The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-07 00:00:00

'VITYCOMBE AND MAIDENHEAD (GREAT

WESTERN BRANCH)•

Mr. Robert Wheeler, the deputy chairman, and who had carried on
business in Wycembe for 40 years, gave evidence in favour of the line,
and testified to the advantages which the trade of the districts
through which it was designed to pass would derive from it.
Mr. Neale, agent of Lord Carrington, Mr. Venables, and Mr. Rose
gave similar evidence.
Mr. Gibbs, C.E., surveyed the branch in 1844, and again surveyed
it Imt year. There were no engineering difficulties. The estimated
cost was 134,6531., with a surplus of 15,0001., making the capital
150,000/. It would be 9 miles and 54 chains in length.

ITXZErDGE BRANCH (GREAT WESTERN).
This branch was then proceeded with.
Mr. Brunel, who was examined by Mr. TALBOT, said its length
would be 2 miles and 47 chains, and the estimate 50,0001. The
works were very light, nearly the whole of the line being on the sur-
face of the ground. There was a short curve at the junction with
the Great Western

DECISIONS.
The Committee then declared the preamble of both the Bills to
have been proved.
The Committee then adjourned until to-morrow, when they will
take the clauses into consideration.

GROUP XXIX.
This Committee re-assembled this morning in room No. 19
Present, the Right Hon. H. Labouchere (chairman), Sir 3. Duck-
worth, Sir W. Moleaworth, Mr. J. A. Smith, esti Celonel Bowdon.

RUGBY AND AIINTINGDON.
Tho evidence as to the traffic expected by this line from Kettering
in the event of its being constructed, was resumed by Mr. Warren,
counsel for the promoters, calling OR
Mr. George Gill, an ironmonger and seedsman, living in Ketter-
ing, who confirmed the evidence as to traffic (which we reported at
length on Friday last). Witness confined himself chiefly to the great
accommodation it would afford to the inhabitants of Kettering.
Mr. Bryan Smith, a timber merchant, brickmaker, &c., confirmed
the testimony of the last witness.
Mr. Douglas, the solicitor to the promoters, in the course of his ex-
amination, proved the existence of an agreement entered into between
the promoters and the Duke of Buccleuch to make certain deviations
of the proposed line, for the purpose of making a nearer approach to
the town of Kettering, provided the landowners through whose pro-
perty the proposed deviation would pass would consent, or, if not,
tkat the next Parliament would consent.
Mr. AUSTIN here made an application to the Committee for the
purpose of moving that the Bill do not proceed further, and pro-
ceeded to call their attention to a case where an agreement
had been entered into two sessions ago, between the promoters of
the Coventry and Nuneaton line, and Mr. Newdegate, Member for
South Warwickshire, covenanting that a portion of that line should
not be constructed, and which agreement was held by the Committee,
by whom the merits of that line were considered, to be fatal to the
further progress of that Bill. The present case was an analogous one,
and the same objection would apply
Mr. MacauLav and Mr. RAWLINSON followed on the same side,
and the former gentleman read a decision given by Lord Denman in
the ease of Howden v. Simpson, in confirmation of the views of the
case as laid down by Mr. Austin.
Sergeant WRANGHAM, with Mr. Waaairf, on the part of the pro-
moters, contended that there was no identity whatever between the
two cases ; and the former gentleman adduced the sass of the com-
petition between the South Western and Great Western Railways
the session before last, when an agreement for a similar deviation,
dependent on the assent of the Duke of Wellington, was not con-
sidered to be fatal to the project of the former Company by the Com-
mittee of the Lords, to whom the rival lines were submitted.
Mr. AUSTIN replied, and contended that no answer had been given
to his objection, and that the Committee could not grant powers
which might never be exercised, and which required the subsequent
assent of landowners on the line, and failing that a subsequent appli-
cation to Parliament.
The room was then cleared for the deliberation of the Committee.

On our re admission,
The CmAmur; announced the decision on the point :—" The
Committee have determined that the promoters of the Bill do pro-
ceed with their case."
Other witnesses were then examined to show the amount of traffic
which the line would give along the towns on the western extremity.
Formal evidence was then given as to the stoppages of trains, po-
pulation returns, &e., when the further consideration of the case was
postponed till to-morrow.
The postponed clauses as to tolls, &e., of the
RUGBY AND smantronn
_ .

-
were then agreed to, and the Committee adjourned till twelve o'clock
to -morrow, when the engineering evidence of the Rugg and Hunting-
don line will be proceeded with.

Sub-Committee No. 1.
(Continued from onr Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
WEST L.S.,NCASIURII.

The object of the Bill is to connect Liverpool with the watering
town of Southport. The length of the proposed line is 17 miles ; the
cost is estimated at 200,0001. The engineers are Mr. Bidder and Mr.
J. Lowe; Messrs. Parkes, Castes, and Co., are the Parliamentary
agents ; and Messrs. Earle and Barry, of Manchester, are the solicitors
to the Bill.
Mr. Pitirr appeared in support of a petition from five persons, con-
taining the usual allegations as to defects in the plans, sections, and
book of reference.
Mr. COATES, for the promoters, opposed the reception of the peti-
tion, on the ground that four of the petitioners had presented to the
House a counter-petition for leave to withdraw their names from
that which Mr. Pritt now proposed to press upon the Committee,
the fifth petitioner, Mr. Johnson, the solicitor to an adverse railway
company, not being an owner or occupier of land within the limits of
deviation, nor otherwise having any interest which could entitle him
to be heard against the Bill.
After some lengthened discussion the room was cleared, and the
Committee deliberated.
On the re-admission of the parties,
The CHAIRMAN announced that the Committee decided to hear the
petitioner, and
Mr. PRITT proceeded with the allegations.
After hearing evidence in support of the petition, the allegations
were sustained in several instances, and the standing orders were
declared not complied with.
The Committee then proceeded with the case of the
SOUTH DEVON (No. IL.)

The object of this Bill is to authorise certain alterations in, and
extensions of, the South Devon Railway, and the formation of
branches therefrom to Tavistock, Brixham, Kingswear, and several
other places.
There are in all seven branches of lengths varying from fifteen to
twenty miles. The engineer is Mr. Brunel ; the agents are Messrs.
Burke, Pritt, Venables, and Co. ; the solicitors are Messrs. Howe
and Hunt, of Whitehall, London; Messrs. Whiteford, Hervite, and
Tucker, of Plymouth; and Messrs. Button and Kennaway, of
Exeter.
The formal evidence having been gone through,
Mr. PARKES appeared to support the petitions of the Rev. Mr.
Searle and Mr. Watts. . .

„„,.....
The allegations were not sustained.
In consequence of the absence of witnesses on the part of the pro-
moters, the further consideration of the case was postponed till to-
morrow morning.
The Committee then proceeded with the consideration of the
DIRECT NORTHERN.

The object of this Bill is to form a direct line from London to Tork,
with branches to Bedford, Huntingdon, Peterborough, Newark, Lin-
coln, Sheffield, and Leeds.
The length of the line, with the branches, is 263 miles. The cost
is estimated at 5,400,0001.
John Millar is the engineer. The agents are Messrs. Webster and
Co.; and the solicitors are Messrs. Johnstone, Farquhar, and Leach.
The formal evidence having been received,
The Committee adjourned at four o'clock till twelve o'clock to-
INOITOW.

Sub-Committee No. 2.
STAINES AND HENLEY.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Several allegations were sustained, and the further consideration
of the case was postponed till twelve o'clock to-morrow.
LONDON AND nrsiivEnwasam (ST. ALBANS

AND LUTON BRANCH).
PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL POWERS.

The farther consideration of this Bill was also postponed, and the
Committee adjourned.

Sub-Committee No. 3.
WORCESTER, HEREFORD, ROSS, AND