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

GROUP XV.

This Committee met in the Vice-Chancellor of England's Court, at
twelve o'clock ; present, Mr. O'Connell, Chairman ; Sir R. Price,
Captain Hatton, Mr. Hindley, and Mr. Mackinnon.

SOUTEI-MISTERN (TuNinzinGE veriLmis TO
.111ISTUMS).

This Bill was scud sod the clauses ag;:cal to.
LONDON AND BRIGHTON (EAST Cenria-

SVEAD BsLt'►_NCH).

SOUTI-1-1111STEILN ((O STONE TO EAST

Gataziwrze.-Ax)),

Mr. lltr.L, Counsel for the London and Brighton Company, said
the branch whose merits he was to open before the ComMittee ran
front East Grinstead towards the west, and came into the Brighton
line at a place called Three Bridges ; and that being the point from
which the Brighton line started to Horsham, there would be a
straight line from Horsham to East Grimstead. This branch was in
competition with a propiasal to make a line which from East Grinstead
would run north, and come into the South-Eastern Railway about
one and a-halt miles from the Godstone station. The branch from
the Brighton line would be 6 miles 6 furlongs long, 'and be con-
structed eta cost of 80,0001. ; there were no ttumelling or engineering
difficulties on the way. On the other hand, the South-Eastern
branch would haVe to cross a deep valley by a viaduct, zupported on
-30 arches, each arch having -a span of 42 feet, and standing 76 feet
high, the piers at the other end descending 20 feet deeper. The gra-
dient on that line would be 1 in 66. It was to cost, by their own
estimate, 110,0001. As to the Brighton branch, he was sure that
the connexion from East Grinstead with Uwe._ the county town,
with Brighton and Newhaven, would be an 0101 ms •,Yillitage. By
the Brighton branch there was a- straight line to Lewes; whereas,
proceeding by the South-Eastern Railway, he mm Vli.o have t, go to
Reigate, and from that to Horsham, before ho cella. it for the
county town. It wit, of great importance to keep open the commu-
nication from the west eastward, as the supplies of corn and other
products came from the west. It was unopposed except by the
South-Eastern Company.
. . _

Mr. MILLEa, for the Brighton Company, called witnesses to prove
the traffic and the favourable feeling which prevailed in the district.
Mr. Rastrick, engineer of the Brighton Branch, said, the Three
Bridges stationwas 2914 miles distantfrom London-bridge. East Grin-
strad stood high, but there were no engineering difficulties to over come.
The worst gradient was 1 in 88, but all of them were for short dis-
tances. The total of cuttings would be 601,000 feet, and of embank-
ments 367,912 feet. The engineering work would cost 70,0001., and
the cost of the land, he believed, would be 9,9001. On the South-
Eastern branch the gradients would be 1 in 66, or 80 feet per mils,
and stretching a distance of 2% miles.

Sub-Committee No. 2

The Committee met to-day at half-past twelve o'clock ; present,
Sir J. Y. Buller (chairman), Mr. Bell, Mr. Walker, Mr. E. Yorke,
and Mr. Bramstone.

SURREY XR ON RP.XLWAY.

The CIIAIRMAN said, that in the case of this Company the standing
orders had been complied with. The Committee were of opinion that
the Bill was simply of the third class, and that the provision 36 of the
Act did not apply to it.
C iIieIaYiSFORD AND DUEY.

The Committee proceeded to consider this Bill, which was opposed.
The object of this Bill was to construct a line of railway from
Chelmsford to Bury, in length about thirty miles
.; engineer, Mr.
Thompson ; solicitors, Messrs. Chauntler and Westwood ; Parlia-
mentary agents, Messrs. Dyson and Co.
The formal proofs were then taken, and from these it appeared
that the subscription contract, which was three-fourths of the esti-
mate, was 820,0001. . .

The first petition against the Bill c onsidered was from land-
owners along the line, making the usual general allegation that the
standing orders had not teen complied with in different instances.
Mr. Webster appeared in' support of the Bill, and Mr. Baker on
the part of the petitioners.
. . .

The first particular allegation was, that the plans deposited with
the clerk of the peace for Essex did not contain certain lands anU
houses en the line.

Evidence having been heard in support of the allegation, the Com-
mittee decided that in this case the standing orders had not been
complied with.
Two ether allegations to the same effect were sustained, and
several others were adduced which the Committee found were not
sustained.

The next allegation was with respect to the increase of capital,
and stated that there had been an Infraction of the standing order.
The Committee found that the allegation was not sustained.

This terminated the case for this petition.

Sub-Committee No. 3.

The members of this Sub-committee sat at twelve o'clock ; Mr.
Agllonby in the chair.

The first line on the list was the

EAS'X'ER7,N7 COUNTX=S (HERT110.741,11 TO
HUNTIZirGDOiV.)

A good deal of discussion took place as to the order of procedure,
in consequence of Mr. VeLables, who appeared for the promoters,
applying fur a postponement of the proceeding, on the
ground that as the real merits of the case were before
the House of Lords in the case of the London and York, which had
gone up there last session, and with which there was a competing
line.

Mr. COOTES, who appeared for the London and York, objected to
the postponement, and said that the line having been referred to the
Committee by the louse, the Committee must necessarily proceed
with it.

After a great deal of disco: !ion,

The CHAIRMAN decided that the case should go on.
The case wag accordingly proceeded with, and after the Committee
bad investigated it, and the usual evidence had been adduced, the
Committee decided that the standing orders had not been complied
with.

Sub-Committee No. t

The Committee met at twelve precisely. Members present —Sir
W. Heathcote (chairman), Mr. Shirley, Mr. Hope Johnstone, and
Mr. Acland.

The Committee proceeded with the p _talons against the
33I1C4E1NREAD, LATICASHIRE, AND
CITZSIIIRM aUNCTIOLT.

The petition of George and Charles Burgess stated that they het
two houses, in respect of one of which they had received no notice,
and their names were not inserted in the book of reference, although
it would be taken in making the line.

31r. Coppock appeared for the petitioners. "
It appeared that the petitioners had two houses at the corner of a
street, one being in one street and one in the next. The two houses
communicated, but had two doors, one in each street. A notice had
been served with respect to one house only. '
The CHAIRMAN observed that this was equivalent to an objection
that the petitioners had a house with a door in each of two streets,
and had received no notice with respect to each door.
The Committee rejected the allegation.
The petition of Richard Yates, of Mercer-street, Warrington, was
again brought before the Committee.
PRITT, the agent for the Bill, argued that this petition did not
state with sufficient clearness where the property was situated ;':a
notice had been served upon Richard Yates tar a house in Mercer-
street, and he was not aware that there were two persons of toe
name of Yates in that street, or that Richard Yates had two bouseß.
The promoters of the Bill had no means of ascertaining what house
the petition alluded to, but by going to every house in Mercrr-street,
knocking at the door, and asking whether Richard Yates lived there.
The CHAIRMAN. thought the objection concluslye. The petitioners
could not pretend that there was a sufficient description of the
property. _ _

Air. Comm thought the promoters of the Bill ought to prove the
service of two notices.

The Committee, however, dismissed the petition.
There was another petition, complaining that the petitioner had
not been served with a notice in respect of a cottage and smithy in a
court op the east side of Bridges.-street, Warrington.
Mr. PetlT said that there were three courts leading out of the
east side of Bridges-street, Warrington, and that this petition did
not state in which court it was situated. He would not press the
objection, however, as he found that the house was known to his
clients, and that the petitioner had been served with a notice.
The Cimmiuxie said that lie was very sorry to shut out a peti-
tioner on any point of form, as there might he a serious grievance,
but where there was so loose and insufficient a description of the
property, the petition must be rejected. There was no excuse for
the insufficiency of description, as the petitioners had every opportu-
nity of referring to the plans, and they could very well describe the
property by the number given in the plan.
The Committee, therefore, refused to admit the petition.
The petition of John Broadhurst, and others, met with no better
fate, the description being equally insufficient.

Sub-Committee . No. 6.
This Committee re-assembled at twenty minutes past twelve o'clock
this day. Present, (Captain Jones (cliairmAii), Mr. ii,des, and
Lord Ebrington.

THE MIANIT, AND ELGXN
was the drat case called on.
It appeared that a petition had been presented against the Bill by
certain parties, but, as it was not lodged in due time, the Com-
mittee, of course, refused to entertain it.
The object of the promoters of the Bill is the construction ofa
rfiil-
n Item Aberdeen by Banff to Elgin.
The length is 74 miles, and the estimated cost is 694,0601.
Engineer, Thomas Grainger, Esq. ; local engineer, Alexander
Smith, Esq. ; Parliamentary agents, Messrs. Richardson, Connell,
and Loch ; solicitors, George Monro, Esq., Edinburgh, and Messrs.
Stronech and Grainger, Aberdeen.
The preliminary proofs having been put hi, the Committee decided
that the standing ordere had been complied with.