The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-27 00:00:00

Sub-Cornmitte No. 2.

This Committee assembled to-day at twelve o'clock ; present, Sir
Sir J. Y. Buller (chairman), Mr. Kemble, and Mr. Walker.

LEEDS AND THIRSK RAILWAY.

The evidence which was nit forthcoming on Wednesday was pro-
duced, and the Conunittee found that the standing orders were com-
plied with.

, _
BRITISH AND IRISH UNION RAILWAY.
The consideration of the allegations in the petition against this Bill
was resumed.

The following (among several other) allegations were admitted—
namely, that there was an error in theDumtries plan at one furlong;
that the furlongs were omitted from the same plan, as well as the
furlongs on the Wigtown branch; that the road 65 was omitted ;
that the height and span of the arches at Stranraer were not
marked, &c.

The petition then alleged that on the Gretna Extension branch a
public road was set forth on the plans as being 14 feet above the
height, whereas on the sections the same was marked 13 feet.
This allegation was sustained.

An error in the cross sections was next alleged and sustained.
Two allegations, the first that there was an omission of the cut-
ting at the 74th mile Ist thriong, and the next, that there was a
similar omission with respect to an embankment, were sustained.
It was alleged that, on the 58th mile, No. 10, in the parish of
Crossrnichael, where the railway crossed the turnpike, there was an
inaccuracy in the plan.

Mr. Thompson, an assistant engineer, said that he had levelled the
part of the line in question, and found an error on the plan of 12 feet
6 inches.

Mr. White, :assistant engineer, corroborated the testimony of
the preceding witness.
Mr. Baker gave similar evidence.

The Committee found that this allegation was sustained.
The next class of allegations had reference to discrepancies be-
tween' the plans in the Private Bill-office and those deposited at
Durnfiies.

Several allegations were abandoned, and some were admitted.

Sub-Committee No 4,

This Committee met to-day at twelve o'clock in Room No. 11 ;
present Sir William Heathcote (chairman), Mr. Legh, and Mr. Hope
Johnstone, and resumed the consideration of the

WHITEHAVEN AND FURNESS JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
Mr. THOMAS, for the promoters, put in a letter from Mr. Thomas
Scott, of Hokeham, a petitioner against the line, which the Learned
Gentleman submitted was in fact a revocation of the petition.
After hearing Mr. PRITT, who contended that the latter was not a
sufficient revocation,

The Committee decided to proceed with the allegations of the
petitioner.

The first allegation, that the property of the petitioner being
within the limits of deviation was not Set forth in the book of refer-
ence, was sustained.

Sub• Committee No. 5,

This Committee re-assembled at the a:nalhour, when the follow.
ing Members were present:—Mr. Home Drummond (chairman), Mr.
l'acke, Mr. Egerton, and Mr. Mackenzie.

THETFORD, BURY T. EDMUNDS, AND NEW3IARKET.
A petition. that of seviTal owners and occupiers Lof land on the
line, the allegations of which were more numerous than interesting
to the public, was disposed of in about an hour.

...,....
The next petition taken was that of John Baker and others,
owners, occupiers, and lessees of land which would be taken by the
proposed line.
__

One of the allegations was, that two fields marked as No. 1 and
No. 5, in the parish of Ingham, were in fact in the pariah of Tim-
worth, adjoining the parish of Ingham.. , A witness was called to
prove that the fields in question were in the parish of Timworth.
The allegation was partly answered by the agent for the promoters
pointing out the fact that the figure 5 was not a mark applying to
the field, but that it was part of the mileage, and represented
"five furlongs."

A witness was then called to prove that the other field was pro-
perly marked. .

The Committee decided that the allegation was proved in reference
to the field marked No. 1.

It was next alleged that the boundary between the parish of
Ingham and the adjoining parish of Cowford was incorrectly marked.
The owner of some property in the parishes of Ingham and Cow-
ford, one of the petitioners, was called to prove the inaccuracy of the
boundary as marked in the plans.
A surveyor was called on the part of the promoters of the Bill to
prove that he applied to the last witness fer information as to the
boundary of the two parishes, which lie refused to give. He had
also applied to the parish clerk and to several other persons, but re-
ceiving no answer from any of them, was obliged to rely on the in-
formation given him by the labourers in the fields.

The Committee declared the allegation proved and the standing
orders not complied with.

STANDING ORDERS' COMMITTEES.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Their Lordships resumed their labours at the usual hour. Present,
the Earl of Shaftesbury (in the chair), and Lords Redesdale, Hood,
and Hawarden.