The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-13 00:00:00

RAILWAY COMMITITES.
(YESTE RDAY.)

Sub-Committee No. 1.
The members of this Committee met this day at 12 o'clock.
Strutt, the Chairman, was absent for some time in
taking the opinion of the Speaker on several disputed points
connected with cases part-heard.
At a quarter-past one o'clock, Mr. Strutt not having
arrived, Mr. Beckett was called to the chair, and the Com-
mittee proceeded with the case of
THE NORTOMIC EXTENSION (STOW-
.IIIAUXET, WYMONDHANI, AND ATTLE-
nonouGlic BRANCH).
Mr. Pnerr appeared for_ the promoters, and called the wit-
nesses to prove the deposit of the plans and sections, and the
books of reference:
Mr. WEBSTER appeared on two petitions against the Bill.
Mr. STRUT C having returned from Mr. Speaker, he called
the parties in the adjourned case of
THE COLCHESTER, STOUR VALLEY, SUD-
BURY, AND HALSTEAD.
The,CIIAIRMA.N said that having consulted the Speaker on
the point raised :Tainst receiving the petition presented by
Mr. Webster against the Bill, the Speaker was of opinion
that a petition signed by the verbal authority of the parties
could not be taken, and in that opinion the Committee en-
tirely concurred.
Mr. WEBSTER said he was most anxious to explain a few
circumstances connected with that petition. The promoters
presented a petition to the House, charging the opponents
with having forged the parties' names to the petition against
he Bill.
The CirArnmAx said no such charge had been made before
that Committee.
Mr. C. PARKES said that ha was not instructed to make
a ny such charge, nor had he intended to convey even such
a suspicion.
Mr. PARKES said be would call a witness to prove that
two witnesses summoned by the Committee in this case had
refused to attend.
The witness having been called, said that ho served the
S peaker's summons on two witnesses, named Field and
Meadows, clerks to Mr. Sarjeant, of Norfork •street, Strand,
and they informed him that they could not leave their busi-
ness. They explained this refusal by stating that Mr. Sar-
jeant could not spare both witnesses.
The CIIAIRMAN—Did you tell them the hour at which the
Committee would sit, and the number of the room?
Witness said he did.
The CITAIRMAI4 intimated that the Committee would re-
port accordinLly.
EXETER, YEOVIL, AND DORCHESTER.
The CHAIR3IAN said that in this case objection was taken
to the petition against the Bill for not having the name of
the Bill on the back of such petition. The Committee would
report this case to the House, and then deliver the order of
the House at a future sitting.
NoltroLlC. EXTENSION (STOIATIKARKET,
WYIVZONDT.TADT, 'AND A TTI.E73 °ROUGH
BRANCH),
This case was then resumed.
Mr. WEBSTER. submitted several allegations of a trivial
niviire against the plans and sections and books of reference.
A few of those allegations were sustained, but the larger num-
ber were overruled. The next allegation was that there was
no fixed point shown for the datum level.
The room was ordered to be cleared.
Upon our return the parties were informed by
The CHAIMIAN that the Committee were of opinion that
the standing orders were complied with in this instance.
Mr. WEBSTER then submitted that the names of certain
owners of land were not properly stated in the books of re-

ference.
Mr. Pntrr contended that the allegation was not suffi-
ciently speeitic.
The Committee decided in accordance with the opinion of
the learned agent, and the petition was thereby disposed of.
The Committee said that the case would stand adjourned
till Monday, till the opinion of the House was taken as to
whether the standing order, 111 A.,. should be enforced.
This standing order makes it imperative on the petitioners,
for and against L'Alls, writing the name of the Bill on the back
of the petition, and several Bills are interested in the coming
decision of the House on this point.
LEICESTER AND BEDFORD.
Mr. COATFS appeared for the promoters.
The deposit of plans and sections was then proved.
Mr. l'utrr appeared for several petitioners against the Bill.
Mr. Josmit I'tI:KES also appeared on a petition against
the Bill.
The CIIAIRMAN said that as the case was likely to occupy
some time, they wonld not go into the allegations in the peti-
tions till the next day.
h e Committee then adjourned at four o'clock till twelve
o'clock to morrow.

Sub-Committee N. 2, Cloi-ter-. 6.
CHELTENIUM LIND oxro nz •

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

The petition also alleged that no application was made to
the owners of the land not to be taken for the purpose of the
proposed railway. Notwithstanding the negative in the
terms of the petition, which should have been affirmative,
the Committee heard s.nne of the alleged instances of
neglect. These were respecting aectiors 57, 58, and 59, in
the parish of Cheltenham, which were not sustained.
It was also alleged that in the pari-h of Charlton Kings, in
Nos. 9G, 97, and 101, the right owner of a stable, arable
land, Egc., had not been served with notices of the proposed
railway.
The Committee were of opinion that the standing orders
had been complied with by the Cheltenham and Oxford
Railway Company.

WEST RIDING UNION.
The object of this Bill was to construct a railway through
Huddersfield, Halifax, &c., to the Manchester Railway, and
other railways already is operation or to be constructed.
The petition stated that the same railway would be of great
public advantsge by opening a communication between Leeds
and Manchester.
The formal evidence was then gone through, and it ap-
peared that the estimate of the work was 2,000,0001., while
there had been deposited 1;600,000/.
There was one petition against the Bill from Mr. Charles
Naylor, of Yorkshire, alleging a non-compliance with the
standing orders generally in the plans and sections.
The Cumnxix said he thought it would be better to
adjourn then than to enter on any allegation of the petition.
The Committee accordingly adjourned, at a few minutes
to four o'clock, till twelve o'clock to-morrow.

Sub-Committee No. 3.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
SHOTTS AND CLUMPY. _ _

This was another petition of the same Company for leave
to bring in a Bill to improve their line, and to make the
branches. one to Shotts, and the other to Clumpy. The
estimated cost was 200,0001.
The standing orders were decided to have been duly com-
plied with.

WISHAW AND COLTNESS (GREENHILL

33 RILTZ C II ) .

This was a petition for leave to bring in a Bill to
construct a railway to run from the main line of
the Wilsontown, Mori ingside and Coltness Railway,
at a point called Wishaw, to a place called Green-
bill. 'rho branch was estimated to cost 207,0001., aid the
subscription contract amounted to 155,250/. upon which de-
posits had been paid amounting to 15,525/.
The Committee eecided that the standing orders had been
properly complied with, and the petition was passed.