The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-02 00:00:00

" With regard to a site near Charing,cross, we are in-
; clined to concur in the opinion Of Mr. Pennethorn-e; who
obseriee,'‘ that if, with 'refeeence-to the Houses of Par.
!lament, or for any other reissue, the site of the pre:;ent
briJge mint be moved, 'then it would, ay rtspecta
the general traffie, be most advisable to codvert the
preseilt 'bridge .'in 'a light iron" tent =bi'idge only, and
build trio otherbridges - at a distance, ai it would be
more advsnEageons to the pntilie generally to incur at
'Once the greater cost of building two bridges in connexion
with'the neiv streets contemplated lit the 'improvement
of Soiltlawark and Lambeth, thin to expend a' large ante
in for Ming approaChes not'se'convenient air the existing.
ones, and-which.PossiblY afterwards
.it would be' neces.
sary extend.' * •
'" Tee' sites near Richrnond terrace and the India
Board are inure tavourabircircunistanced; and if the
block ot houses which now separates Parliament-street
from itiag•Sireet were removed either of these sitta-
tions" d'ig'it be preterable'to the one which we have
selected. But it is obvioui that' much additional time
Would he losl, ana alsrge additional expense incurred,
h,f-irre eithir of these could be rendered tit for the con-
struction of 'a ;permanent bridge with its rcq uigite
prom,hes... •
Pibperty .of 'considerable watt° must be acquired
both on tee Middlesex and Surrey siths' or the river he.
tote cenyenieut accesses could he made to 4‘ nee hririg
at either of theBe points. The tithe repaired for these
purchases Would delay the opeeink -at We- new: bridge;
and &ten 'When coul;.,luted, although is -ruigl.4 give an
opportunity 'tor arehiteethial display, it beetii doubtful
whether the change of site :would be regarded as af-
fording any general convenience commensurate with its
cost.

_
" Haiing thui stated -our objections to , the aboVe-
mentioned sites, we pranced to report our opinion on
the advantages which would ensue. If the third and last
plan were 'carried into ' That the new feedge
'should he constructed adjoining, or as near as possible,
to the present bridge, either on the north or south side.'
"A new oridge on the south side 'of the present
structure would be objectionable on aCcount of its proxi-
mity to the Houses of Parliament. This • objection
would 'be increased if the bridge were constructed
with a height of headway of twenty-five feet above
Trinity datum. The erection of this bridge would,
moreover, necessitate 'the immediate purotitise of the
entire south, side of Bridge-street, which consists of.
27 houses, none of which are the property of the Bridge
Commissioner& The purchase of these houses, inclu-
ding the interests of the teninti3Oompensation for good-
will, removal, &c., would, very far- exceed the coat of
acquiring any property on the north: side of Bridge-
street vinich might be required for th° approaches to the
new britlge; if it *ere placed to the north .of the exist=
ing bridge. • _ , )
" The property on the north" side of Bridge street:'
consists of a Week of Pine houses, extending westward
as far as Cannon-row, and one house westward of Can-
non-row, all-of which are the propetty of the Bridge
Commission.' On the west of the last-nitmed house is a
small block extending to Parliament-street, which is not
the property of the Bridge Commiseionere. The leasea"
of these' houses are either expired or have but a short
time to run.
" Se much inconvenience and danger • are at present
experienced from the confined appreaches.and very sharp
turn froth Bridge-street into Parliament-street, that it
will be :necessary to make the accesses to any new
bridge considerably wider - than they are lit the present
time.
" Some 'information upon the comparative cost of
constructing a bridge with the requisite approaches
upon the sites above-mentioned will be found in the
Appendix, as well as in the evidence of Mr. Hardwick
and of. Mr. Peneethorne. The lineation of cost has,
not been specially referred to our consideration, nor.
would it be possible to add a satistactory opinion
ou ibis matter without a minute inquiry into.- the
value of. property, which may be variously estimated.
We believe, however, that the north side -of the'
present structure will be the most convenient and eco-
notnical size tar the new bridge;' the most convenient, boa
cause the work could be iminvdtately, commenced, and
its, erection will theretore be attended with the least Ob-
struction to the traffic; and the most economical, both on
account of the smaller expense which would be required
toe the acquisition of property necessary for the enlarge-
ment of theapproacbes, and because it avoids. the neces-
sity of. a temporary bridge.
" ilatingteus stated the grounds of our opinion as '
to the most advintageous- 'site 'for the new bridge, we
proceed to ri port to your Lordships our views as to the
best mode of construction, the Width, the height of head-
Way ebt,eo Trinity datum, the number of arches,,and•the
material to be- used fur its formation.
• " And, first, with respect to the width necessary in
the cumotsuotiou ot the new bridge. lhe openiug• or •
the stew line..ot; street called Victoria-street, -which
forms a direct and convenient communication between
Ohelase,:'the Borough; 'and the City,..the formation of
the SUM -Western Railway teriniaue in the vicinity
et the biidgei and the increase of the metropolii on
both...sides of the 'river, render it necessary to afford
greater 'fadilitiei for the traffic over the new West
ininster-bridge, 'the width of the present bridge, 42
feet, being found to be totally insufficient.
" We are of opinion, therefore, that 60 feet, including
the footways, should be the minimum width to meet the
requirements of the increasing traffics and the comfort
and safety of the public.
"The width of the other metropolitan bridges over
the Thames is stated to be as follows, viz

' Feet.
... 54
... 42
... 43