The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-13 00:00:00

METROPOLITAIT lUD:WATS FOR, 1834,

Is Lord D_rby again io ni,dertairo this year the
defence of the metropolis ageiust its hungry crowd -
of assailauts ? I,: his lordship should now '
forward hi thi br uch, ho necd do no more,
:so uaroid beiora tile: astGaishod g,.z,.; of
the llacko of :Veers Mr. Stanford's map of proposed
Metropolitan Rai; ways for the year 186 t. Last year
they only clamoured at the gates; this Session they
try to swarm over city and suburbs, till in such
neighbourhoods es the intended Thames Embenk-
ment or round the Mansion-hones the red lines look
like a hopeless tangle,—two, three, or sometimes
even four striving, if not to occupy the same ground,
yet at least to run as close together side by side as
they possibly can without touching. Last year
there was at least some decent show of reluctance
to cut up parks and build over the few open places
in London, but, probably encouraged by the mild '
truism of the Lords' report last Session, " that
squares and open places should not be unnecessarily
taken," all reserve seems now cast to the winds.
A public park on the line of route is apparently con-
sidered rather a good thing than otherwise, inas-
much as the promoters evidently flatter themselves
that they will be allowed to tunnel through such
places for nothing. The best squares seem in some
cases to have been selected for passing through or
near, the beat and most thronged of our city tho-
roughfares for tunnelling under and building
stations. Round about the Mansion-house and Lead-
enhall-street, as we have said, the web of lines more
resembles a torn and ravelled net, and in this densely
populated spot they wind in and out in such inex-
tricable confusion that it is literally impossible to
trace the course of any single line through the
labyrinth. Near Blackfriars-bridge they are
almost as bad, A large slice of the river Thames
is marked out to be occupied by a line running
almost along its centre from Westminster to
London-bridge, and there are plans for no less than
four bridges over the Pool—one at Limehouse, one
at Shadwell, and two at the Tower. One hopeful
scheme crosses Kensington Gardens from end to
end. Another, after doing the same kind office for
Hyde Park, proceeds direct across the Green Park,
and St. James's. Of course these latter would be in
tunnels, and of course, the tunnels would drain
the ground and kill all the trees near them. One
plan, the Metropolitan Grand Union, appears ab-
solutely incomprehensible in its wild eccentric
flourishes all round Tower-hill, unless on the sup-
position that it is intended to give all the inhabi-
tants of the Minories direct communication with
Kensal-green. It would be a mere waste of time,
however, to notice the crude absurdities of all the
schemes which are about to be thrust on the notice
of the houses as plans for metropolitan communica-
tion. It is said that nothing but money at 12 per
cent. would have stopped the conception of some of
these bubbles; but such a prosy consideration as
the value of money could never have crossed the
minds of some promoters for a single instant. It is
fortunate for the public that the great mass of them
were conceived with such a lofty indifference to
present cost or future profit, and are in short little
more than the crotchets of young engineers striving
to force themselves on the notice of the railway
world. The estimates are in some cases put lower
than half the cost of the mere property the line would
take, and this is in most cases, no doubt, done to di-
minish the deposit of 8 per cent. required by the
Board of Trade till the line is completed. These de-
posits have to be made good before the 15th inst., and
probably not more than 30 out of the 60 proposed
new metropolitan lines will pass through that
monetary ordeal, if even so many. Of the survivors
a certain number are sure to fall through from non-
compliance with the standing orders, a certain num-
ber will be compromised and rejected, and the field
will in the end be left to a few good practical and
solvent schemes, well supported by the great com-
panies, to fight out the battle of future railway
communication through the metropolis.
The great struggle of the session, and, as far as
regards the interests of London, the greatest that
was ever fought out before Parliamentary commit-
tees, will be between the rival schemes of Mr.
Hawkshaw and Mr. John Fowler. Whichever way
the battle goes, the result must be to influence for
ever, and in the most vital manner, the future rail-
way legislation for the metropolis. To understand
this it is necessary to state that the third report of
Lord Granville's committee on railways last year,
after recommending that the Great Eastern, which
caused all the outcry, should be allowed to come
into the city, went on to suggest that some final and
comprehensive scheme should be formed for all me-
tropolitan lines, such as an inner low level circle for
the local traffielof London itself, and an outer high
level circle to completely surround the metropolis
and intercept all lines to London at a short distance
from their termini, so as to make communication
with all railways north and south of the Thames
without taking their passengers through but round
London. The report further recommended that for
this purpose what is called the Metropolitan Rail-
way district ihould be considerably extended, and
that the inner and outer circles of lines should join
at some part of their circumference. There were
other minor suggestions, but the gist of the whole
report lay in pressing on engineers the promotion
of these inner and outer circles, From both the rea-
soning and conclusion of this report AIL.. Hawk-
shaw dissents, first, on the ground, which will occur
to every one, that it is not possible now to form
any scheme of finality with rzgard to metropolitan
railways, and that it is safer and more just to judge
of ouch by its own merits and by the real accommo-
dation which it offers to the public ; secondly, be-
cause all the lines intercepted by the outer circle
would, by payment of tolls, have a right of way over
it to the inner circle, and thus virtually bring about
the veil evil the Lords wish to prevent—the intro-
duction of what would really be their termini into
the very heart of the city. Mr. Fowler has, on the
contrary, adopted the suggestions of the Lords' re-
port, end comes forward with two schemes gigantic
is extent and costliness for carrying them out. Mr.
llawkshaw, adhering to his principle of only meet-
ing acknowledged wants and not striving after un-
attainable finality in railway legislation, has only
two plans, one for connecting the northern lines by
tunnel with Charing cross station, and another from
Hammersmith to the same terminus. Each of these
eminent engineers, therefore, supports distinct
principles. Mr. Fowler upholds the Lords' sugges-
tions,Mr: H.awkshaw opposes them, and as each
has vigorous supporters, the contest is likely to be
the keenest, longest, and most memorable of all our
railway struggles. If, on the one side, Mr. Hawk-
show is hampered by the freaks of wild auxiliaries,
who, in maps and plans at least, run riot over half
the streets and squires of London, he is, on the
other hand, powerfully upheld by great companies,
and not less so perhaps by some serious objections
to Mr. Fowler's great scheme of interception.
Mr. Hawkahaw's two plans are, fortunately fur
the view he takes of the Lords' Report, of great
and acknowledged utility: When once the London-
bridge and South Western lines were brought to
Charing-cross it was evident that for the sake
of even-handed justice between companies, to
say nothing of accommodation and convenience for
the public, the great lines north of the Thames
must be allowed to effect their junction also.
Fortunately, the difference between the levels of
the Great Northern, Euston, and Midland termini
and that of the station at Charing-cross is such that
a deep cutting may be made frcim the termini of the
three great lines we have mentioned which can be
carried under the Strand to near the bottom of
Villiers-street, where it emerges and effects a junc-
tion near the first pier of the Charing-cross bridge
at a level. The total length of this line is 31 miles,
It is to be laid for four lines of rails, and to be an
open cutting with brick retaining walls, very
similar to the cutting leading out of the North_
'Western station at Euston-square. It is taken at
such a depth that all streets can be continued over
it on bridges without alteration of their width or
level, and the bridges themselves are to be built of
such a width as to allow of the line of shops or
houses along the streets being continued over them,
so as to keep the traffic on the line entirely out of
sight. There will be one station, and one station
only, in Holborn. There will be separate stations
at Charing-cross for the through southern traffic,
and. that to the City by the Cannon-street line.

The cutting is cvsrywherecall behind the 'r;OLIE,ZB
so as not to interfere with existing streets, the levels
of whicll arc not r,ltmrcd, with the e` option of the
Eustoe-road, which 1.3 r,,,is[d five feet, and a tunnel
of about 250 yards in length takes it under the
Strand to Chaiing-erose. The estimated cost of this
line is I:2,000,C00. M:. wicshaw's second scheme
is ono to connect Lambeth, ilv-ostminster,
Chelsea, Brompton, Kensington, and Hammer-
smith, and the neighboui hoods, in connection with
the West London Railway, and give a direct access
to Charing-cross, Cannon-street, and London-
bridge, and thus, of course, to all the lines north
and south of the Thames. The total length of
the line is six miles, snd its estimated cost is
£2,600,000. It commences at the south end of the
Hungerford viaduct, passes through Lambeth,
crosses the Thames on the east of the Penitentiary,
thence through Westminster, Pimlico, Chelsea, and
on to Brompton, on the south side of the Exhibition
buildings, effects a junction with the West London
Railway, and so on by a branch to Hammersmith.
This is to be for two lines of way, and will be con-
structed (if the Bill passes) on the same principles
as the branch to the northern lines—that is to say, in
an open cutting below the level of the streets, which
are continued in the same manner by bridges over
it, with houses at each side. That such a line is
supposed to be needed may be inferred from the
fact that ithree companies are competing for the
ground, and much of Mr. Hawkshaw's proposed
line is also intended to be occupied by the great
circle of Mr. Fowler's scheme. It is on this western
extension, therefore, that the struggle between the
two leading engineers will take place.
_ _ _

Of coarse there are other schemes besides Mr.
Fowler's for intercepting the lines to the metropolis,
and others besides Mr. Hawkshaw's for connecting
the northern and southern lines; but it is not too
much to say that the plans of the gentlemen we have
mentioned are the most complete and important of
their class, and are the representative schemes of the
two great principles. It would be unjust to Mr.
Fowler to attempt to summarize all the details of
his scheme into a few lines at the end of a long
article, and we shall, therefore defer an account of
his inner and outer circles of railway to another oa-
casion,when the great question which their intercep-
ting system raises may be more fully explained.
Unfortunately, one part of the plan, which it is
to be hoped is capable of alteration in this respect,
is to take a line along the proposed Thamts Em-
bankment, for the part possession of which there
are already many railway competitors struggling
for the sole right of diefiguring the unmade tho.
roughfare. It sounded strangely at first to hear
that the Metropolitan Board of Works lent a wil-
liug ear to these proposals for cutting up their
greatest and, architecturally speaking, their noblest
work. The real facts of the case, however, are these.
The gas company near Blackfriars-bridge has an Act
which guarantees it in its approach to the river, and
this right was most unfortunately confirmed to it
when tha Thames Embankment Bill became law.
To give the company their access to the river means
to make an open dock through the Embankment
into the gasworks—to, in fact, cut it in two. The
expense of making such a dock will be great, and
the ruin to the aspect of the lofty granite terraced
Embankment certain. It is not so strange, there-
fore, that the Metropolitan Board of Works having
no money of their own to buy off the gasworks are,
as the least of the two evils, glad to welcome any
railway company rich enough to do so, and support
their claim to partly spoil the Embankment that
the company in return may enable the Board to
complete it without an opening. It seems but slip-
shod legislation all this. Public feeling was most
deservedly excited by the attempt to turn the Em-
bankment from Montague-house, but who would
have suspected that, when that grievance was re-
dressed, such an injury would have been done to the
plan as to virtually cut it in two to oblige a gas-
works. But that folly having been committed, it by
no means of necessity follows that we must commit
the last and greatest by selling a right of way along
the Embankment to any railway that will buy off
the gasworks. The Thames Embankment will be the
most costly, the widest, and the handsomest tho-
roughfare in the world. Has the richest city then
no alternative bat to sell and spoil for ever this
their greatest work, to bring in one nuisance to buy
out another, when an additional outlay of some
three or four per cent, on the sum proposed to be
expended would allow the original design to be car-
ried through in its integrity, and shut out the crowd
of hungry rail ways which are already clamouring
for the right of using and disfiguring the Embank-
ment before a stone of it is laid ?