The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-03 00:00:00

show that the traffic between Rugby and Huntingdon was so small
as not to require the proposed line.
J. Betts, Esq., mayor of Norwich, was then examined. He was a
draper in rather extensive business. Norwich Lad a large trade with
Birmingham and its neighbourhood. That trade consisted of hard-
ware. The opinion of the town of Norwich was in favour of the
Rugby and Huntingdon line, as the best to give direct communica-
tion. The principle merchants and bankers of Norwich signed a
petition in favour of it.
Cross-examined—Was not aware of any other method but the
Rugby and Huntingdon Railway to afford that direct communication.
The conveyance to Derby was not of so much importance as to Bir-
mingham. He would go by Rugby In going from Norwich to Leeds.
He heard that there was a circuitous routeproposed from Norwich to
Rugby. He understood it was six miles longer than the distance by
the proposed line.
By Mr. RAwmnsoN—The petition he referred to was signed within
the last fortnight.
Re-examined—The present communication between Norwich and
Leeds was by HMI. This, of course, would not be the case if the
proposed line were constructed.
By the Cilanufax.—He was not aware of any general discus-
sion at Norwich about the competing lines. The general feeling of
Norwich was in favour of this line.
1. 0. Springfield, Esq., was then examined. He was a silk-
merchant living in Norwich was twice Mayor of Norwich. The value
of freehold property was very low in Norwich at present. He be-
lieved the present line, if constructed, would add to its value. He
avoided connexion with silk-houses in Norwich, because they had
no means of procuring the requisite machinery and mechanical
power for working them. In Norwich they got their
manufacturing machinery, from Manchester and Birmingham,
by sea at present, but if the present lines were made,
it would 'afford great facilities for the conveyance of those ma-
terials, their dost would be cheaper, and a stimulus would be given
generally to the manufacturing industry of the place. The popula-
tion of Norwich was 70,000, three-fourths of whom were engaged in
manufactures, and from a variety of causes, chiefly the want of com-
munication with the west and north of England, Norwich had
of late years lost its former manufacturing neatness and prosperity.
His house at present exported principally from London. There was
a line of packets projected from Smyrna to Southampton, which
would touch at Yarmouth, and land raw silk there.
Cross-examined—He looked to Rugby as the point of access to
Yorkshire.
Mr. Thomas Bowyer, a miller in Huntingdon, confirmed the evi-
dence already given as to the traffic of Huntingdon and neigh-
bourhood.
Mr. Robert Thompson, an ironmonger, of Norwich, corroborated
the testimony of Messrs. Betts and Springfield, as to the great ad-
vantage which would result to Norwich by the construction of the
Rugby and Huntingdon line. The quantity of iron,from Birmingham,
received by his father, was, en an average, for the last four years.
500 tons. He understood that 1,500 tons came annually to Nor-
wich. He consiae•ed this scheme the beat on account of its direct-
ness and the unity of management.
Cross-examined—Did not thick that the difference, of ten miles
would be a great mattes in railway :conveyance, so far as goods
were concerned.
Mr. Ct sterton, collector of harbour and pier duties at Yarmouth,
gave evidence as to the great trade of Yarmouth, and to the accom-
modation n hich the proposed railway would give for the conveyance
of goods, &c., to and from the midland and northern districts.
Mr. Robert Merry, a corn, coal, and general merchant, carried on
business for the last thirty-four years in Norwich. lie proved the
Immense quantity of traffic in barley, malt, coals, &c., and the great
necessity which existed for a communication with the interior of the
country as far as the article of malt was concerned. The price
would by these means be greatly decreased to the consumer.
Mr. Beard, a firmer and manufacturer of bricks, Ike., in Hunting-
don, and other witnesses were examined to the same effect.
The Committee then adjourned till twelve o'clock on Monday.

Sub-Committee No. 1.
This Committee met to-day at twelve o'clock, in Room No. 7
(Cloisters). Present Mr. Strutt (chairman), Mr. Beckett, arid Mr.
Cavendish.

C.ILMB RI 1% GE IMPROVEMENT.

This BM, containing clauses to exempt goods carried to Cambridge
by railway from local tolls, was opposed by local trustees and com-
missioners, on points which we have already mentioned. The Com-
mittee having decided that the notice served on the clerk to the com-
missioners was sufficient, if the s,rvice were good in itself, the clerk
was this morning examined, after which the standing orders were
declared complied with.

EDINBURGH AND HAMILTON.
The Committee resumed the consideration of this Bill.
In respect to the Edinburgh and Hamilton Railway, several of the
allegations in the petitions of tile Duke of Hamilton and other land
proprieV,rs witbia the limits of deviation, were sustained.
The Committee decided that the standing orders were not complied
with.
They then proceeded with the further consideration of the
EDrNBITRGIC AND PERTH.
This Bill was partly proceeded with on Wednesday, when we gave
the particniars as to the object, &c. On that occasion the case was
postponed for the purpose of allowing the agents on both sides to
a; range amongst themselves what objections should be withdrawn,
and what others admitted to be sustained. In respect to several
allegations the standing orders were declared not complied with.
' An objection was ra sed by Mr. Webster for the opponents of the
Bill, that inasinueh as the subscription contract did not provide for the
sum of 100,0001., for the purchase of the Queen's Ferry, powers being
taken in the Bill to borrow money for the purpose, the standing,
orders were not complied with, no notice of the clause having
been given in the advertisements.
After a long discussion upon this point between Mr. Burke. the
agent for the Bill, and Mr. Webster, the room was cleared, and the
Committee deliberated.
After some time the decision was announced that the objection was
sustained.
The farther consideration was adjourned till Monday.

Sub-Committee No. 2.
(Cesitißued from our Afternoon Edition.)
LONDON AND SIIVIVIINGICANX (ST. ALBAN'S
AND LITTON SILANC7II).
APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL POWERS.
The object of this Bill, which has been mentioned before, is stated
to be to furnish accommodation to the counties throu..% which the
line is to puss, by the desire of the landed proprietors. There was no
opposition' to the Bill, but the ci.se was postponed, to enable the
promoters to prove that no new parishes were affected by this ap-
plication which were not affected by the original Bill.
The formal evidence having been gone through, in respect to the
London and Birmingham (St. Albans and Luton) Bill, the standing
orders were declared complied with.