The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-25 00:00:00

Ifyi
—7. • w rte.
" 'r
-T!
1024 k... 4
Pt.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
(THIS DAY.)

Sub-Committee No. 2.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
lIEOT LONDON AND IKANCZIESTER.
This allegation was the 371st ; and
Mr. Purr said, he proposed now to make a great sweep,
and proceed to e 48,15 t allegation, which stated general
inaccuracy in the books of reerence with respect to the
names of the owners and occupiers of land along the line.
The specific allegation was, that there was an omission of
this nature with respect to four fields, three occupation roadq,
Esc., in the parish of Tutbury; the property of Sir Osv,ald

Mosely.
The Committee found that in this case the standing orders
had not been complied with.
There was a similar allegation, which was not pressed.
It was also alleged that no notice was given to the clerk
of the peace for the parish of Meshaim, in the county of
Leicester, through which the line proposed to pass.
Mr. DYSON objected, on the ground that the Allegation
was not sufficiently specific to enable the promoters to
meet
it. He also denied that the line would pass through the

parish in question.
Mr. Grundy was examined to show ass, that the town et
Paekington, through ivhich the lire proposed to p
partly in the pariah of Meshaim, that he occupied prtop er
tltey;
wt
as.
under Sir Charles Hastings there, and that he had n
_y in
)e
served with notice. Section 41 on the plan o was par
the parish of Meshaim, and of Packington. He paid poet-
rates for the geld in question to the collector
the township of
tes of
Packing,ten, which went to the poor of t.
Packington. Did not know whether he told Mr. Brock,
when he went to show him the boundaries of the two
parishes, what was the Bruno`ry of the parish of Meshaim.
bee. Hegbee (solicito ir Charles Hastings) corro-
borated the evidence of the preceding witness as to the posi-
tion of Packington with respect to the parish of Meshaim,
which was a notorious fact. Paid church-rates exclusively
to Meshaine. A paesty bolding property in the township of
Packingten paid church-rates in Meshaim. One-third of
Packington was in Meshahn, and the property referred to
was in the parish of Meshaini.
The Committee found that the standing orders in this case
had not been complied With.
The next allegation was, that in the plans deposited with
the clerks of the peace for the counties of Middlesex,
Chester, &e., and in the books of reference there was a dis-
crepancy, inasmuch as the property, No. 16 A, in.the parish
of Hanbury, was not described in the latter as plantation
ground.
This allegation was admitted.
Several other similar allegations were abandoned.
The next allegation considered was that the pages on the
books of reference did not correspond with those in the books
of reference, which was sustained.
Mr. Pramsaid he had now come to the last allegation,
N 0.514, which was similar to the preceding allegation, which
he would not press.
'The next petition considered was from the Marquis of
Anglesey for which Mr. Thomas appeared.
The first allegation was that in property 107, in the
parish of Stapenhill, there was no application in writing,
which was not sustained, as well as another allegation to the
same effect.
It was alleged that in No. 40, containing three houses,
that the standing orders had not been complied with, which
was not established.
The petition next alleged that No. 41, the property of the
Marquis of Anglesey was not mentioned in the book of re-
ference. The property was proved to belong to the Marquis
of Anglesey, and the Committee found that in this case the
standing orders had been complied with.
There was a similar allegation with respect to the property
marked 42, which was not sustained.
The next allegation was, that in No. 17 the right owner
was not stated, which was not sustained.
There was a petitioa from Mr. Landon, which contained a
!similar allegation respecting No. 19.
From the evidence it appeared that the ground in question
- had been let out for grazing, and that some of the parties
who bad cattle there had been served with notice instead of
the cccupier, Mr. Landon, who held the land from the Mar-
quis of Anglesey.
The Committee found that the allegation was sustained.
The remaining petitions were abandoned.
' The CIIAIR3fAN announced that the standing orders had
not been complied with.
EDINBURGH, GLASGOW, AND numaroz-
TONSUIR,V.
The Committee proceeded to consider the petition of the-
promoters of this undertaking.
The object of the Bill was to construct a railway from the
Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway, to connect Glasgow, Dum-
barton, awl Helleusburgh. The extent of the line was
twenty-six miles, and the capital 300,000/.
Mr. Pritt appeared for the promoters, and Mr. Graham in
snprort of the petitions against the Bill.
The formal evidence was then heard, from which it ap-
peared that the amount subscribed was 467,0001., of which
23,350/. had been deposited, being one-twentieth of the sum
subscribed.
There were several petitions against the Bill.
'The first considered was from the trustees of the Loss
district of the Dumbartonshire roads, whieh alleged various
non-compliances with the standing orders.
It was alleged that there was an inaccuracy in the plan de-
posited with the clerk of the peace at Dumbarton.
Mr. Pitirr here objected to the plan in question being
used, and the Committee decided to proceed on the plan de-
posited at the Private Bill-office.
The petition alleged that a turnpike-road near Ardrop
was not marked, which was not sustained.
There was a similar inaccuracy alleged in No. 31, on the
plan—the railway crossing the road twice, which was not
marked.
The CHAIRMAN said, that from the plan it appeared that
in one case the crossing was marked.
Mr. Gnairam said that there was no mention made of the
second crossing in the notice served on the trustees.
'The CIIAIRMAN said the Committee found that in this case
the standing orders had not been complied with.
It was also alleged that no copy of the plans and sections
had been deposited with the schoolmaster at the west side
of the river Leaven, which the Committee would not en-
tertain.
The next petition was from the trustees of the Wier dis-
trict of Dumbartonshire, alleging that the distances were
not marked in miles and furlongs on the plan deposited in the
sheriff's office, which was sustained.
There was a similar allegation, which was not sustained.
It was also alleged that there was an inaccuracy on the
datum line in the same district, which was sustained.
There was another allegation to the same effect,
which was not sustained. It was also alleged that in No.
91, in Old Kilpatrick, which was to be crossed by the pro-
posed railway, the mode of crossing was not shewn.
The allegation was not sustained, the committee being of
opinion that the road in question was not a public road.
There was ash-niter allegation respecting No. 72, on the
plan which was sustained. . •
This was the last allegation in the petition, and the• case
was postponed.
Parliamentary agent, 3fr. Pritt ; solicitors, Messrs. Hunt
and Co.; engineer, Mr. Miller.
The Committee then adjourned to twelve o'clock on
Friday.

Sub-Committee No. 3.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)

• WELSH MIDLAND.
The Committee then resumed the hearing of this case.
Mr. Ellicombe appeared for the promoters of the Bill, and
Mr. Burke for the petitioners against it.
The whole of the d?y was occupied in discussing dis-
repancies of a minor character on the plans and
sections, and examining and cross-examining 'Mr. Sidney
Hall, the engineer of the line, and Mr. Samuel Hughes,
of Westminster, the engineer for the opposing
parties, in relation to each point. Several of the
discrepancies were admitted to exist on the plans and sections
deposited on the 30th of November, and the petitioners with
the aid of their engineer, sustained a few allegations which
affected both the plans and sections deposited on the 31st of
December, as well as those deposited on the :oth of Nov.
In the course of the day a question arose, as to whether a
party who was not immediately interested either by occu
pancy, possession, or otherwise, in a piece of land omitted in
the book of reference, could appear before the Com-
mittee to complain of such an omission. It was
urged by Mr. Burk that discrepancieS in the plans, sections,
or books of reference were open to the objection of the gene-
ral public, while on -he other hand it was contended by Mr.
Ellicombe that cnly the plans and sections were liable to be
objected to by the general public, and before a party could
complain of emissions in the books'of reference, he must show
that he was in some way connected with the piece or pieces
of land alleged to be omitted.
Mr. BURKE suggested that as most of the allegation of the
petitioners had referenc3 to the plans deposited on the 30t
of November, it would be better as the promoters had aban-
The Committee decided that they would revive the point
until it had teen discussed in the Committee of Chairmen of
Committees.
Boned those plans for them to rely on the case of the Mon-
mouth and Hereford Bill and go into the Committee on
standing orders on the corrected plansdeposited upon the3lst
December.

Ultimately- it was determined that the engineer's on bosh
aides should have a meeting to determine what allegation
should be admitted, and which ehould not.
The Committee, however, remarked, that there was al;
ready sufficient evidence before them to justify their roport-
lug to the Conunitteo up stairs that the plans and sections
deposited on the 30th of November were defective, and
contrary to the standing orders, in so far as they
did, rot Filow a datum line, or a fixed point, and that the
plans and seetiors: deposited on the 31st of December were
not duplicates of those deposited on tke 30th of November,
ikvertliciess the Committee;:vcre ready to take evidence
to prove that the plans dettisited on the 313 t December wet e
correct._

The Committee then adjourned till Friday at 12 o'clock,

Sub-Committee, No, 4.

til !
to'clock, hay_ This Committee did not met to-day un
ing adjourned to that hour at their rising
members present were Sir W. Ileathcote
Mr. Acland, Mr. 0
iletraY. The
1111,-m), Mr.
J.O'Cotnell, 3lr. Leigh, •Po Johnstone,
and Mr. Shirley-. .
There have been added to the list thirty•seyen Bills, the
whole of which are for Irish railways.
-V On-CASTY= VIA.E.I7.'2IIEZID, AND LEMDS.
This Bill, which was adjourned from yesterday
In order that the original e3timate of expense
n.ight be produced by . the engineer, was called to
day, but the parties not being prepared to go on, it stood
over.

.0.1'713 M-741.r.p,5T t 7.14.102.1%!
The CriAtumAx stated, tl:at in respect of the 14th and 15th
allegations of the petition, which were. under consideration
when the Committee rose, an error was made in the an-
nouncement that the allegations were overruled. It should
have been stated that the 14th was confirmed, and the 15th
overruled.
Several alleations as to minute differences between the
plans and sections having been read, and witnesses having
be red upport of and in answer to each,
said that the Committee would not report
_ions until they should ascertain what the
whether it was usual to report such slight

t.
.he part of the petitioners, said, that slight
teies appeared to be—being in some in-
th of an inch on the paper—they might lead
teonvenience; and
for the promoters of the Bill, urged the im-
mg the plans and sections alike in such nti-

;ations of the Bill were then proceeded with.
It was alleged that in several parts of the line the limits
of deviation were not marked ; but the allegations contain-
ing the objection were withdrawn.

be examined in E'
~,, ‘,.. SP NV 11.411 CIIAIMIAN S
IN -11./ '- ' ese allegati
c...."
_ ~,... _ t :pFaatlc as, and Iv
oar, 7„", „.__,-___J Cqe all 'es or not
-• ,-,,,,,_ - -- l'lrt--,, Bt on tt
'-- -f,-.,;:fA-1:,- -as these,- bcrepani
-,, ,:."-_,,•-__l _
.:- stanees Oa 1-2011
• ~ 4:.,„:.: , ~..to-veyas at into
0^ j.„.'' --" fir. C NELL, fi
.10.%____:.,
tpossijity of havii
~. ,utellbints.
0,111 - The other alleg