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 or. 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
28,0001. 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 re-instating 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 7—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 P—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 2—Yes, exactly so.
When will your contract be completed?—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 odd 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 duep?—To go 15 feet into the earth. That was
one object of the contract ; the other was this, that the
bridge having been built o 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
atone? 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 raany 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 ?—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 had it
carefully levelled from month to month, and I under-
stand that during a couple of years it has gone two
inches more.

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

Will you favour the Committee with your opinion as
It professional man upon the safety of the bridge for the
/raffle 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
mio you think any alteration of the structure would be so
gradual as to give ample warning ?—I 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.
Imatnd do you think the structure would be durable for
Y Years to come, when all these contracts were corn-
vleted, when the ' completed piers were completed, when the casing
completed?....zcl the superstructure are lightened and
believe first led to is always that great question, which
She lowering of doing anything to the bridge,
the bed
a opinion
to a that the of the river. Some people are
will go on lowering of the bed of the river
very great deepening of h • If thero should be any
endangered. t e
river, the bridge would be

PROPOSED NEW
TAN BRIDGmE
it E. TopoLi.
The minutes of evidence taken before the Select
tCoramittee on Westminster-bridge, and the n
lace, contain the subjoined. Mr. J Walker is the wPiat:
ess examined:—
Bas it ever occurred to you that, with a view to the
communication between Lambcth and Pimlico, or upon
tiny other ground, it would be expedient to remove the
bridge to the south of the new palace at Westminster,
and to cross the river from a point below the Victoria
!rower to a point below the church at Lambeth ?—I have
lieard that proposal, and I have consideeed 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-
*wering that question, you will bear in mind also the
Iprobability of a new bridge being erected from Charin&-
..eocats to the Lambeth-shore (a Bill for which is now bee-
'fore the House of Commons), fbr the accommodation of
-ithe ordinary traffic of London, in substitution of the
:present foot bridge 2—The case the Hon. Chairman
;puts, of a bridge at Charing-cross, alters a good deal the