The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-02 00:00:00

BILL.

The Home having gone into Committee on the Bill,
Mr. IIEADLAM. moved, as an amendment, the addition
of the following words at the end of section 1:—•" or in any
banking company which may have had, or may hereafter
have, dealings or transactions with any such councillors,
commissioners, or trustees of such borough."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL having objected to the
amendment,

The C mrnittee divided, when there appeared-
-, For the amendment ... ... 13

Majority against ... ••• —24
The clause wai then agreed to.
After some observations from Mr. H. EDWARDS,
The remaining clauses of the Bill were then agreed to, and
the House resumed.
The Mutiny Bill and the Marine Mutiny Bill were se-
verally read a third time, and passed; and
The House adjourned at a Quarter to One o'clock.

Rear-Admiral Berkeley, C. 8., paired off for, with Mr.
Colville, against, Mr. Berkeley's motion on the ballot.
Mr. George Thompson paired in favour of Mr. Tre-
lawny's motion on church-rates, with Mr. H. C. Lacy.

TVESTIIIINS7'ER- BRIDGE.
The following is the report of the Westminster.
bridge Commission of 1851:
" To TELE I.ORDS COMMISSIONERS OF HER MAJESTY'S

TREASURY.
" We, the Commissioners appointed under the
directions Contained in a letter from your Lord-
ships dated the 20th of May, 1851, nominating us
to b). :Coranaissioner, .for the purpose of con-
sidering the best and most convenient site for
"
s new bridge at Westminster, and, at the same
time, what will be the best mode of construction with re-
ference both to the tinffic over it and to the purposes of
navigation,' having
examined witnesses, and taken the
opinion of several most eminent engineers and architects
on these points, beg to submit the following report:—
" The subject of the rebuilding of Westminster-bridge
has already occupied the attention of three Committees
of the House of Commons in the years 1844, 1846, and
1850.

" In the report of the first of these Committees, made
in the year 1844, it is stated to bo their opinion that a
new bridge would not be required; but they recom-
mended certain alterations for the purpose of improving
and strengthening the present structure.
"The committee of 1846 took a different view of the
subject, and resolved unanimously that the present
bridge should
be taken down and that a new bridge
bo constructed.
"The Committee of 1850, concurring in this opinion,
advised that a power should be taken by Act of Parlia-
ment to erect a temporary bridge adjoining the present
structure,
in case such a work should be rendered ne-
cessary; and they further recommended than an inquiry
should be made fur the purpose both of ascertaining the
most economical mode of building another bridge on or
the present site, and also ot deciding the height of head-
way above Trinity datum which would be necessary for
the convenience of the navigation.
" This temporary bridge not having been commenced,
the expediency of
Parliament in the session ot 1850 is open for reconside-
ration.acting under the power conterred by

" The subject of our inquiries divides intself into two
portions—one having refere
tor the new bridge, and the other as to its mode of con-
struction.'

suggested for our consideration:—
bridge should be l. That the new
" In she evidence we have taken several sites were
present bridge.
" 2. That in should be built at some distance from the
present bridge, lower down the river ; and
"3. That it should be erected adjoining, or as near as
possible to, the present structure.
" The advantage of the first of these plane, ' that the
new bridge should be on the site of the present bridge,'
is, that the approaches would be provided without addi-
t ihesel x pne
are the other hand we consider that
t approaches inadequate
to the requirements
of the present daily increasing traffic, and occasion both
inconvenience
This plan would necessarily
involve the erection of
onaee s
a ;
n but, Udt:t on
ugr. .
adequate
a temporary bridge; and we are '
informed that the site of the old piers would present
difficulties in constructing the foundation of new piers.
This course would, moreover also necessitate the entire
bridge before the new one could be
consequently occasion delay and
increase the cost of this removal.
" In considering this plan, the period of time which
would necessarily be occupied in the cJinpletion: of
oreonimomveanleocfd,thaendolituld
these successive structures should not be overlooked. A
temporary bridge could not be brought into use in less
mertphesrmfraonmenitts commencement,
could not be com-
menced ernmeucement, and the works
that the permanent bridge could not
fort h
ea
nn 18 t
c also
e i
esdo
nniltibrftled
be constructed in two years. Tho temporary bridge
would delay the permanent structure for which it would
in the meantime be an inconvenient substitute. For
these reasons we cannot recommend the adoption of the
present siie as the best suited for the new bridge, end
we deem it desirable to select a site which may enable:
ti the opening of the temporary bridge. We
era
US to avoid the expense and the delay of a temporary
bridge. .
" With respect to the second plan-4 That the new
bridge should be built at some distance from the present
bridge, lower down the river,' we have renewed the in-
quiry into the sites • which have at various times been
proposed for a bridge in lieu of the existing Westmin-
ster-bridge, and which are referred to in the reports of
the Parliamentary Committees on this subject. The
following sites have more particularly attracted our
attention:—Charing-cress, Richmond-terrace, the India
Board. All these are more or less liable to the .same,
,obj,ctions, namely, an increase of expense and additional
delay .in securing ts perausue4t communmstiou siQFQ*3
the river,