1846.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



9^^ 



Tlie iliitum line of the Lancasliire anJ YorUsIiire North Eastern Railway, 

 ■was taken on a level with the topnater of the Leeds anil Liverpool canal, 

 ■which wonia be crossed by the proposed line. The Cliainnan doubted 

 whether this could be allowed as the ti\ed point to which the diitum should 

 be referred. The engineer explained that there was a weir of stone work 

 close to the point from which tlie level was taken, the water had not fallen 

 below a certain point for the last 10 years. 



This being considered satisfactory, the committi-e decided that this bill 

 should be reported as having complied with the standing orders. 



In the committee on the Great Grimsliy and Sheffield Junction Extension Raihvuy (No. 

 2) Bill mis opposed, and the lirst alleB^tion w:is that tlie ■ datum' line slioivH upon the 

 sections of the plans wits not the same throughout the line, as two ditlerent ' datum' lines 

 were shown iu ditierent lengths or parts of the line. lilr. Parkes obJL^eted to the aileyation 

 that it was not sulheiently stated, hut was so vague that it was impossible to Hnd out to 

 what part it aliuded. Mr. Dernlit s.iid that it referred to the fat-t that one 'datum' line 

 was taken from the High-street at Liiitoln, and the other from Grimsby Dock. Rlr. 

 Fowler said the latter • liatura' line was in a branch not included in the present bill. Mr. 

 Dernht said the second allegation was that the point from which the 'datum' line was 

 taken was the level of a stalie driven into the ground at the point of junctloH with the 

 Nottinyliani and Lincoln Railway, now in course of construction ; but did not state 

 whether it was the upper part of the stake or the lower part of it. He called a gardener 

 of Lincoln, who staled that the stake was in his orchard, ne.\t to the wall, and was the 

 "crown stake" of the Nottingham and Lincoln Itaihvay. There was no stake in the 

 street. The Chairman said that it appeared the stake was not on the west side of the 

 High-street, but iu the orchard, and therefore was incorrectly described. Mr. Parkes said 

 the reference that it was at the point of junction with the Nottingliain and Lincoln line, 

 on the west side of the High-street, clearly described the point meant, and that the stake 

 was correctly described as being on the west side of the High-street. He called .Air. 

 Fowler, Sir. .loieph Gibbs, and Mr. Harrington, who all said that no engineer could mis- 

 take as to the point referred to, and that they should consider the stake a lixed point as 

 it was protected by law, it being an ofience to take any of them up. The 'datum' stakes 

 were kept standing for a long lime alter a railway was completed, as it was from them 

 that the levels were kept up along the line. The Chairman said, that the Committee 

 were of opiiiii,u that the description was not accurate enough, besides having some 

 doubts as to the sufficiency ol a mere staK-e as a fixed point. They must, therefore, report 

 the case to the select committee. The standing orders had not been complied with in 

 this case. 



SiiBSCRiPTio.v Contract. 



M'hen the South-Eastern (from the M'aterloo-road, near the Hungerford- 

 Bridge, to the tireenwich Railway) K.iilway, had been gone through, the 

 Chairman stated that the committee (No. 3) could not decide that the pro- 

 moters iu this instance had complied with the standing orders, inasmuch 

 as a considerable doubt was raised in his mind, as well as in the minds of 

 the other members of the committee, whether the subscription contract 

 entered into was such a one as, consistently with the intentions of the house, 

 they could consider sunicient. The contract presented to tiiem was one 

 ■which combined several dill'erent projecls, for which separate and cjjslinct 

 estimates had been made — i. c, there were several classes of works to be 

 coustrucled, but only one subscription contract for the whole, and not a 

 separate one for each of the estimate.^. The contract certainly provided 

 iu its pages for the parties binding themselves only for so much as would 

 be applicable lor the particular work or works, A, B, and C respectively, 

 to which they might have subscribeti. Unt, lu order to prove the sub- 

 scription contract for A, itappeared to them it was necessary to admit the 

 proof of that for B and C, a course wliicli he considered was not a strict 

 nor such a conpliance with the standing orders as was contemplated. 



Mr. Burke, on the part of the promoters, urged that a precisely similar 

 contract had been considered sulficient in one case last session. 



The Chairman said, that was in the case of an nnojiposed petition, and 

 might have been overlooked, and could not therefore form a precedent in 

 this instance. The question, consequenlly, whether this project had com- 

 plied with the standing orders must remain over until he had consulted 

 the Speaker and the diiierent chairmen of the other committees. 



An objection was made to the Staines and Richmond Railway, an account 

 of the deposit of 10 per cent, nol having been paid by the subscribers according 

 to the provisions of the Joint Slock Act. It was admitted however, 

 that 10 per cent, had been paid into the Court of Chancery, in compliance 

 with the standing orders of the House of Commons, but it was contended 

 that the deed itself proved that 5 per cent, only had been paid by the sub- 

 scribers themselves. — The Chairman, after hearing the objection, stated 

 that this point had repeatedly been decided; and that if the amount re- 

 quired were actually deposited iu the Court of Chancery, the cominillee 

 could not inquire by whom it had beeu paid ; whether it was by the sub- 

 scribers or by some person for them was quite immaterial. The chairman 

 accordingly decided that the standing orders had been in this case com- 

 plied with. 



An objection was made to the subscription contract of the Ayrshire and 

 Galloway Railway, on the ground that Richard Hodgson and William 

 Macdonald were parties to the deed in a double capacity, as trustees of 

 the first part, and as subscribers (with others) of the second part, and thus 

 covenanting with themselves for the performance of certain matters ; which 

 he contended was repugnant to the practice ia England and to common 

 sense, inasmuch as it placed the parties in a position in which they might 

 be called upon to sue themselves for a breach of their covenant. 



Mr. Connell, for ihe promoters, stated that the contract had been drawn 

 up in conformiiy witli the practice and the law which obtains in Scotland, 

 ■where it was competent, in certain cases, for a man to sue himself under a 

 deed. He apprehended also that, in the case of a debt due from one 

 member of a lirm to another, the firm might legally sue that member. 



Mr. R. Mackay, Writer to the Signet, on the same side, said that a legal 

 objection had never been stated in Scotland efi'eclually against the power 

 of any party to sue because he was a shareholder. Under the common 



law of Scotland a parly could sue himself. It was of daily occurrenc 

 He had taken the opinion of the Lord-Advocate on the point thatmorninff 

 who ridiculed the idea that a party could not sue himself by the law of 

 Scotland. 



The Chairman desired the room to he cleared for a division. On our* 

 re-admissioii, he stated that, iu regaril to the objeciion of Mr. Burke, the 

 committee had decided that-the standing orders had not been complied with, 

 inasmuch as the subscription deed was invalid, in that it did not biud the 

 subscribers, within the meaning of the standing order 40. 



The committee ou standing orders coulirmed this decision of the sub- 

 committee, but subsequently in tlie House tlie Attorney General declared 

 that the contract was not illegal, consequenlly the report was referred baci-j 

 to the committee. 



Notices. — Order, No. 17. 



It was contended by Mr. Counel, on the part of Sir W. Napier, 

 that the section of Ihe proposed Ayrshire, Bridge of Weir and Port 

 Glasgow Junction Railway, so far as it related to Ihe parish of 

 Kilbarton, was not in accordance with the stantling orders, iu that 

 the notice which had been served ou his client. Sir William Napierg. 

 did not inform him how a road in that parish which tiie petitioners intended 

 to lower 15 feet would alfect him, as they were required to show in tha 

 heading of the schedule (form referred to in standing order No. 17); 

 secondly, that in respect to the position of the road, the level of the same,, 

 and the manner in whitlitlie railway would affect it, these particulars 

 were all inaccurately described. 



I'he committee, after minutely examining the sections on tliis point, and 

 considei^ing the order referred to, overruled the objections. 



Hcfereucfs.- — It was contended by the opposition, that a narrow strip of 

 ground in the parish of Port (ylasgow, and tlescrihed as vacant ground, 

 was in the occupation of the Gourlock Ropeworks Company, and belongetl 

 to the Glasgow and (Jreenoek Railway Company, and not to the partici 

 named in the book of reference. 



The petitioners' agent called a witness to prove that he had made diligent 

 inquiries as to Ilie ownership of the land in question, and that in prose» 

 cutiag those inquiries he was referred to one of the servants of the Glasgow 

 and Ureenock Railway Company, at the station adjiuning this piece of land; 

 who informed him that he (the servant) had received instructions front 

 liead-quaiters to vvithold information from parties concerned in the pro* 

 jected line. 



The Committee were of opinion that the petitioners had used du& 

 diligence in ascertaining the ownership of the land, and that if partien 

 refused to give such information whereby ihe promoters of a railwa> were 

 led into error, the allegation of error came with bad grace from such partie»i 

 Therefore, in this case, the standing orders had been complied with. 



Imfortant Dccision with regard to oppo.iiNG A Bill before th.'. 

 Standing Ohder's Committbe. 



Mr. Burke, on behalf of a petitioner against the London, Newbury and 

 Bath Railway, stated that he could prove that the books and plans 

 deposited in the office of the House of Commons dill'ered from those which 

 had been deposited with the clerks of the peace. He contended that the 

 jietitiou was snlliciently in compliance with standing order No. 9 to entitle 

 him to be heard, for as the plans and books of reference were incorrect, na 

 landowner or occupier could know whether his land would be affected or 

 not. and, therefore, was entitled to petition. 



The Chairman said he had conferred, not only with other commiltee?, 

 but also with other persons, to whose opinion he was inclined to bow, ami 

 he had come to the conclusion that where the objection had reference toth» 

 subscription contract, or other matter allecting the public, tlieu any one of 

 the public miglit petition. M'lieie there wan nut aiiij fiirtij affected, then 

 the stnnding order A'o. 9, did not apply, hut it tfiis made fur the protection of 

 indiridunis, where there ifiis a party affected, then that party must be 

 cognizant of an assent to such petition. He would not say the party 

 affected must necessarily be a landowner or occupier. The committei 

 might liold that under special circumstances some other person uiiglit be 

 alfected within the meaniug of the order. 



Mr. Burke expressed himself much pleased at the decision, which Ik? 

 was certain would affect some hundreds of petitions. He then withdrew., 

 the petition. 



An important allegation was made by Mr. Coates against the Bill of the 

 Berks and Hants, (Hdngerford Extension) Railvvay, on behalf of a 

 petitioner opposing the bill annexed to the promoters' petition, ihat power, 

 was sought by tlie Great Western Railway Company to raise the sum of 

 S.50,OUOJ., yet the said notices did not make mention of any application t'j 

 I'arliament for the amendment of the acts relating to the said company, 

 nor had suck notices been published in all the counties in which the works 

 of the said company were situate. 



Mr. Pritt read the notices from the Gazette, and contended that they 

 were amply suflicieut, and given in compliance with the standing orders. 



The Chairman desired the room to be cleared ; and on our re-adniissioc, 

 after an interval of upwards of ha!f-an-hour, the Chairman intimated thai 

 with respect to this allegation, the committee had come to the following 

 resolution, namely that the committee were of opinion that the standing 

 orders had not been complied with, inasmuch as the notices of application 

 to Parliament to make a railway did not state the inlentim of the Great 

 Western Railway Company (though subsequently staled to be the owners 



