The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-05 00:00:00

We see with regret that the motion for recommit-
ting the Albert Bridge Bill was thrown out in the
House of Lords. It may be remembered that the
committee, after hearing evidence on the side of the
objectors, intimated to the promoters of the bill
that their witnesses were not required, and these
gentlemen were consequently surprised to learn
subsequently that the committee had arrived at
decision adverse to their wishes. The question of
the tolls seems to have occasioned some difficulty,
but if further evidence had been heard, it would
have appeared that the promoters were ready to in-
troduce a clause into the bill to enable the public to
redeem the tolls on the bridge on the payment of
the cost of the bridge and 10 per cent. interest.
The committee diverged from the main point into
indefinite generalities, saying in their report that
they considered the whole question of bridge
accommodation should be brought under
the consideration of some public depart-
ment, with a view to the eventual abolition of
the toll system. As Lord CHELMSFORD justly
observed, a similar report was made by a
select committee some years ago, without pro-
ducing any effect up to the present day. Be-
cause the toll system is justly disapproved of,
and its-speedy abolition is in every way desirable,
that is no reason why the public are to to lose
a substantial advantage. Certainly, if there is
no bridge there can be no toll to pay, but it is absurd
to expect that private individuals or companies are
to expend their money on matters of public conveni-
ence. If the Government erect a bridge all well and
good, let it be flee by all means. But if we are to
take advantage of private enterprise we must surely
repay the promoters. To this day Waterloo-bridge,
one of the finest that span our river, is subject to a
toll. The late beautiful suspension-bridge at Hun-
gerford imposed a similar tax on passengers. Ac-
cording to the calculations made, the increased value
of the property around would have defrayed the
cost of the bridge in four years. For this short
interval, then, it was surely not worth while to
oppose the construction of so great a public conve-
nience. There is no doubt that the bridge in ques-
tion is greatly needed. Battersea old• bridge impedes
navigation seriously by its defective construction,
and the sooner it is replaced by a strong and well-
built bridge the better. The opposition made to the
motion seemed to take its stand mainly on a point of
honour—that, as thecommittee of the Home had come
to the conclusion in question, it would be deroga-
tory to their lordships to reverse it. But, however
great the consideration due to points of etiquette,
they should not be suffered to stand in the way of
the public service; and if a committee has decided
on the hearing of ex parte evidence, it is but right
that they should be asked to reconsider that deci-
sion. If there is now fresh evieence to be heard cn
the matter, it should surely be listened to and
given a fair hearing. According to Lord
CHELMSFORD; the only opposition offered
to the new scheme is on the part of the
proprietors of Battersea old bridge, a ricketty struo
ture, which probably fears the proximity o

another new rival. It is worth noticing that not-
withstanding the strong opposition of Lord
rAUNTON, late Chairman of the Committee, to the
motion, Lord BE Ros, who was upon it, expressed
his hope that the bill would be recommitted, as
he understood that much additional evi-

deuce would be brought in its favour. The
same side was taken by the Earl of

DER/3Y, who remarked that as the corn.

mittee appeared to have rejected the bill on a

point on which no evidence was taken and no
counsel heard, he thought their lordships would do
well to order its recommittal. Lord GRANVILLE,

while exonerating the cimmittee from blame,

thought that the bridge would be very advantage

ous, and was therefore anxious that its cause should

be again heard. Lord TAUNTON on this changed the
ground of his opposition, and stood upon the

infringement of the dignity of the Lordships' House,

All arguments were unavailing, and the motion was

throwu out by a majority of 11. There still remains

the possibility of referring the bill to another corm

mittee ; and we hope t hat, on the principle of Audi

aileron partem, this will be shortly done, and the
public allowed to judge for themselves the true

state of the case.

'he Brutality of Manners of Peter (called,

the Great!

He was an irredeemable savage—says the
Spectator—reigning over a people but one degree
less bloodthirsty than himself. The Czar had been
absent in Belgium but returned post haste on in-
telligence of the revolt meditated by the Strelitz,
Ile Czar held a feast on the day of the New Year,
tat September, and invited among his nobles some
common sailors, " with whom the Czar repeatedly
mixed, divided apples, even honouring one of them
by calling him brother." All this while the Court
barber was shaving such of the guests as wore the
beard, and the refractory were punished by repeated
boxes on the ear. At the very first dinner to the
Embassy his Majesty told the Polish Envoy, jesting
on his fatness, " It was not in Poland, but here in
Moscow, that you crammed yourself," a low-bred
hit at the free maintenance the Czar gave to all
Ambassadors. Then, quarrelling with the General.
in-Chief, he left the room, questioned the private
soldiers as to his misdeeds, and returning, "drew
his sword and facing the General-in-Chief,
horrified the guests with this threat, 'By striking
thus I will mar thy mal-go7ernment.' Boiling over
with well grounded anger, he appealed to Prince
Romadonowski and to Dumno Mikitim Mosciwicz,
but finding them excuse the General-in-Chief, he
grew so hot that he startled all the guests by strik-
ing right and left, he knew not where, with his
drawn sword. lines Romadonowski had to com-
plain of a cut finger, and another of a Blight wound
on the head. Mikitim Mosciwicz was hurt in the
hand as the sword was returning from a stroke. A
blow far more deadly was aiming at the General-in-
Chief." He was saved by General Lefort, the Czar's
tutor, and probably the only man he ever loved, but
his master's affection did not save him from a " hard
blokwo
ffo n
dtahnec
ibnagc
with
hs Anotherswor
devening seei
taughtn g Mheinm-
to lay it aside "by inflicting a box, to the force of
which the blood that spouted abundantly from his
nose bore witness." On another occasion, while
General Lefort was giving a dinner to the Envoy
and the Czar, Peter, annoyed by the quarrelling of
two of the guests, high nobles cf the Court, threat-
ened them with immediate death, and violently
struck his host for attempting to mitigate his fury.

A marriage will take place early in June be
tween Mr. T. IV. Wilson, late of The Grove, near
Newcaslle-under•Lyne, nephew of Sir E. Colt, Bart., and
Ida Grosvenor Heathcote, second daughter of Mr. Frank
Heathcote, of Mountfield House, Eling, Hants, and first
cousin of Lord Aveland, of Normanton Park. Another
marriage will also take place, shortly afterwards, between
ys
Mr. Lyttleton Powys, Maurice, eldest son of the Rev. E.
Maurice, of Michaelmas, near Romsey, nephew of the late
aajor Pow
and first cousin of the present Lord Lilford, and nephew of
Keck and the Bishop of Sodor and Man, and
Ge orginia Elizabeth Heathcote, the eldest daughter of Mr.
Frank Heathcote, of Mountfield Eling.

the final result of this insurrection for Poland, as
regards the credit and character of Prussia, as repre-
sented by her Ministers and sanctioned by her Sove-
reign,there is but one thing to acknowledge, and that
is; that she bas retrogradedin the eyes of observing
Europe. A blot has been put on her annals that
will tarnish her glory whenever that page of the
historian is read, that chronicle these transactions in
the Polish insurrection.