The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-20 00:00:00

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.

(YESTERDAY.)

Sob-Committee No. 1.
This Committee met to-day a little before one o'clock, Mr,
Strutt, chairman.

CMXTHMWE 31TN CTION.

Mr. CoaTis appeared for the promoters of this line, which
was unopposed. The proofs of having deposited the plans
and sections and books of reference were then put in, and the
standing orders were declared to have been complied with.

MANCRESTZA AND SOUTBAIPAPTGIC
Mr. ELLICOMBE appeared for the promoters.
Several petitions were read by the clerk for which no ap-
pearance had been entered.
Mr. BURKE appeared in support of several petitions against
the Bill.
Mr. ELLICOMBE called the witnesses to prove the unop-
posed formal points of the petition in favour of the scheme.
Mr. BURKE, on the part of several laud-owners on the
line, proceeded with the various allegations in the petitions
against the Bill.
The first allegation was, that property numbered 109 on
the plan was not correctly shown.
Mr. Lutton, the owner of the property, was called. Ile
tated that there was a field not shown on the plan.
Examined by Mr. ELLICOMBE—IIad signed the petition
against the Bill. Understood it to be the petition. It was
on a sheet of parchment, and its contents, he understood,
were against the Bill. Had not read it. One of his fields
was not shown on the plan.
The Committee decided that the standing orders, in this
instance, had not been complied with.
The next was a similar allegation against that part of the
plan numbered 115.
The allegation was sustained ; several allegations were
overruled.
The next allegation was, that the plans did not show the
crossings of several highways in the count plans Gloucester,
and that many of them numbered on the were not
shown on the cross sections.
The Committee were of opinion that the allegation was
not sustained.
Several allegations against the plans, with regard to mis-
description of property, were sustained. .
The next allegation was that the promoters had numbered
property en the plans as belonging to the Marquis of Ailes-
bury, whereas, in point of fact, it belonged to a Mr
estion . Everett.
Mr. Everett examined—The property in qu be-
longed to him, and not to the Marquis of Ailesbury. The
Noble Lord's property adjoined his, but there was a boundary
which divided their fields.
Mr. ELLICOMBE called Mr. Collins—ls agent to the Mar-
quis of Ailesbury. He had a plan of the Noble Lord's
property, which showed that certain fields in the occupation
of Mr. Everett belonged to the estate of the Marquis. The
plan, it was true, was twenty years old, but it was shown to
Mr. Everett when the promoters went over the ground, and
he did not object to that plan. Witness understood it to be
the property of the Noble Lord.
The Committee were of opinion that the standing orders
had not been complied with.
The CHAIRMAN said he nould report specially to the
House the circumstances connected with this non-com-
pliance.
The Committee then adjourned till twelve o'clock to-
morrow.

Sub-Committee No. 4.
On the meeting of this Committee at twelve o'clock the
following Members were present—Sir W. Heathcote (Chair-
man), Mr. Shirley, and Mr. Arland.
SLITCHAPS AND SOUTH-WESTERN.
This was a Bill to make a line from the South-Western
Railway at Battersea to Mitcham. The estimated cost is
50,000/., the length of the line being three miles thirty.ons
furlongs.
Mr. Alexander Russ is the Engineer, and Messrs. Gregory
the Parliamentary agents.
One of the witnesses, who was to provo the service of a
notice, being absent, the case stood over.

SOMMIZSEICSIIIRE MIDLAND.
It will be remembered that on Friday last this calk came
before the Committee, and stood over on aeccunt of the
absence of certain witnesses who were to prove the service of
notices. These witnesses being now present the case was
proceeded with. It was found, however, that the datum line
was not referred to any fixed point, and the Committee were
of opinion that in this respect the standing orders were not
complied with.
There being no witness present to prove that the owners,
I !ssoes and occupiers of property, upon whom notices were
proved to have been served, were all the owners, &c., with
whole property the line would interfere with, the further
consideration of the Bill stood over till Monday nat.

LANCASHIR.II AND NORTH YOR7ILSIIXRE.
This case, which stood over front last Friday, on account
of the absence of certain parties opposing the Bill, again
came before the (A' nnmittee this day. Messrs. Dyce, Han,
and Co., were the agents for the petitioner, William Marley,
of Blackheath, who opposed the Bill on the ground that the
plans were not correct.
7+ANCASH7CRE AND NORTH YORXSHIRE.
A Mr. Hewick was called, on the part of the petitioner, to
prove that between two sheets of the p!an which he had
measured there was a discrepancy of twelve feet. In cross-
examination he admitted that the shrinking or expansion of
one sheet of paper would produce a discrepancy between the
two parts of a plan, but on re-examination he said
that the same discrepancy existed in the plans sent to the
House of Lords, and that it could not occur that the
sheets would shrink or contract so as to produce the same
discrepancy in both sets of plans.
Mr. Hawkshaw, the engineer, was then called on the
part of the promoters of the line. He said that
in the course of preparing the plans, an impres-
sion was transferred from a paper called the " trans-
fer paper" to a lithographic block, and that it commonly
occurred that this paper being wet, either shrunk or got
wrinkled, so es to cause an apparent discrepancy in the plans,
which discrepancy would appear in every copy of the plans.
this case was, on the paper, about 1-‘autli
The discrepancy in
of an inch.
The objection fell to the ground.
Two of the allegations of the petition were abandoned.
The allegation that " the cross section of the highway
marked No. i 3 does not show the present road, ncr the gra-
dient of the new or altered road," fell to the ground, as it
appeared that the present road was shown in the cross section.
Another allegation was that there was no crow section of
a public road in the parish of Haysden. In support of this
allegation, a witness was called who said that this road was
a pablie road, a bridle road, and a carriage road, but a wit
net's was called on the other side, who said that it was only
an " occupation road," being for the use only of
the persons to whose houses it led -to. It was not
a carriage-road, but carts sometimes passed through it. It
ran paiallel to the turnpike-road. If he were on that road,
mid were told to go back, he would do so, unless he were
going to one of the houses to which it led.
Objection overruled.
Witnesses having been called, in support of, and in opposi-
tion to, several other allegations of the petition, the further
consideration of the Bill was adjourned till to-morrow.

WILITERA.VEN AND PunraEss TUNCrsoN
(WHITEHAVAN EXTENSION AND KUM-
SAXTON DEVIATION).
This Bill included two projects, one to conuet the White-
havNt and Furness Junction and the Whitehaven and Mary-
port Junction Railways, and the other to deviate and im-
prove a portion of the original line at Kirksanton. Length
of extension, three quarters of a mile; estimated cost,
25,000/. Length of deviation, two miles; estimated cost,
11,0001. Engineer, Mr. George Stephenson ; Parliamentary
agents, Messrs. Jones and Walmsley.
Standing orders complied with.
In the case of the Mitcham and South-Western Railway,
the witnesses not being in attendance, the matter will stand
over till the next meeting of the Committee.
At about half past three o'clock the Committee adjourned
over to Monday next.

Sub-Committee No. 5.

The Sub-Committee met at twelve o'clock. The members
present were, Mr. Home Drummond, Chainna❑ ; 11tr. T.
Egerton, and Mr. Compton.
241111W1 ANUT AND CHESTERWORD.
The CHAMMAN announced that the standing orders had
been compl!ed with in this ca3e.

DIZDLAND AND EASTEIM COUNTIES
(C.8.1V/BILIDGE TO WELDON).
The object of the petitioners in this me is to obtain a
Bill to enable them to make a railway from the Eastern
Counties Railway at Cambridge to the London and Birming-
ham line at Weedon. The length of the proposed line
is fifty-three miles, and the estimated cost 760,0001.
The Company were provisionally registered on the 29th of
July, and the local agent, Mr. John Chinery, proved
through the witnesses the usual preliminaries. This line
was opposed, and the first allegation was, that a gradient
described as level should have been one in five hundred and
fourteen. This point and sevei al ot hers were then abandoned on
the suggestion of the Chaim:al, that the agent against the line
should go to a mere important objection. The next allega-
tion was that a gradient described as 1 in 330 should have
been described as I in 445. _

Mr. EGERTON said he hoped he (the agent against the
line) would not go on with such objections, as it was a waste
of time and money. The agent said if he had to consult his
own judgment he would not proceed with them.