The Sun.
London, England, 1852-09-30 00:00:00

THE SUN,

dingiest corner of Park-lane as an appropriate en.
trance to the Edgeware.rosd! An alabaster gate to
a pigstye would be just about as appropriate. Then
again there is the Duke of Yoares Pillar on the top of
a flight of steps, and the Duke of Yean'a etatue en
the top of the pillar wi.h a lightning conductor
sprouting out of its skull—suggestive, as a wag once
remarked, of a receipt-file without any receipts.
Among the latest architectural changes in the metro-
polis, absurdities not less remarkable are unfortunately
by no means difficult to be detected. As, for in-
stance, may be seen any day in the week in front of
the new façade of Buckingham Palace in the ludi-
crous and abominable contortions of those heraldric
monstrosities, the lion and the unicorn on either side
of the centre gateway. .ESOP run mad could not
have imagined any more eccentric zoological gambols.
They would inevitably have carried anguish to the
heart of M. BUTTON and dismay even to that of Mr.
WOMBWELL. As to the pigtail of his most gracious
Majesty King GEORGE 111. at Cockspur-street, that
has been now for some time past reduced to insigni-
ficance as one of the laughable exhibitions of the
capital by the equestrian, or rather what we
are given to believe, was intended by the &-
signer to represent an equestrian statue of the
late Duke of WELLINGTON, perched up
on the sum-
mit of the triumphal arch at Hyde-park Corner—as if
we were afraid that this display of our bad taste
would not be sufficiently conspicuous to foreigners.
Equestrian, we say the monument is generally sup-
posed to be, though whether the animal bestridden by
the effigy of the great warrior is a horse, or an ass, or
a mule, or a zebra, it would be difficult even, we fancy,
for Mr. GORDON CUZANIING to conjecture. Contrast
this preposterous tesfront timonialof to
the the il!ustrious Duke,
Royal Exchange,
or that other one in
looking down the Poultry, or the naked figure of
ACHILLES near Apsley House, throwing himself into
one of the attitudes rendered familiar to the public by
the exhibition of the Poses Plastiques—contrast any
one of these monuments with STEELE'S noble eques-
trian statue of the departed warrior recently placed
in front of
the Register House, opposite the
North Bridge,
at the cast end of Prince's-street, in
the city of Edinburgh! Any one who has seen these
four very different testimonials will not require two
seconds before deciding that the capital of Scotland
has borne off the palm from the capital of Tingland
in doing honour by the aid of art to the glorious
achievements of the departed Duke of WELLINGTON 1
And so it is with reference to the majority of the 1
various monuments adorning, no, not adorning, but
absolutely disgracing the streets of our metropolis.
Even the public works undertaken in London,
principally with a view to purposes of utility, have
been found, in several important instances, to be
altogether inadequate to the wants of the population.
There are the bridges ! A statement recently made
to the Court of Common Council by Mr. BENNOCEI
demonstrated rather painfully the indolence and nig-
gardliness revealed by the capital of England in this
particular. Paris, with a population about one-third
of that of our chief city, has, across the Seine, no less
than twenty-seven bridges altogether ! Lyons, with
a population about one-seventh that of our metropolis,
has twelve bridges over the Saone and seven over the
Rhone—making nineteen in the aggregate 1 London,
on the contrary, with the enormous number of
2,369,640 inhabitants, has thrown across the Thames
only seven bridges from London-bridge, going as
high up the river as the bridge at Vauxhall ! In-
stead of seven bridges, as Mr. BENNOCII observed, on
the 23d instant, we ought to have, taking the ratio
visible in Paris, actually forty-two, and taking the
ratio visible in Lyons, absolutely no less than one
hundred and thirty-two bridges over the river Thames,
in the immediate vicinity of the metropolis. The
contrast presented in this matter between London
and the two chief cities in France, is lamentable
enough, it must be admitted. Yet, added to the
forgoing considerations there are two others which
cannot fail to enhance the regrets of every one alive
to the disgrace thereby reflected upon the metropolis
of Great Britain. Notwithstanding the enormous
sums lavished upon their construction and repair, two
out of these seven bridges in London are already in a
ruinous condition. That is one of the supplementary
considerations to which we have referred. The other
is, it possible, yet more disgraceful in its character,
namely, that out of the seven bridges of the English
capital only three are freely opened to the use of the
population. There is London-bridge, which cost
36,600/. for the removal of the old bridge, and
680,2321. for the building of the new bridge, and
1,840,4361. for the approaches. 2 hat is, of course,
free, and it must be admitted that it is a noble struc-
ture, worthy of its name and of its situation. There is
Southwark-bridge, which cost including the approaches
800,0001.—find to cross which you have to pay a toll
of a halfpenny ! There is Blackfriars-bridge, which,
every expense included, cost 210,000/. That is ano-
ther of the free bridges, but unfortunately it is one,
also, rapidly falling away at the foundations. There
is Waterloo-bridge, which cost exactly 1,000,0001 ,
and which excited the unfeigned admiration of
CANOVA—and to cross it you have also to pay another
paltry toil of a halfpenny. There is Hungerford-
bridge, which cost 110,0001., and which likewise ex-
torts payment from the foot-passenger. There is
Westminster-bridge, which cost 388,7001., and is
free, but unluckily more ruinous even than the other
free bridge at Blackfriars ! And, lastly, there is
Vauxhall-bridge, which cost 150,0001., and which
can only be walked over by the expenditure of another
halfpenny. So that even out of the seven bridges of
the metropolis there is only one that can be regarded
with unalloyed satisfaction by the inhabitants—we
mean, of course, London-bridge—the six others being
either " tolled " or dilapidated. The melancholy
truth is, that in London we are about as shabby and
as blundering with our bridges as with our public
monuments.
Considering that our capital is so poorly supplied
with the means of traffic to and fro across the river,
we are gratified to observe the encouragement afforded
by the Court of Common Council to Mr. BENNOCH'S
proposal for a new bridge, to be called St. Paul's
Bridge, and estimated to cost altogether 144,0001., at
a point of the Thames situated between the bridges
already raised (and one of them, we may add, already
tumbling down)
existingseven
the
bainn at Southwark and Bl
ac kf • riars. But
considering the disgraceful state of six out of the
lks e s ()o
of
communication
Surrey
of over th e ThamesMiddlesex,l,‘
we
between
do think that it would
be more rational to justify the
old before adventuring upon any new expenditure.
Reconstruct the bridges that are falling into
build others as close as possible in vicinity,
their and
remove the tollgates obstructing
those now standing
at Southwark, at Waterloo, at Hungerford, at Vaux-
hall—and then talk, if you .w.11„1, of erecting any
number of new bridges that may be
deemed advisable
taking into account the enormous exigencies of the
population.
........-----

the Sale
The social economic changes which have taken
place,c aunmd
baerree
di n
Epsrtoagt
erse sisn,
tant to be overlooked by the presF. The sitting, of
Inrecloannsde,gaureenfcserotroo impor-
tant
the court commenced on the '2sth of November, 1849,
and its proceedings are reported to the Ist of Sep.
tember, 1852. By this report it appears that the
number of petitions presented for the sale of estates
was 2,146, of which 2,389 have been fiated by the
Commissioners. The encumbrances, as stated in
these petitions, amounted to 30,515,3161.; the
annual rental of the estates so petitioned to be sold,
as laden with those encumbrances, was 1,450,000/. ,
the number of estates sold 772, realising 7,215,0831. ;
the amount distributed among creditors (including
980,0001. allowed to purchasers being encumbrancers)
was 4 250,000/ , or nearly two-thirds of the sum
produced :—the petitions on which the allocation
schedule has been settled, the money paid to the par-
ties entitled, and the proceedings entirely disposed of,
420 :—the 772 estates, or parts of estates, sold
from the first sale under the Act (19th February,
1850), to the end of July, 1852, not quite two years
and a
half, were distributed in 4,062 lots, to 9,355
purchasers (of whom 120 reside out of Ireland),
thereby more than trebling the number of proprietors :
—the quantity of land that thus changed hands is
about 1,050,000 acres,
or one-twentieth of the sur-
face of Ireland, the Ordnance Survey making the
whole area, exclusive of water, to amount to
20,177,446 acres:—the purchasers at and under
2,0001., are two-thirds of the whole number :—the
greatest sales have been M Galway, to nearly
t 1,000,0001., and the least inhe industrious, half Scotch