The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-21 00:00:00

-

Whether internal troubles lead
England, or whether, as is mor, 14414.
will draw upon India to help , thalZhattr,
she did against the First Bonapk rosP '
war, or to take part in the troubles th4:will dad
on the expulsion of the Turk from Europe, Egypt
must be our great, our sole military highway. It
must never be said of India as it was of England
in her war with the United States—that she failed
because of the distance over which reinforcements
had to be sent. Yet that distance was only 3,000
miles; at present ours is 14,000, measured by four
long, demoralising months.—Friend of India.
CITY SEWERS COMMISSION.

The commissioners of sewers of the City of Lon-
don assembled on Tuesday, at the Guildhall, at
twelve o'clock. Mr. Deputy De Jersey presided,
end among the members of the Court present were
Dluties Annis, Read, Pewtress, Perkins, Hard-
ton, Salf, Bower, Obbard, C. Reed, Farrar, (Under-
sheriff), 0 wden, Lorkin, Dr. Abraham, Messrs. Geo.
Walter, C.Youn g, Dads w ell, J.T.Young, Croucher, J.
Symonds, Houghton, Murrell, Fricker, Teulon,
Israel, Green, Saunders, Farlow, Matthews, Bun-
ning, Alcock, &c.
TIIE PROPOSED RAILWAY BRIDGE ACROSS
LUDGATE HILL.

Deputy HARRISON said that, seeing the parlia-
mentary officer of the Commission present, he de..
sired to ask him whether the clauses which had been
agreed to be inserted in the Ludgate Station, &c.
Railways Bill were to be included in the bill about
to be applied for by the London, Chatham, and
Dover Railway, for an extension of time for the
purpose of carrying out their railway works.
The Solicitor to the Commission, Mr. A. S.
BAYLIS, said that the clauses agreed upon had been
duly inserted in the Ludgate Station and Junction
Railways Bill, but that bill had since been with-
drawn. The only bill now before Parliament affect-
ing the proposed railway and bridge across Lud-
gate•hill was that proposed by the London, Chat-
ham, and Dover Railway Company, and they ap-
plied for an extension of time for carrying out their
railway works. He (Mr. Baylis) had submitted
clauses to the promoters to get them inserted in the
bill, but it was exceedingly doubtful whether this
could be accomplished, as the court was not before
the house by petition against that particular bill,
but against the bill which had been withdrawn.
Deputy HARRISON thought that under the altered
circumstances it should be referred to the Improve-
ment Committee to consider whether some steps
should not be taken to procure the insertion of the
clauses which had by consent been introduced into
itthebebirlelfewrhreicdh
had
to th
eb
le
me npro v e
m withdrawn.enH
te 0 mme
itt movedee t
o that
-
sider if any steps could be advantageously taken to
pr Bill
omoti e n the
the House
interests
oppose the London, Chatham, and Dover Com-
) any' s
Commons, (Extension
otherwise of
Time)
to of
of the City. _ _

Mr. MURRELL seconded the motion, which was
put and carried.
THE THAMES EMBANKMENT (NORTH SIDE) BILL.
The CHAIRMAN reported to the Court, that the
opposition to this bill had failed, and that the bill
which proposed to vest the control of the subways
as well as the making of the new street, in the
Metropolitan Board of Works had passed the
House of Commons.
Mr. BAYLIS recapitulated the various proceedings
which had been taken to protect the interests of the
City, and in particular to have vested in the com-
mission the control of the subway as well as the
new street when completed.
Mr. C. Youria moved that it be referred to the
Improvement Committee, to take such steps in re-
gard to opposing the bill in the House of Lords, as
they might be advised.
Mr. MURRELL seconded the motion, which was
agreed to.