§ MR. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, If it be not the fact that, in the case of the hybrid Committee on the Tay Bridge, the Board of Trade asked and got power to appear by Counsel, Agents, and Witnesses, in order that the public interest, irrespective of opposing Petitioners, might be protected; and, whether he intends to take the same step in the case of the Forth Bridge; and, if not, in what way the safety of the public, and of the navigation of vessels seeking shelter at St. Margaret's Hope, are to be watched over?
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINSir, it is a fact that, in the case of the Hybrid Committee on the Tay Bridge, the Board of Trade asked for and obtained the power of appearing by counsel, agents, and witnesses, before the Committee, in order that the public interests, irrespective of opposing Petitioners, might be protected. But in the present case of the Forth Bridge, in so far as the proposed structure of the Bridge is concerned, the Board of Trade do not think it necessary to appear before the Committee, as the inspecting officers of the Board of Trade were in frequent communication with the engineer in trusted with the construction of the Bridge, and they made certain stipulations for the safety of the public, which were at once 1669 accepted. Neither do the Board of Trade think it necessary to appear before the Committee with regard to the question of the navigation of vessels going to the anchorage above the site of the Bridge. In the spans of this Bridge, of which there are two, there will be 500 feet of 150 feet of headway, and 930 feet of 125 feet of headway at high water, and at low water 850 feet of 150 feet of headway, and 1,100 feet of 125 feet of headway. Under these circumstances, the proposal has been well considered by the nautical advisers of the Board of Trade; and they see no objection, in the interests of the public, to the Bridge as it is now designed.