J. Bunning, Esq. 21 March 1854. F. Bennoch, Esq. 303. Chairman.] Do you know when this report is expected from the engineers, that you have referred to ?-I am expecting it in a week or ten days; it may be a month. Francis Bennoch, Esq., called in; and Examined. 304. Chairman.] I BELIEVE you are the projector of the plan which has been referred to by Mr. Brand, for a bridge across the Thames from St. Paul's?— I am. 305. Have you made any calculation what will be the expense of it?--I have. When I first undertook to examine the question, I felt it to be my duty not only to have the ground properly surveyed on both sides of the river, but also to go to the expense of having a design for a bridge made, and the quantities taken out, and an estimate made by contractors prepared to undertake the work at the price given in. 306. What did the estimate amount to ?-I felt it of great importance that the Corporation should undertake the duty of surveying the property, and estimating the amount of compensation that should be given to the occupiers and proprietors of land over which the bridge and approaches must necessarily go; that, therefore, I considered was no part of the duty which I should impose upon myself, especially as the expense would be considerable, perhaps rather too much for a private individual to bear, merely for the purpose of proving a public necessity. 307. Mr. Wilkinson.] I believe you are an amateur in the matter?—Yes. 308. You only calculated the expense of the actual bridge?-Yes, the expense of the actual bridge, and the approaches to that bridge from the level on the City side to the level again on the Surrey side. The estimate at that time was 120,000l. for the construction of the bridge, and 24,000l. more for the approaches on both sides of the bridge from level to level, making a total of 144,000l. Of course, I need hardly say that since that time materials, as well as labour, have risen considerably, and if an estimate were to be given now, it would be probably 20 to 25 per cent. higher than it was then. 309. Mr. Alderman Challis.] What was the width of this proposed bridge?— Sixty feet. 310. Sir J. Duke.] How is that as compared with the present London Bridge? -Six feet wider than the present London Bridge; but I am of opinion now, that instead of being 60 feet it would be a wise economy to have it 80 or 90 feet wide, almost to have two bridges in one, because the traffic at this point would immediately be immense. 311. Chairman.] What is the bridge to be built of ?—It was proposed that the piers should be stone with wrought-iron girders. 312. Do you consider that a bridge could be built at that part of the river cheaper than anywhere else?-My impression is, much cheaper, because the property from St. Paul's Churchyard to the river side is property of comparatively little value; the streets are narrow, contracted, and ill adapted to great commercial operations; so that warehousemen who require a considerable amount of room for their waggons, avoid them. When you come to Thamesstreet the property is necessarily very valuable, because of the number of wharves in that immediate neighbourhood; but it singularly enough happens, that just at that particular point the property is of less consideration than any other property that could be touched upon between the Temple and the Tower; this happens to be an iron wharf, where plain sheds are required to protect it from moisture and corrosion, and this could be done much better by the dry arches of a bridge on girders carried upon columns, and would form altogether a much better wharf than the owners now have. Then, on the Surrey side, I think it would be almost impossible for the imagination to conceive a condition of society more fearful than that of the population through which the approach would go on that side from the point at which it touches the bank, till it reaches the junction of the Southwark Bridge-road, near the Elephant and Castle; it is impossible for language to describe the condition in which the people are there, not living, but festering. 313. Mr. Alderman Challis.] You mean that it would be a great improvement to clear that neighbourhood away for the purpose of making an approach to the bridge?- bridge?—Yes, it would be as great an advantage, in a sanitary point of view, as F. Bennoch, Esq. the construction of the bridge would be to the traffic. This line happens to come between two great thoroughfares, Blackman-street on the one side, and 21 March 1854. Blackfriars Bridge-road on the other side, and there is no other main street running through this district excepting the crooked approach to Southwark Bridge. The people have got crowded together; and the alterations made in other parts have driven the poor into this particular locality in great numbers. I think it would be an excellent plan to take advantage of such an opening to construct a large series of dwellings for the poor in that particular locality, where they are needed, near the river side, and sufficiently near their work to enable them to go to and fro without much fatigue or loss of time. 314. Does not the amount you have stated, viz. 144,000l. strike you as remarkably small for the bridge and the approaches?-That is for the actual works; that has nothing to do with compensation for the property that would be taken. I thought it better that the corporation should judge of that; but I thought it was a very small sum; I was much astonished at it, and I think I may as well mention the names of the gentlemen whom I consulted. In the first place I consulted with Sir Charles Fox; I was with him three or four times with reference to a structure of this kind; we devoted many hours to the consideration of the subject. He recommended to me a gentleman who had been engaged for many years in constructing and designing such works, and who is now at Copenhagen, carrying out the works under Sir Charles Fox, in connexion with that gigantic railway. I thought it was better to have a man whose character and scientific reputation were unquestionable, than to have a man whose standing might be doubtful; I got him to make a survey of the ground and a design for a bridge; his name is Brounger. He had frequently been employed by engineers in designing bridges. He had the assistance of a gentleman who, I believe, is now engaged in constructing the Crystal Palace, and one of the best judges in England with regard to constructions of iron, and the two together made the estimate. I therefore felt perfectly safe in their hands, and I have since that period had a bridge designed by engineers of equal eminence, Messrs. Liddell and Gordon, and they were prepared to construct the bridge and the whole of the approaches for 100,000 l., which seemed to me to be a very small sum. 315. Sixty feet wide? Yes. Of course I did not bring that before the corporation formally, although I named it incidentally, because they had already before them an estimate which was considered as ridiculously low; and I considered that it was of no use to bring before them a still lower estimate, which would only, perhaps, still more excite their disbelief. I have had many designs and suggestions from people desirous of bringing their plans before the public. My attention has been directed to one of the most gigantic kind, which for elaboration, beauty, and adaptability, not only to the present necessities, but to all that may hereafter be required, surpasses every structure hitherto conceived; and I am told it can be executed for much less than the Corporation believe would be required for an ordinary bridge. The scheme to which I refer is this: I believe that the Government have some notion of bringing the railways into connexion with the Post-office, and if that be considered necessary for postal communication with the North of England, it is of course infinitely more required with regard to the Continental postal arrangements, and that could be effected more easily from the southern than from the northern side. A railway is projected to come to the southern side of the river, and by a bridge at this particular point, with arrangements for a railway underneath, through which the mail-trains might pass and enter a tunnel as soon as it reached the City side of the river, and come up to the Post-office, where the bags could without labour or loss of time be deposited. That has been provided for in connexion with the bridge to which I refer. And perhaps the Committee may think it important for them to hear something from the gentleman who has designed this magnificent structure; it is one of the grandest designs that ever was conceived. 316. Mr. Wilkinson.] What is the name of the gentleman?—The name of the designer is Mr. Sang. 317. You spoke just now of the population of the neighbourhood through which the approach to your bridge will pass on the Surrey side. They are of course a labouring population?-They are a labouring population engaged in that 0.31. F. Bennoch, Esq. 21 March 1854. particular locality. There are a considerable number of slaughter-houses about there; and the trades incidental to that necessary occupation are not of the pleasantest, or perhaps of the most healthy character; such as bone-boiling, guttwisting, and a variety of other matters exceedingly odorous, but by no means salubrious. 318. And being a labouring population, they are drawn to that spot in order to be near the scene of their operations?-Undoubtedly; a great number of people engaged along the river side are compelled to live in that locality, not only for convenience, but in consequence of the cheapness of lodgings. 319. Therefore it would be an exceedingly good site for the purpose of erecting improved dwellings for the working classes?-Certainly. 320. Chairman.] Is not that the case all along the Thames on the Surrey side? I think almost all the bone-grinding places and gut-twisting places are confined to that particular locality, for there the slaughter-houses are fixed to a large extent. Now that necessity, in the course of a twelvemonth, will in all probability be done away with; because I apprehend it is arranged by the Corporation that on opening the new market the slaughter-houses will be contiguous to it, and cattle will not be driven to other localities for the purpose of being slaughtered. 321. Sir J. Duke.] Would your bridge interfere with New Cannon-street?— It would not at all interfere with it; that street would form, necessarily, one of its approaches. New Cannon-street comes into St. Paul's Churchyard at the south-east corner of the Cathedral; the street should spring from Watlingstreet, if the new bridge is to be constructed; and one must be constructed in the course of time, since, as I shall be able to prove, more bridges are really required, and that is, perhaps, of all positions, about the best that could be chosen for the erection of our first new bridge. Starting from Watling-street, and crossing New Cannon-street, you have about 50 or 60 yards to Old Fishstreet, and that would be the point from which the new bridge would take its rise upon the dry arches, and be continued at a dead level till it reached the Surrey side of the river. I have laid it down here, upon the Map of London (producing the same). I think the Committee would do well to take notice of this particular point. There is a new street projected here to go to Earl-street, Blackfriars, in order to give relief to Ludgate-hill. The only object of this new street from this point at Bow-lane to Earl-street is to relieve Ludgate-hill of the traffic of this quarter that desires to cross the river. Here there is a large amount of expenditure proposed, merely for the purpose of accommodating the traffic from this point to Blackfriars Bridge. Now, my opinion is that Blackfriars Bridge is not sufficient, but that a new bridge must be made somewhere, and without loss of time. These new approaches to Blackfriars by Earl-street would cost at least from 180,000l. to 200,000/. I have no hesitation in saying that more than half the new bridge and its approaches could be constructed for the cost of this one new street; then you get, not only a new line for traffic over the water, but you avoid taking the expensive property, which the Earl-street extension would cross diagonally. 322. Mr. Alderman Challis.] But you are of course aware that this new street is proposed to be constructed for the purpose of taking off the traffic which comes over Blackfriars Bridge?—Yes; but it so happens that the Blackfriars Bridge is probably the worst position for a bridge that there is in the metropolis. They have chosen the lowest part on each side of the river as the place from which the bridge should spring. Now seven-eighths of all the traffic over Blackfriars Bridge comes from a high level, so that both on the Temple Bar side and on the St. Paul's side of the valley of the Fleet they are obliged to descend a hill to get down to the point from which the bridge springs. Then they must ascend a hill to get over the water, and Blackfriars Bridge hill is nearly as bad as Holborn-hill. Any waggon coming from any part of Southwark south of Blackfriars Road would never come over Blackfriars Bridge, but over the new bridge, and would save the double hill. I have here a table showing how the traffic arranges itself. I have gone into the question with reference to this improvement. I had men employed in taking the traffic there a fortnight ago, and the statement shows the traffic of vehicles passing from Ludgate-hill over Blackfriars Bridge, and vice versa, and from Earl-street over Blackfriars Bridge, and vice versa, from 9 a. m. to 6 p. m., on Wednesday, February 8th, 1854. The Ludgate-hill por tion tion of the traffic going over Blackfriars to and from the Old Bailey is as follows:- Islington and Kennington omnibuses, 128; all other vehicles, 985; making a total of 1,113. The vehicles that go over Blackfriars Bridge to and from St. Paul's Churchyard are, 29 South Western Railway and City omnibuses, and 405 of other vehicles; making 434. The vehicles going along Earl-street are, cabs, 83; all other vehicles, 502. Presuming that those 83 cabs have probably come from St. Paul's Churchyard down to Earl-street to avoid Ludgate-hill, I have therefore added them to the 434 vehicles to and from St. Paul's Churchyard; making a total of 517. Thus we have 517 vehicles going down Ludgatehill to pass over Blackfriars Bridge, while we have 1,113 going along the Old Bailey, and so over the bridge. The other vehicles, to the number of 502, consist of waggons, &c., which do not come from or go to the upper level towards Cheapside, except in rare instances, and therefore cannot enter into any calculation with reference to the new street. So that this new street, if constructed, would only accommodate 517 vehicles during the day; and if you suppose that they would go at the rate of three miles an hour, it would leave each vehicle in this distance 88 yards apart, instead of crowding upon each other as they do at present in Ludgate-hill. An omnibus starting from the Post-office to go to Kennington would be at the Elephant and Castle before it at present gets to Blackfriars Bridge, in consequence of the perpetual crowd and crush at various corners. Blackfriars Bridge will never be good for much until rebuilt. When brought down to a 20 feet headway it may become a good bridge. There is a scheme afloat to adapt the river to the bridges by artificial dams, instead of adapting the bridges to the river. How this is to be done may perhaps be gathered from witnesses versed in City affairs. Now, in considering the best way to relieve the traffic in the street, of course the first question is in reference to the bridges. In fact, it was noticing the crowding of the bridges that first led me to devote my time to considering the question how we should best relieve the traffic of the streets. I find that the traffic in the streets increases very rapidly, perhaps in a proportion that we can hardly believe; but taking the calculation for four years, I find that the traffic over London Bridge increases year by year from 5 to 7 per cent. 323. Chairman.] For how long a period is that?—I have taken it for four years. I consider that it has increased in four years 30 per cent. at least. If we take Southwark Bridge as about the centre of the City at the present moment, halfway between London Bridge and Blackfriars, and if a line be drawn from north to south, I find that you have all that enormous population lying south and east of the Elephant and Castle and the Clapham-road, which must come over London Bridge. And you have all that enormous population lying north-east of the Thames, east of Goswell-road and the Angel, Islington, embracing the district of Finsbury, the Tower Hamlets as far as Limehouse and Stepney, and the whole of Hackney, Hoxton, Clapton, and Tottenham; and the waggons along the Docks have no other means of getting across to Rotherhithe or the railways on the other side than by London Bridge. Take, for instance, Mr. Torr, the animal charcoal-burner in Rotherhithe. He supplies the sugar refiners on the Middlesex side with charcoal with which to refine their sugar; he employs some 40 or 50 horses; I believe he has 10 waggons constantly employed; they are obliged to traverse three miles on the Surrey side, and three-and-a-half or four miles on the Middlesex side, to carry material from one place to another, which are not a mile apart if they had a direct communication across the river. Now I estimate, taking the population on both sides, that London Bridge supplies a population of at least a million; that is to say, a million of people requiring bridge accommodation have only London Bridge to give them that accommodation. 324. Mr. Wilkinson.] That is half the population of London?-Nearly, not quite. The whole population of London is about 2,400,000. Now, I find that in 1801, when the population was only 958,000, there were three bridges. In 1811 the population was 1,138,000, but we had no addition to the number of bridges. In 1821 the population was 1,378,000, and we had two additional bridges completed, which were found to be essential, making five in all. In 1831 we had one bridge widened; still we had only five bridges, although the population had risen to 1,654,000; the bridge widened being New London Bridge, which was opened in that year. In 1851 there was another bridge added, the Hungerford foot-bridge; making six bridges in all. But at the last F. Bennoch, Esq. 21 March 1854 F. Bennoch, Esq. 21 March 1854. census the population was 2,361,640, and yet we have no more bridge accommodation than we had when the population was 800,000 less. However rapidly the population has increased since the last bridge was opened, it has been trifling when compared with the increase of waggons, carts, carriages, cabs, and omnibuses, the latter being unknown before 1828, demanding wider streets, and more bridges. 325. Sir B. Hall. In each case you take the same area?—I take the same area in each case. 326. Chairman.] Have not the tolls been taken off some of the bridges ?—No; there has been no toll taken off or changed since that period. The toll was taken off Blackfriars Bridge, I believe, some time during the last century. Taking the population in 1821, and supposing that the population at that period demanded two new bridges, and got two new bridges, it would then give about 250,000 as the number of the population to be supplied by one bridge. If that be taken as the proper mode of ascertaining the necessity for bridge accommodation, we ought at the present moment, in London, instead of five bridges, to have at least 10 bridges to accommodate the public. One of the reasons why the streets are so crowded in the city is, that almost all our leading thoroughfares converge at London Bridge. We have a large quantity of traffic from the west going to the South Eastern Railway, and a large quantity of traffic from the north going over the water, and they prefer the high level of London Bridge to the low level of Blackfriars; so that from all that area, between Goswell-street, round by Hackney and Limehouse, come up to London Bridge; and there is a tremendous crush in Fenchurch-street; on the other side of the river we have them coming from Rotherhithe, and Bermondsey, and Greenwich, and Camberwell, and Clapham,. and Wandsworth, all crowding to London Bridge. Now the question is, how to get rid of this traffic that is every day increasing. I think it would fall within the scope of the inquiry of this Committee to see what is done in other great cities; for instance, in New York, over the East River, and over the North River, which is four miles wide, there is a continual supply of steam ferry-boats, starting every five minutes, sufficiently large to convey 10 waggons and 1,000 men, if required. If we had something of that kind at the river-side, say, for example, about the lower part of the Tower, and crossing over to Dockhead, we would have a continual traffic across, and relieve London Bridge of nearly one-eighth of its present traffic. 327. Mr. Alderman Challis.] Would it not very much interfere with the traffic up and down the river ?-Not in the least. 328. Sir B. Hall.] In the cases to which you refer, in New York, is any toll levied ?-There is a very light charge. 329. Are those ferries at New York private speculations?-Some of them are private, and some open; where the city claims the river-side, they let the ferries to parties who are disposed to take them, and permit a small toll to be levied. 330. Sir J. Duke.] When you consider the number of barges coming up the Pool during a flood tide, do you think it would be possible to navigate a steamboat across the river at such a time?-There would be some difficulty, but that would not be insurmountable. There might be a guiding chain underneath, to enable them to go very nearly in a straight line. There is always plenty of opportunity for crossing. 331. Mr. Wilkinson.] It would be like the Chain-bridge at Portsmouth ?— Similar to that, but much simpler. 332. Sir B. Hall.] Do you know whether any such scheme has ever been suggested in the metropolis?-I believe that, in consequence of my suggesting this incidentally when I proposed the new bridge to the Corporation, several companies were talked of, but none seem to have been matured. 333. Chairman.] As regards the site of the proposed new bridge, are you convinced that the one which you have proposed is the best site that could be fixed upon? I have no affection for any particular site; but in my opinion, looking at the whole matter, taking the condition of the traffic and the manner in which it leads to particular points, a bridge at that place would relieve London Bridge in all probability of one-fourth of the actual traffic from the Surrey side of the river. I think that half the omnibuses from Clapham and Brixton, and Camberwell, instead of finding their way round by London Bridge, would come straight to St. Paul's, or to the Post-office, because they would be at the Post-office |