The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-13 00:00:00

WESTMINSTER BRIDGE•

Mr. W. Cubitt, in his evidence before the Select Com-
mittee of the House of Commons or. the Westminster-
bridge and New Palace, gave ,the following testimony
with respect to the former. This evidence has just been
issued in a printed form by order of the House of Com-
mons;—
What has been the annual expense of the repairs of
the bridge under your contract?
About 14,000/.
Do you wish the Committee to understand that
28,0001. have been expended on the repairs of the bridgs
since the date of the report of a corresponding Commit-
tee of this House upon the subject of Westminster-
bridge, made in the year 1844?
No ; I believe that there has been about 90,000/.
spent altogether, and we commenced in the year 1838;
it was in that way that I arrived at the answer I have
just given.
If it should be stated that at any period during the
progress of the works which have been carried on under
your contract, the surface coping of the bridge has been
so reduced, and the state of the masonry of the arch has
been so deteriorated that the water could be seen from
the upper surface of the bridge, do you or do you not
believe that such statement is the fact?

During the progress of the works we had part of one or
two of the arches out and replaced, and while the stones
were out of course the water could be seen.

The question did not refer to any such deliberate act
of architectural skill on your part or that of Mr.
Walker, but whether, in defiance of such architectural
skill, there ever did or did not happen an occasion in
which, to your knowledge, in an arch, not under your
immediate supervision at the time, there Ras such a
chink as that the water was seen through it?—Most
certainly not.

Was -there any period at which nothing but the stone-
work of the arch itself remained?—Only while we were
clearing the arch for the purpose of taking out the stones
and reinstating them; just during that time some of the
masonry was of course cleared, and there was nothing,
but stone.

At such time was the water visible through the ma-
sonry?—Most certainly not.
Then any such statement would be an incorrect de-
scription of the actual condition of the bridge, so far as
your knowledge of the facts is concerned?—Most ab-
surd such a statement would be. _ _

_......_ ....„.. .....
What is the_ annual expense, or is there any annual
expense now going on in respect of the bridge?—We
have done nothing to the bridge for the last twelve
months, I think.
And there is no running expense at present incurred
upon it ?—There is some expense, inasmuch as the
cofferdam has to be sustained, and that is undergoing
deterioration and loss of value. There is the expense to
keep it up, the loss of value and the interest of capital,
and so far there is a continual expense.

What would that amount to in a year ?—lf the com-
mittee would permit me to answer that the next night I
come, I will do so ; it is a very small matter.
Whaterer that expense may be, it is an expense
which is purely loss, in the event of your contract not
being continued ?—Yes, exactly so.
When will your contract be completed?—That depends
so much upon what the Commissioners may please to
order us to do, that I cannot state with certainty.
I am speaking uow of the existing contract; sup-
posing that to be completed, when will you have com-
pleted the work ?—Our entire contract includes the
taking off of the parapets, and the lowering the road
and repairing, and the putting up a new parapet instead
of the present balustrade.

And lowering the footpaths?—And lowering the
foot- paths and re-paving the footpaths. If we were
now directed to go on with all that, and to use our or-
dinary dispatch, we should get through it in about two
years.
What i 3 the total amount of your contract?—There
was one contract in gross for specific works amounting
to 70 odd thousand pounds.
When was that begun?—l think in 1838.
When that 70 odd thousand pounds is expended, sup-
posing your contract to be completed, in what condition
do you think you will leave the bridge as regards safety?
I ought to say that along with that contract for a specific
sum, there was a running and conditional contract for
other works, the amount of which is to be ascertained
by the quantities, and we have already done considerably
mere than that 70 odd thousand pounds.
Taking the two contracts together, what is the
amount ?—There was no ascertained amount, as far as I
was a party ; the engineer reported what he thought
would be necessary to be expended upon the bridge.
What is that ?—I do not know what it was.

Supposing those contracts to be completed, in what
condition would the bridge be as regards safety ?
The safety of the bridge had en original de-
fect from a want of even and solid foundation.
Now, the works that we were employed to do were
never intended to remedy that defect; nothing short of
getting under the bottoms of the piers, and securely
-under-pinning them, could have done any good with re•
gard to preventing any future subsidence of the bridge,
which subsidence has taken place ever since it was built.
But there were two other things that our contract was
to provide against: it was apprehended that from the
lowering of the bed of the river by the letting through of
the water, from the removal of London bridge, the
ground would be taken away from under the piers them-
selves, that the bed of the river would be lowered, and
the water would get under the piers and wash away the
foundation, and the piers would go down in consequence
of that. To remedy that defect, we were employed to do
what Mr. Walker had recommended, viz., to drive a
girdle of piling round each particular pier.
How deep?--"Lio go 15 feet into the earth. That was
one object of the contract ; the other was this, that the
bridge having been built of a stone liable to be acted

upon: by frost between wind and water, by the rising

and Mine- of the tide, our contract was to cut allay all
the face of that stone, and to substitute new Bramley-
fall stone.
In fact, to case it with a harder and more durable
stone? Yes ; to cut away the Portland stone, and to
substitute Bramley-fail.
How far has that work proceeded?—That has been
done to all except two piers.
hiss any settlement taken place in any of the piers
round which the piles have been driven ?—Ycs.
Does the settlement go on steadily and regularly ?
There was a very eonsid,rable settlement in the year, I
think, 1842 or 1843 ; I am not quite clear which ; one
of the piers settled as much as nine inches.
Had the piles moved at all?—The settlement did not
take place till after the cofferdam had been removed ;
till then the water had got round and covered it, and we
have never been able to see that girdle since.
_ What guarantee have you for the future safety of the
bridge, if that settlement has taken place?—l should
say, that in such a bridge as that, nine inches, though
sounding very large, does not produce any great distor-
tion, and it might go many times nine inches without
being unsafe.
Do you mean that the foundation of the pier might
settle many times nine inches without endangering the
arches?—You must remember that the arch is 7t) feet
span, and if you were to draw with a pair of compasses
that line, and bring your springing down nine inches,
two or three times over, you would find after all that
the line was not so altered as to be very materially cen-
spieuous.
Then, in your opinion as a professional man, though
that settlement may go on, there would he no real
danger to the bridge ?—I have said that it might go
many times nine inches ; but I have not the slightest
notion that it will do so ; if I thought it would go down
twice nine inches more, I should strongly recommend
the pulling down of that pier, and the reconstructing it.
Has any other pier sunk which has been surrounded
by piles?—The one further cast of that has gone down a
few inches, I do not exactly know how much, but I think ,•
two or three inches.

Have they all sunk a little am not quite sure
whether they all have sunk a little ; I think that some
of them have not sunk at all.
Was the sinking gradual or irregular ?—For some
months it was pretty nearly regular.
And then came to a stand still ?—And then, when it
lad gone nine inches, we commenced taking off the
road ; and from the time we commenced taking off the
road, for many months it did not move at all ; but it has
moved two inches, or thereabouts, I am told subsequently.
I say, "I am told,'•' because I have never examined it
with instruments, and to the naked eye there is no evi-
4g:fence of its having moved ; but Mr. Walker has had it
carefully levelled from month to month, and I under-
:stand that during a couple of years it has gone two
inches more.
When was the road removed? The road was re-
ved in October of that year 1843.

Will you favour the Committee with your opinion as
us professional man upon the safety of the bridge for the
traffic which has to go over it?—l have no apprehension
(that the bridge is at all unsafe for the traffic that has to
go over it, to any extent.
In your opinion, from the settlement that has taken
place, do you think any sudden accident could occur ; or
do you think any alteration of the structure would be so
gradual as to give ample warning ?—I think that any
sudden sinking is utterly out of the question.
Then, in your opinion, there would be ample warning
of the approach of any actual danger ?—I think so.
And do you think the structure would be durable for
many years to come, when all these contracts were com-
pleted, when the piers were completed, when the casing
111" completed, and the superstructure are lightened and
(xYmPleted?—There is always that great question, which
1 believe first
gof finrstledto the doing anything to the bridge,
of °pinion
thatthethebed of the river. Some people are
,will
go
on
to a
great
extent. If there should be any
endangered. e river, the bridge would be

PROPOSED NEW
DuiVit ETROPOLI-
TAN BHT
The minutes of evi,knee taken 1),,c,
committee on Westminster-bridge, and" the
Select
I.,ce, contain the subjoined. Mr. J. Walketrbiantehwa
wit-
ess examined :
Hai it ever occurred to you that, with u view the
) mtnunication between Lambeth and Pimlico, o
& iv other ground, it would be expedient to remove the
bridge to the south of the new palace at Westminster
id to cross the river from a point below the Victoria
Tower to a point below the church at Lambeth?--I have
beard that proposal, and I have considered it.
Would it or not open a good comtriunication between
the new region of London in the neighbourhood of Bel-
Lave-square and the great railway communications near
ondon-bridge, passing through. Lambeth ; and in an-
swering that question, you will bear in mind also the
probability of a new bridge being erected from Charing-
cross to the Lambeth shore (a Bill for which is now be-
fore the House of Commons), for the accommodation of
the ordinary traffic of London, in substitution of the
present foot bridge ? —The case the Hon. Chairman
puts, of 4 bridge at Charing•cross, alters a good deal the

feature of the whole. I think, as regards placing the
bridge to the southward of the Victoria Tower, if that
were the bridge which was to give communication be-
tween London and the North, it would be a very incon-
venient thing to :the courts and the Houses of Parlia-
ment, from the crowd of carriages that would be con-
stantly passing in front of them ; and Ido not see, as
far as regards the public accommodation, much benefit
that would result from it, because, a little further to the
southward is Vauxhall-bridge • and also in the streets
which bound Westminster-bridge, on either side, par-
ticularly on the Surrey side, there is a great mass of pro-
perty which would be very much injured if the bridge
were taken from them. There is also a communication
ir.to the parks. I think Westminster-bridge, leading
directly into St. James's-park, is an important feature in
it; and as regards the Houses of Parliament themselves,
I do not know whether Mr. Barry prefers the north end
or the south end of the Houses of Parliament, for the
position of the new bridge, but certainly, to see the
Houses of Parliament to perfection, I think the bridge
should not be far removed from them. I think a great
deal of the beauty of the Houses of Parliament consists
in detail, which would be very much lost if the spectator
were far removed from them.

And it would subject a vast mass of property to great
deterioration?—Yes, there can be nothing more direct
than the present line from Westminster-bridge.
Looking to the traffic that comes to Charing cross, do
you think that the bridge would be conveniently situated
if it were on the south side of the new Houses of Par-
liament, as compared with the present position?—No,
but the Hon. Chairman put the position of a bridge
being built from Charing cross for the accommodation of
that traffic.
As regards position, a position southward would not
be so convenient for the general traffic as the bridge
in its present position?—No; and the traffic passing in
front would be a great nuisance to the Houses of Par-
liament.

Do you know the object :at all of the enlargement of
the Charing-cross bridge ?—No.
You do not happen to have heard that it is connected
with railway communication from the south-east of
England with Charing-cross ?—No ; I do not know the
fact. lam aware that there are ♦ery few bridges by
which a railway has not been proposed to come across
the Thames to London, but I was not aware that this
projected bridge at Charing-cross was particularly in-
tended for railroads.

If that should be the object of the parties, it would be
fatal to the use of the bridge for general traffic ?—Yes ;
unless it were made available for both purposes.
If you changed the position of Westminster-bridge
you would have to buy property on both sides of the
river ?—Yes.

That would not be the case if you retained the position
of the present bridge, whether it were repaired or re-
built 2—No.

Therefore it would be more economical to repair or
rebuild than change the position of the bridge ?—Yes.
Is the river equally wide further up, south of the
Victoria Tower ?—No, the river is narrower there. The
narrowest part of the river almost is just opposite the
Penitentiary ; it gets narrower as you go upwards from
Westminster-bridge to the Penitentiary,
But the extent of navigation is the same ; as many
barges and lighters pass under the bridge now as would
pass under a bridge further south ?—Very nearly the
same.

Therefore it would be more inconvenient to the navi-
gation building the bridge over a narrower part of the
river?—Yes ; and then I presume that the new bridge
would not be built without a road being made loading to
the westward to the parks.
The approaches to the bridge would involve the out-
lay of a considerable amount of money ?--Yes.
If the bridge were built from Lambeth-stairs there
would be no expense of approaches there, except en-
larging the street that comes down to the ferry ?—lf it
were simply a foot bridge, the expanse would not be
very great ; you would let the present streets take their
chance, but if you were to make a substitute for the
present Westminster-bridge, you must, I apprehend, hare
approaches to it.
Might it not be connected with the present proposed
street which is determined upon ?—I do not know the
particular line of the street which is determined upon.
Across Westminster, near Westminster Abbey, and
running up to Belgrave-square ?—That would be a fine
opening. _ . .

Then-, on the other side, at Lambeth-stairs, there
would be no expense in approaches except enlarging the
Palace ; the traffic across Westminster-bridge at the
present has two streams, one going to the parks and
to that immense community living about Belgrave-
square, the other to Charing-cross ; if the terminus of
two railways is to be established on the Surrey side of
the Charing-cross-bridge, and Charing-cross-bridge
is to be converted into a commodious carriage bridge
fur communication with the termini of the railways on
the southern side of the river, all the traffic upwards to
Charing-cross will never pass by Westminster-
bridge, but will go direct by the bridge at Charing-
moss ; in that case would it not be expedient to
build Westminster. bridge on the south of the Palace, so
as to open a more direct communication for all the im-
mense community coming from the Borough, and Kent,
and Surrey roads, with all the great community spring-
ing up at Belgrave-square and Eaton-square, and on to
Knightsbridge and Kensington, and at the same time
w ith the lower part of Westminster ?—With this under-
standing, that I suppose if there be not a bridge at
Charing•cross, Westminster-bridge had better remain
where it is. If I were to state the objections to the re-
moval of Westminster-bridge to the south of the new
Homes of l'a.rliatnent, they would bo these two—the de-
terioriation of property which is now the great thorough-
fare, and inflicting upon the Houses of Parliament%
great deal more passage in front of them than there is
at present. _ _

Would the Charing-cross-bridge relieve the Houses of
Parliament of a great deal of the inconvenience ; the
traffic proceeding across the present bridge, and going
up Parliament street to Charing cross, is very inconve-
nient to parties going to and returning from the Houses
otTarliatnent ; that traffic would be carried across the
br:dge at Charing-cross ?—Yes, but they have the
Waterloo-bridge now, and if that were made free, that
would relieve the traffic a good deal.
1)o nut you think that the traffic across Westminster-
bridge, going in two directions, the one up to Charing-
er•,ss, and the other to the lower part of Westminster, to
Belgrave-square, is so immense, that it requires two
bridges instead of one, to supply it conveniently ?—I
must say, I do not think so at present. I think the
traffic want; a wider bridge, but not two bridges.
Do you think that Westminster-bridge can be made
wider with safety?—l have stated how far I think it can.
You have known several bridges built in the metro-
polis in your tima, across the Thames, by private sub-
scription ?—Yes.

1)o you know any of them that has paid the subscri-
bers ?—Nn ; none has so nearly paid as the bridge
which I built, Vauxhall-bridge; and that has not paid
well to those who paid 1001. for their shares.

THE REIGNING SOVEREIGNS OF

EUROPE.

We extract the following from the Deutsche Allge-
meine Zeituny :-
0: the fifty-two sovereigns reigning in Europe, two
of them have reached their 70th year—the King of
llanovcr, the oldest sovereign in Europe since the de-
cease of Gregory XVI., and the King of the French.
Of the other sovereigns, thirteen are between 60 and
70 years of age, fourteen from .50 to 60, eleven from 40
to 50, eight from 20 to 30, and two have not yet reached
their 20th year, namely, the Queen of Spain, who is
only 16 years 3 months, and the Prince of Waldeck,
who is not yet 16. Of all the sovereigns the Prince of
Schaumbourg-Lippe has reigned the longest of the time,
if his minority be counted. He has reigned for nearly
sixty years. Two have reigned for more than forty
years equally counting their minority ; four from thirty
to forty years ; nine from twenty to thirty years ; twenty-
one from ten to twenty years ; the fifteen other sove-
reigns, of whom three ascended the throne during :1845,
have not reigned more than ten years.
By counting the reign from the date only of majority,
not counting the years in which a sovereign was still a
minor, the longest reign is that of the Duchess of Parma
(32 years 7 months), as the Princes of Schautnbourg-
Lippe, of Lippe and Schwarzbourg-Rudolstadt and the
Duke of Saxe-Meinengen, reigned many years before
they reached their majority.
Six sovereigns are un-
married, namely (independent 2.--/
of the Pope), the Grand
Duke of Mecklenburg-&!hwerin, the Duke of Bruns•
wick, the Princes of Reuss•Schleitz, Reuss-Ebersdorf,
and of Waldeck. The King of Hanover, the Grand
Dukes of Hesse and of Oldenburg, the Duke of Nassau,
are widowers; the Duchess of Parma is a widow. The
Sultan is a polygamist. The Elector of Hesse has con-
tracted a morganatic marriage. The thirty-nine others
contracted marriages suitable to their rank; two have
been married thrice, eight twice.
Of the forty-six sovereigns married or widowed, thir-
teen have no children. Of the thirty-three others, after
the Sultan, comes Prince of Lichtenstein, who has nine
children. The King of Bavaria and the Prince of Lippe
have each eight ; the Grand Duke of Baden seven ; six
other sovereigns have each seven—three only one. Fif-
teen sovereigns have grandsons ; the Ring of the French
has fifteen ; the Emperor of Russia, the Grand Duke of
Hesse and of Saxe Weimar, and the Prince of Hohen-
zollern Sigmariagen have each six. As the Duke of
Saxe Altenburg has only daughters there are thirty-two
sovereigns who have heirs presumptive ; fourteen have
collateral branches for successors—twelve have brothers;
the Queen of Spain, her sister ; the Prince of Hohen-
zollen-Hechingen, the son of his grand uncle.
Six sovereigns have no fixed successors ; they are, in-
dependently of the Pope, the Duchess of Parma, the
Dukes of Brunswick, of Anhalt-Bernberg, of Anhalt-
Cohen, and the Prince of Reuss-Ebersdorf. Of forty
six hereditary princes and heir-presumptives, the eldest
being the the Prince of Reuss-Schleitz, 57 years and 2
months, the youngest the Prince of Reuss-Greitz, only
9 months of age; 20 are married ; one has contracted a
morganatic marriage, one is divorced for the second
time, sixteen have children ; Prince John of Saxony
has nine.
sovereign families ;
Landgrßavueo
In the course of last year, eighteen deaths took place
three reigning Princes, Pope
Gregory XVI., Francis IV., Duke of Modena, the
Duchess
Philip
A.nhault ess
of Hesse-Homburg, one ex-sovereign,
naparte, ex-king of Holland ; the Dowager
Louis
sister, Princess
(Properly speaking princess hereditary) of
~:v3ejoitliner of the reigning duke and his
of Prussia, aged 72 and 71
the late Landgrave of Hesse-
years, both sisters
Homburg ; Prince gem
russia, uncle of the present
dagaehdal6fa; ; tphreinheeerreti9itli
tam of the Netherlands, aged
Hesse-
king, n and
thal-Barchfield, aged 21 •arirrince of Hesse-Philipp-
uncle of the reigning prince, Con Charles of Waldeck,
Reuss Kostritz, aged 78 ; CtO gu
en
t ; Count Henry of
Blesterfeld, aged 74 ;. the Grand Vine. and of Lippe.
Russia, daughter of the Grand Duke etsh Mary of
22 ; Princess Augusta of Nassau-Usingeu, marriedal' aFed
the Coimt de liistuark, the •diy9rce4" wife of to
the

Landgrave Louis of Hesse-Homburg, who died in
1839, aged 68 ; Maria Luisa, Princess of Spain, wife of
the Duke of San Fernando, aged 67 ; the Princess
Dowager Leopoldine of Liechtenstein, born Princess
Esterhazy, aged 58 ; Princess Louisa of Hohenzol'ern
Hcchingen, widow of Baron Her von der Burg, aged
72 ; Princess Caroline Louise, of Schaumburg Lippe,
sister of the reigning Prince, aged 60. Among the
births, 16 are especially worthy of notice ; those of the
sons of the King of Naples, of the Queen of Portugal,
of Prince Luitpald of Bavaria, of the Prince-hereditary
of Reuss-Greitz, of the Prince-hereditary of Sardinia,
of the Prince-hereditary of Schaumburg Lippe, of the
Duke Eugene Erdunams of Wurtemburg, of the here-
ditary Prince Charles of Hesse-Philippthal, and of the
Count Jules of Lippe Blestcrfeld ; then those of the
daughter of the Queen of Great Britain, of the Duke of
Nemours, of, Prince of Liechtenstein, of the Princes
Louis of Naples, Peter of Oldenburg, and Augustus of
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
In 1846 the following marriages took place in Sover-
eign Houses:—that of the Queen of Spain with her
cousin the Infant Don Francisco; of the Duke of Mont-
pensier with the Infanta Louisa of Spain; of the Prince
Royal of Wurtemberg with the Grand-Duchess Olga of
Russia; of the Princess Mary of Holstein Blacksburg
(widow of Colonel Lasperg) with Count Alfred of
Hohenthzl-KOnigsbruck; of Count Henry IL, of Reuss-
Kostritz, with Countess Clotilda of Castell ; of the Here-
ditary Prince of Monaca with Countess Antoinette of
Merode. We may notice, in conclusion the divorce of
the Prince Royal of Denmark from his second wife, a
Princess of Mecklenberg-Strelitz.

LONDON AND BLACKWALL
RAILWAY.

A special general meeting of the proprietors of this
undertaking was held yesterday morning, by adjournment
from the offices of the company, at the London Tavern,
Bishopsgate-street, for the purpose of giving the
executive an opportunity of answering a number of
questions contained in a requisition, which had been
forwarded to the directors, upon certain points connected
with the affairs of the company; Mr. J. N. Daniels,
chairman of the board of directors, in the chair.

Captain RICHARDSON, the chairman of the requisi-
tionists, after taking exception to the manner in which
the directors convened the meeting, proceeded to state
the points which the requisitionists wished to
have answered and cleared up. A short while
ago a meeting of dissentient shareholders was
held at the George and Vulture Tavern, when he
was elected chairman, and he took down the questions
which the dissentients desired to have answered by the
directors. Subsequently he addressed a letter to the
directors requesting them to appoint a time for meeting
a committee of shareholders, to have explained to them
fully the present position and future prospects of the
concern. The directors declined to give such an in-
terview, or to answer the questions contained in
the letter requesting it, thinking it would be detrimental
to the best interests of the proprietors. A requisition
was then presented to the directors requesting them to
convene a special meeting of the proprietors, for the pur-
pose of requiring the directors to give full and explicit
answers to thirteen questions, which the committee of
shareholders hack propounded to the directors.
A SHAREHOLDER wished to know how many shares
the dissentient shareholders held.
The CHAIRMAN replied 300.
A SHAREHOLDER—How many does Captain Richard-
son hold ?

The CHAIRMAN replied five.
Captain HICHA.RDSON retorted, that the smallness of
his interest in the concern only showed that he was
actuated purely by a desire to benefit the great
body of the shareholders. The first question he put
was, what amount per passenger is received by the
Black wall Railway Company, for pier dues and passage
money from Blackwall to London, from the steam-boat
companies which land and embark their passengers at
Blackwall?

Mr. lIIcKsoN said that if the questions were to be put
and answered seriatim, they would be kept there till
midnight, and, as he thought the questions involved
a want of confidence in the executive, he should
move as an amendment, that the meeting considers the
proceedings of the committee uncalled for, and begs to
convey its sense of full confidence and approval to the
directors on their past conduct.
Mr. MAratioT seconded the amendment.

Mr. LEVY objected to this mode of meeting the ques-
tion, and declared that many of the queries could be put
and answered with advantage to the shareholders. It
was unfair, when a simple and straightforward question
was put, to get up a cry that those who proposed it
wanted to turn oat the directors.

Sir IsAAc LIONEL GOLDSMID suggested that it would
save time if each question was put and answered as the
directors thought proper; and if they declined answering
any one of them, it would then be for the meeting to ex-
press an opinion upon the subject.
The CHAIRMAN said it would seem the directors were
being blamed for acts and resolutions which the share-
holders had agreed to themselves. Now this very
question was put at their last half-yearly meeting, but
the meeting refused to let him answer it ; and, was it
likely after that they could disclose to a few what the
many had decided they would not hear? The same
terms which had been accepted by one steam-boat
company had been offered to all ; and he solemnly
declared that the directors had always acted in a way
which they thought was best for the interest of
the shareholders. Since the present direction had
been in office the value of their shares had been doubled,
and he promised that, if they were let alone and allowed
to: go on acting according to their best discretion,
their value would be still further enhanced. He could
not disclose the minutest details of their management, and
he must, therefore, throw himself upon the meeting, and
decline to answer the question. He believed he had
mentioned that they offered the same terms to each
steam-boat company.
Mr.
PELLASTER—NO, no.

The CHAIRMAN called upon the Hon. Proprietor to
name the company that had not had offered to them the
same thing.

Mr. PEL"LASTER—The Diamond.

The CHAIRMAN replied that not only was the Dia-
mond Company offered the same terms, but, for the sake
of peace, they were offered better.—(Hear.) He would
now state that they were in communication with parties
connected with both the London and North-Western
Company and the Eastern Counties, and he was glad to
say the negotiations were likely to end in such a way as
to advance their interest and increase their traffic. They
were also negotiating with the East and West India
Docks Company, and on all points they were strenu-
ously exerting themselves to improve their position and
increase their traffic. Arrangements had been made
with their engineer for immediately proceeding with
their extension line, and there was a prospect of its
being open anzi ready for traffic by October next. The
line to the docks would shortly be ready for traffic, and
he could state that its cost would not exceed from
75,0004 to 80,0001. lie complained that the requisi-
tionists had not treated the directors with due and
proper courtesy, and, although they only held
a small interest in the concern, they had actually
arrogated to themselves the power of offering the line
for lease or sale to the Eastern Counties Company.
He had now generally answered all the questions which
were contained in the requisition, and he hoped the
meeting would absolve him from going individually or
minutely into each question. It was clear, from the
report of the Metropolitan Commissioners, that their
line was an exceedingly valuable one, and if the
directors were let alone he was confident the
shareholders would eventually have good cause to
rejoice at the course they had pursued. If any share-
holders were dissatisfied with the general statement he
had given, of course he should be most happy to give
any and every gentleman all further information ho
Might require, if he would only call personally upon him
at the office.—(Cheers.)
Mr. D. W. HAUYEY was glad the meeting had been
called, because it had given their Honourable Chairman
an opportunity of clearing up the doubts which pre-
vailed upon the subject of the :negotiations that were
going on with other companies. He was perfectly sa-
tisfied with the explanation, and he thought, when it
went forth to the world, there would be few share-
holders disposed at present to part with their interest
in the concern.

Captain RICHARDSON also expressed himself partially
satisfied with the statement, and wished to withdraw his
questions. _

The amendment was then put, and carried by a very
Large majority.
A vote of confidence was then passed unanimously to
Lhe directors.

The CRAIRMAN,having acknowledged the compliment,
proceeded to move that the remaining 106,000/. of the
debenture debt should be converted into capital by the
issue of 16,000 additional new shares of GI. 13s. 4d. each,
to be offered to the holders of existing stock in the
following proportions, namely, one new' share for every six
of the 48,000 old shares upon which all calls shall have
been paid, one for every six of the 24,000 new scrip
shares upon which the fourth instalment shall
have been paid, and one for every two of the
8,000 251. extension shares upon which the
call shall have been paid, and that a deposit of 11. 13s. 4d.
per share shall be paid upon allotment, and the remain-
ing Si. paid by instalments of 11. per share, at intervals
of three months.

The resolution was seconded by Dr. BOWRING, put
from the chair, and carried unanimously.
The meeting then broke up.

PASSENGERS TO AND FROM
LONDON RAILWAY STATIONS.
The subjoined extract from a letter written by Mr.
C. Pearson to the Metropolitan Railway Commissioners
contains some curious facts with respect to the above-
mentioned subject. It it from the appendix to the com-
missioners' report :
Her Majesty's commissioners hate tiower of colirse to
call for returns from the various railway companies of
the ?limber of passengers which arrive at and depart
from their stations in vehicles and on foot. distinguish
ing those who go to fthd Penni the city from those who
go to and from the west-end; such accounts are kept
at least at some of the stations, and hhere this informa-
tion cannot be furnished, traffic takers (after the hurly-
burly of Whitsuntide is over) might be appointed to ob-
tain a week's returns. I do not hesitate to affirm that the
following striking facts will be drawn forth t—Of the
passengers going to the City from the Prigliton, Croy-
don, &c., station, much more than four-fifths walk, be-
cause the station is close to the centre of business,
whereas in regard to the distant stations the proportions
are reversed, and of all the passengers coming to or
going from the City to Paddington and the Euston-
square termini, upwards of four-fifths ride, because those
stations are distant from the City.
athe
tt
I :Tr
Bricklayers'haaedmdr
eiani 1r
relation
oas nut
Aadtt
oriEmo
tanhss
etaobht
neea-square.
et
uwioanfreept
.rhooeli Cross, and
Citynoa snf t dedaai:sdhttaeohnfescat
distance,
aoiaotwbinoionnuagstt
the Dover, Maidstone, Croydon, and. Brighton Compa-