The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-21 00:00:00

RAILWAY COMMITTEES. 1
(YESTERDAY.)

Sub-Committee. No. 1.
The Committee resumed its sittings to-day at twelve
&dock ; Mr. Strutt, chairman.
MANCHISSTER AND SOUTHAMPTON.
Mr. Buftrta proceeded with the legations in this petition,
against this line of railway. T alhe case was part heard
yesterday.
The allegations adduced to-day were of the most trifling
nature, such as some wrong numbering on the plans and
d
sections, almost amounting to merely clerical errors. A f
of them were sustained, but the larger number overruled.
The Committee then declared that the standing orders had
not been complied with in many instances.
The Bill is not, however, likely to suffer from the errors
proved against it.
YORKSHIRE AND GLASGOW.
Mr. Coates appeared for the promoters of this
Bill. The
formal evidence in support'of the deposit of the plans and sec-
a
tious was then given, after which Mr. Burke appeared on
petition against the lins.
In consequence of the absence of several witnesses in this
case, necessary to make out the allegations in the opponents
petition,
Mr. Btfake asked for an adjonrinnent.
The Committee accordingly adjourned the further proceed-
ings to Wednesday next.
BOSTON, NEWARK AND SIIEPPIZI.D.
Mr. Ellicombe appeared for the promoter'S.
The witnesses to prove the deposit of the plans, sections,
and books of reference, having been examined,
Mr. Burke appeared on the petition of the owners of land
on the line.
The first allegation was that the parish of Averham was
omitted from the book of reference deposited with the clerk
of the peace and at the Private Bill-office.
Mr. ELLICOMBE called a witness, who stated that Stathorp,
which was the township of the parish of Averham, was in
the books of reference, but that the line would only go
through the township.
The Committee decided that the standing orders in this
instance, had not been complied with.
The next allegation was that the plans and sections were
not duly deposited with the clerks of the peace for the several
districts through which the line is to run.
Mr. BURKE called Mr. Gibbs, the engineer to the line.
Mr. BURKE—Is there a branch from Hocking to Spalding?
Witness—There is.
Mr. BunKE is there a section to show that branch?
Witness—There is not.
Mr. BURKE—Yon stated, when first examined by Mr.
Ellicombe, that the plans and sections were duplicates of each
but here is a complete section entirely omitted.
The CtrainstAN—You most distinctly stated, when the
plans were put in at the commencement of the present in-
quiry, that the plans and sections were duplicates of each
other.
Witness—l stated that the plans and sections, as drawn
by me, were duplicates of each other ; but since then, I un-
derstand, some alteration has been made in the powers of
the Bill, which must account for the omission.
The CHAIRMAN—ThiS must be explained, for at present
there is no proof as to the plans.
Mr. EuacomßE called the assistant-engineer, who said
that the plans and sections were altered subsequently to Mr.
Gibbs having seen them—the section No. 1 omitted, that of
No. 2 substituted, which took the branch in.
Mr. BURKE would deny this on the face of the Bill; he
would prove that the standing orders in this most import-
ant instance were not complied with.
It being now half-past three o'clock, the Committee said
they would adjourn to twelve o'clock on Tuesday.

(Sub-Committee No. 2.)
This Committee met to-day at twelve o'clock. There
were present the Chairman (Sir J. Y. Buller), Messrs
Kemble, Bell, Brainston, E. York, 0. Craig, and m\ alker.
GUILDPOR,D, CHIMOUTH.CHESTR, AND PORTS-
E
On the application of Mr. THOMAS, who stated that it was
the wish of the promoters, this Bill was postponed sine die.
THE LEEDS AND YORK
was called on, but the parties not appearing
THE LONDON AND OXFORD
was proceeded with.
The object of this Bill was to construct a railway from the
London and Birmingham Railway, near Harrow, to Oxford,
passing through the county of Bucks, with branches to the
Great Western. The length of the proposed line was 54
miles, the capital 900,0(X /, and the estimate, 850,0001.
There was one petition against the Bill, for which no one
appeared.
The Committee found that the standing orders had been
complied with
Engineer, Mr. J. Addison ; Parliamentary agents, Messrs.
J. Parkes and Co. ; Sol,ci' ors, Messrs. Bridges and Mason,
London ; and Charsley and Parton, Beaconsfield.
DIRECT LONDON AND MANCHSISTER.
The object of this Bill was to enable the promoters to con-
struct a line of Railway from London to Manchester, the
length of which was 175 miles. The estimate was 5,500,0001.,
and the capital subscribed, 4,386,0001.
There were ten petitions against this Bill. Two of them
were from the owners, lessees, and occupiers of land along
the line of the proposed railway, for which, as well as petitions
from Mr. Egerton, the Marquis of Anglesea, and Mr. Cave
Brownwood, agents, appeared. The remaining petitions
were from the Manchester and Birmingham Company, and
private individuals, but no one appeared in their behalf.
The usual formal proofs were gone through.
The first petit ion against the 13111 taken was that of Mr.
W. Egerton, which alleged that in the township of Cheedle
Moseley the description in No. 89 in the book of reference
and in the plan was wrong, Elishia Warren being stated to be
the owner, and Sarah Fvl4loe, the occupier, the true owner
being Mrs. A... Maria White, and the occupier of the same,
William Bailey.
Mr. Pritt appeared for the petitioner.
Mrs. White proved the incorrectness alleged, and also that
she. had not been served with a notice.
The petition next alleged that there was a similar inaccu-
racy with respect to the property numbered 91, Peter Pownall
being described as the owner, and Isaac Falconer as the oc-
cuOer of the same.
The allegation was sustained.
Several other similar allegations were abandoned.
It was also alleged that in No. 43 in the plan the road de-
scribed as an occupation road and the property of the
petitioner was a public highway, and the property of the
surveyors, who had not been served with due notice. The
Committee considered the allegation sustained.
The next petition considered was from the owners and
lessees along the line, complaining of non-compliance with
the standing orders.
The petition contained several allegations analogous to
those of the preceding petition.
The Committee had proceeded to some extent with these
allegations when it was announced that the Speaker was at
prayers.
Engineers, Sir John Rennie, Mr. Rastrick, and Mr. G.
Remington ; Parliamentary agents, Messrs. Dyson and Co. :
solicitors, Messrs. Ashurst and Son, Sudlow and„Sons, and
J. Owens,
The Committee adjourned shortly before four o'clock to
Monday, at twelve o'clock.

Sub-Committee No. 3.
This Committee resumed its sittings at the usual hour this
morning, Mr. Aglionby in the chair.
GRLAT NORTH D SOUTH WALLS.
This was the petition of the Great North and South Wales
Railway, for leave to bring in a Bill to make a railway from
Carmarthen to Aberystwith and Newton, with a branch to
Cardigan, a distance of 50 miles. The estimated cost was
1,840,000/.
The Committee found that the standing orders had been
complied with.
TEL X.ENT ATIYLOSPZIEIRIC.
The object of the petitioners in this case was to make a
railway upon the atmospheric principle, from a point a little
beyond the New Cross station of the Croydon railway to
Maidstone, Sevenoaks, and Tunbridge, a distance of about
40 miles. The estimated cost was 1,070,0001., of which sum
822.7501. has already been subscribed for, and 82,0001. de-
posited.
The Committee decided that the standing orders had been
complied with.

KATriALD TO 71EUTPORD.
The object of the petitioners in this case was to make a
branch railway from the Great Northern (London and York)
Railway at Hatfield to Hertford, a distance of about twelre
miles. The estimated cost was 130,000/., and the amount
subscribed for was 97,5001.
'The Committee decided that the standing order had been
complied with.
The Committee shortly afterwards adjourned.

Sub-Committee, No. 5.
At twelve o'clock this Committee met in Room No. 12.
Members—Mr. Home Drummond, chairin,n ; Mr. Compton.

and Mr. T. Egerton
CAMBRIDGE AND LINCOLN EX TENSION.
This Bill stood over from yesterday, on account of a doulA
as to whether the datum line was referred to a fixed point
i.i_writing. The matter being brought forward this day by
Walmisley, the Parliamentary agent, the Commlttee
decided, that the standing orders were complied with.
GU" GRISISBIT AND SHEFFIELD JUNC-
TION (No. 2.)
shTheiniclisjaulnien to extend the Great Grimsby Railway and
e sixteenata" from Market liasen to Lincoln. Its length
Mr. John Fovrlcrlliess' andl the cost is estimated at 265,0001.
and Co., the Parliametnte engineer, and Messrs. Dyson Hall
There were two petitions against this Bill, bat no one ap-
peared In support of one them. The other in support t.f
which the parties did appear,
inaathat of a Mr. W. G. Todd.
There were but two allegationswpetition, one of which
was that the datum line was not rethis in writing to any fixed
point; the other was that all the heights and spans in the
cases of two roads were not given.
Mr. DOWNFORA who appeared on the part of the peti-
tioner, said that the latter was the agent of the Hull and
Lincoln Railway Company.
It appeared that the datum line was ref
certain stake, but not to any fixed poireirt, to a
top of the stake or the ground at the foot of theas the
I
_Evidence was given on both sides, it being renresentsedke.
the promoters of the Bill that the course pursued in layingb
down the line and preparing the plans was that usually
adopted by engineers.
The Committeethought the reference ineutheient, and
were of opinion that in this respect the standing orders were
not complied with.
In respect of the second alleption, it was admitted, on the
that the standing orders
part of the promoters of the Bill,
were not complied Iri,h.
LONDON, SALISIU.TI7.Ir, AND YEOVIL
JUNCTION*.
This Bill has for its ester the making of a line from. Or
ta tip ~f the South Wn Railway at Basingstoke,
eovil, the length of which will le! 73 miles, and the co.,r,
as estimated, 1,I)00,0110/. Mr. J. Locke is the engineer, and
Messrs. Webster and Co., the Parliamentary agents.
Against this line there were several petitions, mostly upon
the ground that the plans and sections were incorrect, and
calculated to mislead, and one contained an allegation that
the parish of Clifton Maybank was not named in the notice.
Mr. Venables appeared for the petitioners.
. . The petition of ]),lr. A. C. Bridge, in which it was stated
that there was already a line of railway passing through his
property, contained the allegation that there was in the
Gazette notice no mention of the pans • • I of Clifton Maybank,
through which one of the branches would pass.
Mr. WEBerzs said that the
that the
was mentioned.
Mr. VEreaastar.s contendedder branch.
Ml.
thepaanrcishh. ought to be
named in the notice of the Yettnin
MT. WM3STER contended that this not necessary, and
that if the parish was named in the notice at all it was
sufficient.
After a long discussion on the point, the Committee de-
cided that the standing orders were not complied with.
The second allegation of this petition was that in the
plans deposited with the clerk of the peace for the county of