The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-04 00:00:00

tition presented that evening against the re-commital of
the Bill. He was informed that the promoters of the
Dublin and Galway Railway would not ma'ce the line
on their own responsibility, for the shareholders had
held a meeting, and agreed not to go on with the Bill,
unless it was leased to another company.
Mr. BLAKE opposed the re-committal of the Bill, on
the ground that the town of Athlone would not support
two railways.
Mr. MOFFATT was also of opinion that the decision
of the Committee ought to be supported as it was quite
carried out by the evidence.
Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE said, that in consequence
of one or two observations which had fallen from the
Hon. Member for Roscommon, some answer was required
from him. What were the reasons which the Hon.
Member for Roscommon adduced for the recommittal
of the Bill ? The first ground of complaint
was that he (Mr. Duncombe) as chairman of the
Committee, did not turn a Parliamentary agent out
of the room for giving his counsel the lie.
What was it that the Honourable Member for Roscom-
mon (Mr. F. French) proposed ? Why, that the
Bill should be re-comenitted, but that it should
not be sent back to the same Committee. What
was this but saying that it should be sent back
to some other Committee, whose decision was to over-
throw the decision of a Committee properly constituted;
and this he believed to be so contrary to the usage of
the House that it was not at all likeiy to be adopted.
The Honourable Member for Dundalk had stated that
he should have been satisfied if the Committee had
passed both lines, and that good feeling would
thereby have been secured ; but in reply to
this, he (Mr. T. S. Duncombe) was bound to assert
that he had never in the whole course of his
life seen such bad feeling and so much jealousy as had
been exhibited by both parties in this Committee. It
should be recollected that this line had last session
been thrown out by the Lords. The same had
occurred with regard to the Pertarlington line, as
well also in the case of the Mullingar and Galway line.
The Cashel line, it was notorious, was to be sold to this
Company, and he thought, therefore, that, taking all the
circumstances into consideration, there was every reason
for the decision at which the Committee had arrived.
Then the Irish Great Western, by an agreement, was to
cease to exist if they obtained this Act, as they had en-
tered into an agreement to sell it to the Cashel
Company. What guarantee had the public
that this line would be made to Galway ?
He maintained, therefore, that the Mullingar
Company ought not to be entrusted with the construc-
tion of this line of railway. Then it was necessary three-
fifths of the shareholders of the Cashel Company
should be in favour of carrying out this
bargain, but the evidence adduced before the Commmittee
was to the effect that that Company would not con-
sent to such an agreement. The petitions, too,
presented from parties holding shares in the Company,
were to the same effect. What operated on the micds
of the Committee was, that the Cashel Company were
not the parties to make this railway. Sir John Bur-
goyne, whose official position rendered him an impartial
witness, was also of the same opinion, and considered
that there ought to be three main branch lines—one
radiating from Dublin down to Cashel and the
southern part of Ireland—the other going west
by Mullingar, through Athlone to Galway, and
the other from Dublin to Belfast. The Hon.
Member here produced a large map of Ireland,
in which the country was divided into three large
divisions coloured separately, red, yellow, and blue.
The portion coloured red, which occupied nearly
the half of the map, was that which the Hon-
ourable Member said the Great Western
Company modestly claimed for themselves.
Another map was also produced, showing the decision of
the Committee, marked in a similar manner, but show-
ing that the portion coloured red was more equally
divided with the other districts.—(Considerable laughter
was caused by the Hon. Member exhibiting these maps.)
Mr. F. FRENCH repudiated the maps in question.
Mr. SHAW thought there was no sufficient reason
shown for the re-committal of the Bill.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw.
Tho House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it

Majority against it — 112
NEW WRITS.

On the motion of Lord MARCUS lIILL, new writs
were ordered to be issued for the following places :

PLYMOUTH.

In the room of Lord EBRINGTON, appointed a
Lord of the Treasury.

LEITH DISTRICT OF BURGHS.

In the room of Mr. A. RUTIIERFORD, appointed
Lord Advocate of Scotland.
KIRCUDBRIGIIT.

In the room of Mr. T. MAITLAND, appointed Soli-
citor• General for Scotland.

SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY (GREENWICH
RAILWAY TO CIIILHAM, NEAR CANTER-
BURY, WITH BRANCHES TO SHEERNESS

AND FAVERSIIAM CREEK).
On the motion for the consideration of the report on
this Bill,

_ .
Mr. FREWEN moved that the report be considered
that day six months, as the railway when made would
not accommodate the northern districts of Kent.

Mr. lIUME thought that the various proposed lines
through the district had not been fairly brought before
the Committee, and he should certainly support the
amendment.