The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-13 00:00:00

WESTMINSTER BRIDGE.

Mr. W. Cubitt, in his evidence before the Select Com-
mittee of the House of Commons o the Westminster-
bridge and New Palace, gave the following testimony
with respect to the former. This evidence has just been
issued in a printed form by order of the House of Com-
mons:—
What has been the annual expense of the repairs of
the bridge under your contract?
About 14,0001.
Do you wish the Committee to understand that
()8,000/. have been expended on the repairs of the bridgs
since the date of the report of a corresponding Commit-
tee of this House upon the subject of Westminster-
bridge, made in the year 1844?
No ; I believe that there has been about 90,0001.
spent altogether, and we commenced in the year 1838;
it was in that way that I arrived at the answer I have
just given.
If it should be stated that at any period during the
progress of the works which have been carried on under
your contract, the surface coping of the bridge has been
so reduced, and the state of the masonry of the arch has
been so deteriorated that the water could be seen from
the upper surface of the bridge, do you or do you not
believe that such statement is the fact?
During the progress of the works we had part of one or
two of the arches out and replaced, and while the stones
were out of course the water could be seen.
The question did not refer to any such deliberate act
of architectural skill on your part or that of Mr.
Walker, but whether, in defiance of such architectural
skill, there ever did or did not happen an occasion in
which, to your knowledge, in an arch, not under your
immediate supervision at the time, there was such a
chink as that the water was seen through it?—Most
certainly not.
Was there any period at which nothing but the stone-
work of the arch itself remained?—Only while we were
clearing the arch for the purpose of taking out the stones
and reinstating them; just during that time some of the
masonry was of course cleared, and there was nothing
but stone.

At such time was the water visible through the ma-
sonry?—Most certainly not.
Then any such statement would be an incorrect de-
scription of the actual condition of the bridge, so far as
your knowledge of the facts is concerned?—Most ab-
surd such a statement would be.

What is the annual expense, or is there any annual
expense now going on in respect of the bridge?—We
have done nothing to the bridge for the last twelve
months, I think.
And there is no running expense at present incurred
upon it ?—There is some expense, inasmuch as the
cofferdam has to be sustained, and that is undergoing
deterioration and loss of value. There is the expense to
keep it up, the loss of value and the interest of capital,
and so far there is a continual expense.
What would that amount to in a year ?—lf the com-
mittee would permit me to answer that the next night I
come, I will do so ; it is a very small matter.
Whatever that expense may be, it is an expense
which is purely loss, in the event of your contract not
being continued ?—Yes, exactly so.
When will your contract be completed 2—That depends
so much upon what the Commissioners may please to
order us to do, that I cannot state with certainty.
I am speaking now of the existing contract; sup-
posing that to be completed, when will you have com-
pleted the work ?—Our entire contract includes the
taking off of the parapets, and the lowering the road
and repairing, and the putting up a new parapet instead
of the present balustrade.

And lowering the footpaths?—And lowering the
foot-paths and re-paving the footpaths. If we were
now directed to go on with all that, and to use our or-
dinary dispatch, we should get through it in about two
years.

What is the total amount of your contract?—There
was one contract in gross for specific works amounting
to 70 odd thousand pounds.
When was that begun ?—I think in 1838.
When that 70 odd thousand pounds is expended, sup.
posing your contract to be completed, in what condition
do you think you will leave the bridge as regards safety?
I ought to say that along with that contract for a specific
sum, there was a running and conditional contract for
other works, the amount of which is to be ascertained
by the quantities, and we have already done considerably
more than that 70 cdd thousand pounds.
Taking the two contracts together, what is the
amount ?—There was no ascertained amount, as far as I
was a party ; the engineer reported what he thought
would be necessary to be expended upon the bridge.
What is that ?—I do not know what it was.
Supposing those contracts to be completed, in what
condition would the bridge be as regards safety ?
The safety of the bridge had an original de-
fect from a want of even and solid foundation.
Now, the works that we were employed to do were
never intended to remedy that defect; nothing short of
getting under the bottoms of the piers, and securely
under-pinning them, could have done any good with re-
gard to preventing any future subsidence of the bridge,
which subsidence has taken place ever since it was built.
But there were two other things that our contract was
to provide against: it was apprehended that from the
lowering of the bed of the river by the letting through of
the water, from the removal of London-bridge, the
ground would be taken away from under the piers them-
selves, that the bed of the river would be lowered, and
the water would get under the piers and wash away the
foundation, and the piers would go down in consequence
of that. To remedy that defect, we were employed to do
what Mr. Walker had recommended, viz., to drive a
girdle of piling round each particular pier.
How deep?—To go 15 feet into the earth. That was
one object of the contract ; the other was this, that the
bridge having been built of a stone liable to be acted
upon by frost between wind and water, by the rising
and falling of the tide, our contract was to cut away all
the face of that stone, and to substitute new Bramley-
fall stone.

In fact, to case it with a harder and more durable
stone? Yes ; to cut away the Portland stone, and to
substitute Bramley-fall.
How far has that work proceeded?—That has been
done to all except two piers.
Has any settlement taken place in any of the piers
round which the piles have been driven ?—Yes.
Does the settlement go on steadily and regularly ?
There was a very considerable settlement in the year, I
think, 1842 or 1843 ; I am not quite clear which ; one
of the piers settled as much as nine inches.
Had the piles moved at all?—The settlement did not
take place till after the cofferdam had been removed ;
till then the water had got round and covered it, and we
have never been able to see that girdle since.

What guarantee have you for the future safety of the
bridge, if that settlement has taken place?—l should
say, that in such a bridge as that, nine inches. though
sounding very large, does not produce any great distor-
tion, and it might go many times nine inches without
being unsafe.
Do you mean that the foundation of the pier might
settle many times nine inches without endangering the
arches?—You must remember that the arch is 70 feet
span, and if you were to draw with a pair of compasses
that line, and bring your springing down nine inches,
two or three times over, you would find after all that
the line was not so altered as to be very materially con-
spicuous.

Then, in your opinion as a professional man, though
that settlement may go on, there would be no real
danger to the bridge ?—I have said that it might go
many times nine inches ; but I have not the slightest
notion that it will do so ; if I thought it would go down
twice nine inches more, I should strongly recommend
the pulling down of that pier, and the reconstructing it.
Has any other pier sunk which has been surrounded
by piles?—The one further east of that has gone down a
few inches, I do not exactly know how much, but I think
two or three inches.

Have they all sunk a little ?—I am not quite sure
whether they all have sunk a little ; I think that some
of them have not sunk at all.
Was the sinking gradual or irregular ?—For some
months it was pretty nearly regular.
And then came to a stand still 2—And then, when it
had gone nine inches, we commenced taking off the
road ; and from the time we commenced taking off the
road, for many months it did not move at all ; but it has
moved two inches, or thereabouts, I am told subsequently.
I say, " I am told," because I have never examined it
with instruments, and to the naked eye there is no evi-
dence of its having moved ; but Mr. Walker has bad it
carefully levelled from month to month, and I under-
stand that during a couple of years it bas gone two
inches more.

When was the road removed? The road was re-
snowed in October of that year 1843.

Will you favour the Committee with your opinion as
a professional man upon the safety of the bridge for the
traffic which has to go over it?—l have no apprehension
that the bridge is at all unsafe for the traffic that has to
go over it, to any extent.
In your opinion, from the settlement that has taken
place, do you think any sudden accident could occur ; or
do you think any alteration of the structure would be so
gradual as to give ample warning think that any
sudden sinking is utterly out of the question.
Then, in your opinion, there would be ample warning
of the approach of any actual danger ?—I think so.
And do you think the structure would be durable fur
many years to come, when all these contracts were com-
pleted, when the piers were completed, when the casing
was Completed, and the superstructure are lightened and
completed?—There is always that great question, which
I believe first led
the lowering of to the doing anything to the bridge,
of
opinionthe bed of the river. Some people are
will g 0 on tc".
at •lireee.tlowering of the bed of the river
-.very great deeNnin g oTtellalot,river, the bridge would be
If there should be any
e ndangered.

PROPOSED NR E TAN 131111397
;Rrte:thPne:SLe;c;
he minutes of evidence takeE.
Com mittee on Westrninster-brid:
lace, contain the subjoined. Mr. J. Walker is the wit-
to the
ness 'examined :
Jias it ever occurred to you that, with v*
co mmtmication between Lambeth and Pimlico, or oany• other ground, it would be expedient to removeuptohne
bridge to the south of the new palace at Westminster,
and to cross the river from a point below the Victoria'
To vrer to a point below the church at Lambeth?—l have
he: ird that proposal, and I have considered it.
'Would it or not open a good communication between
the new region of London in the neighbourhood of Bel-
grave-square and the great railway communications near
London-bridge, passing through Lambeth ; and in an-
swering that question, you will bear in mind also the
,:probability of a new bridge being erected from Charing-
cross to the Lambeth-shore (a Bill for which is now be-
fore the House of Commons), for the accommodation of
t be ordinary traffic of London, in substitution of the
vsent foot bridge ? —The case the Hon. Chairman
P- Cs, of a bridge at Charing-cross, alters a good deal the
Pu

feature of the whole. I think, 'as regards placing the
bridge to the southward of the Victoria Tower, if that
were the bridge which was to give communication, be-
tween London and the North, it would be a very incon-
venient thing to :the courts and the Houses of Parlia-
ment, from the crowd of carriages that would be con-
stantly passing in front of them ; and I do not see, as
far as regards the public accommodation, much benefit
that would result from it, because, a little further to the
southward is Vauxhall-bridge • and also in the streets '
which bound Westminster-bridge, on either side, par-
ticularly on the Surrey side, there is a great mass of pro-
perty which would be very much injured if the bridge
were taken from them. There is also a communication
irto the parks. I think Westminster-bridge, leading
directly into St. James's-park, is an important feature in
it; and as regards the Houses of Parliament themselves,
I do not know whether Mr. Barry prefers the north end
or the south end of the Houses of Parliament, for the
position of the new bridge, but certainly, to see the
Houses of Parliament to perfection, I think the bridge
should not be far removed from them. I think a great
deal of the beauty of the Houses of Parliament consists
in detail, which would be very much lost if the spectator
were far removed from them. . .

And it would subject a vast mass of property to great
deterioration?—Yes, there can be nothing more direct
than the present line from Westminster-bridge.
Looking to the traffic that comes to Charing-cross, do
you think that the bridge would be conveniently situated
if it were on the south side of the new Houses of Par-
liament, as compared with the present position?—No,
but the Hon. Chairman put the position of a bridge
being built from Charing-cross for the accommodation of
that traffic.
As regards position, a position southward would not
be so convenient for the general traffic as the bridge
in its present position?—No; and the traffic passing in
front would be a great nuisance to the Houses of Par-
liament.

-
Do you know the object :at all of the enlargement of
the Charing-cross bridge ?—No.
You do not happen to have heard that it is connected
with railway communication from the south-east of
England with Charing-cross ?—No ; I do not know the
fact. lam aware that there are very few bridges by
which a railway has not been proposed to come across
the Thames to London, but I was not aware that this
projected bridge at Charing-cross was particularly in-
tended for railroads.

If that should be the object of the parties, it would be
fatal to the use of the bridge for general traffic ?—Yes ;
unless it were made available for both purposes.
If you changed the position of Westminster-bridge
you would have to buy property on both sides of the
river ?—Yes.

That would not be the case if you retained the position
of the present bridge, whether it were repaired or re-
built ?—No.

Therefore it would be more economical to repair or
rebuild than change the position of the bridge ?—Yes.
Is the river equally wide further up, south of the
Victoria Tower ?—No, the river is narrower there. The
narrowest part of the river almost is just opposite the
Penitentiary ; it gets narrower as you go upwards from
Westminster-bridge to the Penitentiary,
But the extent of navigation is the same ; as many
barges and lighters pass under the bridge now as would
pass under a bridge further south ?—Very nearly the
same.

Therefore it would be more inconvenient to the navi-
gation building the bridge over a narrower part of the
river?—Yes ; and then I presume that the new bridge
would not be built without a road being made leading to
the westward to the parks.
The approaches to the bridge would involve the out-
lay of a considerable amount of money ?---Yes.
If the bridge were built from Lambeth-stairs there
would be no expense of approaches there, except en-
larging the street that comes down to the ferry ?—lf it
were simply a foot bridge, the expense would not be
very great ; you would let the present streets take their
chance, but if you were to make a substitute for the
present Westminster-bridge, you must, I apprehend, have
approaches to it.
Might it not be connected with the present proposed
street which is determined upon ?—I do not know the
particular line of the street which is determined upon.
Across Westminster, near Westminster Abbey, and
running up to Belgrave-square ?—That would be a fine
opening.

Then, on the other side, at Lambeth-stairs, there
would be no expense in approaches except enlarging the
Palace ; the traffic across Westminster-bridge at the
present has two streams, one going to the parks and
to that immense community living about Belgrave-
square, the other to Charing-cross ; if the terminus of
two railways is to be established on the Surrey side of
the Charing-cross-bridge, and Charing-cross-bridge
is to be converted into a commodious carriage bridge
for communication with the termini of the railways on
the southern side of the river, all the traffic upwards to
Charing-cross will never pass by Westminster-
bridge, but will go direct by the bridge at Charing-
cross ; in that case would it not be expedient to
build Westminster• bridge on the south of the Palace, so
as to open a more direct communication for all the im-
mense community coming from the Borough, and Kent,
and Surrey roads, with all the great community spring-
ing up at Belgrave-square and Eaton-square, and on to
Knightsbridge and Kensington, and at the same time
with the lower part of Westminster ?—With this under-
standing,
that I suppose if there be not a bridge at
Charing-cross, Westminster-bridge had better remain
where it is. If I were to state the objections to the re-
moval of Westminster-bridge to the south of the new
Houses of Parliament, they would be these two—the de-
terioriation of property which is now the great thorough-
fare, and inflicting upon the Houses of Parliament a
great deal more passage in front of them than there is
at present. _ _ _

Would the Charing-cross-bridge relieve the Houses of
Parliament of a great deal of the inconvenience ; the
traffic proceeding across the present bridge, and going
up Parliament-street to Charing-cross, is very inconve-
nient to parties going to and returning from the Houses
of Parliament ; that traffic would be carried across the
bridge at Charing-cross ?—Yes, but they have the
Waterloo-bridge now, and if that were made free, that
would relieve the traffic a good deal.
_ _

Do not you think that the traffic across Westminster-
bridge, going in two directions, the one up to Charing-
cross, and the other to the lower part of Westminster, to
Belgrave-square, is so immense, that it requires two
bridges instead of one, to supply it conveniently ?—I
must say, I do not think so at present. I think the
traffic wants a wider bridge, but not two bridges.
Do you think that Westminster-bridge can be made
wider with safety ?—I have stated how far I think it can.
You have known several bridges built in the metro-
polis in your tima, across the Thames, by private sub-
scription ?—Yes.

Do you know any of them that has paid the subscri-
bers ?—No ; none has so nearly paid as the bridge
which I built, Vauxhall-bridge ; and that has not paid
well to those who paid 1001. for their shares.

The late Earl of Yarborough, by his will, executed
in June, 1343, has bequeathed to his younger son, the
Hon. Dudley Pelham, his practical nautical books,
charts, chronometers, telescopes, and all nautical instru-
ments, for his own use, and a pecuniary bequest, having
conveyed to him all his vested right under settlement;
has also left pecuniary legacies to his daughter,
daughters-in-law, and his three sisters, and liberal an-
nuities and legacies to his servants. By deed, executed
in 1842, his Lordship conveyed to his eldest son, Lord
Worsley, now the Earl of Yarborough, all his diamonds,
plate, pictures, books, prints, drawings, statues, and all
other personal property on his estates at Brocklesbury
Hall, Appuldurcombe Park, and in Arlington-street, as
heir looms with the settled estates, and has bequeathed
to his Lordship all the newly-purchased estates, and all
estates not in settlement, and those in the counties of
Lincoln and Kent, and in the Isle of Wight, and
that he may dispose of the Romney Marsh estate, and
has appointed his Lordship residuary legatee and sole
executor. The funded and personal estate was estimated
for duty at 80,0004 His Lordship had mentioned in his
will that if it would have been advantageous in the
opinion of his family and medical attendant to have had
a pose mortem examination, such should he allowed to
take place. His Lordship was in his sixty-fifth year,
and at his own request was buried in the mausoleum in
his park. lie was Vice-Admiral of the coast of the Isle
of Wight and county of Southampton, Recorder of
Grimsby and Newport, D.C.L., F.H.S., F.S.A. The
members of the Royal Yacht Squadron, of which he
was the revered commodore for many years, are erecting
to his lasting memory a monument near the Isle of
Wight, which from its elevation will also be a sea mark
to mariners. His brigantine, the Kestrel, in which he
died on the coast of Spain, is offered to our Govern-
ment. The late Earl was created a Peer of the realm
in the reign of William IV., on Jan. 21, 1537.
RESPONSIBILITY OF HOTEL-KEEPERS.—An inte-
resting cause, as regards the responsibility of hotel-
keepers for the property of persons living in their hotels,
was decided three days ago by the Royal Court of
Amiens. In the month of June, 1840, Mr. Arthur Har-
ris, a London jeweller, arrived from Paris, where he
had purchased some diamonds, at the Hotel du Nord, at
Boulogne, of which M. Mulberghe is the proprietor.
Whilst there he gave some clothes to one of the cham-
bermaids to get brushed, and they were brushed by one
of the porters named Metier. When they were brought
back to Mr. Harris, he discovered that 70 carats of dia-
monds, which he had left in one of the pockets of a
waistcoat, had been taken out, and a complaint being
made to the commissary of police, Mezier was arrested,
and eventually brought to trial, and sentenced to im-
prisonment for the theft. Mr. Harris then brought a
civil action for the recovery of the diamonds against Me-
tier and his master, the former as being the person who
had robbed him, and the latter as civilly responsible for
the acts of his servant. This action was tried at Bou-
logne. Mezier was condemned to pay to Mr. Harris the
estimated value of his diamonds; but the suit against
M. Mulberghe was dismissed, as the plaintiff had lost
his property by his own negligence, and M. Mulberghe
had put up in all his rooms a printed recommendation to
persons arriving at his hotel to place any property re-
specting which they might be anxious in his hands. Mr.
tt Verdi: 'appealed to the Royal Court of Douai against
Royal Court
eision, and in 1842 the Court confirmed the judg-
ment of the tribunal of Boulogne. Mr. Harris then
law. On the
',appealed to the Courto of Cassation, on the ground that
the
of
f)rai had decided contrary to the
Gth
quashed the judgment lay
last the Court of Caseation
dered a new trial before the Court of Douai, and This Court Court has decided against
the Royal Court of Amiens.
declared M. Mulberghe to be
M. Mulberghe. It has
his servant, even in the extraordinaryresonsible for the act of
this case, and sentenced him to circumstances of
pay
of 6,229 f., the estimated value ofhetr. Harris the sum
event of its not being paid within the ddirlyetiti:4' in the
law by Mezier the thief. M. Mulbergheea- •"aowsned,,,ly
demned to pay all the costs of the different " • 1-- --1"
suit- ri