The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-06 00:00:00

Sub-Committee No. 4.

LAUNCESTON AND SOUTH DEVON (No. II.)
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
These allegations haTing been disposed of, the Committee declared
the standing orders not complied with.

EAST AND WEST OF ENGLAND TUNCTIOI7.
This Bill was called on, and the formal proofs occupied the Com-
mittee up to the time of their adjournment.
The Committee rose at a quarter past three o'clock, and a lourned,
as we understood, until after Easter, but did not fix their day of
meeting.

Sub-Committee No. 6.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)

IPSWICH, NORWICH, AND YARMOUTH.
This is a Bill to connect Norwich and Yarmouth with Ipswich, at
which place it will form a junction with the Ipswich and Bury line.
Its length will be seventy miles, and the cost is estimated at 1355,0001.
The engineer is Mr. iteunle, and the agents are Messrs. Dorrington.
Mr. Coates appeared as agent for several petitions against the line.
The first allegation against the Bill was that the point to which the
datum line was referred was not sufficiently described. Several wit-
nesses were called to prove that they could not find the point in
question, amongst others, Captain Morrison and Mr. Bruit,
The point to which the line was referred was " fifty feet below
the flat stone by the parapet of the bridge over the canal on the
Ipswich and London road, and level with the crown of the said
bridge."

It appeared that there was no other flat stone near the summit of
the road-way of the bridge, and the principal point in dispute was,
whether the " crown of the bridge " meant the summit of the road-
way, or whether it applied to the road at the whole length of the
bridge. _ _ _

The Committee then declared the allegation not proved, and the
standing orders complied with, but the Chairman observed that
a better datum line might well have been chosen.
All the allegations up to the 94th were withdrawn.
This allegation, and chose following it, occupied the Committee up
to four o'clock. They were, however, of no public interest, re erring
chiefly to questions as to whether certain roads were public or
private roads ; and similar points, on some of which the Committee
divided for and on others against the promoters of the Bill. _

Having been occupied the whole day with the evidence and dis-
cussions on this Bill, the Commits v adjourned at four o'clock till
twelve o'clock to-morrow.

STANDIN G ORDERS' COMMITTEES.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Their Lordships met this day at the appointed hour. Present, the
Earl of Shaftesbury (in the chair), Lords Redesdale and Hawardeu.
DUBLIN, DUNDRUM, AND INNISKERRY.
This case same before the Committee on second reference, in order
that the promoters of the Bill might prove the second lodgment of
5 per cent. in the Accountant-General's hands, and the signature of
the directors. Tue certificates having been proved, the Committee
decided that the Bill had passed the standing orders.
MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY OF IRELAND
(MULLINGAR 10 GALWAY).
This cake came also before the Committee on second reference,
in order that the promoters of the Bill might have an opportunity
of 1 roving compliance w,th Lord Whamcliffe's standing order, prows
of which having been entered, the Committee decided that the stand-
ing orders had been complied with.
MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY OF IRELAND (LIF-
FEY BRANCH AND LONGFORD DEVIATION).
This case came on for hearing on the same point, and the proper
proofs having been put in, the Committee Qec.ded that the Bill had
passed the standing orders.
BRIGHTON, LEWES, AND HASTINGS (EASTBOURNE HAIL-
SHAM) RAILWAY.
This was the next case which came before their Lordships—it was
unopposed, and the usual proofs having been gone through, the Com-
mittee decided that the promoters of the Bill bad complied with the
standing orders.
NEWRY, WARRENPOINT, AND ROSTREVOR RAILWAY.
The hearing of this case was adjourned until the 23d instant, for
the production of furthcr proofs.
TE3IPLE3IORE AND NENAGH RAILWAY.
The deposit of 10 per cent. having been proved to have been lodged
in the Accountant-General's hands, and the other usual proofs having
been entered, the Committee decided that the standing orders had
been complied with by the promoters of this line.
THE LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY.
This case, which had been so frequently adjourned, came on before
their Lordships and occupied their attention for a considerable por-
tion of the day. It may be in the recollection of our readers, that
we stated a question arose as to whether the money
deposited in the Accountant-General's hands, under the original
deed of the Company, was available for the Company who
came before the Committee with a new deed, there being many new
names to it, and a portion of the former promoters having declined
further connexion with the Company. It was argued that the pre-
sent Company had no legal claim upon the fund in Court.
The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General having given their
opinion that the fund was available for the present Company,
Lord SiLarmssuity intimated that the Committee coincided in that
opinion, and they therefore decided that the standing orders had been
complied with.
BRIGHTON AND CHICHESTER RAILWAY (STEYNING
BRANCH).
This case, which was formerly adjourned for want of proof of com-
pliance with Lord Wharneliffe's order, was decided to have complied
also with the standing orders.
The Committee adjourned at five o'clock.

TATTERSALL'S-THIS EVENING.
SLY O'CLOCK.

NEWMARKET HANDICAP.
13 to 1 apt Corranna
16 to 1 agst Nike
16 to 1 agst Beaumont
16 to 1 agst Spur
18 to 1 agst Arthur
20 to 1 agst Thrapston
20 to 1 agst Dexterous
CHESTER cur.
12 to 1 agst Sweetmeat
14 to I agst Weatherbit—taken
20 to 1 agst Best Bower
22 to 1 agst Clumsy
25 to 1 agst Miss Burns
25 to 1 agst Hope
28 to 1 agst Vitula—taken'
28 to 1 agst Crim Con—taken
30 to 1 agst Mermaid—taken

DERBY.
4 to 1 agst Sting
12 to 1 agst Brobardo
20 to 1 agst Traverser
25 to 1 agst Igo
25 to 1 agst Tom Tulloch
40 to 1 agst Malcolm
OAKS.
7 to 1 agst Col. Peel's lot
Wito 1 stet Vanig

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEI\T.
(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, in the absence of
the Lord Chancellor, took his seat on the Woolsack at
Five o'clock.

INDEMNITY BILL

On the motion of Earl ST. GERMANS, the Indem-
nity Bill was read a third time.
THE MIDLAND AND GREAT WESTERN (IRE-
LAND) AND THE CORK AND WATERFORD
RAILWAYS.

Lord MONTEAGLE, in rising to present two peti--
dons from shareholders in certain railways, said that
they both illustrated a mistake under which the public
laboured with respect to the power and right of share-
holders in railways generally. These were both petitions
from shareholders who objected to the further progress
of Bills in which they themselves were interested ;
and the misapprehension that he alluded to was, the
common mistake that shareholders could not petition
against Bills to which they had given a previous assent ;
so that it was perfectly competent, and, in fact, was in
the power of the shareholders of a railway, if they sub•
sequently saw reason to alter the favourable opinion
which they had formerly expressed with respect to it,
to take steps to prevent its receiving the assent of the
Legislature. Ile could not bring himself to believe that
the allegations contained in these petitions were un-
true, because they appeared to be supported by
good grounds. The first petition was from. a num-
ber of shareholders in the Midland and Great
Western Railway of Ireland, and was signed (as
we understood) by one of the Members of the city
of London, and set forth that a great number of those
who had signed the contract deed were not persons in a
condition to do so. as immediately before depositing the
list several persons subscribed their names for very large
sums in which the shareholders admitted no deposit was
paid by them, and that it was their belief that they had
no intention to subscribe the amount of the capital which
they had so engaged to pay. If this were true, and he
could not doubt it, the Company, in the event of obtain-
ing their Bill, would be left without the means of
completing their works. He therefore trusted the
Noble Lords to whom the Bill had been re-
ferred would tike the trouble to read the petition in order
that they might ascertain whether it contained any just
grounds for impeding the progress of the Bill. The
other petition was from the city of Cork, against the
amalgamation of the line with the Limerick and
W aterford.

The petitions were ordered to be referred to• the
Committees on the Bills.

LONDON AND YORK (EASTERN COUNTIES).
The Earl of lIARDWICKE presented a petition
against this-line, and praying, in the event of its
passing, that proper clauses would be inserted in the
Bill for the protection of the property of those through
which it would pass.