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

enb-Comraltt“ No. 2.

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

SURREY IRON ne:ILWAY.

The CIIAIIIMAN said, that In the ease or this Company the standing
orders had been complied with. The Committee were of opinion that
the Bill was simp y of the third class, and that the provision 36 of the
Act did not ai ply to it.
CHEZZOISPORD AND puny.

The Committee proceeded to consider this Bill, which was opposed.
The object of this Bill was to construct a line of railway frora
Chelmsford to Bury, in length about thirty miles ; engineer, Mr.
Thompson; solicitors, Messrs. Chauntler and Westwood; rarlia-
mentary agents, Messrs Dyson and Cs.

The lonlai 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 been 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 •f the peace for Essex did not contain certain lands ant
houses on the line.

Evidence having been heard in support of the allegatien, the Com-
mittee decided that is 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 ;
Aglionby in the chair.
The first line on the list was the

EASTERN COUNTIES (HEIITFOILD TO
HUNTINGDON.)

A good deal of discussion Wok place as to the order of procedure,
in consequence of Mr. Ver.ables, who appeared for the promoters,
applying for 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, widch 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 House, the Committee must necessarily proceed
with it.

After a great deal of dlseu.aion, •

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

Sub-Committee No. 4

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 petitions against the
LANCASHIRE, AND
CHESHIRE JUNCTION.

The petition of George and Charles Burgess stated that they held
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 la making the line.
Mr. 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 dour M each of two streets,
and had received no notice with respect to each door.
The Committee njected the alit gallon.
The petition of Richard Yates, of Mercer-street, Warrington, was
again brought before the Committee.

Mr. Pater, 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 fir a house in Mercer-
street, and he was not aware that there were two persons of the
name of Yates in that street, or that Richard Yates had two houses.
The promoters of the Bill had no means et ascertaining what house
the petition alluded to, but by going to every house in Mercer-street,
knocking at the door, and asking whether Richard Yates lived there.
The CHAIRMAN thought ihe objection conclusive. The petitioners
could not pretend that there was a sufficient description of the
property.
-

C;OPPOCIE thought the promoters of the Bill ought to prove the
service of two notices.

The Cemmittee,*however, dismissed the petition.
There was another petition, comp.aining that the petitioner had
not been served with a notice in respect of a cottage and smithy in a
court on the east side of Bridges-street, Warrington.
Mr. PRITT said that there we're 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. lie would not press the
objectien, however, as he found that the house was known to his
clients, and that the petitioner had been served with a notice.

The CHAIRMAN said that he was very sorry to shut eut a peti-
tioner on aiiy point of form, us 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 to the plan

The Committee, therefore, refused to admit the petition.
The petition of John Broadhurst, and ethers, met with no better
fate, the description being equ,illy insufficient.

Sub-Connaittee Nu. 6.
This Committee re-assembled at twenty minutes past twelve o'clock
this day. Present, (Captain Jones (chairman), Mr. Decdes, and
Lord Lbrington.

THE A3IIIIDXEN, BANFF, AND ELGIN
was the first case called on.

It appeared that a petition had seen 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 or the promoters or the Bill is the construction of a rail-
way from Aberdeen by Banff to Elgin.
The length is 74 miles, and the estimated cost Is 694,1100/.
Engineer, Thomas Grainger, Esq. ; fecal engineer, Alexander
Smith, Esq. ; Parliamentary agents, Messrs. Richardson, Council,
and Loch ; solicitors, George Monro, Esq., Edinburgh, and Messrs.
Strouech and Grainger, Aberdeen.

The prelhninary proofs having been put in, the Committee decided
that the standing orders had been complied with.
EAST DEREHA.III AND NORWICH.

The promoters seek to construct a railway from East Dereham to
Norwich. The length of the line is fifteen miles ; the estimate,
10,000/. ; and the amount lodged in the Accountant-General's hands,
122,0001.

Engineers, William A. Borthwick, Esq., a :d Tollett, Esq.;
Parliamentary Agent, James Coppock, Lsq. ; solicitor, Mr. Drake.
The CHAIRMAN discovere.l that there was a clause in the 13111
which would empower the Company to lease their line to the North
of Norfolk Railway Company, or to any other company "now, or
hereafter to be, formed ;" and he doubted whether the promoters
could introduce a clause into their Bill to give powers to another
company not yet formed.
The room was cleared of strangers, and after the absence of about
half au hour we were re-admitted, when it appeared that the Com-
mittee had overruled the objection of the Chairman.

The case was then further proceeded with, and, at the concltudon,
the Committee decided that the promoters had complied with the
standing orders.

STANDING ORDERS' COMMITTEES.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Room No. 3.
This Committee met at twelve o'clock,
Mr. Aglionby (the Chairman), Mr. Thornely Mr. Aldam, and Mr.
Broadley, were present.
EASTERN COUNTIES (HERTFORD TO HUNTINGDON).
Mr. Vena; les apptared for the promoters. and Mr. Coates en the
part of the opposition.
Mr. VENABLES made an application that the consideration. of this
11111 should he postponed for A month as it was at present before the
House of Lords, in competition with the London and York line, and
it would be inconvenient to go into the question befine the decision
of that Committee was known.
Mr. COATES contended that the grounds alleged by his Learned
Friend were quits insufficient to warrant the postponement required.
As Mr. Venables declined to proceed, the Committee decided that
the standing orders had not been complied with.
Room No 9.
The members of this Committee met this morning, and decided in
the cases of the Midland, Barnsley, Sheffield, and Dewshury Rail-
way, the North Wales Rana ay, the Buckitighanish.re Railway, In,d
the West London Ra,lway, that the standikg orders ought to be dis-
pensed with, and that the promoters should be allowed to proceed
taihsere Com-
mittee their Effie.
Iu the case of the lithaecclietasfintelcluganorddeLnicholeglbdt Rnailotwteayb,e
reittes decided that
With.