The Sun.
London, England, 1821-07-27 00:00:00

THE CORONATION.

Mr. OLDHAM addressed the Court, and in
conformity with the practitp of the Corporation
to address the Throne on the occasion of a Coro-
nation, moved a Resolution for the appointment
of a Committee, to consist of all the Aldermen
and a Commoner from' each Ward, to inquire
what course it was usual to pursue on such an
occasion ; and to consider of the best mode for
the Corporation` to adopt of congratulating his
Majesty citchis Coronation.
Mr. FAVELL seconded the motion.—lie had
always professed the warmest attachment to the
House of Brunswick, and he hoped that the
course pursued by the Corporation on this occa-
sion would put an end to that petty feeling
which had led to a marked distinction in the
treatment of persons by his Majesty's Ministers
according to their political opinion as individuals.
Mr. C. SMITII wished the Hon. Member to sus-
pend his motion, as the Court was but thinly at-
tended at that time.

Mr. OLDHAM said it was not at all necessary,
as his motion was merely for a Committee.
After a few words from Mr. S. DIXON and Mr.
OLDHAM, the motion was agreed to, and a Com-
mittee appointed.
NE WGATE MARKET.

A Petition was presented from the inhabitants
of the vicinity of Newgate-market, praying that
the vegetable part of the market should be re-
moved to an eligible spot near the College of
Physicians.—Referred to a Committee.
LONDON BRIDGE.

Mr. OLDHAM rose to bring forward the question
respecting London-bridge. He was of opinion
that the erection of two additional arches, and
the enlargement of two others, would answer
every purpose of a new bridge. Mr. Rennie, in
his Report, entertained no doubt as to the prac-
ticability of the enlargement of 4 arches. The
expence that would be incurred by such enlarge-
ment, with a temporary bridge, would amount to
about 892,000. This expence was independent
of 81200 for a Coffre-dam to inspect the sta-
bility of the piers, though Mr. Rennie, in the first
instance, had no doubt of the strength of the
foundation. Mr. Chapman, a surveyor, and
several others, were of opinion that it would re-
duce the fall of London-bridge by two feet if the
water-works- were removed ; and he should pro-
pose that one arch next the centre arch should
be first enlarged ; and when .he saw the effect of
that, another might be enlarged if the navigation
seemed to be improved. He put it broadly to
the Court, whether or not the question of a new
Bridge had not been introduced with a view to
establish a job. The public had not complained.
Thirteen thousand tons of goods had been every
day carried over, and yet not a word was said as
to the insufficiency of the Bridge to sustain the
weight. The Court could not calculate upon the
expences of a new Bridge, within 1 or 8200,000,
and-in his opinion a new Bridge would cost Bor
X 900,000, and with other expences, necessarily
attaching, would take from the City a million or
a million and a half, whereas the enlargement of
the Bridge might be done at an expence of
ninety-two thousand pounds. The raising of,
p 300,000, to begin the new Bridge would subject
the Citizens of London to a yearly' expence of
230,000. He then moved some Resolutions, to
the effect that the foundations of the Bridge
would last for ages, and that the removal of the
Water-works, and the enlargement of two or three
arches, would be sufficient to improve the navi-
gation through London Bridge.
Mr. HURCOMBE seconded the motion, and
quoted authorities to prove that- the erection
_of
a new Bridge would be an enormous and unneces-
sary expence.
Alderman Woon defended the conduct of the
Committee of the House of, Commons, and was
of opinion that the erection.of a: new Bridge
would be the most advisable mode of acting.
Mr. Chapman had stated, that the Bridge would
fall if the starlings were taken away ; and the
watermen said, that let the arches be enlarged as
much as possible, the fall of water would continue
unless the starlings were removed. A new
BritiTe would not cost so much in taxation as
the worthy Member had stated. He did not
take into consideration what might be required
for approaches. He was anxious, for the honour
of the City, to see a new bridge instead of a piece
of useless patchwork. He estimated the expence
of a new bridge at 430,0001. and towards that
they had 105,0001. immediately available. In
30 years the money would be repaid which it
would he necessary to borrow, and that could
be done at 2d. per ton on all goods passing under
the bridge.
Mr. FAVELL said, that there never had been a
more unbiassed Report than that of the Bridge-
house Committee on this subject, and he approv-
ed of the project of building a new bridge. He
concluded by moving an amendment in favour of
a new bridge.

After some rrmarks from Mr. Dixon and
Mr. Alderman Waithman, against the amend-
ment, the Court agreed to adjourn the further
consideration of the subject.
The Lord Mayor, prior to his leaving Guild-
hall, fixed Monday flext for the purpose.

Mr. Serjeant VA uonAN, under the skilful
treatment of Mr. .A STLEY COOPER, is likely, in
due course, to recover from the recent fracture
of his thigh.