APPENDIX II.

REPORTS OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE

Committees of House of Commons.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON GROUP (X) OF RAILWAYS,

1. London and York.

COMPRISING

2. Cambridge and Lincoln.

3. Direct Northern (No. 2).

4. Eastern Counties (Cambridge and Huntingdon). 5. Eastern Counties (Ely and Whittlesea).

6. Eastern Counties (Hertford and Biggleswade). 7. Midland Railways Extension (Swinton and Lincoln). 8. Midland Railways Extension (Lincoln and Ely). 9. Sheffield and Lincolnshire Junction.

10. York and North Midland and Doncaster Extension. 11. Tottenham and Farringdon Street Junction.

Upon the meeting of the committee the titles of the above projects, &c., referred to the committee, were read, as likewise the petitions against them respectively.

Parties were informed that the committee would require every petitioner against any of the bills or projects before the committee then to enter an appearance if they proposed to proceed with their case in opposition to the bill, and any petitioner failing to do so would not be permitted to appear at any subsequent stage of the proceedings. (a)

(a) Semble this requisition did not apply to the case of parties, who at the time of the meeting of the committee had presented no petition, by reason of the project, &c., against which they wished to petition, not having then attained the form of a bill, &c.; but it was competent for such parties, on subsequently presenting their petition within the time limited by the resolutions of the house, to appear accordingly. (See the case of Mr. Nias, post, p. ccxxxv., and that of Mr. Dimsdale, in Group (S), Supp. to Votes, 1845, p. 608.) Petitioners to obtain a hearing must not only have taken care to enter an appearance in pursuance of the above requisition, but must likewise have appeared and de

K K

The room was cleared.

The parties were called in, and counsel having stated, in answer to a question from the chairman" Whether parties had agreed as to the order of precedence in which the seve ral bills and projects should be proceeded with," that it was the general wish that the Ely and Whittlesea deviation, being virtually unopposed, should be first considered, The room was cleared.

The committee deliberated and resolved, "That the Ely and Whittlesea should be first proceeded with, and with regard to the other bills and projects to group in one class the London and York Railway, Cambridge and Lincoln Railway, Direct Northern Railway, the two Midland Railways Extension, the Sheffield and Lincolnshire, the York and North Midland (Doncaster Extension), and the Tottenham and Farringdon Street Junction Railway; and that that class should be next proceeded with."

"That the London and York line be first taken into consideration." Parties were called in and informed thereof. Counsel applied to the committee to include the Eastern Counties (Hertford and Biggleswade) in the first subgroup. (b)

The Committee deliberated, and decided against the application.

The Committee then proceeded with

The Eastern Counties (Ely and Whittlesea) Bill.

Mr. Wells stated, on behalf of the Bedford Level Corporation, who had presented a petition against the bill, that he had no opposition to offer to the passing of the preamble.

Mr. Hildyard stated the case in favour of the bill, and called witnesses in proof of the preamble, and the matters required to be examined into by committees on railway bills.

The preamble was read and agreed to.

manded a hearing while the matters against which their petition was directed were still under the deliberation of the committee. For instance, the committee on Group (D) refused to hear counsel for the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal Company, against certain clauses of the Blackburn, &c., Railway Bill, neither counsel nor agent having appeared when the clauses in question were regularly considered and agreed to by the com

mittee.

(b) Applications of this kind to shift bills from one sub-group to another, or to bring a bill on in a particular stage of the proceedings, &c., were of constant occurrence before committees.

The committee next went through the clauses of the bill, paragraph by paragraph, made amendments, and added clauses and considered and agreed to their report.

The committee then proceeded to the consideration of the first sub-group, commencing with the

London and York Bill.

The petitioners against the bill were required severally to state whether they opposed the preamble of the bill, and if so to give in the names of their respective counsel.

Mr. Crowder and Mr. Pickering stated that they appeared against the preamble on behalf of Sir William M. Milner, a petitioner against the bill, and various others did the same on behalf of different petitioners.

The agents for the remaining petitions stated that they did not at present appear further in opposition to the bill. Mr. Serjeant Wrangham then proceeded to state the case in favour of the bill.

On the conclusion of his address, the counsel for the Sheffield and Lincolnshire line applied to the committee for the purpose of procuring their recommendation to the opposite counsel, to inform him of the time when that portion of their case, which competed with the scheme of the applicant's clients would be taken, on the ground that they had many witnesses in town at a great expense. The committee declined to interfere, leaving it to be arranged between the counsel. (c)

The counsel of the promoters then proceeded with the general evidence as to the merits of their line, showing the advantages it was calculated to confer on the districts it traversed. For this purpose they called a great variety of

(c) In the committee on Group (KK), Mr. Calvert, on the part of the promoters of the Liverpool, Ormskirk and Preston Railway, applied to the committee for their decision as to whether the portions of the schemes comprehended in the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Bill might not be divided so as to allow him to withdraw from the committee for the present, and to leave the case to be conducted as between the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company and the promoters of the Liverpool and Bury Railway.

Mr. Lowndes, on the part of the promoters of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Bill, contended that he should be allowed to open his whole case. The committee decided that they would not interfere with the manner in which Mr. Lowndes might desire to open his case.

persons locally interested in the different parts of the country traversed by their line to speak to the state of trade, agriculture, &c., throughout the districts in question, the quantity and quality of their products, the inadequacy of the existing means of traffic and communication, the increased facility in that respect offered by the line of the promoters, &c. The witnesses were severally cross-examined by the counsel opposing the bill.

At the close of the examination in chief of the first witness called for this purpose, Mr. Wells, for the Eastern Counties Railway, claimed a right to cross-examine the wit

ness.

Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, on behalf of the promoters, objected to Mr. Wells' cross-examination on the ground that neither of the Eastern Counties' lines had been placed in the sub-group under consideration by the committee as a competing line with the London and York.

Mr. Austin, on behalf of the promoters of the Eastern Counties schemes, thereupon made an application to the committee that they might be included in the sub-group under consideration, on the ground that they were distinctly competing schemes with the others already in that subgroup; and if they were excluded they would of course be debarred from cross-examination of the witnesses brought forward in favour of the rival schemes.

The committee resolved, "That the Eastern Counties schemes, viz. the Cambridge and Huntingdon and the Hertford and Biggleswade branches, should be added to the sub-group 1."

The chairman was at the same time instructed to intimate to Mr. Austin that he must confine himself to points affecting the particular merits of those branches.

The witness was then cross-examined by Mr. Wells. On Mr. Cockburn, on the part of the Direct Northern, rising to cross-examine the witness,

Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, on behalf of the London and York, objected to Mr. Cockburn's cross-examining, on the ground that in the case of the Direct Northern, the Standing Orders Committee having reported to the house that the standing orders had not been complied with, and that they were of opinion that the standing orders ought not to be dispensed with, the Direct Northern could not be considered as having any locus standi before the committee.

The committee resolved, "That the Direct Northern be admitted as a party before the committee."

Among the witnesses called to speak to this part of the

promoters' case, was one who gave evidence as to the reduction of the charges for conveyance of a particnlar article that would ensue, if the London and York Railway were made. It appeared, however, that he did not know the exact maximum of tolls proposed to be charged per mile by the London and York, and therefore could not state the exact data on which his calculations as to the reduction were made. The committee suggested to the promoters that they should furnish the committee with positive evidence on this point. The evidence, however, of the witness was permitted to be taken, subject to the condition of the requisite evidence on the subject of the tolls being given afterwards.

Mr. Serjeant Kinglake, for the promoters, stated that the evidence of Mr. Richard Hervey, of Lincoln, was necessary to the establishment of the case in favour of the bill, but that the promoters were unable to procure his attendance by the ordinary means, and they had now to request that the committee would apply to the house for an order to enforce his attendance.

Mr. Rose (the solicitor for the London and York line) was called and examined relative to the application to Mr. Hervey.

The chairman was instructed to report the case to the house.

Mr. Paget (on behalf of the London and York) having stated in the course of the proceedings that he proposed to divide his traffic case, and give evidence then as to the district between Huntingdon and London,

The counsel for the various competing schemes objected to the proposed course, and contended that the traffic evidence should be given on the whole line.

The committee resolved, "That they would leave counsel for the bill to conduct the case as they thought most (d) advisable."

Mr. Serjeant Allen (who appeared on behalf of certain landowners opposed to the Sheffield and Lincolnshire line) having claimed the right of cross-examining the London and York witnesses, with a view of supporting his client's opposition to the Sheffield and Lincolnshire scheme, he was held by the committee to have no locus standi for that purpose at that stage of the proceedings. (e)

Mr. Burke, parliamentary agent, on behalf of the Shef

(d) See ante, n. (c), p. ccxix.

(e) Soin Group (N), Mr. Bliss, who appeared for a petitioner