The Sun.
London, England, 1864-10-21 00:00:00

HOLBORN VALLEY IMPROVEMENT.

The LORD MAYOR here said he had a most important
communication to make to the Court, but that it must be
made in the absence of strangers.
Strangers were accordingly ordered. to withdraw. On our
return we learned that Mr Deputy. Bone had moved a report
from the Coal, Corn, and Finance Committee, in which
they referred to a resolution passed on the 23d June last,
to communicate with the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, or the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's
Treasury, with a view to obtain their consent to and the
necessary Parliamentary powers for the advance of the
moneys required for the Holborn Valley Improvement, upon
similar terms to those which have been agreed upon by her
Majesty's Treasury in relation to moneys required by the
Metropolitan Board of Works for the new street to the
Mansion-house, and recommended that such reference be
discharged.

This report was adopted, and the refer3nce was discharged
accordingly.

THE MEDAL OP THE PRINCESS OF WALES.

Mr Deputy CORK asked when the medal commemorative
of the entry and reception of her Royal Highness the Prin-
cess of Wales into London would be delivered.

Mr ANDERTON, the chairman of the committee, replied
that he could not exactly say, as Mr Wyon had received
half the amount of his contract, and had not condescended
to inform the committee when the medal would be ready for
delivery.

THE OPENING OF SOUTHWARK-BRIDGE FREE OP TOLL,'

Mr WEBBER presented a report from the Bridge-house
Committee, which had been delivered in on the 6th inst.,
referring to a letter addressed to the Lord Mayor by the
chairman of the Southwark-bridge Company, and moved
that the recommendation of the committee—namely, that
the proposal by the Southwark-bridge Company to open the
bridge to the public free of toll for the period of six months
for the sum of £1,834, with the option of continuing such
opening for 12 months for the further sum of £2,750, be
adopted. He was aware that this was a very vexed ques-
tion, and that there existed an idea in the public mind that
the Corporation were slow to take the initiative in any
improvement conducive to the public welfare. He be-
lieved there was now an opportunity for trying on a small
scale what would ultimately tend to the public benefit, and
that the Southwark-bridge Company had met them in
a very liberal and handsome manner. This was only a pro-
position for expending £l,BOO in throwing the bridge open,
and gentlemen often made propositions there, not for ex-
pending £l,BOO, but £lB,OOO, and they suceeeded in carry-
ing out their views without a cavil being raised. It was not
a proposal to purchase the bridge, but simply to try the ex-
periment of making it toll free for six months. If at the ex-
piration of that time it was not found to answer the expec-
tations of the committee, and if the corporation did not obtain
the support of other parties—because it would be unfair fur
the whole burden to be thrown upon the shoulders of the
corporation alone—then the project could be abandoned. He
believed the people resident on the southern side of the
Thames would be as much benefited by making the bridge
free as the citizens themselves ; but as the bridge came into
the wry heart of the City, there was no denying that it
would be of incalculable benefit to the City itself. He was
not for driving a hard bargain with the bridge company,
and he certainly thought that the recommendation now be-
fore the Court contained a fair and reasonable offer.

Mr H. L. TAYLOR said that, although he was of opinion
that the utmost facilities should be given to the public, he
considered the recommendation objectionable. Ho always
liked to see the end where there was a beginning. In the
present case there was a beginning, but there was no con-
clusion to it pointed out. He was very much interested him-
self in Southwark bridge, and should wish to see it thrown
open, but who was to ply for doing so, and what was the
proper mode of doing it ? It was impossible the corporation
could negotiate with the bridge company on such a subject,
because it was only with the authority of Parliament that
the bridge could be sold, and it was always to be recollected
that the feelings of the original shareholders must be con-
sulted. It might be said that if they opened the bridge now
they could negotiate afterwards. But this was a great mis-
take. If they were to try universal suffrage at the next
election, could they go back to the present mode of voting
afterwards ? And they might rely upon it that if once they
opened Southwark bridge they could never shut it again.
If the press made up their minds and said it was essen-
tial it should be kept open, the corporation would not
dare to close it again. (Oh, oh.) However unpalatable
the sentiment might be, he had no hesitation in broadly
asserting it. He concluded by moving, as an amendment,
that, inasmuch as there could not be two opinions as to the
importance of opening Southwark-bridge to the public, the
Court considered that no experiment for a limited period
was at all necessary to demonstrate the advantages attend-
ing it, and were decidedly of opinion that if the bridge was
thrown op-m it should be permanent, and, by virtue of an
Act of Parliament, the funds to be provided by a charge on
the metropolis, in aceordanee with the report of the Select
Committee in relation to metropolitan bridges in 1854, and
that it be referred to the Committee to negotiate further
with the proprietors of the bridge, in order to ascertain the
lowest price at which it could be obtained, and to communi •
cate with the Government as to the best means of complet-
ing the purchase, and to report to the Court.
Mr Deputy BORE seconded the amendment. He observed
that he had always been in favour of making the bridges
free of toll, but that he objected to the Corporation being
made to bear the whole of the expense of doing so.
The RECORDER suggested an alteration in the motion,
with the view of making it conformable with the Standiug
Orders. This alteration was that the report of the Bridge•
house Committee be adopted, and that they carry the same
into effect when they should have referred it to the Coal,
Corn, and Finance Committee and reported ,to this Court
the means by which it was to be done.

Mr Alderman SALOMONS said the real object of the
amendment was to postpone the subject to an indefinite
period.

Mr H. L. TAILOR denied that he had any such object in
view.

Mr Alderman SALOMONS was prepared to show that the
assent of Parliament could be obtained to any contract
entered into by the Corporation with the view of making
Southwark-bridge free. He complained that the metropolis
now was very mach in the same state in which it stood a
century ago with regard to its limited means of bridge ac-
commodation across the Thames, and contrasted that accom-
modation with what was afforded at Paris, where all the
bridges with the exception of one had been bought by the
authorities in order to benefit the public. The court might
depend upon it that the ball as respected free ingress and
egress had been set rolling in London, and that if they did
not purchase Southwark-bridge the matter would fall into
the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works. (" No,
no I")

Mr Deputy DE JERSEY supported the amendment, and,
in doing so, commented in severe terms on the bill which
had been introduced into Parliament by Mr Alderman
Salomons, and which, he said, contained a clause disrespect-
ful to the Court, inasmuch as therein the Alderman evinced
his anxiety that all the bridges should be purchased by the
Metropolitan Board of Works. That bill had failed in the
House of Commons, and now the dodge was being tried of
having the bridge purchased by the corporation. The open-
ing of it for six months was a -sidewind to effect the pur-
chase, becouso if it was once opened it would never be shut.
Then, was it wide enough for the traffic, and, it wide
enough, was it strong enough ? Nobody knew ; and it was
like buying a pig in a poke to enter on the purchase under
the circumstances. He believed that nobody in his senses
would say the gradients would answer, and that it would
take an expenditure of £050,000 to put the bridge into
proper working order.
_ _

Mr Alderman ROSE implored the court not to be led away
by the amendment, because if that were adopted they would
openly proclaim to Parliament that they were unable to
carry out their functions, and they would still further in-
cur the grave responsibility of leaving their street accom-
modation in its present lamentably inadequate position.
After some further discussion, in which Mr Hartridge,
Mr Kearns, Mr Deputy Fry (who proposed another amend-
ment), Mr Deputy Elliott, and Mr Woodley took part,
Mr Webber replied, and
Upon a division the amendment of Mr Taylor was put
and lost by a majority of 42 81 to 39.
Mr Deputy Fry's amendment was put and lost by a ma.
jority of 19-64 to 45.

The original motion, with the addition of the Recorder's
alteration in it, was then carried.

CITY OF LONDON LUNATIC ASYLUM.

Upon the motion of Mr Alderman and Sheriff DAKIN,
furniture and fittings for tho City of London Lunatic
Asylum, at an expense not exceeding £17,620, were ordered,
and the Court adjourned.