1884. J on London {below hridge) North and South Communication. 493 



work, and above all, as regards certain modes of crossing, the magnitude 

 of the interests affected, or alleged to be affected. With respect to 

 the difficulty of access. The map shows that on the northern side of 

 the river, fii'st a portion of the bank is occupied by the Tower, to the 

 east of which is Little Tower Hill, already mentioned (the point 

 from which so many projectors have proposed to start their bridge or 

 tunnel), then the bank is occupied by the St. Katherine's Docks, and 

 these are separated by nothing but a roadway (Nightingale Lane) 

 from the London Docks, which extend down the river until Shadwell 

 is reached : that is to say, from the western side of the Tower down- 

 wards there are only two places where, for a length of about one 

 and three-quarter miles, there is not a barrier to the approach to the 

 river ; these two places are, Little Tower Hill and Nightingale Lane. 



After the eastern end of the London Docks is passed on the 

 north side, the south is found to be occupied by the Surrey Canal 

 Docks and the Commercial Docks down to Deptford, and moreover, 

 on the north the Limehouse Basin of the Kegent's Canal, which Basin 

 is in truth a collier dock, cuts off ready communication. These diffi- 

 culties of approach apply to bridges and to tunnels. With bridges the 

 difficulties are practically insuperable, as the approaches must needs 

 extend across the docks, cutting them in halves. It is possible, no 

 doubt, to carry a tunnel under the docks, as has been done in the case 

 of the extension of the Thames Tunnel, to make a communication 

 with the East London Railway, but the work is very expensive, and, 

 worst of all, the underground distance is most materially increased. 



With respect to bridges, another class of difficulties, not connected 

 with want of access, arises. If a fixed bridge having only such an 

 elevation above the water as that of London Bridge be adopted, i. e. 

 if a non-opening low-level bridge be resorted to, then obviously this 

 bridge becomes the head of the masted shipping navigation, as London 

 Bridge is at the present time, and its erection would result either in 

 a diminution of the space available in the Port of London, or else, in 

 the gradual extension of its business lower down the river. If this, 

 the more probable result, took place, then obviously it must give 

 rise in time to the repetition of the present difficulty, viz. the existence 

 on the banks of two large towns, to the east of the bridge forming the 

 head of the port, without any means of communication from side to 

 side of the river, which separates them. Moreover, the sum demanded 

 as compensation for existing interests, between the new bridge and 

 London Bridge, would be something that as regards its total would 

 have to be stated in millions, and as regards its increments, for every 

 few extra yards of distance between the two bridges, by thousands. 

 On the ground of first cost, therefore, the temptation would be great 

 to place the new bridge as near to London Bridge as possible, 

 notwithstanding that other considerations would urge that it should 

 be at a reasonable distance below it. If it be suggested, as it has been 

 over and over again, that these difficulties could be met by making 

 certain spans of the bridge to open, the answer is, that in a tidal 



