The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-04 00:00:00

BLACKFRIARS BRIDGE.

Yesterday, at a special meeting of the Common
Council, held at Guildhall, the Lord Mayor in the
chair, the subject of the proposed new bridge
across the Thames at Blackfriars underwent
a long discussion in a very full court.
The Bridge House Estate Committee, to whom
the question had been twice referred for considera-
tion, eventually determined to recommend that the
bridge to be erected by the corporation should be
one of five arches, springing from an abutment in a
line with the present wharf lines on each side of the
river. Having regard to the length of time that
would necessarily be occupied in the construction of
a stone bridge, as compared with one of iron arches,
and to the very great difference between the cost of
a stone bridge and that of an iron one, the commit-
tee were of opinion that it would not be desirable to
adopt a design for a stone bridge. Of 16 designs
submitted to them by engineers of eminence they
selected five, each of five arches, as best calculated
to meet the requirements of the public ; namely—
stating them alphabetically, as the committee had
done—the design, sent in by Mr, James Brunlees,
for abridge of five elliptical arches, at the estimated
cost of £230,573, including the cost of a temporary
bridge ; the design, sent in by Mr. Joseph Cubitt,
for a bridge of five segmental arches, at the estimated
cost of £265,000 ; the design, sent in by Mr. John
Fowler, for a bridge of five elliptical arches, at the
estimated cost of £380,000 ; the design, sent in by
Mr. Robert William Mylne, for a bridge of five seg-
mental arches, at the estimated cost of £308,000, ex-
clusive of a temporary bridge and the reconstruction
of the outlet of the Fleet sewer ; the design, sent in
by Mr. Thomas Page, for a bridge of five segmental
arches, at the estimated cost of £260,000, including
allowance for contingencies, and for removing the
present bridge. These designs the committee pre-
sented yesterday, with an accompanying report, to
the Common Council, for them to choose one for
adoption. Pictorial representations of the five
selected designs were exhibited in the Council
Chamber, and sketches of the unaccepted ones
were shown in the adjoining committee-rooms.
Mr. Brunlees' design had a centre arch of 209 feet
4 inches span, side arches of 196 feet 6 inches, and
abutment arches of 163 feet 4 inches. The head-
way of the centre arch above Trinity high-water
was 26 feet, the distance from abutment to abut-
ment 995 feet, and the available water-way for
navigation 929 feet. The average gradient of the
bridge was 1 in 50, with 70 feet breadth of way.
In Mr. Cubitt's design the span of the centre arch
was 189 feet, of the side arches 176 feet, and of the
abutment arches 164 feet. The headway of the
centre arch was 27 feet above high water, the dis-
tance from abutment to abutment 963 feet, and the
available waterway 869 feet. The breadth was 75
feet, and the steepest inclination of the bridge was
lin 40. Mr. Fowler's centre arch was 184 feet in
span, two side arches 173 feet each, and two land
arches 162 feet. The headway of the centre arch
above high water mark was 22 feet, the distance
from abutment to abutment 925 feet, and the
available waterway 854 feet. The gradient
of the bridge was 1 in 50, and the breadth 80 feet. ,
The centre arch of Mr. Mylne was 216 feet span,
the side arches 199 feet, and the two land arches 1
156 feet ; the headway of the centre arch being 26
feet, the distance between the abutments 987 feet,
and the available waterway 926 feet. The span of
Mr. Page's centre arch was 200 feet, of the adjoin-
ing arches 188 feet, and of the abutment arches 164
feet. The headway of the centre arch above high-
water mark was 23 feet, the distance between the
abutments being 994 feet, and the available water-
way 903 feet. The breadth of the bridge was not
less than 75 feet, and the gradient was 1 in 50 on
the Middlesex, and 1 in 40 on the Surrey side.
Mr.
W.
VALLANCE, chairman of the Bridge-
house Committee, in moving the adoption of their
report, explained
thiantvtehsetlygahtaidondeovfotthede
subjectmuchtimine
and labour to the
all its bearinthat this was ft g
s
,
the corporation o
work Lond
of He urged upon the court
question of vast importance to
of a f
London,involving as it did the
performanceegreat public utility and