1844.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



Ids 



Btill greater projection of the site of the new Hou-es of Parliament higher up the river. 

 We think it evident, with such irregularities still existing, and with their prejuditalefi'ects 

 before us, that no system of dredging can alone be looked to as ensuring a permanent 

 liiiifermity In the b«d of the river in this neiyhbonrhood ;— that, dredging itself, unless 

 very carefully and systematically performed, becomes a source of fvii ; — tliat the necessity 

 for such operations should he as much as possible avoified ; — and ihat the obvious, if not 

 the indispensable course under such circumstances would be, after giving the bed of the 

 river the best possible form, so to regulate the natural agencies that they should maintain 

 its condition. 



On reference to the " Questions" already referred to in this Report, it will be seen that 

 our earliest inqv^iries were aildressed to this portion of the subject. Adverting to the 

 shoals and irregularities at present existing in the navigable channel of the Thames, we 

 submitted to ihe Hydrograjiher of the Admiralty and the civil engineers consulted, the 

 following question: " Do you think it desirable to remove them, and, if yon do, ate you 

 prepared to suggest any plan less expensive than that of a general embankment lor 

 accomplishing this object, consistently with the pievenlion of future shoals and irregular 

 deposits, and the maintenance of the river at a proper and uniform depth?" \Vc have 

 stated the precise terms of the qnestiim, in order to show that our inquiry had reference 

 to the navigation, and the navigation aliuie. The ansivers, it is true, iu some instances, 

 glanced at objects to which, t n other grounds, an embankment might be rendered of uti- 

 doubted public utility; but the result of tliese opinions generally, in reference to the navi- 

 gution alone, may, we think, nevertheless, he fairly collected. In Mr. Gordon's opinion, 

 " a system of embankments is the only certain means of establishing an uniform regime." 

 Mr. Rendel is " not prepared to suggest a complete plan for effecting the desired object 

 short of an embankment." Ulr. Macneil recommends *' walls and embankments, with 

 dredging, so as to ensure such a sectional area, and such a regular velocity of current, as 

 will neither make a scour nor allow a deposit." Mr. Giles ''considers the plan of a 

 general embankment, coupled with dredging the channel to a proper and uniform depth, 

 to be tha legist expensive and most etfectual means of accomulisibing the object." Capt. 

 Beaufort, — " if there were a sufficient fall from London to the sea," — and Mr. Cubitt, — 

 probably assuming such a fall already to exist, consider "the sinking of anew bed and 

 the raising of new shores" would be sufficient for all the necessary purposes-, — Captain 

 Beaufort, however, concl'ides "the only resource to be embankment." Mr. Hartley and 

 Mr Rennie incline to *' a judicious and well organised system of dredging." 



With the exception of Mr. Hartley and Mr. Rennie, thereibre, the uhole of these authn- 

 rltles make the improvement of the river dependant upon an altered cundilion of its out- 

 linei Captain Benufort, Mr. Gordon, Mr, Rendel, Mr. Macneil, and Mr. Giles, by the 

 erection of embankments ; Mr. Cubitt, '■ by formiuR newshores in a lessexpeusive niduner 

 llian by continuous walls of masonry." " Taking Into consideration the other subjects of 

 navigation, trade, and communications along either side of the river." I\Ir. Cubitt, "in- 

 deed is not aware of any plan short of a general embankment that could, at a moderate 

 expense, effect all thes- objects ;" Mr. Hartley observes, " I do not assume that an em- 

 bankment must be constructed for the proper navigation of the Thames; but in a ^^eneral 

 point of view. I consider that embankments would be very desirable ," and Mr. Rennie 

 does " not think embankments necessary, but only in the light of auxiliaries, and not of 

 equal importance to the river with dredging." 



A second question suggested itself to us in connexion with the foregoing, which was »s 

 follows: viz. — If an embankment be deemed expedient between London and Vnuxhall 

 Bridges, is it necessary that the river should be embanked on both sides at the same time, 

 and as a part of the same plan of operatiiins ; or. looking to the necessarily experimental 

 character of any proceeding for regulating the current of the river, and maintaining a 

 proper uniformity in its bed, should it begin on the Middlesex side, as that which, accord- 

 ing to the evidence before the Commission, would attbrd the best means of working out 

 this result? 



The opinions of I\f r. Walker upon these points have been nlrea-Jy stated. With lefer- 

 ence to the navigation of the river, the expence to be incurred, and the engineering dirH 

 culties to be encountered, '' his feeling upon the whole was in favour of the MidillesfX 

 side," and his conclusion, that "it would be better to establish theijrinciple.and to show 

 its working on a portion of the river before embracing too much." To the questions ad- 

 dressed to the several civil engineers consulted, the answers were, in their general tenor, 

 consistent and unilorm. Rlr. Rennie assigned the priority of importance, if embankments 

 were to be executed, to the northern shore, ftlr. Hartley, Mr. Cubitt, Mr, Gordon, Mr. 

 Rendel, and fllr. Macneil, were also of opinion that preference slioukl be given ta the 

 Middlesex side of the river. Mr. Gordcn, however, qualihed his opinion of this alterna- 

 tive by describing it as one "excluding every consideration save the mere regulation of 

 the river." He thought it " highly expedient," and Mr. Giles " deemed it equally neces- 

 sary," that embankments should be constructed on both sides of the Thames, and that 

 they should be carried out as part of the same plan, and at the same time, Mr. Cubitt, 

 Mr. Gordon, and Mr. Rendel were further of opinion that, nf the nortliern or Middlesex 

 side of the river, the portion between Westminster and Blackfriars Bridges demanded 

 the earliest attention. 



A third question which it became necessary' for us then to consider was, wliether 

 looking to the frontage of that portion at present occupied tor the purposes of river trade, 

 the requirements of that trade were incompatible with an improvement of the navigatii n > 

 Upon this point we found no diversity of opinion whatever. The whole of the profes- 

 sional a ithorities consulted concurred with us in believing the two objects to be peifectly 

 compatible. The interests of the navigation were lirst to be considered : secondly, those 

 of the trade ; and the mode ot embankment was to be determined as far as practicable 

 on the principle of combining a due jirovision lor the former, with the utmost possible 

 accommodation to f'e latter. 



A fourth, and. with reference to the objects of tliis commission, an important question 

 to be considered was, whether the interests of the trade and the exigencies of the naviga- 

 tion between Westminster and Blackfriars Bridges were incompatible with an extension of 

 the present means uf land traffic in the same locality ; or whet' er, locking to the demand 

 for new and improved thoroughfares in the line of the river, especially on the Rliddlesex 

 shore, an embankment could be so constructed as to combine these objects by ihu appro- 

 priation ot the superstructure as a public terrace or highway? On this point, also, iliere 

 was great concurrence of opinion amongst the professional authorities consulted by the 

 commission, as well as in assigning the greatest ueci ssity for such a communication to the 

 northern side of the river. 



It then remained for us to consider whether, assuming the objacts to be attained by an 

 embankment, in whatever part constructed, to be — 



1. To improve the navigable course of the river; 



2. To insure to the river side trade its present accommodation to the greatest possible 

 extent; and, 



3. To extend the facilities of intercourse between the two extremities of the town; 

 the several plans before the commission were buth in principle and in their respective de- 

 tails, equally adapted to satisly these requirements : or whether the weight of evidence 

 before the comnission gave a preference to any one of thtm. as being belter adapted than 

 the others for effecting all these objects by reason of its principle or its details, or on the 

 ground of the greater economy with which it might be carried into execution. 



With reference to the lines of embankment laid down on the respective plans, and their 

 probable effect in improving the navigation of the river, Mr. Hartley, Mr. Kennie, Mr. 

 Giles, and Mr. Macneil, considered those of Plan A to be the best . fllr. Gordon, on the 

 contrary, observes, " Of the three plans before me, A has the least reference to the prin- 

 ciples which ought to guide the choice of lines." On the other hand, it is observed by 

 Captain Beaufort, " There is but little choice between the lines presented by tiiese plans, 

 all being sufficiently continuous ;" by Mr. Cubitt,—" There is great similarity in the lines 

 of all the thiee plans, and, as regards the question of navigation, only, the adoption of 

 either, as permanent lines of bank, \vould be a great improvement;" by Mr. Macneil, — 

 " I have no doubt that any one of the lines would be found, with some partial modilica- 

 tion, to answer the purpose intended ;" by Mr. Hartley, in answer to the lifth question, — 

 *' There can be no doubt that any of these plans would tend much to benefit the channel 



of the river and Improve its navigation." The relative value* therefore, of the embank 

 ments proposed, as agents in working out such a result, is undecided by these obierva 

 tions. 



There seeems little reason to doubt, from the evidence, that a terrace or roadway could 

 be usefully and consistently made upon the embankments projected in all these plans ; of 

 course with the same qualification as to the relative facilities and advantages of either. 



Rut there is not the same concurrence of opinion in reference to the accommodations of 

 the trade, combined with the furtherance of these objects; and in this respect there 

 api'ears to us to be a material difference in the relative merits of the three plans. 



'i'lie inquiries of the Commission on this part of the subject were not limited, as we 

 have already stated, to the opinions of professional men. They involved points, it Is ob- 

 ffious, upon some of which science could throw no light whatever, and upjn which, if a 

 choice of opinions were indispensable, the practice and experience of tho<!e in trade would 

 undoubtedly, ill the brat instance, be referred to. On the other hand, hoivever, the evi- 

 dence of panits interiisted, either directly or by the habits of their various callings, iu 

 the probable issueof improvements of this nature, is seldom altogether free from prejudice; 

 and upon the whole, probably, the professional acquaintance of civil engineers with 

 questions involving the requirements of trade, in connexion with those of navigation, 

 may be considered as supplying the best general evidence on such a subject. 



We have been induced to present ihu loregoing minute and detailed review of the very 

 voluminous ev-rlence, and the great mass of professional opinion, which we have collected 

 with reference to an Embankment oi the Th -mes, by the conviction that we could not by 

 any more summary exposition of it, have done justice to the importance of the subject 

 itself, — to the various and extensive interests coimected with it, — to the highchamcter and 

 station of the eminent professional gentlemen from whom we have derived so much valua- 

 ble Information 'most readily and unreservedly afforded), and also to the authors of the 

 several plans which we have considered in comparison with each other. 



We have observed with great satisfaction thealmostunanimous concurrence in opinion, 

 u;jon all the main toidcs to which our inquiries were dnected, among the scientific and 

 practical gentlemen thus consulted ; and it was with a corresponding confidence that we 

 finally came to the tollowing Resolut ons ; — 



1. That it appears to the Commission that the present state of the river Thames above 

 London Bridge is such as to reu'ier highly expedient the adoption ot some proceedings 

 for remedying the existing defects, and for preventing the further deterioration of the 

 navigation. 



2. That for securing these important objects, an embankment of the river would be the 

 most effective measure. 



ii. That though a general embankment between Vauxhall and London Bridges appears 

 to he highly expedient, yet that it is most urgently required on that portion of the M iil- 

 dlcsex. or left bank of the river, which lies between Westminster and Blackfriars Bridges. 



4. That such an embankment might be advantageously combined with the formation of 

 a carriage and foot line nf communication between Scotland Yard and Blackfriars Bridge, 

 whereby the great objects of public recreation and health would be promoted, and consi- 

 derable relief be given to the existing insufficient thoroughfares between the eastern and 

 western districts of the metropolis. 



ft. That by the adoption of the general principles of embankment presented in the plan 

 of Mr. Page, or plan B (with certain modifications which have been suggested, and others 

 which may be sug^;ested hereafter), there is reason to expect that the great public benefit 

 of the improvement of the river, and the obtaining a new line of communication, may be 

 octjuired without detriment to the trade now conducted on the ^liddlesex shore. 



a. That the Commission being dispo-ed ' n these grounris to recommend the adoption 

 of this gre:it metropolitan improvement, will proceed forthwith to ascertain as nearly as 

 ii can be done, the probable expense of carrying it into execution : and also to inquire in 

 what manner the funds required for the purpose may best be provided, so as to press with 

 the least possible weiiiht and inconvenience on the inhabitants of the metropolis and its 

 environs. 



In pursuance of these resolutions It became necessary for us to place ourselves in im- 

 mediate curomunication with Mr. Page, and to direct his atten'ion to such modifications 

 of his plan as had occurred to us in the cour'C of this inquiry. These modifications, 

 however, necessarily involved many deviations trom the estimate already before us, and 

 we directed, therefore, that further and detailed estimates might he prepared and sub- 

 mitted for our consideration. The nature of these modifications will be best explained by 

 reference to the appendix. They involve, as will be seen, in principle, no departure from 

 Mr. Page's original plan. 



The estimate bastd ujion the plan originally proposed comprised an embankment and 

 rondway between Blackfriars and Westminster Bridges, on the northern shore of the 

 river, 40 feet in width, and varying from three feet six inches to 111 feet above Trinity 

 Iiigh water murk, with carriage road, f >ot path, balustrades, &i-. from Middle Scotland 

 Yard to Blackfriars Bridge. The whole outlay upon this portion of Mr. Page's plan 

 would hive amounted to .. .. .. -. ^'192, 72b 



Add for gas fittings, lamp posts, irons, &c. . . .. -. 2,450 



jtl95,17H 



Add for contingencies, 10 per cent. 



^■2Ufi9b 



The further estimate which Mr. Page was directed to prepare and lay before us, was 

 to comprise an cmbiinkmeiit and terrace 20 teet in widtli from Westminster Briilge to 

 Whitehall Place, and bli feet in width for the remainder of the distance, varying in height 

 from 3 feet 6 inches to 10 feet above Trinity datum ; and to show the relatve expense of 

 constructing these— 1st. With brick walls faced uith granite; and 2nd, With brick walls 

 and grjuite dressings oidy. The following was the result; 



For an embankment anl terrace 50 ft. in width and varying from 3 ft. 6 in. to 



10 ft. in height, having brick walls and a facing of granite .. £36G,409 



For a like embankment and terrace, having brick walls with granite dres- 

 sings only .. .. .. .. .. .^;l01,.'i91 



As the mode of connecting the general line of the proposed embankment with the 

 frontage of the premises now occupied by the residents in Privy Gardens, and also with 

 that of the Temple Gardens, may be subject to modifications of various kinds, with a 

 view to meet the convenience of the respective parties, the foregoing estimate maybe 

 affected by the ultimate determination respecting thcso portions of the work, probably so 

 as to diminish the cost of it to the public. 



A decision upon these, and upon many of the less important details of this plan may, we 

 think, b- profitably leserved for the present until your Majtsty's Government shall have 

 determined, after a perusal of our Report and its accompiuiying evidence, and estimates, 

 upon the expediency of adopting and bringing under the notice of Parliament, the measure 

 to whi h these relate. To that evidence we think we may confidently refer in proof ot 

 our desire to enter into all the beaiings of this difficult, anil, as far .is regards the general 

 character of metropolitan improvements, somewhat novel inquiry; to test the accuracy of 

 the estimates laid before us, and ultimately to obtain for the inhabitants of the metropolis, 

 as large a measure of improvement, ot its kind, as could be effected, consistently with the 

 extensive ancl important cla>s of interests involved in its accomplish-ment. 



We have advened to the manner in which the funds required for the improvements in 

 the City of London, connected more or less, with tlie approaches to London Bridge, and 

 also the great alterations more recently sanctioned by Parliament, and now in progress, 

 have been provided ; iind although it may not appear strictly a part of our duty to acconi- 

 piiny our recommendations of such further improvements as may appear to us to be the 

 most desirable by suggestions of pecuniary resources for defraying the cost of them, we 

 trust that we shall not be considered as transgressing the limits of our Commission if we 

 submit to your M jesty our views of the means which appear to us the most readily avail- 

 able, and with the smallest degree of pressure and inconvenience to the inhabitants of the 

 metropolis and its vicioityi lor the immediate object of our present Report, and also for 



