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;
Administration of Justice Bill—Second Reading ; New-
foundland Bill—Second Reading ; Real Property Con-
veyance Bill—Second Reading ; Kennington-lane, &c.,
Lighting, &c.,1)i,11 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—Committeo ; Supply—Committee ; Books and
Engravings (Act 7 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

(N ESTERDAY)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Room B.

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 Monklands Junction, and the Caledonian
(Glasgow Termini and Branches). They proceeded with the
case of the

GLASGOW, Antnium. AND moNslau)nis

SUNCTIOBT.

Mr. Austin and Mr. Hildyard appeared for the promoters
of the Bill. Mr. Cockburn, Mr. Talbot, and Mr. Whitmore
appeared for the Glasgow, Garnkirk, 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. Augrug then opened the case for the promoters of
the Bill, after which he proceeded to call
Mr. Delmoge, 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-
minusat Me-end, Glasgow), which he said was in the
gow)

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-etfmine the
witness, when
Mr. H 1 I)Y4RD objected to his Learned"Piieiii% -appear-
ance, saying
,that as the proposed line, inNi3:sliik under the
railway, did not touch the property of the company, the
latter had no locus standi.
Mr. Cocxsunx 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
Coatbridge Company ; and, moreover, the latter
company, having been the promoters of a com-
peting sehenie in the House of Commons had a right
to appear as ouch to oppose the Bill, even though their line
had 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 cou!d be
admitted, though the line was thrown out in the Lower
House.
Mr. HILD+ARD 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 &theme, but there was no such allegation in this
case. The ptivate line was not the property of the Garnkirk
Company, arid, if it was, the very fact would put them out of
court, as the pill contained no powers to take any line from

them.
The Comn
question for

rtittee, after clearing the room and discussing the
fT few minutes, announced their decision, that
' e petitioners should be entertained, but that no
I d be admitted as to the competing scheme.
EN then proceeded with, the cross-examination
i, and
AltD called several other witnesses, who gave
nce to that of Mr. Delmore.
eer to the line, 11r. Adie, gave the usual
vidence. The particulars have already appeared
t great length in the reports of the Committee
of Commons on Group X.
Nlusion of the case for the promoters,
.URN addressed the Committee on the part of the
the Bill.
iittee then cleared the room, and, on our re-

the case for-
evidence con
Mr. Coca
of the witne
Mr. Hani
similar evid4

The engi;
engineering

in Yhe Suri

of the How
On the c
Mr. COCK
opponents 01
The Comi

admission,
The Cita]
conclusion t

.31AN said that the Committee had come to the
at the preamble of the Bill was proved.
ling of the clauses of the Bill, the Committee
'clock, and adjoarned till to-morrow at eleven
1 they will proceed with the case of the Caledo-
rw Termini and Branches).

Alter disp
rose at four

o'clock, whe

nian (Glasgi

GROUP D.

AX1101.:

:rn, aAnesnonotran, GOOLE, YORK

AND
(Gout

'NORTH MIDLAND JUNCTION.
!tined frona 'our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

Mr. PAO cross-examined to 'ascertain how many of the
places were pon the, hanks of the Trent: There was an endea-
vour to sho tOiscrepancy in the evidence as to the cost of the
carriage of otatoes to the river and the ,rallway, to the
former the barge being 2s. 6d., and to the latter Is. 6d. a
ton, althou , the latter is, the more distant of the two, but
it was expl *ned by the assertion, that in using the railway
ill
there woul be a great central conveyance which would
justify the ltlay.
Mr. Birk nshawe, the engineer, was called to'speak to the
course of
,t e. line, which has already been. described. The
gross amou t of the returns he calculated at 60,2511, which,
less 40 per nt.. for working expenditure, would give a divi-
dend of 9 er cent. for the shareholders. The ruling 'gra-
f
dient was lin 137. In the course of the" line no difficulties
would occult, for there would be no tunnels, and the line for
four miles 'fits course ran' over a moor. Eighteen public
roads wont be crossed on a level, for which due provision
would be de: the line would also cross the Ouze, the Don,
and the Du Dutch River, but the Admiralty had made no objec-
tion, and t ierq moss no property at all likely to be injured
by its form tion.
Mr. Pag t crois• examined, to show the way in which this
line was aqcted. by the London and York line, which this
line *rill cite on an embankment of seven' feet. "An endea-
vour was ade to 'show that there was a greater deviation
than allow by the Sfandintbrders.
Mr. WintrzflußsT, .Q.C.; objected to this matter being
gone into, as thete was,no allegation in the petition respect-
ing this pefrint. . . .
rho Committee decided that ,by 'standing order Islo. 8 they
could not entertain the objection.
Mr. PAG T addressed the Committee on thiS point, insist-
ingE that it as cdmpetent for the Committee to go into the
inquiry, inasmuch as it was the practice of the House of
Lords to Eake 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 was therefore deferred till to-morrow.

- HOUSE OF COMMONS.
GROUP XVII.

,--,- -- • ---
IVIATTC*ESTEIe. /175173 SOUTHAMPTON AND
SOUTH-WESTERN
(HOM.SEY AND RED-
DzaDoz BRANCH).
The Committee re-assembled this morning at twelve
o'clock. ,
The first business proceeded with was the case of the ReN
Mr. Fletcher, a landowner, who opposed the line on the
ground of its 4ing likely to injure his property, called Lee
Park.
Mr. Bickers, agent to Lord Palmerston, and occupying one
of his Lordship's farms in Hampshire, stated he had known
Mr. Fletcher's property for thirty years, and gave_evidence_
to the effect that the line would injure his " water meadows"
on the banks of the Andover Canal, and consequently
deteriorat4 his estate. In his cross-examination he stated that
part of the water on the meadows was derived from a stream
which ran by his ( witness's) house, and that Mr. Fleteqr
had no right to the water from the canal.
Mr. Sergeant WRANGLIA3I then' proceeded to address the
Committee on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, and in
reply to the evidence and speeches of their opponents. He
commenced by alluding to the case of Mr. Fletcher, in order
to show that it was one of those cases which, if injury
was done, would be compensated by-the company; but
with respect to the whole of the landowners cases,
the cause of the promoters of the Bill was of too grave and
important a nature, on account of the public interests involved,
to be put in juxta4positioa with them. Those interests were
too serious for him to suppose, even for a moment, that the
Committee would be influenced in their decision upon the
Preamble of this Bill by any of the causes which had been
suggested' by his Learned Friends on the part of the
different petitioners whom they represented. With
respect to one case, the only one which at any time
assumed the appearance of residential interference
—he meant the case of Mr. Everett—he should

by-and-by trouble the Committee with a very few observa-
tions. In the meantime he would pass from these matters
of detail, and proceed to address himself, as shortly as he
could at that prolonged period of their sittings, and at that
advanced period of the session, to the main feature of this
great measure, to which he trusted the Committee would give
their sanction, and, by that sanction give, not merely a
direct means of transit between the great manu-
facturing districts of the north and the rapidly
rising port of Southampton ; but would still more
benefit the community by conferring upon the local
districts traversed those facilities of conveyance which
up to that moment they were so sadly in want of.
Before he came to deal with the general features of the mea-
sure, let him pause to inquire, or rather lead the Committee
to ask for themselves, from whom the real and only opposi-
tion emanated which the promoters believed they had to
encounter ? Upon what grounds did that opposition rest, and
what pretext had their opponents for putting it forward?
But he would not occupy the time of the Committee by
dealing with the real nature of the opposition of the land-
owners put forward in the one interest or the other, because
he looked to the great object of the measure; and he would,
therefore, only ask, who were the opponents who appeared
before them in the guise of landowners but the Great
Western and South-Western Railway Companies? But he
apprehended that two powerful railway companies
never came before a Committee of either House
of Parliament to oppose the passing of a measure
with less chance of success, and whose ground of opposition
was so utterly in contradiction of almost their every act, or
the pretext upon which they rested their opposition was so
utterly consistent. He took it that those companies opposed
them on the principle that the introduction of competition,
by constructing a railway through this district, would be likely
to entrench upon the vested interests which belonged to them.
Whatever phrase they might dress their opposition in, he
apprehended that no one who had attended to the pro-
ceedings in the Committee, could doubt that that was the
real and substantial reason which brought them there.
His Learned Friend (Mr. Austin) put it that it would inter-
fere with the vested interests of the Great Western and South-
Western Railways ; but he would inquire to what extent it
would interfere with either of them, and whether or not on
public grounds it was not fully justified? But let him for a
moment beg the Committee to consider who it was that
raised this cry—" Don't interfere with us—don't seek
to raise competition against us— don't touch our vested
interests." This language proceeded from the Great
Western, every line in connexion with which they
had promoted before Parliament, this session had been in
distinct contradiction to the principle of non-competition.
Why all the lines they had been promoting north of their
own line were distinctly promoted and justified, and success-
fully pressed upon Parliament on the ground of establishing
a competition on their part against the London and Birming-
ham Company. Why their opponents were those who aid
not shrink from carrying a line of railway from London
to Birmingham upon the ground of creating a
competition with existing railway companies. Were they
fit parties to come there to oppose the construction' Of a
line between two points like Manchester and Southampton,
because they might incidentally interfere with their traffic
and compete with them for some portion of the trade which
they hoped to carry ? So much for the Great Western so far
as competition was concerned, the principle of which they
had carried further than any other existing company, and
those Bills of which the Committee had heard so much—
the Worcester and Oxford, and the Rugby and Oxford—
were distinctly promoted and sanctioned on the principle of
competition.
Mr.BROCRLEHUP.ST said the Oxford and Birmingham was
prepared to be constructed on the principle of competition.
Mr. Sergeant WRANGIIAM said the lines branching north
to Birmingham were urged by the Great Western oa the
ground that they would establish, as between the mining
districts and the metropolis, two competing lines in the
hands of two competing companies. And the South-
Western also were not entitled to complain of com-
petition, as they had carried a line from London
to Exeter, in opposition to the Great Western itself. But
the Manchester and Southampton was not formed on the
mere principle of competition, but for the grand purpose of
opening up direct communication between the great empo-
rium, Manchester in the north, to Southampton in the south.
That being the state of parties, what was the nature of the
issue in the cause ? He apprehended that the Com-
mittee, although they had been led into a wilder-
ness of investigation, were now in a condition to de-
cide satisfactorily to themselves whether they had
judiciously selected that line, which would be of the greatest
public benefit. Then his Learned Friend (Mr. Austin) cast a
number of imputations on the company, and declared that it
was a " bubble company," and that they were not formed for
the bona fide purpose of executing a line of railway, but
that they were " confederated" together for the pur-
pose of speculating on public credulity, and accu-
mulating fortunes for themselves, by issuing shares on
account of a company not intended to be carried out.
That was a strange imputation, and one which ought
not to rest on the breath of a committee. There should have
been some evidence adduced in support of these heavy
charges which his Learned Friend had flung at a body of
gentlemen, who did not yield in respect either to his Learned
Friend or to any there. The Committee had before them,
in evidence, what ought to be enough to refute these
charges thus flung at random at the promoters of the line.
They had the prospectus of the company, which contained a
list of its provisional and managing committee. Did they
find there the name of any noted knave, who was likely to
seek, either by legitimate or unlawful means, to obtain some
miserable bounty to himself out of the credulity of the pub-
lic? He found in the list of names connected with this line
gentlemen who, in point of rank, station, or name, would
yield to none to be found in any similar document.
These remarks were not made in the heat of
an address, when his Learned Friend might have
been excited. Then again ther6Were allegations in petitions
distinctly imputing some heavy charge to this company, ancti
he asked, who could lay a petition in itself caliimnious before
the Committee, and shrink from supporting these allegations
with one tittle of evidence? Was this a matter which was
to be left alone to the vague suggestions of counsel,
however ingenious, to sustain them before a tribunal
which was to try the measure these gentlemen were
promoting, who were gentlemen of the purest honour and of
the most unstained integrity? He was wholly unjustified
in using such language towards them. What were the
facts? He said the shares were 201. shares, and that this
was in itself a " badge of suspicion," but the Great
Western had opened 20/. shares in the Oxford and
Birmingham line, so that what in that room would be called
iniquity would equally apply to that line, as the money
necessary for its construction was proposed to be raised
by 201. shares.—(Laughter.) If this were so, they would go
down to iniquity with Mr. Hill on one side and Mr. Austin
on the other. The Committee were no doubt aware that
shares varied from 100/. to 151. each, and that the tendency
of late had been rather towards diminishing than increasing
shares. The same rate of shares was adopted by the Buck-
ingham Company, under the patronage of the London and
Birmingham. by the Eastern Counties in their extension
shares from Cambridge to York; by the Norfolk Railway, by
the West Riding Union Railway, by the York and North
Midland, and last, though not least, the Trent Valley Rail-
way. He might swell the list, but he would not detain the
Committee further on the subject.
Mr. BROCKLEHUAST said the plan was very convenient, be-
cause 100/. share were divided into five shares.
Mr. Sergeant Wnammam went -on to say, that his
Learned Friend accused them of only seeking for 5 per cent.
instead of a larger sum, which he stated was the " true test
of bubbles ;" at that period the amount of deposits had not
been increased to 10 per cent., but when they applied to their
shareholders they acceded ; but if they had been a " bubble"
company there would have been no necessity to ask for
another shilling up to the present time, besides they
might have passed through the Commons without calling on
the shareholders for any future deposit. They had called for
and received the full deposits for the passing of the Bill
through Parliament, and therefore, on his own showing,
they stood acquitted from the charge of being a "bubble
company." Then, with respect to allowing 41. per cent.
interest before the line is made on the capital paid up, which
his Learned Friend said showed "consummate art"—
Mr. BROCKLEHURST said this was common to all Bills las
year.

- Mr. Sergeant WRANGIIAM said it was. In one casehe found
that instead of 41. one company allowed 5/. per cent.,
namely, the Great Western themselves, with respect to the
shareholders in the Oxford and. Rugby ; but his Learned
Friend did not consider that this was encouraging specula-
tion.—(Laughter.) But if the Great Western had sinned,
the South-Western was not blameless, as the shareholders
in the South-Western amendment were allowed to partici-
pate in the terrible practice. It was also advantageous to
shareholders, because it enabled them regularly to pay up
their 'calls. Then with respect to the statement made
at the affirmation meeting, that the promoters would
not call for more than 41. per cent, per annum,
they must recollect that the shares are 201. each, and that
the adoption of, this course would not detract from the public
benefits which the line was intended to confer, and would
enable parties to know what they would have to pay in the
course of a year. This would not put them to any incon-
venience on account of the want of capital, because five or
six months must elapse after the passing of the Bill
before they could obtain possession of the land, be
fore which time they would have more than a suf
ticiency of capital. Then the tunnel at Cottiswold hills,
2,900 yards in length, would require three years to
construct, but the line to Andover could be made in twelve
months, before which time they would have 360,0001. in
hand, which would not be required. By January, 1849, they
would have 1,600,000/. without troubling the Midland Com-
pany for any portion of their 400,000/., out of which, by that
lime, they would have to pay 150,0001., leaving 50,000/. sur-
plus. In this respect there was no blot on their escutcheon.
After referring to the great public advantages which would
accrue to the districts through which the line would pass, and
to Manchester and Southampton, and inconsistencies in the
evidence of Mr. Locke and Mr. Brunel, who each stated
that they had lines "in their heads" to accommodate the
district to the various lines projected, as contrasted with the
opening of the Manchester and Southampton, sixty-five
miles of which, as stated by Mr. Stephenson, would be a sur-
face line ; and in the case of Mr. Everett, whose property
they could not help crossing if the line was to be made at all,
alhough they were willing to deviate t o the utmost extent, or
by a tunnel of 60 yards below the surface of the ground, he
called the attention of the Committee to the traffic returns
of twenty-three lines, the average weekly returns of which
were 891., whilst they only put theirs at 42/. ; thus showing
they did not anticipate more than the London and Brighton.
Mr. BROCKLEHURST suggested that the Manchester and
Southampton should amalgamate with the South-Western

from Romsey to Southampton, and use their terminus.
Mr. Sergeant WRANGTIAM considered that this would be
most objectionable, and hoped the Committee would not de-
prive them of a separate terminus at Southampton.
The Committee then adjourned until to-morrow.

STANDING ORDERS' COMMITTEE.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
The Earl of Shaftesbury and his colleagues re-assembled
this morning at the usual hour in Room 1 (House of Lords).
Lord Redesdale and the Marquis of Winchester were present.
Their Lordships immediately resolved themselves into a
Select Committee on Merits.
There were eleven Bills on the list, but only two were en-
-tered into. Dr. M'Farlane's (Glasgow College) Estate Bill
occupied them up to half-past five o'clock, although it had
previously been part heard, and had engrossed a considerable
amount of time. It stood over till to-morrow.
The case of the
WAKEFIELD, PONTEFRACT, AND GOOLE, AND
PORT OF GOOLE
was called on, and the preamble declared proved.
Their Lordships then proceeded to hear the following
cases on the

STANDING ORDERS.
GLASGOW, DUMFRIES, AND CARLISLE;
standing orders complied with.
BLACKBURN, DARWEN, AND BOLTON;
standing orders complied with.
AIRDRIE AND BATHGATE JUNCTION,
adjourned (having been part heard) till to-morrow.
BLACKBURN AND PRESTON,
also part heard, and adjourned till to-morrow.
ENFIELD AND EDMONTON.
This case, too, was adjourned, the proofs being nearly com-
pleted.
The remaining Bills on the list were adjourned, and the
Committee rose at half-past six.