The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-28 00:00:00

that the petitioners could not be heard as parties before
th eCommittee.
The petition of the Minister, Churchwardens, and
Overseers of the poor of the parish of Colton, in the
county of Stafford, stated that the Liverpool and B►r-
mingham, and Birmingham and London Railroads had
given much dissatisfaction to the public, and had ruined
many innkeepers, tradesmen, and others in small towns,
and that the present measure is inexpedient ; but no
person appeared in support of the petition.
The petition of the Company of Proprietors of the
Birmingham Canal Navigation stated that the line of
the intended Railway would interfere prejudicially with
their Canal, and clauses for their protection have been
inserted in the Biil.
The petition of the Company of Proprietors of the
Navigation from the Trent to the Mersey, stated that
the Railway would injure the petitioners by interrupting
the free use of the navigation. The petitioners were
heard by counsel and witnesses.
The petition of the Midland Counties Railway Com-
pany stated that the proposed Railway would establish
a competition with their Railway for part of their
traffic. The petition was referred to the Committee
who decided that the petitioners could not be heard as
parties before the Committee.
A second petition was subsequently presented from

the same Company, praying the Committee to insert a
clause to prevent the Stone and Rugby Railway Com-
pany from opening, for the purposes of traffic, that part
of their line only which lies between Rugby and the
point where it meets the Birmingham and Derby Rail-
way.
The Committee had considerable doubts whether,
according to the ninth resolution of the House, of the
22d of April last, they could receive this petition ; but
as no one appeared in support of it, in consequence of
the promoters being willing to insert the clause as re-
quired, the Committee did not consider it necessary to
entertain that question,
The petition of six shareholders of the Company,
which complained of a proviso proposed to be inserted
in Committee enabling the directors of the Company to
agree with the Manchester and Birmingham Railway
Company to apply to Parliament for power to
consolidate the two Companies. The petitioners
express their great aversion to any such provi,ion.
Mr. Burke was heard as agent on behalf of this petition,
and the Committee decided upon retaining the proviso

in the Bill.
Twenty-second. Your Committee further report, that
the present Bill was brought under the consideration of
the House at a very early period of the Session,
namely, the 11th day of February, and that the petition
for the Bill having been referred to the Committee on
petitions was there opposed on various grounds, from
the 22d day of February to the 26th day of March,
the Committee sitting upon the petition for twenty•two
days. That leave having been obtained to proceed
with the Bill, it was on the 14th day of May referred
to this Committee ; that the inquiry before your Com-
mittee has occupied sixty-one days, during which forty-
five persons have been examined as witnesses in support
of or against the Bill.
That the inquiry having been thus unusually pro-
tracted, your Committee recommend, in case the late
period of the Session at which their labours have ter-
minated should render it impossible to submit the Bill
to the consideration of the other branch of the Legis-
lature in the present Session, that every facility should
be afforded to the promoters of the Bill in a future
Session which the rules of the House will admit of.
Mr. Mildmay further reported that, in pursuance of
the Order of the House of the 24th day of April last,
the Committee have examined and found that such
Order has been complied with, and that provision is
made in the Bill accordingly ; and that they had ex-
amined the allegations of the Bill and found the same to
be true, and had gone through the Bill and made several
amendments thereunto.