6 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[Jan. 



petent to decide, is summarily rejected by the contending piirty, who 

 reply (and it is difficult to detect a flaw in their reasoning) that the 

 nature of the subject precludes the existence of exclusive informa- 

 tion — that whatever knowledge of the facts may be possessed by the 

 Commissioners is shared with the inliabitants of the districts afliected 

 — that the convenience of any particular thoroughfare is to the latter 

 a matter of ddly observation, and that in the ordinary intercourse of 

 trade they would be certain to learn whether trafliic was obstructed bv 

 difliculties in the route chosen for it. Finally, it is argued that if the 

 Commission have any exclusive knowledge on the subject, it is the 

 very kind of a knowledge which they ought not to have ; for though 

 private information may be very important in carrying on business of 

 high diplomatic importance, the existence of private information on 

 8uch a very matter-of-fact topic as the alteration of a thoroughfare 

 gives colour, at least, to a charge of undue regard for private inte- 

 rests. 



At a crowded meeting of the inhabitants of Westminster, held 

 during the last month, the chairman, Mr. B. Hawes, the member for 

 Lambeth, in opening the proceedings, said — 



"There had been no niaDifestation of public feeling in favour of the pro- 

 posed new bridge to Charing-cross, allliou);h the mouey for erectinp; it, 

 amounting to upwards of £2,OOU,000, would be taken from the public 

 purse. The new bridge had uot been sanctioned by the i;overment, further 

 tlian that a public deparlnieut had consented to give cerlain notices prior 

 to the introduction of the bdl. He hardly thought any member fur Lam- 

 beth, Westminster, or Surrey would be found to support such a measure ; 

 and it might reasonably be asked what public reason was to be assigned 

 for it? He understood the architect of the new Houses of Parliament 

 thought the present bridge an eye-sore ; but could it not be repaired and 

 beautified, or rebuilt on the existing site ? There were many reasons for 

 retaining it: first of all, on the ground of economy. All the approaches 

 to the present bridge were the property of the bridge commissioners, in 

 the next place, a bridge lower down, as was proposed, must be longer and 

 larger, and all Ihe approaches would have to be bought. IJut was it just 

 to existing interests to build a bridge elsewhere? There were at present 

 two private bridges close to the site of the new bridge— Waterloo and 

 Hungerford bridges — the first of which did not pay a farthing to the sub- 

 scribers, itnd the other paid but very badly. From the proposed bridge to 

 M'aterloo-bridge there would be a distance of only about 200 feet, whilst 

 the Huugerford-bridge would be close to it ; and Westminster-bridge being 

 taken down, there would be no accommodation for the public from the 

 Charing-cross bridge to Vauxhall bridge— a distance of about a mile. 

 When the present bridge was built, the site was a matter of considerable 

 discussion ; it was, moreover, selected as the most beneficial for the public 

 at large ; and he believed, that from the corner of York-road over the new 

 bridge to Charing-cross, would not be 20 yards nearer than by the present 

 route. Besides this, there was a great tralhc westward over Westminster 

 Bridge to Belgrave-square, Pinilico, Knightsbridge, &c., and access to the 

 Houses of Parliameni, and the law courts. He pledged himself to oppose 

 the bill iu every stage, and he did not believe that, five gentlemen would be 

 found in parliament to sanction such an unnecessary waste of public 

 money." 



It was also asserted at the meeting, that the Commissioners them- 

 selves were not very strongly persuaded of the necessity of altering 

 the situation of the bridge, but had merely allowed their solicitor to 

 prepare the notices: another suggestion was, that Hungerford Bridge 

 had been already conditionally sold to the Southampton Railway 

 Company, who intended to use it as an approach to their new termi- 

 nus in Lambeth. If this important information be correct, it may 

 reasonably be feared that the promoters of the removal of Westmin- 

 ster Bridge to Charing-cross will incur the charge of over anxiety to 

 facilitate the conversion of Hungerford Bridge to the purposes of the 

 Southampton Railway Company. This bridge and the new West- 

 minster Bridge would so nearly adjoin at their Lambeth ends, that 

 the former would be rendered nearly useless to the public at large ; 

 and its conversion would therefore be greatly facilitated. 



The metropolitan bridges are at present nearly equidistant. This 

 arrangement secures the greatest amount of benefit from each of 

 them: but by removing Westminster Bridge to Whitehall-place, a 

 large and densely-popuhited district, extending from that point to 

 Vauxhall Bridge, will have no intermediate communication with the 

 ojiposite bank of the river. There can be no doubt but that after a 

 time, this evil will be so seriously felt, that another bridge must be 

 built above the new Houses of Parliament— that is, the public will be 

 put to the expense of building two bridges instead of one. More- 



over, may we not justly complain of the inconsistency of pronouncing 

 Hungerford Bridge by one legislative act a useful, by another a use- 

 less, structure? The only just ground for sanctioning its erection was 

 public convenience. If it were not of public utility it ought not to 

 have been erected : if it were of public utility it ought not to be ren- 

 dered useless, by the erection of another bridge almost close to it. 

 In every point of view, the proposed measures present the same ap- 

 pearance of being anticipatory of a purchase of Hungerford Bridge 

 for private purposes. For no one would be mad enough to propose 

 two contiguous bridges, unless one of them were about to be closed 

 against the public. 



We have said little of the injury to existing and justly acquired 

 interests consequent on the alteration, because we wish to view the 

 question on general grounds. But it certainly seems a matter of 

 injustice, almost of robbery, to ruin the property adjacent to tlie 

 present line of traffic. Many of the houses in the roads leading to 

 Westminster Bridge have, doubtless, frequently changed hands during 

 the last century, and the price of purcliase must have been materially 

 influenced by the consideration of the present facilities of communi- 

 cation. The purchaser, who has bought on faith of the permanence 

 of those facilities, finds suddenly that the amount of his purchase- 

 money was twice too much. On the other hand, the owner of mean 

 tenements in Lambeth, adjacent to the new site of the bridge, finds 

 himself in possession of valuable property, at a most inadequate cost. 

 The injustice is double. The latter class of purchasers have no 

 moral right to a treble or quadruple value of their properly — the 

 former class are deprived of the value of investments honestly and 

 legally acquired. 



To the lover of architecture, it will appear no small argument 

 against the removal of Westminster Bridge, that by that act the only 

 convenient point for viewing the Houses of Parliament is lost to the 

 great body of the inhabitants of London. This consideration has 

 gained additional force since the repairs of the old bridge have been 

 in progress. Recently, the footway has been lowered, and a light 

 parapet of wood, breast high, has been substituted for the former 

 lofty balustrade, by which the view was almost entirely obstructed. 

 The river facade of the Nevf Palace, consequently, presents itself to 

 the eye with a distinctness and unity never before exhibited. It ts 

 really curious to observe how much the appearance of the edifice has 

 been improved by the alteration of the bridge. Of course, this ad- 

 vantage would be sacrificed by removing the bridge to Whitehall- 

 place ; in fact, the public generally would then have no means of 

 viewing the Palace of Westminster except from a considerable dis- 

 tance. That Mr. Barry has nothing to do with the proposition for 

 altering the site of the bridge, but is, on the contrary, desirous that it 

 should leniain unaltered, may be announced on the authority of a 

 statement made by Mr. Grissell at the meeting referred to above. 



THE WELLINGTON STATUE, 



AND THE ROYAL I.VSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS. 



Little has been hitherto said in these pages respecting the position 

 of the equestrian statue on the Triumphal Arch in Piccadilly. Our 

 contemporaries have entered upon the discussion so copiously, that 

 room scarcely seems left for new opinions. Besides, when many 

 speakers harangue simultaneously, they are apt to drown each other's 

 voices, and the heat of a debate is but a poor compensation for the 

 lack of judgment and perspicuity. At the present moment, however, 

 as the storm of discussion is somewhat lulled, we may as well profit 

 by the momentary silence to express the few remarks which we have 

 to offer on the sut^ect. 



There are many persons of good taste who, without hypercriticrsm, 

 would condemn a colossal statue in which the natural proportions are 

 greatly exceeded, as a gross unwieldy object, evincing an utter disre- 

 gard of the modesty of nature. Without, iiowever, allowing the ob- 



