The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-12 00:00:00

AND. RA.T.STMAD RAILWAY.

Mr. Parkes appeared for the promoters.
The formal proofs for the plans and sections and books of
reference were put in.
Mr. WEnsrxx appeared oa a petition against the Bill.
Mr. PAIIICKS objected to the petition being received. The
names attached to the petition were not signed by the par-
ties themselves, and it was therefore contrary to the standing
orders to present such a petition.
Mr. WEIIsTER said he v ould prove that the promoters
were authorised by the petitioners to sign for them. The pe-
titioners were obliged to leave town before the petition was
quite ready for signing.
The CHAIUMAN wished to know if the authority was by
letter or merely verbal? This certainly was a petition sent
from the house.
Mr. WEnsTEß—Some of the parties bad authorised ver-
bally, and some by letters.
Mr. PAHKES would object to the petition on the ground that
it was not prepared at the-time the parties had authorised it
to be signed.
Mr. WEBSTER said that in law a bill of exchange signed
by the verbal authority of a party was held to be a good
bill, and to be recovered upon.
Mr. PARKEA —ln that case the party should be cognizant
of the contents of the bill, but here it was admitted that the
petition was not ready when the parties authorised their
names to be signed. How c,tild it be maintained that they
knew anything of the contents of the petition ? It was im-
possible for them to know whether there was or was not
matter in the petition which they, if cognizant of, would
not allow their names to be attached to.
The room was then ordered to be cleared, and the Chair-
man went to consult the Speaker.
Atter some time spent in considering the question, the par-
ties were called in. _ .

The CITAIRMAN said that he had been to consult . the
Speaker upon the question raised by Mr. Parkes as to the
validity of the signatures to the petition. The petition
having come to the Committee through the House of Com-
mons, it was nut to be rejected without the opinion of the
Speaker. He had, however, left the House, and therefore
the decision of the Committee would be postponed till that
opinion was had. - - - -

Tile Waller cons' aeration of the Bill was accordingly ad-
journed till twelve o'clock to-morrow. The nature of the alle-
gations was not stated, that being a subsequent proceeding
to the receiving of the petition by the Committee.

THE EXE 3 ME, YEOVIL, AND DORCHESTER

BILXVVIT.A.Y.

Mr. Ellicombe appeared for the promoters. The deposit of
the glans, sections, &c., was proved, after which
Mr. Pit= presented several petitions against the Bill, from
the owners of land and other property on the line, complain-
ing that the standing orders had not Leen complied with in
many instances.
Mr. ELLICOMBE opposed the receiving of the petition, on
the ground that the name of the Bill did not appear on the
back of the petition.
The CHAIRMAN said that he had already decided in a
souther case that the petition having come to them after the
opinion of the Speaker, a few days ago, he would reserve the
decision on the point till he should again consult the Speaker.
The Committee then adjourned till twelve o'clock to-
morrow.