The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-10 00:00:00

BERES AND HANTS (HUNGERFORD EX.

TENSION) RAILWAY.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)

The next allegation was, that there had been a deposit of
the plans in the parish of Erhtoke.
Mr. Pturr called for prcpf that Erlstoke was a parish, as
stated in the petition.
Evidence being given pro and con,
The Committee were of opinion that Erlatoke was not of
itself a parish.
There was a similar allegation respecting the parish of
Edrington, which was not sustained, competent evidence not
being adduced.
The next allegation wa:•', that the notice in the newspapers
was insufficient, and calculated to mislead, inasmuch as it
comprised two different schemes, the one the Berks and
Hants, with the extension from Hungerford to the terminus
at Green-bridge, the other diverging from the Great Western
at Tiverton, near Bath, to Radstock.
Mr. COATES contended that this was clearly of a nature to
mislead, and if carried would be of incalculable mischief to
th!Lparties through whose property lines might pass.
Mr. Plurr contended, that witnesses should have been pro-
duced to sustain his allegation. By an Act of last session! a
power was given to the Berks and Hants Railway to incor-
porate with the Great Western, of which line it was a part
and parcel. With reference to the line being brought out
under its former name, it was nothing more than what was
done by the London and Birmingham Company with refer •
ence to the Northampton and Peterborough Railway.
The CHAIRMAN said the Committee were of opinion that
the standing orders had been complied with in ttie present
case, as there was no positive contravention of any stand-
ing order, and the subject adverted to would become matter
for the consideration of the Committee on the Bill.
The next allegation was, that the notice was also insuffi-
cient, inasmuch as it stated that the Company intended
to
o construct branches without defining them, instead of
giving full information to the owners of the property to
enable them to ascertain how they would be affected by the
railway, and to adopt the necessary steps to protect their
interests.
The Committee decided (arguments being heard for and
against) that the star
tindto rd ers had been complied with, he
notice containing a
liament. was required by the Act of Par-
Mr. COATES said the next allegation was, that the notice
was insufficient, because, is stated that it (the Great.
Western Company) intended tordaise 850,0001., without
stating that they would make any application to Parliament
to amend the Great Western Act.
Mr. Pnrrr said that notices had been given in every
parish through which the line would pass that the objection
was untenable.
The room was cleared, and in about half an hour we were
l
admitted.
The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee were
of
that in this case the standing orders had not been
theeso
complied°riinil
with, and directed the short-hand writer to read
tion to which the Company had arrived, which was
asflot
lows :
" Inasmuch as the notice of application to Parliament to
make a railway commencing from the line of the Berks and
Rants Railway to or near the town of Hungerford and
county of Berks, terminating by a junction with the Wilts,
Somerset, and Weymouth Railivay, does not state the inten-
tion of the Great Western Railway Company, though sub-
eemently stated to the owners of the said Berks and Hants
Railway, to amend their acts byraising a further sum of
money, but a separate notice of the same dates respectively
was given by :the Great Western Railway to amend their
Act, but yet such last-mentioned notice does not contain the
names of the places through which the works are intended to
be made."
Mr. COATES said, he appeared on the part of other peti-
tioners, owners of the property through which the line would
pass; buthe would not press a great portion of the allegations.
The Committee adjourned at four o'clock, till twelve o'clock
to-morrow.

Sub-Committee No. 3.

IBRIGHTON AND CHICHESTER RAILWAY.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
The customary formal proofs having been put in, proving
the usual deposit of plans, and that the estimated cost of the
works was 45,0001., the committee decided that the standing
orders bad been complied with.

STEYNTNG BUNca.
This was another petition of the London and Brighton
Company, for leave to bring in a Bill to authorise the con-
struction of a branch from
a point on the Brighton and Chi-
chester line to Steyning, in the county of Sussex. The
CWltOrnitry forms ca4l Wig been gon tkrough,