The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-25 00:00:00

l‘c
FEBRUARY 25, 1846,

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
(YESTERDAY.)

Sub-Committee No. 2.
This Committee met to-day shortly after twelve o'clock; present
Sir J. Y. Buller (Chairman), Mr. G. Craig, Mr. Kemble, Mr. Bell,
and Mr. Brainstone.

DIRECT LONDON AND MANCHESTER.

The Committee resumed the consideration of the remaining alle-
gations In the second petition against this Bill.
The petition alleged that in the plan deposited with the clerk of
the peace for llereford, the piece of ground adjoining No. 70, and
marked. 68, was not marked on the said plan.
There was another allegation, and the Committee found that in
both cases the standing orders had not been complied with.
It was alleged that the boundaries of the counties of Derby and
Stafford were not marked on the plans deposited with the clerks of
the peace for the said counties, which was not sustained.
It was further alleged that certain portions of land through which
the line was to pass, numbered 1,2, 3, were omitted in the books of
reference, and that there was a sitillar omission in the section
marked 34, in the parish of Tutbury, both of which were admitted.
The next allegation was that the property marked No. 128, within
the limits of deviation, was not in the books of reference or in the
plan deposited in the Private Bill-office, which was sustained.

It was aleged that numbers 2 and 3, in the county of Stafford,
and the properties 8 and 9, were not marked in the manner required
by the Act of Parliament. These allegations were sustained, the
former being admitted.
.. . .

The next-allegation was that the property No. 136, and adjoining
No. 135, was not marked on the plan deposited in the Private Bill-
office.

It was contended on the part of the promoters that the ground in
question was included in section marked No. 138.

The CHAIRMAN considered that this plea could not avail the parties,
and, therefore, the Committee were of opinion that the standing
orders had not been complied vi ith in this case.

• Sub-Committee, No. 4,
The Committee met at twelve o'clock ; present Sir W. Heath-
cote (Chairman), and Messrs. Evans, Shirley, and Legh—and pro-
ceeded with the consideration of the Bills on the list.

THE DONCASTEIR, v,raxnriELD, AND

LEEDS

Was again postponed, as Mr. Cubitt, the engineer to the line, could
not produce his original estimates of the expense, but only copies of
them, at present.
DERBY AND CREWE JUNCTION.

This is a Bill to make a line' frown Derby to Crewe, with a branch
to Burton-upon-Trent, and forming junctions with the Midland
Counties and Grand Junction Railways. The estillated cost is
950,0Q0/. ; the length of the line is 46 miles, and that of the branch
five miles. Messrs. Locke and Meek are the engineers ; Messrs.
Dyson and Co., the Parliamentary agents ; and Messrs. Simpson and
Co., the solicitors.

There were against this Bill no less than five petitioners, but n•
appearance was made in support of either of them, and the Com-
mittee therefore desired Mr. Coates (who appeared for thepromoters)
to proceed with his case.
Mr. CoalEs said that as this was an opposed Bill, he thought it
hardly fair to take advantage of the absence of the petitioners. He
only expected one appearance to be made, and that was on the part
of Mr. Joseph Parkes, a landowner in Derby.
The CHAIRMAN said that surely, if it was intended to oppose
the Bill, there must be some person present who would be
able to amount for the absence of the petitioners, and if so, they
ought to come forward.
As nobody did come forward the case was proceeded with, and the
usual formal proofs having been given, the Committee declared the
standing orders complied with.
It was also alleged that the properties marked 8 and 15 in the books
of reference were omitted from the plans deposited with the clerks
of the peace for the counties through which this line was to pass, and
in the Private Bill-office. This allegation was not pressed. There
were three similar allegations which were abandoned.
The next allegation was that the radius of the curve on the 142 d
mile of the main line was not marked, which was established.
It was also alleged that in the plan deposited with the clerk of the
peace no owner or occupier of the ground No. 64 appeared, which
was sustained.

The next allegation was that Nos. 515 and 543, in the liberties of
Ft. Alban's and Presbury, were not marked in the books of reference.
Evidence was given for and against the allegation.
The Committee considered that the standing orders had not been
complied with in this case.
The next allegation was that in the book of reference No. 95,
from 545 to 569 inclusive, in the parish of Presbury, in the county
of Chester, was described as being in the county of Stafford. This
allegation was sustained.
It was also alleged that the radius of curve on the 174th mile and
second furlong was not marked in the plans.
Mr. Remington, engineer, proved the omission in question.
Mr. DxsoN contended, that the allegation referred to a hue which
they had not power to construct, and that therefore they were not
bound to mark the radius alluded to.

The allegation was ultimately withdrawn.
It was next alleged that there was an omission on the 13th mile
and 7th furlong, which was sustained.
The petition further alleged that the vertical line, mile 5, furlong
334, was not marked on the plan deposited with the Clerk of the
Peace for the county of Derby. This allegation was proved.
The petition also alleged that the height of the railway above the
public road on the twenty-third mile and third furlong was not cor-
rectly marked, it being marked in one plaee as three feet, and in an-
other eight feet. This allegation was established.
Several similar allegations were abandoned.

Mr. PRITT said that he would pass from 178 in the petition to the
28th allegation. The general allegation was that there was no
notice given to certain owners of property on the fine.
Thomas Slingsby, one of the petitioners, was examined to show
that he had not been served with notice. . _

Mr. D rsom—Pray how long is it since you have signed your consent?
Mr. Slingsby—l don't know.
It was also alleged that Nos 78 and 79 were omitted from the plan
deposited in the Private Bill-office, which was not pressed.
The next allegation was that No. 181, described in the book of re-
ference as a parish road, did not appear on the plan, which was sus-
tained.

➢lr. DYSON—How old are you? Mr. Slingsby—l am twenty years
of age.
Mr. DYSON then contended that the witness was not entitled to
be heard, as being a minor.
After some discussion between the agents,

The CHAIRMAN, (Mr. G. Craig), said that the Committee were of
opinion that the wittness had a right to be heard, being of an age
sufficient to enable him to understand when his interests would be
affected, as in the present case, being the owner of the property in
question.
The case was then proceeded with.
Mr. Slingaby, in reply to Mr. Dyson, said that he was living with
his mother, who was not present. The notice was served on his
mother in September last.
. . . .

es standing oltelrearatnagfeaat.9Phlian that In Ulla
The Committee then adjourned, shortly after four o'clock, till
twelve o'clock to-morrow.

Sub-Committee No. 3.

This Sub.Commlttee resumed its sittings at the usual hour this
morning; Mr. Aglionby in the chair.
THE WELSH MIDLAND.

The object of the petitioners in this case was to make a railway
from the city of Worcester to Swansea and Carmarthen, with branches
to various mineral fields adjacent to the line.
There were several petitioners against the Bill, amongst whom
were the Earl of Jersey and the Corporation of Worcester.
The customary formal proofs of the serving of notices and deposit
of plans, &c., having been put in,
Mr. EmacolutE stated that owing to Mr. Sidney Hall, who had
had the entire control of the engineering department of the line,
having been confined to his bed by illness from the 13th to the 30th
of November, the plans and sections of the scheme deposited with
the clerks of the peace on the 30th of November were not so perfect
as they could have wished. They could find no one to supply Mr.
Hall's place, and they were, therefore, compelled to deposit the plans
in the condition he had mentioned. The promoters of the scheme
had a meeting upon the subject, and they determined upon
depositing, on the- 31st of December, with the clerks of the peace,
plans which had been; prepared by Mr. Hall subsequently to his ill-
ness for being deposited with the parish clerks, and which were more
perfect than those deposited on the 30th of November. Now, these
plans deposited with the parish clerks ought to have been duplicates
of those deposited on the 30th of November; but he hoped the Com-
mittee would consider that the circumstances he had already stated
justified a departure from the ordinary rule in such cases.
Mr. Bract, who appeared for a petitioner against the Bill, appre-
hended that the Committee had nothing to do with the plans de-
posited on the 31st of December with the clerks of the peace, and he
thought, after the statement of his Learned Friend, that the allega-
tions of his client ought to be admitted—namely, that the plans de-
posited with the clerks of the peace on the 30th of November were
imperfect.
Mr. ELLICOMBE remarked that In the late case of the Monmouth
and Hereford Railway, which was similar to the present one, it was
decided that the promoters of the Bill might acopt the perfected plans
deposited with the parish clerks, on the 31st of December, in prefer-
ance to those deposited with the clerks of the peace, on the 30th of
November. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would be
guided by precedent, and allow him to prove the accuracy of the
plans deposited on the 31st of December.
Mr. Bisa said the case of the Monmouth and Hereford Bill was
different to the present one. In that case there was no opposition ;
and the parties had given ample notice that they intended to rely on
the plans deposited on the 31st of December, and not on those depo-
sited on the 30th of November. He insisted that the Committee
would not be justified in allowing the parties in this case to prove
that the plans deposited on the 30th of December were accurate.
They ought to be confined to the plans deposited on the 30th of No-
vember, and required to show that the plans deposited on the 31st of
December were duplicates of those deposited on the 30th of Nov.

The Committee, after a short consultation, decided that they
would take evidence as to the illness of the engineer, because it came
within the province of a Sub-Committee to ascertain whether the
cause which had prevented the parties from comply-
ing with the standing orders was an exonerating cir-
cumstance in favour of the parties or not ; but the question
as to whether the plans deposited on the 31st of December with the
c'erks of the peace should be substituted for those deposited on the
30th of Nov., must be left for the decision of the Committee on stand-
ing orders.
Mr. Sidney Hall was accordingly called to prove his illness, and his
cons,:quent inability to examine the plans and sections previ .usly to
the deposit on the 30th of Nov.
The Committee nevertheless decided that the standing orders had
not been complied with in respect of the point relating to the deposit
of plans.
The Committee shortly afterwards adjourned till to-morrow.

Sub-Committee No. 4.
GLASGOW AND BELFAST UNION.

The object of this Bill, against which there were two petitions, is
to make a line from Ayr to Portpatrick, that being the nearest har-
bour to Bella- t. Thelength of the line is 60 miles, and the required
capital 800,000/.
Mr. John Miller is the engineer, and Messrs. Rubardson and Co.,
the Parliamentary agents.
The two petitions above alluded to, are both preferred by Mr. R.
Mackay, a writer to the Signet, but in the one petition he repre-
sented the magistrates of Newton-upon-Ayr, and some other persons.
Mr. Webster appeared in support of the petitions.
The first allegation of the petition, in which, as stated above, the
petitioner represented other persons, was that an occupation-road,
leading to the house of Mr. T. Gordon, which was erossed by the
line, was represented in the plans as being a pubilc road. It was
objected that this allegation ought to state that this road was the
property of Mr. Gordon, and that as it did not, it was informal.
After some discussion, the Committee dismissed the allegation.
The next allegation was that a belt of planting in the parish of
Newton-on-Ayr, marked No. 2 in the book of reference, and ill the
plans and sections lodged at tile Private Bill-office was not so
' marked in the plan lodged with the sheriff's clerk of Ayr, and that
therefore the standing orders had not been complied with.
Similar objections were raised to various other numbers, and evi-
dence was brought forward to substantiate them.
On the ether hand it was contended that as the numbers were
correctly marked in the plans deposited in the Private Bill-office,
and proper notice had been given to the several owners and occupiers
of the lands referred to in the allegation, there had been a sufficient
compliance with the standing orders:
In some of these cases the allegations were considered as proved
and the standing orders not complied with; in others the allega-
tions were overruled, but they could pot discriminate the sustained
from the unsustained. '
The 15th allegation was to the effect that the railway was to cross
a public or turnpike road by a bridge, and no height or span of arch
of such viaduct was stated in the plan.
After some discussion between the agents for and against the alle-
gation, the Committee reserved their decision.
The petition contained several other allegations, all of a technical
and trifling character, relating to defects in the plans and sections, as
deposited with the Sheriff-clerk.
After considerable discussion, strangers were ordered to withdraw,
and the Committee considered their. judgment upon the objections
which, as stated above, had been reserved.
On the re-admission of strangers, it was announced that two ofthe
allegations had been sustained, and all the others were overruled.
The Committee then adjourned.

Sub-Committee No. 5.

Members present, Mr. Home Drummond, chairman, Mr. Egerton,
the O'Conor Don, and Mr. Compton.
LONDON, sALasnurcr, AND YEOVIL XUNC.

TION (BASINGSTOKE TO YEOVIL).

The Committee proceeded with the further consideration of this
Bill, which was opposed on several grounds The first allegation
this day was, that the datum line was not truly or accurately defined.
The Committee unanimously decided that the standing orders on this
point were not complied with. The second objection was, that there
was a branch of the proposed line not intelligibly defined.
Mr. Smith, engineer, was examined by Mr. Venables, and proved.
that it appeared to him there was a branch marked on the line of
which no notice was given, and from the construction of the plan it
could not he defined clearly what were the objects of the line.
Mr. Webster, on behalf of the petitioners, called the engineer to
the line, whe proved there could be no difficulty in distinguishing
the necessary particulars.
The Committee postponed their decision 'ma they heald the next

objection, which was that " two branches were marked on the map,
while there was only one petitioned for, and that the plan was in
consequence calculated to mislead." On these two points the Com-
mittee decided that the standing orders were not complied with, in-
asmuch as duplicates were not lodged In the Private Bill-office, the
distances being incorrectly marked for several miles.
In every other respect they decided the objections were not
sustained.

The next allegation contained in the petition of Earl Digby was, that
the roads and rivers did not correspond on the datum line with those
on the railway line."

The Committee decided, that In this case, the allegations were not
sufficiently specific correspond with the standing orders.
The petition of Mr. -Win. Hyllian was then considered, " That the
Vans of the proposed works are not correct, inasmuch as certain fields
through which the proposed line is to pass, were not described in
the bock of reference, and that no notice was given the petitioner in
respect of the said fields, although he is the proprietor of the same."
The Committee in this case decided that the standing orders were
not complied with.
Mr. BATTEN, solicitor, was called to prove that another field ad-
joining those in the preceding objection, was not marked on the map,
and as a matter of course, was not described In the book of reference.
In this case, also, the Committee decided that the standing orders
were not complied with ; and it being a quarter past four o'clock,
they adjonrped the further hearing of the case till to-morrow, at
twelve o'clock.

Sub-Comm No. 6.
This Committee resumed its siitteettings at half-past twelve o'clock
this day. Present, Captain Jones (in the chair), Mr. Edward Buller,
and Mr. Deedes.

SCOTTISH GRAND JUNCTION.
The object of this Bill is to form a railway from Obau to Crian-
larich, in Perthshire, with a branch to the head of Loch Lomond.
The length is 46 miles including • the branch ; the estimated cost
320,0301., and the amount deposited 247,000/. The engineers are
Messrs. G. Martin, A. Mitchell, J. Locke and J. Errington ; the Par-
liamentary agents, Messrs. Graham and Weems:; and the solicitor, Mr.
Lanora, Glasgow. _

The Committee decided that the standing orders had been com-
plied with.

GRAND TFLUNM AND STAFFORD .AND
PETERBOR.OUGEL UNION.

The route of this line is from Loughborough to Hansacre, in the
Trent Valley, where it joins the railway. The length is 30 miles,
the estimated cost 325,0001., and the amount subscribed 247,0501.
The engineer is Robert Nicholson, Esq., of New ;
the Parliamentary agents, Messrs. Burke, Pritt, and Co.; and the
solicitors, Messrs. J. and W. Galsworthy.

The Committee having heard the customary proof, decided that
the standing orders had been complied with.

SOUTH-EAST:En= R &MINAS (NO. VIZ),
13SuNt0E313 STATIoN M3YLAILGEBTENT.

The object of this Bill is simply the extension of the present sta-
tion at .Ashford, where it is also intended to construct extensive
workshops. Power is given in the Bill to take land to the extent of
150 acres. The estimated cost Is 100,0001.. The engineer is Robert
Stephenson, Esq.
The standing orders were complied :with.
CHICHESTER, PORTSMOUTH, AND PARE—