1846- J 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECFS JOURNAL. 



2»l 



moncj), I should condemn the present bridge decidedly, and hare a new 

 bridge; not only Ihat, but you may be liable to very considerable further 

 repairs besides those at present contemplated ." - " 1 have no other observa- 

 tion to make, but that I consider it a great pily to devote that money to the 

 repairs of an old siruclure which might and ought lo be devoted to a new 

 one, on the ground of the insecurity of the present bridge, and that there 

 is no safe guarantee for the money laid out upon it being properly spent." 

 In bis evidence before the present committee, Mr. George Kennie stated 

 that he retained precisely the same opinion: " I think it would be throw- 

 ing away good money after bad to attempt to repair the bridge so as to 

 make it a permanent structure." The removal of from 20,000 to 30,000 

 tons, as slated by Mr. James Walker in 1844, in order to lighten the verti- 

 cal pressure upon the piers, by means of the abstraction of that material, 

 has, in Mr. George Rennie's judgment, not succeeded in preventing the 

 further subsidence. In fact, the further subsidence is stated distinctly in 

 the evidence of Mr. James Walker this session. 



The committee could readily extract, for the more easy consideration of 

 the House, numerous other passages in the evidence of 1844; but they 

 have perhaps suflicieotly selected some of the most striking answers which 

 have been given to the inquiries made on the subject of Westminster 

 bridge ; and they leave the remainder, without further selection, to the at- 

 tention of the House, But they cannot conclude this collection of ex- 

 tracts from the evidence of 1844 without adverting to the fact, that the 

 witnesses who depose the most explicitly to the propriety of removing the 

 existing bridge are men of the highest engineering talent and experience 

 in the empire ; while the only witness, however excellent and respectable 

 in his profession, who gave in that year any testimony in favour of main- 

 taining the present structure, is the contractor employed to repair it. 



Mr, Walker, while, as already stated, he repudiated the word "peril- 

 ous," as applied to the bridge, distinctly stated that the want of money for 

 a new bridge would alone induce him to propose the continuance of the 

 actual structure. 



When examined in the present session, Mr. Walker admits Ihat, so far 

 as regards one of the piers, " My opinion of being able to make the bridge 

 perfectly secure, has not been a correct opinion, as far as it is shown 

 at present. There is to be set against that, the expense to which the 

 commissioners have been put, in repairing and strengthening the other 

 piers ; but, on the whole, my opinion is now, that, but for the question of 

 expense, the better way is, under all circumstances, referring to the im- 

 provement of the situation, the future stability of the work, the giving an 

 easier approach, an easier inclination, a wider bridge, a better water-way, 

 and an improved navigation by a smaller number of piers, the safer and 

 better course is to rebuild the bridge." 



This answer well embodies the chief considerations which induced the 

 committee to recommend, by unanimous resolution, the removal of the ex- 

 isting structure, and the substitution of an entirely new bridge. 



Other considerations, however, have not been without their weight on 

 the minds of the committee in the resolution which they adopted. The 

 traffic over Westminster bridge has greatly increased within the last few 

 years, " so much that it is difficult at times to get over it." It is obviously 

 immense. Sir James M'Adam stated, in 1844, that he had been directed 

 to cause lo be counted the number of horses which passed Charing-cross 

 annually, and Ihat it had been ascertained that it was 6,600.000 ; and 

 though there was no record of the proportion which passed over the bridge, 

 he added, " I consider that the larger proportion of that thoroughfare, 

 particularly the heavier carriages, passed over the bridge." It is stated 

 further in evidence, that the inclination of Westminster bridge was in 1844 

 probably greater than that of any bridge over a tidal river in England ; that 

 its inclination was, at its commencement, i. e. for a distance of 50 yards 

 at each end of the bridge, about 1 in 14^, and about 1 in 33 for the re- 

 mainder. It is true, that the inclination has been reduced since 1844, but 

 it has been reduced by the sacrifice of a quarter, at least, of the carriage- 

 way of the bridge. As a general principle, it is clear that the wear and 

 tear, both of the animals which draw a carriage on a steep inclination, and 

 ot the surface of such inclination itself, must be considerably greater than 

 on a level, or than on any road-way in proportion to its approach to a level. 

 When, in addition to this, it is recollected that, in the course of the system 

 of repairs recently adopted, and for the purpose of lightening the vertical 

 pressure on the bridge, such a mass of stone has been displaced as has 

 reduced the present surface of Ihe road by a depth of tive steps below the 

 footpath, on both acclivities, and that the carriage-way has thereby been 

 contracted about the width of a carriage, it is sufficiently evident, that 

 almost in the measure of the increase of the traffic has the accommodation 

 for its passage over the bridge been diminished, 



When, further, it is recollected that the headway under the existing 

 Westminster bridge is lower than the headway under any of the bridges 

 in the metropolis, and until reaching Battersea, it is clear that, as favour- 

 ing the navigation of the river, it has no special claims to consideration. 

 New Bridge. 



The committee of 1844, whose report has been referred tu the considera- 

 tion of the present committee, look evidence on the question whether in 

 the event of its being decided to pull down Ihe present structure, and lo 

 erect a new bridge, Ihe material should be of iron or of stone ; and if of 

 iron, whether in suspension or in Ihe form of arches ; and if of stone, 

 whellier of granite or what other material. And the committee, in the 



present session, examined at some length bolh Mr. George Rennie and Mr. 

 J. Walker, on this general subject. The committee do not feel it necessary 

 either to analyze this evidence, or to come lo any formal conclusion on the 

 subject, except to recognise the two following propositions, namely, (1) 

 Ihat a suspension bridge, though aflbrding greater facilities to the naviga- 

 tion than any other form of bridge, is inexpedient; and (2) that irrespect- 

 ive of expense, a granite bridge is expedient. On the first point, Mr. 

 George Rennie compressed into one sentence the whole question: — "The 

 great inconvenience of suspension bridges is, that they are always at work, 

 that they are always in a state of degradation ; whereas, bridges by com- 

 pression are always in a state of equilibrium." The illustrations which 

 he gave will well repay Ihe attention of Ihe House. On the second point, 

 it is clear that, in proportion to Ihe strength of the material, may be its 

 thinness ; and a greater waterway can be afforded by an arch of granite 

 than by an arch of Bath stone. From this gentleman, from Mr. Walker, 

 from Mr. Barry, and from Mr. Page, the committee have received designs 

 for a new bridge, and have directed them to be lithographed. All have 

 great merit; and perhaps the one which possesses the least might, if it 

 stood alone, have satisfied every requirement. But Ihe committee do not 

 feel it within their province lo give any opinion on the relative value of 

 these productions. They do not, however, consider it to be inconsistent 

 with their duty to recall lo Ihe attention of the House a suggestion appli- 

 cable to the erection of all public works ; it was made lo Ihe committee of 

 1844 by a gentleman already cited, who appeared to have given par- 

 ticular attention to Ihe subject. The substance is slated in the next para- 

 graph. 



Competition Designs. — On the mode by which competitioi might best se- 

 cure the application of the first talents to the production of the best designs, 

 and might thence enable some superior authority to select one from all, or 

 to combine different parts from two or more, Mr. Hosking stated as follows 

 (and the committee concur generally in his opinions) : — The essential mat- 

 ters should be defined by the proper authorities, in the first instance, and 

 before attempts are made to obtain designs. A specification of what is 

 required should then be made ; and this should be more or less particular, 

 as it may be determined either to fix a sum of money as the limit of ex 

 pense ; or, on the other hand, to receive designs with reference lo the object 

 and without limiting Ihe expense. Such a specification should be put into 

 the bands of a reasonable number of competent practitioners, with a 

 request that they would each make a design for the contemplated work in 

 accordance with the stated conditions. All the designs so obtained may 

 be examined and investigated with Ihe advantage of the presence of their 

 authors to explain what they may have intended, and to correct what may 

 be misunderstood. In this manner the best energies of competent men 

 would be applied lo the work, and it is probable Ihat the best result would 

 follow. * * * A general competition would end in general disap- 

 pointment ; • • • as none of the persons who would be recognized 

 as most competent, would send designs without being specially applied to 

 for them. * * • At Ihe lime London bridge was in contemplation, 

 advertisements were issued for designs, with offers of some three or four 

 premiums. Drawings were sent accordingly by 70 or 80 persons, and the 

 premiums were awarded to the three or four which were said to be the 

 best designs ; but not one of them was used ; they were immediately 

 thrown away, and a design was taken up which had not been in the com- 

 petition ; but which, indeed, had been in the hands of the bridge commit- 

 tee befurehand, and the author of which was already dead. The late Mr. 

 Rennie's design was executed. In order to avoid this apparent invidioDs- 

 ness and unfairness, and lo secure the real benefits of a competition among 

 competent men, the selection of Ihe architects and engineers should be 

 limited ; and each should receive a certain remuneration for the work 

 which he might send in. No man can afford to work for nothing. Every 

 design asked for should be paid for; and no one ought to be asked, either 

 directly or indirectly, lo make a design, unless it be intended to pay him 

 for it. If this system were adopted, the properly in Ihe designs so sent in 

 would belong thereafter to Ihe authority, by the directions of which they 

 had been sent in ; so that the good parts of one design might be accommo- 

 dated lo the good parts of other designs, and Ihe combined result of the 

 whole would be something superior to that of any one individual design. 

 This is one of the advantages from requiring designs from persons of known 

 ability, and paying for them, so that all the designs obtained may be turned 

 to account. Il is the parlies seeking designs, and who desire to derive 

 advantage from the application of many minds lo the same subject, that 

 are to be benefited ; and they who seek a benefit must be contented to pay 

 for it. It can never happen, but that in several designs for the same thing 

 there will be some points or parts in some of Ihe designs, other than that 

 which may be generally the best, better than the same points in the best 

 design. When all are paid for, all may be used; and the best design in a 

 " concurrence" may be greatly improved by the incorporation of the ex- 

 cellencies of the others. 



Site of the New Bridge. 

 The House will observe Ihat Ihe committee, in their resolutions herein 

 adverted lo, have not pronounced any opinion as to the precise site of the 

 new bridge; but it is obvious that, while many considerations might be 

 urged for the removal even lo a distant position, other considerations, en- 

 titled to the highest attention, might be adduced in favour of the existing 

 line, or one in immediate juxtaposition to it. It has been suggested by a 

 high authority that it would be very desirable to remove the bridge to the 

 south of the Victoria Tower, thereby opening a more direct communicatioa 



