HC Deb 09 February 1857 vol 144 cc348-50
MR. LOCKE

said, he rose to ask a question, of which he had given notice, relative to the condition of Westminster Bridge and the intentions of the Government thereupon. He would first remind the House that authority had been given for the construction of a new bridge, that contracts had been entered into, and a large sum had been expended. It was then supposed that the new bridge was not safe. The works were stopped, and a Committee was appointed to consider the subject. They made a Report, but the works were still stopped. What he now wished to know was, whether the bridge was to be proceeded with upon the old or new plan, and whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed upon any plan without referring it to a Committee of that House.

SIR B. HALL

said, he had observed that his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth had given notice of his intention to ask a similar question, and he hoped to be able to give a satisfactory answer to both of these two questions. His hon. Friend (Mr. Locke) had stated very truly that the works of the New Westminster Bridge had been stopped last year for reasons which had been presented to the House in a Parliamentary paper containing a report from Messrs. Rendel and Simpson, the engineers. A Select Committee was appointed "to inquire into the proceedings which have been taken in relation to the New Westminster Bridge, and to consider the present state of that structure, and the course which should be adopted in relation thereto." The Select Committee reported on the 23rd of July; but previous to the presentation of their Report, another Committee had been sitting upon public offices, and they intimated that it would be desirable that certain improvements should be made upon the ground lying between Downing Street and Westminster Hall. The Select Committee on Westminster Bridge, in their Report, referred to that Report of the Committee on public offices, and came to the following Resolution:— Your Committee are of opinion that, subject to the consideration of professional advice to be obtained by the First Commissioner of Works as to the security of the old bridge, the further progress of the works of the New Westminster Bridge should remain suspended until the Government have had an opportunity of considering and deciding on the advice to be offered to Parliament upon this last subject, when the site of the new bridge might be reconsidered in connection with any general plan of alteration and improvement of the neighbourhood, as well as the all-important subject of the headway under the bridge. In consequence of that recommendation, the works of the new bridge were still suspended; but he had seen Mr. Page, the engineer, that day, who reported that, notwithstanding the suspension of the works, they were not endangered, and that the state of the old bridge was precisely the same as last year. After the Session, he received the sanction of the Government to draw up a specification for the improvements required in Downing Street, and these specifications contemplated a new War Office and a new Foreign Office in Downing Street; and he also received the sanction of the Government for other specifications, for a design showing by a block plan the best mode of concentrating the Government offices, on a site bounded by Downing Street, George Street, Richmond Terrace, and St. James's Palace, and for laying out that ground. In order to carry out the desire of the Westminster Bridge Committee, he inserted the following paragraph in the specifications:— The design is also to represent any improvements which the author may suggest in the principal approaches to the New Palace at Westminster, as well as in the communications with the Surrey side of the river Thames, especially with reference to the situation of the new Westminster Bridge, the ultimate position of which must be considered in connection with this design. So great had been the desire of architects, engineers, and surveyors to obtain copies of the specifications that no less than 1,791 had been sent out, of that number 1,371 had been sent in reply to written or personal applications and to foreign ministers resident in London, besides 170 copies distributed through the Foreign Office, and 100 copies sent to Lord Cowley in Paris. As he should receive these designs next month, he proposed that they should be publicly exhibited in Westminster Hall after the Easter recess. The House and the public would then have an opportunity of learning the views of surveyors and engineers as to the best mode of laying out that ground, and as to the most fitting site of the new Westminster Bridge. He had therefore thought it inexpedient to ask the Government to come to any determination at present with regard to the site of the bridge until the public and the House of Commons had had an opportunity of considering the designs of the most eminent engineers of the day. There was another subject of importance to which the Committee on Westminster Bridge had thus alluded in their Report— The changes that have taken place in the bed of the river and in the flow and ebbing of the tides of late years ought to have due consideration before determining the mode of construction and the headway under the bridge. The witnesses examined before your Committee differed somewhat in opinion as to the amount of any probable future change in these respects. He thought it desirable that there should be another survey of the river Thames. There had been no survey of the river since the survey of Mr. Telford in 1826, but he had laid upon the table that evening a Report from Captain Burstall, pointing out the state of the Thames in 1826, when it was surveyed by Mr. Telford, and what it was in 1856. When hon. Members had had an opportunity of seeing what was the state of the river near the various bridges, especially near Westminster Bridge, and had examined the various designs to which he had referred, they would be better able than they were at present to make up their minds as to whether Westminster Bridge should continue where it now stood, or should be removed. If they decided that it should not be removed they would then have to say whether the bridge now being constructed should be proceeded with.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet himself was disposed to recommend any change in the site of the bridge. He asked that question because he believed that any recommendation coming from the right hon. Baronet would stand a very considerable chance of being adopted.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that design would certainly be sent in by the most eminent engineers in this kingdom, and, in all probability, by the most eminent engineers in foreign countries, in reference to the question which would be the best site for the bridge; and he therefore thought it would be very imprudent and very improper on his part to attempt to anticipate the nature of those designs.