The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-26 00:00:00

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
(YESTERDAY.)

Sub-Committee, No. 2.
DIRECT LONDON AND MANCHESTER.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
This allegation was the 371st; and
Mr. PETIT said, he proposed now to make a great sweep,
ank proceed to the 481st allegation, which stated general
inaoluraey in the books of reference with respect to the
names of the owners and ooeupiers of land along the line.
The specific allegation was, that there was an omission of
this nature with respect to four fields, three occupation roads,
Pecs in the parish of Tutbury, the property of Sir OssNald
Mosely.
The Committee found that in this case the standing orders
had not been complied with.
There was a similar allegation, which was not pressed.
It was also alleged that no notice was given to the clerk
of the peace for the parish of Meshaim, in the county of
Leicester, through which the line proposed to pass.
Mr. DYSON objected, on the ground that the allegation
was not sufficiently specific to enable the promoters to meet
it. He also denied that the line would pass through the
parish in question.
Mr. Grundy was examined to show that the town of
Packington, through which the line proposed to pass, was
partly in the parish of Meshaim, that lie occupied property
under Sir Charles Hastings there, and that he had not been
served with notice. Section 41 on the plan was
partly in
the parish of Meshaim, and of Packingten. He paid poor-
rates for the field in question to the collector of poor-rates of
Packington, which went to the poor of the township of
Packington. Did not know whether he told Mr. Brock,
when he went to show him the boundaries of the two
parishes, what was the boundary of the parish of Meshaim.
llr. Hughes (solicitor to Sir Charles Hastings) cornr?-
bcrated the evidence of the preceding witness as toth t pesi-
he
tie n of Packington with respect to the parish ofMeshaim,
ich was a notorious fact. Paid church-rates exclusively
to Meshaim. A party holding property in the township of
Packington paid church-rates in Meshaim. One-third of
Packington was in Meshaim, and the property referred to
Was in the parish of Meshaim.
The Committee found that the standing orders in this case
had not been complied with.
The next allegation was, that in the plans deposited with
the clerks of the peace for the counties of Middlesex,
Chester, &c., and in the books of reference there was a dis-
crepancy, inasmuch as the property, No. 16 A, in the parish
of Banbury, was not described in the latter as plantation
ground.
This allegation was admitted.
Several other similar allegations were abandoned.
The next allegation considered was that the pages on the
books of reference did not correspond with those in the books
of reference, which was sustained.
Mr. Parry said he had now come to the last allegation,
N 0.514, which was similar to the preceding allegation, which
he would not press.
The next petition considered was from the Marquis of
Anglesey for which Mr. Thomas appeared.
The first allegation was that in property 107, in the
parish of Stapenhill, there was no application in writing,
which was not sustained, as well as another allegation to the
same effect.
It was alleged that in No. 40, containing three houses,
that the standing orders had not been complied with, which
was not established.
The petition next alleged that No. 41, the property of the
Marquis of Anglesey was not mentioned in the book of re-
ference. The property was proved to belong to the Marquis
of Anglesey, and the Committee found that in this case the
standing orders had been conplied with.
There was a similar allegation with respect to the property
marked 42, which was not sustained.
The next allegation was, that in No. 17 the right owner
was not stated, which was not sustained.
There was a petition from Mr. Landon, which contained a
similar allegation respecting No. 19.
From the evidence it appeared that the ground in question
had been let out for grazing, and that some of the parties
who had cattle there had been served with notice instead of
the occupier, Mr. Landon, who held the land from the Mar-
quis of Anglesey.
The Committee found that the allegation was sustained.
The remaining petitions were abandoned.
The CHAIRMAN announced that the standing orders had
not been complied with.
EDINBURGH, GLASGOW, AND DUMBAR-
TONSHIRE.
The Committee proceeded to consider the petition of the
promoters of this undertaking.
The object of the Bill was to construct a railway from the
Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway, to connect Glasgow, Dam-
barton, and Hellensburgh. The extent of the line was
twenty-six miles, and the capital 300,0001..
Mr. Pritt appeared for the promoters, and Mr. Graham in
suprort of the petitions against the Bill.
The formal evidence was then heard, from which it ap-
peared that the amount subscribed was 467,0001., of which
23,3501. had been deposited, being one-twentieth of the sum
subscribed.
There were sevqal petitions against the Bill.
The first considered was from the trustees of the Luss
district of the Dumbartonshire roads, which alleged various
non-compliances with the standing orders.
It was alleged that there was an inaccuracy in the plan de-
posited with the clerk of the peace at Dumbarton.
Mr. Prism' here objected to the plan in question being
used, and the Committee decided to proceed on the plan de-
po sited at the Private Bill-office.
The petition alleged that a turnpike-road near Ardrop
was not marked, which was not sustained.
There was a similar inaccuracy alleged in No. 31, on the
plan—the railway crossing the road twice, which was not
marked.
The CHAIRMAN said, that from the plan it appeared that
in one case the crossing was marked.
Mr. GRAHAM said that there was no mention made of the
second crossing in the notice served on the trustees.
The CHAIRMAN said the Committee found that in this case
the standing orders had not been complied with.
It was also alleged that no copy of the plans and sections
had been deposited with the schoolmaster at the west side
of the river Leaven, which the Committee would not en-
tertain.

'Rio next petition was from the trustees of the Yoker dis-
triA of Dumbartonshire, alleging that the distances were
not marked in miles and furlongs on the plan deposited in the
sheriff's office, which was sustained.
There was a similar allegation, which was not sustained.
It was also alleged that there was an inaccuracy on the
datum line in the same district, which was sustained.
There was another allegation to the same effect,
which was not sustained. It was also alleged that in No.
111, in Old Kilpatrick, which was to be crosse.l the pro-
posed railway, the mode of crossing was not shown.
The allegation was not sustained, the Committee being of
opinion that the road in question was not a public road.
There was a similar allegation respecting No. 72 on the
plan, which was sustained.
This was the last allegation in the petition, and the case
was postponed.
Parliamentary agent, Mr. Pritt ; solicitors, Messrs. Hunt
and Co.; engineer, Mr. Miller.
The Committee then adjournad to twelve o'clock on
Friday.

Sub-Committee, No. 3.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
WELSH MIDLAND.
The Committee then resumed the hearing of this case.
Mr. Ellicombe appeared for the promoters of the Bill, and
Mr. Burke for the petitioners against it.
The whole of the day was occupied in discussing dis-
crepancies of a minor character on the plans and
sections, and examining and cross-examining Mr. Sidney
Hall, the engineer of the line, and Mr. Samuel Hughes,
of Westminster, the engineer for the opposing
parties, in relation to each point. Several of the
discrepancies were admitted to exist on the plans and sections
deposited on the 30th of November, and the petitioners, with
the aid of their engineer, sustained a few allegations which
affected both the plans and sections deposited on the 31st of
December, as well as those deposited on the :;oth of Nov.
In the course of the day a question arose, as to whether a
party who was not. immediately interested, either by occu
parley, possession, or otherwise, in a piece of land omitted in
the hook of reference, could appear before the Cons
mittee to complain of such an omission. It was
urged by Mr. Burke that discrepancies in the plans, sections,
0: books of reference were open to the objection of the gene-
ral public, while on :he other hand, it was contended by Mr.
Ellicombe that only the plans and sections were liable to be
objected to by the general public; and before a party could
complain of omissions in the books of reference, he must show
that he was in some was' connected with the piece or pieces
of land alleged to be omitted.
The Committee decided that they would reserve the point
until it had been discussed in the Committee of Chairmen of
Committees.

Mr. BURKE suggested that as most of the allegations of the
petitioners had reference to the plans deposited on the 30th
of November, it would be better, as the promoters had aban-
doned those plans, for them to rely on the case of the Mon-
mouth and Hereford Bill, and go into the Committee on
standing orders on the corrected plans deposited upon the3lst
Decembmw.
liitinMtely it was determined that the engineers on both
sides should have a meeting to determine what allegations
should be admitted, and what should not.
The Committee, however, remarked, that there was al-
ready sufficient evidence before them to justify their report-
ing to the Committee up stairs that the plans and sections
deposited on the 30th of November were defective, and
contrary to the standing orders, in so far as they
did not show a datum line, or a fixed point, and that the
plane and seetionsr deposited on the 31st of December were
not duplicates of those deposited on the 30th of November,
nevertheless the Committee were ready to take evidence
t prove that the plans deposited on the 31st December were
correct.
The Committee then adjourned till Friday at 12 o'clock.

Sub-Committee, No, 4.
This Committee did not meet to-day until 2 o'clock, hav-
ing adjourned to that hour at their rising yesterday. The
members were Sir W. ileathcote (chairman), Mr.
and'
Mr. ShirColibell,
ley. Mr. Leigh, Mr. Acland, Mr.
Hope Johnstone,
There have been added to the list thirty-seven Bills, the
whole of which are for Irish railways.
DONCASTER, WeIiCEPXELE, AIM LEEDS.
This Bill, which was adjourned from yesterday
in order that the original estimate of expense
might be produced by the engineer, was called to
day, but the parties not being prepared to go on, it stood
over.

GLASGOW AND LPAST UNION.
The CHAIRMAN stated, that in respect of the 14th and 15th
allegations of the petition, which were under consideration
when the Committee rose, an error was made in the an-
nouncement 'that the allegations were overruled. It should
have been stated that the 14th was confirmed, and the 15th
overruled.
Several allegations as to minute differences between the
plans and sections having been read, and witnesses having
been examined in support of and in answer to each,
The CHAIR3IAN said that the Committee would not report
upon these allegations until they should ascertain what the
practice was, and whether it was usual to report such slight
discrepancies or not.
Mr. WEBB, on the part of the petitioners, said, that slight
as these discrepancies appeared to be—being in some in-
stance?;' only 1-20th of an inch on the paper—they might lead
to very great inconvenience; and
Mr. CONNELL, for the promoters of the Bill, urged the im-
possibility of having the plans and sections alike in such mi-
nute points.
The other allegations of the Bill were then proceeded with.
of deviation
alleged that in several parts of the line the limits
ing the objection were withdrawn.
The CNasxaux observed that it was not ncessary to mark
the limits of deviation if it wasourdot intended to take the land
included in them ; but if it c be shown by the books of
reference or other papers that it was intended to take the
land, the omission would become a non-compliance with the
otauding ordero.