The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-30 00:00:00

on the land, and he thought that, if the Company desired to act
sincerely, they should give a particular clause to protect Mr.
Fowke.
In reply to an observation by the Chairman, Mr. WHASELEY
stated that the construction of the works necessary fn* securing the
advantages now enjoyed by Mr. Fowke would in no way interfere
with the formation of the railway. .

Mr. Wm. Gravatt, an engineer, who had had considerable expe-
rience in railway engineering, stated that the proposed line would
run for about two miles through Mr. Fowke's property. He pro.
duced a plan laid down from a large plan of Mr. Fowke's estate,
on which lines were traced to show the plan of the Company, and
the line which he proposed to obviate the injury, or at least a
great portion of it, likely to accrue through the formation of the
line to Mr. Fowke's property, and expressed his opinion that his
alteration would in no way disadvantageously affect the works of
the Company. By his plan a space of 68 yards was secured for
communicating with the line of ground which would otherwise be
altogether cut off—of course very injuriously cut off. He stated
that he had made a report to the Company of his plan.
On cross-examination by Mr. AUSTIN, Mr. Gravatt stated
that he was aware that it was a convenience to obtain the consent
of the land-owners before he constructed a line. He thought that, if
there was a good bottom, a communication of twelve or fo,irteen feet
wide would answer every purpose; but he generally gave sixteen
feet, as the engineers were now liberal.
Mr. AUSTIN said that having now ascertained what was a good
communication, what was a sufficient, and what was a liberal
space, he was prepared to say that the Company wera ready to give
the sixteen feet
Mr. WIIATELEY objected that this communication was to be in
the way of easement or right of way over a part of Lord Falmouth's
property. His client had a right to the land itself.
Mr. AUSTIN thought that it would be unjust to take the land
from one party and give it to another.
Mr. WIIATELEY conceived that as they had the power to take the
land from Lord Falmouth, and if this communication was only in
the shape of an easement, and not an absolute property, it would
lead to continual broils.
Mr. Gravatt said that his plan would in no way affect the canal.
Mr. Brunel, in reply to the Chairman, stated that a difficulty
would arise with the Kennet Canal Company if thoy carried the
line nearer to the canal than fifty yards, and they had agreed to
give clauses to enable the Company to secure the traffic on their canal.
The room was then cleared, and, after deliberation, the Chair-
man stated that the differences between Mr. Fowke and the Rail-
way Company were so trifling, that the Committee conceived they
might he arranged privately.
A conversation ensued between the Counsel for both sides, and
the preamble was allowed to be proved.
The clauses were gone through to clause 20, when
Mr. WI! ATELEV proposed a clause, the effect of which was to
preclude the Company from forming any small houses or sheds on
part of the line passing through Mr. Fowke's property, but it was
ultimately withdrawn, upon an agreement that no such places
should be built by the Company.

Before going to the schedule
Mr. \Vila-rms.*? proposed a clause for securing the irrigation of
the water meadows.
In order to show the necessity for this clause, Thomas Cooper,
the Waterman of the Midgham estate, who stated that he had
been waterman on the property more than forty years, and that
they took the water from the canal whenever they thought proper,
the custom being to dam up the water and turn it over upon the
carriages.
Mr. GNRNEY alleged that this right had been disputed, and the
Company were unwilling to give a greater right than had been
previously epjoyel, and which they might not be able to secure.
Mr. Frankum, of Wolverhampton, had known this estate ever
since he could recollect, and he believed that the peat, which was a
very valuable property, could not be got at without a drain, and the
drain on Mr. Fowke's property ought to be eleven feet deep to be
sufficiently serviceable.
Mr. Gravatt stated that if the peat was fifteen feet deep, the
drain ought to be equally deep, and there was no alternative be.
tween that and steam power to lift the water. The drain ought to
be made before the railway was formed, as otherwise the drain
would be likely to lower the rail on the side on which it was made,
and he conceived that an injunction might be obtained against it.
Mr. Wsta-rELEr then proposed a clause to accomplish this ob-
ject.