The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1821-07-27 00:00:00

LONDON BRIDGE.

The Report of the Co. eeeee itter of the (louse of
Commons on the state of London Bridge having
been rend—

Mr. OLDHAM said, it had become • part of his
duty to bring before the Court a question, he would
venture to say, of greater importance, as respected
the local interests and the revenues of the City of
London, than any which had been brought before
it within his memory. It had been his misfortune
to wade through two volumes or evidence taken
before the Committee of the House of Commons
on the subject, and lie lamented to say, that in or-
der to make the question intelligible to the Court,
it would be necessary for him to occupy a much
larger portion of their time than he was in the
habit of doing. The subject of London Bridge
had been repeatedly before the Court, upon peti-
tions from the coal and corri.merchanta on the
river, setting forth the losses of property and other
inconveniences, which were occasioned to them by
the structure of the bridge. The Committee of
the Bridge House Fatale►, upon inquiry, found
that much of the inconveilience stated in the
petitions did exist; but so much difficulty
lay iii the way of its removal, that the sithjtct had
at length hers' brooglit before l'arliutnent, and a
Committee of the Hoti•e of Commons had been.
appointed, Irian which proceeded the Report which
had been read. In consequence of the appoint-
ment of that Committee, the Court had referred to
Mr. Rennie, and several other professional gentle.
men, to Inquire whether, in point of expense awl
stability, the plan of alteration of the present
bridge, recommended by Mr. Dance, would be
more expedient than building a new briill.7e. Those
gentlemen presented • Report on the Itith March.
1831, in which they stated, that although the al-
teration which hail been suggested might he car-
ried into effect, yet, in their opinion, it would be
better to build a slew bridge. Now he (Mr. 0.)
complained of the conduct of these gentlemen,
Fur whereas limy were required to state, whether
the building of a new, bridge were preferable,
both as to the cousideration of the expense
and stability ; they gave the qiirstiou of sta-
bility the go by, and founded their recom-
mendation on no pothetical opinion as to
the security of the foutidations -of the present
bridge. Upon the evidence and report of those
Gentlemen the Committee of the House of Coin-
mons reported as their opinion, that the only

effectual way of remedying the inconvenience, and
removing the ttbetttsettosts to the navigation of tha
flirty, was by the total removal of the present
bridge, with the water-works and starlings. and the
W 3114111., of anew bridge or only five arches. Now
from that opinion, with all proper deference to the
Committee, be (Mr. Oldham) begged leave to di,-

rent. It would dl become hint to make ally re-.
marks upon the construction of a Committee a-the
House of Commons. He had often expressed his
opitoon of Parliamentary Reform, and at present
he was disposed to beconie a Radical Re-
former, butt he would commence by refornt-•
log the Radicals themselves. Those persons
who generally let themselves up as the
friends of the people, had in this instance send
most strangely in recommending a useasare which
would isievitably go to impose an additional tax on
some portion or other of the public, whether it was
on the City or on the passengers over the bridge,
and that without the smallest necessity. The Hon.
Gentleman then proceeded to comment on the etia
deuce before the Committee, from which he read
sevesil ea4reettas sheering that the Petitioner. .It tbs.
else, mod represented themselves as sustatatiug
(vim the .detention of the craft fur sevens holm
daily, ou account of the tide, • loss of several
hundred point& a year, and that lives were occa-
sionally lust in the passage of the bridge ; and that
the evidence adduced by the Bridge House Com-
mittee shelved that the lose of lives proceeded (tom
the inexperience or neglect of the lightereueo ; and
he contended that the weight of evidence wasagainst
the Petitioners on this point. With respect to the
remedy of the inconveniences complained of, be
quoted several passages of the evidence, to shew that
the witnesses themselves admitted that the alteration
of the present bridge winch lied been suggested,
namely, of enlarging the arches, would be perfectly
satisfactory. The first question, therefore, for con-
sideration was, whether the foundatious of the
bridge were in such a state as to support tiny addi-
tional weight which the proposed alterations might
impose. On this point Mr. Rennie stated before
the Committee, that of the practicability of the
alteratioit, as far as the erection of the four new
arches, he entertained no doubt, and that the ex-
pense, hi-chiding' temporary bridge, would beabout
94,000/. on the supposition that the foundations
were-at present secure. With respect to their se-
curdy, that could only be effectually ascertained
by wrens of cotter-.lams at an expense of 11,000/.
or 114,0001. each ; that he certainly should not con-
sider any new work, or the old piers safe without
examining them by means of the coffer-dam ;
and that the expense of such a survey was not in-
cluded to his former estimate of 91,000/. The
opinion of Mr. Rennie had been confirmed by Mr.
Montague and the other City Surveyors. In order,
however, to shear to the Court that there could be no
doubt flirt the foundations were so secure that they
would last fur ages, and that there was also as little
doubt of the practicability of the 'lteration of the
present bridge, he referred to the report of Mr.
Dance on the elate of the bridge in 1799, coofiemed
by Mrs Bowles, an engineer, who stated that
the general maw and body of the work was
in a state to last fur ages; to Mr. Chapman,
who stated that as to the piles, he had no
doubt of their lasting for ages to come, and
bearing the additional weight, and that they
would he less liable to injury after the altera-
tion, because the force and velocity of the water
would be decreased; to Mr. R. Walker, the engi-
neer, who stated that in 1796 he had recommended
the build,ti of ■ new bridge on the old piers and
starlings, and that his opinion of their stability had
been since confirmed ; that no coffer-dams would
be necessary, for the piers had stood upwards of
600 years without any appearance of settling, and
that he as. satisfied that new arches on the old
pier., if the starlings were retained, might be made
as secure as an entire new bridge. He also referred
to the alririions of several other practical men, who all
agreed that the alterations might be made with per-
feet security, and et an expense of less than 100,0001.
It also appeared that when the bridge was so alter-
ed, the expense of keeping the starlings in repair,
which was now 4,0001. would be reduced to 2,0001.
aunually. What he should propose, therefore,
would be this :—The water-works must at all
events be removed ; after that was done, he would
recontineud that one pier on each aide of the cen-
tral arch should be removed, fur the purpose of
tttrniug a large arch in the place of two small
ones; and if that were found to answer, then at a
future period in remove another pier on each side
for a similar purpose—thus proceeding by degrees
as experience should prove the esfety and practice-
bird), of the plan. The question of the effect
which would be produced on the waterway by
either plan, was one of tremendous and vital im-
portance. lie referred to the evidence to thew
that the enlarging of the waterway would cause
the tide to flow more evenly and smoothly, and
would not obstruct the navigation of the river above
the bridge; the total removal of the present bridge
would, however, cause an elevation of the tide above
bridge to such a degree as to overflow the books in
many party, and cause inconceivable danger. The
new bridge was proposed to he raised considerably
higher than the present, by which means the accli-
vity would he much greater and much more incon-
venient. One Gentleman suggested that the rise
instead ui true iii twenty-five should be one in forty ;
which would render it necessary to take down one
hundred and sixty houses at au expense of
sor 600,000/. Mr. Rennie stated, that a rote of
one in twenty-five would require the removal of six
houses ; hut Mr. Montague, the City Surveyor, whru
called upon for an estimate of the expense of such re-
moval, gave in a schedule of 43 honses which it would
be necessary to pull down at an estimated expense of
150,000/. It was impossible for the Court to cal-
culate within one nr goo,ooof. what the expense of
a new bridge would be. His own opinion was that
they could trot in any manner get it out of !tend
under 900,000/. or 1,000,0001.; but If what ap-
peared to be the proper rise (of one in forty) were
adopted, it would cost them at least 1,500,0001.
They had the best of evidence to thew that the
expense would be enormous—at appeared too that
the public generally were not complaining of the
present bridge. Whence were the funds to be de-
rived for the erection of a stew one t On the
bridge estates they would not be able to raise more

--


Pima 70.

than 200,600. anal where wm the rrat to conveYr•lkt,
They could only raise it by a toll or 1i911;00465t
public, at the rate of about 30,000/. • 10#:-.
and he could see on earthly reason alt preseat "
they should be called on to levy any tat Eilthe
public, Oleo they had the means iu their whoa
Laude of effecting all that was requisite by assiAtr-
ration in the old bridge. Ile really beiseveffißtat
the public costa not have heard one-tentli,plirt...,
the outcry which had been raised of the .ilh ryl
Loudon Bridge, had it not been for the depteasid
state of the fiumices of a neighbouring bridge cola-.
patty. For at a alerting of the Proprietors of that
bridge, on presenting the Report, the Clutiniaa
had stated that a Report had ',era made by a CAN-
taittre of the House of CAlMlStriar VI, the slat/ Asf.
.Joissiclort Bridge, recommending the errs:tam Ina
Ise* oh', which no doubt could be carried also
street. That *oath, Kite rise to an increase of the
arodece of the tolls of the Southweek Bridge,
he congratulated the Proprietors un the prospect.
which was thus held out to them. Ile coucluded,
by sassing u series of Resolutions, expressive of the
opinion of the Court, that upon full cousiderstieli
of all the circumstances, it would be more rape
dient to effect regain alterations and improvetanata7
is the existing bridge, than to erect a new one.
Mr. HUILCONIBB seconded the Resolution. '

Mr. Alderman Woos defendedih-e ct;nduct and
Report of the Committee of the House of Com.
mous. The Hon. Member had relied mainly aria
Chipman's evidences as to the practicability of
building a new bridge upon the old piers. Chap-
man said that it could be done, but it would *
necessary in that cue to keep the old starlings ; be
said it would be safe as long as the old startioge
remained, but every waterman would tell thew,.
that if the old starlings remained, the obstructiOn
to the navigation of the river would not be at all
removed, and every gentleman must know that
such was the case. IVIIII respect to the op-
preaches to the bridge, he would say nothing; hi
had nothing to do with them ; he stood there as
trustee of certain estates, the fund. of which, in his
opinion, could not be applied to the approaches, bait
were only intended to apply to the bridge itself.--.
The estimated expense of a new bridge, according
to the opinion of Mr. Rennie and other scientifie
men, with which he was disposed to concur, would
riot exceed 430.0001. To meet winch they had'
already in hand front the Bridge Estates 100,0001.
Twelve mouths, or yearly, would elapse before
Bill could pan for building a new bridge, which
would put them into possession of 45,0001. more,
being a year's income of the estates; and twelve
months after that would expire before • temporary
' bridge could be erected, to which they will re-.
ceirre another year's income ; so that before the
lint payment they would be Called On to melte,
they would have 150,000/. in hand. The order of
the payments he calculated at 50,0001. for IW4,
and 100,0001. cacti for the years IBM
1827, and 1828 ; during ohich they would have
received from the Bridge Estates 100,0001. in
additioo to the 150,000/. iu hand. So that
they would have to borrow a sum of only
200,000/. ; or even admitting that 300,0001. were
borrowed on the Bridge estates, the revenues of
these estates would pay off the debt in the course
of thirty years. He would now come to the los-
proveioents and approaches. The petitioners core.
planted of the obstruction to the navigation of the
River at preaents and wanted .remedy. Supposing
the erection of a new bridge to be determined on
as the most effectual remedy, they ottght at least
to pay a part of the expense of that remedy. A
toll of 2d. per too on all the barges that now go
under the bridge, would yield 10,0001. a year. Upon
a calculation that the necessary improvesuents would
require a sum of 130,000/. it would take thirty
years of such toll to pay off a boars to that amount.
This was a contribution to which the petitioners
could not fairly object, as they were the par-
ties who were to be benefited by the improvements ;
and according to their own *hewing, the saving iu
time, difference of mark, and the repair of their
barges, would amply make it up to them. He had
thus endeavoured as briefly as possible to bring be-
fore the Court his own view of the subject in
figures. If he erred in his calculations, he erred
with others whose judgment sod experience were
:greeter than his own, lie acted, however, from a
seine of duty, and a firm conviction that it would
be more for the honour and credit of the City to
adopt the recommendations of the Committee of the
House of Commons to build a new bridge, than to ,
patch up the old one.
Mr. FAests.-saitl, he was aware that strong pre.
judices existed in the Corporatiou w fuser of the
old bridge, and lie was not at all surprised at these
prejudice:v. Until the last six mouths, he had him-
self been a zealous old bridge defender ; he had
however within that time become a proselyte to the
opinions of those who thought a new bridge pre.
ferables and lie felt all the warmth in support of
his new persuasion which was generally a*crelied 4.•
young converts. He ask.d, whether it was'bre...,.
leg the City of London to allow snob a duns or h,r
to the brat river so the country as delayed the tralrie
on the river fur so many hours in the day. as this
binges were compelled to wait before they cooled
shoot the bridge. It was an evil which called for a
remedy, and whatever the expense, a remedy ought
to be provided. He concluded by stiovieg, as vs.
amendment, a Resolutiou expressive of the meteors
of the Court that it was expedient to concur is the
Resolution of the Committee of the House of Colts.
mons, to build a new bridge, with "as little eleva-
tion of the centre arch as possible.
Mr. Seeps seconded the amendment. fit-en-
tered at cominkrohle length into the history or
London Bridge. from 1120 to 1760, at winch pe-
riod the two arches iu the centre were turned into
ooe. He dwelt upoli the sacrifice of lives rod pre-
aPendrtYcocleeansdineldiettiliba yt
they
ibe
weer present form
preservation of both. It was in the highest degree
p
ofou romd tof
o the
consult br" itglir
e.
ditigracaul that the spirit of enterprise, uu 111111411'
, from whet motive, should have led private intim.