The Sun.
London, England, 1828-05-24 00:00:00

To THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SIR-Observing in your Paper of the 12th instant an
Account of a gentleman, named Henry Lawson, who was
formerly a Captain in the Army, and was reduced by a
series of mict)rtl.les to the necessity of seeking pirochial
relief ; for purpose he appeared at the Union Hall Po-
lice-dFce, before the Magistrates, R. J. Chambers and
die Swabey, Esqrs.

As you are ever ready to aid the unfortunate by bringing
Their 'distress into public notice, and this is a case that
peculiarly deserves conipassion, I take the liberty to en.
close an order for 10s. 6d. for Henry Lawson, which you
will have the goodness to give to him.
Perhaps the insertion of the circumstance in one of your
columns might attract the notice of a liberal and generous
public, and might be the means of causing a small sub-
scription to be entered into for the relief of the unfortunate
awson. I trust you will pardo❑ the liberty I take in
giving you t.. 0 much trouble—humanity is the motive.
I am, Sir, out obedient servant,
Sandgate, iNlay 532. E. W. B.
[We have received 10s. lid., which shall be paid as
directed.]

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL

NEW LONDON BRIDGE.

YeAerday, a Court was held for the consideration of
.5 motion relative to the New London Bridge, which has
;7,15-en rise to touch dispute and opposition in the neighbour-
hood of the building.
Mr. PEw-raess presented a petition from the Ward of
Bridge. It set forth, that the Act of Parliament expressly
provided that the new Bridge should be built as closely as
passible to the site of the old one, and that the old line of
approaches should be adhered to. The petitioners were
greatly surprised to tind proceedings taken for the forma-
tion of new lines of approach, as if no Act were in exist-
ence. The Committee had received a great number of
plans, and souse of them were about to he submitted to the
Lords of the Treasury for their approval. The petitioners
complained, that these steps had been taken without their
concurrence, or without reference to their interests. They
complained of meditated deviations, and especially of Mr.
Jeffery's suggestion of an nrch over Thames-street.
Mr. 'UironNuns. (one of the petitioners) addressed
the Court in a long speech in support of the petition.
'Mr. PEwntrss supported the petition. And moved
that the petition be referred to the Bridge Committee, with
directions to hear evidence thereupon, and report to the
Court.—Mr. CHILD, jun., seconded the motion.
_ .

Mr. STEVENS called the attention of the Court to a sub-
ject rdtreat importance to the City, and the whole of
a oreldded in the line of approaches. It was essen-
tial onsubject of this magnitude, that no step should be
taken without mature deliberation. Why then were the
proceedings of the Bridge Committee kept secret? Plans
had been sulimit
toil to the Committee by men of talent,
independently of
those submitted by Mr. Rennie ; yet the
Court knew nothing about them. Why were they with-
held from investigation?.— (Hear. )_Why was all to he
n carried ou in secrecy mysteriously ?He hoped the
Court would not allow this co
per-
mit any improper dictations at anye ftuotuir'eeetitpp;on.
rrisoutle.d, or A
alderman GARRATT supported the petition.
Mr. S. prxost also contended, that the plansl,LCommittee
should be
laid before the Court. He believed that
acted upon int', irmation from the West-coil. '
Mr. R. L. JoNEs (Chairmainofthe6e Brio immittee, assert-
dge Committee)—
—With respect to the proceedings of
rd that they were in conformity with the Resolution, by
which it had been originally formed. The Committee had
reported to the Court every measure which it was essential
should he known to it. If the Court thought proper to
withdraw its confidence from the Committee, they were
ready to resign their trusts, but hitherto they had pro-
ceeded with a determination not to he swayed by any local
interests, but to be guided by what they considered the in-
terests of the City and public at large. He had ever acted,
and should continue to act, on that principle.
bear.) --(Hear,
Mr. N. SAUNDERS supported the Resolution.
Mt: FAvm, defended the conduct of the Committee.
Mr. R. TAYLon reprobated the whole work as a ruin-
ous jot).

Alderman Wool) should support a compensation clause,
because the plan for an approach by arch would be cheaper
by 200,0001. than the one for preserving the old line.
Mr. PEwrazss replied, and the motion -.vas carried by
a very large majority.