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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

On the motion of Mr. BARING, it was agreed that
the House should meet to-morrow, Thursday, and
Friday, at twelve o'clock, for the transaction of private
business only.
The proceedings on the following Bills (which were
in the stages set opposite to them) were accordingly
postponed till Monday next :—Rateable Property
(Ireland) Bill Second Reading ; Tenants' Com-
pensation (Ireland) Bill—Second Reading ; Eject-
ments, &c. &c. (Ireland) Bill Second Reading ;
Leases (Ireland) Bill Second Reading ; Western
Australia Bill Second Reading ; Steam Navigation
Bill—Committee; Wreck and Salvage Bill—Committee;
Admitiitration of Justice Bill—Second Reading ; New-
foundland Bill—Second Reading ; Real Property Con-
veyance Bill—Second Reading ; Kennington-lane, &c.,
ghting, &c. Bill— Further proceeding on Third Read-
ing ; Highways Bill—Second Reading ; Drainage of
Lands Bill—Committee ' • Poor Removal Bill—Commit-
tee ; Service of Heirs (Scotland) Bill—Third Reading ;
New Zealand Loan Bill—Second Reading ' • Clerks of
Crown, &c. (Ireland) Bill Committee ; Joint-stock
Banks (Scotland and Ireland) Bill—Committee ; Com-
mons Inclosure (No. 2) Bill—Committee ; Ways and
Means—Committee ; Supply—Committee ; Books and
Engravings (Act i and 8 Vic., c. 72)—Committee ;
Exclusive Privilege of Trading Abolition (Ireland) Bill
—Second Reading.
The House was then adjourned till twelve to-morrow.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.

(YESTERDAY)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Room

A Select Committee, consisting of the Duke of Leinster, and
Lords Powis, Stratford, and Colchester, &c., met at eleven
this morning. Their list included two Bills, viz., the Glas-
gow, Airdrie, and %lonklands Junction, and the Caledonian
(Glasgow Termini and Branches). They proceeded with the
case of the

GLASGOW, AIRDRIE. AND MONN.LANDS

JUN CTIOIV.

Mr. Austin and Mr. Hildyard appeared for the promoters
of the Bill. kr. Cockburn, Mr. Talbot, and Mr. Whitmore
appeared for the Glasgow, Gam] i 'lc, and Coatbridge Rail-
way Company, who petition against the Bill, on account of
the line passing under their line, and taking a small
" private line," which they represented to be their pro
perty ; and for the Caledonian Railway Company, who
petition, on account of their having purchased the Garnkirk
and Coatbridge Railway, and being about to amalgamate
with them by the powers of an Act now before this House.
The same counsel appeared for seven professors of the Glas-
gow University, who petitioned on the ground that the line
would take the University.
Mr. AUSTIN objected to the opposition on the part of the
University professors, on the ground that they did not pro-
perly represent the University.
After some discussion the Committee decided that the
opposition was inadmissible.
Mr. AUSTIN then opened the case for the' promoters of
the Bill, after which he proceeded to call
Mr. Delmore, the owner of several cotton factories in and
near Glasgow, who gave evidence very strongly in favour of
the line, especially with reference to the position of its ter-
minus (at Mile-end, Glasgow), which he said was in the
immediate neighbourhood of the Exchange—the centre of
business in Glasgow—and of the largest factories. There
would be a coal depot at Mile-end, which was also a great
advantage. There would be a considerable reduction in the
price of coal in consequence of the communication with the
coal districts which the line would open.
Mr. COCKBURN was here about to cross-examine the
witness, when
Mr. HILDYARD objected to his Learned Friend's appear-
ance, saying that as the proposed line, in passing under the
railway, did not touch the property of the company, the
latter had no locus standi.

Mr. COCKIURN said that the private line of railway pass-
ing under the Garnkirk and Coatbridge line, which would
be taken and lowered three feet by the company in making
their line, was in part the property of the •Garnkirk and
Coatbl idge Company ; and, moreover, the latter
company, hating been the promoters of a com-
peting scheme in the House of Commons, had a right
to appear as such to oppose the Bill, even though their line
bad been thrown out by the Committee of the House of
Commons. He instanced the case of the Harwich and
Eastern Counties, in which case the Committee decided that
the opposition on the part of a competing scheme could be
admitted, though the line was thrown out in the Lower
House.

• Mr. ITILDYAUD said that he believed, in the case of the
Harwich and Eastern Counties, there was a distinct allega-
tion in the petition that the petitioners were the promoters
of a rival scheme, but there was no such allegation in this
case. The private line was not the property of the Garnkirk
Company, and, if it was, the very fact would put them out of
court, as the Bill contained no powers to take any line from
them.

The Committee, after clearing the room and discussing the
question for a few minutes, announced their decision, that
the case for the petitioners should be entertained, but that no
evidence could be admitted as to the competing scheme.
Mr. COCKBURN then proceeded with the cross-examination
of the witness, and
Mr. HiLnyann called several other witnesses, who gave
similar evidence to that of Mr. Delmore.

The engineer to the line, Mr. Adie, gave the usual
engineering evidence. The particulars have already appeared
in The Sun at great length in the reports of the Committee
of the House of Commons on Group X.
On the conclusion of the case for the promoters,

Mr. COCKBURN addressed the Commit-tee on the part of the
opponents of the Bill.
The Committee then cleared the room, and, on our re-
admission, _ _

The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee had come to the
conclusion that the preamble of the Bill was proved.
After disposing of the clauses of the Bill, the Committee
rose at four o'clock, and adjourned till to-morrow at eleven
o'clock, when they will proceed with the case of the Caledo-
nian (Glasgow Termini and Branches).

GROUP D.

AXHOLIKE, GAINSBOROUGH, GOOLE, YOWL

AND NORTH MIDLAND JUNCTION.

The Committee re-assembled this morning; Lord Somers
in the chair.

Mr. Hely gave general evidence as to the necessity of the
line, and spoke especially as to the facilities it would afford
for exporting the produce grown on the banks of the Trent.
A large proprietor in the isle confirmed this testimony, and
stated that there was an agreement to lease the line to the
York and North Midland Company.
Mr. Wells, who has the management of about 7,000 acres
of land in the Isle of Axholme, and was acquainted with about
lii,ooo acres of other ground, conceived that about 6,000 acres
are devoted to the growth of potatoes, the produce of which
he calculated at about 54,000 tons. From the whole of the
district he believed there were about 53,000 tons exported.
There are also considerable quantities of lime brought into
the district for the improvement of the land.
The witness underwent a severe cross-examination by Mr.
PAGET, to show that the places proposed for accommodation
on this line are nearer to the Pontefract and Goole line than
they are to the Axholme and North Midland Junction.
Several of them were shown to be nearer, but the witness
stated that he had deducted one-third of the traffic for his
gross estimates for the abstraction of the Wakefield, Ponte •
fract, and Goole line. He had not included the town of
Thorn, although that place was two miles nearer this route
than the other. He had calculated potatoes at a id. per ton
per mile the whole distance to London, and 11,id. per ton for
those going westward. But his evidence was confined to
marsh land.

Mr. Marr, a farmer at Goole, had calculated the traffic
from Hoxey to Cowie, and stated that the saving in the
whole district from traffic would be 24,0661. lls., and the
acreage of the district is 46,910 ; the population comprises
12,186, and the number of inhabited houses 2,620. The num-
ber of acres under profitable culture are 42,219 ; the amount
of produce exported is 53,980 tons, and the amount of imports
31,660 tons, including lime, and all the articles necessary for
the land. The saving in carriage as far as Gainsborough,
would be 21,9361. lls., and in imports 2,1301., making the
total 24,0661. 111. This would be from the parishes in Not
tinghamshire as far as Hoxey. The saving up to Gains-
borough would be about 8,000/.

Mr. PAGE cross-examined to ascertain how many of the
places were upon the banks of the Trent. There was au endea-
vour to show a discrepancy in the evidence as to the cost of the
carriage of potatoes to the river and the railway, to the
former the charge being 2s. 6d., and to the latter is. 6d. a
ton, although the latter is the more distant of the two, but
it was explained by the assertion, that in using the railway
there would be a great central conveyance which would
justify the outlay.
Mr. Birkenshawe, the engineer, was called to speak to the
course of the line, which has already been described. The
gross amount of the returns he calculated at 60,251/., which,
less 40 per cent. for working expenditure, would give a divi-
dend of 9 per cent. for the shareholders. The ruling gra-
dient was lin 137. In the course of the line no difficulties
would occur, for there would be no tunnels, and the line for
four miles of its coulee ran over a moor. Eighteen public
roads would be crossed on a level, for ,hick due provision
would be made ; the line would also cross the Ouze, the Don,
and the Dutch River, but the Admiralty had made no objec-
tion, and there was no property at all likely to be injured
by its formation.
Mr. Paget cross- examined, to show the way in which this
lice was affected by the London and York line, which this
line will cross on an embankment of seven feet. An endea-
vour was made to show that there was a greater deviation
nail allowed by the standing orders.
Mr. WIIITEHURST, Q.C., objected to this matter being
gone into, as there was no allegation in the petition respect-
ing this point.
The Committee decided that by standing order No. 8 they
could not entertain the objection.
Mr. PAGET addressed the Committee on this point, insist-
ing that it was competent for the Committee to go into the
inquiry, inasmuch as it was the practice of the House of
Lords to take the clauses and the preamble of the Bill
together, instead of doing as was done in the Commons,
taking the preamble first and the clauses afterwards.
Here the room was cleared, but when the hour for ad-
journment arrived, the Committee had not agreed, and their ,
decision yap tlArefor9 diferosi tiU 0.131011'9Pr.