HC Deb 08 April 1859 vol 153 cc1545-6

said, he wished to move that in the ease of the Westminster New Bridge Bill the examiner should have leave to sit and proceed forthwith.


said, he would take that opportunity of asking what was the position of the building and finance of Westminster Bridge. Figures which he had seen seemed to show that there was some danger of an excess of expenditure over the estimate. The sum which had already been spent was, in round numbers, £138,000, and the estimate of what would be necessary to complete the works, £178,000, making a total of £316,000. He wished to know from the noble Lord whether those sums were correct, and how the deficiency was to be supplied. In 1833 the Bridge Estate was transferred to the Woods and Forests, and he was afraid that if not gone already it would be swallowed up in the erection of this bridge, and he was therefore anxious to learn how the noble Lord proposed to obtain money to finish the works. He also desired to be informed who was the architect, builder, contractor, and surveyor, because he had been told that one person filled all these situations.


said, that as the hon. Baronet had not given him notice of his intention to put these questions, he was not prepared to give him complete and satisfactory replies. Speaking generally, the hon. Baronet would find in the estimate for the Vote taken last year an explanation of the financial condition of the bridge. He had no doubt that in time a further sum would have to be asked for from Parliament for the purpose of finishing the works. The Bridge Estate not having been disposed of, it was impossible to say how much it would produce; but he hoped that it would be a considerable sum. He was at a loss to imagine how the misapprehension that the engineer, contractor, and surveyor were all one person had arisen. The engineer for the bridge was that very eminent engineer, Mr. Page; the contractor was Mr. Cochrane; and the surveyor, appointed three years ago, was Mr. Hunt.

Motion agreed to.

Back to