160 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[ApRit, 



The Commission proceeded, in the first place, to examine Mr. Walker and 

 Mr. Page in reference to the objects, advantages, practicability, and expense 

 of their respective plans. The official opinion of Captain Beaufort, and the 

 professional opinions of Mr. Hartley, Mr. Cubitt, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Rendel, 

 Mr. Macneil, Mr. Rennie, and Mr. Giles, were subsequently obtained ; first, 

 as to those leading and general points which appeared to apply to all the 

 plans, and secondly as to the relative merits of the three. 



Of these opinions, a portion, it is to be observed, was collected by the 

 Commission in the usual form of oral evidence. It occurred to us, however, 

 subsequently that all the essential questions in an enquiry of this nature 

 might be more effectively condensed, and circulated in writing (an arrange- 

 ment which was subsequently found conducive also to the parties consulted), 

 and the remainder, therefore, were collected in that form. 



Copies of these questions were also addressed to Sir Isambard Brunei, and 

 Mr. J. K. Brunei, and Mr. Donkin ; but considerations of health in the first 

 case, and professional engagements and want of time in the other two, de- 

 prived the Commission of the assistance of these gentlemen. 



In addition to the eminent civil engineers above adverted to we had occa- 

 sion to examine, upon separate and distinct portions of the enquiry, Mr. J. 

 W. Higgins, a purveyor extensively employed in London, and ordinarily re- 

 ferred to by the corporation fur valuations, in cases of embankment upon the 

 river ; Mr. R. L. Jones, the chairman of the London-bridge Improvements 

 Committee, ai gentleman possessing great information on many of the sub- 

 jects involved n many of these enquiries; and Captain Maughan, the dock- 

 master of the London Docks, whose connexion with a large commercial body 

 interested in the navigation of the pool, added to his practical acquaintance 

 with the wants and habits of the river generally, made his evidence especially 

 desirable. Messrs. Hay, Peache, and Lucey, barge*owners and lightermen, 

 and Messrs. Tayler, Harvey, and Pocock, coal-merchants, or general whar- 

 fingers, in the line between Westminster and Blackfriars bridges, were exa- 

 mined principally on points not touched upon by the Select Committee of 

 1840, and upon the probable influence of any measure of embankment upon 

 their respective interests. 



On the feelings and opinions of the trade, as a body, it appeared to us to 

 be more consonant to the convenience of the parties to be consulted, more 

 conducive to a right understanding of the measures contemplated, and more 

 likely to result in a well-considered judgment upon these measures, if our 

 chairman were to address himself to one of its members in behalf of the 

 whole ; to enclose for their consideration copies and detailed description of 

 the plans; and to express the desire of the commission to have a deliberate 

 opinion from all parties concerned as to the principle upon which, and the 

 mode in which (consistently with the permanent interests of the river) an 

 embankment might be effected in nearest accordance with their own views 

 and wishes. A letter was accordingly addressed, and plans transmitted to 

 Mr. Tayler, of the firm of Dalgleish and Tayler, extensive coal- merchants 

 and wharfingers in Scotland-yard ; and in the appendix a copy of that letter 

 is inserted, as well as of Mr. Tayler's reply. 



In addition to these various sources of information on the subject before 

 us, we were favoured with the written opinions of Mr. William Cubitt and 

 Captain Maughan, subsequently to, and in extension of their respective oral 

 examinations; a "Memorandum upon Estuaries and their Tides," contri- 

 buted by Sir Henry Thomas de la Beche ; and, finally, with three letters, and 

 various tables and statements prepared by Mr. Page, accompanied by sections 

 of the several bridges, and of the river, presenting a large body of valuable 

 matter not bearing exclusively on the local topics and interests more imme- 

 diately involved in these inquiries, but on the general question of embank- 

 ment in tidal rivers. With these we have inserted in the appendix, papers, 

 the result of inquiries made under our direction as to the frontages and occu- 

 pations of the wharfs on the Middlesex side, with the number of barges and 

 other craft in front of each at certain periods of the inquiry ; and also as to 

 the heights above Trinity datum of the nearest line of communication parallel 

 with the river between Blackfriars-bridge and Whitehall, showing the great 

 irregularity in the level of that leading thoroughfare. 



The Plan oj Mr. WalJcer.—(A.) 



The plan of Mr. Walker, referred to in a former part of this report, originally com- 

 prised an embankment on both sides of the river, between London and Vanxhall Bridges. 

 In his evidence before the Commission as to the relative expsdiency of embanking the 

 Surrey and Middlesex sides of the Thames respectively, Mr. Walker stated his attention 

 to have been principally given to the northern side of the river, adding it to be his own 

 opinion (in which, indeea, almost all the authorities subsequently consulted appeared to 

 concur), that *' it would be better to establish a principle, and to show lis working in a 

 portion of the river in the first instance," and to make the first embankment on the 

 Borthern shore. The course of inqnii"y, therefore, pursued in his examination by the 

 Commission, had reference principally to these considerations. 



The lines of ftlr. Walker's plan are those shown upon plan A in the appendix. It con- 

 templated the forma' ion of quays along the greater portion of the line, at the level of three 

 feet six inches, or four feet above Trinity standard; these quays to become, upon tsrms 

 to be settled, the property of the respective parties owning the present wharfs, of which 

 the embankment was, in fact, to be considered an extension. 



A continuous solid embanl-ment, however, having been deemed impracticable through- 

 out the whole line, Mr, Walker's plan suggested four exceptions, viz. :— one at North- 

 umberland Wharf j a second above Waterloo Bridge, terminating at the bridge slairs; a 

 third above the Temple Gardens; and the fourth commencing at Whitefriars Dock, and 

 terminating at the Bridge Stairs, Blackfriars. At these places he proposed to leave re- 

 cesses (shown on the plan) varying from 4U0 to 800 feet in width respectively, and bearing 

 together, a proportion »I about one-third to the rest of the embankment. 



"As the deepening of the navigable channel might tend to draw down the ground of 

 the respective whaifs into the river, it was proposed where required, to support the same 

 by close pilintj in the line of the embankment, the top of this piling not to be above the 

 level of the ground where it is driven." The main body of his embankment Mr. Walker 

 proposed to construct of matgrials to be obtained from the bed of the rivers the embank- 



ment wall, excepting at Somerset House, where the wall was to be faced with stone, 

 being of brick with stone dressings only. 



Of Mr, Walker's plan, a roadway fortned no essential feature. In the event of a terrace 

 or a railway being thought desirable, he proposed that it should be at least 5i» feet in 

 width; that, commencing in the neighbourhood of Whitehall, it should be carried over 

 both tiie embankment and recesses, u[)on Hat arches of lOU feet span, at such an elevation 

 generally above the river as would enable the public in the use of it to communicate with 

 Hungerford, Waterloo, and Blackfriars bridges, at the level of their respective roadways. 

 With the last-mentioned of these bridges it would end. 



Assuming, therefore, the height of Rlr. Walker's embankment, throughout, to be, at 

 high water, four feet above Trinity datum, the elt-vation of the roadway of this terrace 

 above it would vary at ditierent places ; at its commencement at U'hitehall it would be 

 trom five to six feet, at Hungerford and Blackfriars bridges 2^ feet, and at Waterloo 

 Bridge ^7 feet above the same standard. To a spectator from the river, it would in each 

 case present, with the addition of its balustrades, an elevation about three feet higher. 



As the fall of the tide would throughout the whole line of the embankment, produce, 

 to the eye, a corresponding addition to its base, the river front of the terrace and em- 

 bankment together would, at times of ordinary low water, have gained an apparent addi- 

 tion to its height of about 16 feet ; making its extreme elevation above low water, with 

 the balustrades, about 5(i feet. 



The estimated expense of Mr. Walker's embankment, as stated to the select committee 

 of 1840, assuming it to be carried to the Horseferry Road, was ;6'^00,0ti0. In his evidence 

 before the Commission no proportion of this amount was assigned to the shorter distance 

 since contemplated ; but it is probable that, upon the embankment above Westminster 

 Bridge, a small portion only of that amonnt would have bean expended. 



The erection of a terrace (if it were desired) as a separate superstructure, with its piers, 

 arches, and roadway together, would, in Mr. Walker's opinion, involve a further expense 

 of about ^4yO,OUU. ; making the estimated cost, therefore, of the terrace and embankment 

 combined, between ^600,000. and .£700, OUO. 



The plan of Mr. Walker, as we have already stated, excited considerable opposition In 

 Parliament in the session of 1840, from the wharfingers and others interested in the trade 

 of tiiis locality. It was then directed exclusively to the principle of a solid embankment, ^ 

 subject to the exceptions already referred to, as to recesses in certain portions of the 

 line. 



The objections urged against it at that period had reference to its alleged interference 

 with the river frontage, of whicti, though a larpe portion, in the opinion of the Commis- 

 sion, might undoubtedly, have been improved by the adoption of such a measure; yet a 

 still larger had been appropriated to purposes dependent upon its proximity to the water 

 side, and adapted principally to the habits of the coal trade. 



These objections, it should be stated, though the objections of a majority of the parties 

 affected, were not universal. It was alleged by Mr. Walker that many wharfingers were 

 desirous of availiner themselves of the privilege to embank, upon the terms then proposed 

 by the city, viz. — the payment of Id, per annum for every square foot of ground acquired 

 from the river. 



It was objected, however, that assuming this to be permitted, a measure so partial in 

 its operatiun could not fail te be injurious to a large body of the trade, by creating recesses 

 of indefinite width, uncertain as to the time of their existence, and in the mean time 

 tavouring the accumulation of mud. 



The evidence of I\Ir. Walker upon all these points, together with the evidence of those 

 who, on these and other grounds, were opposed to the principle of his embankment, has 

 been before the j>ublic now for a period exceeding three years, in the report of the select 

 committee already referred to. No doubt, it appears to us, can exist, upon a perusal of 

 that evidence, that it exhibits a manifest pitponderance of feeling on thn part of the trade 

 adverse to the plan before that committee. 



The object of the Commission, therefore, in calling Mr. Walker before them, was not 

 to re-open the discussion of 184U, but, lojking to the result of that discussion, his subse- 

 quent survey of the river in 1841, and thi* probability, from these and other causes, of hi"* 

 having communicated with parties interested in the northern shore of the river within the 

 intervening period, to ascertain whether he had seen reason to alter his opinions or to 

 modify his plan, and especially whether he was prepared to bring the question apain 

 under the consideration in a shape that might justify them in recommending its adoption. 

 From our examination of Mr. Walker on these points, his views appeared to have un- 

 dergone no change ; and with reference to the concurrence which his suggestions were 

 now likely to receive on the part of wharfingers and others interested in the line, we found 

 him unprepared to inform us either as to the extent to which such concurrence might be 

 depended upon, or to which the Commission might reasonably consider itself entitled in 

 reviving the consideration of his plan. One of three alternatives appeared to us to be 

 inevitable ; either that such concurrence should be obtained in the first instance, and 

 throughout the whole line, or that considerable sums of money must be expended in 

 compensation? ; or, assuming the impossibility of the first of these alternatives, and the 

 inexpediency of the second, that the embankment must proceed in small and sometimes 

 widely d.rtached portions of the whole line. 



The latter of these alternatives would justify a revival of all the objections to the pro- 

 posed embankment of 1840, and render the execution of a terrace or river road utterly ira- 

 practicahle. 



We are not unmindful that Mr. Walker has endeavoured to provide against these con- 

 tingencies by recesses sufficient in extent and so arranged in regard to locality as to meet 

 the wants ol a large body of the triide ; but we cannot but remark, at the same time, that 

 these recesses stood in flir. Walker's plan of 1840; that he would give them no defi- 

 nite assurance as to the time by which they would be completed, or the period for which 

 they mijiht be available; and that, upon being questioned by ourselves as to the grounds 

 upon wiiich he had determined the proportions of his recesses to those of his solid em- 

 bankments, he admitted that " he had calculated upon the feeling of individual proprietors 

 in the line, of which, however, he knew little." 



In stating to the Commission the origin and purposes of his survey of 1841, Mr. Walker 

 observed, •' The great object of the City in that survey, as it appears to me, has been to 

 determine a river 1 ne, to which parlies making applications might, but beyond which they 

 must not, extend their premises; and, to show how the navigable part of the river may 

 be deepened and improved, without injuring the berths for barges where parties do not 

 wish an extension of solid wharf, which is in no instance proposed to be compulsory." 



Upon being questioned by the Commission whether that oi)iuioa should be understood 

 as applying to the plan under consideration, he re|)lied, 



" I have stated that at present there is no intention of anything compulsory, so far as I 

 am aware of. I am not sure that it would not be expedient for a considerable time to 

 leave it to be optional. I think if the measures were now intended to be compulsory, 

 there would be demands from the owners on the banks of the river for compensation ; 

 whereas if the thing were left to work its own way for a time, parties would be allowed to 

 carry out and extend their premises; some in the shap^ of recesses or docks, and some in 

 the shape of embankment the property being then considered theirs in fee. In that way 

 portions being taken in different p;irts all along the river, if it should be desirable after- 

 wards to be made compulsory upon the minority, the mnjority of owners and occupierB 

 agreeing in the plan, or if they got to be all unanimous, there would be an excellent 

 standard along the whole course of the river on which to value the land, or to pay for 

 damages if any were done." The Commission upon this observed, "Then the embank- 

 ment would take place at separate intervals?" To this observation Mr. Walker answered 

 " Yes." 



The amount of moneys to be paid as compensation under such circumstances, or of 

 other moneys to be raised in consideration of the land embankttd, are subjects, therefore, 

 into wliich it would be obviously Impossible for this Commission to enter with any cer- 

 tainty or profit. According to Mr. Higgins, who was examined before the Committee of 

 1840, and whose views, like those of Mr. Walker, would appear to have undergone little 

 alteration subsequently, a revenue of about 3.6u0/. per annum might be realised if the 

 embankment were complete; but " he had taken what would be gained by the embank- 



