494 Sir Frederick Bramwell [Feb. 22, 



river, there would be great danger of vessels whieb intended to pass 

 through, drifting against a closed bridge unless some provision were 

 made to have their approach announced by telegraph, as no doubt 

 might be done, and at the same time the bridge were opened in 

 anticipation, so as to ensure a clear passage for the vessel when she 

 did arrive. No argument founded on the ease with which vessels 

 can be got in and out of docks (generally at high water and always 

 in the absence of appreciable current in the passage through which 

 they pass) would be valid, as applied to bridge openings in a 

 tideway. Moreover, experience teaches, that the Parliamentary 

 opposition of the persons interested in the traffic above the suggested 

 low-level opening bridge, would be as strenuous, or even more 

 strenuous, than in the case of a non-opening low-level bridge, 

 as in the latter instance these persons would know, that if 

 the bridge were built, they must be fully compensated for that 

 which would be undoubted damage, while they would feel that 

 if an opening bridge were to be made, an arbitrator might believe 

 these openings would suffice, might think their apprehensions idle, 

 and might either refuse them compensation- altogether, or give them 

 one of but very small extent. That a Parliamentary Committee 

 would be strongly influenced by such opposition, is no mere specu- 

 lation. In the year 1879, when the Metropolitan Board of Works 

 bridge, to which I have already alluded, was considered by such 

 a committee, the persons occupying wharves above its site, objected 

 that if vessels were compelled to strike their topmasts, or even 

 their topgallant masts, to pass under the roadway of that bridge, 

 which it was intended to place so as to give a clear headway of 

 65 feet above Trinity high water, or as much as 85 feet above low 

 water, it would form a ground of objection on the part of shipowners 

 and captains to take freights for the wharves above the bridge, and 

 thus their competitors below the bridge would be placed in an unfairly 

 favourable position ; and although it was shown, that the great bulk 

 of the shipping which came above the site of the intended bridge, 

 could pass, without striking anything more than their topgallant 

 masts, or without stiiking masts at all, the opjDOsition of the 

 wharfingers prevailed, and the bill was thrown out. A diagram of 

 the bridge is on the wall, and a model of the bridge and of the neigh- 

 bouring districts, with an enlarged model of the circular approach, 

 800 feet in diameter, and having a spiral road with an inclination of 

 1 in 40, is on the table before you. 



From a wharfinger's point of view, it appears to me that a duplex 

 bridge, such as proposed in 1801, would not remove the difficulty, 

 but on the contrary, would add to it, as there would be two bridges 

 to pass instead of one, doubling the dangers attendant upon the 

 passage of one bridge. 



But the other question remains to be considered : supposing the 

 wharfingers satisfied, would the public who had to use the bridge be 

 satisfied? Would it be tolerated that the traffic across a single 



