The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-13 00:00:00

COURT OP COMMON COUNCIL

Yesterday a Court was held for the dispatch of busi-
ness, the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor in the chair.
BLACKPRIARS AND SOUTHWARK BRIDGES.
Mr. R. C. BUCKNALL then moved that the further
consideration of the report on the reference in relation
to the proposed erection of a new bridge between Black-
friars and Southwark bridges; delivered in on the 14th
of April, 1853, he then proceeded with.
After the CHAIRMAN had introduced the report, he
simply moved that the Court should agree with the
Committee in the same. •
The motion having been seconded,
Mr. Cox moved, as an amendment, that the report be
referred back to the Committee, that the parties might
confer with her Majesty's Government as to Blackfriars-
bridge, and the one propOsed at Paul's-wharf, and as to
the mode of raising the funds for the purpose.
Alderman SALOMONS differed entirely from the state-
ments made in the report. He advocated the opening
of Southwark-bridge to the public free. The worthy
alderman repudiated many of the statements made by
Mr. Bennoch, in his recent publication, entitled, Are
more Bridges needed ? He (Alderman Salomons)
thought that Mr. Stephenson's report was conclusive in
favour of Southwark-bridge, -Which that gentleman
thought was all that was required. The question, he
considered, was not ripe for consideration, as to the
erection of a new bridge. He had no shares in South-
wark-bridge, nor any interest in it, directly or indirectly,
but he did hope that some communication would be
made by the Court with the Southwark-bridge proprie-
tors, with a view to an arrangement as to the opening
of the said bridge to the public.
Mr. BENNOCH, at great length, brought before the
Court the whole of the principal features of his scheme
for the erection of a new bridge between Blackfliars and
Southwark bridges, as proposed in the pamphlet he had
published. The majority of these propositions have,
from time to time, appeared in the public papers, so that
it it is not necessary to repeat them here ; but this may
be said, that neither as to the necessity for the bridge,
on the ground of increasing traffic; Or the cost of its
construction, and for the approaches, did that gentleman
deviate in a single instance.
Mr. T. H. HALL ridiculed the idea of a new bridge
being erected for the sum Mr. Bennoch had set down.
He thought, with some judicious alterations, that South-
wark-bridge would answer all the purposes required.
Mr. DE JERSEY did not consider that a new bridge, as
proposed, was necessary, besides which, the Bridge-
house estates were pledged for many years, so that they
had not the power to provide funds for the proposed
erection.

Alderman LAWRENCE strongly argued in favour of
additional bridge accommodation. As to the raising of
the funds he was of opinion in that case there would be
not the slightest difficulty. He thought that the popu-
lation might be taxed at the rate of a few pence in the
pound for such a purpose ; and as to the Corporation
being responsible, he considered that the Bridge-house
Estates Committee or the Corporation, need not fear be-
ing in debt in, such a case. He should glory in seeing
the City in debt five millions of money, as the municipal
authorities in France were, the money having been laid
out in public improvements stretched over a period of
years as to payment. He was for having the plans
made for the new bridge, and for inquiries being insti-
tuted for the raising of the money as soon a. possible,
and, in the best manner..

Mr. GRESHAM quoted' from the report of Robert
Stephenson, Esq., in favour of Southwark-bridge and
urged delay in the matter, because of the motion of Mr.
Oliveira in the House of Commons, with reference to a
general inquiry into the present state of the metropo-
litan bridges, and the necessity for increased bridge
accommodation.
Deputy HARRISON showed that the Bridge-house
Estates Committee had not the pecuniary means of pro-
moting the project of Deputy Bennoch. The rent and
income of the Bridge-house Estates, upon the credit of
which he wished to raise the amount of money required,
was 32,000/. per annum. There was a charge upon
this of 6,0001., reducing the sum to 26,0001., and, taking
a set-off annually (which would expire in 187) of 21, 5501.,
they would find that the present net annual income was
only 4, 450/., Out Of which they had to provide for arm ual re-
pairs, and the lighting and watching of Blackfriars-bridge
at 7001., and for the interest on 73,1001., namely, 2,9671.;
total, 3,667/. They had left, p
to a off the exisn
debt of 73,1001., the small sum of 783 y /. only, while tithe g rebuilding of Blackfriars-bridge, as already agreed upon,
would amount, as estimated, to 350,0001.
Mr. H. L. TAYLOR, at this stage of the proceedings,
proposed the following amendment (Mr. Cox having by
agreement withdrawn his), namely, "That the further
consideration of the report be adjourned, and that it be
an instruction to the committee to consider in the mean-
time whether it be desirable to throw open to the public
Southwark-bridge, and to ascertain if the proprietors
are willing to dispose of their interests therein," and
further, that it be an instruction to the committee
" to confer with her Majesty's Government as to raising
the necessary funds and to report to the court."
This amendment was eventually carried, and shortly
afterwards the court adjourned.

DIRECT LONDON AND PORTSMOUTH RAILWAY.—We
feel great pleasure in stating that letters have been re-
ceived from the solicitors of the above projected line,
announcing that no further opposition is to be antici-
pated from the existing companies. We trust the com-
pletion of this undertaking will be as successful as its
commencement has been auspicious•--Portmunteh Guar-
dian.