The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-12 00:00:00

NORTHUMBERLAND AND LANCASHIRE.

The object of this Bill (against which there were five peti-
tions) was to obtain Parliamentary powers to construct this
railway, the length of which was 241 A, miles, and the esti-
mated cost 780,0001. Engineers, Messrs. Joseph Locke and
Thomas Storey ; solicitors, Maltby and Co.; Parliamentary
agent, Mr. Coates.
_ _

-The formal proofs being taken, the Committee proceeded to
hear the petitions against the Bill.
The first petition was from Mr. M. Bell, complaining of
non-compliance with the standing orders, inasmuch that
no notice was served on the petitioner of the intention of
the promoters to apply to Parliament for the construction of
this identical railway, on or before the 31st of December, as
required by the Act of Parliament.
Mr. Pnirr (who appeared in support of the petition) said
that the substance of the allegation was simply this :—The
promoters of this Bill gave notice that they intended to
construct a line of railway at a point marked A, and ter-
minating at a point marked C, but they only brought for-
ward a Bill for executing a line of one-third that extent,
which terminated at a point marked B. It was quite clear
that the promoters of a Bill might give notice of their inten-
tion to construct a larger amount than they hereafter dis-
covered to be expedient to undertake, but their subsequent
proceedings must be in accordance with what they intend to
prosecute. From these considerations it was evident that the
promoters of this Bill were bound, when they intended to stop
short at the point B, that they should have given the neces-
sary notice of the same. If that had been done, he was not
prepared to state that any objection would be taken to the
Bill. But is the case of the parties interested like his client,
the notice Served stated that the whole line was to be formed.
That of course led the landowners to suppose that the rail-
way about to be applied for to Parliament was that com-
mencing at Newcastle-on-Tyne and terminating at the
Newcastle and Carlisle Rails ay, and therefore that they
would reap all the benefits that would result from such a line ;
but they found that only one-third of the line for which their
cement had been obtained, was to be prosecuted. There
was a precedent in this case, in the Rochester and Grave-
send Railway Bill, which would actuate them in
their decision with reference to the present question.
He would call the attention of the Committee particu!arly
to this case, and if they would look at it in its consequences
ad crtremunt, they would see that it might lead to results if
the course here deprecated was permitted to be pursued.
There was a case decided last session, which was clearly in
point. He alluded to the Wells and Dereham tfailway Bill.
The Committee were, therefore, in a fair position to, decide
upon this allegation in the petition. It would, therefore, be
unnecessary for him to add any further observations.
Mr. COATES, on the part of the promoters of the Bill, con-

tended that as the York and Carlisle Railway Bill, which
was before the House, would effect all that the original Bill
proposed to do, that the petitioner was not injured by the
alteration that had taken place. _

The CHAIRMAN—Has kr. Bcll had notice of the land to be
taken from him ?

Mr. Pumr—He does not allege that he has not. •
The Committee found that the standing orders in this case
had been sustained.

The next allegation was, that one tenth of the estimate of
the reduced works was not subscribed, as required by the Act
of Parliament.

This gave rise to a discussion whether the Act, 39 A or 29
A, which required that only one-tenth of three-fourths of the
estimate should be deposited, should be considered to be in-
tended to be acted upon.
The CHAIRMAN was of opinion that the latter was what
was contemplated by Nrliament, but sent to the Speaker to
ascertain his opinioi on the subject, which was in conformity
with his own.

The Committee, therefore, found that the allegation was
not sustained, being of opinion that it would be a great hard-
ship if parties, when they bad deposited one-tenth of three-
fourths of the estimate, should be considered as not having
cemplied with the Act of Parliament.
This finished the case of this petition.
Three other petitions were abandoned.
The next petition considered was from Mr. W. Harper,
which alleged general inaccuracy in the plans and sections.
The first specific allegation was with reference to the radius
of the curve at the sixteenth mile and 7th furlong, which
was not pressed.
An allegation to the same effect, with respect to the river
at the fourteenth mile and seventh furlong, was sustained.

A similar allegation was not sustained.-
It was alleged that there was a discrepancy between the
plans with reference to a certain turnpike-road on the line,
which was not sustained.

Sub •Committee No. 4.

This Committee consisted of Sir Wm. Heathcote, chair•
man, Mr. Shirley, Mr. W. Evans, and Mr. Acland.
SHREWSBURY AND HEREFORDSHIRE.
This case was proceeded with.
Mr. Ellicombe appeared for the promoters. Mr. Sainue:
llughes was the opposing engineer.
The case for the promoters was concluded on Wednesday
To-day the allegations of non-compliance with the stand.
ing orders were entered upon.
Several allegations were sustained.

Sub. Committee No. 6.

This Committee sat again to-day at a quarter•past twelve.
Captain Jones in the chair.
The first case called on was the

EAST COAST.

which had been postponed from Tuesday last.
The Committee decided that, the standing orders bad been
complied with.

WORCESTER AND PORT DYNLLAEN.

This was also an adjourned case, and the Chairman having
called upon the agent to make the statements which the
Committee had given leave to be made this m.rning,
Mr. VENABLES (in the absrnce of Mr. Burke) accordingly
made the statement, which was to the effect that inasmuch
as the contract for part of the amount of the estimate, viz.,
three-fourths, bad been provithd for by a declaration under
the common seal of the Great Western Company, who would
have to subscribe that amount, it was suggested, he be-
lieved, the other day by some members of the Committee,
that there were no menus of enforcing payment of that sum
by the Great Western Company. Now in answer to that
suggestion, he bad to state that if the Bill passed parties would
have the same right against the Great Western Company as
they would have against any other shareholder in this under-
taking, because they might enforce payment from them by
action in the same manner that they could sue any parties to
a contract deed.

The CHAIRMAN said, that to his mind, the Great Western
Company would not be bound for the payment of their debts
in the manner to which the public had a right. Of course,
Mr. Burke might have an opportunity of making
his statement before the Standing Orders' Committee,
anti in that statement be might suggest any altera-
tion which he thought proper in reference to the course which
•might be taken for remedying the matter. The Committee
would, therefore, in this case, report that the standing or•
ders had not been complied with, inasmuch as the subscrip-
tion contract only provided for 1,625,000/., which was not
three-fourths of the estimate (the total amount of the esti-
mate being 2,000,0001.) The Committee would also report
that the promoters had tendered evidence that such deficient
contract. was remedied by a delaration under the seal of the
Great Western Company to the amount of 1,625,000/., but it
appeared that the Company was only enabled, and not com-
pelled, to subscribe that amount for the [completion of the
undertaking.