The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-10 00:00:00

ipttrri Stittton

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock

INSURRECTION IN PORTUGAL.
SOUTHAMPTON, MA.ucu 10.
The Madrid steamer has arrived with the Portuguese
mail of the 3d instant.
Nothing cleciive had taken place at Oporto when
the Madrid left. Saldanha was still at his head-quar-
ters, about ten miles from Oporto, but no movement had
been made towards attacking the city. The rebels were
still mustering in strong numbers, and seemed to be
sanguine of success. The city itself was very tranquil.
The startling information that the Spanish troops had
absolutely entered Portugal was received in Lisbon on
the 27th. It, however, soon after transpired that such
was not the case, although some 5,000 troops had halted
on the frontiers.
The Oporto, a large war steamer, belonging to the
Junta, was totally lost on the Bar of Oporto, and all the
crew, consisting of IS persons, lost.

Immediately it was reported at Lisbon that the
Spanish army were on the frontiers, Sir William Par-
ker sent the Superb to cruise off Vigo. The Thetis and
America were also dispatched to cruise off Oporto, to
prevent any interference on the part of the Spanish Go-
vernmen t.—Herald.

CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Lincoln's Inn.)
YHA BUNGERFOAD I.IARKET COMPANY V. THE CHARING

CROSS BRIDGE COMPANY.
This important case, the facts of which have from time
to time appeared in The Sun, came before the Lord
Chancellor this morning, on an appeal from the decision of
the Vice-Chancellor, who directed that the differences be-
tween the two companies should be submitted to a jury.
Mr. BETHEL (who, with Mr. Gifford, appeared for the
Market Company) proceeded to address his Lordship in
support of the appeal. He said he had hoped that
some arrangement would have been come to between the
parties, which would have put an end to legal proceedings,
but unfortunately the conduct of the Bridge Company had
prevented any amicable understanding being come to be-
tween them, as the proposal which they had made, and
from which they refused to depart, was of the most
objectionable kind. What they proposed was, that each pas-
senger disembarking at the float, should be under the obliga-
tion to receive from the collector of the Bridge Company a
ticket to entitle him to go over the bridge to the market; so
that the hunireds who thus disembarked—and some-
times three hundred disembarked at the same time—
would only be permitted to have egress by producing this
ticket at the iron gates on the Middlesex side, so that, in
fact, but one person could pass out at once. Now, this was
a mode of egress which was open to the greatest
objection, as, on long days, half an hour or
three-quarters of an hour might not untrequently elapse from
the time of a passenger leaving the steam-boat to the time of
his obtaining egress at the gates. Fortunately the Market
Company had the means of showing the utter futility of
such a plan by the affidavit of Mr. Hawes, the Deputy
Chairman of the Bridge Company. He stated that the
railing off of six feet would be attended with most serious
consequences to the great crowds continually embarking and
disembarking at the float, particularly on Sundays, when
several thousands passed to and fro, and as the number was
increasing, greater inconvenience could not fail, to be the
result. In short, he stated that it would be quite impossible
that such an immense number of passengers could pass on
and off by a passage only six feet wide. It was clear, how-
ever, that the market company had no right to demand
snore space, and there're they must be content with it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR inquired the nature of the pro-
vision which gave the Market Company the right they
claimed. .

----
Mr.— BETHEL said a covenant in the lease gave the Market
Company "free and uninterrupted access " over the bridge
to the float. The Bridge Company reserved to themselves
the right of railing off a compartment of six feet fur this
purpose.
Mr. Rom., who appeared for the Bridge Company, denied
that the Market Company were to have an " nninterrupteu"
right of way.
Mr. BETHEL went on to urge, on the faith of this affidavit,
that it would be quite impossible for the whole of the steam-
boat passengers to pass to and fro in this way owing to the
obstructions. Not only would the greatest confusion be
created by the toll-gates, as the parties would have to pass
out and in one at a time, but a continual series of squabbles
would be the natural result of the confusion which they
would engender, and in addition would destroy the value of
the accommodation which the bridge itself professed to afl;)rd.
Mr. Hawes stated, that frequently during the summer
Sundays, 10,000 persons passed over the bridge in a few
hours, and that a gate which was kept closed during the
week, was obliged to be kept open on those days. They
should, in fact, state that the bridge itself, wirhout the
addition of the steam-boat passengers, was insufficient for
their own passengers. He went on to state that the width
of the bridge between the chains was only 13 feet, and that
for some parrs it was only 12 feet 2 inches; or that if 6 feet
were taken, little more than 6 feet 2 inches would be left
for the ordinary passage of the bri,!ge ; and that a
person might say he was going to the steam-
boats, and be allowed to pass; but there was nothing to pre-
vent him from going to the float. getting a ticket there, and
so being enabled to cheat the bridge.
The Loan CHANCELLOR wished to know how persons
simply passing across the bridge to the other side were to be
dealt with.

Mr. ROLT said they would have to pay at the Lambeth
side, and rice verse.
Mr. BETHEL contended that even that plan would be
most inconvenient, and would enable persons to use the
bridge, and to incommode the steam-boat passengers,
without paying the toll ; and, consequently, without
having any right on the bridge at all. The Learned
Gentleman then read a list of various objections,
which had been made to the offers of the Bridge Company.
It was simply set forth that the mode of access by turnstiles
was not such an one as the Market Company was entitled to,
that the bridge passengers would be pressed upon
the steam-boat passengers, and that great ,inconve-
nience would be the result, and an evasion of
the toll rendered extremely easy, so much so, that thou-
sands would adopt it, and that therefore the interests
of both companies would be injured; besides, a con- '
tinual squabble would be going on as to whether
the pedestrians had or had not landed from the
steam-boats; the place would obtain an unenviable notoriety
and offered an excellent field for pickpockets. The advan-
tage of this bridge consisted not only in its cheapness, but in
the saving of time; but if these turn-tables were placed as
proposed, loss of time to passengers would be the re-
sult. and the advantage of the bridge materially
deteriorated, as to many the lora of five or six minutes was
often of serious consequence. It had been proved that
2,000,000 had landed at the float in one year, four-
fifths of whom landed in the summer months alone; but
what delay would take place if they were compelled to pass off
in" single'file." When tie cause came first betore his Lordship
the Bridge Company contended that the obligation of distin-
guishing the steam .boat passengers from the public rested
with the Market Company, who stated in reply that every ob-
struction had been offered to prevent the free ingress and
egress of the passengers. They contended further that they
were not entitled to the full benefit of the covenant, in con-
scepter:cc of not having",devised any proper plan by which the
passengers might be distieguished, tt gore. s the Market Com-
pany contended that the covenant dal not impose any such
obligation upon them. The Vice-Chancellor having decided
in the way mentioned, they now cone before the Court in
the same condition as on the former occasion, with the ex-
ception of the Ai-las-it of Mr. Hawes, and that the company
bad c msented to remove the liana they had erected. No
object would be gained by raising the question before a jury,
as the facts were not in dispute between the parties, as the
right of the Market Company was admitted. It mast be
looked at simply as a question of constriction; besides, the
delay of an action would be a clear obstruction of justice,
because the Market Company had the undoubted right oa
free access over the bridge to the pier without obstruction.
There was no pea-on why the toll-gates and turnstiles should
not be removed to the first pier, so that Abe passenger traffic
would not interfere with the bridge traffic, and, what was
meet important, would not be impeded. He trusted his
Lordship would decide against the decision of the Vice-
Chancellor, and order the removal of everything preventing
the free ingress and egress of the steam-boat passengers.
Mr. GIFFARD followed briefly on the same side.
Mr. RoeT then proceeded to address his Lordship on
behalf of the Bridge Company. He contended, if his
Lordship acceded to the injunction prayed for, that
the toil-gates and turnstiles would, in contravention of
the Ac:, have to be removed to the pier next the Mid-
dlesex side, and that part of the bridge thrown open to
the whole world, or else the bridge would have to be shorn of
half its dimensions, to the great injury of its legitimate pur-
pose, for a great portion of its length. But tee Bridge Com-
pany had always beer, and were most willing to listen
to any suggestion from the Market Company, by which their
own objects might be promoted without injury to the inte-
rests of the Bridge Company. To throw open the bridge to
the first pier would be utterly destructive of its int rests;
bUt, in reply to all the propositions of the Bridge Company,
they had received a reply, " You can't do that—we claim a
free way of 6 feet, or some other free access t" the float; but we
shall accept no other terms than these." Tne Acts ofbeth com-
panies simply gave th m power to enter into contracts with
each other. Tnis was evident from the fact that they were
not to be permitted to take merchandise over the bridge to
the float without the permission in writing of the Bridge
Company. The Market Company had no power over the
bridge; it could do nothing in connexion with it without the
sanction of the proprietors. By the lease it was expressly
stipulated that the Bridge Company were to be empowered
to build their toll-houses on the Middlesex side, "south of
the tavern," and they had done so in pursuance of that right.
The Bridge Company were also to have an uninterrupted right
of way through the market to the bridge; but to say that
the Market Company were to have " uninterrupted and un-
restricted" way was incorrect, as the toll-houses so erected
could not but be considered to some extent obstructions.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it clearly appeared by the
lease that a space of six feet was to be appropriated to the
Market Company, and to be railed off.
Mr. ROLT repsated that the company were willing to make
all consistent and suitable provision for the accommodation
of the Market Company. For instance, they might have
au abutment of three feet on each side of the bridge; but if
the bridge were opened in the way proposed it would be
alfrommosttheimopthosesri,,blet distinguish the steam-boat passengers
Certainly the Bridge Company bad never
impugned the rightofre way without paying toll ; but they were
not compelled
the hoarding at the stairs until the
Market Company had remove
the pier now used by them.
They proposed to have three turnstiles, so that the fullest
accommodation might be
withve
nthe steam-boat passengers,
and if they were dissatisfied The servants they might
appoint servants of their own.) turnstiles would not let
a person come hack without imit
so that they could not well use, inlaant authority to pass,
without paying. The question, he thought,ease, the bridge
came within the province of ajar., was one which
trusted his Lordship would not grant the injutteotvii:ver, h e
for, but leave the company to adopt one of the man prayed
that had been proposed for the protection of their mutual
interests.
The Loan Ciieseseeeoa said the words in the covenant
were perfectly clear—the Market Company had an undoubted
right of way, free of 9
toll, to the pier. He had heard nothing
to lead him to form an opposite conclusion. It was equally
1 I
clear that the Bridge Company
la d ply with
at the time itd'd refused to comply
was made
theconditionsof their lease. No dou
st
the passengers not enter
the question of distinguishing
alto
its mwling
into their cocsideration, but that di not ate
•
rant the injuncte ion as
Ito felt it his duty, therefore, to g
prayed for,—namely, that the objectionable hoard should be
removed, and that free ingress and egress should be given
y the Bridge Company for the steam-boat pas-
fingers. The removal cf the turustiles was a