The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-13 00:00:00

WESTMINSTER-BRIDGE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

Sir,—As your journal published the substance of
nearly the whole of Mr. Page's evidence before the West-
minster-bridge Committee, and not one of Mr. Walker's
reasons against lowering the headway of the centre
arch, the navigation interests have some claim upon
you for giving equal publicity to the corrections, by
other witnesses, of Mr. Page's omissions, which ap-
pear to go very far towards neutralising his own ar-
guments in reference to the proposal far lowering the
headway for navigation from 25 feet 6 inches to 20 feet.
Mr. Walker is engineer to the present Bridge Com-
missioners, and has been employed as consulting engineer
to the Navigation Committee of the Port of London for
the last quarter of a century. Mr. Page is engineer to
the Board of Works, to whom the bridge and the bridge
estates are proposed to he transferred by the bill now
before Parliament.

Mr. Page stated in evidence (and this corresponds
with Sir W. Molesworth's letter to the Lord Mayor)
that by lowering the bridge to 20 feet headway, the in-
clination of the roadway would be reduced from 1 in 22,
the present inclination, to 1 in 54, and that the effect of
this would be that the same power which would be re-
quired to draw 1,000 tons up the present incline would
draw nearly 2,500 tons up the proposed incline ; and he
further stated, that during five days of 12 hours each,
48,000 tons were drawn up Westminster-bridge, but
that with the proposed lowering, the same power would
draw 120,000 tons over.
It appeared that in both the above statements he had
left out the important element of friction, and that if
friction be added, and taken at 801 b. per ton, which Mr.
Page gave as his opinion of the amount of friction, the
120,000 tons would be reduced to 72,200, and the
2,500 tons to 1,500.
It was also proved that the headway of 25 feet 6 in.
might be preserved with an inclination of 1 in 42 upon a
new bridge, which would reduce the difference between
the 20 feet and the 25 feet 6 inches height in the pro-
portion of 1,500 to 1,370 tons.
As an illustration, it was shown that the rise of 1 in
42 would be the same as for half the length of the road-
way between the Canning monument in Palace-yard and
Bridge-street, and upon other equally unobjectionable
thoroughfares.

Under these circumstances, and making every allow-
ance for the greater importance and quantity of land
traffic, ought the height which navigation has always
had, and the opportunity for improving and increasing
the navigation which it affords, to be taken from it in
the way now proposed, particularly as all the bridges
below Westminster, and also Vauxhall-bridge, above
Westminster, have a greater height.
The resolution of a Royal commission, in 1851, was,
that the new bridge should have 25 feet 6 inches clear
headway, which corresponds with the plan deposited in
the autumn of 1852 by the Board of Works, prepara-
tory to an intended application to Parliament for a new
bridge, and of the attempt to lower this the navigation
interest were not informed until very lately.
Again, as the resistance by gravitation upon a rise
of 1 in 54, and also upon a rise of 1 in 42, are both
less than the resistance by friction on the road, the
power required to draw any given weight from one end
of the bridge to the other is the same in both, the
greater exertion required in getting up to the middle of
the bridge being all returned in going down on the oppo-
site side, so that in truth there is not any, the smallest,
loss of power in going over the bridge by the difference
between the gradients of 1 in 54, and 1 in 42, where, as
in this case both are easy ; indeed, waggoners and
coachmen prefer easy inclines to a perfectly level road,
upon which they say "the load is always upon the
collar." Strange that this important fact was not
stated in the evidence of any of the engineers that were
examined.

___
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
London, July, 1853. NAITTICUS,

( From the Times.)
Westminster-bridge is to come down at last. We have
arrived so far in the direction of improvement. It is at
least a satisfaction to find that the question is no longer
as to the destruction of the old nuisance, and the substi-
tution in its place of a more efficient structure ; but as
to the form the new bridge shall receive. There are
two opinions upon this subject. Many persons whose in-
terests are more directly concerned in river traffic are for
working up to the model of the Menai-bridge, and adapt-
inc, the new structure to the exigencies of the river
traffic' as they are at present understood. Others again
maintain—and we very cordially agree with them—that
the mere river traffic is a point of very secondary
importance as compared with the convenience of
passage for foot passengers and vehicles from
bank to bank of the river Thames. Just in the same
way as we had, some time back, upon our iron roads the
question of broad gauge and narrow gauge, so we are
now to enter upon a discussion of high arch or low
arch. The evidence of Mr. Page, the engineer to the
Board of Works, delivered before the Westminster-
bridge Committee, appeared some time back in these
columns. This gentleman stoutlymaintains the propriety
of depressing the headway of the arch in order to suit it
to the public convenience. Mr. Walker, on the other
hand, the consulting engineer to the Navigation Com-
mittee of the Port of London, adopts the opposite
view, and furnishes us with reasons for maintaining
the height of the bridge as it stands—thus, in
point of fact, sacrificing the public for the sake of a
minor interest. In our impression of Saturday there
appeared a letter under the signature of " Nauticus," in
which the case in favour of the high arch was maintained
with great earnestness. The writer wishes to make out,
that a bridge upon the good old " uphill" and " down-
hill" plan is preferable to one which offers a perfectly
level surface, or, at least, that within certain limits
the inclination is a matter of very secondary considera-
tion. The absolute figures are set at I in 42 against
1 in 54 ; and those who are curious in such matters may
consult the letter of " Nauticus" for the engineering rea-
sons by which he disposes of Mr. Page's calculations, and
proves that a higher or a lesser inclination is a matter
of perfect indifference. We are not engineers,
and will leave it to the gentlemen of the craft
to fight each other with their own weapons ; but
we can perfectly well appreciate the difference in
comfort between passing over London and "Waterloo
bridge on the one hand, and Blackfriars and. the
existing Westminster bridge on the other. It is all very
well for " Nauticus" to tell us, " that waggoners and
coachmen prefer easy inclines to a perfectly level
road, upon which, they say, the load is always on the
collar.' We cannot but think that a hill is a hill, and that
a stiffer hill is more uneasy for man and beast than one
which is less so. Not all the engineering reasons in
the world could drive it out of our heads that there is
an essential difference between the two cases in favour
of the less degree of inclination. If the bridge is to be
built according to the opinion of nineteen-twentieths of
the inhabitants of London, it will be built so as to offer
a level surface for the convenience of the passers-by, or
at least one as nearly so as the inevitable difficulties of
the case will permit.

It is a not uncommon characteristic of letters such
as the one upon which we are now commenting,
that the reader is left with the impression that
two opposite and irreconcileable conditions can be
satisfied if the views of the writer are adopted.
If "Nauticus" proves anything, he proves that
the bargemen and mariners can have high arches,
and the land passengers at the same time ac-
commodated with a low bridge. We much doubt this
conclusion—if, in truth, it be really intended—and are
perfectly prepared to maintain the cause of the land
traffic against that of the traffic by water. However
great the inconvenience may be to particular persons, it
results not from any harsh views suddenly adopted by
the public authorities to the detriment of their
interests, but from the topographical position and
growth of this immense town. London is built on either
bank of a great river, and the necessities of communica-
tion between bank and bank become as great as those
between street and street on the same side of the
stream. To this necessity must yield the lesser con-
venience, namely, that large ships laden with mer-
chandise should pass freely along the whole length
of the city, and be free to discharge their goods at
the most convenient point along the banks. This
lesser convenience, comparatively speaking, we are
compelled to give up as the town spreads out upon
either bank, and to fix a point beyond which the
interests of water traffic are sacrificed to those of
land communication. This point in the present case
is London-bridge. Beyond this point those persons
who would use the great stream for the purposes of
mercantile conveyance must adapt their operations
to the altered conditions of things. If they find
themselves crippled on one side their market is
extending on the other, and that reflection should
at least prove some consolation. For ourselves, we
would fain see the time when the banks of this
noble river above London-bridge shall no longer
be deformed by a series of unsightly sheds and
warehouses ; and we can perceive no reason why
the present arrangements should not in course of
time give way to others more consonant with the dignity
of that great town which lays claim to be considered as
the capital of the world. Such things as the purification
and embankment of the river Thames within the limits
of London are not to be accomplished in a day, but at
least let us work in this direction. Do not let us con-
sent to sacrifice our present convenience and the future
architectural hopes of the town to the demands of a very
small class of our fellow-citizens, who have certainly no
right to put forward any such pretension. We should
add, that in all probability their fears are exaggerated.
Science and mechanical ingenuity are not standing
still in other respects, and, if the bridge is not
raised to suit the ship, the ship will be lowered to suit
the bridge. We have little doubt that before many
years have elapsed an entirely different character of
craft will be seen navigating the river Thames.
Even as matters stand, the great bulk of the com-
munication is carried on in lighters, to which the
height of the bridge can be a matter of no
importance, The navigation between London and Vaux-
hall bridges requires a broad arch and a clear stream.
The one is a natural consequence of the other, and is of
far more moment—as any lighterman would tell us—
than the height of the bridges under which these craft
must. pass.

TENANT-FARMERS UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT.-
-Yesterday a parliamentary paper showed that there had
been 1,200 appeals by tenant-farmers, under the Income
Act. The number allowed was 756, and the amount of
relief granted 3,419/. ss. 7Ad.
NAVAL COAST VOLUNTEERS. —The bill just brought
in by Sir Jas. Graham proposes to empower the Ad-
miralty to raise 10,000 men, to be called the "Royal
Naval Coast Volunteers." They are to be entered for
five years, and trained and exercised on shore and ship,
and in case of invasion or imminent danger called into
service; and in that event seafaring men in public de-
partments are to be liable to serve in the navy.