The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-19 00:00:00

CHELMSFORD AND BURY.
_ .

The Committee proceeded to consider this Bill, which was opposed.
The object of this Bill was to construct a line of railway from
Chelmsford to Bury, in length about thirty miles ; engineer, Mr.
Thompson; solicitors, Messrs. Chauntler and Westwood; Parlia-
mentary agents, Messrs. Webster and Co.
The formal ploott were then taken, and from these it appeared
that the subscription contract, which was three-fourths of the esti-
mate, was 820,0001.
The first petition against the Bill c onsidcred was from lard-
owners along the line, making the usual general allegation that the
stanillig orders had not oeen complied with in different instances.
Mr. Webster appeared in support of the Bill, and Mr. Baker on
the part of the petitioners.
The first particular allegation was, that the plans deposited with
the clerk of the peace for Essex did not contain certain lands lino
houses en the line.
Evidence having been heard in support of the allegation, the Com-
mittee decided that ix this case the standing orders had not been
complied with.
Two ether allegations to the same effect were sustained, and
several others w ere adduced which the Committee found were not
sustained.
The next allegation was with respect to the increase of capital,
and stated that there had been an infraction of the standing order.
The Committee found that the allegation was not sustained.

. -
This terminated the ease for this petition.
The next petition was, that the lands, &c., in the parish of Little
Heuny were not described en the plans deposited with the clerk of the
peace for the county et* Essex.
Mr. Shrubsole aneared in support of the petition.
The first allegation was, that Nos. 40 to 46 inclusive, and from 46
to 52 inclusive, as well as from 52 to 54, in the parish of Little Gently,
were described as being in Great Remy.
Evidence was heard in support of the alle.;ation, and the Com-
mittee found the same was sustained. •
The next allegation was, that the owner of the field, No. I I, was
not named in the b ok of reference, whicia was not sustained.
Another allegation to the same etlict Niith reference to No. 27 was
sustained.
Some other similar allegathns were sustained, and several were
abandoned.
The Cammittee then adjourned till to-morrow.

• Sub-Committee No. 3.
The members of this Sub-committee sat at twelve o'clock ; Mr,
Aglionby In the chair.
The first line on the list was the
waxing.
HCOUN
UNTTIES (BERTrortia TO
INGDON.)

- - - -
A good deal of discussion took place as to the order of procedure,
in consequence of Mr. Yet abler, who appeared for the promoters,
applying for a postponement of the proceeding, on the
ground that as the real merits of the case were before
the House of Lords in the case of the London and York, width had
gone up there last session, and with which there was a competing

line.
Mr. COOTES. who appeared for the London and York, objected
the postponement, and said that the line having been referred to the
Committee by the House, the Committee must necessarily pruceed
with it.
Atter a great deal of discussion,
The Custard...a decided that the case should go on.
The ease was accordingly proceeded with, and after the Committee
had investigated it, and Ulu usual evidence bad been adduced, the
Committee decided that the standing orders had nut been emptied
with. •

BEB11:1-RD AND CAMBRIDGE EXTENSION,

In this case several t,ents for petitioners against the llne appeared
but the consideration of the allegations were postponed until the
formal proof was adduced, which occupied the Committee the whole
day.