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

GROIN' XVI.

READINS,, GUISD7 017,D, AND REIGATE
ZRANCNZS.
The Comm?ttcs nmimed tile inquiry this morning; present, Sir C.
Th'uglas (chaff rmxn), Mr. Blewitt, the lion. 0. Duncombe, and Mr.
Lockhart.
Noyes.' was recalled, and cross-exurnlned by Mr. MIL, Q.C., in
ohradder to ase.rt am whether the terms of Mr. Duneombe's resolutions
three
bees
coatilied with. It appeared that there had been originally
order trleP"oirg -which had afterwards been amalgamated. In
es
y with these resolutions, the names of the several
allotte
atn been given in the register, but not the Ofileers,

because these ceased to be officers prior to the project coming before
Parliament. The several solicitors and other parties engaged had
betel paid on the same principle.
To Mr. HOPE, Mr. Noyes replied that he had received notice of
Mr. Duncombe's resolutions on the Thursday, had attended a long
board on Friday, the returns were all ready by Saturday night, and
made to the Company on Monday morning. He then went through
the whole routine of the facts, showing that he had made all the re-
turns of the present Company, whether financial or otherwise, but
had omitted those matters which referred to the proceedings
prior to the amalgamation, because he considered them
to be non-ext.nents, and not consequently required by the Committee.
Mr. Rogers, called by Mr. HOPE, one of the joint solicitors of the pre-
sent line, stated that he had been a solicitor for the Reading and Gu ad-
t otherit wasunss an
ford line. and that the original capital had been 600,0001. In 30,000
originallyda contemplated to amalga-
mate certain number of shares
had been reserved, in consequence of communication with the Great
Westesn and the South Western Companies. They had issued
shares of of 2
lineol 'each.
some
23,000 shares, of which 19,000 had been paid upon, the deposits
paid which amounted to about 39,0001. The application for
shares amounted to a request of 150,000 shares. He confirmed
further, the evidence of Mr. Noyes respecting the amalgation
especially with respect to the balance of 21,0001., handed over
from' the Reading and Reigate Company to the Reading, Guildford, and
Reigate Company, the present promoters. There was a deed of
amalgamation prepared, but there was not time to sign it previously
to the deposit of the documents.
To Mr. HOPE, on re-examination, Mr. Rogers stated that the rue-
collets were made out with a view to winding up, the usual course
being to leave the settlement of the engineers and solicitors' accounts
until the rejection or passing of the Bill.
After some conversation, Mr. HOPE proposed to call Mr. Burke,
the Parliamentary agent, but that gentleman not being able to attend,
the Learned Counsel proceeded to sum up the evidence to the committee,
and said there appeared to have been three Companies, the London
and Brighton Company having projected a line between Reigate and
Dorking. This had also been done by the South-Eastern Company.
Between this Company and the present promoters there had been
an amalgamation. The two points relied upon by the opponents
were, that in the first place the directors had, contrary to the usual
plan, refrained from taking so large a share of the plunder as they
were entitled to ; and, secondly, that the names of the several parties
had not been put in, as required by Mr. Duncombe's resolutions and
the Joint-stock Act. There had been but one Com-
pany from the first, and his only regret was that
the full circumstances had not been stated to the
Committee, in the first instance, for two days' examination might
thus have been saved, and the Company would have stood in a bet-
ter position that it did now. The Learned Gentleman then went
through the facts alluded to in the several reports which have ap-
peared In The Sun. It appeared the almost invariable practice in
the two companies to put clauses in their deeds, giving powers of
amalgamation, which is most cases were acted upon. The points
to be considered were, that the original capital should be
800,0001., with power to increase the amount to 1,208,0001., with
authority to raise any inferior amount of capital. Thus
they might fix the number of shares and raise the capi-
tal; and then increase the slumber of the one, and raise the amount
of the other. Then there was the power to enter into arrangements
either with landowners or with parties engaged in other Companies,
either temporarily or in perpetuity, and subject to such conditions as
they thought fit. Under those powers he held the authority to be
perfectly clear to amalgamate, and merge, and engage with other
companies. This was the custom in all railway companies. They
had again the right to admit other shareholders into their company,
and under these powers they had entered into arrangements with
the Reading and Reigate Company, to admit the share-
holders and allottees into their body. This was the admission
of the proprietors in a dissolving or dissolved company,
Such was the case with the present promoters. Then with respect
to the Reading and Reigate Company, these were, under clauses
three and four, corresponding powers given to the provisional
directors of that Company. Then under clause 24 power was given
to the directors to enter into any arrangement with other Companies
for the sale, lease, or amalgamation of the line. The powers were
correspondent between the two companies, and these powers ap-
peared to have been made to meet the objections that might be
raised on the amalgamation with 'other companies. Then there
was power to vary or abandon the undertaking. Under
clause 28 there was the power to pay the clerks, and all
other subordinates, whether of their own company, or of any
company with which they might amalgamate. Ile dwelt on this
because his Learned Friend (Mr. Hill) had dwelt on this as being
altogether a fictitious power; but he (Mr. Hope) must positively
declare that there was every right between partnerships to unit:
under the provisions of the several Acts. And if his Learned
Friend denied this right, he must trouble him to cite the Act and
the case on which he relied. It should be observed that, after the
amalgamation, there had been a general meeting of the share-
holders held, in which the terms were clearly and definitively ap-
proved. The whole of the affair had been managed so as to make it lite-
rally and legally correct. The question, therefore, was one which re-
spected either the strict law of the case, or the bona fides of the partcs.
Before the Standing Orders Committee the rule was one of strict law.
In either view the promoters contended that they were correct and
justified. Then as regarded the trusteeship, they had never any in-
tention of concealing from Parliament that the signatures of the
directors were trust signatures. Dad they been otherwise, there
would have been an appearance of fraud, Inasmuch as it would have
seemed that the directors were signing for parties who had no right
whatever to the scrip, and that therefore those directors had been
acting simply upon selfish motives. Then as to the possession of a
larger sum than was actually necessary to meet the exigencies
of the case, he thought that this was one of the last
objections which Mr. Duncombe himself would make. The
next point was the question respecting the authority to
act under the directors of the amalgamated company,
and upon this point he might observe that the company appear in
this matter to have anticipated the resolutions of the Housetespect-
ing the disaohition or the amalgamation of companies, and had ob-
tained the authority of bath shies for the confirmation of their pro-
ceedings. It was unquestionable that the majority of the acting par-
ties were persons interested in the country through which the line
was to pass, and of undoubted wealth and respectability. As to the
difference between the large and the smaller scheme, it was one of
name only. With no exact rules to shape the evidence before Mr.
Duncombe's resolutions came out, it was impossible to tally the lisis
of the allottees and the shareholders. But this had, in fact, been
done, and all the necessary officers had been specified.
Atter reprobating the opposition as vexatious, unless a case of
Prat! had been alleged, or could be alleged, against his clients, the
Learned Gentleman concluded his observations, and was followed by
Ma. Hine, Q.C., who said that the real question was, whether the
rules of the Standing Orders' Committe had been complied with. it
was not for speculators to judge whether this or that fact should be
adduced, but it was their duty to comply with all their direc-
tions, and then it was for the judgment of Parliament to consider
whether the Bill should pass. lie would not retract what he had
said with respect to Mr. Noyes on Friday, but notwithstaeding
the ingenuity of his Honourable Friend, he still asserted that
it would be impossible to discover from the returns on the table
of the Committee that there was any such company as the Reading
and Reigate Company in existence. 'the Learned Counsel then went
through the different points of Mr. Hope's speech, especially
dweilling upon the fact that the deed of amalgamation
had not been completed, and the character of the trusteeship under
which the Provisional directors had signed the deeds. The Learned
Counsel then went at considerable length into these points, urging
that the discrepancy between the returns and the evidenee must in-
validate the claims of the promoters. Ile then read the clause of
the Reading and Reigate deed to prove-that the promoters were pre-
vented front amalgamating with other companies, except the Lon-
don and Croydon Company, and others also, and contended on that
ground that the directors had no general power of amalgamation
with other companies.

_.—.
After proceeding at considerable length, it was announced that
the Speaker was at prayers, and the Committee adjourned till to-
morrow at twelve.

•
GI:OUP XVIII.
The following Bills arc comprised in this group :
Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth.
Loudon, Newbury, and Bath.
London and Salisbury and Yeovil Junction (two
Exeter, Yeovil, and Dorchester.
Exeter Great Western.
London and South-Western (Basingstoke to Salisbury).
Some: setshire Midland.
The Committee to whom they had been referred met this after-
noon in Committee-room No. 35, present Mr. B. Dennison (in the
chair). General Evans, Mr. Redhead Yorke, Mr. Hamilton, Hon. G.
Fitzwilliam.

. SOMEESETSHIR.E MIDLAND.
The formal proofs were gives► with respect to this Bill, but the
flirther hearing of it.was adjourned until to-morrow.

GROUP XXVII.
This Committee re-assembled this morning at the usual hour; Sir
Charles Lemon in the chair.
NOR.TII STAFFORDSHIRE (THREE LINES).
The several clauses of this Bill were then gone into seriatim.
Mr. IVaaaLN, on the part of the trustees of the Burslem and New-
castle Turnpike Road, opposed the clause by which it was proposed
that the railway should cross that road on the level.
After hearing evidence on the point, the Committee decided that a
clause should be introduced, compelling the Company to erect a foot-
bridge over the railway.
The remainder of the day was occupied in going through the other
clauses of the Bill, which, with some alterations and amendments,
were eventually agreed to.
The Committee then adjourned.

GROUP .X.-XX.
This Committee assembled at the usual hour; present, Lora C.
Wellesley (chairman) and the other Members.

CAMBRIDGE AND OXFORD.
It was stated by Counsel that the opposition to this Bill was with-
drawn on the part of Trinity College, Cambridge, and that the only
opposition now remaining was on the part of the Duke of Bucking-
ham and the competing line.

Mr. Denton, surveyor, was cross-examined by Mr. WILLS, on the
part of the Aylesbury and Thame Railway—Did not know the depth
of soil for the spoil. Made an estimate for the spoil of 1001. per
acre. No one assisted him in laying out the line, except Mr. Locke.
Did not make any agreement with landowners on behalf of the
Company in any case for more than 2501. an acre.
Did not know that any parties were holding out up to last Friday
for 5001. an acre.

Mr. J. Washford examined—Valued the land along the line from
Oxford to Luton. The line did not inflict any injury on property in
the neighbourhood.

Cross-examined by Mr. CALCILAFT—The average he made of the
property was 2001. an acre. Had nothing to do with the spoil.
A rather lengthened discussion ensued between the Counsel, as to
whether witnesses to traffic should be produced and cross-examined,
which ended in the room being cleared.
The (Automat.; (on our re-admission) said, the Committee ending
that they had full discretionary powers given them by Parliament in
this matter, had come to the determination of hearing the examina-
tion, cross-examination, and re-examination of Mr. Pilcher on this
question. They would then consider whether they should take fur-
ther evidence with reference to this point.
The Committee having heard the evidence of Mr. Beard, steward
to the AtMe of Buckingham, who stated that the proposed railway
would be injurious to that nobleman's property, adjourned till to-
morrow to give time for the production of the necessary witnesses as
to traffic who were not in attendance.

GROUP XXXIV.
The Committee to whom the Bills in this group are referred met this
morning, at twelve o'clock.

The members composing this Committee were, the Honourable
Mr. Cowper, Lord Duncan, Montague Gore, Esq., D. Davies, Esq.,
S. Walpole, Esq.
The CHAIRMAN announced, at the commencement of the business
that the Committee were of opinion that the preamble of the Great,
Grimsby and Sheffield Extension Railway was proved, and
further stated that it was their intention to hear evidence as to
the Hall and Lincoln limo proposing to cross the Humber at Market
Raisin, as the Committee considered it advisable to grant two lines
for the accommodation of the district in question.
This suggestion having been agreed to, witnesses were called to
give evidence upon this point.
Mr. Pryine, late M.P. for Cambridge, was the first witness called,
who had been in the habit of staying for a period of three or four
weeks in the year at Hull, and said this line was one of great im-
portance, and was supported by sonao of the most wealthy and influen-
tial inhabitants of Hull.

HULL AND LINCOLN DIRECT.
Several other witnesses were called, who all agreed that the line
of railway would open up a portion of the country rich in mineral
and other produce.
The Committee adjourned at 4 o'clock to 12 o'clock to-morrow.

UP XXXVw
The Committee met this GROUP
day at telvell. o'clock, In Room 21 ; pre-
sent, Lord Seymour (chairman), Mr. F. French, Lord Edwin 11111,
Sir J. Lopez, and Lord Ebrington.
They resumed the consideration of the

SHEFFIELD, ROTHERHAM, BARNSLEY.
I.V.S.RE,PIELD, HUDDERSFIELD, AND
GOOLE.
Captain Lawes, who was examined on Friday In favour of the
Bill, was now cross-examined by Mr. PICKERING, on the part of the
opponents.
Mr. Leman, the solicitor to the Company, was examined at con-
siderable length, by Mr. TALBOT, in relation to an agreement en-
tered Into by this Company with the South Yorkshire Company, for
the construction of the line south of Banisley, that is to say, from the
latter town to Sheffield.
In cross-examination, by Mr. PICKERING, the witness said that
the Duke of Norfolk, Earl Fitzwilliam, Lord Wharneliffe, Lord Effing-
ham, Mr. Bennet Martin, and other landed proprietors in the southern
half of the district had petitioned Parliament against the Bill. But
the agreement with the South Yorkshire Company was the conse-
quence of that petition. The only landed proprietors on that part of
the line who continued in opposition to the Bill, were the Duke of
Norfolk and Mr. Bennet Martin, the latter, as a director of the South
which would
,vas e h
ie-
!
Yorkshire line, being in part bound by the agreement to support this
noferithtse
V
Bill in every stag,e. The agreement bears date of this day, May 4,1846,
Some
ffurromthethregenproeporelsedevlldinereicbeyasthte potehomebee
kshaw was called to give the usual engineering evidence,
which occupied
the Committee up to four o'clock, at which hour they
adjourned.
tderederivedinto, and
Mr. Haw