The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-25 00:00:00

THE ARMY.

v.-
Yesterday a detachment of the Royal Marine
Light Infantry left head-quarters, Chatham, and
proceeded to Portsmouth to join the artillery com-

panics.
Mr. W. Morris, Deputy Military Storekeeper of
Woolwich Arsenal, after a continuous service of
upwards of 44 years in that department, yesterday
left Iltrui)lWich to enter on the duties of his new
appointment, as Principal Military Storekeeper at
Ch'.-Aliam. This tardy act of official justice ren-
dered to Mr. Morris is considered mainly attribut-
able to a vira voce expression made by Mr. Apsley
Turner,. on the occasion of Mr. Morris's examina-
tion by the Royal Commissioners in the Arsenal, to
the effect that he would remark on the rank and
pay of -Mr: -Morris; that he could not avoid cen-
suring the discernment and policy of the authori-
t les of an establishment who could remunerate his
services of nearly half a century with £450 a-year.
'the entire control of the outdoor establishment of
that department, consisting of at times nearly. 2,000
men, devolves exclusively on the deputy-storekeeper
during the Crimean war the large amount of
extra labour, in which the men were employed over
16 and -18 hours daily, was constantly inspected by
Ulu dcputv-storekeeper, who received no additional
remuncf.alion; but, together with the body of officers
forming the
.establishment, received the thanks of
the War Department. Mr. Morris has succeeded
Mr. J. Jones, promoted to the Tower, in succession
to Mr. Eaton, invalided.

,S'T.L'AMBOAT ACCOMMODATION AT

LONDON BRIDGE.

Ye,;terday a Special Court of Common Council
was held, for the purpose of considering several
Totters from Sir John Rennie, delivered in, on the
20t iii: t.,.in relation to works in progress at Lon-
don-bridge under the.direction of the Thames Con-
servancy CommisSioners. There was a very large
attendance of members of the Court, as well as of
Nvharfingers, lightermen, and others connected with
propr.,rty. on the south-east and south-west sides of
the bridge.
The •lleputy Town Clerk read the following
letters :

. " Spring-gardens, London, Dec. 23, 1858.
" Sirs-s4s Controller of the Bridge-house estates
I beg,' leave to call your immediate attention to the
proceedings which are now taking place, and are,
I hear, contemplated at the south-west and south-
east lauding stairs of London-bridge. A steamboat
landing and 'embarking pier was established here
some years since. It consisted partly of fixed and
partly of floating materials. This pier was indicted
as a nuisance and obstruction to the navigation by
Messrs. Fenning, the proprietors of the wharf im-
mediately below the bridge. The cause was tried at
Kingston nearly four years ago, and the above pier
*a declared to be a nuisance and obstruction to
the navigation, and in contravention of the Act of
Parliament under which London-bridge was built,
and nearly the greater portion was directed, to be
(alloyed. The pie': has since continued chiefly as a
floating landing stage, on the upper or west side of
the bridge; but even in its present state it is the
cause of considerable obstruction to the navigation,
and of injury to' the bridge; because the numerous
steamboats plying there frequently lie under 'the
South or shore arch of the bridge,. with the tops of
their funnels within a few inches of the faces and
soffits of the arch stones, and emit large columns'of
flame and heated smoke against the stone by which
it is very liable to be splintered off in large pieces,
by which means great injury and detriment, or
even danger, may , arise to the bridge. This
nuisance, therefore, ought to he abated immediately
In. it impossible to say how far the injury may
extend. lam now credibly informed that it is in-
ten dcd to construct a permanent fixed lauding pier
hero, immediately in front of both.the south-west
and south-east landing stairs of the bridge, to a
much gftlitek extent than what was declared to be
illegal at the above-mentioned trial at Kingston.
The. pier is proposed to extend about 34- feet into
the river, beyond the face of the abutment, so that,
admitting that two 'steamboats are permitted to
remain alongside the pier at one time, nearly half
of the navigable waterway of the south arch will be
obstructed and rendered unnavigable for the general
navigation of the river ; and, if it be true also, as I
have heard stated, that a similar pier is to be erected
in front of the east and west landing stairs of the
north end of the bridge, the navigation will be de-
prived of a similar extent of waterway, so that the
avaiktble waterway for the general navigation of
the river will be reduced to 560 feet, or an abridg-
ment of one fourth nearly, instead of being 690 feet,
as strictly enjoined by the act of Parliament. This'
would be a most serious detriment to the navigation,
the more-so as the inner portions of the two side or
chore arches are chiefly used for barges and other
vessels going to and coming from the wharves for a
considerable distance, both above and below the
bridge. It is most essential, therefore, that these
arches should be kept clear of every obstruction as
far as practicable. Moreover, the proposed piers
will greatly obstruct the free admission and dis-
charge of the tidal and fresh waters, which are abso-
lutely and indispensably necessary for the conserva-
tion and maintenance of the river Thames, and the
healthy discharge of the drainage of the metropolis
and tit adjacent districts, and which was one of the
principal objects of inclining such a large expendi-
ture in removing the old and in building the present
bridge, and will be in a great measure defeated if
such structures as those proposed are permitted to be
erected. The waterway of London-bridge, after very
great consideration, was fixed at 690 feet, as the
minimum' gauge under the circumstances for the
admission and discharge of the fresh and tidal
waters, and for the navigation. Any diminution of
this or obstruction will therefore be attended with
corresponding injurious effects to the river and
navigation. both above and below London-bridge,
and ought upon no account to be permitted. The
great -interests at stake are too important to be
trifled- with. The -dredging and piling operations
- of the proposed piers will be injurious-in-other re-
spects. If it be necessary that steamboat passen-
gers should be accommodated, let this be doneiyconstructing landing piers at such a distance from
the bridge and in such a manner that the serious
evils abcive contemplated cannot take place, and
there are situations equally,, if not mode, conve-
nient in the vicinity where this can be done, and
thus the most important interests of drainage, navi-
gation, and conservancy of the Thames will not be
interfered with, while the public will at the same
time Obtain the desired accommodation.
" I shall feel much obliged by your bringing this
)etter•bekre the proper authorities as early as pos-
. bible, in order that the requisite measures may be
taken'to prevent the construction of the proposed
works.; and when the subject is properly explained
P.nd understood I feel confident they will not he
iper,isted in.—l am, sir,- your most humble servant,
I\ '
" F: Brand, Esq." "JOHN JUN IL.
" Spring-gardens, Dec. 24, 1858.
" reply to your letter of the 23d inst.,
ckn owl c dgi ng the receipt of mine of the same date,
beg leave to say that I regret that it was not in
tay power to bring the matter referred to in mine
(1 the 23d before the Common Council earlier, as I
sally reeiived the desired information on the 22d
Imt.,but I find that they have already begun to dredge
lo.:e to the stairs or-the south -west end of the bridge,
''O Le
of which is very injurious, and ought
o
qoppcd immediately, together with other
`oce(Aings mentioned in my' letter of yesterday,
RI I hope that no delay will take place.--I am,
r your 1n0,,t• humble servant
" P. Iliand, Emi,"

"JOIN RENNIE.
" Spring-gardens, Jan. 7, 18'59.
Sir, I beg leave to inform you that I have
:in examined the operations carrying on on the
tb-wet landing stairs of London-bridge, men-
led in my letter to you of the 23d ult., and find
tiler ate still proceeding, to the detriment of
t• Th,4 stopped immediately,
d I. hope ghat you will excuse my _again drawing
t: iltion to this important subject.--I am,
,r, your humble servant, " JOHN RENNIE.
" _Brand, Esq., Controller of the Bridge-
house Estates, Guildhall."

Hr. J.:3IES Low presented a petition from whar-
7ng‘,rs ; lid. occupiers of property .on the north and
;mint-sides of the Thames against the erection of
,he pier and works now. in progress under the arch
if Loniion.:bridge: ,
:Mr. W. BARNES presented a petition to the same

effect, signed by 600 waterthen and lighteimen of I
tho river Thames.
_

In answer to questions put by, the CoI;RT, Mr.
Forming and Mr. Nash, petitioners,stated that they
had neither made any communications themselVes,
nor were they aware of any having been made to
Sir J. Rennie with a view of inducing him to write
the letters above given. -
Mr. Low moved—" That the letters of Sir J.
Rennie and the petitions be referred to the Bridge-
house Committee, and that the committee have
authority to consult engineers thereon and to re-
port to this Court."
Mr. BARNES seconded the motion.
The result of a long discussion which ensued was
that, upon a division being taken, there appeared
38 for the affirmative and 38 for the negative. The
Lord Mayor then gave his casting vote against the
motion, which was consequently lost amid much
cheering.
The Court adjourned.

THE FATAL ACCIDENT AT THE POLY-
TECHNIC INSTITUTION.

Yesterday, at 3 o'clock, Mr. Wakley,- the coroner
for the Western Division of Middlesex, and the jury
empanelled to inquire into the circumstances con-
nected with the death of Emma Pike, 10 years of
age, daughter of Mr. W. Pike, a hosier, of. Newing-
ton7causeway, who was killed 'on the night of Mon-
day, 3d Jan., by the falling of a staircase at the
Polytechnic Institution, met again in the board room
of the institution, and concluded the investigation.
Mr. Collier, Q.C., appeared for Mr. Thomson,
the architect of the building ; Mr. Matthews, a
solicitor, for the father of the deceased ; and Mr.
Sleigh, barrister, for the directors of the institution.
Mr. Sleigh stated that since the last meeting of
the Court the directors of the institution had held
a meeting, and, after taking into consideration the.
reports of Mr. Marsh Nelson and Mr. Christopher
Eales, the architects, had intimated their intention
to give every attention to the suggestions- of
those gentlemen, with the view to the
accommodation and protection of the•publie ; and
they had passed a resolution that a new staircase be
constructed on -the most approved plan, and that
the floor of the entrance-hall be supported by iron
or brickwork, to insure the most perfect security
against fire or any other casualty to every person
visiting that most useful and popular institution.
The Coroner proceeded • to, sum up the evidence,
pointing, as lie went along, to the more salient
points of it. He noticed the objection made by the
workman, Hopper, to the flange of the iron trellis
work, when, in August last, he was called to let it
into one of the steps as a pattern, on, the ground
that it tended materially to weaken the stone, and
that in consequence of that objection Mr. Thomson,.
the architect, of the building, agreed to the flange
being reduced, and the treads for the stairs were
cast on that reduced model. He adverted next to
the opinion of the witness Smith, a practical mason,
that the defect in the stairs which fell lay in the
upper landing, where there was an imperfect joggle
joint, and ;where, besides, the landing stone was
greatly weakened by its being cut from the quarry
across the grain, and by having fossil shells im-
bedded in it. He then glanced at the evidence of
Daniel Stroud, a relative of the deceased, who was
on the stairs at the time of the accident, which
evidence went, in direct contradiction of Mr. Sintth,
to show that the starting point of the calamity was
not at the upper landing place, but some way down
the middle flight, which was the first to fall. This
testimony of Stroud was substantially corroborated
by that of the witnesses Acton and Denman, who
were also on the stairs at the time. To the testi-
mony of Mr. Jervis, the architect and surveyor, he
nextadverted, which went to prove that the acci-
dent was referable to the cutting of the stone at the
top landing to receive the iron treads, and not to
the defect in the joggle joint, nor to the fossil shells
in the stone there. Mr. Jervis was also strongly
of opinion that the cutting of the whole of the
steps to let in the iron treads seriously weak-
ened every one of them. He then recapitulated
in some detail the evidence of Mr. Marsh
Nelson, one of the two architects officially employed
to report upon the causes of the accident, particu-
larly commenting upon that part of it in which it
was stated that under the
.existing law anything
may be done .to a public building by the owners
without giving any notice to the district surveyor,
unless it was proposed to interfere with the exter-
nal walls—a most preposterous thing, as he con-
tended. Reviewing next the testimony of Mr. Eales,
the other official architect, he strongly condemned
the. culpable negligence of the workman who had
slurred over the imperfect joggle joint in the upper
landing-place in the original construction of the
staircase. He also pointed attention to the opinion
expressed by Mr. Eales, that the original con-
struction of the staircase, , which was geome-
trical and cylindrical in lesign, . without extra-
neous support at the ends of the steps furthest
froin the wall; was faulty, as being always subject'
to great vibration where numbers'of people were
always passing over them. The accident had
caused uneasiness in the public mind. The Poly-
technic Institution—the fountain of- science, so to
speak—they might have supposed, would have been
the last place in which there was any lack of regard
for the public security, seeing that during the last
20 years it had done so much to improve the public
mind and .educate the people. The jury would
have to consider whether there had been any gross
ignorance 'or gross carelessness nianifested, either
with regard to the iron treads or to the original
construction of the staircase. He reminded them
that a man was not answerable for a mere error of
judgment, and added that under the existing legis-
lation no law was violated by the • directors in
making the alteration in the stairs • which they
made in the autumn of last year. He asked them
to consider on which side the weight of testimony
lay as to-the starting point of the accident. Tell-
ing them 'to bear in mind that on this occasion
they had —a most important 'public duty to
discharge, and urging them to perform it fear-
lessly, he added that if they believed there was
any person whose conduct ha'd been culpably ne-
gligent or careless it would be their duty to
name him. If they had any doubt it was their
ditty to give any such person the benefit of it; but
he trusted they would be unanimous in condemn-
ing staircases of this description, loaded as the steps
were with iron, and having no proper support at
the ends furthest from the wall.

Mr. Thomson, the architect . of the building,
stated, in reply to the Coroner, that when the stairs
were originally constructed he knew that each step
must bear three persons at a time according to
their area, but he was aware from experiments
made that each step was equal to sustain double or
treble that weight.
"The jury then retired to consider their verdict,
and, after an interval of an hour,
The foreman said the verdict they had, with one
dissentient only, agreed upon was " Accidental
death, caused by the falling of a stone staircase at'
the . Polytechnic Institution on Monday, the 3d
of January, 1859," and which fall we believe was
occasioned by the cutting for the- insertion of the
iron , :trellis -work and brackets, and by the
incautious. manner of doing .the work. The jury
regret the adoption by the directors of the recom-
mendation so-to repair the staircases instead of re-
constructing them. The jury (he added) cannot
allow this opportunity to pass without expressing,
in the. - Strongest manner, their; :opinion that all
public. buildings should' be subject to a periodical
inspection. A competent person . for. such service
should be appointed by the Government, whose
duty it should be to inspect all buildings used or
intended for public assemblage. That such an in-
spector-should forward a certificate-to some office,
and upon that certificate stating that the building
was.ereeted.and finished in all its.partS in "a. proper
.manner for the purpme for which it was intended
a licence should be granted for such building to be
opened. That upon all alterations or repairs of
iniportanca the like inspection- should take place,
and the Same certificate should be made
and licence granted. The jury also strongly
object to ilie almost irresponsible power now
ticlshatlieGsidooiNpii.caortnhotihne. erectionhands a companies and indivi-
duals maintenance of. our
es antrteliseoratbsoalnfutw'n'iesicleSstiotyi-mo,nreostsalulop7-
ing the ensuing session Parliamentonfolcei to pass with-
souotiSiainaeot arttemeisntto
deemedse
qiune. imperative ctn'ict Ne- e suggestions.talla y- the
andt e
upon accidents
the
fears of the public in con
that have so frequently takenni pce
lace,
founded obserYations contained id the valnable
reports of the architects appointed by this inquest.
The jury express their hope that the .coroner will
forward these suggestions to her Majesty's Score.
tary of State for consideration.' That Vie said was
signed by the -Whole of the jury ; hew-as further
requested•to Say that; -while the • jury 'deplore that
so sad an accident should have occurred from 'the
causes stated in the verdict, they are not unmindful
of the great and important services rendered to the
cause of education-and of science by the Polytechnic
ution, and they are anxious to express their
approbation of the conduct of all parties connectedi
with the institution at the time of the aceident,arni
particularly of the courageous conduct of Mr.. JP L
King in descending .amid the ruins of the failing
stairs to the assistance of the unfortunate sufferers.
The
,jury are further anxious to hereby express
their admiration of the high-mindedness and truly
bcucvolent conduct of Mr. J. P. Acton, as detailed
in the evidence.
,
.The Coroner said the jury had discharged their
dusty in
an admirable manner, and he could not
doubt
that their finding would give great public
satisfaction.
With that the proceedings terminated.