The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-07 00:00:00

MARCH 7, 1846.

Mr. VENARLES appeared to support the petition of the Rev. Henry
Pole. It alleged that the books of reference deposited with the clerk
of the peace of the county of Gloucester did not correspond with
those in the hands of the clerk of the parish of Dowdeswell. The
books were produced, and several discrepancies and omissions were
pointed out, which the Committee decided were a non-compliance
with the 27th standing order.
The hearing of the aliegatioxs contained in this petition, which
were of too trivial a nature to be reported at length, consumed the
greater part of the time tie Committee sat, and they adjourned the
further hearing of the case until Tuesday next.
The Committee then adjourned to the usual hour on Tuesday next.

Sub-Committee No. 5.
The Cemmttee met at twelve o'clock. Mr. Home Drummond,
Chairman.

2971210E551 AND VITIVDEILMERE.
This line, which was before the Committee on Tuesday tat, and
which was adjourned until this day, was again resumed.
The solicitor to the Bill was called to prove that he saw the esti-
mates signed, the estimate itself having been lost.
I !The Citarausx objected to hearing secondary evidence of such a
document, and it was acc,rdingly abandoned.
The next allegation was, that there being t wo lines proposed, separate
estimates should be given of the cost of each line. It was contended
to be unnecessary, as one was an alternate line, and the estimate
lodged in the private Bill-oftlee was sufficient to cover the expenses
of either railway.
After a short consultation the Committee decided that the standing
orders had not been complied with.

MACCLESFIELD AND LICHFIELD.
The further consideration of this line was next resented, and the
allegalion widch was raised on Tuesday last, and which the Com-
mittee postponed deciding on then, namely, that the projectors of the
line shoUld have given notices in all the county papers through
which railways passed of those companies to when it was proposed
to sell or lease the proposed Macclesfield and Lichfield line, was con •
sidered valid, and the Committee decided that en this point the
standing orders were not complied with. The point respecting the
accuracy of the levels, which was under consideration also on
Tuesday last, was next referred to, when
Mr. BuagE, on behalf of the petitioners against the Bill, offered
tp pay all expenses incurred by sending an impartial engineer to
retake the levels.
Mr. GREGORY objected to this course, on the ground that the oppo-
sition had given their evidence, and that the projectors of the late
should be now heard in reply, as they were all present. "But," said
he, "if the offer had been made at an earlier period, very probably
St would have been accepted."
The Committee decided on proceeeing with the evidence, when
Mr. John Preston, a surveyor, was called, wit, proved that he had
levelled the line a few days ago, and had come to the same conclusion
with Mr. Carrick and Mr. Courtney, who had on the last slay this
case was before the Committee established a discrepancy in the
levels taken by the surveyors employed by the promoters of this line
ofsixfeet.
Mr. George Chapman, another surveyor, was called, who corro-
borated the evidence of the last witness."
The Committee decided that in this instance the standing orders
had been complied with, considering that the discrepancy of six
feet between the two levels taken may have been caused from the
fdling down of an embankment when the levels were originally taken.
The further 1 oaring of this case was then postponed until Monday
next, to which day the Committee then adjourned,