The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-16 00:00:00

OELKIIADI CANAL•

---
On this Bill being brought under the consideration of the Com-
mittee, Mr. Hawley, the chairman of the canal company was called,
who stated that the Midland Company had last year agreed to
purchase the canal, with a view to its adoption as a part of their
line. Since then, however, a more advisable route had been ascer-
tained, which runs throngh the estate of Lord Harborough. The
canal consequently had become comparatively useless to the
Midland Counties Company, but as their line would ruin the canal,
the Company had still to abide honourably by their bargain. The
canal consists of .521 shares, of 130/. each. In 1814 a dividend of 2/,
per share had been paid. The whole amount of dividend, in conse-
quence of the cessation from business since 1814, had been only 1
per cent. The witness then generally testified to the traffic on the
canal.

Mr. PAGZT cross-examined, but the testimony elicited was all con-
firmatory of the previous statements of the witness.
The Committee adjourned a little after four o'clock till twelve to-
morrow.

GROUP LXI.

The Committee, comprising Sir John Duckworth (chairman), Capt.
Boldero, Mr. Philpotts, the Hon. Thomas Vesey, and Mr. Walker,
assembled at one o'clock, when, after a long dispute as to which case
Should be t tken first,

Mr. ANDREWS opened the case of the Monkland and Kirkintilloch
Railway Company, the object of whose Bill is to purchase the Glasgow
Garnkirk and Coatbridge Extension Railway. The last railway was
before Parliament in 1844, when it was opposed by the Monkland
and Kirkintilloch Company, in consequence of a portion of the line
running parallel with its own line. The object of this Bill was to
carry out the agreement entered into by a e.lause of the Act for making
the Glasgow, Garnkirk, and Coatbridge Railway, which provides that
the Monkland and Kirklntilloch Railway shall have a right of purchase
within one year after the opening of the railway just named, pro-
vided they were ready to give 30,0001. for the property. A power of
purchase was also reserved to the Wishaw and Coltness
Railway. The latter Company oppose the purchase, as
also do the Caledonian Company, the Caledonian Com-
pany having obtained a right to traverse both the Monkland
and Kirkintilloch Railway and the Wishaw and Coltness Railway.
It was alleged that there was to be an amalgamation of the Edin-
burgh and Glasgow and the Monkland and Kirkintilloch Com-
panies, but this in no way affected the case or prevented the
right of the latter company to the power reserved under
the clause of the Glasgow, Garnkirk, and Coatbridge Rail-
way. The Glasgow, Airdrie, and Monkland Junction runs
into the east of Glasgow, and is promoted by the Monkland and
Kirkintilloch Company, at least is leased to them, and is to be
worked by them. If the extension of the Garnkirk, Glasgow, and
Coatbridge were to pass from the hands of his clients the Wishaw
and Coltness traffic would have to pass over two other lines of
railway, while if it were to be given to those whom he represented
it would pass only over one property. An additional reason is given
in the superiority of the stations, which will give a peculiar advan-
tage. But he principally relied upon the right of purchase upon
which he had opened, and he thought the Caledonian Company could
not make out the shadow of a case. Beside the petition of the
Glasgow, Garnkirk, and Coatbridge Company, there are the petition
of Thomas Houldsworth, Esq., and other landowners ; but he be-
lieved that their opposition would be of no avail.
The Learned Counsel then put in the several documents, when
The CHAIR AN stated that there had been but little experience of
the effect of Mr. Duncombe's resolutions, and he was therefore
doubtful whether there should not be a power to revise the rates;
but it was ultimately decided that the question should be left.
Mr. SergeantWaaNCllAM, who appeared for the Caledonian Railway,
Company, the Glasgow, Garnkirk, and Coatbridge Company, and
for Thomas Ifouldsworth and others, examined Mr. Ady, as to the
portion of the railway that it was proposed to purchase, and his re-
plies went to prove that the lines were, if not identical, so nearly
so, that the necessity of the purchase was imperative. The maps,
however, pnt in are on so small a scale, that the actual position
of the several lines was very indistinct ; and it was agreed that
a better map should be put in. On examination it appeared that
the Ballochney, Slamannan, and the Airdrie and Monkland Junction,
and the Airdrie and Bathgate Extension, were to be amalgamated
with the Edinburgh and Glasgow Company. The whole of these
amalgamations have been agreed upon since 1844, when the Glasgow,
Garnkirk, and Coatbridge Company obtained their Bill.
On re-examination by Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS, the witness stated
that without this Bill the stations on the Edinburgh line and the
Monkland Junction line would be 'early useless. The Edinburgh
and Glasgow line is two miles longer than the Coatbridge line, and
four miles longer than the Airdrie line. Mr. Ady's was all to the
same effect, with the addition that this contested part of the rail-
way was made simply to relieve the traffic on the Monkland and
Kirkintillock line, on which at this point there is a great difficulty to
back or change the carriages.