The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-12 00:00:00

ARRANGEMENTS.

Mr. ROBINSON, for the promoters, called additional evidence
support of the Bill.

Mr. Sparrow, from the neighbourhood of Wolverhampton, pro-
prietor of extensive iron works, having used the canal for the con-
veyance of iron and coal for many years, was favourable to the pro-
posed arrangements, which he was of opinion would be highly bene-
ficial to the public.

Other witnesses gave testimony to a similar effect.
Mr. Robert Scott, M.P. for Walsall, and Chairman of the Birming-
ham Canal Company, was examined by Mr. ROBINSON at great
length, for the purpose of proving that the arrangements contem-
plated in the Bill would be of most important benefit to the traffic of
the district, indeed of the whole county. The part of the kingdom
traversed by the Birmingham Canal and its branches could not be
accommodated with railway conveyance, unless by some such
arrangement with the Canal Company. The effect of the continua-
tion of railway and canal accommodation would be a great boon to
all those who now used the canal.

Mr. WADDINGTON having stated that the case for the promoters
was concluded,
The CHAIRMAN said he had received a communication from the
Board of Trade on the subject of
THE LONDON AND BIIitivEING7TAP.I GHLI.ND

lIINCTION, AND MANCHESTER, AND SIR-
MINGHAIVI AMALGAMATION.
In that communication the Board of Trade stated that they could
not recommend the perpetual amalgamation of those companies,
although an amalgamation for a few years might be advantageous.
The Committee was, therefore, not prepared to give a decision at
present.

DUDLEY CANAL AND rannenNosam
CAT7AL AMALGAMATION.

Mr WADI:NagaTon said, that as this Bill was in intimate connexion
with the Birmingham Canal and Railway Arrangements Bill, he
world proceed with this lsefore the opposition to the other was gone
into, as such opposition was necessarily the same against both the
Bills. The object of the Bill was to improve the property and navi-
gation of the Dudley Canal by an ama,gamation with the Birmingham.
The Dudley Canal was poorly supplied with water, and of that
there was a great waste in consequence of the badness of the levels;
whereas the Birmingham Canal had an excellent supply of water,
by which the other would be greatly improved in the navigation,
and the contemplated arrangements would be conducive to extended
benefits.

Several witnesses were then heard in support of these general
statements.

Mr. SELF, with Mr. M. D. 11111, Q.C., opposed the Bill on
the ground that it made provision for the continuance of certain
tolls, which past experience proved the companies might reduce
without loss to their own revenues and with great advantage to the

After hearing evidence in support of this opposition, the Committee
adjourned at four o'clock till twelve to-morrow.

GROUP LXIV,

The Committee re-assembled to-day at twelve o'clock, Mr. T. S,
Duncombe in the chair, and resumed the consideration of the

IRISH GREAT WESTERN (PORTAR.
ETITGTON TO GALWAY).
. .

Mr. ALEXANDER, on the part of some of the petitioners against the
Bill, read the petition, which was very voluminous, and alleged,
among other informalities, that the source whence the capital tbr
the Bill was derived had not been truly set forth, inasmuch as the
real promoters of the Bill were the promoters of the Irish South-
Western Railway Company.
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY contended that the Bill before the Com-
mittee was to all intents and purposes a new Bill. It was found by
the old company that in consequence of their expenses,
and the bad odour into which the company had fallen,
that it would be necessary to reconstruct the company,
and the present company was established, allotments
being given to those of the old company who desired the present
project. The present Bill proposed to construct a railway different
from the former Bill and, ipso facto, the company was bona ficie anew
company.
The Learned Counsel tken called evidence to show that parties
hal become promoters of the project in this Bill under a conviction
that it was an entirely Hew project.
The Committee overruled the objections in the petition.
The evidence in support of the Bill was then resumed, and the
Committee adjourned at four o'clock.

STANDING ORDERS' COMMITTEES.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Their Lordships met at eleven, as usual, in room No. 1, House of
Lords, Lord Shaftesbury in the chair, and present, the Duke of
Richmond, the Earls of Devon and Fortescue, the Marquis of Win•
cheater, and Lords Hawarden and Camoys.
The Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilston (Thornliebank, lionsehill,
and Hurlet Branches)—The Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilston
(Paisley Branches)—The Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock (Harbour
Branch)—The Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire Junction—
The Edinburgh and Northern (Strathearn Deviation) —and the
Lancashire and North Yorkshire Bills, and also the Northumber-
land Docks Bill, were declared to have complied with the standing
orders.
Having disposed of these Bills, the Committee resolved itself into
a Select Committee on merits, in order to proceed with the case
of the
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE (oxiionn AND
BLEIrCHLEY nitArrcsms),
the preamble of which Bill was declared to be proved. The Bill
was ordered to be reported.
Their Lordships rose at about half-past four o'clock.