The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-26 00:00:00

LOCKE'S ESSAY on the HUMAN UNDERSTANDING.
One thick vol. Bvo. with Portrait, nine shillings bound in cloth,
A N ESSAY CONCERNING HUMAN UN-
DERSTANDING, by JOHN LOCKE, Gent., witk the Notes
and Illustrat!ons of the Author, and an Analysis of his doctrine of
Ideas. Thirtieth Edition, carefully revised and compared with the
best copies.
London : printed for Thomas Tegg, Cheapside, and may be procured

by order ortai BookieHer's.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
(YESTERDAY.)

Sub-Committee, No. 2.

This Committee met to-day at twelve o'clock. The Mem-
bers present were—Sir J. Y. Bailer (Chairman), Mr. Bell,
Mr. Bramston, and Mr. Walker.

TanncT LONDON A.ND MANCHESTER.
The consideration of the remaining allegations in the
petition, which were not concluded yesterday, were re-
sumed.
It was alleged in the petition that -notice had not been
served on the owners of the property 42, in the parish of
Ibstock.
Mr. Drs©x contended that the consent of the parties peti-
tioning should be proved.
The requisite evidence was then adduced, and the Corn-
a.mittee found that in this case the standing orders had been
complied with.
It was also alleged that a piece of land between Nos. 85
and 88, in the same parish, was not in the book of reference
deposited with the clerk of the peace for the county.
The allegation was not sustained.
There was a similar allegation with respect to the field
marked 32, on the part of Sir Charles Hastings, the owner
of the same.
Mr. Hughes (solicitor to Sir Charles Hastings) proved the
ownership of the-property in 'question.
The clerk of the peace for Bedford not being in attendance,
the allegation was abandoned. •
There was another allegation, to the same effect, with
respect to the property, No. 72, the property of the same
owner.
The petition was from the occupier, Mr. Rice, whose con-
sent to the petition was shown.
The Committee found that in this case the standing orders
had not been complied with. •
Several similar allegations were abandoned.
It was then alleged, on the part of the surveyors of high-
ways in Manchester, that no notice respecting the property,
No. 5, Oxford-row, in the parish of Manchester, had been
served.
This allegation was not pressed.
There was a similar allegation, which was abandoned, the
witnesses not being in attendance.
This was the 334th allegation, and the 344th was the next
taken;• the intermediate allegations being abandoned: This
allegation was to the effect, that in No. 51 in the parish of
Staple-hill,- in the occupation of James Wilson, notice had
not been served on the owner.
This allegation was not sustained.
'1 here was a similar allegation with respect to Nos. 54 and
58 in the parish of Tutbury, which was abandoned, as well
as an allegation to the effect that the property marked No.
156 was described as the property of Sir Oswald Moseley,
whereas the owner was the Marquis of Anglesea.
It was also alleged that no notice had been served on Sir
Oswald Moseley with respect to a plantation, his property,
marked No. 4.
This allegation was not sustained.
This allegation was the 371st; and
Mr. Pnerr said, he proposed now to make a great sweep,
and proceed to the 481st allegation, which stated general
inaccuracy in the books of reference 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 roads,
&c., in the parish of Tutbury, the property of Sir Oswald
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 that the town of
Packington, through which the line proposed to pass, was
partly in the parish of Meshaim, that he occupied property
under Sir Charles Hastings there, and that he had not been
served with notice. Section 41 on the plan was partly in
the parish of Meshaim, and of Packington. He paid poor-
rates for the field in question to the collector of poor-rates of
Packington, which went to the poor of the township of
Packington. Did not know whether he told Mr. Brock,
when he went to show him the boundaries of the two
parishes, what was the boundary of the parish of Meshaim.
Mr. Hughes (solicitor to Sir 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 Meshaim. A party holding property in the township of
Packingten paid church-rates in Meshaim. One-third• of
Packington was in Meshaim, and the property referred to
was in the parish of Meshaim.
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, &c., and in the books of reference there was a dis-
crepancy, inasmuch as the property, No. 16 A, in the palish
of Hanbury, was not described in the latter as plantation
ground.
This allegation was admitted.
Several other similar allegations wore 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. Puirr said 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 bad 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 petition 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 had cattle there had been served with notice instead of
the occupier, Mr. Landon, who held the land from the Mat-
quis of Anglesey.
The Committee found that the allegation was sustained.
The remaining petitions were abandoned. ,
The CHAIRMAN announced that the standing orders had
not been complied with.
EDxrznunGii, GLlksGow, AVID DufvfilAiim
'X'QN3III3t,E,
The Committee proceeded io con Sider the petition of the
promoters of this undertaking.
The obiiet Of the Bill wits,to construct tt railway ffom the
Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway, to connect Glasgow, butte:
barton, and Hellensburgh. The extent of the line was
and the eap4al 300,000/.
ttventy ;: six miles;
Dir. "'rid apPcitfed the ram:Mere; and Mr. Graham in
Support of the petitions against the till.
Th formal evidence was then heard, from which it ap •
Peered that the atiiount subscribed was 467,0001., of which
being one-twentieth of the sum
23;3501. had been deposited,
eubscribed.
There were several petitions against the Bill.
The first considered was froth the trustees of the Lass
district of the Dumbartonshire roads, which 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. Parer 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. GRAHAM said that there was no mention made of the
second crossing in the notice served on the trustee&