The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-04 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL.

The City House of Commons held a special meet-
ing yesterday in the Council Chamber, Guildhall,
for the purpose of receiving a report from the
Bridge House Estates Committee, in reference to
certain proceedings proposed to be adopted by the
London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, in
relation to the property of the Corporation upon the
south side of Blackfriara bridge.

The Right Hon. the Lord Mayor presided, and
there was also a full attendance of members of the
Upper Bench.
It will be recollected that at the last meeting of
the Court a report was made by the Bridge House
Estates Committee, detailing the steps that were
proposed to be taken by the London, Chatham, and
Dover Railway, to deal with the public stairs on
the south side of the bridge, and other property be-
longing to the Corporation on the same spot, and
the Court was asked to empower the committee to
confer with the railway company, with a view, if
possible, to come to some amicable arrangement,
and, if not, to empower them to oppose the bill in
Parliament ; it being understood that no step should
be taken without receiving the sanction of the
Court.

The report was read, and it appeared from it that
the committee had been in communication with the
solicitor, engineer, and secretary of that company,
with respect to the said bill, and particularly with
respect to the road and footway in front of Albion-
place, on the south side of Blackfriars-bridge, in-
tended to be taken by the said bill for the purpose
of a railway station for the company, which it was
proposed by the committee should be left, so as to
preserve it for the use of the public ; but the com-
pany would not accede to that proposal, The com-
mittee, therefore, feeling that the road and footway
in front of Albion-place should be preserved as an
ornament to the south side of the bridge, and as a
proper means of access to the stairs of the present
as well as of the proposed new bridge, recommended
that they should be empowered to prosecute the
petition agreed to by the Court against that bill.
_ .

Mr. H. WELLINGTON VALLANCE, chairman o:

the Bridge House Estates Committee, briefly ex-
plained the facts to the Court, and said the com-
mittee had been waited upon by a deputation from
the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, and
the committee had explained to the deputation the
inconvenience that would arise from such an en-
croachment ; but he regretted to say that they
would not agree to the proposal of the committee.
He said not only did they want to encroach on
Albion-place, but they proposed making four lines
of rails across Holland-street, upon a level with
that street ; and it seemed to him that it was the
duty of the Corporation to resist those encroach-
ments. He concluded by moving the adoption of
the report.
Mr. BLAKE, in seconding the motion, said that

he represented the interests of those on that side
of the water, and informed the Court that the in-
habitants had already petitioned Parliament against
the encroachment.

Mr. HARTRIDOE said he wished to call the atten-
tion of the Court to a serious charge of delay that
was made at a meeting of the London, Chatham,
and Dover Railway Company at which he hap-
pened to be present, and he hoped the chairman of
the Bridge House Committee would reply to the
charge, and show that the Corporation were not to
blame in the matter.
Mr. HOLBOYD stated that the design for the
proposed bridge of the company had long since been
sanctioned by the Admiralty and Thames Board of
Conservancy, and the corporation had not yet given
/ their deoiaion in the matter, and nothing more than

wanted to en-
able thea bl e approvalthe
contractorsof the
immediately
corporation lv
to as
commence.
M Peto said that, as a contractor, he ir;:?! that his
firm had grievous cause of complaint against
corporation. They bad secured all the land up to
Holland-street and Earl-street at a cost of not less
than £13,000, and they had expended £28,000 in
plant and machinery, and had lost the interest on
the money for the last ten months, and still matters
remained in their present state.
Mr. HARTRIDGE said he had no sympathy with
the company; still he should like to hear somejus-
tification for the delay.
"srt
Mr. VALLANCF said that the public Mign nut-
gine that the plan of a five-arched bridge of the
company had been approved of by the Admiralty
Board and the Thames Board of Conservancy. The
fact was, that the company had sent in a plan for
a nine-arched bridge, thinking the corporation were
going to build a bridge with nine arches, and that
had been approved of ; but when a five-arched
bridge was contemplated by the corporation, the
company withdrew their plan of nine arches, and
presented a plan for a bridge with five arches,
which, it had been asserted, had been approved by
the Admiralty and Thames Conservancy Boards,
and he had invited Mr. Holroyd to make a public
refutation of that assertion. He had then seen that
no such approbation had bpihn_ gix_en, and he (the
speaker) knew, of his own knowledge, that such
was the case.

Mr. Deputy FRY said he was one of the board of
the Thames Conservancy, and 13,e, new thit iteir
sanction had not been grantedtfltifFof fi've
arched bridge, which had beent UWisiby the Co
pany, after withdrawing their planVerce,'b"rAt
with nine arches.

Mr. VALLENCE said he might add that he had
since received a communication from the company
to the effect that, if the Corporation decided upon
building a bridge with three arches, they are quite
willing to build a bridge with three arches likewise.
The motion was then put and carried.