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

LONDON,

wards Harwich ? He had stated that if the Hon. and Gal-
lant Member itucceeded itt his • motioe, he would make, a
similar motren respectieg the borough, of Leicester;J but the
Hen. Member forthat borough ,assured Innithat no bribery
took place at the lasteleciron-,„ritir he' believed hitn:. None
took place at the lait election for-Harivicii r and if they did
not bear unjustly upon IlarWielY,• he would not inake hit
motion respecting Leicester.; e • • 4: - • •
Mr. CLAY said it Mattered little-to him whether the cor-
ruption at Harwich ~was, proinoted • by the late -Government,
or by any individual., Ile hoped .fie the eredit of all :admi-
nistrations that' they ,would.ioin.in,,puttiog „an • end. to such
diegrkceful doinssm aeatter, Of this kind notoriety, was
all they. required .te :in2juee them, to' act. Ie had it
on the authority of a. geotlethan intimately atqn4nt6a,
• with 'the place, that in 1841 two men, Miler- and son, re-
ceived between thent 'They booghtlarge barges with
the money, and were and'ebione,enough tb naMeone.Of them
The Attwood. Thte-Otheirehe not- know the ramie of,
but it might be The;Phimpen In. other ;Cases- voters' were
Made so drunk--":thate theataievec.goesotiter main, bet 'died
drunk. He .hefieveri..tbefibeeleening;Corninissionato inquire
into beroughsP Where* was 101 loved alrat bribery had been,
practised, would do infer& good to prompte, oux,ity of election;
than anything they ladyterato',ef.qq,r,hf4 object,during,the,
!set Ceriturv.; • : '' e.„
Mr. BAG'StIAW eitleerveffilli.Viebat said :Were hiS
genuine- conVictiims;"iiiiirthistigti the;flon. and o.en-
tleMan had raised alogheatAti elqiense,, his Wetds'irtitild be
found to Le'truif, .Thee bestecoutise:Whibli' the-House,cenld
pursue'svoiald be' to, isstew the writ for, liarefieh- at the aiext
general elect ion,' and let thbebnintigh. be: tried by,ite conduct
then. If• the con'ttiniencsewere„wiee,po4o,they.wouldknow,
he:* to act. (Lnud,laugjener,),,„4e • , -.; eLeee-
Mr. Secretary WALPOLE °rimed_ 141:motion,. What
Wit asked for wes, that the Hijuee shank ;awe a Caernnise
sion; With enorinous'aket thiconitittitiddaPiAorier6l whiOlf in:
many 'respecta- would - sirpers.e& of, th4"land.l.---;
( Hear, hdare) !Sochi CleneraiitioN Ire thought, aught hav'er
to be!granten -except •In-e:clear; eaet ''•of -corruption tetently
and distinctly alleged: -(Otieerse)- If-they agreed- :to 'the
motion they *Mild giarate a. 7 tejerityof that Hofisees pbiser
to deal with boroughs.andeifenntifis that 4114;14, be opposed
to'their views, fen which ,henould, nevineciiesente-r(cheera. I
The authorities opt* which tbin case.rested -were, those. of
Sudbury-and St: Albahe,,lnit.l4 ibeggedthe, ,Hciinseip. bear
in mind heir' greatly, *a° theSe..precedents differed from
the case -before Ahern. ' -Sirdbfiry ttie bribery was so
great: that-Vet bf the 276"-eleeterV: who polled for ,
Dyce Sombre;' no fewer •tiiiin-20),-. Were',, preyed • :to 'lave
been' bribed; •.-end , the, tomegailonera,reported that'they
believed the bribery •must- have • :been. • carried to a , much
greater extent, - becaueee, ateabezete,of;7-1: per head, that
would not' 'have accounted-for; b1ie:3.042q.-wbith 4.04 been
sent 'to the borough fore,oq-,, narpeseeof
~corronting -thee
voters: The cafe of.At."Albans was still stropger., ~Accord-ing to Cappock'tii. bribe or ;V"l:ileed" Wes the, general.
practice, and Alderman Carden said' tha'pniiticelopinions of
most of the 'constituents Were` in their breech:lie ponkets;7-
(Laughter.) The CoMmitsibneta in this ease' alto reported
that the practice 'was not occasional but general
and systematic. Out of ;290,; voters who polled for one
•of the candidates, only 30 Were:supposed:to have-been. tine-
bribed ; and - out •of .276 who had voted en :the other. side,-
186 were elderly bribed .In both.taina -there Was. thus
shown to be universal corrnptign, wait was proved; to have
occurred at the election which lead just taken place; but in
the case of Harwich, the.'Honetirable and Gallant :Meniber
had gone back as far as 18112,."and had billy comedown as
late as 1847 or 1848.' There 'Might' haves-been bribery 'in
both cases, but then:there Witt briberritit Leicester,' in the
case of which the Committee reported that the -system carried
on had been such as to demanh.fthe attention "of the HOuse.
But would it be just and fair to the'Hom Meinbera for Lei,.
tester, because bribery. had been proved. in 1844;0- issue a
commission with euorinimaand unconstitutional powers, and
then to dispossesi tilem..,of their :seats,. and disfranchise the
borotigh? Where bribery bad taken place, it ought immee
diately to be inquired. into; but in the case of Harwich, two
elections had occurred. Since' 1847, ori both of which yeti-
fions had been issued, te first of'WhiCh alleged only a want
*
of qualification, and the Mid' only+ ifitimidatiOn.--Vlear;
hear.) He wanted to knove-then- on -what principle they
could issue a commission !to itiquire•intO this-, Case, 'without
also inquiring; into•all- other .places where-Hon:Gentlemen
could get up and say thatehotorious ! bribery had been
practised.—(flear, hear.). -.The duty of the. House twee to
protect the minoritYre(Ltanffrr)e-andetherefore , .. pra.
tested' against a course might lead tq.the results,
which he had already pointed, Out,-( Hear, hear.) Beaidese
there was also • this anomaly. • They hid, ffisfranchised one
borough (St. Albans), of *bleb :the Hori:lderriber 'still kept
his seat; and now they were asking for $' parliamentary iu
quiry into another; ;Whereto - 'corrupt pailetlees had been.
proved. They were keeping open. that • seat for More than
12 months; 'but surely the ithabitante of that town-were as
much entitled to have a representative in 'the House as any
other borough.—( Einar, hear.) - He oonsideredesfirst,• that
they were not entitled, ;at, all to inetituto an inquiry„into
any alleged corrupt precticee; union. torch .eorruption ewers
recent; and, secondly, thateuch inquiries ought to be,pro-
ceeded with immediate)
.Rtberwise they Might deprive the
country far one or two yeareOf 'its proper hombei of
e-- ' repre-
sentative(Hatir,'hear.) lir the present case, hOWeVer, as
the seat had beed kept open" n ihotiths,'airid: as. a' general
election was So near et haift(Ctielers)-ehe did" ot thihk it
would be right to move!for; anew vrrit --(Beare:heir.) •
Mr. J. BELL thought that the. case of.,Sti:Albans male:bad
enongli, Withnut making ,-any,7warset.,than it, was,-
(Laughter.) lie thonghtit was very sniverato exaggerate,
the- amount of its, c0r,r40,194e• eAceording,Ao the, figures of
the Cemmissionere'. relive-ether's; were 200 voters ,against
whom there was ne.allega.fierri:o(.bilbery ork 'corruption, and
therefore the corruption Wai.ii9lnniVertiel: „With „respect t
the present metros hit WieTte a'aennesi'hat'dlffienityotidn?
If he voted for -the prOpttadd he should' inta iheppost-'
Lion to the argnmeinthe had need in faViiiii'ef'SCAllnartie-1-
(Laughter)- and if he voted against -it.,!heshotild be appa-
rently voting in favour of corruption.--(Laughter.) -
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL objected to the animadversions
which the Hon. Member (Mr. Clay) had cast upon the
Election Committee. He (Mr. O'Connell). had sat upon
two Committees, in both of which the Members were un-
seated-in one of them (the Lincoln case) upon the very
smallest possible amount of evidence that could be considered
sufficient. Of course they were bound to see that the case
was proved according to the law of the land.—(Hear.)
Mr. CLAY had certainly no intention to censure the Com-
mittee, but he did think that they were not the best tribunals
for sitting evidence, as he thought had been confessed by the
issuing of commissions.—(Hear.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE protested against the idea that the
supposed approach of a general election was any reason why
a new writ should not be issued. The reason why it had not
been moved for in this case was, because the inquiry had been
pending. How would the evidence of Mr. Coppock have
been obtained but for the St. Albans Commission; and if the
Commission now asked for were issued. no doubt they would
be able to get the evidence Of Mr. Attwood, which would in-
duce the House to pegs a Bill for the disfranchisement of
Harwich. At all events, if the Commission did not issue, he
(Ir. Duncombe) should Certainly move for the new writ,
because he thought an injustice would'he chine; if they any
longer suspended it, to a :Very immaculate and honest be-
rough.—(Laughter.).. ;;
he.should not inove for the-writ,-"binlsblf,'4llear' hear. )
Mr. WALPOLE explained that under the circumstances
Mr. BAN KES e,xplained. :that, the 'petition to the House,
alleging that three of the five voters.:, who .constituted the
majority at
.the last Harwich eketionhad been intimidated
by the late Government, had: been placed in his hands by
persona whom he helieved.to be respectable ;; but he had no
further interest in ,the matter. Whatever. At the beginning,
of the present session there had been no: petition .praying fur
a renewal of the inquiry, and therefore,' although the same
Government was then .in office,: he,. had not thought it his
duty to press the subject. ~It was: quite. true that he , had
moved for a Comrnittee, butthat was a very different thing
from a Commissien. (Hear;•.hear.). With regard .to the
cese.of St. Aihena,, there..had been a • technical difficulty 'as
to the adjournment of the Cominittee,:luad that had vitiated
their whole proceedings.: So 41r.Vill4he from wishing to stretch
the power of the,Constitution,: that he had voted against. that
Commission, thinkingalat its powers should be intrusted to..
Members ofthat Henan; :-andwished they. had been: so.
The Houie would have stood higher hadthat inquiry been con-
. ducted by its members; ThateConunissiou haa-shaken their
jurisdiction, and-had tended.. to invalidate the • decisions;of
their Committees. At :present ha saw no ground for the pro-
posed:Commission. . Had, a Committee been proposed sup
torte 1 by such a petition :as
,had, presented, he would
have voted fur it.. ~If, thellon.; Member. for Finsbury would
move the issue of • the write for. Hernial, he would vote
with him. • • " : . ; ; ,
, Mr. DEEDES said ,he had acted as chairman of the
second Harwich, Election. Committee.. ,No:, evidence as to
bribery was laid before them; nor was. any conclusion .come
to en that subject::: • •Tllo.-ammittees. decisiennvas founded
entirely on a ,poiat of Jaw' atto whether the poll was kept
open the proper time--whether it lied ebeeneinterrapted.by.
improper violence-e-'‘and:.,whethene the returning officer -had-
takenthe steps he ought have The-Committee
thought he had not d00e,e9,-,•an.deconSequently :•cleemed•it a
void election. It had 'been ' ehaborough.. was so •
maculate why should it.oljeet to an; inquiry? That:might
be made an argument; 10c.,* Corentisaion •IW.any case where
there was no complaint whatever, ;He touldnot help think-
ing that Harwich waorither hardly-dealt with, :and he saw
no reason why a writ,ekonidaotissue. It was altogether an
unfair proceeding.-...
Sir. DE LACY EVANS,Iitt reply, said he was not aware
that the minority_ had anpsucit Reenliar Claims to consider-
ation as had :been urged by. the Honia Secretary; •le lad
always. understood. that; ;she- entatOrity decided everything.
He justified- the appointmenteof, the Commission by reference
to the case pfSLeAlbantheancitontended that great - benefit
had resulted therefrOm..e :7; , 7: ; -;- • -
Mr. ROEBUCK thought the ,proposal-:for a Commission
came rather too :The inquiry' at St.: Albans had been
insthuted merely to enable the House to arriveat, the ,facts ;
and upon these facts the Bill brought:in. by the Noble Lord
(Russell), and takert_np • the present', Government. was
founded. He could, not vote in. favour Of this,Commission;
and bethought they ought not to allow-that night to pass
without issuing the,writ.: lie would have.voted for this mo-,
tion had it been :made a. year .ago. Now, the :best thing
they .could do was ,to leteleterwich. have another trial•to
save itself from condemnation.- .:He had no doubt it was a
corrupt place a year ago but, the, Mcame
otion too late: •
T he House thenilivid4Whert there-appeared— •
For the,motion-..“-b:...".:,,‘ • ' -93 e-•, .•
Against it . . 137
• Majority:against the itiotion...ese....-e-e--41:-.
;Mr. T. DUNCOMBE . saidi:eas been decided that
no inquiry should take, lace, the House. had no right to dig.,
franchise the borough, either fur a- weeke :for, two weeks, or
a month. lie ,r therefore -:moved that the Speaker should.
issue his warrant to the-,clerk of ,the ,crown, directing a writ
to issue- for the.: borough, of Harwich, in the room of:Mr.
Crawford. : ere eee e.,!•-e-
Mr. BRIGHT said thisintition-seemedta follow: somewhat
naturally from the 7course! taken by,tbe Government, but
there was no necessity•that it should follow so • immediately:
A former attempt; hadbeennnade to move this- write and the
House had thought thatitehotild be suspended forsometime
suddenness f
longer, for some- cause not,Very clearly explained ;: but there
Tetel etsthdatiscinaosliti slaouudlduhael-e
was an understanding that.notice should be given before the.
writ was mevech After a debate which .was not supposed to
have any specialreference to thamotion, and after the pre-
and notieecrostansnedathiedg, to. *.couonldsiodoetrinbge fair
the propositiOnvand that Many Members had
loft the..no °
tion seeitkillose, baving-nwidea whatever that any such rno-
nhenittede he hoped ii !would be withdrawn,
merit, that the debateethe -holidays', He moved, as an amend=
to put it fa iv fora future day. it -would- be. better
taideeonded the -amendment. e • • .
ecethat was another most unfortunate
Sir DE L. EvAst,onid:beadjourned.
Sir J. .TYRELL
instance of the unti
of.d‘peared to him that 'the'
have a-finger in every-,
Hon. Gentleman, opp=„4,rdlt,'lmPronerinterference of the
not accede to the dicta-
tllhlianngc.h.estHereschhopcieodl wthereelideiteusreinwin'of. :to
said, ethat the Bharat,' party 'iniving -
laughter) - or concur tiorejustmade.
Mr. BROTIARTO ,t• hopedd
tion of tba.broad hr!rna_mthe:
irru,oppoulaitlou_,(,‘ oh,
,013,,,?
and
the_lebause would, not act in
opposition to the underetan inge ,)hat no; writ was to issue
without due flake, (Hear, helm )
vote as far as II
just joined in en unpopular v
erwich was:con-
. cerned, the Hon: 'Member:for Flnsbttrrnow4noved that the-,
writ do issue,
Mr. NEWDEGATE
although-he. had ilia 60w-declared- thatit • was
not fit to return a Member ear, bear.) The Hon, mem.
log for hipoliesta toreros WuWorepit .;.for. be.
- - -

Imoved that the issuing of the writ be postpond for ten days.
What he should suggest was that tha writ bemoved for to-
morrow (this day).—(" Hear, hear," and crie of" divide.")
Mr. BIaGEIT said that his motion was tha the debate be
adj,mrnecl.
Mr. DUNCOHBE said that he should be he last person
to ask the House to break through any • undemanding; but
the understanding was, that the writ shouldnot be issued
without inquiry. The Hon. Member for Wetaninster had
moved for an iaquir,y, and the House having,decided upon
that point, he bowed to the opinion of the najority ; but
:thenatural consequence of.l.hat declaim) was, that the elec-
tors of HarKich should not be deprived of heir rights.—
(Hear, hear.) lie believed the House 'was coupetent to de
''ride the question that night, but if it thotkht otherwise
he bad no objection to postpone the motion 111 to-morrow
.(this day).= ( Hear.)
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said that it was of the greatest
importance that'the House should not decide titan this ques-
tion hastily and without deliberation.. As age could be
no election before the Easter recess, he thought he sugges-
tion of the, Hon. Member for Manchester would Peet the ne-
cessity of thecase- „
WALPQLE said that when he gave his 'reasons for
thinking that the writ ought riot to be•issued; heanitted one
reason, for it might be suppose]. if he moved fir the writ,
tliat he did so in order to endeavour to obtain anadvantaga
Co the Government.—(Hear, hear.) He had thatopinion in,
his dein mind, though ite did 'not...express it. lot having,
already stated HIS reasons why he thought the vrit should
lie' issued; he should 'prefer that the -motion shouil be made
after notice given.—( Hear,)
The motion and ,amendment was then withdraws, and
Mr. DLINCOM BE gave, notice that he would move the
issuing of the writ to-morrow.
Cilgrt'OP-41ATtS
. .
TRELA'NNY'tIten rose to bring on the tn6t6n which
.he tad on t paper respecting church-rates, but
' Sir It: INGLIS interfered, and said that he tqfpialed not
AO much to the Hon.'Gentlernart at 'to the elock.--(a laugh.)wa's now ten -Minutes past 'eleven- o'clock, and he eked the.
Hon. Member whether, there was any chance of fo laver
tent a question as that of church-rates being satisfactorily
diecassed at that hour? The Hon. Member hirnsilf might
be,ableoto secure the attention of the House, but whit chance
was there for those who might follow him ? —(Hem.; hear.).
Mr. TRELAWNY said if it was the general feelitg of the
House he Waa 'willing to postPone'the motionlear.)
Motion Accordingly postponed. • • ,
' • •• ' • POOR-LAW COMNIISSION
Sir J. TROUOPE moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
continue the Poor-law Commission for a limited Um*.
Sir G. PECHELL complained, at some length, of the con-
duct of the Poor-law Commission in its attempt to sbolish
the Gilbert unions throughout the country, and partitularly
blamed the. Commissioners ter the course 'vihich'thef had
pursued with reference ,to the parish of Alverstoke with
Gosport. The Hon. Baronet, after haying commented at
some length on that case, concluded by expressing his belief
'that there was nothing to justify the conduct of the,loor-
law Commissioners in the matter.
In reply to a Question from Lord D. STUART,
Sir J. TROLLOPE thought his, Hon. and Gallant Prtend
(Sir G. Pechell) ought to have deferred his motion for copies
of the report Mr. Hawley made to the Poor-law Commis-
ioners until he (Sir J. Trollops) had introduced his Bill for
continuing the Poor-law Commission for a limited' period.
As for the Bill, he only sought by it to continue the Poor-
Tali' Commission for two years, and he should now venture
tO ask the House to allow bins to introduce his Bill.
Leave was given to introduce the Bill,
• Sir J. TROLLOPE moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
continuo• an- Act of the fifteenth year of her Majesty, for
charging the maintenance of certain poor persons iu unions
in England and Wales upon the common fund.
Sir H.. WILLOUGHBY inquired whether it was the
intention of the Hon Member (Sir J. Trollops) to wind up
the Commission at the end of twit years?
Sir J. TROLLOPE replied, the matter did not rest with
him. lie now only asked for leave to bring in his Bill.
The Bill was then brought in.
Sir'G. PECHELL moved for copies of the report made
to the Poor-law Board by Mr. Hawley, ppor-law inspector,
the parish,
of.
d Alverstokee the 2Oth day
with o f
Gosport, October,i incorporated
relatingrateunder Gilbart's
Act, with,a copy of the order issued by the Poor-law Board
guardianst2oBththeeavyisoitfoFreabnrduar7Bs2t
wofiththtehescaop
said: parish,
of the letter that. arish, dated the
aCcompanied the same, dated 'the 9th day of March, 1852;
together
,the "Copies of all cOrrespendence which has
'taken place since the last-mentioned-date oetween the Poor-
law Board and the gnat diens of the poor of the said parish,
'and other parties, on the 'subject Of such order.' And, of
aCkoeuLr' tenay, on the on the 21st
the several reports made en the inspection of Alverstoke
dawoyrkohfoDuseec,ebmyb heir,esslrBsi9Ci by Viscount_
ampbell nCi G"
Ist day of. August, 1850: by Mr. Redduck, on the 9th day
of April, 1851; and by Mr. Hawley, or the sth day of June,
1851.
Sir .J, TROLLOPE objected to the latter part of the
motion.
Sir G. PECHELL must insist on having it.
Sir J. TROLLOPE could not comply, as the papers were
not in possession of the Poor-law Board.
'Sir G. PECHELL withdrew the latter part of the motion,
and the amended motion was agreed to.
Sir G. PECHELL moved for a return of the amount o(
freight-money, received by the treasurer of Greenwich Hos.
,pital. in each year, since the year 1819, stating in what pro-
- portion -the freight-money for the conveyance of specie is
divided betweeen the royal hospital, the captains and con -
. mandera' of
,her Majesty's ships, and the admirols and
conimodoree of the 'several stations where the treasure. was
embarked.
The motion was agreed to.
'' 'The O'GOR3IAN MASON- obtained, leave to bring in
to amend the Acta for lighting towns in Ireland, and
for promoting trade, commerce, and public revenue by drain-
age and navigation, so far as relates to Ennis and the River
Fergus.
MUNICIPAL • CORPORATION ACTS AMENDMENT

BILL.
The House having gone into Committee on the Bill,
Mr. HEADLAM moved, as an amendment, the addition
of the tbllowing 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 Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against ...
Majority against ...
The clause wa4 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.

••• ••• - -
... .. .. 37
... ... -24

Rear-Admiral Berkeley, C. 8., paired oft' for, with Mr.
Colville, against, Mr. Berkeley's motion on the ballot.
Mr. George Thompson paired in favour of Mr. Tre7
lawny's motion on chntch-rates, With Mr. H. C. Lacy.

........___________
WESTII22I VSTER-BRIDGE.
The following is the, report of the Westminster^
bridge Commission of 1851:
"10 THE LORDS CoMuissicasEns OF riER MAJESTY'S
Tnuasunir.
" We, the Commissioners appointed under the
directions contained in a letter from your Lord-
ships dated the 20th of Daa
y 1851, nominating us
to b 1 ;Commissioners for the purpose of ~ con-
sidering the best end most convenient site for
a new bridge et Westminster, and, at the same
time, what will bo the best mode of construction with re-
ference both to the traffic over it and to the purposes of
examined witnesses, and taken the
onpaivnigioanti°ofns'e g
ehearvtillnmost 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
sd to be t
be
s stated
tof theseCoi
r opinionmmittee madebas,
tta
in
Clit i
not be required; but they recom-
mended new
the
bridge year
could
strengtheningotelere theod present structure.
unanimously that the f 1846 took a different view of the
mended certain alterations for the purpose of 'improving
subject,
un
.bd:i
eTebt,em
aened r
m is,
present
bridge should be taken down and that a new bridge
eli,utd be constructed. -
" The Committee of 1850, concurring in this opinion,
advised that a power should be taken by Act of Parlia-
maii to. erect a temporary bridge adjoining the present
etructtire, in case such a work should be rendered ne-
cessary; aid they further recommended than an inquiry
should be made for the purpose both of ascertaining the
most economical mode of building another bridge on or
the present site, and also of deciding the height of head-
way above Trinity datum which would be necessary for
the convenience of the navigation.
-" This temporary bridge not hiving been commenced,
the expediency of acting under the power conferred by
Parliament in the session of 1850 is open for reconside-
ration,
" The subject of our inquiries divides intself into two
portions—one having reference to the uestion of ' site'
q
for the new bridge, and the other as to its ' mode of cone
struction.' .'. - • -
'‘ In the evidence we hare taken several sites were
suggested for our .consideration :—.

"-1.. That the new bridge should be on the site of the
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
es
near
as
possible to, the present structure.
" The advantage of the first of these Plans, . that the
new bridge should be on the site of the present bridge,'
•
planwould necessarily
the
ee consider that
is, that the approaches would be provided without ,
and occasion both
addi-
tional expense • but, on the othhr hatend
of
fetshee
papproachesresehtailyariee
crienaasdinecigtmtrtaefil—c
involve the erection of a temporary bridge; and we are
inconvenience and danger. This
informed that the site of ' the old piers would present
•dilfieulties in constructing the foundation of new piers.
This course would, moreover, also necessitate the entire
removal of the old bridge before the new ene could be'
commenced, 'and would 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 completion of
theSe successive structures should not be overlooked. A
temporary bridge could not be biought lute use in less
than IS months from its commencement, and the works
for the new permanent structure could not be com-
menced till the opening of the temporary bridge. We
are also informed that tho permanent bridge could not
be constructed in two years. £he 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.tlle
present site as the 'best suited for the new bridge, and
we deem it desirable; to select a site which may enable
us to avoid the expense and the delay of
a temporary
bridge.
With respect to the second -plan—' That the new
bridge should be built st•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 lien of -the existing. viestmin.
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-cross, Richmond-terrace, the India
Roard._ pll these'are more or less liable- to the same
objections, namely, an increase of expense and additional
delay in aecuring a permanent communication acroks
I,4o,rivor,

...•••• • -