The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-10 00:00:00

Sub Gurnnittes Nu. 2.

This Committee sat to -day a few minutes before ona
o'clock. Them were present—Sir J. Y. Buller (Chairman),
Mr. Walker, Mr. Craig, Mr. Kemple, Mr. Bell, and the
O'Conor Don.

THE CAMBEZIDGS iIIID OXPORD 3LAILWAY
was heard.
.. _

Mr. livarr (in f,upport of the motion) said—The first alle-
gation in the petition was, that the plans and sections of the
line, as deposited with the clerk of the peace at Oxford,
were not in compliance with the standing orders. In No.
12 the parish of Barington was not marked in the line of
deviation.

Mr. M. J. Davenport (engineer) proved the omission
alleged. The distance of deviation was about 15 perches.
The CHAIRMAN Sad that in this case the orders had been
complied with.
The next allegation was that the distances, miles and
furlongs, were not correctly marked on the plan.
Mr. ELLICOMBE objected to the term the plan, as being
too vague.
This led to some discussion, but the Committee were of
opinion that the term was sufficiently specific.
Mr. M. J. Davenport was examined in support of this
allegation. In one section (50) for 10 there were marked
11 furlongs.
The CuainstaN said the standing orders had been complied
with hi the present instance.
The next allegation was, that the alternate miles, as laid
down on the datum line, were incorrect.
Mr. Davenport was examined in support of the allegation,
and the Committee considered that on the 3d mile and 46th
furlong there was incorrectness, and therefore that the stand-
ing orders in that instance had not been complied.
The next allegation was that the gradients were impro-
perly marked.
Mr. Davenport said that in one section instead of 84 it
should have been marked 90. Ile did not survey the line.
Mr. Denton (the engineer of the Company) was examined.
He said in the section alluded to the marking was perfectly
correct, in which the Committee concurred.
It was also alleged that there were various other inaccura-
cies on the line.

itie CHAIRMAN said, in the case of the Oxford and Cam-
bridge Railway, the Comniittee were of opinion that the
standing orders had not been complied with.

LONDON AND BRIGHTON (WANDSWORTH
BRANCH) RAILWAY,

The Bill stated net the proposed railway would be of
great public benefit. There were two petitions alleging non-
compliance with the standing orders, but no one appeared in
their support..
Witnesses wire then examined to prove that the usual
forms had been complied with. The line was to pass through
Streatham, Mitcham, Tooting, and Wandsworth.

Mr. PRITT said that this Bill had been thrown out by the
Committee on its merits last session. The present Bill, by
clause 39A, would not require more than 5 per cent.
The CHAIRMAN considered that it would be necessary to
prove that the present was precisely similar to that intro-
duced into Parliament last year.
Mr. Pitirr stated that there was no material difference.
The Committee wore of opinion that the deposit of 5 per
cent. was sufficient in this case.
The remaining evidence was of the usual character, and
the Committee were of opinion that the standing orders had
been complied with.

SICEPTIELD A:VD
LLINCOLN JUNCTION
RAIWAY.
as well as the present
e
Mr. Farr said that the present was one of those that arose
out of the standing order to which he had already referred in
the preceding case. _
Mr. Gainsford examined—Was solicitor to the Bill
ys t t shees►isoanm as the former Bill.
,
The Bill of last year was for a main line and a branch. The
House had negatived the branch, and the 13111 was ordered to
bßriollu,gwhitlibehefo was re Parliament
substantially
be engrossed. The main line for which the present petition
praye • d was exactly the same vs the main line of the former
petit ion.
Mr. LAING, agent, presented a petition from Mr. W. Dun
Wheeler, of Sheffield, solicitor, on the part of his client, Mr.
tantiallal
Clarke Hutchinson, stating that the proposed line would pass
through and injure his property, and that the petition was
not presented by the sarnes parties who had brought it for-
ward last year.
Mr. Pairr said he objected in limini to the objection being
beard, as the petition was presented by one party on behalf
of another, whereas the party interested should apply himself.
It appearing that the petitioner had been authorised to act
for Mr. Hutchinson, the petition was received.
Mr. LAING said that his objection was, that the standing
orders required parties to prove that the undertaking was car-
ried on by the same persons.
Mr. Gainsford was then examined, and stated that the par-
ties were the same, and there was the same body of directors
with the exception of one individual, who bad retired from
old ago.
Mr. LAING said that out of 73 who had signed, only 23
had signed the present petition, while out of 707 whochad
,igned the former contract only 98 had attached their names
to the present deed.
The CHAIRMAN said the Committee were unanimously
of opinion that the petition was from the same parties.
The Committee decided that the standing orders had been
complied with by the Company.
NEWCASTLE AND DARLINGTON 3Nc..
TION (DURHAVI AND SUNDERLAND
RAILWAY AND WEASLIVZOUTII DOCK
Puncaaszs AND ZIRANCRES).

The Committee found that the orders had, been complied
with.