Page:Inland Transit - Cundy - 1834.djvu/163

 Mr. Charles Parker says he is authorised to state, that Col. Henry Samuel Eyre now assents: he also states, that the Dean and Chapter of Christchurch, Oxford, have consented to withdraw their dissent, provided Henry Young, their lessee of the property on the line, should consent; and that Henry Young does assent.

A letter from the treasurer of the Dean and Chapter of Christchurch, to Messrs. Tooke and Parker, solicitors to the bill, stating, that upon certain terms they will withdraw their dissent, provided their lessee. Henry Young, should consent to the measure, is read.

A letter from Henry Young to Messrs. Tooke and Parker, assenting to the bill, is read.

Mr. Harrison submits, that the terms referred to in the letter of the Dean and Chapter should be stated.

Mr. Follett is heard to object to the same.

Mr. Harrison is heard in reply.

Mr. Parker, being asked what is the quantity of the land in question, says, eight acres and a half.

The letter of the treasurer to the Dean and Chapter of Christchurch is, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn, and Henry Young alone is considered to have assented as to his freehold property.

Mr. George Morris Barker states, that John Jeffcoat assents.

Mr John Carter says he is authorised to state, that the following persons are now assenting; namely, Mary Herne, Anne Herne, Abraham Herbert, Sarah Ray, and William Griffin, and also William Wall Brown for himself and for his co-trustees.

The letter from William Wall Brown is read. It being objected, that he cannot assent for his co-trustees under that letter, the letter is, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

Certain letters, authorising the said witnesses to signify the assent of some of the said individuals to the measure (produced by these witnesses), are read.

Mr Follett is heard in continuation of his summing up, and closes his address.

The Counsel and Parties are directed to withdraw.

It is moved, that the case for the Promoters of the Bill having been concluded, it does not appear to the Committee that they have made out such a case as would warrant the forcing of the proposed Railway through the lands and property of so great a proportion of dissentient landowners and proprietors.