The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-03 00:00:00

CALEDONIAN EXTENSION RAILWAY.

Captain JONES brought up the report of the Committee
on this Bill.

Mr. HAWES said he had a proposal to make to the House,
having placed the following motion on the paper of the day :
—"On bringing up the report from the Committee on the peti-
tion for leave to introduce the Caledonian Extensioe hallway
Bill, to move that the repot t be referred beck to the said Com-
mittee to re-consider the same, With an instruction to such
Committee, that they do entertain the petition of William
Maxwell Alexander and others, presented to the House on the
13th day of February last, and do hear the petithners
by their agents and witnesses on the allegations therein
contained." Of course it became his duty to Make one.
a case for taking this course, and he hoped
to do so satisfactorily. It appeared that a petition from
a Mr. Alexander, complaining of non--tottiphitnee with the
standing orders by the promotets of this Bill, was
duly presented, and was now on the table of the House. It
appeared that this petition wai referred to the Committee, and
at the same time there was another petition presented frbin a
person also named Alexander, and from others. No*,lby some
mistake, this petition had not been considered by the
Committee on the Bill, Now, under these elect:un-
stances, the petition having been presebted within
the proper time he thought there *et good ground for
referring this Bill back to the. Voterniitee. '1 he only objection
which he had heard to this course was, that there must have
been delay and h'egligence on the part Of the petitioners. New
he had a letter in his possession which had been written by the
petitioners to Mr. Grahame, one of the agents fbr the Bill. In
reply to that letter, Mr. Grahame held he had searched
for the petition in the House, but had been finable
to find it. The only petition he could find *es are by W. A.
Alexander, numbered 1,560 ; and it appeared that this was
the very petition referred tom. Under these circumstances,
therefore, he thought there was good ground for the motion
which he bee' made.
(?...ptain JONES, the chairman of the Committee, said the
petition of Mr. Alexander was considered by the Com-
mittee. There was another petition by Mr. Alexan-
der and others, and that petition not htleihg been
in the rotes, it was not Considered by the
Committee. It appeared that the petitioner had never applied
to the Member who had presented the petition, nor to the
officer of the House having charge of it. Under these circum-
stances, the Committee could not consider the petition.
Mr. HOPE JOHNSTONE said, there were pecu-
liarities relating to this case. It mast be remembered
that those two Mr. Alexanders were the same per-
sons. The petition, which was numbered 1,560 in the
office, was repeatedly-compared be the agents for the Bill, and
it was not the petition of Mr. Alexander and others, but the
petition of Mr. Alexander alone. How that petition came
there had never been explained. The whole affair ap-
peared to him to be involved in considerable
mystery. The number 1,560 had lately had an A
added to it, and another petition had been substituted
for 1560. The promoters of the Bill had had a large number
of witnesses from Scotland, and they had been sent back. It
would, therefore, be a great hardship for those witnesses to be
recalled in order to afford the petitioner an opportunity of
stating his case. One petition of Mr. Alexander had been
heard, and the other petition was that of the same individual.
There could, therefore, be no injustice in this ease.
Sir G. CLERK said that, under the peculiar circumstances
of the case, he considered the parties would be entitled to a
hearing.
The SPEAKER observed that there had certainly been an
error in the votes, which had misled the agent, and the ques-
tion for the House to consider would be, whether the parties
were to suffer from the error of their officer?
Mr. HODGSON said that if the Hon. Member for Glasgow
were in his place, he (the Hon. Gentleman) had no doubt but
he would be willing to allow the parties to be heard at that
stage. During the time the parties had a large number of wit-
nesses in town at an expense of over 1001. per day, to prove
their cause, and he then left it to the House to say whether or
not they were entitled to be heard.
Mr. P. M. STEWART said that there appeared to him to
be a great deal of mystery about the case ; there
loefmber hearingf o for Lambeththepeti-
tioners, certainly was
Now,by senidf
nt
blatcoku sHe
thea grreepeodr
twi iotrh
tthhee
much mystery connected with it from first to last.—(Hear.)
Hu
ro pn sAe
g
it would be a great injustice to the Caledonian Com-
pany. Why were not the petitions presented at once ?—this
was the mystery of the case. Now, however the petitioners
wish to drive the Company to a greater expense than they were
already put to. If the motionshould be agreed to, it would force
the Company to keep many witnesses its town who
bed already been a great expense to the promoters. His Hon.
Friend—his Hon. Kinsman Mr. Maxwell Alexander had been

beard at great length in the Committee, and he was of opinion
that no injustice could be done to that gentleman. Who were
the parties engaged on this opposition ? There were three
Glasgow solicitors who had no interest more than might attach
'to them professionally, and therefore no injury nor hardship
could be complained of by rejecting the present motion—.
( Hear, hear.) If there was any hardship in the case
he would sot object to the report being lent