The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-30 00:00:00

GIZOLTY VII.

This Committee met at twelve in room No. 24. Present, Mr. PA'.
mer (in the chair), Lord J. Chichester, Colonel Powell, Mr. H
St4l.llitON, and Mr. Seymour.
They proceeded with the ease of the

EDINBURGH AND NOLTIIMUN (sTarATzz.
mllE:an ZEITZJITION) LIWE.
The preamble of which was declared proved.
A Is:4 discussion on the subject of the clans,- s, in which Mr. Lang,
on the part of the promoters of the Bill, and Mr. Austin for the pro-
moters of the Scottish Central line, took a part, ensued, and occu-
pied the Committee for a considerable time.
A clause, to ba Lumbered as clause 7, was proposed by the Cludr-
num, the object of which was to provide, that compensation should
be given to Captain Ilay, for any injury that he might sustain from
the passing of the line through his property. It was proposed, by
Mr. AUSTIN, that this clause should stand over till Fri:ay, in
order that the Committee might hear the de'iston of the Commii tee
on Group No. 6, as to the Dundee and Perth line, in which a point
had been raised which resembled this. This proposal was assented
to; but, after some further discussion, it was agreed that the Corn-
raittee should adjourn until Friday, and they accordingly rose at
about half-past one o'cleck, and adjourned till that day.

GROUP XIV.
SOUTII-EAS TEEN AND D .R.AN ES.
The Committee to which this group of railways is referred niel to-
day, at half past twelve o'clock, in Room No 30 ; present—Mr.
Prstheroe (chairman), Lord Emlyn, Mr. J. O'Conuell, and Mr.
Grogan General Lygon was absent, in consequence of the death of
Lady lieauchanip.
Mr. Norton, of the firm of lioggart and Norton, a valuer, was
called on the part of the South-Eastern Company, by Mr. IlEunz-
WETHZII.

Mr. TALBOT (for the North Kent Company) said that Lis Learned
Friend had two or three surveyors present. It would be easy for the
Nora, Kent Company to call counter-evidence, a course which the
Committee would regret.
The Committee decided on hearing one witness on either side.
Mr.:STOUTON stated that the property proposed to be taken by the
North Keut, between Chatham and London, would cost 486,816/. The
number of elaimantswould be 1,200 or 1,300. The sum mentioned
included nothing but the value of the property to be destroyed,
the rent of which is 17,4001. per annum.
By Mr. TALBOT—Never valued any town property for a railway
company. Cannot say how many houses to be taken down were oc-
cupied ay weekly tenants. Has taken that into consideration in his
valuation. Houses let to weekly tenants are not worth 28 years'
purchase. There are not 400 houses let to weekly tenants on the
proposed route.

- lie-examined—Though the amount stated is 28 years' purchase, it
was not 28 years' rental, but on qu+te another princip!e.
Mr. G. Smith, a surveyor of Mercer's Hall, valued the whole of
the metropolitan property of the Greenwich Railway. The value of
the property to be taken by the North Kent was 491,7971.
By Mr. TALBOT—Valued the property last year for the London and
York. Valued the property to be taken at a distance of two and an
eighth miles, from Battle-bridge, including a clearance for the station,
and the removal of the Small-Pox Hospital, at 300,000/.
By Mr. MEABEWETIIER —The land to be taken by :the London
and York is clear in comparison with that of the North Kent.
Ur. Wakley produced the table of the tolls required on the South-
Eastern Railway.
Mr. MEREWETBER put in a letter from the Board of Ordnance,
stating that In consequence of the introduction of a certain clau.vc in
the Act of the South-Eastern Company all objection on the part of
the Board was removed, and also some correspondence with the
Lords of the Admiralty, in which they agreed to the formation of the
iron bridge over the Medway.
Mr. MASSY DAwsoN, who appeared oil the part of Mr. Evelyn, a
landowner on the proposed line, then called evidence to prove the
damage that his client's property would sustain from the proposed
railway.
At the conclusion of the evidence,
The Learned COUNSEL addressed the Committee ai some length.
Mr. CALVEET then called evidence on the part of Mr. Angerstein,
a landowner on the line, and proved the very serious dAna.Zge that
the line would cause to Mr. Angerstein's property. At the mci:lsion
of the evidence the Committee adjourned until twelve o'clock .to-
morrow.

iiritOUP XVI.
SOUTH-WESTERN (ALTON AND ranzv
HAW/ SRANCH).

The Committee on this group (Sir Charles Douglas in the chair,
and all the other members present), took the clauses of this Bill to-
day; and after a few amendments, which referred to private pro-
perty, the clauses were passed, and the report was ordered to be
presented.

It Pa/LUIZ/Me cumßranD, 11. ND nEIG.S.TZL
It having been ascertained that counsel were present on behalf of
the several petitioners, the Chairman wished to know which line it
Wlineas desirable to take, wheu Mr. Cockburn suggested that the longest
taken, and that was the Reading, Guildford, and
Bei-
Kate line.
Mr. it°E-, w•.)..... appeared for Dr. Pellowes, said, that he was Inter-
ested in neither of the e
course, when he was interruptedmbut
bywas about to suggest a particular
Mr. Coenzyme, who
hi*
Learned
Friend
w"
that
and rtheigeeartebeycibTaenrcshatisTouitldwt dteackiedV" e
the Reading, Guildford,
in the formal taken Rod
Mr. Como:wax opened the
one ofto soliCit:fttcin:drii.
ors of the line, who sal,
through Mr. Noyes,
ns last session, in
the returns required by the House
wer stated.
which the names of the several officials of the C
The capital was 800,0001., the number of shareosn4EanYe" of gel. each,
the whole of which were allotted. The deposit being 92,8421. lee.;
no shares being reserved for provisional committee.
To the CHAIRMAN the witness replied. that about 6,000 shares had
been allotted to the provisional committee, upon all of
which they
had paid.
The original subscribers' agreement was then put in and proved.
The money in hand was 11,1971. 16s. 4d., deposited with the Ac-
countant-General 57,8601.; deposits en allotments 92,7381. 103. ;
interest 3571. 13s. sd. ; expenditure 12,9881. 12s. ; engineering and
traffic 7,635/. 13s. 4d. ; printing and stationery 2,3191. 18s. 6d.; sala-
ries, commission, &c., 1,0931. 16s. 3d.
To Mr. BezwiTT, the witness explained that the broker's corn-
Mission was Is. 3d. a share, but nothing had been paid for buying
and selling shares on behalf of the directors; the broker's commis-
sion amounted to about 1.501.
Mr. COCREURN then proceeded to open the case, when he was in-
terrupted by Mr. Mellor stating that he should have to ask sonic
questions respecting the returns et the last witness ; but Mr. Cock-
burn objected to that proceeding, and stated, that although the Com-
mittee were perfectly competent to question the validity of the re-
turns, after, however, the returns had been received, although the
Committee would have the right to question the witnesses, they
would only have the power to report to Parliament upon the returns,
and that was the way prescribed by the resolution.
To this Mr. Mireeon. objected, and after reading part of the rem-
lotion which expressed the rule, that in the event of counseLdiner-
ing among themselves the Committee were entitled to decide the
question whether counsel should be heard or not,
Mr. COCKISCRN repled by citing the resolution, acid stated that
the Committee ought to require the returns to be produced and to
be verified. This had been done by the witness; and if the Com-
mittee entertained any doubt about it, lie was quite ;prepared to go
into the whole case. If the Committee had any doubt whatever
about the matter, they might exercise their power of cross-examia-
Mg the witnesses with the utmost strietnesee.
At this point the room wac cleared, and when parties were re-
admitted,
omtitfied, the Chairman declared that the Committee were of opinion
Ttthease7Ainsd opposing' the Bill have a right to cross-examine.
Mr. Cocicurav objected, and said that he conceived if tile
power of cross-exam* i.'
us...-el now, or not at all.lma was to be exercised at all, it Should be
eur.
was to TAT
ourn
ALB
state that there was another alternative, and that
adj the cdase
inspection. andhaua over the papers to the opponents for
It was at last agreed that the opponents should have the right
of going to the Committee metre In,.
or to that of the solicitor; to
s'illey pleased from the retitle's.
the company, and mate what extrae•
The Committee then adjourned till 1.>3
- O'Claeli
---_____ to-n2o:llinv

GROUP Xix.
The Select Committee appointed to consider the merits
or schemes comprised in this group re-assembleu at the usua-
l
morning in the Committee-room; Lord Harry Ira" an the
elanirrt.,,,
T111:11 CHARD caztal". AND 2.Artiura/r.
The CHAIRMAN intimated that the Committee were now desirous
of taking this CA.ie.

Mr. Sergeant WRANGIIA3f said the object of the promoters
in this case was to convert the Chard canal into a railway.
The canal connected the town of Ihninster with the town
of Chard, and the proposed railway would give to those places a
communication with the metropolis by means of the Bristol and
Exeter Railway and the towns of Frldgewater and Taunton and Lie
proposed Stelford. The line ran in the route by which the tratilc
hat uniformly passed • while, as It was only required to 1111 up the
canal and lay gown the rails, it would not in any way interfere Wt th

any private right or private property. It was opposed by the
Creoker branch of the Bristol and Exeterßailway, which was pro-
posed to be a branch of the Yeovil branch, sanctioned by the Legis-
lature last session. It was sufficient for him, however, to say that
not a spade had yet been put into the ground for the Yeovil branch,
while the proposed new branch ran in a circuitous direction, and
diverted the traffic of the district from its natural channels. The esti-
mated cost of the proposed line, for which he appeared, was 130,0001*,
and it was proposed to raise that sum by the sale of shares at P'
sent in the possession of the Chard Canal Company, and it was
calculated the traffic would yield a return of 81. Fer cent. on the
outlay.
Mr. Giles Laing, a merchant, residing at Ilminster, proved that
there were three coaches passing daily between Ilminster and Chard,
and .4.xminster and Taunton, and in his opinion the proposed con-
version of the canal would be of great public utility.
On Cress-examination the witness admitted that
wthoesuide
ran from different places to Croker, and, perhaPs, it
convenient for some of the passengers toPave a lineo extending
Croker. testimony.
t,
of
nminster, gave Mr. John Thome, a merchant, be teaches
g similarding
Ou
_to
ved that the traffic
tables of the proposed line, pro
Mr. Humphrey Brown, the gentleman whomawdoetilodutyithelde
atrvafneryc
ample per tentage on the outlay.
ane
fyorhthade
raise more money than wo
theThpoewecanraltoAr ens were then put in to pulrodvecotvheart
ththeeesCamomapt
proposed railway.
Some ether
adjourned
the evidence
shceoofruy
ageafneterarlfotraroa,cictoecrkw. as adduced, and the
CommitteeSo