The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-30 00:00:00

never went into those villages. The under taker frequently had to
lose whole days, in consequence of not havin g a quick transit be-
tween the places surrounding Coventry, and which was of great,
importance, in consequence of the won't; being frequently
altered by the changes of fashion. The districts would
also be greatly advantaged by the supply of .Bedworth
coal to Warwick and the neighbourhood, wh ere coal
was 1/. Is. perton, having to come sixty miles of canal, while it
could be brought by railway a distance of only fourteen.. miles,
which of itself would cause a great saving, as well as that which
would be effected from not having, as the merchants called it, to
break bulk. The length of the railway was six miles fifty. eight
chains, and the capital 120,0001. The Learned Counsel then
alluded to the opposition which was expected, which he thought
the Committee would see was not of that nature which co uld
pof be easily overcome. As regarded that of the
,edon and Birmingham Company, complaining of the inconve-
me 'Ace of the junction, he thought there must besome mistake, ar
they :lad a letter containing a minute passedby their board approving
of
.that: Junction.

E.,4143nce was afterwards given in support of the Learned Coun.
eel's stegornent. The first witness called was Mr. Watton, a carrier at
Coventry, who said that the inhabitants and corporation of Coventry
were etron gly in favour of the line. In his opinion it would ma.
teriallyassl.st the trade of the town, and contribute to the conveni.
ence and co, efort of the inhabitants of the various villages and dis-
tricts through which it passed.
The witness Jvas cross-examined by Mr. AUSTIN, with a view of
showing that the .Town Council of Coventry were in favour of the
line, because it we uld run through land of which they possessed
" the use of front," aod for the loss of which they would be libe-
rally remunerated.

Mr. Wm. Clarke, the. Zrayor of Coventry, confirmed the evi.
Bence of Mr. Watton, and the committee afterwards adjourned till
tc'-morrow.

Group X.
LONDON AND YORK LINE.
_ _

This Committee, which stood adjourned from Tuesday, aznem.
bled this day at one o'clock. in Committee room No. 8.
Mr. Charles Lindley—Rcsides at Mansfield, in Nottinghamshire,
and is proprietor cf a stone quarry situate westward of Newark..
The blocks on the table are specimens of the stone of the quarry.
Here the witness described the different specimens, and said that
one of them was that of which the present Houses of Par-
liament were being built. There were several other
quarries in the vicinity of the proposed line, the
stone from which was extensively used in building.
. Has no doubt that if the London and York line should be made
such of this stone would be conveyed by that line. The present
ct st of the transit of stone from the Mansfield quarry was '24s. per
to to Peterborough. The cost by the line would be 7s. ed. per
tusk exclusive of the value of the article, which was ‘.25.3d. per ton
at ?t terborough. By the London and York line it would be
Is. / d., or about half. The cost of transit per ton to London was
at ent 20s. fid. By the proposed line it would be 13s. 4d.
present mode of transit was by water. Had
visit„ many of the other towns along the line, and
The ,present
found hat the cost of transit at present for stone amounted to a
prohibittnitr.: The witness then deposed that the saving to be ef-
fect,' in the transit of the stone to those different towns
by the new' line would be proportionably great. The
same evidence applied to the cost of the transit of
lime, both for agricultural and building purpo3cs.

rOA CFI TRAFFIC EVIDENCE.

Mr. Winberly was called to give evidence as to:the district north
of Huntingdon. He deposed that he had made his calculations
from the Stamp-office returns; had taken care not to calculate any
line twice over.