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

EILISH G13,3C111.T WESTERN' (DUBLIN AND
GALWAY) !Liu INVILY.
The Committee met at eleven o'clock, in the Lord Chancellor's
Court, consisting of the following Members : Lords Bathurst
;Chairman), Lilford, Caithorpe, Wynford, and Forester.
Mr. Alexander, Q.C., appeared on behalf of the promoters of
the Bill.
Mr. Rowe for Mr. P. James Pym, a banker in Dublin, and a
petitioner against the Bill.
The first question raised was, whether or not the Committee
should first proceed to investigate the merits of the case, and hear
the promoters, or go on into the case of the petitioner, Mr. Pym,
and exanine into the report of a Select Committee of the House
of Lords, which had been appoduted to inquire if the promoters of
the Bill had complied with the standing orders, and if any fraudu-
lent practices has taken place.
Mr. ALEXANDER contended that the promoters should be al.
lowed to proceed with the case in the usual manner.
Mr Rowe, on the other side, protested against this course, and
called upon the Committee, in the first instance, to inquire into
the allegation; contained In the report of the Select Committee, of
which Lord Bcsborough was at the head, and to investigate the
charges in the petition of Mr. Pym.
The Committee retired to consider what course they should Fur-
sue. They returned into Court in a few minutes, when
The Noble ChAiRMAN said they would first inquire into the re.
port of the Seect Committee.
Mr. llowe called upon the other side to produce and prove the
contract cited.
Mr. ALEXANDER declined doing so. The allegations of fraud
had been made by the other side, and, by all the rules of evidence,
they were bound to go into proof of them.
Mr. Rowe—But we have not the contract deed.
Mr. ALEXANDER—That is not my fault ; it is in the Parliamen-
tary- office.
Mr. Rowe—l beg your pardon, it is not.
Mr. ALEXANDER—There is a copy of it (handing it to counsel).
Mr. Rows—You will now prove it.
Mr. ALEXANDER—I submit we are not called upon to do so.
The Committee decided that at present the production of the
deed was sufficient.
Mr. Bows, after some further discussion, opened the case for the
petitioner. The history of the Bill was a very singular one. In
the House of Commons the Bill had been rejected by
the Standing Orders' Committee on a variety of allega-
tion,. In the ordinary course cf things, the Bill could
not be proceeded with, but Mr. Fitzstephen French, a Member of
the House of Commons, and one of the most active of the pro-
moters of the Bill, brought the matter before the House of Com-
mons, and moved that the matter might be referred to a Com-
mittee of the House for inquiry, and, contrary to all precedent,
that motion was agreed to. The Bill having, by this means,
passed through the Committee, was referred to their Lordships'
House. The Bill came before the Standing Orders' Committee of
the House of Lords on the 7th of July. On the Sth of the same
month the petition of the Grand Canal Company against the Bill
was about to be presented. The Grand Canal, as it is called,
traverses Ireland from east to west, and is a great public
national work. This important Company was opposed to the
Bill. Their petition was drafted, and the last day for presentation,
the Sth 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 tgren 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 he 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 ap-
pointment of a Select Committee, of which Lord Bes'uorough 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 contracting deed
were fictitious and forged. The law required that three-fourths
o Ithe 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 rc pres, nted on the contract deed, as a subscriber to the amount
of 5001., and as having laid 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 Chlistmas.day the promoters of this scheme
kept an office open in London and were actually receiving shares
and transacting business on that day. He quo! eel the evidence
given before the •ame 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
fur 1,5001.; Mr. Eastgate, 1,250/. ; Vincent Allpipe, 5001.; John
Emanuel, 750/. ; and John H. Lowe, 1,`2501. On the whole, he
summed up fictitious subsea; tions to the amount of 35,0001,
which would invalidate the contract died. Some of the largest
subscribers to the deed were mere hired officials The clerk to the
secretary. by name Charles Freeman, a person not ,worm 2001. in
tt e world, mias put down as a shareholder to the amount of 10,000/.
He could prove cases of insolvencies, &c., to the amount of
120,0001., 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 CLIAIRNIAN—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 eif 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 riot been sworn.
Their Lorships adjourned till to-morrow morning, at eleven.

construct a line of railway between Olt metropolis and Cambridge.

ft is admitted on all sides that a trunk line to the north is absb.

lutely necessary.

The main question is then resolved into the cne,

which company is the most fitting to construct it ? And, first,

Lord Winchilsea has transferred his favour from their opponent

A:o 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

ihai 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 cress-examination admitted that his

services had been i,ecured by the Midland Company against the

London and York Line.
Mr. WEBSTER dissented from this statement.

Sergeant WIIANCIIAM continued, by observing that the con.
nection between the Eastern and Mit!land Counties was notorious,

The London and York Company would construct its line from
Lincoln to York at 968,000/., 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 mil could

be eon:pleb d 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 2,250,000/. 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 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 he contended thus,that the pia-
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, esserted, 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 a Par-
liamentary Committee. The London and York line were not there
its opponents, they did not accuse it, nor were themselves accused
of competition, but the followers of Mr. Hudson were prosecuting
the most virulent resistance to it. Their computation thus remain-
ing undisputed, showed that the entire income derivable from the
traffic on the line would be 1,100,000/., deducting 75,000/. for the
alleged overrating in the carriage items, and 60 per cent.
for the ordinary contingent reductions, there would be
a clear return of 600,000/., giving a dividend of 91
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. Parkes, a gentleman of at lea,t some cele.
brity as a traffic taker, was put into the witticss-
box, and, at first, by his Vausibility, almost terri-
fied the London and York. lie adopted a system, however,
which, on cross-examination, ',rased 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
doubled it, and yet affected that by these means be halved
the traffic anticipated ►.y the London and York, who took the
entire without increase or reduction f The gentleman I:ad for.
gotten that once one was exactly the same as, and no mire than,
half two.—(A laugh ) Nevertheless by some unintelligible
contrivance a reduction of 75,000/. was made by Mr. Parkes in
the computed traffic of the London and York. His Learned
Friend, Mr. }hid, ard, had, however, thought it more cat cdient
arid more wise to omit all mention of that reduction in
the spe, ch with which he closed his case, even in neg.

lect of the challenges of the Commit:ee. But what was the
character of the estimate made by that eminent, honest, and un-
rivalled engineer, Mr. Cubitt, on behalf of tie London and York
line ? Why, despite the array of talent and animosity epposed to
them—desp to the log which the Board of Tr-Ide had, on insuffi.
clew evidence, cast around their necks-- and despite the defiance
he himself had at the outset thrown out—not one single solitary
attempt had been made by any one party, surveyor, counsel, or
engineer, to controvert or deny it. The grew; features in
favour of the line he represented might be summed
up in a few words :—rture was its entire independence,
a vast and invaluable advattage, and by its unity
of property and unity of management conduced to conve-
nience 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 termin; : an advantage of

this kind was pre-eminent, when the ancient market towns were
regarded, and the important trade concentrated there. Again, it
afilirded a connexion with every single town of consequence in
the neighbourhood, affording advantages even to Wakefield as well
as York. Cambridge only had 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

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 11111 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,
Th e 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. Jame►, who appeared for the pro-
moters of the Bill, were now present, the business could proceed as

side spoke even energetically 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, toe London and York ,3ompany were most will-
ing, and had pledged themselves, to construct a line both with Lincoln
inter or and inter tersninors. But before lie sat down, he could not
but advert to the charges proposed upon the line, charges he believed
unexampled for their lowness. First-class passengers were to be
conveyed upon the line at the rate of '2d. per mile; second class,
lid ; and third class, Id. per mile. Baled goods were to becarried
at '2d. per ton per mile, and coals at %.1. per ton per mile. And
as to parcels—a department of traffic to which he wished to
ca 1 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 trot exceeding twenty-five miles, for all other distances
over that there would be one uniform charge of one shilling,
benefits to the neighbourhood which could scarcely be
over-rated. Such were the advantages which this Company pos-
sessed over its rivals. He had now done his duty to
his clients and the Committee, 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 count! y,
" 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 ?
the 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.

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 slandi. 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. Ilemings, 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 so help to re-
claim 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. Burr. 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 prop rty by deptiving him of a ready I -
IMPORTANTMETROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENT.—WO
means of shipping agricultural produce. But this was
understand the Commissioners for the improvement of London
not the strongest ground on which he claimed to be heard ; there
have it in contemplation to open a most important avenue from
were two others much stronger. At the time when the land was
the \Vest-end of the town to the City, with the view of reliev-
divided between Mr. Dinsdale and Mr. Robertson, the Bally-Kelly
ing the crowd of carriages now so inconveniently congregated
Canal, which passed through it, was taken as the boundary. But
the canal did not divide the land equally, and it was therefore at times in Holborn and the Strand. This new street is to
agreed that arbitrators should be employed to decide which was continue the line opened from Coventry-street though Leices-
the greater of the two parts, and that they should be empowered ter-square to Long-acre, from the corner of Bow-street
to take a portion of the larger from the bolder, and add it to the obliquely. across Drury-lane to Carey-street. on the south side
of Lincoln's Inn-fiebis ; thence across Chancery. lane through
smaller property, in order to equalise them. These arbitrators
had not het come to any decision about it, and as Mr. Dins. the Bolls property, midway between Holten n and Fleet-street,
to Farringd,m-strret, and passing under an arch. to the wide
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 part of the Old Bailey. This valuable openitigr. againto be
nrg eat n
oahnlde
intersected by a wide street extending a
future time. The railway would pass through the property of gP
i fc'rk7„ - the
1 ac; northe into side
the
Mr. Robertson, and the land through which it passed might be the of St. Clement's Church, known
which Ithe s'treet will
very land which might be given to Mr. Dinsdale by the arb i
gocentre of Lincoln's
11:iilnb-orn, 'to j in
trators. Mr. Dinsdale had not sold his interest in this land ;fur directly
di inoto
mthetitonislirlitthalll:totdhutlsLiio.i;neson'uth side of
in selling the land which he did possess, he could not sell that thence
long
to the Foundling
frn
which he did not. The third ground on which he claimed a locus a‘voe:duoen'.
standi was, that there was a clause in the agreement made London. I i. also every reason to believe that the long.
eq tired establishment of the cete.ts of law in a central part of
when the land was divided—there was a clause to the effect that 11,,1 metropolis will he aecompli,lled- Survcors have been
if any portion of the property of one party was unreclaimed on the i
enuae'ed during the past week in measuring the new site, which
7th of June, 1846, it should become the property of the oolier. 1
is to extend fromet
e m
ii
i 3
ri
il
gs Boswell-snort,
backll -
Bsse
it s towards,tnu
earrrinittd,anunC.dioattrhhtrhteehe}e,s-oaTtn
intr, Cary-street, es,pdo,t
Common tense
tt,th,shocaunnl,s3debe midwaylrai
portions
in- ,Nd'
gairt 1
ht:ig,e,f
Now, a large proportion of Mr. Robertson's land, through which
Temple-bar,
this line would pass, was still unreclaimed. and if unreclaimed on
the 7th June next would become the property of Mr. Dinsdale. andseeaptslotani Lincoln
consistent
ie:
convenience 11de n'
n courts.
thc
the
Theo
of the public, although lung opposed by the seltish
On these three grounds, therefore, he (Mr. Butt) el:dined to be
and bigoted influence of a few old crones who keep carriage.
heard on the part of the petitioner.
and find it desirable to combine Parliamentary with legal in-
mitee'
Mr. Ji+ISIES replied on the part of the promoters of the line, and
terests. The plans will be carried out blllr. Barry, the cele-
The room was cleared by order of the CHAIRMAN. The Com-
c: mbined with Yhe
having consulted for a short time, we were re-admitted, and
heated architect, and,
and south, east and west, referred t
The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee could not admit the op-
ahtoven,e,wsilleirnedeetse,d north
position position on the part of Mr. Dinsdale, but were of opinion. that. a
in a heatlhthel
boor. to
healthful
bals.
clause ought to be inserted in the Bill to
Committee ad- lc, as well as a vast advantage to the metropolis
well as moral point of view.— Obset ver.
It was then a quarter past one theo'clock,parontdect him from Injury.
journed till three. DESTRUCTIVE FIRE IN THE NEW- ROAD.—On Sa-
Wise for the protection of the rights of turday morning, at an early hour, a fire was discovered at
Mr. Burr proposed a c
On the re-assembling of the Committee at three o'clock,
No. 7, Tunbridge-place, New-road, Somers-town, occupied by
which was agreed to after some discussion.
Turner, the solicitor for the line, then said that there was Mrs. Sherman, Mrs. Southward, and a Mr. Clarke ; it origi-
hisDcilrierit,air. Dinsdale,
but one witness whom it would be necessary to call to prove the nated in the lower part of the premises it is supposed, but by
preamble of the Bill. the early arrival of the fire brigade from the City and West-
Mr. William Leathern, merchant at Deny, spoke to the truth of end station, the flames were subdued ere they had extended
the statements contained in the preamble of the Bill, through the building. A young female, in her anxiety to
The Committee then declared the preamble to be proved, after rouse some children that slept in one of the back rooms, was so
which they separated at a quarter before Four o'clock. alarmed by the smoke that was issuing from the lower portion
of the premises, believing that the fire was nearer than it really
WAYLEFIELD, PONTEFRACT, AND GOOLE was, as to jump out of the window into a back yard ; her in..
RAILWAY. juries, however, are not serious.
The Committee re assembled at eleven this morning, Lord Mont- i A S imUnTON.— EA it 1./ II AnArEs-r.—A fine lie4l of
eagle in the chair. , barley was cut on Thursday last, at Furseley Farm, about a
The opponents of the Bill prove. ded to call further evidence ' mile from this town. The lands in this part of the county of
against the direct line from Goole to Wakefield. , Devon never presented a mere cheering prospect than at the
Mr. Birkenshaw,
civil engineer, had examined the proposed line present time. We have fine brilliant weather for the ripening
and the opposing project by Brayton, and he considered that though , of the corn, which will be an abundant crop, Apples, potatoes,
the latter was three miles and three-quarters longer, yet the gra- grass, and all other kinds of agricultural produce was never
clients being so much better, trains would be enabled to run in the finer.