The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-23 00:00:00

X.XNE.

There were two petitions against this line, alleging non-
compliance with the standing orders; one from Sir J. Max •
well, which was withdrawn, and the ether from Mr, P. M.
Stewart, whose agent appeared. The object of this line is
to connect the village of Barrhesd with Paisley and the
mineral districts; the length of the line is 12 miles, sad the
estimated cost 195,0001., on an average of 14,0001. per mile,
including branches. Engineer, John Mitten, Esq.; Parlia-
mentary agents, Messrs. Deans, Dunlop, and Hope.
Mr. P. M. Stewart's agent, contended that there was dis-
crepancy between the datum line on the section and the
actual mode in which the line would traverse a bridge, which
crossed a river in Renfrewshire. A witness was called, who
deposed as to a mis-description in the section'. The parapet
of the bridge was formed of iron railing, horizontal and up-
right ; but that it would be impossible. to understand from the
description hi the section, whether the.proposed railway was
to run below the level of the railing of the bridge or upon a
level of it. _

Mr. George Martin, the engineer,who prepared the section,
deposed that he conceived the description in the section to
be sufficitmt, and that the term " rail►ng," as applied to a
bridge, was such as no Scotch engineer could mistake.
The room was cleared for a divis►on, and on re-admittance
the Committee declared that the objection did not hold good,
though they conceived that the description might have been
better. _ .

The next objection was somewhat of a similar character,
and the error was admitted by the anent to the Bill.
The next allegation was that the miles were not numbered
on the map, hut were distinguished by crosses, which was also
admitted.

The next allegation was that the plan and section differed,
inasmuch as that the plan described a certain distance be-
tween two given points, as 5 miles 5 furlongs, while in the
section the same distance was described as 7 miles 6 furlongs.
The agent to the Bill said he admitted the allegation, but
in the Bill he had limited the said distance to that marked
in the plan.
• Standing order not complied with.
Several other allegations of ;he same character were made,
and declared by the Committee to have been proved, and the
standing orders net complied with.
The agent stated. that all these discrepancies had been
cemeted in the plan deposited in the Private Bill. office.

Sub-Committee, No. 2.

This Committee met to-day shortly after twelve o'clock;
present Sir J. Y. Buller, (Chairman,) Mr. Bell, Mr. I,>ram
ston, Mr. Ketnble, and Mr. Walker.

CHELMSFORD .A.van BURT.

Mr. Gauame (agent for the petition, the consideration of
which was commenced, but not concluded on Friday) said
that as a question bad arisen with reference to the manner in
which the petitioners' engineers had checked the levels, they
(the petitioners) would consent to have the consideration of
the remaining allegations postponed till the line had been
examined by one or two competent engineers, the expence of
which they would defray. This course of proceeding had
been sanctioned in a case before the House of Lords.
The Committee were i f opinion that the case had better
be proceeded with, and the consideration of the remaining
allegations was then resumed.
The first allegation was, that there was an error of 8 feet
at the sth mile, 7th furlong, and 6th chain, on the datum
line at the surface.
Evidence was adduced in support of the allegation, and the
room was cleared.
The CHAIRMAN (on our re-admission) said that the Com-
mittee were of opinion that in this case the standing orders
had been complied with, the surface of the ground at the
point specified being shown on the plan in question.
There was another allegation to the seine effect with re-
ference to the 51st -mile 6th furlong and 4th chain, which
was sustained.
__

Some similar allegations were abandoned.
The next class of a'legations was that the radius of the
curve at various points was not shown on the plan deposited
with the Clerk of the Peace for Essex, one instance of which
was adduced and sustained.
There was another allegation to the same effect with re-
spect to the plan deposited with the Clerk of the Peace for
Suffolk, one instance of which was sustained.
It was next alleged that the change of gradient on the
Stowmarket branch at the eighth mile, seventh furlong, and
eighth chain, was not shown on the said plans.
Evidence was heard in support of this allegation, which
was sustained.
Another allegation to the same effect was sustained.