The Sun.
London, England, 1853-10-29 00:00:00

DUES OF THE PORT OF LONDON.

The TOWN CLERK read the following document, which
bad been received by the Lord Mayor :
" Shipping Dues Commission-office, 15, Parliament-
street, Oct. 18, 1853.

"My Lord,—Her Majesty having been pleased to
issue a commission, of which a copy is attached, we, the
commissioners, have the honour to request that your
lordship will be good enough to furnish us with the re-
quisite information as respects the charges (with the ex-
ception mentioned in the commission) levied or levible
in the port of London on ships, or on goods carried in
ships, by or on behalf of the corporation of the city of
London.

" We have the honour to forward to your lordship
some copies of the questions which we have addressed to
the authorities of the various harbours throughout the
kingdom, showing the particular points to which our in-
quiries are directed.

- "We have the honour to be, my Lord, your mos.
obedient servants,

" H. MANNERS SUTTON.
" C. B. W. D. BETHUNE.
" COLIN BLACKBURN."
CONTEMPLATED PURCHASE OP SOUTHWARK-BRIDGE.
Mr. R. C. BUCKNALL, chairman of the Bridgehouse
Estates Committee, moved the adoption of the following
report, which was read by Mr. Woodthorpe
To the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor, Aldermen,
and Commons of the city of London, in Common
Council assembled.
"We, whose names are hereunto subscribed, your corn-
Mittee for letting the Bridgehouse Estates, to whom, on
the 12th of May last, it was referred to consider whether
it was desirable to throw open Southwark-bridge, and to
ascertain if the proprietors were willing to dispose of their
interest therein, also to consider the terms for so doing,
and to confer with her Majesty's Government as to raising
the necessary funds for the purpose, do certify that we
proceeded in the said reference, and caused to be laid
before us the several proceedings of the committee in
relation to a former negotiation with the directors of the
Southwark-bridge Company, when they stated their
willingness to sell the bridge for the sum of 300,000/., and
having carefully considered the same, we directed a com-
munication to be made to the directors of the Southwark-
bridge Company, referring to the former negotiation,
and stating that we had since been given to understand
that some alteration had taken place in the views of the
company, and requesting to be informed of the terms upon
which the directors would now be disposed to part with
their interest in the bridge. We have since received a
letter from the secretary to the company, stating that the
directors were of opinion that subsequent to the com-
munication which passed between them and your com-
mittee in 1849, circumstances had occurred to increase
the prospective value of the bridge ; and the directors,
therefore, did not feel justified in recommending the pro-
prietors to sell the bridge with the approaches for a less
sum than 300,000/. ; but, if your committee would
agree to purchase the bridge at that sum, exclusive of
Parliamentary and all other expenses, the directors would
take the sense of the proprietors thereon ; and we, hav-
ing fully considered the subject, are of opinion that it
would not he expedient to purchase Southwark-bridge
upon the terms proposed by the company. All which
we submit to the judgment of this honourable Court.
"Dated this 14th day of October, 1853.
" R. E. BUCKNALL, JAMES BAILEY,
JAMES WATERLOW, J. R. THOMPSON,
JAMES M. BARNARD, H. CHAPLIN,
THOS. BARKLEY, W. LISTER,
R. G. PEAD, W. HAWTREY,
JOSEPH CAUSTON, JAMES WARREN,
WILLIAM W. PiectiEß.”
Deputy BENNOCH said that part of the reference made
to the Bridge-house Estates Committee was to inquire
of the Government whether they would assist the corpo-
ration in any way in raising the funds. As the com-
mittee were silent upon this point, he apprehended they
considered the sum so preposterously large that they
had taken no step upon this part of the reference.
Deputy PEWTRESS said he should be very sorry if the
Court were to agree to the report under the present cir-
cumstances, which were of a different character to those
existing in 1849. When it was considered that Cannon-
street had been rebuilt, that Queen-street had been pulled
down as far as Southwark-bridge, it must be at once per-
ceived that the bridge was infinitely more valuable now
than it was a few years ago. (Hear, hear, hear.) Ex-
treme inconvenience was sustained daily on account of
the crowded state of London-bridge and its approaches,
and it was quite evident that another bridge was re-
quired for the purpose of conveying the enormous traffic
of the City to the Surrey side of the water. (Hear, hear.)
Southwark-bridge would take off more than one-third of
the traffic, and would be one of the greatest possible
reliefs to the metropolis, The bridge had cost between
700,000/. and 800,000/., and the proprietors now offered
to sell it for 300,0001., thus making an immense pecu-
niary sacrafice ; and as a new bridge and proper ap-
proaches could not be made for anything like this sum,
he would move—" That the report he referred back to
the committee, to ascertain by professional inquiry as
to the strength and durability of the Southwark-bridge,
and that they be authorised to continue the negotiation
with the directors, and to report to this Court."
Mr. RosE said, that feeling as he did the great im-
portance of the subject, and the great want of street
accommodation, he very cordially seconded the amend-
ment. (Hear, hear.) If any member of the -Court
would take the trouble to go. over London-bridge, be-
tween the hours of four and six o'clock in the afternoon,
he would see the utter impossibility' of the traffic of the
metropolis being carried on with the bridge in its exist-
ing state, and would at once admit the necessity for
immediate, alteration, for the purpose of counteracting
the inconvenience and delaoyl continually experienced
there. (Hear, hear.) It shu dbe borne in mind that
one great advantage in the purchase of Southwark-
wark-bridge was, that all the approachieje
have s to it were
formed ; and if a new bridge
were to erectedt on
another site, great inconvenience would ha en-
dured for the next five or six years. (Hear, heaor. be
Mr. H. L. TAYLOR said the present subject bad
occu-
pied the attention of the Bridge-house Estates Committee
for some years ; and it would be in the recollection
of many members of the Court that an interview took
place between a deputation of the committee and the
directors of the bridge company upon this very ques-
tion, inasmuch as the corporation felt, as they did now,
the great necessity for increasing the accommodation
for the traffic across the river. (Hear, hear.) The cor-
poration were sincere in their desire to afford the public
greater accommodation, ifit were possible to obtain it,
and with this view they applied to the directors of the
company. In order to obtain something like the value
of the bridge, the deputation wished to ascertain the
then income, but-the directors were opposed to giving
any infonnation'apon this part of the question,
with the and said
that their present receipts had nothing to do
sale of the bridge. Still the committee felt it to be an
.• essential ingredient in the negotiation to ascertain what
tb. fneOme of the company was, and upon inquiry they

"tr. Ha it