1884.] on London (below bridge) North and Soath Communication. 487 



Bridge in 1671, and without the proper acknowledgment of the source 

 from whence they were derived. Bear with me while I give you a 

 portion of the speech of Mr. Jones, one of the then members for 

 London, as I wish you to have the benefit of his own views expressed 

 in his own emphatic language. 



" Mr. Speaker, — It is impossible to contemplate, without feelings 

 of the most afflictive nature, the probable success of the Bill now 

 before the House. I am sensible, that I can hardly do justice by any 

 words of mine, to the apprehensions, which not only I myself per- 

 sonally feel upon the vital question, but to those which are felt by 

 every individual in the kingdom, who has given this very important 

 subject, the smallest share of his consideration. I am free to say, sir, 

 and I say it with the greater freedom, because I know that the 

 erection of a bridge over the river Thames at Putney, will not only 

 injure the great and important city, which I have the honour to 

 represent, not only jeopardise it, not only destroy its correspondence 

 and commerce, but actually annihilate it altogether. (Hear, hear.) I 

 rei)eat it in all j)0ssible seriousness, that it will question the very 

 existence of the Metropolis ; and I have no hesitation in declaring 

 that, next to pulling down the whole borough of Southwark, nothing 

 can destroy London more certainly than building this proposed 

 bridge at Putney. (Hear, hear.) Allow me, sir, to ask, and I do so 

 with the more confidence because the answer is evident and clear, 

 how will London be supplied with fuel, with grain, or with hay, if 

 this bridge is built? All the correspondences westward will be at 

 one blow destroyed. . . ." 



I wish time would admit of my quoting the speech of Sir Henry 

 Herbert to the like efiect. 



Upon a division, the Bill was thrown out by a majority of 13, 

 54 voting for the Bill and 67 against it. 



I fear this Putney Bridge digression has withdrawn our minds 

 from the fact that our two towns were well supplied with bridges, 

 some free and some the subject of tolls. But their inhabitants 

 were not, however, content even with this condition of bridge 

 accommodation : they determined to get rid of the tolls ; and South- 

 wark fi.rst, and the various other bridges more recently, have been 

 purchased and thrown open for the use of these inhabitauts, who in the 

 seven and a quarter miles from London Bridge to Putney, have ten 

 road bridges and one foot bridge, while, as has been said, the two 

 eastern towns in practically the same number of miles, London Bridge 

 to Blackwall, have no means of communication whatever, except the 

 Thames Tunnel, which is now used for a railway, and a foot subway, 

 at Tower Hill, of only 6 feet 6 inches clear internal diameter. 



As long ago as 1796, a tunnel was suggested to connect Gravesend 

 with Tilbury, but it is believed very little work was done. In 1804, 

 a tunnel, called in the Act of Parliament an Archway, was com- 

 menced from Rotherhithe to Limehouse. By 1809 the very small 

 (5 feet by 3 feet) preliminary driftway for this tunnel was executed 



VoL.'x. (No. 77.) 2 K 



