The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-25 00:00:00

Sub-Committee No. 3.

This Sub•Cemmitteeyresumed at the usual hour this
morning; Mr. Aglionby in the chair.

THE WELSH MIDLAND.

The object of the petitioners in this case was to make a railway
from the city of W, reenter to Swansea and Carmarthen, with branches
to various mineral fields adjacent to the line.
There were several petitioners against the Bill, amongst whom
were the Earl of Jersey and the Corporation of Worcester.
The customary formal proofs of the serving of notices and deposit
of plans, &c., having been put in,
Mr. ELLicomBE stated that owing to Mr. Sidney Hall, who had
had the entire control of the engineerinz department of the line,
having been confined to his bed by illness front the 13th to the 30th
of November, the plans and sections of the scheme deposited with
the clerks of the peace on the 30th of November were not so perfect
as they could have wished. They could find no one to supply Mr.
hall's place, and they were, therefore, compelled to deposit the plans
in the condition he had mentioned. The promoters of the scheme
had a meeting upon the subject, and they determined upon
depositing, on the 31st of December, with the clerks of the peace,
plans which had been] prepared by Mr. Hall subsequently to his M-
s US for beiy, deposited with the parish clerks, and which were more
perfect than those deposited on the 30th of November. Now, these
plans deposited with the parish clerks ought to have been duplicates
of those deposited on the 30th of November ; but he hoped the Com-
mittee weuld consider that the circumstances he had already stated
justified a departure from the ordinary rule in such cases.
Mr. Box, who appeared for a petitioner against the Bill, appre-
hended that the Committee had nothing to do with the plans de-
posited on the 31st of December with the clerks of the peace, and he
thought, after the statement of his Learned Friend, that the allega-
tions of his client ought to be admitted—namely, that the plans de-
posited with the clerks of the peace on the 30th of November were
imperfect. . _ _

jar. BILLICOMBE remarked that In the late case of the Monmouth
and Iferelbrd Railway, which was similar to the present one, it was
decided that the promoters of the BM might ac. opt the perfected plans
deposited with the parish clerks, on the 31st of December, in prefer-
ance to those deposited with the clerks of the peace, on the 30th of
November. Ile trusted, therefore, that the Committee would be
guided by precedent, and allow him to prove the accuracy of the
plans deposited on the 31st of December.

Mr. BIRK said the case of the 3lonmouth and Hereford Bill was
different to the present one. In that case there was no opposition ;
and the parties had given ample notice that they intended to rely on
the plans deposited on the 31st of December, and not on those depo-
sited on the 30th of November. He insisted that the Committee
would not be justified in allowing the parties in this case to prove
that the plans deposited on the 30th of December were accurate.
They ought to be confined to the plans deposited on the 30th of No-
vernbe; and required to show that the plans deposited on the 31st of
December were duplicates of those deposited on the 30th of Nov.
The Committee, after a short consultation, decided that they
would take evidence as to the illness of the engineer, because it came
within the province of a Sub-Committee to ascertain whether the
cause which had prevented the parties front comply-
ing with the standing orders was an exonerating cir-
cumstance in favour of the parties or not ; but the question
as to whether the plans deposited on the 31st of December with the
clerks of the peace should be substituted for those deposited on the
30th of Nov., must be left for the decision of the Committee on stand-
ing orders.

Mr. Sidney Hall was accordingly called to prove his illness, and his
consequent inability to examine the plans and sections previ_usly to
the deposit on the 30th of Nov.
The Committee nevertheless decided that the standing orders had
not been complied with in respect of the point relating to the deposit
of plans.
The Committee shortly afterwards adjourned till to-morrow.

Sub-Committee No. 4.

(Continued from our Afterioon Edition of yesterday.)
GLASGOW AND BELrASIV UNION.

The object of this Bill, against which there were two petitions, is
to make a line from Ayr to Portpatrick, that being the nearest har-
bour to Belfast. The length of the line is 60 miles, and the required
•apital 800,0001.
Mr. John Miller is the engineer, and Messrs. Rubardeon and Co.,
the Parliamentary agents.

The two petitions above alluded to, are both preferred by Mr. R
Ifackay, a writer to the Signet, but In the one petition he repre-
nonted the magistrates of Newton-upon-Ayr, and some other persons.
Mr. Webster appeared in support of the petitions.

.
The first allegation of the petition, in which, as stated above, the
petitioner represented other persons, was that an occupation-road,
leading to the house of Mr. T. Gordon, which was crossed by the
it. lin , was represented in the plans as being a public road. It was
ob ed that this allegation ought to state that this road was the
pro ty of Mr. Gordon, and that as it did not, it was informal.

♦fter some discussion, the Committee dismissed the allegation.
The next allegation was that a belt of planting in the parish of
Newton-on-Ayr, marked No. 2 in the book of reference, and in the
plans and sections lodged at the Private Bill-office was not so
marked in the plan lodged with the sheriff's clerk of Ayr, and that
therefore the standing orders had not been complied with.
Similar objections were raised to various other numbers, and evi-
dence was brought forward to substantiate them.
Oa the ether hand it was contended that as the numbers were
correctly marked in the plans deposited in the Private Bill-office,
and proper notice had been given to the several owners and occupiers
of the lands referred to in the allegation, there had been a sufficient
compliance with the standing orders.
In some of these cases the allegations were considered as proved
and the standing orders not complied with ; in others the allega-
tions were overruled, but they could not discriminate the sustained
from the unsustained.
The. 15th allegation was to the effect that the railway was to cross
a public or turnpike road by a bridge, and no height or span of arch
of such viaduct was stated in the plan.

After some discussion between the agents for and against the alle-
gation, the Committee reserved their decision.
The petition contained several other allegations, all of a technical
and trifling' character, relating to defects in the plans and sections, as
deposited With the Sheriff-clerk.
After considerable discussion, strangers were ordered to withdraw,
and the Committee considered their judgment upon the objections
which, as stated above, had been reserved.
On the re-admissio❑ of strangers, it was announced that two o fthe
allegations had been sustair ed, and all the others were overruled.
The Committee then adjourned.

Sub-Committee No. 5.

Members present, Mr. Home Drummond, chairman, Mr. Egerton,
the O'Conor Don, and Mr. Compton.:

LONDON, SALISBUnir, AND Ymtvincz ZUNC.

T70131' (BASINGSTOXE TO YEOVIL).

The Committee proc,eded with the nuttier consideration of this
Bill, which was opposed on several grounds The first allegation
this day was, that the datum line was not truly or accurately defined.
The Committee unanimously decid,l that the standing orders on this
point were not complied with. The second objection was, that there
WaS a. iiranch of the proposed line not intelligibly defined.
31r. Smith, engineer, was examined by 3lr. Volatiles, and proved
that it appeared to him there was a branch marked on the line of
Which no notice was given, and from the construction of the plan it
Gould not he defined clearly what were the objects of the line•
31r. Webster, on behalf of the petitioners, called the engineer to
the line, wh.) proved there could be no difficulty in distinguishing
the necessary particulars.
The Committee postponed their decision until they heard the next
objection, which was that " two branches were marked on the map,
while there was only one petitioned for, and that the plan was in
consequence calcullted to misleqd." On these two points the Com-
mittee decided that the standing orCers were not complied with, in-
asmuch as duplicates were not lodged in the Private Bill•effiee, the
distances being incorrectly marked for several miles.
In every other respect they decided the objections were not
Sustained.

The next allegation contained in tho petition of Earl Digby was, that
the reads and rivers did Lot corruspond on the datum line with those
on the railway lino."

The Committee decided, that in this case, the allegations were not
sun fenny specific t , correspond with the standing orders.
The petition of ➢ir. Wm. Ityllian was then considered, " That the
Pans of the proposed works are not correct, inasmuch as certain fields
through which the proposed line is to pass, were not described in
the bock of reference, and that DO notice was given the petitioner in
respect of the said fields, although he is the proprietor of the same."
The Committee in this case decided that the standing orders were
not complied with.
3lr. BATTEN, solicitor, was called to prove that another geld ad-
joining those in the precedin,g objection, was not marked on the map,
and as a matter of course, was not described In the book of reference.
In this case, also, the Committee decided that the standing orders
were not complied with; and it being a quarter past four o'clock,
they adjourned the further hearing of the case till to-morrow, at
twelve o'clock.

Sub-Committee No. (I.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
BOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY (NO. VII),
4.S lIPORD STATION E NIAAILGEMENT.
The object of this Bill is simply the extension of the present sta-
tion at Ashford, where it Is al,o intended t construct extensive
workshops. Power is given in the Bill to take land to the extent of
150 acres. The estimated cost is 100,0001. The engineer is Robert
Stephenson, Esq.
The standing orders were complied with.
CHICHESTER, PORTSMOUTH, AND PARE_