The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENIAO, MAY 19, 18b5.

staircases 27 feet high), thereby severing the two main
arteries of traffic, and which, if so carried into effect, must
occasion great loss and injury to the trade and property of
Farringdon ward. The plan submitted by the ward pro-
vided for direct communication between the high and low
level, and was one which should be adopted, inasmuch as
it not only remedied all evils which the bridging over the
Holborn valley was intended to obviate, but in addition
greatly improved Farringdon-market, making it easily ac-
cessible for traffic, and also the various streets and
thoroughfares adjoining. The petitioners said they had
carefully examined the financial part of the question, and
that by the adoption of the ward plan a great saving would
be effected, inasmuch as two streets contemplated by the
corporation plan and which would cost £300,000, would be
entirely superseded ; and further, that in order to provide
for the necessity of an approach from the south, not con-
templated in the City plan, an increased cost of £400,000
at the very least would have to be incurred, but which the
adoption of the ward plan would render unnecessary.
They also adverted to the fact that by the adoption of the
ward plan the property in Farringdon-street and its neigh-
bourhood would largely increase in rateable value, irrespec-
tive of the annual value of the arches under the roadways,
which would realise at least £3,000 a year. They, there-
fore, prayed the Court to cause a reconsideration of the
whole subject.
The petitioners underwent examination from different
members of the Court as to the details of their plan, Mr.
Deputy Lott eliciting from them that their plan did not
include side streets, and if it had the attendant expense
would be greater than that of the corporation plan.
Mr. Deputy FRY, the chairman of the improvement
committee, to whom the work of raising the valley has
been entrusted, said the corporation plan was adopted after
anxious consultation with eminent engineers, and after-
wards received the sanction of Parliament in all its great
leading features. He never looked upon that plan as
complete. It had certain failings, which the committee
hope to have obviated. The plan of Mr. Abrahams,
which was so lightly recommended by the petitioners, had
been carefully considered by the committee, assisted by the
City architect, but they had rejected it, on the grounds
chiefly that it divided and narrowed two noble streets—
Farringdon-street and Farringdon-road, and concentrated
and crossed the traffic, Which it had been a great object
with the corporation of late years to distribute on the very
centre of the proposed viaduct. The corporation plan on
the other hand would diffuse the traffic by four different
streets, and prevent any of that from the north or south
coming upon the viaduct at all. Another objection to the
plan of Abrahams was that it contemplated taking down
the whole of the western side of Farringdon-street. Re-
plying to the statement by the petitioners that, according
to the corporation plan, there were no means of getting from
the low to the high level, he said the corporation proposed
that there should be a street from Farringdon-street to
Shoe-lane, leading from the. low to the high level, and at
the same time improvifig -Alti--.3%prltches to the market.
There would be similar facilities for ascending from Far-
ringdon-road to the higher level, while there would be a
main thoroughfare running east and west. The corporation
would also take permissive powers to widen Fleet-lane and
at the same time to afford additional facilities for reaching
the high level.
After some further discussion,
Alderman Sir J. Dula moved that the petition be re-
ferred to the improvement committee with the view to their
hearing further evidence on the general subject before
deciding to adopt any plan.
The motion was lost on a division by a large majority,
and the court adjourned.