The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-08 00:00:00

GROUP XXX.

AYLESBURY AND THA.M E JUNCTION.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
Rebutting evidence was then heard at some length on the part of
the Oxford and Cambridge line, and a lengthened discussion ensued
between Counsel as to the line of examination to be pursued.
It being then just four o'clock the Committee adjourned.

GROUP XXXV.
EAST COAST.
(Continued front our Afternoon Editieu.)
Mr. Shelton was also cross-examined to the same effect by Mr.
Webster and other Learned Counsel, for different opponents of the
Bill. Accidents some times occurred from the form and situation of
the present bridge. The obstructions and impediments would be very
much less by the bridge proposed to be erected by this railway com-
pany, than by the present one. The company had only paid up 5/.
per cent. on the capital, and would require to have another call before
they could go to the House of Lords.
Re-examined—lf the new bridge were built vessels of large burden
could go up to Wisbeach, which could not at present go further up
than Sutton-bridge. The railway would greatly facilitate the im-
provement of the large tract of land lately recovered from the sea,
and called " Victoria County." Upwards of 4,000 acres of that tract
were new embanked. Sutton-bridge is in a dangerous state. Vessels
which could not go above the bridge pay the same toll to the corpo-
ration of Wisbeach, but vessels of 500 tens burden could go to Wis-
beach if the new bridge were built.

Mr. Reilly, of Lynn, a draper, was examined in support of the Bill.
At present the shortest way way from Lynn to Manchester and the
manufacturing districts was through London.
_ _

Mr. H. Pilcher, late Mayor of Lynn, stated that he presided at a
most respectable meeting at Lynn, at which resolutions in favour of
the measure were agreed to. He was himself in favour of it.
In cross-examination the witness said there had been a meeting of
shareholders at Hull, at which it was resolved that the company
should be dissolved. He believed that at the meeting to be holden
on the lath instant, there would be a resolution in favour of winding
up the affairs of the concern. In the meantime the directors were
obliged to go on.

The CusuutAs said that it was the impression of the Committee so
far that the evidence was more against the preamble than in favour
of it.

Other witnesses were afterwards examined in favour of the Bill,
when a discussion of some length ensued as to the competency of the
opposing counsel to an examination of the deeds and other docu-
ments which had already been admitted in the Standing Orders'
Committee ultimately.

Mr. WEBSTER was heard in an objection to the deed, on the
ground that the parties thereto, having undertaken originally to
form a line of much greater length, and requiring a much larger
capital, would be released from all obligations by their agreement, if
the leSser line were adopted.
air. Coox said that the objection was of no value, inasmuch as
the deed gave the directors power to abandon any part of the line
which they considered unnecessary or unprofitable.
Mr. WEBSTER next objected that the subscribers to the agreement
were not sufficiently designated.
After a few words from Mr. Coox in reply,
The Committee decided that it was not necessary to argue these
points any further at present. They would consider them.
The evidence in support of the preamble was then continued, and
the Committee adjourned at four o'clock till Monday at twelve.