The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-25 00:00:00

raZDLIINII (NOTTINGHara. Arno MANS-
X'IELD),

on the part of the promoters of which Mr. DENNISON proceeded
to address the Committee. He said that this railway was projected
by the Midland Railway Company, and that it would diverge from
the Nottingham branch of the Midland Railway, about half a mile
to the west of the town of Nottingham, proceeding in a northern di-
rection, following the course of the river Lean, and terminating near
the town of Mansfield. It passes near to the populous places of
Lenton, Radford, Basford, Bulwell, Hucknall, Tockhard, and Sutton..
in-Ashfield. Between Mansfield and Sutton-in-Ashfleld it will form
a junction with the Clay Cross and Newark Branch of the Midland
Railway, by which means a communication will be opened with
Sheffield, Manchester, and the North of England. The length of
the line was 16 miles 6 furlongs. The estimate was 275,0001. Notting-
ham was a town of considerable and increasing importance, containing
a pOptliation of nearly 80,000 persons, principally engaged in manu-
factures, which were greatly dependent on foreign and distant mar-
kets, and demanded every facility of transit. This line would afford
a more direct route than the present for the trade with Sheffield,
Manchester, Leeds, &c.; and will also afford a more direct transit
with Ireland and the colonies, rid Liverpool. The workmen living in
the villages between Nottingham and Mansfield obtained employment
and materials from Nottingham through the means of persons called
middlemen, who, though.nominally paid by the masters, were, in
reality, paid partly by the masters and partly by the workmen. B3'
giving the workmen an opportunity of communicating directly with
their masters, the evils attending the middlemen system would be
obviated, and the proposed line was well calculated to accomplish that
very desirable object.
Mr. Robert Stephenson and Mr. Swanwick were the engineers.
The Bill was entirely unopposed.
Mr. Thomas Herbert, Ma:, or of Nottingham, Mr. E. Batchard, and
Mr. J. Williams, gave evidence as to the necessity for, and general
feeling in favour of the line.
Mr. Swanwick gave the usual engineering evidence, which con-
tained few facts beyond those included in Mr. Dennison's statement.
There was one tunnel, the length of which was 165 yards. The
gradient in that tunnel was 1 in 181, and was the steepest on the
whole line. The sharpest curve had a radiant of 25 chains.
The proofs of compliance with Mr. Duncombe's resolution.% Mere
then given, and the preamble was declared proved.
Having disposed ef the clauses of the Bill,
The Committee rose, and dissolved; it being then about a quarter
to two o'clock.

GROUP LIT.
This Committee re-assembled this morning at the usual hour; Or•
P. Miles in the chair.

ST. HELEN'S CANAL AND RAILWAY, AN
Gri.AT.T3I3 ZUNCTZON (HUTTON TO WAS"
GTON BRANCH).
The evidence en behalf of the promoters of the St. Helen's Ban"
way was resumed.

Mr. Robert Dagleish, the contractor for the supply of the locellg"
tive power on the present St. Helen's and Runcorn Gap Railway.
examined—This line was eight miles long. There were two incline
on it about half a mile long, in which the gradients were I in
25 a' d 1 in 30. These could not be worked by locomotive power, bet
a stationary engine was used. The expense of working the proposed
line would be much less, and it would afford railway communication
to many collieries which did not possess it at present.
Examined by Mr. Herm, on behalf of Sir John Gerrard—The line
would pass through this gentleman's property, and close to his corn-
fields. Ile considered that it would be of advantage to his (sir John
Gerrard's) estate. He was aware, however, that Sir John was op-
p,Ned to the line.
itendail, the engineer of the line, was then examined. The
cost of :!)e line would be 235,7451., in addition to which,
there would he the cost of a dock at Garston, amounting
to 56,9711. This Scheme was purely a protective measure to
the owners of St. Helen's Canal. The coal trade 'could not
be carried on efficiently unless increased facilities of transit were
given. The proposed line would meet the exigencies of the case.
To take the line along the canal was the best and cheapest mode of
proceeding.

The Committee adjourned till twelve o'clock to-morrow.

GROUP

The Committee to whom this group of Bills has been referred. Nat
to-day at one o'clock, in Room 26, in the New Houses of Parliament. •
Present Mr. Lascelles (in the chair), the Earl of Arundel and Surrey,
Mr. Rice Clayton, Mr. Hildyard. and Captain Dalrymple.
The following are the Bills that have been referred to this Com-
mittee, viz. :-
1. Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Dudley.
2. Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Stour Valley, (Blf•minlihamo
Wolverhampton and Dudley lines).
3. Birmingham, Wolverhampton And Stour Valley, (Stour Tenet
line).
4. South Staffordshire Junction.
5. South Staffordshire Junction (Bilston and Prestfleld branch).
6. South Staffordshire Junction (Wilhenhall and Blozwich branch).
7. Trent Valley, Midlands, and Grand Junction.
8. Birmingham, Lichfield, and Manchester.
9. Derbyshire, Staffordshire, and Worcester Junction.
10. Shropshire Union Railway and Canal (Shrewsbury to Stafford).
11. Shropshire Union Railway and Canal (Chester and Kolver•
hampton line).
12. Shrewsbury and Birmingham.
13. Shrewsbury, Wolverhampton, and South Staffordshire junc.
tion (No. 1.)

14., Shrewsbury, Wolverhampton, and South Staffordshire JUnC-
tion (No. 2.)
15. South Staffordshire (Showhill and Portobello branch).
16. Grand Junction (branch from Showhill to Portobello).