The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-27 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL.

A special Court of Common Council was holden
yesterday at Guildhall, for the purpose of taking
into consideration a report, presented on Thursday
last from the Bridge-house Committee, which re-
commended that the present bridge at Blackfriars
should be pulled down and a new one erected in its
place. The subject was considered to be of too much
importance to be thus summarily disposed of, and
yesterday was consequently specially appointed for
the consideration of the matter. The Right Hon,
the Lord Mayor presided.
It will be remembered that on the former occa-
sion it was stated that the committee, having
regard to the fact that the London, Chatham,
and 'Dover Railway Company were about to erect
a bridge at a distance of 105 feet from the pre-
sent structure, which was proposed to have nine
arches, but that this innocent description of bridge
would not be erected if the Corporation came to the
resolution of rebuilding Blackfriars-bridge upon
another 'principle, and also that the expense of
repairing the present defective pier would cost
£40,000, and that it was probable that, if the em-
bankment of the river were to be carried out, the
whole of the remaining piers would soon become
defective, considered that, upon the whole, it would
be better to erect a new bridge altogether, and this
was the question now brought before the Court,
and led to a lengthened discussion.

Mr. HENRY WELLINGTON VALLANCE, Chairman
of the Bridge House Estates Committee, moved,
" That the Court should agree with the committee
in their report, and that it be referred back to them
to obtain designs for the construction of a new
bridge, with estimates of the probable expense
thereof, and of making temporary provision for the
traffic, and lay the same before the honourable
Court for their approbation." He said that the old
bridge had cost the Corporation since 1840 an ave-
rage of £40,000 per annum to keep the bridge in
repair, and that in 1852 Sir W. Cubitt and Mr.
Brunell, engineers, were called to examine the
bridge, and it was stated by them that owing to
the inherent defects connected with the shallow
foundation of the bridge, and to the very great,
and probably now greater, lowering of the bed of
the river, it was impossible to make what might be
called an effectual repairing of the bridge, and that
nothing short of building a new bridge would meet
the necessities of the case. He said that he had been
told that the cost of repairing one pier alone would
amount to £39,000, and that it would be much the
cheapest to build a new bridge at once, as the pro-
bability would be that if they thoroughly repaired
the old bridge it would cost more than building a
new one. He said that the Corporation need not
be at the expense of it; neither would there be any
necessity for extra taxation, as the funds of the
Bridge House Estates were sufficient to meet the
expense. He added that if the proposed embank-
ment of the Thames were carried out it would in-
crease the scour, and so wash the soil from the
foundation of the bridge.

Mr. Alderman ROSE seconded the motion, and
said that as the expense of repairing the old bridge
would be so great, he thought it would be most
economic to build a Dew one.

Mr. Alderman DAKIN said it was a question that
required very careful consideration, and did not
think Mr. Valiance had shown sufficient ground of
urgency and despatch to call the Court together on
such an unusual day, and said that in 1852 it was
considered that a new bridge must be built at once,
but the bed of the river had subsided very little
since then, and the probability was that it had now
finally settled, and the mischief already done would
cease. He thought Mr. Valiance was mistaken
when he said the funds of the Bridge House estates
were sufficient to defray the expenses, and moved
as an amendment " That the consideration of the
question be deferred until some determination had
been arrived at with regard to the embankment of
the Thames, and the plans for carrying out the
same were agreed to."
Mr. Ross supported the original motion, and said
it would be much better to build a new bridge at
once than to be at the continual expense of sustain-
ing such a tottering structure as the old one.
Mr. ROWE suggested that, although one of the
conditions under which the London, Dover, and
Chatham Railway were to build their bridge was,
that it should be 105 feet from Blackfriars-bridge,
he thought it would be very easy to obtain another
Act of Parliament which might eraable the two
bridges to be incorporated on the site of the present
Blackfriars-bridge. He thought it would be ver-I,
advantageous and worth the trial.
Dr. ABRAHAM said he could not see the necessity
for deferring the scheme.
Mr. DE JERSEY thought that by agreeing to the
report they would be sanctioning the immediate
demolition of the old bridge. He thought it was a
matter for serious consideration, and might be de-
ferred. He thought Mr. Valiance was acting very
hastily, and that tha matter must go before Par-
ment, and could not go before the next session. He
therefore supported the amendment.
The amendment was then put and lost, and on a
division being demanded, there were 72 for the
motion and 47 for the amendment, the motion being
carried by a majority of 25.
Mr. DE JERSEY then moved, in the absence of
Mr. Lowman Taylor, as a farther amendment,
" That the further consideration of the report be
adjourned, and that the committee be directed to
obtain plans and estimates for a bridge in lieu of tke
present Black friars-bridge, should the commi:Ltee
determine to carry out such proposition, and - rebuild
another one in its place, and that premir,ms of 100
guineas and 50 guineas be offered for: the two ap-
proved plans, but the Court not pir:,aging themselves
to adopt eitiler."
The amendment was lost, and Mr. Alderman
5A1.0.3,10Ns moved, as a farther amendment, "To
agree with the committee in their report, except in
so much thereof as recommends that the present
bridge be taken down and a new bridge erected in
lieu thereof, and that the committee be, therefore,
authorised to obtain by competition designs and
estimates for the erection of a new bridge, the same
to besubmitted to the Court for their consideration."
This amendment was also negatived, and the
Court adjourned.