The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-14 00:00:00

A RAILWAY COMPANY SUED for 3,0201.
PENALTIES.-At Ilford, on Saturday last, Mr. Oldaker, the lessee of
the Terrace at Ilford, laid 151 informations against the Directors of
the Eastern Counties Railway Company, for penalties of 201. each,
amounting in the whole to 3,0201. By the Act of Parliament, if
the Company should intercept any road without making another road
for the convenience of those using it, they were to be held liable to
a penalty of 201. for each day that the road remained impassable.
An argument was raised by the solicitor of the Company, contend-
ing that this case was one for compensation, and not for the penal-
ties. The Magistrates retired, and, without hearing the corn_
plainant's case, decided that they had no jurisdiction. On the part
of the complainant it was contended that the Bench could not de-
cide before hearing the case, and, if they did so, Mr. Oldaker would
be compelled to go to the Court of Queen's Bench for a mandamus
to compel the hearing of the case. The Magistrates, after consult-
ing, consented to hear the evidence in support of the informations.
The sons of the complainant stated that their father's horse and gig
could not be got out of his stables for several weeks, in consequence
of the Company having completely destroyed the road to the house,
and that when they could get out the carriage it was only by going
through some neighbouring garden ground. The road was impas.
sable for 151 days. It was contended for the Company, that, as
they had compensated the freeholder, they were not liable for the
penalties, and that if any liability existed it was only for compensa-
tion. The Magistrates adhered to their former opinion, and de..
dared that the case did not come within the meaning of the Act ;
they therefore discharged the informations.—Abridged from the
Chelmsford Chronicle.

Mr. SANKEY said that he could bear testimony to the
orderly and peaceable conduct of those meetings, 88 ho
had the honour to be chairmain at one of them held
in Edinburgh. So confident was he of the well re-
gulated and orderly conduct of his fellovv-countrymen, that
that he did not feel the slightest hesitation in accepting
the honour which they were disposed to pay him in asking
him to preside at their assembly. While thus bearing his
humble testimony to the peaceable conduct of those
meetings, he could not sit down without stating that he
fully concurred in the motion of Mr. O'Brien.
Mr. WHITTLE said that before he moved an amendment
to the resolution before the Chair, an amendment which
would go to negative it altogether, he could not forbear
from saying a few words on the torch .light meetings
; and
what he would say of them would be fully borne out
by his friend Mr. Marsden, the representative of the Pres-
ton district. A meeting was held in Preston for the pur-
pose of electing a Delegate, and on account of its being
held during the hours of labour, it was said that it was
thinly attended ; but worse than that, those who did at-
tend it were discharged from their employment. To
remedy these inconveniences, it was thought ,
prudent to
get a meeting up after working hours, which was got up
accordingly, and was successful. This was done by the
advice of Mr. Feargus O'Connor, in order that no bad
consequences should accrue to the people. This was the
origin of the torch-light meetings. Having said so much
on that subject, he would now address himself,
in a very few
words to the immediate subject of discussion. i 4
--e was opposed
to the adoption of this resolution, from a prospect of the un-
pleasant consequences that may attach to it ; for surely wo
must not forget that this conference which we desire is a
thing quite novel in the history o the country. ( Here
Mr. O'Brien made some observation which was not heard
at the reporters' table.) It is in substance a conference, and
must we not allow that no body, save the House of Lords,
desired or would ask to confer with the House of Com-
mons, and although the term has been objected to, we
thought he had fairly stated what the object of the
resolution was intended to procure. Was not the resolution
made to state ? that the House of Commons is invited to
meet us in"a body as the law now stands they are sent to
represent the people—are they not solely for the pur-
pose of receiving the people's petitions, and legislating on
them ? Would not the resolution make a claim on the
House of Commons to admit them to a preliminary discus-
sion on a subject of which they had no previous knowledge?
Does it not appear by it that they are to be fully aware of
our object, although they will not be in possession of our
petition for some days after the conference takes place?
Mr, Whittle continued to argue for some time longer in