Page images
PDF
EPUB

G. K. Burnell, Esq. demolition of old London Bridge a very remarkable change has been effected in the régime of the river itself. 29 June 1854.

1671. When you say the "régime," what do you mean?-The conditions of flow. It is a sort of engineering phrase to imply all the conditions of flow which affect the river itself.

1672. Lord R. Grosvenor.] You mean the daily action of the flux and reflux of the current?-Not only of the flux and reflux of the tide, but also the action of the land waters. It includes the action and reaction of the stream, whether of tidal or of land water, upon the bed and upon the banks; in fact, all the conditions of flow.

1673. In fact, the natural history of the river ?-Precisely so.

1674. Will you give the Committee some information on that point?—I think that I should do so in the most satisfactory manner by reading some extracts from the note I presented to the Bridge House Committee. "Since the year 1832,' to quote the words of Messrs. Walker & Burgess's Report, 'the bed of the river has been lowered (near Blackfriars Bridge) six feet;' and it must be evident to any one who examines the state of the river between that point and Teddington Lock that the same effect has been produced in a proportionate degree throughout the entire distance. It is singular, too, that about the year 1842 the river appeared to have assumed a degree of fixity, so to speak, in the nature of its flow, and of its action upon the bed. The erosion of the latter has lately been resumed, subsequently to the commencement of the works for the Thames Embankment, then first systematically carried into effect under the direction of Mr. Walker. The duration of the flood tide, and the height of the mean range between high and low water, have also been increased, and these effects may be distinctly traced to affect the river at points considerably above and below Old London Bridge. Thus it appears that between the years 1832 and 1845, the range of the tides at the London Docks had increased about 1 foot 6 inches; at Putney, it had increased about 2 feet 3 inches; whilst at Teddington Lock, it had increased 1 foot 4 inches nearly. The velocity of the currents of both the flood and the ebb tides has also visibly increased; hut no accurate observations have been made for the purpose of ascertaining the precise extent of the change. The nature of the materials composing the bed of the river may, to a certain extent, enable us to form an opinion on this subject; but the deductions to be drawn from them are necessarily exposed to be modified by the interference with their deposition produced by the incessant wash of the steamers. It must, however, be in the memory of every member of your worshipful Committee, that even so late as 1840, the materials forming the bed of the river, laid bare between tides in the portion of its course extending from Southwark Bridge to Chelsea, consisted of semi-fluid mud of great depth. Now at the lowest point above cited, they consist of what is technically called ballast, or small gravel, unless in positions removed from the direct action of the tides, This change is most apparent in the portion of the bed exposed at half tides; but we are warranted in assuming that the velocities of the ebb and flood currents must be increased throughout their whole duration. The effects produced by these changes in the state of the river are sufficient to account for the alterations in its bed which have given rise to the settlements of Blackfriars Bridge; and all engineers are agreed that it is to the increased scour of the stream that the removal of the bed is to be attributed. But it is precisely from the fact that this increased scour (produced by the enlargement of the waterway at London Bridge, and the concentration of the lower ebb tide by the embankment) has already so seriously modified the state of the whole river, that not only Blackfriars and Westminster, but London Bridge itself, are menaced with destruction, that it appears to me to be advisable to fix the tidal action within its present range, rather than to increase it by still further increasing the waterway during the most powerful period of the tide, according to the project presented by Messrs. Walker and Burgess. If Blackfriars Bridge sink because the clay bed of the river between the piers is carried away, and therefore ceases to resist any tendency to lateral displacement by the piers, and if this clay be removed by the increased scour above described, evidently every new facility which is offered to the transmission of the tidal wave must increase the scour still further; and one after another, the foundations of all the bridges on the river will bę affected."

1675. Will

1675. Will you tell the Committee what your recommendations are? G. R. Burnell, Esq. Simply to fix the bed of the river by putting a dam across it at a level which should be subsequently determined upon, so as to prevent the level being afterwards lowered.

1676. Will you state the manner in which you propose to carry that suggestion out?-The recommendation I made was to the effect that a floor should be made between the arches of the bridge, and it was proposed to be executed by forming coffer-dams on the up and down sides of the bridge, in the manner indicated upon the accompanying sketches; the coffer-dams would be respectively 35 feet from the face of the bridge on the up, and 50 feet on the down side; they would be formed of close piling, with wales at the level of the bed of the river; the space between the outer and the inner rows up to that level would be dredged to a depth of 20 feet, and the interval filled in with good hydraulic concrete; the upper portion of the coffer-dam would be filled in with clay puddle in the usual manner, and to the height indicated; the coffer-dams would be formed in detached portions between each pair of piers, excepting in cases of the arches left dry at low water; return ends would be carried across, as shown in the plan, to connect the up and down retaining walls, and to allow the floor to be executed in small portions at a time. When the water should have been pumped out from the interior of the coffer-dam, the whole surface of the ground should be excavated, to allow the insertion of a bed of concrete three feet thick, to be dressed off to levels to be given hereafter ; the arches should be well shored up where requisite, and the foundations of the piers carefully underpinned to as great a distance from the face as possible with fire bricks set in Portland cement, this underpinning to descend about one foot below the concrete floor; a number of holes shall then be bored through the body of the pier, and the voids between the old foundations of the caissons and the existing ground filled in with grouting; when this grouting, and the concrete floor should have set, the coffer-dams should be removed by cutting off any piles or wood work above the water, at the level of the existing bed of the river, in such a manner as to leave the piles to act as guards to the retaining wall of concrete formed at the bottom of the dam. The arches should be repaired six months after the piers, so as to obviate any danger from the compression of the grouting under the latter.

1677. Your report had reference to Blackfriars Bridge?-Simply to Blackfriars Bridge; that being the subject which was then before the Bridge House Committee.

1678. Mr. Pellatt.] What would be the action of this dam?-It would fix the bed of the river, so as to prevent the water line being lowered.

1679. Mr. Jackson.] Do not you think it good for the navigation, that the water line should be lower than it is at present?-It is a question as to

expense.

1680. Do not you think it advisable that the bed of the river should always be as low as possible?-Unquestionably.

1681. It is a question as to whether it would be better to preserve the bridges or diminish the navigation ?-I should propose rather to keep the navigation in its present state.

1682. How would you do that by this coffer-dam?-By retaining the bed in its present state.

1683. Do you apprehend that the whole of those bridges now carried across the Thames are in danger?—I should be very much disposed to apprehend that that would be the case if you were to increase the flow of the tidal stream by pulling down the existing bridges, and increasing the flow of water which can go up; for instance, it is proposed at Blackfriars Bridge to pull down the present structure and to replace it by a bridge which will have a larger waterway than now exists; some fewer arches necessarily imply a larger water-way, and therefore the tide will, of course, send a larger quantity of water up the river. 1684. Mr. Wilkinson.] And it would therefore send a larger quantity down? -The same rule would of course apply; the scouring power will be increased. London Bridge is also rather affected at the centre; they are obliged to watch it, and occasionally to throw down ballast at the foot of the piles.

1685. Mr. Pellatt.] If three new bridges were erected, would not each of them serve as a dam to a certain extent, and provide for the loss of the large number of arches at Blackfriars ?—That depends upon whether they were built either

29 June 1854.

G. R. Burnell, Esq. above or below the point which now forms the regulator, as it were, of the flow of the river. If three new bridges were built above Blackfriars Bridge they would not affect to any serious extent the bed of the river.

29 June 1854.

1686. But supposing one to be built below London Bridge, and two others above, one at St. Paul's, and one at Charing Cross, how would they operate on the tides?--I imagine that the bridge at Paul's Chain would not operate to any great extent, unless you carried something across the bed of the river to prevent its being affected.

1687. Mr. Wilkinson.] That was why you proposed to make the coffer-dam? -Precisely so; the bed being fixed to any point that might be thought desirable.

1688. Mr. Pellatt.] Do not you consider that some inconvenience will arise from the fall which will be caused by this dam-I do not conceive that that would take place; in the first place, in consequence of the dam being wider than the bridge, the stream, after it had gone past the cutwaters, would be able to get back into its normal state; the fall through the arches altogether arises from the interference with the water-way.

1689. Upon your principle of preserving the foundations of the bridges, the navigation of the river would not, according to your view, be affected?-No, I conceive not; there would be no such fall as to affect the navigation.

1690. Lord R. Grosvenor.] You have given some considerable attention to this subject?—I have, and what I have stated is the result of my investigations.

Mr. S. S. Tayler.

6 July 1854.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Stephen Seaward Tayler, called in; and Examined.

1691. Chairman.] WHAT is the state and condition of Battersea Bridge?-Its state of repair is very good.

1692. Is it not a very ancient structure?-It is now in its 83d year.

1693. Under what Act of Parliament was it built?-I have the Act here (producing the same).

1694. What is the date of it?-1766.

1695. What was the cost of the bridge ?-I am not prepared to say what the

cost was.

1696. Was the Act granted to any individual or individuals?—I am not prepared to answer that question; perhaps the solicitor of the bridge, who is present, may be better able to answer that question.

1697. Mr. Alderman Challis.] What information are you capable of giving about any of the matters upon which we desire information ?-The notice which was served upon me did not mention specifically what the objects of the Committee were; but upon the general financial condition of the bridge I could give you any information you might require. The solicitor is better acquainted with the legal title of the bridge, and matters of that kind.

1698. Chairman.] Is Battersea Bridge adequate to the present traffic?I should say so decidedly, at present.

1699. Is the traffic increasing ?-Upon the average, there is an annual

increase.

1700. Do you think, considering the increasing traffic over the bridge, that for some years to come it may not be necessary to build any other bridge in the neighbourhood?

neighbourhood?-Yes, I should say decidedly that it would be unnecessary at present, and for some time to come.

1701. Mr. Blackett.] There is another bridge in that neighbourhood?—Yes, one building, rather more than a mile distant.

1702. Chairman.] Has any opinion been expressed by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood as to the desirableness of throwing it open free?-I cannot say that I am aware of any.

1703. No meeting has been held?-Not in the immediate neighbourhood of Battersea

1704. And no petition sent to this House?—Not from the people living in the neighbourhood of the bridge.

1705. What is the nature of the securities belonging to the bridge, are they bonds or shares ?-I think I must refer that question to the solicitor; I presume that the question refers to the mode of proprietorship.

1706. Will you favour the Committee with any information that you have concerning the bridge, that you think important for the purposes of this inquiry? -I am prepared to speak with regard to the annual income.

1707. Have you a copy of the report made to the proprietors?—The bridge being under private management, there is no formal report made. I might mention that the tolls have averaged between 6,000 l. and 6,200 l. during the last four years.

1708. Mr. Alderman Challis.] Annually?-Annually.

1709. Chairman.] You cannot acquaint the Committee with the original cost of the bridge ?-No, I cannot. The fact is, that a very few years after the bridge was built it sustained a great deal of injury, and a large sum of money was laid out upon it, so that the cost was greatly enhanced.

1710. Mr. Alderman Challis.] Is that 6,000l. the net receipts?—No, it is the amount of the tolls.

1711. What do the expenses amount to?-They average about 7001. or 800l. a year. But, besides the tolls, there is landed and other property connected with the bridge, and there is also funded property, which produce income, independent of the amount which I have named.

1712. Will you be so good as to furnish the Committee with a statement of the property and income of the bridge, distinguishing the various items of which it is composed?—I will.

Mr. Frederick Halsey Janson, called in; and Examined.

1713. Chairman.] YOU are the Solicitor to Battersea Bridge ?-1 am. 1714. Will you be so good as to favour the Committee with the original cost, the income and expenditure of the bridge, so far as you are acquainted with them ?—I have no direct information whatever upon any one of those points.

1715. Have you any document which would show what the cost of the bridge has been ?—No, nor do I believe that my predecessors, since the time the bridge was built, have ever had those particulars.

1716. How is the income of the bridge divided?—That is entirely managed by the proprietors and their treasurer; we are not consulted upon the finance. 1717. Who is the treasurer?-Mr. Henry Tritton, of Lombard-street, of the house of Messrs. Barclay, Bevan and Company.

1718. Have you any knowledge of the per-centage that the income bears to the capital?—No, nor, as I apprehend, has there been any valuation of the capital since the commencement of the undertaking.

1719. The last witness told us that the gross revenue is 6,200 l. a year; how is that 6,2007. a year disposed of?-After payment of the expenses, it is divided among the proprietors, and I have heard generally, that they divide between

400l. and 500 l. a share.

1720. Mr. Alderman Challis.] What is the number of proprietors ?-Thirteen; and in reference to that, I may explain that it was divided into 15 shares under the original constitution, but that in or before the year 1796 two of those shares were bought up for the benefit of the proprietors, so reducing the actual number

to 13.

1721. Chairman.] Is there any estimate of the amount of capital that those 13 shares represent ?-I apprehend, none whatever.

1722. In the event of any one of those shares being disposed of, are they not 0.31.

Mr. 8. 8. Tayler.

6 July 1854.

Vide Appendix,
No. 12.

Mr. F. H. Janson.

Mr. F. H. Janson. valued?-They are real estate, and therefore have not been valued for probate and legacy duty.

6 July 1854.

1723. Mr. Alderman Challis.] Do you know what the cost of those two shares that were bought up in 1796 was ?-I do not know, but possibly I could ascertain that; the bridge was constructed very much upon the purchase of the ferry, and some adjacent land; there was a certain sum contributed for the expense of the bridge at the time, the amount of which I do not know, and from that time to this it has been a partnership concern, consisting of real property (and divided first into 15, and since 1796, into 13 shares); and the net receipts are divided in 13 parts.

1724. It was built under an Act of Parliament ?—Yes.

1725. In the Act, was not there granted a right to raise a certain sum to make a bridge? No. It was set on foot, in a great measure, by Lord Spencer, and the present proprietors bought it of him; he was the owner of the ferry, which was the foundation of the bridge.

1726. What is the date of that Act of Parliament ?-1766.

1727. Do not the proprietors claim rights under that Act of Parliament, which Lord Spencer could not have had without an Act?-The Act of Parliament is seldom referred to in our proceedings; it was, I think, merely an Act enabling him to take land for certain purposes; our deed of constitution is of the date of 1771; five years later than the Act.

1728. Chairman.] Do those 13 shares, any of them, ever change hands?— They do occasionally.

1729. Can you give the Committee any information as to their value when they changed?-The last change or sale was about ten years ago; the price then given was, I believe, 6,500l.

1730. For one share? For one share; I think that was the amount, but have not the conveyance to refer to.

1731. Sir J. Shelley.] What do the shares stand at?-There is no nominal or market value for the shares.

1732. What is said to be the amount of the shares ?-There is no specified amount; it is a thirteenth share of Battersea Bridge.

1733. How did the shares arise in the first instance?—The property was purchased, and certain contributions were made.

1734. By whom was the purchase made?-By the 15 original proprietors. 1735. What was the amount that each of them subscribed-Those particulars I have not; it does not appear upon any document or paper in my hands as solicitor; it might possibly be deduced from the accounts; but from what I have heard in conversation, I think it would be very difficult to get at.

1736. When did the sale of this share, which was sold at 6,500 l., take place? -I think it was in 1844; that is the last sale.

1737. Was this a regular sale, properly carried out; were the shares transferred from one individual to another?-Exactly so; it was sold by auction, I think.

1738. If sold by auction, there must have been some deeds produced, to show the real interest that the purchaser had in the bridge?-Yes, and that has been furnished frequently, and only lately to Government, for the purchase of some land held in connexion with the bridge. The proprietors have purchased from time to time tracts of land adjoining the bridge, subservient to the purposes of the bridge.

1739. You have stated that there were originally 15 proprietors, and that that number has been reduced to 13?—Yes; two having been purchased up by the remaining proprietors, and thus reduced the number.

1740. Mr. Alderman Challis.] With regard to this share that was sold for 6,500 l., you have stated that the property does not entirely consist of the bridge. There is funded property and landed property?—Yes.

1741. The 6,500%. includes a share in all the property of the bridge? Undoubtedly.

1742. How much of the property in the shares is represented by land, and how much by the bridge-For that I must refer you to the managing proprietor; he has those particulars.

1743. You have the deeds; it would of course be mentioned there?—It would; but I have not got it upon paper.

1744. Can

« PreviousContinue »