The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-26 00:00:00

lIAILWAV COMMITTEES.

(THIS DAY.)

ROUSE OF LORDS.
'UE GLASGOW 317/.ICTION RAILWAY.
IMPORTANT I_,LCISION.
!PThe Committee to whom this railway was referred, met this
illing at eleven o'clock, in Committee-room No. 5, Abingdon-
ct. Present, the Earl of St. Gernsains, Chairman ; the Earl
of Oxford, the Earl of Carnarvon, the Bishop of Ely, and Lord
kanners.
The Committee remained in deliberatinn till half-past twelve
o'clock, when the counsel and parties were called.
The Ctiatemasr then said that he considered the most convenient
course to take would be to read the resolutions which the Com-
Mittee had come to on the proposed line. The Noble Lord then
read the following resolutions :-
Ist. That it is the opinion of this Committee that a communi.
Orionby railway from the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway to the
''''th side of the harbour of Glasgow would be attended with public
Advantage.
2d. That there are not such engineering or other difficulties in
the way of the proposed line as to render its adoption inexpedient.
3d. That sufficient provision ought to be made for securing to
the parties through whose property the line may be carried full
ectopensation for the damage which the railway may occasion to
that property.
4th. That it appears to this Committee that the existing quays
do not afford sufficient accommodation for the trade of Glasgow,
and that it is in the highest degree desirable that additional accom-
Modation, especially for the mineral traffic, be provided.
Sth. That it does not appear to this Committee to be expedient
that a railway should be laid along the quays which extend from
Ptrk-st reel to the eastern extremity of the ateam.boat quay.
A. discussion then took place about the insertion of certain
clauses in the Bill affecting the property on the line, particularly
the Blytheswoed property, belonging to Mr. Campbell, which were
el'entually agreed to with a few amendments.
The preamble of the Bill, subject to the restrictions referred to
HI the resolutions, was then declared proved.
The clauses of the Bill were then agreed to, after a fow verbal
44te11dlnents, and the Committee broke up.

HOUSE OF( OMMONS.

GROUP X.
LONDON AND 'TORN LINE.

MOST IMPORT. NT.
AGAINST THE LATE DECP,ION.
Immediately after the re assembling cf the Committee this slay,
ertr. Aterrtx, Q.C., tendered on behalf of the
nies Eastern Counties, Mh
Midland, and Midland Railway Compare the following
'mPortant protest :
The Eastern Counties Railway Company beg respectfully to pro-
test against the decision of the Committee in favour of the
London and York Bill, for the following, amongst other
reasons :
tcauie, altlmugh toe Eastern Counties Company's lines
!brtWeeti LonOoe and Biggieswade having been at first excluiled
Nil the classifieriAtin of competing lines to the London and York
scet,h.!ine, were, by the Committee,. upon special application of the
t,,'"PanY. alter argument plaeed, in the,class as a distinct competing
''t With the London and York Railway between the termini of
corndon and Biggleswade, yet, nevertheless, the Eastern Counties
t.„l4,,PsnY have not been heard, nor allowed to produce any positive
'tent* in support of their lines between London and Biggleswade,
koheea"Y general rebutting evidence against the London and Yolk
by 13a, ause, although the Eastern Counties Company were informed
dAthe Committee that they must cross-examine on all points,
• Which they intended to bring forward rebutting evidence, and
eewi ross-examine accordingly, yet the whole of such rebutting
41ence founded on such cross-examinations, although tendered,
"at been rejected and not heard.
the)/b.ecause, although upon the close of the London and York case
but Eastern Counties Company tendered to the Committee re.
O inf{ evidence to be then given against that case,
ee- to defer the same until their own Hertford and Biggleswade gill
itirn,e on before the Committee; and although the Committee de-
-1/4 4 that they would defer that rebutting evidence until the period
, tnentioned, yet, nevertheless, such evidence has been wholly
elected.
liccause, although it has been the invariable practice of Parlia-
e start Committees sitting upon competing lines, before any de-
la. nn on the preambles for the Bills for such lines is illottiounced (whether the lines be competing as entire trunk
stki: between two termini, or competing for portions only of
beb , lines), to hear the positive isi.d rebutting evidence on
tertur of each Bill, yet in the case of the Eastern Counties cora-
ehleg lines between London and Biggleswade no evidence what-
tese'e has been heard, either positive or rebutting, on the part of that
I,,Pany, and in the absence of that evidence the decision on the
0,.0 mob and York parallel line between the same termini has been
itotineed.
te 'cause, although the Eastern Counties Company's London and
telplbridge line formed tiny mites of the trunk line from London
as 4
l-in composed of that railway, and the proposed Cambridge
itteecoln Direct Northern and Tottenham and Farringdon-
tlik! Projected lines, and was the most interested in the compe-
-1,4. and the most affected by a decision in favour of the
*ay.o"", and York scheme, and was an existing rail.
peel. sanctioned by previous Committess of both Houses of
ketlharnent as well calculated to accommodate the Lincolnshire and
444 ern traffic, yet the three principal lines above.mentioned were
.heard before the Committee, and the case of the Eastern
haul !its Company postponed at the instance of the Committee
litee.'he others were finished, has not been heard in the slightest
lit b' all their rebutting evidence from twenty-three witnesses
ee .
41101,,,,,,4 'elected; the attacks made upon their line have been
arkiei"4 to remain unanswered, and in the face of this injustice a
en has been renounced in favour of the London and York
ettak• P
ibg*
-rat and North Midland Railway Company beg respectfully
,71Protest against the decision of the Committee in favour of
)he e London and York Railway Bill.
elieb re they have not teen heard against the
.pream.ble of
erlouri ins nor allowed to call evidence against it, a
Coekt..ebill Company were representing a Bill referred to the
YOrkbliteer and classed by them as competing with the London and
,Set'Y p,,-,!its arid although by the London anct York Bill comp-
1114,4e:ereea are taken over lands belonging to the Company, andul to
lta ceitk,,,,,!:ib their principal station, prejudicially, both as respects
reittee, r„--,."t working, and the safety of the public; the Cum.
Seitnesic--"reover, having permitd them to cross-examine the
eapet,,,: called in support of the Bill, and thus incur all the
the aPPearine in Committee from the commencement of
oce _dings -
Pr
. tecaue_
littuan the passing of the preamble of the London and York Bill
bay y negatived that of the York and worth Midland Rail..
TTeeExtension to Doncaster, although the case for the last..
,:(med Bill has not been heard by the Committee.
"e Midland Railway Company beg most respectfully to pro-
test against the decision or the Committee in favour of the
London and York Railway kid,—
)iic4use they have not been heard against the preamble of such
ll.v nor allowed to call rebutting evidence against the case set
lisri_b its promoters, although the Bills promoted by this Com-
stitivi Were referred to the Committee as competing schemes
t011,,,,tbe London and York project, and classed as such by the
kil,,,":ltte themselves in the outset cf their proceedings; thus
olng the Midland Company to incur the heavy expense of
laeti'Phosition to the without giving them an opportunity of
ISee,..ard upon its merits
ittuel,use the passing of the pramble of the London and York
else 'Y negatives that of the Lincoln and Ely Railway Bill, and
of the Swinton and Lincoln Railway Bill as respects
toierj'ulonication between Lincoln and Doncaster,, although the
itsi.,:'tee have not heard the case of the promoters of the two
ctle'etetitioned Bills, a circumstance believed to be without pm-
The
their -°rornittee having withdrawn to consider these protests, on
TheetUrn
I:ll4lithetehrceo7l:4l‘vNith
said that he was instructed by the Committee to
-4t they declined to receive the documents handed in, which
propriety be tendered in another place.
*tin. emnsittee then proceeded with the remaining clauses of

(LBrr BITTING.)

A RAIL WAY RETURNS.
ls% 0 r
et,„_ for +, aspric.—The following are the Total Receipts of Rail
le,,net, 1p " Past week—that is to say, up to the date to which the
ni it, tehretUrns are made, together with the receipts of gip same
4 Previous year ;
,e I --
n s,y
etc

NAME OF RAILWAY.

Last
week.

G .5e •
ft.'
o
00

-I9