HC Deb 06 September 1831 vol 6 cc1190-3
Mr. Hunt

presented a Petition from Peter Jeffery, a respectable individual, an inhabitant of the City, upon a subject of considerable importance. The petitioner stated, that he had devoted a great deal of time and attention to the progress of the New London Bridge, and that he had discovered it had been built in so bad a manner, that the two arches on the Southwark side of the bridge had sunk eight inches and a half below the proper level of the bridge. Some of the other arches had also sunk below the level, varying in degree from three inches and a half to five inches and a half; but the two extreme arches had sunk to the extent he had already stated. The petitioner asked the House to institute some inquiry into the subject of the building of this bridge, for there were various defects in its construction, which ought not to exist in a public work of so much importance. He wished to know from some of the hon. members for the City, whether the Committee appointed to manage this work, had taken any security from the contractors for the manner in which it was to be completed, and for its stability? He hoped they had, for he understood from this petitioner, that for filling up the backs of the arches, bricks, and not stones, had been employed, and that these bricks were so bad, that they almost pulverised between the fingers. The public had subscribed largely for building the bridge, therefore the Government had a right to interfere. It was clear there had been some gross mismanagement; he feared it would turn out one of those City jobs, which were generally of too gross a character for him to describe. He trusted, that some inquiry would be made, and that the public would be made acquainted with the cause of the bridge sinking. That it had sunk he was well aware, for he had that morning taken the trouble to go and examine it himself.

On the question that the Petition do lie on the Table,

Mr. Alderman Wood

said, he was sure that the House would not alarm themselves with the idea that the bridge was in danger of falling, and he could assure them that there was no cause for any such fear. This was the first time that he had heard any doubts of its stability. He believed that there was no foundation for any such doubts; and it would be difficult to find any instance of a public building in which there had been such good work, such good materials, and so much attention employed. In answer to the question put by the hon. member for Preston, he begged leave to say, that they had taken security for the due and proper performance of the work—they had taken security to the amount of upwards of 200,000l. He must say, that he was astonished at some of the complaints now made by the petitioner; for Mr. Jeffery had written to him the other day on this subject, and had not then, in the slightest degree, alluded to the insufficiency of the materials, which now formed one of the subjects of his petition. He trusted, that the House would agree with him, that there was not any necessity for their instituting a formal inquiry into this matter; but he promised that he would himself set on foot an immediate inquiry into the circumstances stated in the petition, and he believed he should be able to convince the House, that its allegations were unfounded.

Mr. Alderman Thompson

did not believe, that there was the least ground for alarm on the subject. The sinking which had been observed, was only that average sinking which all new buildings were subject to. He regretted, that those individuals who now talked of the badness of the materials, had not had the manliness, during the whole time that had been occupied in building the bridge, to come forward with that complaint while the work was in progress, and when the evil could at once have been remedied. The hon. Member had been pleased to call it a City job; what the hon. Member meant he did not know, but it must be in the recollection of the House, that the Corporation of London had given all the opposition in its power to the new bridge being built, as it considered that the old one might have been repaired; but, when a new bridge had been decided on, the Corporation had been most anxious, that a substantial structure should be erected, which would do credit to the metropolis. He believed that there was no public work which would be found to do more credit to all those concerned in it, than the New London Bridge.

Mr. Alderman Venables

expressed an opinion of a similar kind, and declared his conviction that the allegations in the petition were unfounded.

Mr. Hunt moved that the Petition be printed.

Mr. Alderman Thompson

begged the hon. Gentleman would postpone his motion until the next day, to which Mr. Hunt agreed.