum line of 100
feet difference, but the difference o. 91 feet was not
to be explained. In the next page thioF Was a difference of 110
but he did not rely on these larger differences, because he con-
ceived they were clerical errors; but the 91 feet was a decided
error. He would not state it more precisely, because he had
allowed for shrinking, but the difference was 9 or 10 feet, and he
should say that the work could not be executed on the sections as
stated. The discrepancies in four pages consecutively were such
as he could not account for, and certainly they were more than
clerical errors. In page 12 there was a difference of 12 feet, which
he could not account for. In page 10 continued to page 11 the
difference was 100 feet, but that was a clerical error. But from
page 11 to page 12 there was a discrepancy for which he could riot
account for.

To the inquiries of Lord CLIME, the witness stated that he as-
sumed the two ends to be correct, and then found the discrepancies.
Some of thcsediscrepancies might be accounted for, but the error of
the five furlongs was altogether irrespective of all datum.
To the cross-examination of Mr. AUSTIN, Mr. Denton stated
that if the plan were drawn out as it was written the difference would
disappear. But there was evidently an error either in the writing
or the plan, and whichever might be right there was certainly a
difference which was irreconcilable with mensuration truth.
To the inquiries of Mr. M. MILNES, Mr. Denton stated that he
did not ascribe any males animus to the promoters of the railway,
nor could he say whether this difference extended to Lord Grant.
ley 's property, or was beyond it, but if this error was made within
the precincts it would be decidedly injurious to the property.
To Mr. AUSTIN the witness stated that he conceived that the
rule was that any alteration of a gradient better than 1 in 100 was
not allowable, which was more than three feet ; and as this alteration
was more than five feet, it would affect the whole line. The place
affected was Norbrook, where the bend was taken ; and as the
cuttings would be deeper, and the embankments higher, Lord
Grantley's property would be affected to that particular extent.
He was not, however, an engineer, and was diffident of stating
positively what would prevent the injury from being obviated. By
continuing, however, the inclination of 1 in 100 further, until it
reached the horizontal plane, to the end of 7 furlongs, it would not
exceed the prescribed limits, and he did not see that it would injure
the property at that spot. But as to the precise boundaries of the
property he was ignorant.

To the cross-examination of Mr. 11/MUNSON, he stated that he
had surveyed the line through eight miles and three chains on
one line, and in the other one furlong less; but he could not say
what width he had surveyed on either side of the line, but it was
very irregular and expressed on the plan which he produced; nor
could he say what was the precise value of the land. He had gone
into no estimates, and, therefore, would not state the money-value
either of Mr. Drummond's or Mr. Lomax's land ; but
certainly it was not ornamental ground. The South. Western

line would pass close by a new house now in the course
of erection in the Gothic style, by Mr. Smirke, but he thought that,
taking Lord Grantley's house, Mr. R. Sparkes', General Norton's,
and Mr. J. Sparke's house, and putting them into comparison with
Mr. Lomax's, Mr. Brag's, and Mr. Drummond's,the injuryeffected
would be greater by the atmospheric line than that proposed by the
South-Western Company. In passing from there to Albury, his
line passed through a valley which contained a great number of
residences, five or six of which would be cut off from any com-
munication with the opposite side of the valley, and with their
own property. There were six or seven public roads passed upon
a level by his own plan, but he believed that they were the same
roads which were passed also by the atmospheric line. One at
Ash Farm ; another at Albury, though he could not say that it
was the main road from Dorking to Godalming, but was the chief
access to Mr. Drummond's property; the third crossing was over
the same road, about 1 mile further on ; the next was a lane
leading to the gunpowder-mill, which he passed about 150 yards
off. He was not aware that a line was not allowed to pass within
500 or 600 yards of a gunpowder-mill, but he was aware that
it was an objection, though, as this was to be an atmospheric
line, he had discarded that consideration from his mind. The
next crossing was over an occupation road, where a diversion was
proposed to prevent crossing the road twice. The next crossing
was over the road from Shalford Common to Wonersh,but the esti.
mates he could not give. He would however produce a paper
which had been made in Mr. Locke's office.

A discussion arose as to the putting in the paper, which con-
tained a copy of the estimates. It was ultimately decided that it
should be put in. The paper was in the handwriting of one of
Mr. Locke's assistants, and the:validity of its statements the witness
could only assume.

The Hon. G. Norton, a brother of Lord Grantley, stated that he
had known the mansion at Wonersh for thirty.five years. It was
the principal residence of his brother, and had been in the family
for several centuries ; and he was of opinion that the proposed
railway would greatly injure the property. It would take the
whole of the pond as it was called, but which was in reality a very
fine trout stream. It then passed down the whole of the valley of
Norbrook, which was very beautiful, going through two or three
excellent pheasant covers. After that it passed through part of
the park, arid if the Company acted on their power of de-
viation, it would trench on Lord Grantley's pleasure-grounds.
It subsequently went close to General Norton's house, and thence
to the village pond at Wonersh, which was a store pond for fish.
But that was not only a store pond for fish, but it supplied the
pleasure grounds with water, and he believed half the village.
The deviation line would also touch the rectory house, and then
on to Chinturst Hill, which was a cover for game, being topped
by firs and surrounded by wood. From this hill Lord Grantley's
communication would be almost entirely cut off. It then passed
through a wOOO which was a very beautiful object, and the witness
expected that the cutting would entirely destroy it as
a feature of the landscape. The embankments and the
viaduct would be all seen from the windows of Lord
and Lady Grantley's apartments, and if this railway were
made, was quite certain that it would drive his brother from
Wonersh, because Lord Grantley's chief pleasure was driving,
and the railway would make it so dangerous as to be impossible.
Altogether it would be a serious detriment to the property.
The Committee then adjourned till to-morrow.

GROUP P.
THE SOUTH WALES RAILWAY.

The evidence of Mr. Giles (continued from our Afternoon Edition
of yesterday—The level of the ground on the Bristol side was
quite sufficient to permit of the construction of a suspension bridge
of a proper height, but on the Chepstow side piers would be re-
quired. The engineering difficulties on the line were objection.
able, but not impracticable, and the expense of construction had
been under.estimated. He considered that bridges of the magni-
tude which it was contemplated being made should not be con.
structed of timber, because the worm in tidal water invariably de-
stroyed timber, and he knew many instances of timber bridges that
had not lasted more than eight or ten years, owing to the ravages
of the worm. It was called the augur worm, and: it bored its way
through the wood in every direction, and there were no means
at present discovered to prevent its ravages. He thought the
bridges should be built with stone abutments and iron tops. The
general estimate:for the entire line was, in his opinion, too small; it
should have been taken at 4,000,0001. sterling, which was
1,200,0001. more than was proposed to be raised. Looking at that
line as 911 miles in length, and regarding also the
different works connected with its construction, the bridge
across the Severn, the tunnels, and other matters, it ap-
peared to him that the cost of the railway wouldbe on the average
20,0001. per mile for a double line laid down on the broad gauge.
He would endeavour to show the points which had induced him to
come to that opinion : for some of the particular works he would
take Mr. Brunel's own estimate:—

The bridge and canal of the Severn £200,000
The Forest of Dean Railway
The harbour at Brimshill
The harbour at Fishguard
Excavations 582,000

Stations

100,000

Total £1,026,000
All these items had been taken from Mr. Brunel's own statements,
and he was not inclined to say they were insufficient. The points
which, in his opinion, would cost more than had been laid down in
the estimates of Mr. Brunel were, in the first place, the tunnels.
He (Mr. Giles) had estimated that there were altogether 7,719 yards,
which would cost, on the average, 501. per yard, and not 301 per yard,
es Mr. Brunel had stated, making a total of 395,950/. for tunnelling.
No estimate of the lands necessary to be taken had been taken.
He should take it at about 200 miles, and looking at what had been
paid for similar property by existing railways, he should calculate
the expense of the land at 3,0001. per mile, the result of which would
be 600,000/.. The permanent way, consisting of 204 miles, he
had estimated at 5,0001. per mile, which would yield a total of
1,020,0001. The bridges on the entire line, with the exception of
the bridge at Stockhill, would cost 2,500/. per mile on the entire
length of the line, making altogether 500,0001. The gross
value of these items would give a sum of 3,541,0001., to which
10 per cent. being added for contingencies, 354,000/., the
entire estimate of the line would be 3,895,00/., which was
1,095,000/. greater than the estimate made by Mr. Brunel.
Mr. TALBOT cross-examined the witness on a few points, but
nothing of a material nature was elicited.
Mr. LAW then proceeded to address the Committee on the evi.
dense that had been adduced. There was no doubt the existing
traffic between South Wales and through Bristol would be entirely
destroyed, if the proposed line were made. The best line of corn.
munication for this traffic would be by way of the Aust Ferry, and
for the traffic coming from Birmingham and the manufacturing
districts of the north the most favf.urable point of com-
munication would be by way of Gloucester. The consent and
approval of three public bodies had been given to the scheme; but
he would contend that this was not sufficient. The jurisdiction of
the Committee, In dealing with the matter, was limited by an Act,
the Eth Victoria, which, in cap. 20, sec. 17, provided that
where a railway company contemplated carrying a bridge over any
navigable river the consent of the Admiralty should be obtained
previously to the passing of the preamble.
Mr. E. BuLLEa, M.P., observed that the Act prevented the
construction of the works without the consent of the Admiralty ;
but there was nothing in the clause to hinder the Committee from
deciding that the preamble of the Bill was proved, and, further, the
consent of the Admiralty might be obtained.
Mr. Law (in continuation) said that it was compulsory on the
promoters of the Bill to get the comsent of the Admiralty first, and
as it had not been so obtained, it was evident that the part of the
preamble which declared that the construction of a line
from Standish, across the Severn, would be of "great
public advantage by opening an additional, certain, and
expeditious means of communication " between South
Wales and England, could not be legally tenable.