The Sun.
London, England, 1845-08-01 00:00:00

GLASGOW, I3ARRHEAD, AND NEILSTON
RAILWAY.

The Lorth' amendments to the Glasgow, Barrhead, and
Neliston (Direct)
.Railway Bill were agreed to.

SIi:TH WALES RAILWAY.

The Lords' amendments to the South Wales Railway Bill
were agrred to.
AIONMOUTH AND HEREFORD RAILWAY.

The Lords' amendments to the Monmouth and Hereford
Railway Bill were agreed to.

LONDON' AND YORK RAILWAY.

Viscount COURTEN AY moved the consideration of the re-
port of the Committee on the London and York Railway Rill.
Mr. WARD then ruse, pursuant to notice, to move that
the Bill be recommitted. It was with great pain that he
veutuied to trouble the House upon the present occasion to
reconsider the decision that had been come to with re pect
to the present measure. It was hardly possible at
airy time ter induce the House to reconsider a de-
etaion lit any kind, anti that difficulty was greatly increased in
.sealing with the decision of a Committee that had sat
for no less than seventy-three days ; under such circum-
stances nothing wo !Id have induced him to appeal to the
House except a conviction that he had one of the strongest
causes that was ever brought before the;House. If the Com-
mittee had had time to hear all the parties concerned,
nothing would have induced him to have brought
forward the subject. He admitted that the Committee had
been most persevering in their labours, but. they had done
great injustice to several parties, and had come to most im-
proper decisions, because those ;decisions had been come
to without hearing tacts ; and the ,rights of parties
had been adjudicated upon without hearing either the facts or:
the parties themselves ; added to this, the report itself bore
evutent marks of the pressure which the Committee telt itself
to be under in consequence of the difficulty of getting through
the task imposed upon them at the presentperiod of the session.
He appeared there to argue the claims of the York and North
Midland, the Midland Counties, and the Eastern Counties
lines, whose cases had been decided upon without being heard.
He was told that it was a difficult matter to dispute with a
great trunk line, such as the London and York, but they had
a right to consider themselves a great trunk line, and,
they had so considered themselves. They expected to
be allowed to show the Committee that they could
have effected a communication with York with a saving of a
million and a half. if they could show this, and if they could
prove that they had already nearly two-thirds of the line con-
structed, he hoped that the House would see the,
propriety of re-committing this Bill. They were
at first admitted to be a competing line even by
the Committee, for in the first instance, when the
Counsel for the Hertford and Biggleswade, and on a subsequent
day Mr. Austin, for the Eastern Counties Company made an
application stating that he should satisfy the Committee that
they were a distinct and competing party, and that, if ex-
cluded, they would be debarred from examination of witnesses
pro forma, the Committee decided that the Eastern Company's
scheme should be admitted into Court, and its Courted be
entitled to all the privileges of examining witnesses.
Mr. DA ItßY—Does that extend to the general principle of
competing lines?
Mr. WARD—The Honourable Member for Sussex asked
him if that extended to the general principle of com-
peting lilies, why that Honourable Member himself
said that they might be considered so, but said that
in their examinations they must be sure to confine them-
selves to what had been alluded to in the first examination.
'the Committee having thus decided, they expected that they
should be considered competing lines in the fullest extent, and
when, before the decision had been given on the preamble,
counsel applied to the Committee that they might be allowed to
blend the main esidencee of the competing lines as against the
London and Yurk line, with the object of saving the time of
the Committee, the request was complied with. This resolu-
tion was dated the stir June, but he found that it was not
acted upon throughout; and he begged to call the Noble Lord's
attention to this fact, that that proposition and the resolution
were materially ahered in the report.
Lord COURTENAY—W hat date do you call that ?
Me. W A RD-1 he 7th of June. Appl.catien wee afierwards
made to the Cutramitee to ascertain what course they would
wish to have pursued with regard to the rebutting evidence.
He found, on examining the reports, that the Committee
ordered that landholders and the other opponents should
be heard after, and he held in his hand
a resolution which was not to be found in this report. he
resolution passed by the Committee was such as might have
been acted 01/ by all parties, but the next was of a very modi-
fied character. On applying to the short-hand writer for a copy
of it he found that the resolution stated that the land-
lords were to be heard next in order, but that the
Committee would offer sin abjection to the rouse of blending
the evidence against. the London and York, arid Mr. Hildyard
sated that he had arranged his case so as to class the rebutting
evidence together, and the other competing lines had agreed to
that course. This case was decidedly agreed to by the Committee
themselves. Now the first intimation they had of an intention
to tirade upon the preamble was on the lttth of July, and
then the counsel and the parties in support of the three come
peting lines objected, on the ground that they had not been
heard. This objection was overruled by the Committee
on the 14th of July. Now this decision they com-
plained of, because they had never been heard. There
were great advantages in the line from London to Big-
gleswade for bringing the manufactures of the north to the river
terminus, which would be constructed in the course of the next
three months. It was thought that all the parties concerned
were judicially entitled to be heard—instead; of that, however,
a hearing was refused, and the Committee voted that the pre-
amble of the London and York line was proved in order to shut
out all evidence from the other parties. Such was not the
case with the Committee, of which the Hon. Gentleman
opposite was the Chairman. Before that Committee
there were these lines submitted between Portsmouth and
London. Evidence on all of them was heard, and at last the
Committee, after having maturely considered all of them, de-
cided on that line which they thought most conducive to the
public interests. In the Noble Lord's Committee the practice
was altogether different. On the 16th of July another appli•
cation was made to the Noble Lord by Mr. Talbot, on the part
of the Eastern Counties line, to be heard, and the application
was over-ruled by a resolution, which was distinctly opposed
to that which was passed on the 7th of June. Evidence was
again tendered on the 9th of July to the Committee, by Mr.
Wells, on behalf of the Eastern Counties line, with respect to
the river terminus, and again this application was decided against.
They did not take one tittle of evidence on the importance of
effecting a communication with the Thames at Blackwell, and
yet the Committee attached the greatest importance to the ter-
minus of the -London and York line. When the application
was made to be heard, the Chairman told the counsel that it
was an extremely proper application, but. that the Committee
could not entertain it. Even in the report, as regarded the
London and York scheme, it was clear the Committee had
heard sufficient rebutting evidence to give it clearly and fully.
None of the rebutting evidence of the Direct Northern
and Cambridge and Lincoln lines had been heard,
and this evidence was necessary, in order that the
whole bearing of the entire scheme might be properly silted
and adjudicated upon, and thus nearly the whole of the im-
portant part of the project was altogether put out. If the
opposing lines had received fair play the traffic evidence of the
London and York Railway would have been materially
altered. phis evidence was got up in so absurd and extraor-
dinary a manner that the Noble Lord thought proper to tell the
promoters of the London and York line that the Commatee
could not receive their evidence as to the coal traffic as it then
stood. In cons« quence of this hint the amount expected to be
derived from the coal traffic was reduced from 300,000/. to
170,0001. per annum. if the competing lines had insisted
at an early period of the case on producing rebutting evi•
dente, it would, perhaps, have been differently decided.
He would appeal to the House whether or not the case of the
London anti York line was ripe for decision at the present
time. Ile contended that the Committee had come to a de-
eistan with imp, rfeet data, anti with all iesutticietaty of facts.
On Lord Lincliaty's estate, the Peterbmottah line had already
been sanctioned, w boll traversed nearly the whole of his pro-
perty, and the Committee bad decided that for the space of a
single mile in the same field the London and York line should
cross that railway, and had decided on a line which it was
• physically imposs.ble to construct, unless another line, which
had received the Legislative sanction, was altogether ahandoned.
• He thought that the Committee, by the first pat agraph of their
• repert, showed a diffidence in the duels'. n they hart come to.
Titey said they must reuse to a decision as the ression was so
nearly at an end: that might be a great evil, but it was a far
greater one that the facts were net fully and completely in.

1