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

THE BERKS AND HANTS RAILWAY.

The Bill for this Railway was taken into consideration in Group I
G and G 2. this day at two o'clock, by the Committee, composed of
the Hon. T. H. Liddi:ll, Chairman ; Mr. Christopher, Sir E.
Hayes, Mr. Entwisle, and Mr. H. R. Yorke. Mr. Austin, and '
Mr. R. Gurney appeared for the Railway. Mr. Whateley op.
posed it on behalf of Mr. Fowke, of Midghaim. The object of the
Bill is to make a railway from the Reading station of the South-
Western Railway to Newbury, and also to Hungerford, with a
branch, southward from Reading to Basingstoke, the length of the
line being 39 miles, and the estimated cost 400,0001. and the
supposed return 40,0001. a year.
In reply to Mr. GURNEY, Mr. Brunel, who is the engineer of the
line, stated that there were no tunnels, and that the gradients were
easy, and the cost of construction small, while the returns were
ure to be considerable, and the advantages of opening up a better
communication with the port of Southampton very great.
In reply to Mr. WRATELEV, Mr. Brunel stated that his reason for
not carrying the railway nearer to the Kennet Canal, as was de.
sired by some of the landed proprietors, was the crookedness and •
consequent inconvenience of the line of the canal, but in com-
pliance with the wishes of Mr. Fowke, a large landed proprietor, a
considerable deviation had been made from the original line, in
order to avoid the severance of a portion of his property. Tue I
Company had made as great a deviation to effect this object as they i
possibly could, and every care had been taken to provide for the j
irrigation and drainage of the meadow land through which the line
passed.
Mr. Saunders, Secretary to the Great Western Railway, stated
that to the best of his belief the whole of the wishes of Mr. Fowke,
over whose land he had been with Mr, Brunel and that gentleman,
had been complied with. The Bill sought a power to raise
330,000!. of which 300,0001. had been subscribed for. The deposit
was 1550001., and the whole of the list of Shareholders had
been_ Properly specified in the schedule. There was but one
, th.7,eohoooldoeir locally interested in the line, and his shares amounted
• There were two other shareholders interested for
similar amounts.
In reply to Mr. PARKS
b,
who opposed the line, M s,. the solicitor, of Great George-street,
haddropped
Saunders stated that the Great Western
Company never
respect to the only portion'i'Ped any portion of their lines, and with
vizthe
which such a supposition
could be entertained,
ee Trowbridge and Blandford line,
the fact was that branch had h
su
tfferimedtolrop in consequence
of the peculiar circumstances ofnthe but that branch had
e
been renewed, and not only renewed but X' tended. Mr. Saunders
said that Mr. Fowke had asserted that if the line was taken
oppose which was now laid out, he would not the line, and he sup-
posed that Mr. Fowke would come there rather
as an opponent of the line, as a supporter than
Mr. AUSTIN said that was the whole of the case for the Corn.
pally, and unless the Committee desired it he would offer no further
evidence.
WIIATELEY, en behalf of Mr. Fowke, said that that gen-
tleman had had the misfortune to purchase a veryno beautifulh estate
in Berkshire about two years ago, and w
had time to spend his money and get attached' wtoenth e place,
he
had
the Railway Company came and went right throughthe
whole of it. On this estate there were some very beauti-
ful water meadows, and also several peat.fieldstl
former requiring considerable irrigation, for which there were,
under existing circumstances, peculiar advantages, and
the latter requiring a perfect drainage. and for which also there
was every opportunity ; but this railway would entirely destroy all
those advantages. The Learned Counsel then cited several letters
to show that good faith had not been kept with Mr. Fowke in some
partiticalars, and to prove that the engineer had refused to meet
Mr. Fowke and make such arrangements as would save much
of the injury to that gentleman's property, One of the injuries in
consequence of the refusal of the Company to alter their line
was the preclusion of access to part of Mr. Fowke'a land,
which was shut in by a piece of ground belonging to Lord Fat.
mouth, and which by this railway would be entirely cut off from
the other property of Mr. Fowke. The protection which the
Company asserted would be given by the 67th clause of the Rail-
way Clauses Consolidation Bill was quite sufficient to meet this
case, as in this instance the water was turned on to the lend from
the Kennet Canal, and then turned off again through the medium
of a fall of 26 feet, which pervaded Mr. Fowke's land. The
railway quite intercepted the connexion with the canal,
p(1 the c 1414 though it provided for draining
N timidity , it made po provision for putting the water

-e,4..........--- --ir 1 ;\
,„\1
(
•.,,,e, _ "Ati

~::.Tc i k