It further appears, that the three sons of Mr. MᶜAdam are employed as general surveyors upon various lines of road in different parts of the Kingdom; that they have been and are competitors with all other road surveyors, over whom they possess no other advantage than such as their superior intelligence, skill and industry entitle them to, having no exclusive or preferable privilege whatever; that they have improved, and at the same time have very considerably reduced the expense upon almost all the roads under their management; and that their incomes, when diminished by the necessary disbursements and payments to the persons acting under them, and their own expenses, cannot be deemed too large a sum for their own individual services; but, on the contrary, that they have returned to the Public for the amount of their gains a fair and full measure of benefit, by the personal activity, skill and labour so conspicuous in the management of the roads, and the funds of the trusts under their superintendence; that two of the three had relinquished situations of profit to afford their aid in giving effect to and carrying the system into execution, and are justly entitled to the fruits of their industry, and hard-earned incomes, without the participation of any other person; and it does not appear that the Petitioner has profited in any manner from the salaries allowed to his sons. With respect to the petition of Mr. Wingrove, referred to your Committee, it appears, from the Petitioner’s own statement, that his object is a compensation for services which he considers himself individually to have rendered to the public, a claim which your Committee can neither investigate nor entertain, being foreign to the object of their inquiry; and no part of Mr. Wingrove’s statement appearing, in the opinion of your Committee, to affect the system of Mr. MᶜAdam, or impeach his claim to a remuneration for services performed, they feel it necessary only to present his evidence without further remark. In like manner, and with the same observation, they may dismiss the petition of Mr. Lester, between the comparative merit of whose literary productions with those of Mr. MᶜAdam, and whether Mr. MᶜAdam has “infringed upon his literary property,” your Committee are not called upon to determine; nor is it within their province to pronounce an opinion upon the degree of merit belonging to Mr. Lester for the construction of the various models of machines exhibited to your Committee, and alleged by Mr. Lester to be applicable to, and useful for, the improvement of roads.