The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-06 00:00:00

Sub-Committee, No. 2.

This Committee met to-day, shortly after twelve o'clock.
There were present Sir J. Y. Buller (Chairman), Mr. G.
Craig, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Walker.
TILING, READING, AND BASINGSTOIES.
This was the first Bill considered, against which there was
one petition from Mr. William Waithem, for which no one
appeared.
The formal evidence havirg been gone through, the Com-
mittee found that the standing orders had been complied
with.

The object of the promoters of this Bill was to constrict a
line of railway from the London and Birmingham Railway
at Pitstone to the parish of Saundaton, which was part of
a proposed extended railway from Tring to Basingstoke, to
join the London and South-Western Railway, the remainder
to be incorporated in another Bill. Engineer, Mr_ S. Hughes,
C.E. Amount of capital, 124,0001., and length of line fifteen
miles. The Parliamentary agents, Messrs. Dyson and Co. ;
solicitors, Messrs. G. P. Hill, and T. G. Everill, Soho-square.
Mr. Ellicombe appeared in support of the Bill.
GLASGOW, PAISLEY, 7LILI SARTIOCK, AND
AYR, AND BRANCHES.
This was the next petition taken into consideration. The
object of the Bill was to construct a railway from Paisley to
near Kilmarnock, with branches to Drybridge. The esti-
mate of the undertaking was 1,600,0001., and the subscription
600,0001., while the length of the line, with the branches,
was about twenty- six miles.
Parliamentary agents, Messrs. Burke, Pratt, and Vena-
bles ; engineer, Mr. John Miller.
There were several petitions against this
The formal evidence having been heard,
Mr. Pit= said he would suggest to his friend, Mr. Laing
(the agent for the petitioners), a course that would abridge
the labours of the Committee, and would not in any degree
injure the case of the petitioners. It was simply
this i—That they (the promoters) admitted various in-
accuracies in the plans and sections deposited on the 30th
of November, but that having found that to be the case,
they had deposited amended plans and sections on or be-
fo-e the 31st of December. If his friend, therefore, would
take this general admission, instead of going into the alle-
ga'ions iu the petitions, as had been done in the Welsh and
Midland Railway, and in another case with which
his friend must be acquainted, they would save
tune to all parties. If this suggestion were not adopted they
were prepared to go into the allegations seriatim.
Mr. LAING said he was willing to agree to any course that
would save the time of the Committee, but he must
object to his Learned Friend, Mr. Pritt, going into
any proof of his having deposited any other plans
than those deposited on the 30th of November. A
case exactly similar to that arose before Committee 3,
with reference to the South Union Railway, and Mr. Venables
there objected to any proof being given in evidence of what
had taken place subsequent to the 30th of November, and
the Committee decided in favour of Mr. Venables. He must,
therefore, object to his friend proceeding in the course he had
proposed.
The CHAIRMAN said, it did not make the least difference
whether the evidence in question was given there or before
the Com:eittee above stairs; but the question was, whether
evidence not produced then could be taken up stairs.
Mr. LAING sail that, accord,ng to the Act of Parliament,
the parties were permitted to make any statement such as
his Learned Friend had offered here up stairs, but that at
present that could not be accepted.
The CHAIRMAN thought that if the parties could come to
some arrangement it would be better.
Mr. LUNG said that one of the greatest landholders on the
line was in attendance there, and objected to the adoption of
the course proposed, having been already detained several
weeks in town at a heavy expense.
At the suggestion of the Chairman, the respective agents
retired fer a short time to effect, if possible, some arrange-
ment, and after an absence of about a quarter of an hour,
returned without having been able to enter into any set-
tlement.

The first petition was from Mr. Andrew Bsolos, of Hill
House in the county of Ayr, complaining general* at non-
compliance with the standing orders in various particulairo.
Mr. Pnrrr said that before proceeding with that petition
he
would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that
various iriterlineations had been made in the petition.
Mr. LANG said that the terms of the agreement autho-
rised them to make any alterations in the petition they
required. He had to call the attention of the Com-
milee to a tact material to the present case. The second
allegation was, that certain portions of the plans de-
posited by this Company were not their plans, but those of
another Com pan y of the same.nanae, No. 6, but which proposed
to construct quite a different railwaii-..dedHte had applied at the
Private Bill-otlice for the Bill he all , but was informed
by Mr. Strut t that it would be produced by an order from
the Chairman of the Committee before whoi
of the same designation might be consider:any of the Bills
The CHAIRMAN having sent for the Bill in question,
Mr. Putrr proceeeded with the allegations in their
correct
order.
The first allegation was, that no plans or sectiens of the
proposed railway, which was to pass through the Abbey
parish of Paisley and Laigh.Kk parish of Paisley, had
been deposited with the sheriff's clerk of the county of
Renfrew on or before the 30th day of November, which were
applicable to the said parishes.
Evidence pro and con, being heard, the Committee found
that in this case the allegation was not sustained.
The second allegation was to the effect that in the proposed
branch of railway through the'parishes mentioned in the pre-
ceding allegation, a similar error had been committed, inas-
much as the plans and sections as regarded these parishes
were the plans,or a portion of them, deposited in the Private
Bill-office by the promoters of the Paisley, Barrhead, and
Hurlet Railway. _

--711;61IAIlt511N considered that if it were even as alleged,
it the plans were correct it would be no matter.
Mr. LAING said he would under these circumstances pro-
ceed on the merits.

The first class of allegations was that there was great in-
accuracy in the plans and sections deposited with the sheriff's
clerks of the respective counties through which the line was
to pass.
The first allegation was with reference to the county of
Renfrew, which was sustained, and with respect to the other
counties it was admitted that the inaccuracy alleged was
correct, and the Committee found accordingly, that in these
cases the standing orders had not been complied with.
It was next alleged that on the 13timile of the terminus
at Paisley there was no figuring, which was sustained.
Some other allegations of a similar-nature were abandoned.
It was next alleged that from Nos. 85 to 107 the proper-

ties were not delineated in the plans deposited with the
sheriffs' clerks.
The Committee found that the sections in'question had not
been numbered.
Some similar allegations were admitted, and some were
abandoned.
It was next alleged that there was a difference between
the plans and sections deposited with the sheriff's clerks and
those in the Private Bill-office.
The first of this class of allegations was that there was an
error in the datum line, which the Committee sound to be
sustained.
The Committee then adjourned, at four o'clock, till twelve
o'clock to-morrow.

Sub-Committee No. 6.
This Committee re-assembled this day; present, Captain
Jones (in the chair), Lord Eblington, Mr. Deedes, and Mr.
Pakington.
BRISTOL, BIRMINGHAM/ AND MIDLAND.
This case was postponed in consequence of an inf,rrnaluy
in the petition.
BUOICINGHAM (TR..TNG TO BANBURY).
This was the next case called on. The object of the pro-
moters of this Bill is to construct a line of railway fromTring,
which will pass through the towns of Aylesbury, Winslow,
and Buckingham, and terminate at Banbury.
The length is th irty-one miles, the estimated cost is 850,0001.,
for which amount the deed has been executed.
The engineer is Robert B. Dockray, Esq.; the Parlia-
mentary agents, Messrs. Dorrington and Co.; and the soli-
citor, Samuel Carter, Esq.
It was discovered by the Committee that in reference to
cross sections, opposite to the line intended to represent the
present surface of the ground, the words "altered surface"
were written, and vice versa—the present surface of a e road
ought to have been represented by a straight line, whilst on
the contrary it was designated by a dotted line, and the re-
verse was the case with respect to the altered surface.
The room was cleared, and after upwards of half an hour's
time the parties concerned were re-admitted, when
The CHAIRMAN said that they had fully considered the
point themselves, and also referred to the chairmen of the
other Sub-Committees, and they had come to the determina-
tion to report to the Standing Orders' Committee the non-
compliance with the standing orders in this respect.
Mr. Doßmsterrorr—Perhaps you will be kind enough to
attend that Committee when this case comes before them.
The CHALRMAN—I shall attend the Committee, of course,
and report the whole of the circumstances.
Mr. Doßnntarox—Thank you, Sir.
In all other respects the standing orders were corn
plied with.