NOTES TO CHAPTER I.-PART II.

THE following are notes and illustrations to various matters treated of in the preceding chapter. It was not deemed advisable to introduce the subsequent details and particulars in the body of the chapter; and indeed some of them are founded on recent proceedings before committees of Parliament, that had not taken place when the preceding chapter was in print.

[NOTE to p. 25.]

Notices in the Gazette and Newspapers.

If any variance exist between the wording of the several notices in the Gazette (London, Edinburgh, or Dublin, as the case may be) and in the local newspapers, such discrepancy will be a ground of objection that may be raised by opponents before sub-committee on petitions. An instance of this arose last Session, before sub-committee No. 2 (of which Sir John Yarde Buller was chairman) in the case of the Eastern Counties Railway (Hertford and Biggleswade Extension). It there appeared that in the notice published

in the London Gazette, the words "Hamlet of Newton" was omitted, together with the names of some other places. The committee were informed by a witness (a clerk in the Gazette office) that the error arose entirely from an omission on the part of the printer who went by the original instead of a corrected proof of the notice in question. Still, although the committee expressed themselves satisfied with the explanation thus given, they were obliged to report that the Standing Orders had not been in this particular complied with. In such an instance, however, the Standing Orders Committee would always, in all probability, give relief to the promoters and allow their bill ultimately to proceed. Yet nuch additional expense and loss of time must, at the best, result from such errors; and therefore it is most important that the utmost care should be used in this, and similar instances, of however trifling consequence they appear to be.

Variance between Notices in Gazette and Bill.

In the case of the Glasgow Harbour Grand Junction Railway Terminus, in sub-committee No. 5 (Feb. 26, 1846) an objection was raised in a petition from Sir J. Maxwell of non-compliance with the Standing Orders, on the ground that there was a discrepancy between the notice advertised in the Edinburgh Gazette and the bill proposed to be brought in. The notice set forth that the line was to commence from the Pollock and Gavan Railway and so proceed to Springfield, Windmill-croft, and Park-home; but the bill sought for powers to commence at Pollockshaws, and proceed by two branches, forming a fork to Glasgow harbour, one terminating at West-street and the other at Parkhome, with a connecting line from the ends of the branches, the connecting line there being no notice for. The committee, however, decided that as the property affected by the connecting line did not belong to Sir J. Maxwell, the petitioner could not be heard; but afterwards the committee

themselves raised the question as to the discrepancy between the bill and the notice, and inquired what part of the notice referred to the connecting link? It appeared that no separate notice had been given for that, but three separate points of termination were mentioned in the notice, which were connected by this link, which were only a few yards in length, and it was contended that the connecting link might be regarded as the terminus. The chairman announced that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, inasmuch as there was a variance between the notice in the Gazette and the bill, no notice having been given in the Gazette of the construction of a connecting link of railway between the forked branches at Glasgow harbour, for which powers were proposed to be taken in the bill.

[NOTE to p. 31.]

Deposit of Plans, &c.

In the case of the Nottingham, Mansfield and Midland Junction Railway, the sub-committee on petitions No. 1 (Feb. 25, 1846) decided that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, inasmuch as the plans and sections had not been deposited, in one instance, until two o'clock in the morning of the 1st December, instead of on the 30th November.

[NOTE to p. 40.]

Ownership of Public Roads.

The following decision has been given this Session, in subcommittee No. 4 (Feb. 26, 1846), with regard to the ownership of public roads :—

In the case of the Wexford, Dublin, and Carlow Junction Railway, it was objected that a public presented county road, in the town-land of Killurin, was described to be in the

ownership of the Earl of Arran, whereas in fact it is a public road under the jurisdiction of the grand jury and road surveyor of the county of Wexford. All the allegations in this petition turned on the ownership of these roads, and whether in fact the right owners had been entered in the book of reference. Accordingly the 22nd allegation was taken as one on which the whole point might be decided. The chairman wished to know whether the point to be raised was, that the law in Ireland was different from that in England; or that the question had been settled as to the ownership of roads in England, and the committee was now called on to settle the point with regard to Irish roads. Mr. Smith (in support of the petition for the bill) said he was instructed that the persons here treated as the owners had actually received rent from the grand jury. The chairman-What is intended is, that the fee in the land is in certain other parties, but the public have a right of road. That comes to the state of English roads. There the property is not in the surveyors or trustees. A mine under the road does not belong to the trustees. The practice in England is to treat the ownership of the surface as that which entitles the parties to be served. The question is, whether there is anything which entitled you to take the Irish roads out of this condition. We cannot draw any distinction between the cases. If so, you ought to give notice to the persons in Ireland who answer the same description there as the surveyors of roads in England. Mr. M. J. O'Connell observed that, on looking over the book of reference, he found that in the county of Carlow the grand jury were inserted as owners. Mr. Smith -I have been speaking of a particular custom in Wexford. The chairman-As regards these allegations, we shall report that the Standing Orders have not been complied with, inasmuch as the grand jury of the county of Wexford have not been inserted in the book of reference, as owners of certain roads particularly specified. The committee decided accord

ingly on this and some other allegations, that the Standing Orders had not been complied with.

[NOTE to p. 57.]

Objection to Subscription Contract.

Among the cases that have arisen this Session (1846) of objections to the Subscription Contract, the following one in sub-committee, No. 1 (23rd Feb.) on the Boston, Newark and Sheffield Junction Railway especially deserves notice, as the objection (being held valid) may be extensively urged in a vast number of instances, owing to the general and improper assumption of the title "Esquire" by persons who have no right to the same. Several objections were made (by the agents against the bill) on the grounds of the misnomer and misdescription of parties signing the subscribers' contract. Among those who were parties to this deed there were two who had described themselves in executing the contract, as "Esquires, of Hungerton-hall." It turned out that Mr. Gregory Gregory was the proprietor and occupier of Hungerton-hall, and was in the whole parish the only "esquire." The two individuals who had assumed the rank of esquire, and described themselves as of Mr. Gregory's property, were clearly proved to be two of his own menial servants (one of them being his cook). The committee held that the Standing Order (No. 32) was not complied with, as these parties to the deed were not correctly described.

[NOTE to p. 58.]

Subscription Contracts.

With respect to the Standing Order (40) which states that no subscription contract shall be held valid unless the parties thereto bind themselves, their heirs, executors, and administrators for the payment of the money subscribed, some dis