The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-10 00:00:00

VHS MOLD JUNCTION RAILWAY.

Mr. Eli-woman appeared for the promoters. The witnesses
in support of the formal points having been called,
The Committee decided that the standing orders had been
complied with.
TEM LONDON AND YONIC. ZAXLWAY BILL
—COMMENCEMENT OF THE CAMPAIGN—THE
FIRST OUTPOST!
Mr. A'BEcicErr, during the temporary absence of Mr.
Strutt, was appointed to take the chair. The Hon. Member
said that he thought it but right to state to the parties pre-
sent that he was himself a promoter of the London and York
Railway, and as he happened to be in the chair during Mr.
Strutt'a absence, it was more than probable that many re-
marks would be made.
Mr. J. PARKES, who appeared for the opposition, said he
would be perfectly satisfied with the Hon. Member's decision
on any point, however vital to his (Mr. Parkes's) interest.
Mr. BURKE said that he appeared on a petition against the
contract deed, but, in consequence of the decision of the Com-
mittee a few minutes ago in the Direct London and Ports-
mouth Railway, he would not press his petition.
Mr. Coates, assisted by Mr. Baxter, appeared for the pro-
moters.
The witnesses in support of the depositing of plans and sec-
tions, and books of reference, were then called, and gave their
. proofs without opposition.
Mr. Baxter, examined by Mr. COATIS —This Bill fbr a
line of railway from London to York was brought into the
House of Commons last year, by which House it was sanc-
tioned. It was then taken into the House of Lords, where
it was read a first time, and the further consideration post-
poned till this session,
Mr. Jordan, examined by Mr. COATES—He witnessed the
signatures to the contract deed. They were all genuine save
one name, which was signed Joseph Nash. That person came
to the company's offices, and produced a certificate authorising
him to sign the deed. He executed the contract, but witness
suspecting from his manner that there was something wrong,
his suspicions were excited, and he asked Nash if he was the
holder of the shares for which he had signed. Ile answered
that he held some, and had parted with a good many. Wit-
ness was then instructed to make inquiries about the matter,
and he subsequently found that Nash had no interest what-
ever. but was sent by a stockbroker in the City to impose
on the Company for the very purpose of invalidating the
deed. Upon this information the Company refused to re
cognise the signature. The shares to that amount were still
u n represented.
Mr. John Langdon—Was present when Nash presented
himself, and upon a suspicion having been created, Mr. Jor-
dan was anthorised to make inquiries.
Mr. COATES—I am prepared to state the name of
the firm whick employed Nash to impose on the
promoters of this Bill. (Here the name was given,
but, as it might possibly amount to an action
for libel, it is omitted.) The Company, however (said Mr.
Coates), I am prepared to prove, have sufficient capital with-
out the sum of 12,1501., for which Nash bound himself.
Mr. PARKES—I should like to ask the last two witnesses
what care was taken to insure the correctness of the other
names to the deed.

The Cuanaux—l think such a question is out of order.
All we, as a Standing Order Committee have to do is to
see that the standing orders have been complied with. Now
in this instance we are of opinion that they have not been
complied with; but we shall report that the case was ex-
plained to us hew the Company were imposed on, and their
subsequent steps in trying to set it right. We shall also
state that the Company have sufficient capital without the
amount of Nash. It was not for the Committee to go into
the exact circunastanees of the case not bearing upon the
standing orders—it was sufficient for them to be of opinion
that the standing orders in this instance were not complied
with.

Mr. PAkicss—l beg to submit to the Committe that any
allegations go against the contract deed. After the decision
just given, he could not go into that question, but he would,
by permission of the Committee, state the position in which
the London and York Railway stood. The Bill was, last session
of Parliament, after being read a first time in the House of
Lords, referred to a Committee on a petition against the validity
of the contract deed. The Committee, after having sat some
time, reported to the House that the Bill should not be pro-
ceeded with till the inquiry should conclude. Now, that
Committee will sit again, and, of course, they will sit upon
the same contract deed, whereas the contract deed now sub-
mitted to this Committee is quite a new deed.
The CHAIRMAN.—Your case is one which can, no doubt, be
entertained in the House of Lords, but here we have nothing
to do with anything but that which relates to the standing
orders of this House.

The standing orders were then declared to have been com-
plied with.
The great battle has yet, however, to be fought. The
proceedings of this day were merely of a formal character,
for the purpose of obtaining a new contract deed, and
in this the promoters have been signally successful.
As a proof that the most interesting period to all
parties has not arrived, we may point to the absence
of the agents for the competing lines, though we may as
well state that one of the agents for the Direct Northern
Railway was present in cog. We may date the commence-
ment of the campaign from this day—the field has been
taken, and the first outpost established.

wozvERSTON, lIVANDSS, AND CARL'S I. Z

R. ATZAVAY.

Mr. Burke appeared for the promoters.
The Bill was unopposed, and the standing orders were de-
clared to have been complied with.
TEE SEEDS, DEWSDURY, AND BIA.NCEMS-
TEA RATZWAY (WILICEPUILD EXTEN-
SION),

Mr. Burke appeared for this Company.
The Committee declared that the standing orders had been
complied with, saving is a few instances.
The Committee adjourned at four o'clock till twelve o'clock
to-morrow.

Sub-Committee, No. 2.

MEWLS AND EANTS (arneazarozn EX-
TENSION) RAILWAY.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
The next allegation was, that there had been a deposit of
the plans in the parish of Erlstoke.
Mr. Pam called for proof that Erlstoke was a parish, as
stated in the petition.
Evidence being given pro and con,
The Committee were of opinion that Erlstoke was not of
itself a parish.
There was a similar allegation respecting the parish of
Edrington, which was not sustained, competent evidence not
being adduced.
The next allegation was, that the notice in the newspapers
was insufficient, and calculated to mislead, inasmuch as it
comprised two different schemes, the one the Berks and
Hants, with the extension from Ilungerford to the terminus
at Green-bridge, the other diverging from the Great Western
at Tiverton, near Bath, to Radstock.
Mr. COATES contended that this was clearly of a nature to
mislead, and if carried would be of incalculable mischief to
the parties through whose property lines might pass.
Mr. Pro=s contended, that witnesses should have been pro-
duced to sustain his allegation. By an Act of last session, a
power was given to the Berks and Hants Railway to incor-
porate with the Great Western, of which line it was a part
and parcel. With reference to the line being brought out
under its former name, it was nothing more than what was
done by the London and Birmingham Company with refer •
ence to the Northampton and Peterborough Railway.
The Citarnmax said the Committee were of opinion that
the standing orders had been complied with in the present
case, as there was no positive contravention of any stand-
ing order, and the subject adverted to would become matter
for the consideration of the Committee on the Bill.
The next allegation was, that the notice was also insuffi-
cient, inasmuch as it stated that the Company intended
to construct branches without defining them, instead of
giving full information to the owners of the property to
enable them to ascertain how they would be affected by the
railway, and to adopt the necessary steps to protect their
interests.
The Committee decidedo(rlregin_nents being heard for and
against) that the standing
rs had been complied with. the
notice containing all that was required by the Act of Par-
liament.
air. COATES said the next allegation was, was insufficient, because, it that the notice
ono raise
that it (the Great
Western Company) intended
stating that they would make any application to Parliament
850,0001., without
to amend the Great Western Act.
Mr. Pittrr said that notices had been given in every
parish through which the line would Pau that the objection
was untenable.
The room was cleared, and in about half an hour we were
admitted.
The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee were of
that in this case the standing orders had not been opinion
and directed the short-hand writer to read thec resolu-
orn
Lion to which the Company had arrived, which was as fol-
lows
Inasmuch as the notice of application to Parliament to
make a railway commencing from the line of the Berks and
Hants Railway to or near the town of Hungerford and
county of Berks, terminating by a junction with the Wilts,
Somerset, and Weymouth Railway, does not state the inten-
tion of the Great IVestern Railway Company, though sub-
sequently stated to the owners of the said Berks and Ilants
Railway, to amend their acts by raising a., further sune of
money, but a separate notice of the Sallie dates respectively
was given by
,the Great Western .
Railway tootoi n
camendltai
ie
their
Act, but vet such last-mentioned notice does n
names of the places through which the works are intended to
be made."
Mr. CoaTes said, he appeared on the part of other peti
tioners, owners of the property through. which the line would
pass; but he would not press a great portion of the allegations.
The Committee adjourned at four o'clock, till twelve o'clock
to-morrow.

Sub-Committee No. 3.
BRIGHTON AND CHICHESTER RAILWAY.

(Centinued from our Afternoon Edition.)
The customary formal proofs having been put in, proving
the usual deposit of plans, and that the estimated cost of the
works was 45,0001., the committee decided that the standing
orders had been complied with.

STSTNING BRANCH.
This was another petition of the London and Brighton
Company, for leave to bring in a Bill to authorise the con-
struction of a branch from a point on the Brighton and Chi-
chester line to Steyning, in the county of Sussex. The
customary forms cess yin been gone through, the

Committee decided that the standing orders had been com-
plied with. The estimated cost of the branch is 44,0001., and
the aggregate estimated cost of all the works comprised in
these Lonion and Brighton Bills is 271,0001.
nos WIC if AND DUEY ST. EDMUND'S NAM-

WAY EXTENSION.
This was the petition of the Ipswieh and Bury St. Ed-
mund's Railway Company, for leave to bring in a Bill to ex-
tend their line to Norwich, and thus complete an entire chain
of uninterrupted railway communication between the metro-
polis and the city of Norwich by means of the Eastern
Counties line to Colchester, the Eastern Union Extension to
Ipswich, the Ipswich and Bury St. Edmund's to Bury St.
Edmund's, and the present extension of the latter line. The
three last lines were laid out by Mr. Locke. The estimated
cost of the extension was 550,000/., and the length of the line
was 31 miles.
The Committee decided that the standing orders had been
complied with.
WAVENEY VALLEY AND GREAT YAR-