The Sun.
London, England, 1862-01-31 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL.

THE NEW BLACKFRIARS BRIDGE.
The City Parliament held a special meeting yes-
terday at'.2 o'clock, for the purpose of taking into
consideration a• report made at the former court by
the Bridge-house Estates Committee, having refe-
rence to Blackfriars-bridge, and recommending that
a new bridge of three arches be erected, after the
design sent in by Thomas Page, Esq., at the esti-
mated coat of £245,000.
The Right Hon. the Lord Mayor presided, and
as the questionwas one of considerable importance,
not only to the corporation, but also the general
public, there was a very full attendance of members
of the Court. The following members of the " Up-
per House" were also present :—Aldermen Hum-
phery, Salomons, Challis, Phillips, Gabriel, Mechi,
Rose, Sir F. G. Moon, Hale, Sir H. Muggeridge,
W. Lawrence, Dakin, Abbiss, J. C. Lawrence, and
Finnis. The Recorder was also present. _ .

The proceedings of the last Court were agreed to,
•as having been correctly printel, and the business
for which it was now specially assembled was then
proceeded with.
It may be necessary to explain that in consequence
of the alleged defective and insecure state of the pre-
sent bridge at Blackfriars, the subject was specially
referred to the Bridge House Estates Committee to
consider what steps should be taken, and, after a
very long inquiry, and consulting some of the most
eminent engineers, all of whom sent in plans and
estimates for the erection of a new bridge (which
was considered the best course to be taken), the
committee decided upon adopting the plan of erec-
tion proposed by Mr. Page, namely, an iron bridge
of three arches, and they made areport to that effect:
Mr. Kearns, a member of the committee, placed a
motion upon the paper that the matter should be
further considered before any decision should be
arrived at, and the whole matter now came on for

discussion.
Mr. H. W. VALLANCE, chairman of the Bridge
House Estates Committee, in moving that the report
should be agreed to and adopted, referred at some
length to the previous proceedings that had taken
place in reference to the question, and said that even
those who had an interest in " nursing" the ques-
tion admitted that it was no longer advisable to
maintain the old structure. (Hear, hear.) The
matter was referred to the Bridge House Estates
Committee in March, 1861, and they considered the
matter very carefully, and consulted the most emi-
nent engineers this country could produce, who had
been selected by the City architect ; and after the
most careful consideration, they had almost unani-
mously agreed to the report that had been pre-
sented, and which he hoped would receive the
sanction of the Court. (Hear.) He said he be-
lieved that the real question which was to be
decided was, whether they were to have a bridge
of five arches, which would suit the convenience
of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway
Company, or whether they were to have one of three
arches, that would afford much more waterway
and considerably greater accommodation to the
traffic of the river. (Hear.) Mr. Valiance then
proceeded, in a very able address, to call the atten-
tion of the Court to all the points connected with
the question at issue, and concluded a most eloquent
speech by stating that neither he nor the committee
had any other object in view than that a bridge
should be erected in the place of the present incon-
venient and dangerous structure that would be an
honour to the Corporation of London, and would
comply with the requirements of the age in which
they lived.
Deputy FRY said that, with the consent of Mr.
Kearns, who had notice of an amendment upon the
paper, he should propose that amendment to the
Court, and as a member of the committee, should,
at the same time, state the objections which he en-
tertained to the report that had been brought up to
the Court. (Hear.) He was not 'willing to dis-
close the secrets of a committee—(hear)—but he
must protest against the assumption being enter-
tained that the report was not objected to in
the committee. For his own part, he could
state positively that he had no idea that at the last
meeting they held the question to be disposed of
was, whether this plan was to be agreed to. (Hear.;
He was prepared to contend that the committee
ought to have had a greater amount of professional
easistanee, and that, in point offset, the report now
before the Court was the result of the deliberations
of unpractical and unscientific men. (Hear, hear.)
He then proceeded to state that the original amount
of the estimate sent in by Mr. Page for the erection
of this bridge was £280,000 ; but after Mr. Cubitt
had proposed to erect the structure for £245,000,
Mr. Page found out that he had made some extra-
ordinary mistake in his calculations, and he under-
took to build the bridge for the exact sum that had
been mentioned by Mr. Cubitt. (Hear, and a laugh )
Tno worthy deputy then referred to an article in
the Athenaurn condemnatory of the proposed struc-
ture, and said that it was a startling fact that only
two out of the whole number of engineers, who had
been engaged in the matter, had committed them-
selves to a three-arch bridge, and even Mr. Page
himself had sent in plans and estimates having re-
ference to a five-arch bridge, as well as to one of
three arches. (Hear.) He then proceeded to con-
tend that, with regard to water-way, a much
larger amount of available water-way was afforded
by a five-arch bridge than by a three-arched one,
and said that some of the most eminent engineers
of the day had expressed a similar opinion. (Hear.)
The worthy deputy concluded by stating that Mr.
Page had himself admitted that he had made a
mistake of three feet six inches in his gradients,
and he believed that if the Surrey side were to be
raised to the level that would be required for his
three-arch bridge, it would be necessary to raise
the level on that side of the water five or six feet,
or as high as the first floor windows. (Laughter.)
He concluded by proposing the amendment that had
be: n put upon the paper by Mr. Kearns, that the
matter should be referred back to the committee for
further consideration.

Mr. KEARNS supported the amendment, and in
doing so he denied that the committee had had
sufficient opportunity of considering all the plans
that had been presented to them, and he said that
he was shocked to find that the committee had come
to the resolution to accept the plan that had been
sent in by Mr. Page. (Oh, oh.) So far from his
having consented to this proposition, be moved two
amendments to the motion and divided upon them,
and these protests were upon the records of the
committee. He then proceeded to complain of the
proceedings that had been adopted to obtain signa-
tures to petitions in favour of a three-arch bridge,
and cited instances in which parties' names ap-
Peered, who were unable to write, and in others the
persons signing did so under the impression that
they were petitioning for a five-arch and not a
three-arch bridge. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The
hon. member referred to the question of the em-
bankment of the north and south sides of :the
Thames, and said that it was extremely important
that no bridge should be erected that would not
coincide with the proposed embankment. He then
called the attention of the Court to a number of ac-
cidents that had taken place within his own obser-
vation, from his place of business being on the river
side at Southwark-bridge, solely by reason of that
edifice being constructed upon three arches, and he
argued that a bridge of five arches would give
much more waterway and afford much more accom-
modation to the traffic of the river than the bridge
that was now sought to be erected. He also took
exception to the use of cast iron in the erection of
such a building as a bridge, and avouchedtheprlaotoef
fearful calamity at the Hartley colliery as a
of the danger that was to be apprehended from the
use of such a material. The hon. member then went
into a variety of details in support of his argument,
and concluded by expressing a hope that the Court
would not sanction the expenditure of a sum of
£300,000, which in all probability would be the ex-
pense of the proposed structure, without first being
well satisfied that when it was completed it would
answer the purpose for which it was erected.
(Hear, hear.)
Several hon. members then rose to address the
Court, but

The LORD MAYOR interposed, and said that the
question before them Was one of very considerable
importance, nd as it WAS WM hafTliglt cAlQck i;