The Sun.
London, England, 1856-08-18 00:00:00

WESTMINSTER BRIDGE.

Having now had more than enough of scientific opf,-
aions and technical talk with regard to Westminster.
bridge, suppose that we indulge in a little common sense
and plain English. Amid questions raised, calculations
made, objections urged, and explanations offered, the
point at issue is almost forgotten. The entire history of
the London bridges has been recapitulated, and all the
future necessities of our traffic across the river have
been canvassed, as if there was not a bridge in existence,
and the banks were "all before us where to choose."
In addition to these irrelevant discussionse, we are as-
sailed with the opinions of engineers against which there
would be no appeal, were they not so conflicting
as in the total result to be quite nugatory. In the
midst of this hubbub of idle talk and profesSlional
jangling it is overlooked that the question lies in a
nutshell, and that there is an absolute necessity of an.
immediate decision. If the case is only stated fairly
and clearly, we are convinced that unprejudiced mieede
will have no difficulty in dealing with it.
The present bridge at Westminster is not only dila-
pidated and unsafe, but it is far too narrow for the•
traffic that passes over it, and which renders it second
only to London-bridge in importance. In planning a
substitute, therefore, it was necessary to provide, first of
all, that the traffic, already too much clogged, should be
in nowise further interrupted, and, next, that the new
bridge should be erected with the utmost possible rapi-
dity. The recognition of these objects entailed as a re-
salt that Westminster-bridge should never be closed.
Toe narrow as it is, the inconvenience of closing it alto-
gether would have bean intolerable for however short a
period. The new bridge, therefore, on the site of the.
existing one, was to double its width, the addition being
entirely on one side (the Chelsea side), with a view to the
completion of that half before the removal of the rickety
old structure, while on that being removed, the other
side was to be built on the same principle. In this way
it was contemplated that there would be no suspension
of traffic, that the works would be very rapidly com-
pleted, and that there would then be a most ample
thoroughfare, with magnificent approaches on either
side of the river. To adapt the bridge to the exigencies
of such a scheme, and to insure greater rapidity of con-
struction, it was deemed essential to make use of iron,
in the manipulation of which material the most remark-
able improvements have recently been made. Iron is
destined to assume a most important place in architec-
ture, and with regard to bridges especially, surely, after
that tubular bridge which is the marvel of the world,
the use of anything but iron in these structures is an
anachronism. But, however this be, it must be pal-
pable that only by the adoption of this material could
the objects which were contemplated be attained. The
plans were most carefully considered, and were con-
ceived with reference nut only to the difficulties
of construction, but also to the architectural necessities
of the neighbourhood. All was arranged, the contracts
were made, the work was begun, and one-half of the
bridge should soon have been ready. Scarcely, however,
had 50,000/. been spent on it, and well spent, as the
committee sap, when the contractor failed, and the
works came to a standstill. It seems to us that on such
an occurrence taking place the obvious course would
have been to put up the remainder of the contract to
public competition, and to get on with the building as
fast as possible. Instead of this, however, a new whim
strikes some people in power, and, to the stultification of
all previous discussions and aims, to the sacrifice
of everything that had been so far accomplished,
and to the perpetuation of the public incon-
venience for an indefinite period the project of
a new bridge at a new point is started, while all this
time the works are stopped, the rotten old bridge is
becoming more and more incapable every day, and the
traffic is continually increasing. Observe the absurdity
of the whole proceeding. The proposal is to build a
new bridge between the Horseferry and Lambeth Palace.
This will occupy five years, and then, at the end of that
period, we are invited to shut up Westminster-bridge
and rebuild it on a principle that quite ignores the works
now in progress, this reconstruction being calculated to
occupy five years more. So that we are not to have a new
bridge at Westminster for ten years, during five of which
the communication is to be entirely stopped, save by a
circuitous route that leads up beyond the Archbishop's
Palace on the one side, and almost to the Penitentiary
on the other. The Chief Commissioner of Works would
preserve to us this nuisance of the present bridge in all its
decrepitude for five years longer, and after that shut it
up for five more. There is something sublime in the
audacity of such a proposal, and all that we care to say
is—the thing is impossible.
As if aware that the scheme would not be listened to
for one moment, and as if to coax the public into ulti-
mate acquiescence, Messrs. Rendell and Simpson, who
are the advisers of the Government in this matter, sug-
gest that there might be a temporary bridge erected at
the Horseferry in the meantime, and that Westminster-
bridge might be pulled down at once, its substitute to
be ready five years hence. Neither will this do. Five
years is a long period—a period in which a tradesman's-
fortune may be made or marred ; and, while it would
be a hardship in any case for those who live in the
neighbourhood that the bridge should be closed for so
great a length of time, it is doubly a hardship seeing
that the Government of their own free will have given
a guarantee to the public that there would be no
iiiterference with the communication. We therefore
entirely sympathise in the disgust of the inhabitants
of Lambeth, who are now remonstrating against the
injustice with which they in particular are treated, the
indifference with which the requirements of the public
in general have been considered, the prodigality with
which vast sums of money are proposed to be squan-
dsred, and the imbecility with which the Government
drifts from plan to plan without knowing why or where-
fore, notwithstanding volumes of evidence. If it is
possible to improve the present plans, let them be im-
proved ; but we beg to repeat that Westminster-bridge
inust be rebuilt without any delay and without inter.
ruption of traffic. According to the original plans
there would be no such interruption, and were the
works to proceed at once, one side would be opened
in a year and a half. Messrs. Rendell and Simpson,
however, declare that they cannot proceed because
the foundations are unsafe, and the permanency of
the new bridge would be endangered. In ordinary cir-
cumstances, it would he presumption on our part to say
one word in opposition to a professional opinion of this
kind. We must observe, however, on the present occa-
sion, that not only do doctors disagree, and necessarily
therefore it is for the public to decide between them,
but the statements of Messrs. Rendell and Simpson are
so strong that it is really out of the question for us to
accept them implicitly. They declare that it is impose
sible to build a durable bridge across the Thames on
" any plan which does not comprise solid stone piers, and
abutments, carried down deep into the London clay."
They declare further that, even if it were possible to erect
a bridge on ouch foundations as have been selected for

the one at Westminster—namely, piles and concrete in
a❑ immense cast-iron casing—it would be impossible to do
so without the aid of cofferdams. Now, we are accustomed
to scepticism of this kind. These statements are so
strong that they remind us of nothing so much as the
scoffs with which the idea of steaming across the Atlan-
tic was first greeted, or the incredulity with which the
idea of the Britannia-bridge was first received. Per-
manency, after, all, is a comparative term, and, rigidly
speaki❑g, no bridge across the Thames can remain long
without some signs of decay. We cannot expect per-
fection ; we are not going to build bridges on which the
New Zealander of Mr. Macaulay is to stand, but also
savages in epochs incalculably more remote, to gaze
upon the debris that we have left. It is enough if the
bridge presents a reasonable prospect of permanence,
and we really do not see that stones are the only things
that will hold together in masses in a river. There is a
prima facie case in favour of masses of iron rivetted
together, which it will require more evidence than we
Lave yet seen to disturb.—Times.