The Sun.
London, England, 1867-07-05 00:00:00

Mr. E. B. ROGERS said he should be glad to put
a question to the chairman of the Bridge House
Estates Committee in reference to the repairs that
were at prefrnt going on in the roadway of Lon-
don-bridge. The greatest pos,zible inconvenience
was occasioned to the public while these repairs were

going on, and he wished to know whether it was

not po:-sible to get through the work more quickly,
either by employing additional hands, or by adopt-
ing the same plan as in Paris, of employing relays
of workmen to g i on with the work during the
night. Ile said it was most essential for the convc.
nienec, if not for the sitety, of the public that the
work should he completed as speedily as po3sible.

Air. T. S. thenAnns, the chairman of the Bridge
House Estates Committee, said that the committee
were most anxious to have the paving of the bridge
completed as speedily as possible. lie could assure
the hon. member that if either of the suggestions ho
had referred to could be carried out, the committee
would IL; most anxious to do so, and ha would con-
sult the architect upon the subject. (Hear, hear.)
Later in the day a petition was presented by Mr.
Aledwin froma number of season ticket holders and
other passengers travelling by the London, Brigh-
ton, and South Coast Railway, praying the court to
take some steps to relieve the foot traffic upon the
bridge, and suggesting that a footway 'night be
erected at the side of the bridge, which would have
the effect of preventing a great deal of the inconve-
nience that existed at present. Mr. Aledwiu pro-
posed that the petition should ltazferred to the
Bridge House Estates Comunio, forlhena.to con-
sider the statements Amde in it, and report thereon
to the court.

Mr. H. L. TAYLOR put some questions to
the petitioners who attended to support it,
with a view to show that by the pro-
posed amalgamation between the South-East-
ern Railway Company and the London and
Brighton Railway, the effect of which would
be to enable both companies to convey passengers
to Cannon-street, a great deal of the inconvenience
that at present existed would be avoided. Ho then
said he objected to the petition going to committee,
because he did not see that any good would come
of it. The same proposition to erect an iron foot-
bridge at the aide of the present bridge was brought
forward some years ago, and was abandoned, be-
cause it was found utterly impracticable to carry it
out. He was willing to admit that London-bridge
was crowded, and he must say that he was glad to
see it. The real question, however, was whether
the inconvenience was so great as to justify them in
disfiguring the bridge in the manner that was pro-
posed. (Hear, hear.) The original architect of
the bridge strongly objected to disfiguring the
bridge in the manner that was proposed ; and
although it would, no doubt, be a nice little job for
some other gentleman to carry out, it appeared to
him that the court ought not to sanction such a
proposition, and he should therefore move, as an
amendment, that the petition lie on the table.
Deputy OBBARD and Mr. LAWLEY supported the
motion for the subject to be referred to a committee,
on the ground that the corporation was bound to
prevent the public from sustaining inconvenience
by all the means in their power, and the committed
would have au opportunity, at all events, of seeing
if anything could be done to carry out the object
of the petitioners.
The amendment of Mr. Lowmen Taylor was,
however, eventually agreed to.
TILE EMPEROR 3IAXIMILIAN.
Alderman SIDNEY announced to the court that
the news of the melancholy death of the Emperor
Maximilian had been confirmed, and that, in con-
sequence of it, the review that was to have taken
place in Hyde-park on the following day had been
postponed.
The announcement was received in silence, and
evidently caused great sensation iu the court.

ADDRESS TO THE SULTAN.

A proposition for the presentation of an address
to the Sultan, upon his approaching vi,it to this
country, was then discussed with closed doors, and
was eventually unanimously agreed to by the
court. An address was subsequently prqared by
the Recorder, the Remembrancer, and the mover
and seconder, which was submitted to the court and
approved of.