The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-22 00:00:00

7.'ZIE /I :MOW ETEZCT ZZLIIIWAY.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Captain Johnston, sailing harbour-master, corroborated the evi-
knee of the previous witness.
Mr. Potter, merchant and shipping agent in Glasgow, was next
examined. He said that the harbour was not sufficient for the ac-
commodation of the trade. He had sometimes counted no less than
ten vessels in it, six of which would be loading or unloading to-
gether. He thought that having railway carriages on the quays
would occasion considerable danger to the passengers, and inconve-
nience to the traffic. He was sure that to Fend his goods !I the
railway would cost hint more money than at present. He did not
consider the line would afford the ast accommodation for the trade
of Glasgow, and that was the opinion of the entire mercantile com-
munity.

The Committee then adjourned till eleven tomorrow morning.

IRISH GnEAT lATZsTintiv (DuOLZIV AND
GALWAY) ILLSILVT.IIO2'.
Mr. Rowe (in continuation from our Afternoon Eli.
tion of yesterday) said—The Grand Canal, as it is called,
traverses Ireland from east to west, and is a great public
national work. This important Company was oomsed to the
Bill. Their petition was drafted, and the last day for pi esentation,
the Bth day of July, came, when suddenly a notice came that cer-
tain Directors of that Company, who acted without the con.
currence of the great body of the shareholders, had entered
into a compromise with the promoters of the Bill, and, for the
sum of ten thousand pounds, had agreed to withdraw all oppo-
sition. Mr. Pynn being a large shareholder in the Grand Canal
Company, and averse to the Bill, was taken by surprise, but still
resolved upon giving it all the legitimate opposition in his power.
Mr. Pynn teen presented a petition to the Standing Orders' Com.
mittee, praying for time to present another which would detail at
ength the grounds of his opposition. He said lie was prepared to
show that the standing orders had not been complied with,
that forgery had taken place, and that other frauds had
been committed. This petition was taken into consideration ; and,
on the following Thursday, the Duke of Richmond moved the op-
pointment of a Select Committee, of which Lord Bcsborough was
at the head, to inquire into the allegations of these petitions. Th
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 contiact!ng deed
were fictitious and forged. The law required that three fourths
o lthe capital should at least belong to parties si,:ning the contract-
ing deed. The capital was said to be 1,080,000/. The deed of
contract showed signatures to the amount of 819,500/., being, in
fact, 9,5001. more than thelaw required. Ho w ould call abutment
evidence to show that several of these' signal t;;-es were fictitious,
and that, in point of fact, nothing like three-fourths of the
signatures were genuine. The Learned Coinisel then read a body
of evidence, from which it appeared that in many instances the
names of persons as shareholders had forg whilst in others
men of no substance had been represented subscribers to a very
large amount. In one case a parish paup,', Margaret Meredith,
was represented on the contract deed, as a si!Liseriti,ir to the amount
of 3,5001., and as having paid 170/. into the ha,:;;. He likewise
read from the evidence before Lord 13estirmilli'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 1,500/. ; Mr. Eastgate, 1,250/. ; Vincent Allpipe, 5001.; John
Emanuel, 750/. ; and John H. Lowe, 1,250/. On the whq,li, he
summed up fictitious subscriptions to the amount of 35,000/.,
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 000/. in
the world, was put down as a shareholder to the amount of 10,000/.
He could prove cases of insolvencics, &c., to the amount of
100,0001., besides the cases of absolute fraud, but he trusted their
Lordships would considerit 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 Committee, 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 its If had been originated and
supported.
The Learned Counsel was praceeding to cell witnesses in sup-
port of the Bill, but it was found that they had not been sworn.
Their Lorshipa adjourned till to-morrow morning, at eleven.

MONDONDMIZRY AND COLEIZAZZVZI 7.21,7 Z Z.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of 3-Pistol-tiny.)
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.

WAKEPXELD, POI'XTEMIT.ACT, AND GOOLM

11.11.XL-V.TA-i:

_ -
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 ollpir. The steepest gradient was lin 330,
while on the other, or direct line, the steepest was 1 in 150.
Neither slid he think the estimate of 360,0004 sufficient to make
the line. That only gave 16,0004 per mile for construction, which
he thought was totally inadequate. The estimate fur the Brayton
branch was under 9,0001.
Mr. HILDYAILD 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 Cumin/AN decided that the examination should not be pro.
cecded with.
The witness was then examined generally as to the
practica-
bility of a better line being formed from Wakefield to Goole. Ile
had advocated a line before the Commons, which was shorter, '
cheaper, and more level than the other, and it s, turd 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 theminor 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.
Thei Lordships than adjourned till tomorrow.

------,
HOUSE OP COMMONS.
GROUP..
DX!ECT NOICZTHErtie ZAZTE—raitnnvomorz-
STREZT EXTZNSIOnr.
The Committee met this day shortly after twelve. Members
present—Viscount Courtenay (Chairman), Mr. Darby, Mr. Scrape,
and Mr. B. Wall.
Mr. Sergeant WRANGITAM then commenced to sum up the evi-
dence adduced on behalf of the London and York line. lie said
that he congratulated the Committee on the important event that
had taken place, viz , that after having travelled in the wilderness
for seventy days, they had at length arrived nearly at the end. He
Attempts
snhoatd returnbcei, it.
made
had
,itaalod:
ilii
net:yl:l:gaindn
aitt:esdseid accuracytflalri ol,rgeoh.f
would not complain of the attacks levelled against them by Mr.
Hildyard. That gentleman had received a blow, but was not the
l'a)anatrendqUestion. After a discussion
proved abortive; the
mmaanily tao peril.res t quAiettte
taßltiuteaticrtkoste7rcaot
sicoeierfsod,usnibidouertdt, I
ya
us
with
ioi et,h, atc:retriocmri
of seventy days, they were ailed on to decide whether the line that
he represented as the most Cirect, or the Farringdot,-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 Winchllsea 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 tratEe of the districts
would be all forced upon the route which that Com-
pany proposed. The Mdland Company appeared to fancy
that their traffic would receive a check, and viewed With, an eye
of jealousy and dislike an• 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 Lime.
Mr. WEBSTER dissented from this statement.

sutils'ittcrioretsugc t its line
could
ataott thefreeectoni:
was notorious.
Sergeant Wrtaxotram continued, by observing
nTheect i on
Londonbetw
Lincoln to York at 968,000/., while the Direct Northern, though
eeann
d the
y oEraks t ecr
on
ma
pn
adnAyeight
uni ddniCieleoei
from London to Huntingdon
the line of roil could be completed b
utrnadveerlling97ozoroaokess dAisstaairnic,e by
by the London
and York for 2,1C0,0001., including the cost of the
London station, white the Direct Northern admitted that they
could net construct the same distance under 2,250,000/. But,
commencing at the metropolis, and . criticising the schemes
throughout—as to the Farringdom.strect Extension, lie
urged in the first place that the Committee could not pats that Bill
this session, inasmuch as its construction depended on the authority
of two companies, three-fourths of the members of whom must sub.
scribe to its necessity. But while lie 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 frc.•in Cam.
lsridge and Norfolk, his frie.wis had a perfect right to his consent
to its construction, but that consttuction must be independent of
the station at Kitig's-cros. With respect to the lateral opposition
which, it was cssertal, the London and York 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 be would instance the case of the Goole and
Wakefield line, at this
moment before the c,,r,sider“tif,,, of ,t par.
liamentary Committee. The London and Y,rk line were not their
opponents, they did not accuse it, nor were themselves accused
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 iriecnne derivable from the
traffic on the line would be 1,100,0001., deducting 70,0004 for the
alleged overrating in the carriage items, mid 60 per cent.
for the ordinary contingent reductions, there would be
a clear return of 600,0001., giving a dividend of ph