The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-20 00:00:00

was resumed

Mr. Vignolos was cross-examined at some length by Mr. Calvert,
on behalf of a number of landholders residing between Gravesend
and Rochester, who were averse to the railway intersecting their
property. They alleged that the South-Eastern line was the best of
the two, which would do the least injury to their property.

flub-Committee No. 1

The Committee met at twelve o'clock in Room No. 7.
Members present—Mr. Strutt (Chairman), Mr. Clive, Mr. Becket
Mr. Cavendish, and Mr. Forbes.

Mr. RICHARDSON appeared to promote the first Bill, which was one
for improving the

srmnizir PASSAGE.
The projectors took powers to compel the Edinburgh and Perth
Railway Company to purchase or lease their undertaking.
Unopposed. Standing enters complied with.
StrILREY GIUIND ZUNCTZON.
_

- -
The object of this Bill is to effect a junction between the London
and Birmingham and Great Western, by an extension of the West
London Line, also with the South-Western Railway at Battersea.
Length, three and a half miles ; estimated cost, 170,0001.
Agents, Messrs. Dyson, Hull, Parkes, and Coates ; engineer, Mr.
Laxton.

Unopposed. Standing orders not complied with, inasmuch as no
fixed point had been taken for the datum line near either of the
proposed termini, it having brew drawn from the surface of the
London and Brighton rails at a distance of six miles. The projectors
stated that it had been originally intended to effect a junction with
the latter Company, but this portion of their Bill had been after-
wards abandoned.

RAILWAY GUATLELIZTFaI CORPORATION.
The promoters of this Bill sought to establish a Corporation for
the purpose of guaranteeing the capital of proprietors Invested In
railways, and also to enter into arrangements with Companies in
their collective capacities.

The Corporation proposed that the capital should be half a million,
in shares of V. 10s. each.

The Committee decided upon the following clause :—" And be it
enacted, that it be lawful for all railway companies to enter into ar-
rangements with the said Corporation, and to accept the guarantee
of the Corporation for a stipulated yearly dividend, to be mutually
agreed on, and in consideration thereot to transfer to and entitle
the said Corporation to all the profits derivable from the railways
of the companies so agreeing to accept such guarantee, beyond
the amount of such dividend," that the standing orders had not been
agreed to, inasmuch as they had not published their notices in all the
counties in which the works of all the railways in the empire were
situated !
XIMOTZTAA.NE, DOUNE, AND cA.LLArnomn.
This Bill sought powers to construct a railway from the City of
Dumblane, by Donne, to the town of Callender, in the county et'
Perth. Length of line 10 miles ; estimated cost 80,0001. Agents,
Messrs. Graham and Weems, London ; Mr. Arcbd. Reid, Perth.
Engineer, Mr. Mitchell, Perth.
The Bill took powers to lease or sell the line to the Scottish Can.
tral Company.

Unopposed. Standing orders not compiled with, as no notice of
their intention to apply lo Parhament tor powers " to sell " to the
Central Company had been published in the Edinburgh Gazette, or the
county newspapers,

The Comniitiee then adjourned,

(Sub-Committee, No. 2.)
This Committee met to-day at one o'clock; present, Sir J. Y. Buller
;Chairman), Mr. Bell, Mr. E. Yorke, Mr. Kemble.

CLIELIVISVOILD AND nulty.
The consideration of the remaining petitions againSt this Bill was
resumed.
Mr. GarßlE appeared in support of the petition of Messrs. Sted-
man and Jones, owners of property a'ong the line, complaining of
non-compliance with the standing orders.
Mr. WEBSTER supported the Bill.

The petition alleged that in No. A, in the parish of Gemsthorpo,
within the limits of deviation, was not marked on the plans deposited
with the clerks of the pease for the counties of Suffolk and Essex,
which was sustained.
Some similar allegations were abandoned.

The next allegation was, that a brook in the parish of Barneham,
be•tween the heath and field marked 76 and 78, was omitted on the
said plans. _ _

E;idence having been heard pro and con., the Committee considered
that the point was so trifling that it was not pressed.

It was next alleged that a wood, marked 11,liaittle Henny, was
not shown in.the plan, which was sustained.

It was then alleged that the limits of a lateral deviation at 7 fur-
longs 5 chains, and 1 furlong 3 chains, on the 50th mile on the main
line, was not shown.

Evidence was adduced in support of this allegation, which the Corn.
mittee found was not sustained.

The next allegation was that a field in the parish of Halstead,
between sections 117 and 118, was not marked on the plans, which
was not sustained.

Sab-Committee No 4.

The Committee met at twelve o'clock. Present, Sir W. Heath-
cote (chairman), Mr. Hope Johnstone, Mr. Aclaud, and Mr. C. Legh.
DIENZNNEAL, LANCASHIRE, AND

CLIESLIIIZIS.

The conslieration of this Bill was resumed,

The Chairman said that the Committee had decided against the
objection raised by Mr. Ellseombe, at the last;dtth ig of the Committee
—that the service of notice upon two parties at Warrington, whose
houses were within the limits of deviation, had been imperfect, in-
asmuch as the papers were only shown to them, and were at once
taken away. The Committee were at first of opinion that this
was a very irregular proceeding, and that if It were passed ever in
these Instances, the door would be opened to an exceedingly dan-
gerous practice. however, upon considering the evidence of the
parties themselves, it appeared that, in effect, they had sufficient
notice.

Mr. Pairr, on the part of the Company, said that he was now
better able than he had been when the objection was first alleged to
explain how it happened that the notices were taken away from the
complaining persons. The Company bad nothing whatever to do
with that proceeding. The fact was, that much of the property in
Warrington, through which the projected line was to pass, belonged
to Mr. Standish, ➢I.P., who had directed his agents to collect for him
all the notices that might be left with his tenants, and the persons
who served the notices were in some instances employed to get them
back again. He thought it but justice to the Company to offer this
explanation, which he wee prepared to prove if the Committee re-
quired it.

The CHAIRMAW was glad to hear the explanation, as it removed a
somewhat unfavourable impression from his mind.
The Committee then shortly deliberated, and agreed to report that
the standing orders'were not complied with.