The Sun.
London, England, 1866-01-19 00:00:00

TIIE HOLBORN VALLEY VIADUCT.

The TOWN CLERK read a very voluminous report,
into which a number of other reports from con-
tractors were introduced, from the Improvement
Committee, relative to the Holborn-valley viaduct.
They stated that, in compliance with the sugges-
tions they received, they had made the necessary
preparations to acquire without delay the property
on the south side of Holborn-valley ; that the
principal part of that property was now in their
possession, and that a considerable quantity of the
ground had been cleared. The Parliamentary esti-
mate for the execution of the structural part of the
viaduct was £53,000, but the tenders sent in for
the contracts were immeasurably in excess of this
estimate. The tenders were six in number. The first
and lowest was for £239,507 ; the second was for
£243,620; the third for £212,020; the fourth for
£245,320; the fifth for £244,100; and the sixth for
£249,700. The enormous amount of these tenders
placed the committee in great difficulty. They did
not feel themselves justified in accepting any of them,
and they appointed a special committee with a view
of seeing whether any plan for extricating them from
the difficulty could be suggested. The special com-
mittee was unable to arrive at any conclusion. Then
they sought the advice and assistance of the eminent
engineer, Mr. Joseph Cubitt, to whom all the plans
and estimates were submitted, with instructions to
report upon the best course they could pursue to
carry out the viaduct, and also to account if he could
for the extraordinary discrepancies which appeared
between the parliamentary estimate and the tenders.
On the 17th Dec. Mr. Cubitt forwarded his report.
Ile stated that he had carefully considered all the
plans and estimates, and that it was evident from
an examination of the general plan, and the com-
plete detailed plan on which the tenders were based,
that the works included in the estimates were widely
different from each other. In other words, the works
on which the estimates for Parliament were founded
were quite dissimilar from those on which the esti-
mates were made as put in for the contracts. The
timeepxritprice
increasee
fenl itiythneesdhtlhofa orebrto utahr
nemdc
amountaoi
rtnksos
etfbrt urt,
hechvet
aii
totdyennd,
dooa feudrbt(s.
iht.elede
doubtless
oahcdeatuuhpcseate
rhd\tNi
i'gaeanhss
eteonvderertihng had evidently
lemselvesfromrisksad.desd a
ivhdtlotellohlhedee explain in
heavystxetchinsoodtneesfdrauresms.bvsoieeeuidytewnothtrehaeotandot
he could not sufficiently or satisfactorilyf
ome
et airnrelesidpa ientchet
ens tptahlraeyndseisofftfiem:ianrt.ceHess aeNyllY
the Commissioners of Sewers, and Mr. H. Jones, the
city architect, and found that the views of these gen-
tlemen differed materiallyas to how the viaduct should
be constructed; and he had come decidedly to the
conclusion that the principle of Mr. Heywood's plan
was the preferable one, it being simpler and less costly
in construction than Mr. Jones's. He (Mr. Cubitt)
was of opinion that a viaduct 75 feet wide could be
executed for £llO,OOO, reasonable time being given
for its completion ; and that if it were to be of 80
feet in width, the cost would only be about £6,000
additional. He recommended the committee to
obtain plans and specifications for the viaduct to be
constructed with recurring transverse arches, and
to apply for tenders, but with a distinct understand-
ing on the face of their application that they would
not accept the lowest tender. Mr. Cubitt's report
was referred to the city architect, Mr. Jones, and
Mr. Haywood, and from the two latter replies
were received. Mr. Haywood, in his reply, said
that the report of Mr. Cubitt was most satisfactory
to him, but that he must decline to comply with a
resolution of the committee that he should prepare
plans under the consulting engineer's advice. He
asked the committee for permission to carry out the
structural designs of the viaduct on his own sole
account and responsibility, at a cost of £101,977,
being £130,000 less than the lowest of the tenders.
In conclusion, the committee reported that they had
exhausted the inquiry, and they recommended that
they should be authorised by the Court to engage
such professional assistance for carrying out the
works as they might deem advisable with a view to
the prompt and efficient execution of the same.

Mr. Deputy FRY, chairman of the Improvements
Committee, in moving the adoption of this report,
said it was with considerable regret that every mem-
ber of the committee had felt himself compelled to
submit the various documents it contained to con-
sideration. Every effort had been made to recon-:
cile the differences between the professional gentle-
men who were consulted, but it had proved unavail-
ing, and the committee were in such a difficulty as
to be obliged to ask the Court to extricate them
from it, and to give them that professional assist-
ance which was absolutely necessary. My. Hay-
wood was engaged by them in the first stages of
the Holborn-valley improvement works, and he had
greatly assisted in the preparation of the plans and
in carrying the bill through Parliament. After the
bill was passed a strong feeling was expressed by
the Court in favour of having the works carried
out by the city architect. In consequence of
this all the plans were submitted to that architect,
who recommended the desirability of having the
south side of the viaduct undertaken in the first
instance, and the acquisition of the property on that
side. This was assented to, and then lie came before
the committee with detailed plans, a design for the
bridge, and a report explanatdy of what he recom-
mended. The committee applied for contracts for
the execution of the work to 12 of the first contrac-
tors of the day, but only six replies were received,
and the committee was completely startled at the
amounts which were asked for by those contractors.
The city architect's estimate was for £lBO,OOO.
These amounts were so terrifically in excess of the
Parliamentary estimate that the tenders were not
received. Mr. Haywood was then again consulted,

and he said that if certain modifications were made
in the plans a very large sum might be taken off the
estimates. He and the city architect were recom-
mended to consult together, and to explain the cause
of the discrepancy between the Parliamentary esti-
mate and the tender, but these two professional gen-
tlemen, having great differences of opinion on public
works of this kind, did not feel quite at home with
each other, and they found it impossible to agree to
a joint report. They came up with separate reports,
which to some extent, but only to some extent, ex-
plained the cause of the difference between the Par-
liamentary estimate and the tenders. Then Mr.
Cubitt was consulted, and the result of that con-
sultation was stated in the report. Under the cir-
cumstances the committee asked to be relieved from
their embarrassing position and to have such pro-
fessional assistance as might be deemed necessary.
He felt that in this matter the character of the cor-
poration was at stake, and that the interests of the
public imperatively required that no further time
should be lost in bringing to a speedy issue the ac-
complishment of the important work at Holborn.
(Hear, hear.)

Mr. M'GEORGE moved, as an amendment, " That,
considering the reference made to Mr. Cubitt and
his report, the Improvement Committee be requested
to make such an arrangement as they may deem
advisable with Mr. Haywood for the construction
of the structural part of the viaduct."

Mr. Deputy FULLER seconded the amendment.
Mr. Alderman J. C. LAWRENCE thought it would
be wise economy to erect such a structure at Hol-
born as would reflect credit on the city.
Mr. Deputy ELLIOTT, in supporting the amend-
ment, said that Mr. Haywood had acquired a large
amount of practical experience in London, and that
he was the most suitable man to execute the work.
He characterised the difference between the Parlia-
mentary estimate and the tenders as monstrous.

Mr. Alderman ROSE supported the motion. He
said that in no other capital in the know' world
would such abominable structures be tolerated as
had been erected by engineers in the streets of Lon-
don. They were a standing reproach to the engi-
neers who carried them into execution, and their
only recommendation was that they were cheap.
Mr. LAWLEY said that although he had signed
the report he should vote for the amendment, be-
lieving that Mr. Haywood was the fittest man to
do the work.

Mr. Alderman BESLEY observed that Mr. Hay-
wood would become the master of the committee if
the amendment were adopted.
Mr. Bontems, Mr. Alderman Waterlow, and Mr.
Jones supported the motion, and Mr. Kearns and
Mr. Deputy Scamell the amendment.
Mr. Deputy Fn replied, and said the Improve-
ment Committee would never consent to any struc-
ture being erected at Holborn which would not be
an honour to the city. He believed Mr. Haywood
to be eminently qualified to carry out the work, but
the question was one entirely for the Court.
The question was put, and the amendment was
carried on a show of hands by a large majority.