The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-04-28 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE BRITISH PRESS.

Sr a,—Some strictures in a leading article of last Sunday's John
null appear to me so singular, and at the same time so unfair, that
I shall claim permis.ion to offer a few remarks upon them.
The writer says of Colonel Trench's Plan, " '1 hat all doubt on
the subject of the new scheme appears to be at rest." Where and to
whom doom this appear? That "in its progress and details it be- t
came evident that, as originally projected, its effect upon the cur.
rent of the River would be very equivocal." It would be desirable
to know when, how, where, and to whom, it became evident."
The writer did not obtain this evidence from the Report of the Na-
vigation Committee, which states " that It will not be prejudicial
or injurious to the navigation of the River," while Mr. Rennie has
stated, that the navigation of the River would not be injured,
but much improved, by the adoption of this measure".
The writer adds, that " the interests of thousands would be as-
criticed, without adequate advantage to the public." What proof
is there of this? On the other hand, it is evident that the interests
of millions will be promoted, and that the advantage will be im-
mense in every point of view—utility, beauty, salubrity, and com-
mercial facility.
The writer intimates that a portion of the scheme has been now
abandoned, in order to " appease public feeling. " Is it not unfair
to carp at the particular portion of a plan which no longer apper.
tains to it ? _

He terms the relinquished part of the project (contending with
which is, indeed, altogether fighting with air,) a " wall of houses."
This may be witty, but I am afraid it is too profound to be com-
prehensible by less nimble and volatile imaginations. We may
hear of a house of walls, but A WALL of houses is not a very gram-
matical, if a " plausible," phrase. The writer's reasoning is (to
be candid) as turbid as his wit. He tells us that this " wall of
houses" was, nevertheless, the " most plausible feature of the plan.
and the only possible means of giving it any thing like splendor;"
yet a few lines lower it is said, that the scheme, in consequence of
the existence of this " wall of houses," will lose ALL the cha-
racter of magnitude and even beauty. How then could the " wall
of houses" contribute to make it splendid ? T1.:3 is indeed writ-
ing equivocally.
As to the allegation in the next paragraph, that the Quay is an
erection of " long bridges," there is not a word of sense, wit, argu-
ment, or plausibility in it ; the plan is fldclibus °rolls summissa,
and that is the best reply. The structure and features of the Quay
are totally different from any bridge either on the Thames or any
other river.
" While this schema, however, was ALOIX before Parliameat,"
continue, the writer. The scheme is now ALONE before Parliament ;
the Bill has been read a first time under the sanction of a large ma-
jority of the House. The writer in the John Ball proceeds—" anti
while any doubt existed of its ultimate fate", (no doubt exists or
ever did exist with rational persons of its ultimate s [ICC ESS,) " we
felt a difficulty in opposing it." The public will be at no loss to
discover " plausible" reasons for this difficulty, in the fact which
the writer hinwelf acknowledges, that he obtruded his uncalled-for
opinion tri Mr. Nash, and " got buffeted" fur what that gentle.
man obviously considered an impertinent interference.
The anonymous opponent, however, appears, from his own con-
fession, not to have been very delicate about this difficulty, since ft
seems that he charged Colonel Trench, whom he justly acknow-
ledges (as everybody must) to be "conspicuous for his high and
estimable qualities," with having borrowed or stolen the scheme
from Mr. Nash. It now appears, however, that the writer„ is con-
vinced that he had unjustly suspected" him of borrowing ; and hay-
ing made the antende honorable, he proceeds to render it as worth-
less as possible :—" The plan has little in common with that of
Mr. Nash, beyond the general scheme of drawing forth one of the
finest features of the metropolis from obscurity, &c. So then it
seems " the wall of houses" was not the" only plausible" part of
the scheme

Again—" The writer felt a jealousy of the precocious offspring
of an unprofessional man." Persons reading this might be de•
ceived into a belief that professional men of the first stamp, both
as architects and engineers, were not concerned in the Quay, and
that Colonel Trench had taken upon himself to interfere in matters
of which he must be supposed to be professionally uninformed,
instead of Nailing himself of the talents of professional men of the
first eminence both as architects and engineers. That they felt ■
jealousy is sufficiently obvious, though it will not be so readily
ranted, that " they felt a delicacy " in adverting to Mr.- ash's
scheme, or that they felt a delicacy in referring to the subject while
the measure was agitating. The allusion to it which we have
noticed was not very delicate; in fact, there has been no abstinence
whatever hi making attacks of every description.
Let us next see how he proves that Colonel TrenTies plan has
" little in common with that of Mr. Nash," and how he compares
the demerits of the former with the unequivocal advantages of the
latter.

" St. Paul's Cathedral will not only be rescued from its dark
prison house, but produced and opened to the very shore of the
Thames." Now, as the writer has seen Colonel Trench's plan in
the " very pretty etchings" which "are before the public," he must
know that Colonel Trench's design embraces the very same object.
" It will essentially assist the course and current of the tide."—
Colonel Trench's plan proposes the same result.
" The mud banks of our famed River will no longer present their
nuisance to the eve." This improvement is also effectually pro--
vided for by the Thames Quay Bill.
" The purposes of trade and commerce will be facilitated." Co.
lonel Trench ',t plan contemplates precisely the same advantages.
"A broad and uniform communication from Westminster-bridge
to Loodon.bridge, along its north bank, will be open to the public."
Colonel Trench's plan proposes a communication along the north
bank, open to the public, from that part of IVestminster where the
great tide of passengers from the west to the east end of the town
takes its rise, and varying in width according to circomstancat.
But it does not embrace any thing so manifestly absurd or mis.
chievous as the writer's " broad and uniform communication from
IVestminster-bridge to London-bridge" must be. For if broad,
with relation to the width of the river opposite to Craven street, or
Scotland-yard, and equally broad (which to be " uniform" it must
be) at London-bridge, its effect, with reference to the width of the
river in that part, would be no less than to block up nearly half the
river, even at high water.
April 27, 11328. X.