"'How deep did you sink in?' 'I could have gone with shoes; I do not know whether I had boots on.'
"'If the depth of the Moss should prove to be 40 feet instead of 20, would not this plan of the railway over this Moss be impracticable?' 'No, it would not. If the gentleman will allow me, I will refer to a railroad belonging to the Duke of Portland, made over a moss; there are no levels to drain it properly, such as we have at Chat Moss, and it is made by an embankment over the moss, which is worse than making a cutting, for there is the weight of the embankment to press upon the moss.'
"'Still, you must go to the bottom of the moss?' 'It is not necessary; the deeper you get, the more consolidated it is.'
"'Would you put some hard materials on it before you commenced?' 'Yes, perhaps I should.'
"'What?' 'Brushwood, perhaps.'
"'And you, then, are of opinion that it would be a solid embankment?' 'It would have a tremulous motion for a time, but would not give way, like clay.'"
Mr. Alderson also cross-examined him at great length on the plans of the bridges, the tunnels, the crossings of the roads and streets, and the details of the survey, which, it soon appeared, were in some respects seriously at fault. It seems that, after the plans had been deposited, Stephenson found that a much more favorable line might be laid out, and he made his estimates accordingly, supposing that Parliament would not confine the company to the precise plan which had been deposited. This was felt to be a serious blot in the Parliamentary case, and one very difficult to get over.
For three entire days was our engineer subjected to cross-examination by Mr. Alderson, Mr. Cullen, and the other leading counsel for the opposition. He held his ground bravely, and defended the plans and estimates with remarkable ability and skill, but it was clear they were imperfect, and the result was, on the whole, damaging to the bill. Mr. (afterward Sir William) Cubitt was called by the promoters, Mr. Adam stating that he proposed by this witness to correct some of the levels as given by Stephenson. It seems a singular course to have been taken by the promoters of the measure, for Mr. Cubitt's evidence went to upset the statements made by Stephenson as to the survey. This adverse evidence was, of course, made the most of by the opponents of the scheme.
Mr. Sergeant Spankie then summed up for the bill on the 2d of May, in a speech of great length, and the case of the opponents was next gone into, Mr. Harrison opening with a long and eloquent speech on behalf of his clients, Mrs. Atherton and others. He indulged in strong vituperation against the witnesses for the bill, and especially dwelt upon the manner in which Mr. Cubitt, for the promoters, had proved that Stephenson's levels were wrong.