The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-10 00:00:00

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
(YESTERDAY.)

Committee No. 1.
NORTH ITA.PPORDSHIRE (POTTNIRIES)
LINE.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
The CHAIRMAN said he remembered one case of last ses-
sion which was similar to the point now raised. In that
case one of the trustees was himself a shareholder, but there
was this difference, that without the sum for which he was
bound there was more than amnle capital. He referred to
the Eastern Counties (Norwich Extension.)
Mr. BunKß—ln the present case he had to say that the con-
tract deed was perfectly valid. It had been held good, in
Ina-1y decisions in a court of law, that where a co-trusteeship
existed, one trustee could recover from the others, under cer-
tain regulations of the deed. Now, in the case
for the promoters of the present Bill, there was
one person who had signed the covenant who was
not a subscriber to the undertaking, and that made it quite
competent for him to sue the other trustee or the whole Com-
pany. This had been decided over and over again in courts
of law.
Mr. COATES replied, after which the room was cleared,
and having consulted the Speaker,
The CHAIRMAN said that Committee had considered the
case which had been argued at such length, but understand-
ing that exceptions had been taken to the decision of last
week by the agents who were inter Died
Coates
ted for the cases
which had been alluded to by M. , they
were anxious to take the opinion of the Chairman
of the Sub-Committees who would meet on 'Thurs-
day and consider the question raised. The Committee were
quite prepared to give their own opinion on the allegation,
but it would be no doubt more prudent to wait a consultation
of the Chairman, after which they would immediately decide
the point at issue.
IMPORTANT TO PARLIAMENTARY AGENTS.
The CHAIRMAN said that he was instructed by the Speaker
to inform the agents for Bills, that they had neglected to
comply with the standing orders, which required
the name of the Bill to be written on every petition
for or against the same ; any petition being presented without
this form being complied with, was contrary to the standing
order, which was as follows :
" That on every petition presented to this House, relating
to any private Bill before the House, the name, or short title,
by which such Bill is entered in the votes, be written at the
beginning thereof; and whether such petition be in favour
or against the Bill relating to the non-compliance with the
standing orders."
LONDON, NEWBURY, AND BATH
Mr. COATES appeared for the promoters, and called seve-
ral witnesses to prove the several deposits of the plans, sec-
tions, and books of reference. After which
Mr. BURKE said he appeared on the part of Colonel
Wroughton, of the parish of Wilton, in the county of So-
merset, and other landowners. The petition alleged that
the owners of property, though marked on the plans and
sections, was net shown in the books of reference.
The Clerk of the Peace for the county of Somerset was then
called.
Mr. COATES objected to the petition being proceeded with
shownpart of the owners in the petition, unless it could be
that they were parties actually to be affected by the
proposed line.
The room was then cleared, and upon the parties being
called in,
The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee would not enter-
tain any petition against the omission of property in the
books of reference, unless it could be shown that the
e petition
was presented by the consent of the parties to
by the non-compliance with the standing orders.
Mr. BURKE would call Col. Wreughton. The witness
merely pointed out his property on the plan.
The Clerk of the Peace for the county of Somerset was
then called to produce the book of reference which had
been deposited with him. Upon referring to the book, it
turned out that the property was fully described.
Mr. BURKE said that he would, of course, abandon that
allegation, as well as several others which were disposed of
by the decision of the Committee.
- Mrs. Susannah Shaw was then called to prove that she
had not received notice for a piece of meadow ground which
was to be taken. This allegation was sustained.
The Committee adjourned, at four o'clock, till twelve
o clock to-morrow, when the remaining allegations in the
petition will be taken.

Sub. Committee No. 2.
7 HZ CAMBRIDGE AND OX7ORD RAILWAY
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
It was also alleged that there were various other inaccura-
cies on the line.
The CSAIRMAN said, in the case of the Oxford and Cam-
bridge Railway, the Committee were of opinion that the
standing orders had not been complied with.
LONDON AND BRIGHTON (WANDSWORTH
BRANCH) ILATZWAY,
The Bill stated that the proposed railway would be of
great public benefit. There were two petitions alleging non-
compliance with the standing orders, but no one appeared in

their support.
Witnesses were then examined to prove that the usua,
forms had been complied with. 'rhe line was to pass through
Streatham, Mitcham, 'rooting, and Wandsworth.
Mr. PRITT said that this Bill had been thrown out by the
Committee on its merits last session. The present Bill, by
clause 39A, would not require more than 5 per cent.
The CHAIRMAN considered that it would be necessary to
prove that the present was precisely similar to that intro-
duced into Parliament last year.
Mr. ParrT stated that there was no material difference.
The Committee were of opinion that the deposit of 5 per
cent. was sufficient in this case.
The remaining evidence was of the usual character, and
the Committee were of opinion that the standing orders had
been complied with.
siusrrizza AND LINCOLN' JUNCTION
RAILWAY.
Mr. Pitrrr said that the present was one of those that arose
out of the standing order to which he had already referred in
the preceding case.
Mr. Gainsford examined—Vas solicitor to the Bill
brought before Parliament last session, as well as the present
Bill, which was substantially the same as the former Bill.
The Bill of last year was for a main line and a branch. The
House had negatived the branch, and the Bill was ordered to
be engrossed. The main line for which the present petition
prayed was exactly the same es the main line of the former
petition.
Mr. LAING, agent, presented a petition from Mr. W. Dun
Wheeler, of Sheffield, solicitor, on the part of his client, Mr.
Clarke Hutchinson, stating that the proposed line would pass
through and injure his property, and that the petition was
not presented by the sames parties who had brought it for-
ward last year.
Mr. Pam said he objected in liznini to the objection being
heard, as the petition was presented by one party on behalf
of another, whereas the party interested should apply himself.
It appearing that the petitioner had been authorised to act
for Mr. Hutchinson, the petition was received.
Mr. LAING said that his objection was, that the standing
orders required parties to prove that the undertaking was car-
ried on by the same persons.
Mr. Gainsford was then examined, and stated that the par-
ties were the same, and there was the same body of directors
with the exception of one individual, who had retired from
old age.
Mr. LAING said that out of 73 who had signed, only 23
had signed the present petition, while out of 707 who had
signed the former contract only 98 had attached their nam
to the present deed.
The CHAIRMAN said the Committee were unanimously
of opinion that the petition was from the same parties.
The Committee decided that the standing orders had been
complied with by the Company.
NEWCASTLE AND DARLINGTON JUNC-
TION (DURHAM AND SUNDERLAND
22A.ILWAY AND W:ZARIVLOUTH D CX.
PURCIIA.SES AND BRA.NCHES).
The Committee found that the orders bad been complied

with.
ISEXILS .A.ltcrD HUNTS (riumazitronn
EXTENSION) RAILIATA'Z.
There were petitions against this Bill from the owners of
the land through which the line was to pass, stating that
due notice had not been given in the London Gazette.
The Committee resolved not to enter on the petitions to-day,
and adjourned, at four o'clock, till twelve o'clock to-morrow.

Sub-Committee No. 3.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
BAWICX BRANCHES.
This was another petition of the North British Railway,
Company, for leave to bring in a Bill to make a number of
branches from their Hawick line, the estimated cost of which
was 770,0001.
The Committee took an objection to the plans, inasmuch
as they did not correspond with the petition for the Bill. Ely
the petition the Company sought for powers to make a branch
from Torwood Lee to Selkirk, while the plans deposited were
for a branch from a place called Rink to Selkirk.
Mr. Miller, the engineer of the line, explained that so
much of the branch as lay between Torwood Lee and Rink
had already been sanctioned by the Legislature, and, there-
fore, it was abandoned in the present instance.
The Committee complained that this discrepancy betwee❑
the petition and the plans was calculated to m►slead the
public, and they trusted that in future the promoters of Bills
would make the titles of their lines in their petitions and
plans correspond. The decision of the Committee in this
case was the same as that in the last.

CARLISLE EXTENSIONS.
Railway
Company, was another petition of the North British
C,,omPanv, for leave to bring in a Bill to consti uct their Car-
"le Extensions, the estimated cog of which was 660,000/.
The customary formal proofs having been gone through, the
Committee informed the parties that their decision in the
former case would apply to this also.
Those were the three Bills included in the joint subscrip-
tion contract alluded to in the first case. The aggregate
amount which the parties to this instrument bound them-
selves for was 1,27 4,687[., the question whether this deed
T.
could apply to three 1.,,t11, 7a.:i left for decision of the Com-
mittee above, or the Conintitt‘c on Piddle Petitions.

GRETNA BRANCH,
the
a Railway
This was a fourth petition of
Lill "rth
Company, for leave to bring in a Dto eoi
from a point on their main line to Gretna, the estimated cost branch of
which is 80,0001. The usual evidence of the deposit of
plans,
sic., having been adduced, the Committee decided that the
standing orders had been complied with.
3ILDINOURGH AND GLASGOW RAILWAY.
This was the petition of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway
porn`ave to brmainn a Bill to make a branch railway from a
poi on their line Queensferry, the estimated cost of
which was 140,000/. The Committee decided that the standing
t,:ders had not been observed in one -respect. The fixed point
where the branch commonces on the main line was not stitlP
ciently specified ou the plan of the branch by some distinc,
five mark. It was stated in the section that the branch
would commence at the point on the plan where the main line
diverged, marked A. The' plan showed the point where the
main line diverged, but it was not marked A.
The Committee adjourned shortly before live o'clock.
i

Sub-Committee No. 4, Room 11.
An additional Sub-Committee was appointed for this dap-

consisting of the following Members:— 1
s
' ,f Sir W. Ileathcote, chairman ; Mr. Hope Johnstone, Mr.
--7 ---M. J. O'Connell, Mr. Packe, Mr. Acland, Mr. Swart, Mr.
- . Moore Drummond, Mr. Childers, Mr. Cornwall Leigh, Mr.
-. ' EI.P. Shirley.
.i 7.:The business of this Committee commenced at twelve
lock, when there were present Mr. Rome Drummond,
/;:., airman, in the absence of Sir William Ileathcote; Mr.
/0
- , -..;
~-,,:.-z.,
-, pe Johnstone, Mr. Shirley, Mr. Packe, and Mr. Evans.
~,,,
• IIPVIZZL-CITZE-VINITNNY RECTORY.
! ---
This was a Bill to empower certain persons therein named
to divide the rectory, which is in the county of Norfolk, into
three parts ; to build one or more churches in each district,
and to add a burial-ground to each new church ; to provide
parsonages and glebe land, and to raise moneys.
Adjourned, owing to the petition not being before the
Committee.