The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-21 00:00:00

t _ _ _
'1 ;if ' „ 1,4- ta•ry a* tz• , A ,
I 011170 Af=li 0 tlt 111

A' UN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

TA-TTERSALL'S.-THIS EVENING.

GOODWOOD STAKES.
9 to 1 agst Pythia
15 to 1 agst Lightning
16 to 1 agst Rowena
16 to 1 agst Queen 3lab
16 to 1 agst Boarding-School Miss
16 to 1 agst Venus
20 to 1 agst
20 to 1 agst John o'Gaunt
20 to 1 agst Europa
20 to 1 agst Warp
20 to 1 agst Laird o'Cockpen
20 to 1 agst Miss Elis
30 to 1 agst Una.

Six o'CLocK.

GOODWOOD CUP.
6 to 1 agst Valerian
15 to 1 agst Refraction
15 to 1 ag,,,t St. Lawrenca
Foig-a-ballagh is declared not to start.
ST. LEGER.
5 to 1 agst Weatherbit
5 to 1 agst Merry Monarch
8 to 1 ag,t Mentor
'2O to 1 agst Pam

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

AND PRESTON RAILWAY.
The Committee to whom this line was referred met to-day at
el
o'clock, in No. 2., Committee-room. Present:—Lord
!n°YB, in the chair ; the Marquis of Londonderry, the Duke of
1. Lord Hay, and the Earl of Uxbridge.
.I. • Sergeant Bellasis appeared' as Counsel for the promoters of
the b•
"ill and Messrs. Wilkinson and and Lowndes on behalf of
Nave
.10Position, Sir Richard Brooke and the Trent and Mersey
igation Company.
114 r• Sergeant BELLsLis opened the case and went into very mi-
nute details to prove the great advantages which would be conferred
°4 the district by the formation of this line. As we have already
~
'Varied
the case so fully before the House of Commons Com-
mittee, we need merely say that it was a repetition of the reasons
-well were then adduced to prove its utility to the public.
Mr. Ripon, agent of the Bridgewater Navigation Company at
d. 'Corn. was examined by Mr. Sergeant Bellasis on the traffic. He
on4°,ed that 787,704 tons was the whole traffic at present on the
e, consisting of coals, salt, and crates of earthenware.
Mr. ATKINSON cross-examined this witness at considerable length.
itlIE LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN ME.

TROPOLIS EXTENSION BILL.
IMPORTANT DECISION.

theTlgaCiro.mmittee met at eleven o'clock, the Earl of Shaftesbury in
Mr HILL supported the Bill.
Samuels, carrying on business near Vauxhall-bridge, opposed
'le
Bill, on account of the injury which would Le caused to his
Property by it.
ti An arrangement, however, was entered into between the pet!.
2lier and promoters, by which ►the injury complained of might be
~,,rhe petition of Messrs. Pybus and Sheen was withdrawn, a pri-
‘,e arrangement hhving been effected between the parties.
The preamble was then declared to have been proved, and the
4tiles having been agreed to, the Committee broke up.

4/3troun, WORCESTER, AND WOLVER-
HAMPTON RAILWAY.
1p The Committee met to.day at eleven o'clock, Lord Auckland
the Chair, when the examination of witnesses on behalf of the
°PPosition was resumed.
Posed
George Bidder, civil engineer, was first called. He de.
to the general correctness of Mr. Brunel's evidence, given on
atltrday.
He was also examined on the toll clauses, which, at
the
b rates they proposed, would operate injuriously on the mineral
ef North Staffordshire. He had also examined the plans
te •
lev , sections of Mr. Brunel, and had discovered an error in the
etre+ of the line proposed from Oxford to Wolverhampton. The
of °r he referred to in the level, was a deviation in the datum line
,iteiCilt feet, from the plan lodged in the Parliamentary.office. The
was proceeding to explain the error, when
1,3 "'r• TALBOT interfered. He objected to the going into the point
h! exis ed by the witness and maintained that, even if such an error
u t, the Standing Orders Committee was the place where it
°suld have been brought forward.
to :r' Sergeant WaaNGIIAM contended that the Committee ought
hr,-,.,n,tertain the objection, and cited the Act 8 Victoria sec. 11,
i,-"ing that no line was allowed ,to deviate more than five feet
trh-pr° the datum line in the deposited plans' and sections. Even if
Cenllnittee passed the Bill, the Company could not construct the
ne with such an error.
ntqThe Committee, after a short consultation, decided that the
ding Orders Committee was the proper tribunal for hearing
Poin an abjection, and refused to hear further evidence on the
roZir• Nichol Bidder, civil engineer, was briefly examined, in cor.
r tion of Mr. Stephenson's evidence, and Mr. Main, on the po.
put
tb atien and traffic on the two lines, when Mr. Hope intimated
at this closed the case for the London and Birmingham Company.
1,11. sill . H ILL, Q.C., then rose to address the Committee against the
Pro' 011 behalf of Lord Ward. The Learned Gentleman then
l
in
e ceecl aGreat Westerh t some lengt to
would impose describe the
on incLordonvenWard's property.
ience which the
t. if ° tedehn
‘ine in question cut his estate in two, and did great injury to
e Pack, while at the same time it gave the most imperfect
aCe"llllodatiOn to his mineral produce. The main line was
R
-elerallY either above or below the level of the branch lines con.
bred with the pits and works, and between Dudley and Stour.
d;:ge it took a much inferior route for the accommo-
Z_raddressonernnof mineral traffic to the Tring line. He then
TL'es himself to the subject of tolls, contending that the Great
had broken faith with the iron.masters and mineral.
:wners of South Staffordshire, in altering their traffic clauses
they had done. Having amplified on these points, the Learned
Gentleman concluded by calling witnesses in support of his case.
_ Ur. Smith, Lord Ward's mineral agent, already examined on
behalf of the Tring line, was called to speak to the damage that
Would be done to Lord Ward's property, and as to the effect the
difference of level between the main and branch lines, the tolls,
transhipment, &c., would have on the mineral traffic.
The Committee then adjourned.

THE GLASGOW JUNCTION RAILWAY.
The Committee re.assembled at eleven this morning, when
Mr. Brunel, the engineer, was called, and stated he had ex-
amined the plan of the proposed junction line, and was satisfied of
Its practicability, and of the great service it would render to the
interests of the mercantile community of Glasgow,
With this evidence the case for the promoters was concluded.
Mr. HOPE then addressed their Lordships, in opposition,
o
behalf of the trustees of the Clyde Navigation. He
objected
to the Bill on the ground that the contemplated railway would
calY accommodate one eighth part of the traffic of Glasgow,
°f the
seven-eighths would be entirely neglected. The object
the promoters was not so much to serve the interests
of Glasgow Glasgow as to afford facilities for the conveyance of traffic
--'ning along the main line of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Rail.
pay „,The laying down of rails on the quays would cause great
"truction to the traffic of the harbour, and the mercantile bodies
et Glasgow were entirely opposed to the project. Under these
l
is he trusted the Committee would not allow the Bi
LS pan.
„4c. Russell, superintendent of the harbour at Glasgow was then
`ansined. He said he had considered the proposal of carrying
hetlte_nrailway on a level with the
.quays, and thought that it would
E„ `angerous to passengers coming from and going to the vessels in
''"e habour, and would also occasion obstruction to the traffic.
ery person with whom he had conversed on the subject enter-
'neel a similar opinion.
denPi onston, sailing harbour-master, corroborated the evi-
ce of the previous witness.
rildr• Potter, merchant and shipping agent in Glasgow, was next
,-a coined. He said that the harbour was not sufficient for the ac-
;!elnodation of the trade. He had sometimes counted no less than
t'`o vessels in it, six of which would be loading or unloading to-
ether. He thought that having railway carriages on the quays
Il.olfid occasion considerable danger to the passengers, and inconve-
eince to the traffic. He was sure that to send his goeds by the
tar,--Way svotild cost him more money than at present. He did not
-"ashler the line would afford the least accommodation for the trade
Of Giogow
111Ity. , and that was the opinion of the entire mercantile com-
The Committee then adjourned till eleven to.morrow morning.
441811 GREAT WESTERN (DUBLIN AND
GALWAY) RAILWAY.
The Committee met at eleven o'clock, in the Lord Chancellor's
( consisting of the following Members : Lords Bathurst
'an), Lilford, Calthorpe, Wynford, and Forester.
Cal"
the • Al
exander, Q.C., appeared on behalf of the promoters of
kti Als
o• Rowe for Mr. P. James Pym, a banker in Dublin, and a
ironer against the Bill.
The first question raised was, whether or not the Committee
4thhoul first procecd to investigate the merits of the case, and hear
at:a Prornoters, or go on into the case of the petitioner, Mr. Pym,
theezarnine into the report of a Select Committee of the House
' which had been appointed to inquire if the promoters of
lent had complied with the standing orders, and if any fraudu-
mprraalces had taken place.
• Atex ANDER contended that the promoters should be al-
"wtedi to proceed with the case in the usual manner.
called on the other side, protested against this course, and
e,the Committee, in the first instance, to inquire into
Wh."k"egations contained in the report of the Select Committee, of
chaT" Lerd Besborough was at the head, and to investigate the
,rres Lev h
petition of Mr. Pym.
sue 'e Committee retired to consider what course they should pur-
They returned into Court in a few minutes, when
she Noble CHAIRMAN said they would first inquire into the re-
port the Select Committee.
Mr' ltewa called upon the other side to produce and prove the
contract deed.
iiir• ALEXANDER declined doing so. The allegations of fraud
that,:t been made by the other side, and, by all the rules of evidence,
vIYI were bound to go into proof of them.
r. R°wE—But we have not the contract deed.
sary_oiser.
nr.
AL2xaNnEa—That is not my fault ; it is in the Parliamen.
Mr. Row
E--I be your pardon, it is not.
ALEX
—There is a copy of it (handing it to counsel).
Me,
Ro
,r WE—You will now prove it.
was sufficient.
submit we are not called upon to do so.
he Committee decided that at present the production of the
tpheeete:irlti?sv.
after some further discussion, opened the case for the
T' he history of the Bill was a very singular one. In
„ House of Commons the Bill had been rejected by
4'll Staading Orders' Committee on a variety of allege-
210°. In the ordinary course cf things, the Bill could s be proceeded with, but Mr. Fitzstephen French, a Member of
the House of Commons, and one of the most active of the pro.
t Oera of the Bill, brought the matter before the House of Corn.
:ite,ss and moved that the matter might be referred to a Com-
thatce of the House for inquiry, and, contrary to all precedent,
Motion was agreed to. The Bill having, by this means,
pis motion
through the Committee, was referred to their Lordships'
.?otise, The Bill came before the Standing Orders' Committee of
LeoenHoase of Lords on the 7th of July. On the Bth of the same
th the petition of the Grand Canal Company against the Bill
the petition
to be presented. The Grand Canal, as it is called,
nalvverses Ireland from east to west, and is a great public
Iii111°"1 work.
This Important Company was opposed to the
tai „ n
_ Their ptition was drafted, and the last day for presentation, etlSth day, ofe July, came, when suddenly a notice came that cer.
ZDirectors of that Company, who acted without the con.
notoence of the great body of the shareholders, had entered
sum'
e._ a cornpromise with the promoters of the Bill, and, for th
Sitio of ten thousand pounds, had ag
om reed to withdraw all oppo-
e
n' Mr. Pynn being a large shareholder in the Grand Canal
any, and averse to the Bill, was taken by surprise, but still
kreli3ved upon giving it all the legitimate opposition in his power.
Yrn, ten presented a petition to the Standing Orders' Corn-
tilitset, praying
for time to present another which would detail at
.Lea_ltth the grounds of his opposition. lie said he was prepared to
t'lliteyte that the standing orders had not been complied wi(1),
b,,„„ forgery had taken place, and that other frauds had
,-_-_coanitted. This petition was taken into consideration ; and,
"the following Thursday, the Duke of Richmond moved the ay.
Pointment of a Select Committee, of which Lord Besborough was
m
lb* bead, to inquire into the allegations of these petitions. The

report of this Committee contained several allegations of gross im-
propriety, but that to which he would immediately call their attention
was, that a large number of the signatures to the contracVng deed
were fictitious and forged. The law required that three-fourths
o fthe capital should at least belong to parties signing the contract-
ing deed. The capital was said to be 1,080,000/. The deed of
contract showed signatures to the amount of 819,5001., being, in
fact, 9,5001. more than the law required. He would call abundant
evidence to show that several of these signatures were fictitious,
and that, in point of fact, nothing like three-fourths of the
signatures were genuine. The Learned Counsel then read a body
of evidence, from which it appeared that in many instances the
names of persons as shareholders had been forged, whilst in others
men of no substance had been represented as subscribers to a very
large amount. In one case a parish pauper, Margaret Meredith,
was represented on the contract di eJ, as a subscriber to the amount
of 3,5004, and as having paid 1701. into the bank. He likewise
read from the evidence before Lord Besborough's Committee se-
veral false places of abode : one of these " men of straw"
had the address " House of Commons" affixed to his name.
It was further stated by the Learned Counsel, but denied on the
other side, that on Christmas-day the promoters of this scheme
kept an office open in London and were actually receiving shares
and transacting business on that day. He quoted the evidence
given before the same Committee to show that in numerous
cases the names of shareholders had been forged to the
deed for various sums, or fictitious places of abode given, or both.
He mentioned the names of a clergyman of the Church of England
for 1,5001.; Mr. Eastgate, 1,2501. ; Vincent Allpipe, 5001.; John
Emanuel, 750/. ; and John H. Lowe, 1,2501. On the whole, he
summed up fictitious subscriptions to the amount of 35,0001.,
which would invalidate the contract deed. Some of the largest
subscribers to the deed were mere hired officials. The clerk to the
secretary, by name Charles Freeman, a person not worth 2001. in
the world, was put down as a shareholder to the amount of 10,0001.
He could prove cases of insolvencies, &c., to the amount of
120,000/., besides the cases of absolute fraud, but he trusted their
Lordships would consider it unnecessary in him to go into the case
at such length.
The CHAIRMAN—I told the Learned Counsel he must take his
own course.

Mr. Rowe proceeded with his case, and went into other evi.
dence, given before Lord Besborough's Committe, of a like
nature. He concluded by calling on the Committee to
quash the Bill, and not allow so dangerous a precedent to
be established as that which would be infallibly set up by
going into the merits of the Bill itself, after demonstrating the frau-
dulent manner in which the scheme itself had been originated and
supported.
The Learned Counsel was proceeding to call witnesses in sup-
port of the Bill, but it was found that they had not been sworn.
Their Lorships adjourned till to-morrow morning, at eleven.

LONDONDERRY AND COLERAINE LINE.
The Committee on this Bill, consisting of Lord Skelmersdale
(chairman), Lord Strangford, Lord Carrington, Earl Fitzharding,
and the Earl of Munster, met this morning at eleven, when, Mr.
Hill the counsel for the Bill not being present,

The CHAIRMAN ordered that the room be cleared, in order that
the Committee might consult as to what course should next be
taken. On our re.admission,
The CHAIRMAN said that Committee had come to a resolution
that the solicitor for the Bill should be desired to open the case,
but that as Mr. Hill and Mr. James, who appeared for the pro-
moters of the Bill, were now present, the business could procced as

usual.
Mr. HILL objected to the appearance of counsel on the part of
Mr. Dinsdale, a petitioner against the line. Mr. Dinsdale, he
said, had appeared before the Committee of the House of Commons,
and before the Standing Orders' Committe of the House of Lords,
and in each case it had been decided that he had no locus standi. The
land through which the line passed was a "slob," or piece of un-
reclaimed land, which had been the joint property of the petitioner
and a Mr. Robertson, up to the year 1841, when it had been
divided between them. Some time after this, Mr. Dinsdale sold
a part of his slob to Mr. Hemings, who was one of the supporters
of the Bill, but reserved to himself 100 acres. The land which
he had reserved was one acre and a half from the proposed line. This
Bill was for a double purpose : its nominal object was only to make
a line; but the embankment which would be necessary for
the line would keep the water from the land, and se help to re-
c.aim the 100 acres of slob which belonged to Mr. Dinsdale. It
was quite clear from this, that the petitioner's land would not only
not be crossed by the line, but would not even be injured by it,
and therefore that he could not appear before the Committee.
Mr. BUTT, who appeared for Mr. Dinsdale, replied, on the part
of that gentleman. There were three grounds on which Mr.
Dinsdale claimed to appear before the Committee. The line
would certainly not cross his property, but it would shut him
out from the sea. At present his land was bounded by the sea,
but if this line were made, the nearest shore accessible to him
would be at the distance of a mile and a half. It was not the
line which would be that distance from him, but the sea. This
would injure his property by depriving him of a ready
means of shipping agricultural produce. But this was
not the strongest ground on which he claimed to be heard ; there
were two others much stronger. At the time when the land was
divided between Mr. Dinsdale and Mr. Robertson, the Bally-Kelly
Canal, which passed through it, was taken as the boundary. But
the canal did not divide the land equally, and it was therefore
agreed that arbitrators should be employed to decide which was
the greater of the two parts, and that they should be empowered
to take a portion of the larger from the holder, and add it to the
smaller property, in order to equalise them. These arbitrators
had not yet come to any decision about it, and as Mr. Dins.
dale's property was, as he could prove, by far the smallest, some
portion of the property of Mr. Robertson must be attached to it at
a future time. The railway would pass through the property of
Mr. Robertson, and the land through which it passed might be the
very land which might be given to Mr. Dinsdale by the arbi-
trators. Mr. Dinsdale had not sold his interest in this land ; for
in selling the land which he did possess, he could not sell that
which he did not. The third ground on which he claimed a locus
standi was, that there was a clause in the agreement made
when the land was divided—there was a clause to the effect that
if any portion of the property of one party was unreclaimed on the
7th of June, 1846, it should become the property of the other.
Now, a large proportion of Mr. Robertson's land, through which
this line would pass, was still unreclaimed. and if unreclaimed on
the 7th June next would become the property of Mr. Dinsdale.
On these three grounds, therefore, he (Mr. Butt) claimed to be
heard on the part of the petitioner.
Mr. JAMES replied on ►he part of the promoters of the line, and
The room was cleared by order of the CHAIRMAN. The Coro.
mitee having consulted for a short time, we were re.admitted, and
The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee could not admit the op-
position on the part of Mr. Dinsdale, but were of opinion that a
clause ought to be inserted in the Bill to protect him from injury.
It was then a quarter past one o'clock, and the Committee ad-
journed till three.

On the re-assembling of the Committee at three o'clock,
Mr. BUTT proposed a clause for the protection of the rights of
his client, Mr. Dinsdale, which was agreed to after some discussion.
Mr. Turner, the solicitor for the line, then said that there was
but one witness whom it would be necessary to call to prove the
preamble of the Bill.
Mr. William Leathern, merchant at Derry, spoke to the truth of
the statements contained in the preamble of the Bill.
The Committee then declared the preamble to be proved, after
which they separated at a quarter before Four o'clock.

WAKEFIELD, PONTEFRACT, AND GOOLE
RAILWAY.

The Committee re. assembled at eleven this morning, Lord Mont-
eagle in the chair.
The opponents of the Bill proceeded to call further evidence
against the direct line from Goole to Wakefield.
Mr. Birkenshaw, civil engineer, had examined the proposed line
and the opposing project by Brayton, and he considered that though
the latter was three miles and three-quarters longer, yet the gra-
dients being so much better, trains would be enabled to run in the
same time with the other. The steepest gradient was lin 330,
while on the other, or direct line, the steepest was 1 in 150.
Neither did he think the estimate of 360,0001. sufficient to make
the line. That only gave 16,0001. per mile for construction, which
he thought was totally inadequate. The estimate for the Brayton
branch was under 9,0001.
Mr. HILDYARD was preparing to examine the witness on the part
of Mr. Smith, an opposite landholder, with respect to the merits of
some line not before the Committee, when
Mr. WILKINs objected, and after some arguments pro and con,
The CHAIRMAN decided that the examination should not be pro-
ceeded with.
• •

The witness was then examined generally as to the practica •
bility of a better line being formed from Wakefield to Goole. He
had advocated a line before the Commons, which was shorter,
cheaper, and more level than the other, and it seemed to him that it
was scarcely possible to lay down a worse line than that which had
been adopted.
The witness was subsequently cross-examined at great length
by Mr. WILKINS, with respect to the minor details.
Mr. T. L. Gooch corroborated the last witness.
Mr. Swanick and Mr. M'Connell supported the same line of evi.
dence.
Mr. Robert Stephenson gave similar evidence. The improve.
ments in locomotives were neutralised by the adoption of steep
gradients, so that, in fact, as far as mere quickness of transit went,
they were in the same position that they had been ten years before.
Their Lordships then adjourned till to-morrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
GROUP X.

DIRECT NORTHERN LINE-PARRINGDON-

STREET EXTI.INSION.

The Committee met this day shortly after twelve. Members
present—Viscount Courtenay (Chairman), Mr. Darby, Mr. Scrope,
and Mr. B. Wall.
Mr. Sergeant WRANGIIAM then commenced to sum up the evi-
dence adduced on behalf of the London and York line. He said
that he congratulated the Committee on the important event that
had taken place, via , that after having travelled in the wilderness
for seventy days, they had at length arrived nearly at the end. He
would not complain of the attacks levelled against them by Mr.
Hildyard. That gentleman had received a blow, but was not the
man to rest quiet, or not return it. They had passed through
many a peril. Attempts had been made to impugn the accuracy of
their sections, but, as he anticipated, had proved abortive; the
attack was founded upon error, and had terminated in failure.
But to proceed shortly with the main question. After a discussion
of seventy days, they were called on to decide whether the line that
he represented as the most direct, or the Farringdon-street Exten-
sion, in connexion with the Cambridge and Lincoln line, should
construct a line of railway between the metropolis and Cambridge.
It is admitted on all sides that a trunk line to the north is abso-
lutely necessary. The main question is then resolved into the one,
which company is the most fitting to construct it ? And, first,
Lord Winchilsea has transferred his favour from their opponent
to the London and York, and indeed no one could help concurring
in his evidence that the present enormous traffic of the districts
would be all forced upon the route which that Com-
pany proposed. The Midland Company appeared to fancy
that their traffic would receive a check, and viewed with an eye
of jealousy and dislike any competition in the field. Mr. Ste-
phenson, in fact, when under cross-examination admitted that his
services had been secured by the Midland Company against the
London and York Line.
Mr. WEBSTER dissented from this statement.

Sergeant WRANGHAM continued, by observing that the con-
nection between the Eastern and Midland Counties was notorious.
The London and York Company would construct its line from
Lincoln to York at 968,0001., while the Direct Northern, though
travelling over a less distance by eight miles, could not effect it
under 978,000/. Again, from London to Huntingdon
the line of rail could be completed by the London
and York for 2,100,0001., including the cost of the
London station, while the Direct Northern admitted that they
could net construct the same distance under 2,250000/. But,
commencing at the metropolis, and criticising the schemes
throughout—as to the Farringdon.street Extension, he
urged in the first place that the Committee could not pass that Bill
this session, inasmuch a; its construction depended on the authority
of two companies, three-fourths of the members of whom must sub-
scribe to its necessity. But while he contended thus,that the pi o-
ject could not be carried out in its present stage, he felt no
animosity to it, if its promoters chose to carry it into effect
without interfering with the other station at King's-cross.
If that project was considered valuable for the traffic from Cam-
bridge and Norfolk, his friends had a perfect right to his consent
to its construction, but that construction must be independent of
the station at King's.cross. With respect to the lateral opposition
which, it was asserted, the London and Yoik held out, he con-
tended that it was Mr. Hudson and his adherents that were
open to such an objection, rather than the promoters of
the direct line, and he would instance the case of the Goo e and
Wakefield line, at this moment before the consideration of Par-
liamentary Committee. The London and York line were not there
its opponents, they did not accuse it, nor were themselves accuse('
of competition, but the followers of Mr. Hudson were prosecuting
the mostvirulent resistance to it. Their computation thus remain-
ing undisputed, showed that the entire idcome desirable from the
traffic on the line would be 1,100,0001., deducting 75,0001. for the
alleged overrating in the carriage items, and 60 per cent.

for the ordinary contingent reductions, there would be
1 a 'clear return of 600,0001., giving a dividend of 9:1.1
1 per cent. on the capital of 6,500,0001. Surely, with such
a prospect of Reimbursement, the Company had sterling
reasons for raising the large capital they proposed,
and in representing their treasury as a bona
fide and inordinarily good means of investment.
Then their opponents had attempted to impugn their traffic tables,
well knowing that nothing but such a course would give them the
least chance of making out any case whatever against the London
and York. Mr. Parker, a gentleman of at least some cele.
brit), as a traffic taker, was put into the witness-
box, • and, at first, by his p'ausibility, almost terri-
fied the London and York. He adopted a system, however,
which, on cross-examination, proved so novel, shallow, and erro-
neous, as to preclude it from the danger of ever becoming
vulgar by general adoption. He had first halved all
the traffic he met with at different points, and then
doubted it, and yet affected that by these means lie halved
the traffic anticipated by the London and York, who took the
entire without increase or reduction 1 The gentleman had for-
gotten that once one was exactly the same as, and no more than,
half two.—(A laugh.) Nevertheless by some unintelligible
contrivance a reduction of 75,0004 was made by Mr. Parkes in
the computed traffic of the London and York. His Learned
Friend, Mr. Hild„ard, had, however, thought it more cxi edient
and more wise to omit all mention of that reduction in
the speech with which he closed his case, even -in neg-
lect of the challenges of the Committee. But what was the
character of the evidence made by that eminent, honest, and un-
rivalled engineer, Mr. Cubitt, on behalf of the London and York
line ? Why, despite the array of talent and animosity apposed to
them—despite the log which the Board of Trade had, on insuffi-
cient evidence, cast around their necks—and despite the defiance
he himself had afterwards thrown out. Not one single solitary
attempt had heen made by any one party, surveyor, counsel, or
engineer, to contravert or deny it. The great features in
favour of this line he represented, might be summed
up in a few words :—there was its entire independence,
a vast and ii.valuable advantage, and one not
units of property and units of management which conduced to
convenience and economy. Another, and no slight feature in the
scale of the London and York was, that it took the old route
through every..market town between the termini: an advantage of
this kind was pre eminent, when the ancient market towns were
regarded, and the important trade concentrated there. Again, it
afforded a connexion with every single town of consequence in
the neighbourhood, affording advantages even to Wakefield as well
as York. Cambridge only bad been omitted, but the Company
had the choice of taking in either that town or Lincoln; and could
any one doubt that in selecting the latter a right judg-
ment had been evinced? The witnesses on the other
side spoke even energetica'ly of the importance of Lincoln
as an agricultural district, and one, Mr. Healy went so
far as to say, that it was the finest arable or pasture land in the
world. But if the people of Cambridge were so anxious for rail
way communication, tee London and York ;:ompany were most will.
ing, and had pledged themselves, to construct a line both with Lincoln
inter se and inter terminons. But before he sat down, he could no t
but advert to the charges proposed upon the line, charges he believed
unexampled for their lowness. First-class passengers have to be
conveyed upon the line at the rate of 2d. per mile; second class,
; and third class, ld. per mile. Bailed goods were to be carried
at 2d. per ton per mile, and coals at 3A el. per ton per mile. And
as to parcels—a department of traffic to which he wished to
cal the most particular attention of the Committee, as a
method both novel and satisfactory had been proposed—
parcels under a stone weight would be carried for sixpence, if for
a distance not exceeding twenty-five miles, for all other distances
over that there would be one uniform charge of one shilling,
Len .fits to the neighbourhood which could scarcely ba
over-rated. Such were the advantages which this Company pos..
messed over its rivals, he had never done his duty to
his clients, and the Committe and he now closed the
case with confidence and satisfaction, because he believed that no
other course could be adopted by the Committee than to
grant the preamble of the Bill which he represented, inas-
much as it was calculated above all others to extend social and
moral improvement, to spread prosperity throughout the cnuntry,
" to bless her fields with increase, and satisfy her poor with bread."
The Learned Counsel sat down amidst a slight demonstration of
applause, which was, however, immediately checked.
Mr. Wells, on behalf of the Cambridge and Huntingdon line,
having enquired if the Committee could name a day when that Bill
could be proceeded with ?
'llse Chairman and his colleagues withdrew, to consider when
their decision on the lines already discussed would be given. After
an absence of some few minutes,
The CHAIRMAN said that as the subjects for investigation were
very lengthened, and would take some time fully to deliberate on,
the Committee would adjourn till two o'clock on Wednesday, but
without pledging themselves to give their decision then.
The Committee then adjourned.

RAILW AY COMMITTEES.

(SATURDAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
con.NNATALX.
(Continued from our Third Edition of Saturday.)
Mr. MONTAGUE SMITH followed for the promoters in reply.
The Committee retired shortly before nine o'clock to consider
their decision. On their Lordships' return,
The Noble CHAIRMAN intimated that the Committee were of
opinion that the construction of a railway from Plymouth to Fal-
mouth, with a branch to Bodmin, would be of great public ad.
vantage. But they were also of opinion, that wit hout a further
and more a _curate survey, with the view to procure gradients of a
more favourable character, and to avoid, if possible, the crossing
of the Hamoaze, the Bill should not now be further proceeded
with.
The announcement was received with cheers on the part of the
opponents, which were instantly checked.

MPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
ROYAL ASSENT.

The Royal Assent was given to-day, at a quarter before five
o'clock, by Commission, to no less than ninety-three Bilis,
among which were—the Assessed 'faxes Composition 13111,
Sir Henry Pottinger's Annuity Bill, the Timber Ships Bill,
the Oaths Dispensation Bill, West India Islands Relief Bill,
Seal-office Abolition Bill, Museums of Art. Bill, Public Mu-
seums Bill, Canal Companies Carriers Bill, Dog Stealing
Bill, Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Bill, Infef-
ment (Scotland) Bill, Banking (Scotland) Bill, Statute
Labour ( Scotland) Bill, Arrestment of Wages (Scotland)
Bill, Schoolmasters (Scotland) Bill, Banking (Ireland)
Bill, Constables Public Works (Ireland) Bill, London
and Greenwich Railway Bill, Belfast and Ballymena
Railway Bill, North British Railway Bill, Lan-
caster and Carlisle Railway Bill, York and North Midland
Railway ( Harrogate Branch) Bill, the North Woolwich
Railway Bill, the Guildford Junction Railway Bill, the Water-
ford and Kilkenny Railway Bill, the Exeter and Crediton
Railway Bill, the Bridgewater Navigation and Rail-
way Bill, the Sheffield and Rotherham Railway Bill,
the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway Bill, the Newcastle and
Darlington Railway Bill ( I3randling Junction), the Southamp-
ton and Dorchester Railway Bill, the Eastern Union Railway
Bill, the Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway
Bill (Cumneck Branch), the Dundalk and Ennis-
killen Railway Bill, the Eastern Union (Bury St.
Edmunds) Railway Bill, the Londonderry and Ennis-
killin Railway Bill, the Chester and Birkenhead Rail-
way Bill, the Whitehaven and Furness Railway Bill,
the Manchester, Bury, and Rossendale Railway Bill,
the Great North of England and Richmond Rail-
way Bill, the Blackburn and Preston Railway Bill,
the Leeds and T hit sk Railway Bill, the Hudders-
field mid Manchester Railway Bill, the North %,‘ ales
Railway Bill, the Taw Vale Railway and Dock Bill, the
Manchester and Birmingham Railway (Ashton branch) Bill,
the Ashton, Staleybridge, and Liverpool Junction Railway
Bill, the Eastern Counties Railway Bill (Ely and Whittlesea
Deviation), the Manchester South Junction and Altrincham
Railway Bill, the Trent Valley Railway Bill, the London
and Brighton Railway ( Horsham Branch) Bill, the Ulster
Railway Extension Bill, the North
and,
Mineral Railway
Bill, the North Union and Ribble Navigation
Branch Railway Bill, the St. Helen's Canal and
Railway Bill, the Great North of England Railway Bill,
( Hartlepool Branch), the Great Western Railway (Ireland)
Bill (Dublin to Mulingar and Athlone), the Cockerrnouth and
Workington Railway Bill, the Richmond ( Surrey) Railway
Bill, the Cork and Bandon Railway Bill, the Liverpool
and Manchester Railway Bill, the Great Sou-
thern and Western (Ireland) Railway Bill, the Pres-
ton and Wyre Railway Bill, the L 3 nn and Dereham
Railway Bill, the Middlesborough and Redcar Railway Bill, the
Dublin and Drogheda Railway Bill, the Newry and Ennis-
killen Railway Bill, the Dublin and Belfast Railway
Bill, the Waterford and Limerick Railway Bill, the
Glossop Gas Bill, the ,Glasgow Bridges Bill, the Totness
Markets and Waterworks Bill, the Wolverhampton Water-
works Bill, the Lyme Regis Improvement Market] and
Waterworks Bill, the Dundee Waterworks Bill, the
Blackburn Waterworks Bill, the Hartlepool Pier and Port
Bill, the Kendal Reservoirs Bill, the Manchester Improve-
ment Bill, the Chelsea Improvement Bill, the Belfast Improve-
ment Bill, the Agricultural and Commercial Bank
of Ireland Bill, the Queensborough Boroughs Bill, the:Forth
and Clyde Navigation and Canal Bill, the Manchester Court
of Record Bill, the Reversionary Interest Society Bill, the
Keyningham Drainage Bill, the Shipley Lane Head and
Branches Road Bill, the Hanwell and Streatly Road Bill, the
Winwick Rectory Bill, Lady Sandys' (Turner's) Estate Bill,
and the Kidwelly Inclosure
The Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, the Duke of
Buccleuch, and Lord \Vharncliffe.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The House ma at Twelve o'Clock.
RIGHWAYS BILL.

The report was agreed to.
RAILWAYS SELLING OR LEASING BILL.
This Bill passed through Ccmorittee, and was ordered to be
read a third time on Tuesday.
GRAND JURY PRESENTMENT (DUBLIN) BILL.
This Bill was read a third time, arid passed.
THIRD READINGS.

The Fisheries (Ireland) Bill, and the Drainage of Lands
Bill, were read a third time and passed ; as was also the Mas-
ters and Workmen's Bill.
SCOTCH POOR-LAW BILL.

On the order of the day for the third reading of the Bill,
Mr. H ASTIE said that the Bill, considering the importance
of the measure, had been passed through the House with inde-
cent haste, considi ring the importance of the alterations intro-
duced into it, and he should, therefore, move that the Bill be
read that (jay week.
The LORD ADVOCATE objected to any delay, on the
ground that it had been largely discussed.
Mr. WAKLEY felt that he had reason to complain that the
index to the evidence that had been promised had not been fur-
nished. It was necessary, for the mass of evidence was such that
it was impossible to wade through it, and the alterations were of
so much importance that they ought not to be introduced with-
out knowing the evidence on which they were based. He had
himself inquired that morning at the poorhouse of St. Pancras,
and he found that an alslebodied Scotchman if he applied f,,r
relief might come into the house, but whether he had a wife
or whether he had not he was to be sent to Scotland, and
there cast on its shores helpless and destitute, and where the
poor law officers had no power to relieve him. He thought
therefore that it ought to be recousidere,'.
Mr. DUNDAS thougrt that the alterations were of such
importance that he wished the Lord Advocate to postpone the
Bill.

Mr. LOCKHART supported the Bill, as he thought it
would be of advantage to Scotland.
After a few worth from Mr. R. 'YORKE, who wished the
postponement, and from
Mr. HENLEY, who was anxious that there should not only
be an unit, rm law of settlement, but also an uniform poor.law
throughout the kingdom,
The I loue diviatd, when there appeared--
For the motion 33
Against it
—26

illajor;ty

. .
Th Bill was ,heo rcad a third time and pissed.
EX(.IsE DU i ILS ()N SPIRITS (t_,IIANNEL
ISLANDS) BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and pa,sed.
COAL PORT (LONDON) DUTIES BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this Bill,