The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-22 00:00:00

OLDHAM.

Oldham was divided into two branches—namely, Oldham
proper and Mumps, and the question now before the Com-
mittee was, to carry on the line to Mumps.
Two witnesses were called, who deposed as to the utility
of the line, and said that the population of Oldham was
24,000, and contained several manufactories, the transit of the
produce of which would be greatly facilitated and cheapened
by the proposed line.
Mr. Sergeant BELLASIS said he held in his hand a docu-
ment which, he contended, was an agreement, signed by
Captain Lawes, entered into by the Manchester and Leeds
Company, to pay the Canal Company a certain sum. If the
Committee should be satisfied that that was a valid docu-
ment, he would propose the substitution of a clause in the
Bill remedying this crying evil.
The CHAIRMAN said the Committee were unanimous in de-
claring that they had not the power to insert any such clause
in the Bill.

Mr. Sergeant BELLASIS said his clients would then try
heir clause at another tribunal.

All the clauses were then, with some verbal amendments,
agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN then announced that the Committee would
go no further than this Bill to-day, and to-morrow, at
twelve o'clock, they would proceed with the Huddersfield
and Manchester line.

➢lr. BAINES begged of the Chairman to procure the order
of the Speaker of the House of Commons to compel the at-
tendance of certain witnesses upon the West Yorkshire line,
who had refused to come.

The Committee on the C group of railways, consisting of
Mr. Barneby, Chairman, Sir W. Clay, Sir Winston Barron,
Lord Dalawny, and Mr. Somes, sat this morning in
Committee-room 14, on the Huddersfield and Sheffield Junc-
tion Railway.
Mr. WJIATELEY, who was assisted by Mr. Baines and Mr.
Yates, appeared for the Company, and after a brief opening
address, relied on the Committee allowing the preamble of
the Bill.

Mr. TEMPLE opposed it on behalf of a lady named Horse-
fall, but was not prepared to sustain his objection, in conse-
quence of his client not expecting the discussion to come on
to-day.
This objection the Committee overruled, although
Mr. WHATELEY expressed his readiness for an adjourn-
ment. Miss Horsefall's petition was the only one against
the Bill, and the Company were ready to make her any rea-
sonable compensation for the injury she had sustained by
the line passing through her garden. The Company were
willing to give her 2,000/. for the injury done to her property,
while the loss sustained could not be more than 300/. ;
altogether Miss Horsefall valued the property at 6,0001.
It was clearly an exaggeration, but the Company
were willing to bear an extravagant charge rather
have their prospect impeded, and if the petitioner
chose to appoint arbitrators, they were quite willing
to abide the decision. Though ready, therefore, to postpone
the consideration for the Committee, yet he thought that no
great loss could accrue from proceeding.
Mr. Thomas Smith, solicitor, was examined on the sub-
scription contract. By his statement it• appeared that there
were fifty-two subscribers to the undertaking, all of whom
were locally interested. The amount of their capital was
37,8501.; and, besides these, there were 106 other share-
holders, whose subscriptions amounted to 90,150/.
After a statement from Mr. Sutcliffe,, who proved that the
line was likely to be beneficial to the town of Huddersfield,
Mr. Charles Cope was called ; by his statement it appeared
that the long traffic would be 21,8811., and the local receipts
47,953/., which left a net revenue of 41,9901. That was pre-
suming that this was the only line between Huddersfield and
Preston, but if the Huddersfield and Manchester Railway was
carried out this amount would have to be altered. There
were two Bills before Parliament, of which this was one.
The other was the Manchesier and Huddersfield, which was
an extension of the present Manchester and Leeds line. By
the promotion of the proposed line a great advantage would
be obtained in the facility of intercourse with the north-west
Districts of the country, and, by that means, even were the other
line formed a profit would accrue to the company of more than
three times the loss which they would sustain from the local
competition of the Manchester and Huddersfield line.
Mr. Locke and Mr. Gee, the engineers, were examined as
to the difficulties of construction, and from their evidence
it appeared that the works would be of a difficult and expen-
sive character, in consequence of the abruptness of the coun-
try, and though therewould be both tunnellings and viaducts,
as well as deep cuttings, yet that the estimate was up to the
expense likely to be incurred, the highest gradient being I
in 100, and that only through a space short of six miles.
The Committee allowed the preamble of the Bill to be
proved, and deferred the consideration of the opposition to it
till twelve this day, when the inquiry is to be resumed.

MUSEUMS IN LARGE TowN3.—The Bill to establish
museums of art In large towns is to be read a third time tomorrow
(Wednesday). The title has been altered for the third reading.
The object of the measure is to establish museums in corporate
towns for the instruction and amusement of the inhabitants, by
awakening their feelings to the treasures of art and wonders of
nature. The admission to the places is not to exceed one penny
eseb person,

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, April 11.
Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
GRANT TO MAYNOOTIL
_

The Bishop of LONDON presented petitions against
any further grant to Maynooth, and from Stirling
against the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sundays.
The Earl of WINCIIILSEA prevented a large num-
ber of petitions from the counties of York and Somer-
set against the Maynooth grant. The Noble Earl at
the same time presented petitions against intemperance
and the unions of the saes of Bangor and St. Asaph.
Several other Noble Lords presented petitions against
the Government proposition respecting the College of
Maynooth.

The Earl of FORTESCUE presented petitions from
carious places, complaining of the Bill passed last
session fur abolishing imprisonment for debt under 201.
The Noble Earl also presented a pennon from Exeter,
signed by several hundred persons, acramsi, the sale of in-
toxicating liquors on the Sabbath, and several petitions
against the Maynooth grant. The Noble Earl thought t
almost needless to say he was opposed to the prayer of
the latter petitioners.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented peti-
tions from Ireland against the Maynooth grant.
The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S also presented petitions
against the grant, and two against the union of the sees
of Bangor and St. Asaph.
The Bishop of BANGOR presented petitions from
different places in \Vales to the same effect.
The Earl of RODEN presented petitions against the
endowment of the college of Maynooth, and others
praying the House to appoint a Select Committee
previous to the second reading of the Government Bill,
to inquire into the class-books and tenets taught at
Maynooth. The Noble Earl could not see how their
L,rdships could object to the Committee, seeing that it
would have the double effect of allaying the excitement
on this subject, and convincing Parliament and the
country whether there was, or was not, doctrines and
tenets taught at Maynooth which were detrimental to
the British constiution. If there were, he did not think

it would be becoming in the Government to persist in
their measure. He gave notice that, before the second
reaching of the Bill, he would move the appointment of
the Committee.