The Express.
London, England, 1864-10-22 00:00:00

BETTANWIA.

THie Immin. THI CHILD. Mrs. S.
Um—Stanlag by Madame Moon. —Dancing by Halle. C. Stephan,
—And 11IL HILLER AND HIS MlN.—Commenc• at

HIGH WATER AT LONDON-BRIDGE.
Ting DAT Morning, gh. gem . Afternoon, 71i. Eta
To-gozaow Morning, M. Eirs....Afternoon, 6K pm.

LONDON, SATURDAY, OCTOBRR 22.

A PROSPECT has just opened to us of obtaining
a new bridge across the Thames, within the limits
of the City of London. To all intents and pur-
poses Southwark-bridge will be new, if the pro-
posal of removing the toll upon it be carried into
effect, for though it has been in existence for very
nearly half a century, the toll has practically
closed it against traffic. So thoroughly has this
been the cue that the unfortunate shareholders
have, it has been stated, never received a half-
penny of interest on their ordinary capital. They
have, therefore, now made an offer of their pro-
perty to the Corporation at the price of 200,0001.,
or leas than one-third of the sum actually spent.
In order that the City may have an opportunity
of testing the actual value of the purchase before
completing it, the shareholders have proposed to
throw it open for six months, on receiving the sum
of 2,7001., or for a year far 1,0001. more. This
offer of a fair trial came under discussion at the
Court of Common Council on Thursday, and was
accepted by a large majority. It seems, however, that
in point of form it ought first to have been con-
sidered by the Coal and Corn Commitke, and it
is consequently still po-sible that on coming back
from that body the Court may reverse its decision.
It may therefore be as well to suspend our con-
gratulations for the present, and in their place to
offer some reasons why the course already initiated
should be persevered in, and carried out as soon
as the technical formalities will permit.

It would of course be entirely superfluous to
urge that such a convenience for the traffic across
the river is urgently wanted. The state of London-
bridge, and the chronic delay and perpetual dan-
ger that attend the endeavour to cross the river
there, are arguments which render all others
unnecessary in favour of obtaining a neighbouring
In:dge. Southwark-bridge is perhaps not in the
best conceivable situation, and it is true that the
approaches to it are not the most convenient.
But it will gain in value when the new Thames
embankment is carried, as it undoubtedly will be,
to its legitimate termination; and if in that ope-
ration and in the laying out of the new City rail-
way the propriety of making use of Southwark-
bridge is kept in view, there can be no doubt
that it can be turned to excellent account. Even
at present the prospect of getting across the
river without encountering the crush either of
King William-street or of Ludgate-hill would be
sufficient inducement to divert a great deal of
the more distant traffic to the line of Queen-street,
wh;le the drays and vans which now block np
Thames-street would naturally take it as their
line to the Surrey side railway stations. In
truth, the opponents of the proposal admit the
value of the bridge as it stands in the very objec-
tions which they urgeagainst accepting the offer to
try it for • year. The prblic and the press, they
insist, will never allow the toll to be re-
imposed, if it is for ever so short • time
removed. As the public and the press would
certainly not disturb themselves about the matter
if the bridge was not of important practical advan-
tage, this is a confession that it would be found so
if it were allowed to be tried. If the bridge
shareholders had not already bound themselves
by their offer, this admission of the public value of
their property might well have had the effect of
inducing them to raise their terms.

The real question, however, which was
cussed on Thursday was not that of form, or even
of preliminary trial; it was whether the City should
ultimately make the purchase, or should decline it
on the ground that the Metropolitan Board of
Works ought, on behalf of the rest of London, to
pay the cost. It seems to us that this suggestion
is decidedly unreasonable. The bridge in question
is peculiarly a City bridge. It will accommodate
above all City traffic, it will benefit above
all City property. No doubt the rest of
the metropolis, as in some degree the rest of the
country, will occasionally share the advantage.
Whoever wishes to cross London-bridge will
benefit by any relief given to its traffic. But this
is no more than the general advantage derived
from the abolition of every toll, or from the open-
ing of a new road in any locality. Common sense,
however, imposes in these cases the burden of
maintaining the road upon the parish in which it
is situated, on the principle that the immediate
neighbourhood is so peculiarly benefited that
there is no excuse for taxing the general public.