The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-13 00:00:00

RAILWAY COMMITTEES

(YESTERDAY.)

Sub- Committee No. 1.
The Committee met again this day at 12 o'clock, in room
No. 7, Mr. Strutt Chairman.
TEE TITORECOMMI nAnnoun.

This case was adjourned from Tuesday last, and was the
first called on.
The Committee decided that the standing orders had been
complied with.
TILE SEMEWSEURY, WOLVERHAMPTON,
AND SOUTII STAIPPORD.sHIR.II.
This was also an sdjourned ease, the oily point fur cult-
sideration having been the serving of a few notices in ac-
cordance with the standing orders.
Tae Committee decided that the standing orders had been
complied with.
LEEDS CENTRAL RAILWAY STATION.
Mr. SHERWOOD appeared in behalf of the promoters of
this Bill, which was unopposed. The formal proofs of the
deposit of the plans and sections and the books of reference
having been put in, the further consideration of the petition
for the Bill was I:djourned to Monday, so as to enable the
Committee to consider a formal point of objection which
presented itself to their minds. The point is simply one ap-
plying to the serving of notices.
The Committee next proceeded with a Waterworks Bill.

SCOTTISH CENT.Z.ELL (PERTH TERMINI
AND STATIONS).

Mr. Weems appearod for the promoters.
The formal proofs were gone into, and the standing orders
were declared to have been complied with.

EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW, IVIONICLAND
AND ItanzraivwxLmocrx, AND SLA-
__

IVIANIV.A.N.

Mr. Sherwood appeared in support of the petition for this
Bill, which was unopposed.
The formal prc•ofs having been put in, the standing orders
were declared to have been complied witb.

THE EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW, AND
WISHAW AND COLTNESS AMALGAMA-
TION.
Mr. Sherwood appeared for this 13i11 also. The standing
orders were declared to have been complied with.
Several other Railway Bills were then called on, but the
parties not being in readiness, the Glaagow Union Arcade
Bill was taken.

Mr. Brunel appeared for the promoters, and the standing
orders were declared to have been complied with.
The Committee adjourned at four o'clock.

Sub-Committee, No. 2.
This Committee met to-day shcrtly after twelve o'clock.
The following Members were present :—Sir J. Y. Buller,
Chairman, Mr. Kemble and Mr. Walker.
LIVERPOOL AND LEEDS DIRECT.
The formal proofs of this Bill were taken on Tuesday, and
the further consideration of the same was adjourned till
to-day.
The Crum...male stated that the Bill was postponed, as far
as related to proceedings before the Committee, but would be
brought under the notice of the House to-night, in accord-
ance with the wishes of the promoters.
NORTHUMBERLAND AND LANCASHIRE.
The object of this Bill (against which there were five peti-
tions) was to obtain Parliamentary powers to construct this
railway, the len4th of which was 2414 miles, and the esti-
mated cost 780,000/. Engineers, Messrs. Joseph Locke and
Thomas Storey ; solici:ors, Maltby and Co. ; Parliamentary
agent, Mr. Coates.
The formal proofs being taken, the Committee proceeded to
hear the petitions against the Bill.
The first petition was from Mr. M. Bell, complaining of
non-compliance with the standing orders, inasmuch that
no notice was served on the petitioner of the intention of
the promoters to apply to Parliament for the construction of
this identical railway, on or before the 31st of December, as
required by the Act of Parliament.
Mr. Perr-r (who appeared in support of the petition) said
that the substance of the allegation was simply this :—The
promoters of this Bill gave notice that they intended to
construct a line of railway at a point marked A, and ter-
minating at a point marked C, but they only brought for-
ward a .Bill for executing a line of one-third that extent,
which terminated at a point marked B. It was quite clear
that the promoters of a Bill might give notice of their inten-
tion to construct a larger amount than they hereafter dis-
covered to be expedient to undertake, but their subsequent
proceedings must be in accordance with what they intend to
prosecute. From these considerations it was evident that the
promoters of this Bill were bound, when they intended to stop
short at the point B, that they should have given the neces•
sary notice of the same. If that had been done, he was not
prepared to state that any objection would be taken to the
Bill. But in the case of the parties interested like his client,
the notice served stated that the whole line was to be formed.
That of course led the landowners to suppose that the rail-
way about to be applied fur to Parliament was that corn--
inencing at Newcastle-on-Tyne and terminating at the
Newcastle and Carlisle Railway, and therefore that they
would reap all the benefits that would result from such a line ;
but they found that only one-third of the line for which their
consent had been obtained, was to be prosecuted. There
was a precedent in this case, in the Rochester and Grave-
send Railway Bill, which would actuate them in
their decision with reference to the present question.
He would call the attention of the Committee particu:arly
to this case, and if they would look at it in its consequences
ad extremum, they would see that it might lead to results if
the course he-e deprecated was permitted to be pursued.
There was a case decided last session, which was clearly in
point. He alluded to the Wells and Dereham Railway Bill.
The Committee were, therefore, in a fair position to decide
upon this allegation in the petition. It would, therefore, be
unnecessary for him to add any further observations.
Mr. COATES, on the part of the promoters of the Bill, con-
tended that as the York and Carlisle Railway Bill, which
was before the House, would effect all that the original Bill
proposed to do, that the petitioner was not injured by the
alteration that had taken place.
The CHAIRMAN—Has Mr. Bell had notice of the land to be
taken from him ?
Mr. Parr-r
—He does not allege that he has not.
The Committee found that the standing orders in this case
had been sustained.
The next allegation was, that one-tenth of the estimate of
the reduced works was not subscribed, as required by the Act
of Parliament.
This gave rise to a discussion whether the Act, 39 A or 29
A, which required that only one-tenth of three-fourths of the
estimate should be deposited, should be considered to be in-
tended to be acted upon.
The CHAIEMAN was of opinion that the latter was what
was contemplated by Parliament, but sent to the Speaker to
ascertain his opinio.i on the subject, which was in conformity
with his own.
The Committee, therefore, found that the allegation was
not sustained, being of opinion that it would be a great hard-
ship if parties, when they bad deposited one-tenth of three-
fourths of the estimate, should be considered as not having
complied with the Act of Parliament.
This finished the case of this petition.
Three other petitions were abandoned.
The next petition considered was from Mr. W. Harper,
shich alleged general inaccuracy in the plans and sections.
The first specific allegation was with reference to the radius
of the curve at the sixteenth mile and 7th furlong, which
was not pressed.
An allegation to the same effect, with respect to the river
at the fourteenth mile and seventh furlong, was sustained.
A similar allegation was not sustained.
It was alleged that there was a discrepancy between the
plans with reference to a certain turnpike-road on the line,
which was not sustained.
The next allegation was abandoned. This terminated the
case of this petition.
The CHAIR3IAN then announced that in the case of this
Bill the standing orders had not been complied with.
NEWPORT, AEER.GAV =ivy, AND HERE-
rani).
Previous to entering on the formal evidence, Mr. COATES,
the agent for the promoters of the Bill, said he would admit
that the heights and spans of all bridges on the plans de-
posited in the county were incorrect, but that they were
corrected in a subsequent notice, and quite accurate in the
deposits of the 31st of December.
The CHAIRMAN said that under these circumstances they
must of course find that, with reference to the subject of the
admission, the standing orders had not been complied with.
The formal proofs were then taken.
The petition against the Bill was from Mr. John Hemming,
on behalf of Messrs. Morgan and Watkin, owners of pro-
perty along the line, complaining of non-compliance with
the standing orders.
It appes.red that the parties had withdrawn their peti-
tion, but subsequently authorised Mr. Hemming to proceed
on the petition.
Mr. VEVABLES appeared in support of the petition.
After some discussion on a technical point, evidence was
heard to show that the consent of certain parties interested in
the line, to be heard on this petition, was obtained.
The first allegation was that there was an error in the de-
lineation of the plans.
The evidence in support of the allegation was (her, '
Mrs. Edwards was examined—Was - •
Llanrrhangel Duckta Rex.—(A
11,- artsh clam of
•
into the place where
did, and give - .-da,agthhe') la ehe
parish dincoltergk° nuiban ,
here ar- eat the responees.-4A laughs) (It was
r Armed that the speaker *as at prayers, which
..om its similarity to the question put to the witness, led to
renewed laiighter.) In other points she filled the place of
r husband.
The Committee found that in this case the standing orders
had been complied with, and adjourned, ehortlY alter four
o'clock, till Tuesd---