The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-23 00:00:00

GROUP LW.

This Committee re-assembled to-day at twelve o'clock. Present-
Mr. Bannerman (chairman) and the other members.

MIDLAND (BURTON-ON-TRENT TO NUN..
EATON, AND lIRA.I=; CII).

The evidence was resumed.
Mr. John Thomas Woodhouse, cross-examined by Mr. CAL.
VERT—Understood the railway to commence at the sixth mile
from Barton, and to run to Nuneaton. At the sixth virile
they came to the property of Lord Hastings ; his Lord-
ship consented to the railway. Could not state through how
much of his Lordship's property they went, but 12Plieved it to be
about a mile and a half. This took them half way between Be
seventh and Eighth miles. The next property they came to was, he
believed, a small freehold, the owner of which was a consenting
party to the railway. The next property they came to was Mr.
Greave's, and then to Sir John Cave's. The length of
the latter property affected by the railway was some-
where about half a mile. The owner was a dissentient.
They then came to the eighth mile and a half. (The witness was
then examined respecting the other properties affected by the line,
the substance of which has already appeared in the evidence of the
preceding witnesses.) Considered those that traded on the Ashby
canal were the best judges of the benefits or disadvantages thatwould
result from the proposed amalgamation of it with the railway.
Mr. DANIELLS, on the part of the promoters, said that his clients
would insert a clause in their Bill that they would not exercise their
compulsory powers without the consent of Lord Howe and Colonel
Wollaston. . .

.. --......
The objection on the part of these petitioners was then withdrawn.
Mr. Sergeant Wtnaias, on the part of Mr. Ilemmins (one of the
petitioners) said, that on the part of his client, he had to pray for a
little delay in bringing forward his case. His client's property
affected by this railway would be no less than 2,000 urea.
which would be cut up in a way that would lead
to an actual revolution amongst the tenantry on the estate.
The ground upon whieh he asked for delay was, that he would be
enabled to show that the levels of the company were quite wrong.
They would have been prepared to establish this then, but were
prevented from taking their levels, having been driven of the line by
the levels, pect
ressand
150 men, who refused to allow them to proceed until they had ob-
tained an order from Mr. Woodhouse. If the Committee would, under
these circumstances, permit the case to stand over till Monday,
he would be prepared with that evidence, in the absence of which
tot h et K
ewlio
nu le d.
Hb be unw
oa
ub
it
de tboe ti,obcl
eo mtheentotniewq,ultaanbleerrdoereisiniotihit w
that the Lincoln and Cambridge had been rejected last year.
rt of the promoters, objected to the proposed
the Committee should remember that it was en the same ground
Mr.DANIELLS on the-Pa
w out of the statement
mings was not alleged in his petition, but gre
he had made respecting the other petitioners. He trusted, therefore,
delay on the ground that the objection noW set forth
the statement
that the the Committee would not accede to the request of his Learned
Friend.
The room was then cleared, and on oar re-admission,
The CIIAIRMAIt announced that the Committee had determined to
adjourn till Monday next, at twelve o'clock.
The Committce then adjourned at two o'clock.

GROUP LV.
MANCHESTER AND HYDE RAILWAY.

The Committee on this group assembled at 12 o'clock, and after
much conflicting evidence it was decided that the preamble was not
proved.

MANCHESTER, MACCLESFIELD, AND
.A.SHTON-UNDER-LTNE.

After some consideration the Committee refrained from any deci-
sion on this line, but adjourned until three o'clock on Monday, when
their conclusion will be stated.

GROUP LVI.

The Committee met again at twelve o'clock, in room 29 (New
Houses of Parliament) ; Mr. Ewart in the chair. All the Members
were present.

LONDON AND CROYDON (218A1KES .TUNC-

=ON SMA.NCII).
Mr. Walker, engineer to the Admiralty, was called and examined
by Mr. Sergeant WILKINS on the part of the Surry Canal Company.
On Mr. Sergeant Wilkins putting some questions to the witness, with
reference to the docks, which forms one terminus of the proposed

nee.
Mr. RAWLINSON obj yected to an such questions, on the ground that
the dock having been abandoned as a part of the Bill was no longer
before the Committee.
The Committee cleared the room on this point, and on our return
The Caste/esti said that no such questions could be put.
Mr. sergeant Wn.xnes—Very well, sir, we will proceed With the
chain and seals without the watch.
The Learned Counsel proceeded to examine the witness as to the
mischief that would result from the line crossing the canal on a swing
bridge so near the water as that which was proposed by the pro-
moters of the Bill. The witness was of opinion that, to cross the
canal in such a manner, would be highly objectionable. Be was
cross-examined by Mr. Rawlinson on the part of the promoters.
Mr. FLIJND inquired whether the Committee were of opinion that
he was entitled to examine witnesses as to the necessity for taking
eertain property within the walls of the dockyard, and as to the cost
of such property ? If the Committee thought their d ision, tha
of t no
eteetiOns ought to be asked as to the dock, applied to the kind evi-
llyt reg aadmissible.rd thlet
dence he proposed to give, he would withdraw.
paThrt oefC4thmemir
WAS only to the evidence as to the construction of the dock itself
tateeilwawyerwe
iotfhionpitmh'oendtochakt
v‘evi...depnrocep
Mr. Allen, a surveyor at Rotherhithe, was then called, and proved
of the London and Greenwich
that in order to carry the line down to the banks of the river it
that the objection on which they had decided applied.
would be necessary to fill up a part of the dock which they must pass
ewrto,uolndecoosft
tahbeoudtirle2c,tooOrsol.
Railway, gave evidence which went to show that there was no ne-
cessity for the proposed line.
Mr. I TI
Mr. Sergeant Wudatis then rose to address the
Committee on
the part of the Surrey Canal Company. He said that
a more clumsy, ill-conceived, and incomplete plan than
this had never been submitted to a Parliamentary Committee.
It was a line which the Bill afforded no powers to make. It was to
alter and remove a bridge which it contained no powers to alter or
remove a single plank of. He, as counsel,
should advise his clients.
in case the Bill passed, to station a body of men at that bridge, who
should say, "Yon shall set touch a plank or a stick of that bridge."
Again, Mr. William Cabitt had said that, in laying down the line, he
had not contemplated the alteration in the docks, or the works
in connexion with them. klow could this be reconciled
with Mr. Benjamin Cabitt's statement, that he allowed 5,0001.
for the clearing out of the dock? How could it be
reconciled with the fact that the greater part of the Bill
referred to the dock? What was their preamble about? Docks !
docks ! docks! What were their clauses about ? Docks ! docks !
docks! what were their traffic tables—their estimates—their evi.
dence about ? Docks! And now they had " docked " their scheme
nicely. The Learned
Counsel also dwelt upon certain discrepancies be.
the statements of Messrs. Wm. and Benjamin Cnbitt and upon
t
the e nomission of coffer-dams, deck walls: purchase of certain land,
and erection of stations, from the estimates.
Upon the conclusion of Mr. Sergeant WILKINS'S speech,
Mr. Poway said that he had to withdraw the opposition or the

Bermondsey, Rotherhithe, and Deptford-road Trustees, as regarded
Trundley-lane, and that the opposition of the Haberdashers Company
was also withdrawn, both parties having been satisfied by a clause
which was to be inserted in the Bill. As far as the opposition had
reference to Grove-street. it depended en the result of certain nego-
tiations with the Admiralty. If the latter were satisfied with the
result of those negotiations, his clients would be satisfied also.
Mr. Ramartsobt then replied to the speech of Mr. Wilkins. He
pointed out the fact that the Bill had now no opponent but the
Canal Company, and that all the persons whose land they would
traverse were in favour of the scheme. It was not necessary to
remove the existing bridge over the canal if the proprietors of the
canal were anxious that it should remain, as the new bridge could
be built without touching the old one.
On the conclusion of the Learned Counsel's address, the Committee
ordered the room to be cleared, and after a consultation of less than
a quarter of an hour, announced their opinion that the preamble (as
amended) was proved.

The clauses were then read : several new ones were introduced, of
which one was to give the power to cross Grove-lane on a level ;
another was to carry the railway over the road of Trundley-lane,
which was originally proposed to be crossed on a level. Some dispute
arose as toiwbether there should be one or two side arches for foot pas-
sengers. It was ultimately deeided that there should be but one.
The roadway in Grove-street is to be carried over the railway. It
was proposed that the breadth of this road should be 30 feet, but Mr.
Power represented that the trustees had it in contemplation to turn
this street into a turnpike-road, and that it was necessary for this
purpose that its breadth should be at least 40 feet. The Committee,
after much discussion, determined to insert the clause as it stood
The remaining clauses occupied the Committee up to a quarter to
dye o'clock, at which hour they adjourned till Monday at 12 o'clock.

STANDING ORDERS' COMMITTEES.
HOUSE 4 ,F COMMONS.
This Committee re-assembled yesterday at two o'clock, and de-
cided that the Bill for the
DUNDEE AND ARBROATH RAILWAY, EXTENSION
should be allowed to proceed.
SCOTTISH CENTRAL RAILWAY.
This case was called on twice, but the parties were not in at-
tendance.
MANCHESTER, BOLTON, AND BURY CANAL NAVIGATION
AND RAILWAY EXTENSION.
Standing orders in this case not dispensed with.
MIDLANDS RAILWAY.
Allowed to proceed.—The Committee then adjourned.

Y PALIAMENAR BUSINESS.
(From the Votes and Pr T
oceedings of the House of ammons.;
TIILTIOSDAY, MAY 21.

RAILWAYS.
Select Committee on Group No. 39.
lion. H. Liddell discharged ; Mr. avett selected, and appointed
Chairman of the Committee.
Select Committee on Group No. 53.
sir A. Brooke discharged ; Mr. Clayton selected, and added to the
Committee.
The following Members have been added to the panel for the week
commencing Monday, June 8 :
Sir R. Ferguson, Mr. Roche, Sir J. Lowther, and Lard A. Churchill.
The Committee of Selection have appointed the Select Committees
on the Groups Sos. 42, 47, 48, 51, 58, 60, and 65, to meet in the week
commencing Monday, June 15.

MIDLAND AND EASTERN COUN-
TIES RAILWAY COMPANY. SPECIAL
MEETING.
A special meeting of this Company took place yesterday at
the London Tavern, in compliance with the standing orders
of both Houses of Parliament; Mr. Cobbold in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN explained the objects of the meeting, and
stated that his opinion was, that the line was most profitable.
Mr. LECHMERE objected strongly to its being proceeded
with. The conduct of the directors, who had sanctioned
the most extravagant expenditure, was most im-
proper ; a number of provisional committeemen who
had received shares, had not paid upon them,
except by cheques which had not passed into the
banker's hand. These notes could not be taken, as it was
imperative by the sessional orders that they should have
been paid upon. The engineering expenses were exceedingly
heavy-6,9171. was an extravagant price. The solicitor's
bill was exceedingly heavy-3,5001. was an enormous expense.
Several other proprietors expressed their strong objection
to the scheme being proceeded with.
The CHAIRMAYI said that they had signed the deed for the
benefit of the Company when the shares were at the greatest
possible ,depression, and had therefore rendered themselves
liable to an enormous amount of money, and surely it would
not be fair to come to a hasty decision without giving the
directors time to show the charges brought against them were
not false, and until they could justify the items objected to.
A long desultory discussion arose as to whether there
should be further discussion or not, and whether a committee
should be appointed to investigate the charges, or whether
they should dissolve.
Mr. A. RANSOME said that he did not come into the direc-
tory till a late period, and he, though holding shares
in a great number of lines, had never sold a
share in his life, with the exception of five
Eastern Counties' shares. Ho therefore was not a very in-
terested party, and he had only joined the line because he
believed it would confer great advantages on the country
through which it passed, and he did conscientiously believe
that it was a good concern, and would yet repay the pro-
prietary. He did hope they would allow them a full inves-
tigation, in justice to them and to themselves, and they
would appaint a committee before they would dissolve the
Company.
The meeting finally adjourned, there not being a sufficient
number of scripholders in the room to constitute it legally.
The meeting did not separate until past four o'clock.
It appeared to be the unanimous wish of the parties in the
room that the concern should be wound up.