The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-09 00:00:00

Mr. Austin, with whom were Mr. Loftus and Mr. Lowndes,
appeared as counsel for the promoters of the Bill. The object of
the Bill is to enable the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Com-
pany to extend and enlarge the said railway, and to make certain
branch railways, and for amending and enlarging the power of the
several Acts relating to the said railway.
There being no opposition to the preamble of the Bill,
The CR&IRMAN said that the Committee would hear any peti.

Lions against clauses or works that were to be executed.

Mr. COATES, of the firm of Dyson and Hall, then appeared in
support of a petition from certain inhabitants of the borough of
Salford, praying that their Lordships would not allow that clause
to be inserted in the Bill which referred to a certain bridge and
works made in the borough of Salford, for the construction of which
there was no authority in their Act of Parliament, and which were
now sought to be legalised.
Evidence was then submitted to prove the inconvenience of the
bridge and the obstruction which it caused.
Mr. Wood, engineer on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway,
was examined, to prove that no inconvenience resulted.
The CHAIRMAN here suggested to the promoters the propriety of
in * oducing a clause which would have the effect of sufficiently
protecting the rights of the petitioners.
Mr. LowNoEs said that the Company had not the least objection.
Mr. Newall, Parliamentary agent, said that he had very little
faith in the gentlemen who composed the Committee, but, agree-
ably to the suggestion of the Noble Chairman, he would draw out a
clause protective of the rights of petitioners. He then submitted
his clause to the Committee, and the room was cleared. On our re-
admission—

The CHAIRMAN Pnnounecd the decision of the Committee, that
the clause of the company ,hould be retained.
Mr. Motvzsour, SMITH then appeared on behalf of the Grand
Junction Company, to obj,ct to clauses 54 and 55, empowering the
promoters to lease the railway to other companies in contravention,
as he alleged, of a distinct agreement to the contrary with the Grand
Junction Comp3ny.

The Comm.ttee decided that in this case also the clauses should
stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Gregory, Parliamentary agent, appeared on behalf of Capt.
Williamson, whose property on the banks of the Leeds and Liver •
pool Canal he alleged would be damaged by the proposed railway,
but in this case also the Committee decided against the petitioners.
They were of opinion that sufficient compensation was provided for
any damage of that kind by the compensation clause in the Bill.
This having concluded the opposition, the preamble of the Liver-
pool and Manchester Railway Bill was then passed, and several
verbal amendments having been made to the clauses, the Corn.
mittee broke up.

S 112/DING ORD EUS CO rirIVIXT rm." E
The Standing Orders Committee of the House of Lords sat at
four o'clock, the Earl of Shaftesbury in the chair.
The Runcorn and Preston Brook Railway Bill was reported to
have complied with the standing orders
The consideration of the Irish Great Western (Dublin and
Galway) Railway Bill was adjourned to Thursday next.

HOUSE OF t OMMONS.
It( )U A.

'tan:Toni. A.ND HASTINGS (ATMOSPHERIC)
nztaNc :a Or Tl-111 BRIGHTON AND
LEWES VINE.
On the meeting of the Committee this morning
Mr. HILDYARD was about to address the Committee on the part
of the Commissioners of stye Harbour, when
Mr. HILL, on the part of the Brighton line, said that he had
evidence to produce to prove tha' a line such as Captain Morsom
bad said ought to be made from Ashford to Hastings would do
very great injury to property, and also that the proposed line did
not cross either the harbour at Rye, or the river Bother, in the
manner assuumed by hii Learned Friend.
Mr. HILDTARD objected to the calling of any such witnesses as
his Learned Friend spoke of, on the ground that the case for the
line was now concluded, and as the point had been raised in cross
examination, the promoters of the line ought to have produced this
evidence at a former stage of the proceedings.

The CHAIRMApi decided against hearing Mr. lIUI's evidence, and

Mr. HILDVAiD proceeded to address the Committee on the part
of the Commissioners of the Rye Harbour, and dwelt at great
length on the evidence given yesterday by Captain Moorsom, and
which was published at length in The Sun of that evening. He (Mr.
Hildyard) wished particularly to call the attention of the Com-
mittee •to one point, that not one witness from the neigh-.
hourhood of Rye had been called on the part of either of
the proposed lines (the Ashford and Hastings Brancb, and the
South-Eastern and Ashford line). Again, from the connexion
between the South-Eastern line and the Folkstone Harbour, it was
the interest of that company to destroy the traffic of the port of Rye.
The more the Rye post declined, the more the Folkstone Harbour
would flourish, and as the dues of that harbour belonged to the
company, it was their interest to destroy the port of Rye for the
sake of improving their own harbour.
Mr. M. D. HILL, on the part of the promoters, argued that the
apposition of the Commissioners of Rye Harbour was owing to the
fact that some of them were promoters of the Headcorne Railway.
The Lords of the Admiralty, so far from being opposed
to the measure, were willing to sell the harbour for
10,0001. Some formal evidence was then heard, and the
Committee without hesitation decided that the preamble was
proved.
They then proceeded to consider the