The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-18 00:00:00

BIRMINGHAM AND OXFORD (BIRDIEING-

niS.MC EXTZ-NSION.)

In regard to this Bill a question was raisod as to the sufficiency of
certain notices, and was reserved for farther consideraftn by the
Committee.

It was objected that, in the sections deposited with the clerli: of the
peace for Warwick, the standing order No. 25 was defective, inas-
much as it was not on the same horizontal scale as the plan.

The agent for the Bill (Mr. Burke) said that the section was on the I
same scale as the plan, but that it was not on the same scale as the
" additional plan," which, lie said, was not the plan with which the
section ought to agree.
After a long discussion as to the meaning of the term " the plan,"
and whether it was necessary that the sections should be on the same
scale as the additional plan,
The Committee decided that the standing orders were complied
with.
The objection was next raised that the datum lino was not re-
ferred to any, fixed in, or near one of the stations. It appeared that
the reference was made to the station of the Grand Junction Rail-
way.
The agent for the Bill admitted that technically there was a non-
compliance with the standing orders. This line being but a part of
a larger line, the datum line had been referred to a point which
would be in one of the stations of the whole line, but he could not
pretend that it was a point in this line.
The CHAIRMAN observed that this was a very serious objection.
The agent for the line was sorry the chairman thought so. He
himself thought he could sufficiently account for the error before the
Standing Orders' Committee. The fact was, that the objection only
applied to this Bill when considered as a separate line ; but in the
consolidated project, including the other Bill, the objection vanished.
He must, however, admit that there was what, technically con-
sidered, was a non-compliance with the standing orders.
The next point raised was a question of the sufficiency of the
subscription contract. It was urged that there was but one sub-
scription contract for the two Bills, and that, as there was no suffi-
cient distinction made between the estimated cost of the two lines,
the shareholders would not be bound if only one of the Bills were to
pass.

Mr. BintEtz argued that there was a sufficient distinction, and cited
the case of the North British line, in which it was decided that oue
contract was sufficient for four lines. _ .

The CHAIRMAN asked whether Mr. Btirke considered that, If only
a part of the Bill were to pass, the promoters could enforce payment
of the who:e sum contracted for, or only of a part proportioned to
the part of the hue for which the Bill had been obtained ?

/*fr. Sung - Certainly, for the whole.
The CHAIRMAN proposed to consult Mr. Aglionby, who was Chair-
man of the Sub-Committee In which the case cited took place, and
who was now in Una Committee sitting in the next room.

This being assented to,
The Cnatamarr left the room, and, on his return, stated that Mr.
Aglionby had no distinct recollection of the case, but, on his etatis4
the case, Mr. Aglionby gave it as his opinion that the contract was
sufficient.
The Committee were of the same *pinion, and decided that there
was no non-compliance.
These was in one of the petitions against the Bill an allegation
that certain property " near No. 23 in the plans " was not marked
in the plans; and there were several other allegations, stating that
several houses were not marked in the plan.
Mr. BURKE said that he could not tell what property was alluded
to. The statement that property " near No. 23" was not marked
was so indefinite, that the allegation could not be sustained. It
would have been quite as easy for the petitioners to have stated that
it was 23, and some other number. Again, it was not stated in the
allegation that these buildings were in their present places before the
30th of November, when the plans were deposited.
The CHAIRMAN said that the allegation must fall to the ground, as
the houses alluded to in it were not near No. 23 ; if they had been
near it, the description " near No. 23" would have been sufficient.
Several other allegations fell to the ground, and some were with-
drawn.

The last allegation of the petition under consideration was reserved
for further consideration. . _ _

. .—...--------
Shortly after four o'clock, tho Committee, having cleared the room
to consult as to their further proceedings, adjourned to Thursday
nest, without announcing what conclusion they had come to.

STANDING ORDERS' COMMITTEE
HOUSE OF LORDS.
The Committee met this day at half-past twelve o'clock. Present
the Earl of Shaftesbury (in the chair), Loreto Redesdale, ilawarden,
and Colborne.