The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-23 00:00:00

WATERLOO BRIDGE

A meeting of the Proprietors and Annuitants of the
Waterloo-bridge Company took place yesterday, at the
Crown and Anchor Tavern, in the Strand, for the purpose
of taking into consideration the propriety of lowering the
foot-toll on the bridge. The meeting was very numerously
attended.
The following statement was distributed to the share-
holders present :
It is objected to a halfpenny toll, that, if it became neces-
sary to revive the penny-payment, riots might ensue, as in th-
year 80, when the toll-gate of Blackfriars-bridge was de-
stroyed. But that bridge's toll had not been raised, and the
riots were solely because of the no-Popery cry ; and there
being no attempt to restrain the mob, it wantonly destroyed
immense property, and would have broken your gate, if it had
then been with either a penny or a halfpenny toll.
Then, too, the police was very weak, while now it is very
powerful ; moreover, the penny-toll cannot continue, for Hun-
gerford-bridge will soon open with a halfpenny-toll ; but the
reduction now would prevent that rival bridge.
The penny-toll deters the workpeople ; for although 80,000
pass the two neighbouring bridges daily, and 60,000 live
about St. Giles's, directly opposite your bridge, yet hardly
any cross it, except in bad weather, when great numbers
come, thereby proving it to be their nearest way. Many
clerks, too of Somerset-house, reside in Surrey, yet even they
seldom use Waterloo Bridge ; and if they cannot constantly
afford a penny for what is only worth a halfpenny, how can
workmen afford it ?
The experiment of a penny toll has been tried long enough,
for the foot-receipts were more, fifteen years ago, although a
new street has been since opened opposite your bridge, and
the population near it is increased by 30,008 people, while the
metropolis has 300,000 more ; but they who have forsaken it
would come to a halfpenny toll-gate.
A lower toll would cause a row of large houses to be built
en the arches, close to your gate ; and other houses would be
erected near it, while snore lodgers would reside in that
vicinity.
When a charge is reduced unreasonably (like the postage to
Ireland) it diminishes the revenue ; but when it is reduced
about one half (as in the range of the late Twopenny post) it
adds greatly thereunto.
Forty times more letters pass through the offices of Stroud
and Nailsworth, since the postage was reduced from 4d. to.ld.
The reduction of duty on spirituous liquors has added greatly
to the revenue.
There are 140,000 weekly papers at I d. or 2d. each, but there
were not 1,000 when each cost a shilling.
The railway charge from Ghent to Brussels was lowered
half, which increased the revenue threefold.
The visitors to the Tower are ten times more, now the
charge is only sixpence.
The omnibuses carry a hundred times more persons now,
than while charging a shilling.
The toll-bridge at Rouen pays six per cent. on its outlay, be-
sides an annual sum for its repairing fund ; and though be-
tween two free bridges, it has three times more passengers than
both of them together, although they are only four hundred
yards off; and it is solely because the workpeople can afford to
pay a centime.
When the penny-toll at Richmond-bridge was lowered, the
revenue doubled immediately, and quadrupled in three years.
Thus a halfpenny-toll brought eight times more people than a
penny-toll.
The late improvement at Blackfriars-bridge has rendered its
:scent much easier, and you would have lost many customers if
your horse-toll had not been lowered ; but since that bridge re-
opened, your horse-revenue is more than when the toll was
twice as much ; and as unloaded vehicles pay only half of the
reduced toll, it is clear that the reduction has brought three
times snore horses ; and ell are with the same kind of persons
as used to pass before : therefore, a reduced foot-toll would
bring three times more passengers, and all of the same classes
as now pay a penny ; besides which, it would attract the work-
people, who are far more numerous than all the rest of society,
and the dividend would be at least doubled, as well as the capi-
tal ; and Government, if it makes the bridge free, will not pay
the original cost, but only a little more than the market price
of the shares, annuities, and bonds.
The Irish labourers in St. Giles's average above twelve to a
lodging-house. If a halfpenny toll at Richmond-bridge, with
only a population at one end, and one labourer to a cottage,
prcduced four times more revenue than a penny toll, what
will it produce at our bridge, with a population at each end,
and twelve labourers to a house ?
At one o'clock the Rev. John Rush was called to the
Chair, and the requisition convening the meeting having
been read,
Mr. MORO.; N said, although the meeting was not regu-
larly convened, it IMINt, net he supposed that it muse
from any 'want of respect to the Members el the Com-
mittee, but it was considered that a special meeting was
the only way in which such a question could properly he
decided. Several gentlemen were decidedly favourable
to rocking a trial °le reduction of the foot toil, but ethers
were dee,decily opposed to it. Now there might be pre-
judices on bath sides a the question, and he trusted that
no one would be guided by another, but that er,ch woti i
form his 6.en independent opinion. Let each Proprietor,
like a good Juryliei, judge from the facts of the case.
Li need not refer thorn to the many known instances in
which a reduction of :he charge had been followed by an
increased revenue—they were set Net in the document
which had beets placed in die hands of most of the Pro-
prietors present, and lie called upon those who knew of
any instances to the contrary, to state them to the
meeting. He should not trespass further on
E,,,wir time, but conclude by moving, " That from
and after the Ist of March, the feet toll be reduced t
one halfpenny, and that ativertisernehts be sent to the
papers that evening, stating the reduction, and that it is ha
order to try whether the Company can benefit the public
,Rithout injuring its own revenue." He had net stated
any precise time for the experiment, but if the meeting
thought proper, they might introduce it.
Mr. POIJLTENEY seconded the motion.
COPE, Secietary of the Anti-Toll Bridge Associa-
tioe, begged to say a few worda. They had a double ob-
ject in view, to obtain a fair remuneration to the share-
holders, such as they could not get by any other means,
and to obtain for the public a boon they could not obtain
in any other way. Teere vas no doubt that a reduction
of the toll would he a gnat benefit to the public, and he
"WgOS disposed to think the reduction would be advantageous
to the Company, but upon that he would not hazard any
otiluion. There was one point, however, upon which they
might rely, that if the Government purchased the bridge,
in order to make it free to the public, they would never
pay anything like the orijeal cost, but only what the
shares would fetch in the market, or a little more.—
(fiear, hear.) Now their own Secretary, Mr. Poweil,
had stated, that even if the revenue of the bridge
was increased ten-fol.?, the original subscribers would not
obtain one farthing benefi.. He trusted they would come
to the consideration of the question in a fair and candid
spirit. He would observe that they had obtained petitions
for throwing open the bridge from every parish in the me-
tropolis, and from every ward in the city, and the signa-
tures amounted to 70,000 or 80,000. They had been told
over and over again that they could not obtain the funds
from the Government for such a purpose, but they were
still sanguine on that pain`. They thought that from the
circumstance of that bridge having been intended for a
national monument to commemorate the battle of Water-
loo, that they had strong claims on the sympathy, if not on
the pocket, of the Government.—(Loud cheers.) When
the Association was first started it was said that they would
not get any grant of the public, money for such a pur-
pose, as there were no Muds available ; but since then
630,000/. bad been voted for mere local improvements,
and for purposes in which there was nothing like the
public movement or excitement that had been brought
to bear upon the present subject. lie should leave
the matter in the hands of the Shareholders, giving his
cordial assent to the proposition of Mr. Morgan. He had
no wish to interfere with the interests of the Proprietors,
and his sole object in advocating the measure was the
benefit of the public.—(Hear, hear.)
A PROPRIETOR said he had been given to understand by
the Chairman that annuitants were not entitled to vote at
the present meeting, but ho thought it most unfair to
those partice. to prevent them from exercising that right.
He had no objection to the reduction of the toll if a cer-
tain time war specified when they might be able to as-
certain what the result was. Why not specify that the
toll would be reduced for twelvemonths ?—( Hear.)
The CHAIRNIAN ,`.llought it would be better not to clog
the resolution in that way. If it was found to deteriorate
the property another .meeting might be called to return to
the present rate.
Mr. Weesit wished- to know the opinion of the Diree-
tor,upon the subject: their experience might; possibly
guide the meeting in coming to a right conclusion. He
wished to know from them whether their opinion was,
that if the toll vvasredueed, the number of passengers would
be doubled.
The CHAIRMAN could merely state that the
/tied been considered toy the Committee at the
time Mr.
and it was negatived, and
whet.her.
Morgan was a member,.
Mr. Morgan was offe aded or not tie could not say, but
from that period he cea ted to be on the Committee
One of the DIRECTOW.S said ho thought the experiment
ratremely dangerous, and had always opposed it. He
euought they bad no HO] t to legislate for the annuitants,
who had no voice in the :matter. The only feasible argu-
ment which had been u.T ed was that it would prevent the
establishment of a rival bridge, and if they could by such
a step put a stop to the building of Hungerford• bridge, it
might be advisable. Ho was as much against the measure
now as ever be was in his life.

A PROPRIETOR said th at a greater number of annuitants,
in n'smber and value of p.roperty, bad signed the requisition
than of Proprietors.
Mr. KNOWLES said thve great bulk of the annuitants
were in favour of the :reduction. It would, in the first
instance, stop the progre a of Hungerford Market.—(Cries
of It is stopped.") He 'br ilieved it would be found that the
works were still progress jug. Now, he would refer them to
tha fact, that is ithin the `L-ast few years the dividend paid to
the annuitants had becat considerably reduced, notwith-
standing the increase in elho population. The fact was, the
ell amounted to almost et prohibition.—( Hear, hear.) It
was disgraceful to the Goe:ernment that they had not long
since purchased the tells and made the bridge free. He
should give his cordial sup port to the motion of Mr. Mor-
gan, who was one of the" largest Shareholders and annui-
tants in the Company.
Mr. WaLsu said it would be time enough when Hunger-
tiord-bridge was opened at a half-penny toll to reduce
toeirs.—( Cries of Too la';e then.) He thought it would
be time enough to proce, d upon such a course of folly
when they were driven to do so.
A PROPRIETOR said he -understood the toll on foot pas-
sengers was about 9 001)i. or 10,000/. per annum ; he
would take it at that sum in round numbers. Now, his
opinion was, that the redaction could not have the desired
effect of increasing the revenue, and unless they had double
the number at present creasing the bridge, (which be did
not believe would be the cast?) they would be in a worse
position than before. Tizi.y were at present in a scrt of
negoiletion Ge..erne..re-iit, and it would be most unwise
to depreciate their prep arty under such circumstances.
The opinion of the Directors of the Suuthwark-bridge
Company, among wberrx the question had been discussed,
was decidedly against arty reduction of the toll, and he
would say the same c,f their late. Secretary, who was a man
of great experience, and who n.a, decidedly opposed to such
a measure. On the wh ol:, he thought the motion very
unadvisahle, and should oppose it. He had on one occa-
sion suggested that if the adjoining counties would raise
a county rate, to purchme the three bridges, it would be
the best way of getting cite value of the property.
Anether Pitopuivron said the whole question they had
to consider wee, whether looking at the class of persons
who used, the bridge, ey th would be able to double the

and no proceedings could compe them to
perform the duties assigned to them under
the present Charter, and as the facts stood upon
the record, the formation of the body corporate was not
the formation of the Crown, but of some persons
nominated by the Crown, and great abuses might
easily creep in. Another objection taken by the
Counsel for the plaintiff was this, and it
was well deserving of remark, that in
order to make out these lists a Court was established,
and oaths were administered, which were not binding in
law. He could not escape from that difficulty, and he
thought that judgment ought to be given for the plain-
tiff in error, but the majority of the Judges being of a
different opinion, the judgment would be for the de-
fendant.

Lord Chief Justice TINDAL said, this was an
action brought by one of the six coroners of the
County Palatine of Lancaster, in which was in-
volved the question of the validity of Charter of In-
corporation granted to the Borough of Manchester.
The objections taken resolved themselves into three
distinct heads. The first objection was from
mis-direction on the part of the Learned Judge. The
second objection was against the Charter itself, and the
third was against the legality of the nomination of the
defendant to the office of coroner. The sum and sub-
stance of the first objection amounted to this,
that in order to enable the Queen to grant
a Charter of Incorporation, there must be a pe-
tition from the inhabitant householders of the
town or borough for that purpose. Now the fact of a I
petition being presented was a question for the Jury,
and the Learned Judge would be open to blame if he de-
cided it as a matter of law. He entirely agreed in
the opinion that the petition was a preliminary to the
granting of the Charter, and the fact of there being two
petitions in this case was a matter which was peculiarly
with him a matter for the Jury to consider. The ques-
tion of fact was submitted to the Jury, and the excep-
tions taken were not pointed enough to raise the objec-
tions which had been urged in argument. The
evidence laid before the Jury was that at
a public meeting of the rate-payers called
►ogether by public notice a petition was adopted, and
signed by 4,000 inhabitants, praying for a Charter,
that after that petition was presented another petition
was got up, and signed by QOOO persons, but it was
not agreed to at any public meeting. Neither was
signed by a majority of the inhabitant house.
holders. The question then was whether
under these circumstances the inhabitant householders
had petitioned for the Charter or not. The Learned
Judge who presided upon the trial, being applied to,
stated his opinion to be, that her Majesty had power to
grant a Charter according to the prayer of the
first petition. There was no authority for this,
►.or did he think there was any reasonable ground.
They were bound to take into consideration the publi-
city with which the first petition was got up, and the non
publicity of the second. In point of law, in his opinion,
the second petition did not take away the right of
her Majesty to attend to the recommendation of her
Privy Council and grant the Charter to the prayer of
the first petition. After considering the other objec-
tions, the Learned Judge said that although the
case was one of great doubt and difficulty, still
he felt bound to say that the plaintaiff was not
entitled to recover, and therefore the judgment for the
defendant in the Court below ought to be affirmed.
The other Judges delivered their opinion seriatim, Mr.
Justice Williams and Coleridge adhering to the judg-
ment delivered by Lord Denman, Justices 13osranquet,
PaLtison, and Coltman agreeing with the Chief Justice

The judgment was accordingly in favour of the de•
enciant, thereby establishing the validity of the Charter.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, FEB. 22.
Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
A message Irom the Commons brought up the Ex-
chequer Court (Ireland) Bill, and flit) 'l'ithe•composi-
tion Bill.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented petitions from
Scotland for the better observance of the Sabbath, and
a petition from the Mayor and Common Council of the
Borough of Leeds for a better mode of taking votes at
corporation elections.
THE CASE OF LORD CARDIGAN.

with this country, had sent a Minister here to dis-
cuss with the British Government in this country,
the matters which had been in discussion between the
Persian Government and the British Minister at the
Court of Teheran. Her Majesty's Government
had thought it their duty to state to the
Persian Government and to that individual
that he would not be received as an envoy, unless ho
were empowered to make all the concessions which
Mr. M'Neile had required of the Shah, and more es-
pecially in the business relating to the courier. Her Ma-
jesty's Government had directed her Ambassadors at
the Courts of Vienna, Constantinople, and Paris to
make a communication to the Persian Envoy, should
they meet with him, that except those conditions
were complied with he would not be received. That
individual came to this country in the month of
June, 1839. He was not recognised ; he managed, how-
ever, by some means, to penetrate the recesses of
Downing-street--the same conditions were insisted on ;
he had, however, some conferences with the Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs, but after a short residence
here he had returned to his own country, and from that
time all communication between the countries had ceased.
He left this country on the 7th July in the same year,
and her Majesty, at the termination of the Session,
bad announced in her Speech from the Throne that
she regretted to say that the differences between the
British Government and the Court of Teheran conti-
nued to exist, but she expressed her confident
hope that the differences between this country and
Persia would be speedily and satisfactorily adjusted.
Nothing more transpired in the course of this last Ses-
sion upon the subject. There were many reasons which
had deterred people from pressing her Majesty's Go-
vernment for explanation, and from making inquiries,
and he for one had been inclined to hope that at the close
of the Session they would have been informed
that :all those matters would be satisfactorily settled.
But her Majesty's speech at the termination of the
Session took no notice whatever of it, and those who
took an interest in the matter were driven to hope
that at the commencement of the present Session
that explanation would be furnished. It was
with great surprise and regret he found not one single
syllable, good, bad, or indifferent, was said in the
Speech at the opening of the Session.—(Hear, bear.)
So that for upwards of two years and a half
this affair had been going on, and all the interests
of British subjects in Persia, personal and commercial,
all the public and political interests of this country from
that period had been left to the chapter of accidents,
without the support or the presence, or the authority,
or the superintending vigilance of any resident efficient
Minister at that Court.—(Hear, bear, hear.) That
was in itself a very unfortunate circumstance as
regarded any country with which we might
have been on friendly and close relation, and it was par-
ticularly so with respect to Persia, because it had been
the policy of this country for many years to cultivate
the closest connection with that country. The cessa-
tion, for upwards of two years, of an alliance of
that sort, was no light matter, more particularly
when it had been accompanied with some circumstances
of irritation and alienation of feeling, because, though
this country might recover the connection, though it
might get back into what might appear to be a state of
friendship, it was not certain that the alliance would be
recovered with the same feelings, and with the same
advantages. There was another circumstance
that made it peculiarly unfortunate there should have
existed this alienation, which was the time and cir-
cnmstances during which it took place, for it was con-
temporaneous with the undertaking of gigantic opera-
tion beyond the Indus, upon which he would express
no opinios then, except that it was an operation
the results of which were not fully developed, and with
respect to which no one would venture to pronounce
when they were developed, whether they were for the
benefit or the detriment of this country. He hoped
they would prove to the advantage of this coun-
try, but it was clear that any interruption of
our ref &oils with Persia during the time that was
going on must greatly a44ravate the difficulties of the
case. Besides which their Lordships would recollect
that one of the many grounds on which the expedition
was undertaken was to meet certain assumed dangers
arising out of alleged intrigues ansi designs on the part
of Russia. It was obscurely stated in the declaration
that the allusion was obvious. The same allusion was
made with respect to the conduct of Persia, and it was
represented that some designs were entertained with
respect to Persia, and the same intrigues carried on.
It was true that when the Russian Government ex-
plained the matter to the British Government here they
expressed themselves perfectly satisfied with that expla-
nati:jn. There was something in the state of our rela-
tions with Persia which he could not understand. He
really did not know whether we were at peace or war.
He should think we were at war, and he would show their
Lordships why he thought so. He did not mean to say
that any prohibition of intercourse—that any threats held
out—that any abrogation of existing treaties were war;
but he thought that if they forcibly took possession of a por-
tion of the Persian territory, without the assent of the
Persian Government, and continued to hold that portion,
that was, he thought, an act of war. It might be just or
it might be unjust—it might be wise, or it might be the
height of folly, that was nothing at all to the point of
view in which he was putting it, but it was to all intents
and purposes neither more nor less than an act of war. Their
Lordships, then, would not wonder if any person wished
to have more specific information on this subject than ex-
isted, or was at least laid before their Lordships. Another
thing in addition to this unintelligible state of things, was
that notwithstanding Mr. M'Neile withdrew himself from
the mission—notwithstanding the cessation of intercourse,
and that act of hostilities to which he alluded, her Ma-
jesty's Government appeared to him to consider the ab-
sence of Mr. M'Neile as an oruinary case of leave of ab-
sence. So they stated it when the question was asked
last year. It was unaccountable to him when an Envoy
was sent to this country to endeavour to restore harmony,
he was not received, but sent about his business. It might
be,:to be sure, that it was not worth while to attend to the
matter, but in his opinion it was very inconvenient to have
such a state of things, as far as the East India Company
was concerned. The East India Company engaged to
pay 12,000/. a year for the support of that mission, but in
condition that they would not be called upon to pay unless
there would be an efficient mission Sir John M'Neile
was either in England or Scotland, and Colonel
Shcil, a very active and excellent officer, and well
calculated to transact whatever business was en-
trusted to him, was in Canada ; how, then, could any
person say that there was an efficient mission ? He would
beg for a moment their Lordships' attention to the
circumstance of Sir John M'Neile's departure, and the
story of the courser. Sir John M'Neile was wrong no
doubt on that occasion, however he did not bring that mat-
ter against him. He ( Sir John M'Neile) did what he
thought was best to be done ; but what he complained of
was, that her Majesty's Government adopted his course in
the transaction to which ho was calling their Lordships' at-
tention. The Noble Lord here proceeded to detail all
the circumstances connected with the taking of Herat, in
the year 1837, by the Shah of Persia, and the ill-treat-
ment received by our Envoy sent to the Shah by the
Prince of Herat to endeavour to prevail on him (the
Shah) to cease hostilities. Some letters which the En-
voy had received from the British Resident were taken
from him on that occasion, but were immediately returned
on its being found by whom those letters were given.
This act was considered by Sir John M'Neile as an insult
to himself and to her Majesty's Government, and he de-
imanded not merely a general apology and repara-
:ion, but also reparation in a particular man-
nee__.( Hear, hear)—and when he could not get
that particular reparation, he felt it his duty to quit the
mission, and thus ended all intercourse between that nation
and us. Now he contended that was not sufficient ground
for breaking off that intercourse. The Persian Govern-
ment offered to remove, and did remove, the officer whose
conduct had been at fault, and yet because they did not
make the peculiar specific apology which was demanded,
Sir J. M'Neile quitted their territory, and, as he had stated
before, all intercourse with that nation was thus broken off.
That was deeply to be deplored. There was not, he in-
sisted, sufficient ground for such a proceeding. He did not
see that the honour of the country required that that course
should be adopted, and some explanation of the circum-
stances to which he adverted ought, be thought, to be
given to their Lordships by her Majesty's Government,
the more so as that state of things was going on now for
two years. The Noble Lord concluded by moving that
an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying
fur the correspondence, or extracts of the correspondence,
between her Majesty's Government and the Government
of Persia on that subject.
Viscount MELBOURNE would not take advantage of
what was considered the general prudence of Parliament,
and oppose the producing of the correspondence moved
for, on the ground of the present state of the negotiations
to which that correspondence related. The Noble Lord
who had last addressed the House, had fairly stated all
the circumstances relating to the transactions which were
now under discussion. The Noble Lord seemed to state

that Sir John 114`Neile had acted wrongly, and that the Go.
vernment had also acted wrongly in supporting him. When
their Lordships would read the whole of the documents
relative to that affair, they would see that it was a studied
insult offered to her Majesty's Ambassador, which it was
impossible to pass over with less notice than had been
taken of it. His Noble Friend the Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs saw tho Ambassador sent by the Shah
of Persia, but he did not see him in his official character;
he saw him in private, a►nd in that private interview grounds
were laid foean accommodation of the differences in ques-
tion, and in fact they have been, in a great degree, settled.
But we have secured Herat, which we did in consequence
of that expedition, and which was the real ground of dif-
ference between this country and Persia. The expell-
tion which the Shah had undertaken against this great l
important station and fortress of Herat, that was the
real ground of difference. His Noble Friend had stated,
that in the original conflict between the Shah of Persia
and the Shah of Herat, it was admitted the Shah of Persia
was in the right. On some matters it wa3 undoubtedly
admitted that he was. It was admitted that the Prince of
Herat had committed aggressions on the Persian territory
—that he had made slaves of Persian subjects, and had
cJaimitted other aggressions, and therefore the Shah of
Persia demanded satisfaction of the Shah of Herat. Un-
doubtedly the Shah of Persia had a ground for that demand
of satisfaction, but it was never admitted by any man that
the Shah of Persia had a claimto the sovereignty of Herat,
and therefore it was of the highest irnpoi tince to our Indian
territory to maintain the independence of Herat. There-
fore when the Shah of Herat offered as he did satisfaction
to the Shah of Persia, for the aggressions which he had
committed, it was then stated most clearly and distinctly,
that the justice of the war had ceased, and Sir John
M‘Neile did distinctly state to the Shah of Persia, that if