» 



rebuilding London Bridge. 33 



said bridge dangerous and destructive to the lives and proper- 

 ties of His Majesty's subjects*." By i-eference to the Reports of 

 the Committees of the House of Commons, of the sessions 1820 

 and 1821, relating to this bridge, ordered to be printed May 

 and June 1821, and upon abstracting from the evidence therein, 

 relating to the loss of life and property in the last twenty years, 

 the promoters of the demolition of the bridge cannot produce 

 a statement of a greater number of persons drowned than 1 7, 

 nor damage to property exceeding 4000/. by accidents at Lon- 

 don Bridge during that time. The evidence, with respect to 

 the danger of the navigation through the bridge, of the lighter- 

 men examined, many of whom have navigated the river for 

 forty years, is directly at variance with the opinions of those 

 who are desirous of a new bridge, and attributes the accidents 

 which occur, to mere ignorance and drunkenness. 



The sufficient stability of this bridge was ascertained in 1759, 

 when the large arch was made, and unquestionably confirmed 

 by the late examination of the structure of the piers f . 



The sufficient width of the bridge as a roadway, is main- 

 tained by Mr. Rennie's evidence (16th April 1821), who, upon 

 being asked, " What would you propose to make the width of 

 the new bridge?" answered, " The same width as the old one;" 

 and added, London Bridge is Avider than either Southwark, 

 Blackfriars, or Waterloo Bridges. The width of the bridge, in 

 the clear of the parapets, in the design which received the first 

 premium, is only 44^ feet, a less width than between the para- 

 pets of the present bridge J; so that the mechanics and trades- 

 men who urge the necessity of a new bridge, in the hope of 

 having a freer thoroughfare for themselves and their carts, will 

 be grievously disappointed. 



In the late application to architects and engineers, it seems 

 remarkable, that it had not occurred to the Bridge Committee, 

 that the supposed evil might have another remedy than a new 

 bridge ; and out of the course of ordinary proceeding. It might 

 have suggested itself to some engineer, contemplating the di- 



• Tlie passion for legislating about London Bridge is not new, although 

 it now has changed its direction. In the last century Parliament passed an 

 act to compel the corporation to stoj) up some of the arches, and to in- 

 crease the fall wiiich the present act complains of. — Edit. 



+ Appendix, Report on London Bridge, 1B21, p. 6G, &c. 



J See Mr. Dance's section, Ap])end. H. 1. 2d Report, London Port. By 

 Append. B. IIL 3d Report, London Port, London Bridge is 45 feet wide, 

 Blackfriars 41 feet, Westminster ;{9feet !) inches. 



The late Mr. Mylne(App. B. II.) thought 50 feet a proper width for the 

 new London Bridge. The roadway of Waterloo Bridge is 28 feet, the foot- 

 paths each seven feet, together 4ij"fcet ; the same as Westminster Brid"ei s 

 stated to lie hy Mr. Lahelye. - Vauxhall Bridge has a roadway of ii8 feet, 

 and two footpaths of 5 feet (! inrhes each, together 39 feet. 



Vol. 02. Xo.30:j, .////// 1823. E rection 



