Mr. F. C. Penrose. 3 July 1860. 2771. Mr. Tite.] You mean that the potters' clay, as stated by Sir Christopher Wren, in his "Parentalia," rests upon a bed of gravel which contains springs of water, and which is upheld by the blue-clay underneath ?-Yes. 2772. And your apprehension is, that in sinking a shaft there might be springs in the gravel tapped, and that if so, the gravel itself would be compressed?— Yes. 2773. By the great weight of St. Paul's?—Yes. 2774. But if precautions were taken to prevent the water being so abstracted, the gravel would remain as it is ?--Yes. 2775. With respect to these settlements, they are produced very much by the enormous unequal pressure in such cases?-Yes. 2776. The same thing occurs at St. Peter's at Rome, does it not?-Yes. 2777. You have seen the great iron bands there?—Yes. 2778. And you have seen the precautions which are taken there to record changes which take place in the building, by marble slabs let into the walls?— Yes. 2779. Do you do anything of that sort at St. Paul's?-We have not done that in the same way, but in effect we do it; we have pointed the works lately with a different character of pointing, so that from time to time any movement will be observed. 2780. But since Mr. Mylne inserted those iron ties, do you apprehend that any great change has taken place in the building ?--No, nothing serious. 2781. Mr. Walter.] Probably settlements have taken place underneath all the very large buildings that have been known to you?-It depends upon the character of the foundation; any large building with an unequal weight pressing upon such strata as we have in the case of St. Paul's, must be liable to settlement, more or less. 2782. At what depth is the bed of gravel below the surface ?-In round numbers about 20 feet, but it varies. 2783. How deep are the foundations?-The foundations are about 10 feet below the street; they rest upon the seven feet of pot-earth, below that there are the 20 feet of gravel and sand, and then you come to the blue clay. 2784. Do you know what the foundations rest upon, is it concrete ? — No ; they are of rubble work. 2785. Is there an open area round the building underneath?-There is a crypt inside, but nothing outside. 2786. Mr. Tite.] Is the earth above the paving of the crypt?-Considerably; I should think 10 feet. 2787. Is there no external communication; is there no percolation from without, through the wall?-Practically, none; the thickness of the walls prevent that; there are drains in the churchyard near, but not immediately outside. 2788. Are the foundations brick or stone?-Stone. 2789. Solid?-Solid. 2790. You are now engaged, I believe, in making the alterations at St. Paul's? -Yes. 2791. Making the changes in the screen, and decorations?—Yes. 2792. Who was the architect before you ?-Mr. Cockerell; he resigned, and then I was appointed; his father preceded him, and Mr. Mylne preceded his father. 2793. Mr. Mylne was the gentleman who built Blackfriar's Bridge?—Yes. 2794. Sir John Shelley.] Do I understand you to say, that your apprehension of danger depends upon the sewer being made in an open cutting?-My apprehension depends upon that. 2795. As regards its being of the usual form of sewer, I understand you to say that if care is taken, you see no danger to be apprehended?--I should have apprehended that an open cutting had been the usual form, but I have been reassured by the evidence given before this Committee, from which I find that it is intended to tunnel it. 2796. With respect to this question of danger from removing of the gravel, I understand that that would arise from the water being abstracted?—Yes. 2797. But surely it is not the water which supports the building, but the gravel? Yes; but perhaps you have been upon the shore, and observed that just after the waves have wetted the sand, you have found a firm footing so long 2700. Even as the sand has been wet; but that when it becomes dry it is loose, and the Mr. F. C. Penrose. same thing takes place under the foundation of the building. 2798. Provided the gravel is unmoved, is there any fear in the least of the foundation being affected by the water being abstracted?-There is a permanent water-line four or five feet above the blue clay. On sinking shafts in that neighbourhood of, say, a depth of 20 feet through the gravelly stratum; for the first 15 or 16 feet it is dry; and below that there is a permanent water-line, and it is that which in its wet state is hard, and has become used to the weight; but if the water were drained off, that would become soft, and it would feel a pressure which it is not accustomed to. 2799. Even though care was taken to prevent the gravel from following the water, would that be the case?-Certainly; if the water goes out, it deteriorates that part of the substratum. 2800. Do I understand you that there are 10 feet of pot-earth? -Seven or eight feet. 2801. And 20 feet of gravel and sand?-Thereabouts. 2802. And then a large depth of London clay ?—Yes. 2803. Then it is the 20 feet of gravel that you are alarmed about?—Yes. 2804. But suppose care is taken to prevent the gravel following the water, do you mean to say that you would fear the mere fact of the water being abstracted, without the gravel being removed?-Yes, the mere fact of the water being abstracted. 2805. Without the gravel being removed-Yes. 2806. Chairman.] Is this the proposed sewer (referring to a Plan produced by the Witness)?-That is the sewer proposed by the Metropolitan Board of Works, showing the position of the work 20 feet in the blue clay. 2807. And this is the 20 feet of gravel?--Yes. 2808. And there the water comes to a certain depth?—Yes. 2809. Above the surface of the blue clay?-Yes. 2810. Always?—Yes. 2811. And you think there would be this danger to be apprehended in sinking a shaft, that the water would percolate; might it not happen that pot holes in the gravel, which are very common all over London, might come round to one of those places?—Yes, that is the point where I think the danger is. 2812. You know that the gravel is 30 feet in some places and in others rather thin ?--Yes, and that would be the point where the injury would be to be apprehended. 2813. Under any circumstances, supposing it could be avoided, you would not recommend the tunnel being brought so near?-Certainly, I should very much prefer it being at a greater distance. 2814. You have marked on this Plan a sewer, which was intended to be made in 1832?—There was a sewer intended to be made in that year which was to come very close to the Cathedral; and Mr. Cockerell, the late surveyor, told the Dean and Chapter of it, and they got the opinion of Mr. Rennie and Sir Robert Smirke, and made a protest, through the Lord Mayor, I think, and the sewer was discontinued, or rather was diverted to a greater distance. 2815. Mr. Tite.] That was in the gravel?—Yes. 2816. Mr. Cowper.] Was that sewer actually carried by Ludgate-hill?--Yes, by Ludgate-hill; and during the process, the late Dean of Westminster, Professor Buckland, was passing by, and he observed what was going on, and the enormous quantity of water that was being abstracted from it; and his observation to the workmen, so I have been told, was this, "Do you know what you are doing there?" one of the workmen said, "We are making a sewer; No," said he, "you are pulling down St. Paul's." 2817. Sir John Shelley.] What was the depth of that sewer?—Thirty feet below the surface. 2818. In the blue clay?-In the gravel. 2819. This low level sewer is intended to be made in the clay?—Yes. 2820. Mr. Tite.] Was that an open cutting in the gravel?—Yes. 2821. Sir John Shelley.] Can the two things be compared together at all, the making of a tunnel sewer through the clay, and an open cutting sewer through the gravel? They are exceedingly different things, and the danger is very much less in the blue clay. 8 July 1860. Mr. F. C. Penrose. 3 July 1860. Mr. J. Perry. 2822. Mr. Tite.] I presume that, speaking as the architect of St. Paul's, you would prefer the sewer going along by the Thames embankment ?-Yes, there is no question about that; if I have not expressed that opinion, it is only because I am merely answering the questions directed to me. 2823. Mr. Alderman Cubitt.] Supposing the engineer to be going on with this tunnel, would it not be quite natural in him to make frequent borings close together, between this great structure and this line of sewerage?-I should consider it natural that he should do so. 2824. And if there were any sinuses, or any continuities, running from under St. Paul's down toward this sewer, he would naturally come upon them in his borings:-Yes. 2825. And if he found there was no such continuity of lines of gravel, then he would be quite safe in his tunnelling in the clay?—I consider that he would be quite safe; in short, the danger is, in my opinion, as I have already stated, from the possible draining away of the water. 2826. Supposing the work to be now going on, and you and the engineer in frequent communication together, you seeing that he was taking those precautions, I presume that you would be perfectly satisfied that there was no danger to the great structure?—I should be satisfied if I saw that any tendency to come out on the part of the water in great quantities was stopped. 2827. Sir John Shelley.] You still adhere, however, to your opinion that it is the water and not the gravel which is the point?-Quite. I think it is the point. Mr. John Perry called in; and Examined. 2828. Mr. Tite.] YOU are a member of the vestry of Chelsea ?—Yes. 2829. And from the first you have taken, I believe, a great interest in the embankment of the Thames from Vauxhall Bridge upwards?—Yes. 2830. Will you, very briefly, tell the Committee to what extent that work has been carried, and why it has not been carried out as far as was originally intended; first let me ask you what was the original proposition, and who made it? The first promise given was from Lord Lincoln. 2831. The Chief Commissioner of Works?—Yes. 2832. What was the date of that?-It was at a date when we were doing a great deal at Chelsea; from the year 1823 up to the present moment my time has been devoted to the improvement of Chelsea. I was carrying out improvements by Old Chelsea Church, and at that moment a message came down to Chelsea to me through Mr. Druce; there was no vestry at that time, and all those things were managed under the Highway Act; the 18th clause of the Highway Act of William the 4th. I was applied to to know if Chelsea would be disposed to memorialise for an embankment to come to Chelsea, inasmuch as I had, on two occasions before, been the promoter of an embankment according to this plan, which you will find in the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons in 1838. It was known that I had taken a constant interest in the embankment of the Thames at Chelsea, and I said yes. 2833. In what year was this?-In 1842 or 1843, I induced my neighbours to call a public vestry, and we memorialised the Commissioners to continue the embankment which they were projecting, on to Battersea Bridge; we wanted it up to Chelsea, and they also wished it, and we were then preparing to get our local Act. There was a great general movement at that period, and I was then endeavouring to get rid of the turnpikes, which we succeeded in; and we then endeavoured to get an Act of Parliament to improve Chelsea, and to connect the embankment with it. When the Commissioners proposed to take that to themselves, we in our Act abandoned the idea of applying for an embankment, and left it with the Commissioners. 2834. Then what followed that; did the Act pass?-The Act was passed; the first notice under that Act was in 1844, the second notice was in 1845; that continued on, not anything being done until a third notice came in 1852. Now, in the interim, we had several interviews with the Chief Commissioner; there was a division of the business after the commencement, when the Commission of Works was established. We first went before Lord Seymour, and Lord Seymour, when we complained of the delay, which had then been for about three or four years, said, "No one has interfered with it." 2835. But where did the money come from; I understand from you that an Act Act was brought in and passed for the purpose of making an embankment in Chelsea; who provided the money? -The money was to be provided by votes from Parliament. 2836. Was there to be any contribution from private individuals in aid of it? -I understood that there were to be some in Chelsea, but, unfortunately, from the delays which have occurred, I have lost all that account; but, I believe, all that is set out in the second report of Her Majesty's Commissioners of Metropolis Improvements. 2837. From your knowledge, can you say whether Mr. Thomas Cubitt contributed ?-Yes. 2838. Did Lord Cadogan contribute?—He was to contribute; I believe he is still disposed to contribute; he has not contributed I believe up to the present time; but we have conveyed to a Member of the Government his assurance that he is ready to do so, and more than once to our vestry he has stated his willingness through his agent. 2839. What sum of money was voted for this embankment; there have been several votes, have there not?—Yes. 2840. What is the total ?-I do not remember the particular items. 2841. But how much money has been voted from time to time by the Government in aid or for the purpose of constructing the embankment ?-£. 145,753. 2842. How much of that has been expended?-All of it, except 38,000 7. 28.13. But 38,000 l. has not been expended?— No. 2841. That 38,000 l., the Act of Parliament having expired, has been repaid back to the Consolidated Fund?-I understand so. 2845. With respect to the money which has been spent, and which carried the embankment up to the end of Chelsea Hospital, was that money consistent with the estimate, or did it exceed the estimate?-I believe it did not exceed ; I think the other items would show that. 2846. Would the 38,000 7. carry the embankment to the extent which the inhabitants of Chelsea in the first instance expected it would go to?-I understand it would be quite equal to that, with the contributions. 2847. What contributions?-A contribution of 6,000 l. from Lord Cadogan. 2848. In money-Yes, in money; and some portion of the cost it was estimated Miss Howe ought to contribute. 2849. Lord John Manners.] What sum did Miss Howe's contribution amount to?-Lord Cadogan was to be, 6,745 l.; Miss Howe's, 1,648 l.; Colonel Talbot, 545 l.; Lord Calthorpe, 1,706 7.; and Her Majesty, 1,903 7.; that I apprehend refers to the embankment of Chelsea; there are other items below it which refer to the Pimlico portion of the embankment. 2850. Mr. Tite.] That is complete ?—Yes. 2851. Sir John Pakington.] I want to know why this contribution embraces those little fractions; were they to be levied in the shape of a rate?—I know no more than this report gives; they were assessed by the Commissioners upon those different individuals, not with their consent, but they were supposed to be the sums which they ought to contribute. 2852. Upon what principle was that assessment made?—I have no idea; that rested with the Commissioners. 2853. But under what powers were the assessments made ?-I have no idea. 2854. Mr. Tite.] What is the Report which you have been reading from?The second Report of the Metropolitan Improvement Commissioners, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed the 2d of June 1845. 2855. Can you state whether Lord Cadogan is willing to pay that sum ?—I believe him to be so, because he has by his steward repeated it to the vestry, if the plan is carried out in its integrity. 2856. And are the other parties willing?-Her Majesty I do not know about. 2857. But Her Majesty's Commissioners might give you assistance ?-Miss Howe is assessed at 1,648 l., but I cannot conceive upon what principle, because she gets her frontage taken away, and all the convenience of her premises. 2858. Then, except Lord Cadogan, you cannot explain who would contribute? -No, I cannot. 2859. You have many times applied to the different Commissioners of Woods and Forests for a revival of this plan, I believe, and you have not met with much encouragement that any new Vote would be moved for in the House?--I have had an assurance from three successive ones that the thing would be carried out Mr. J. Perry. 3 July 1860. Mr. J. Perry. 3 July 1860. in its integrity, and we have retired from the thing with that impression; the last was Sir William Molesworth. 2860. You mean distinct promises?- Positive promises; the last occasion was in company with myself and Mr. Osborn and Lord Grosvenor. 2861. Who promised before that?-Lord Seymour; we had his assurance that it should be done; you know of the various circumstances that have occurred, by death a great delay takes place, and after we get a promise a death occurs. 2862. Who made the third promise ?-There was one between the two administrations of Lord Seymour. 2863. Lord Lincoln ?-- No, Lord John Manners. 2864. Lord John Manners.] What book are you reading from ?-From a printed book; and there is a copy of a manuscript letter from Sir William Molesworth to the solicitor of the Chelsea Improvement Commissioners. This is the Appendix to our second Report: "To the Right Honourable Lord John Manners, First Commissioner of Her Majesty's Works. The memorial of the vestry of the parish of Chelsea, in the county of Middlesex, showeth, that from a letter of Mr. Phillips, dated the 12th of May 1852, the intention of the Government is to provide for the completion of the whole of the embankment." From a letter of Lord Robert Grosvenor, dated the 15th of June 1852, "I remained last night in the House to watch the Thames Embankment Bill, and obtained from Lord John Manners a declaration before the House that the whole line of the embankment to Battersea Bridge should be proceeded with at the earliest period, that it was in their power to do so." 2865. Mr. Tite.] Would you supply the Committee with the dates of the votes?-The first was the 5th of August 1853, for 35,000 l., that was taken for an embanked public roadway between Battersea and Vauxhall Bridge; there was another vote of July the 7th, 1854 for 35,000 .; another July 31st, 1855, for 25,000 l., and a final vote, June 5th, 1856, for the balance, 35,753 I.; there is one vote I have not got the date of, and with that the vote is 145,753 l. 2866. And the people in Chelsea are very anxious that this embankment should be formed-Yes, they have always read it in the votes, and they have always expected the embankment to be carried out by a money vote. 2867. Has the embankment been a great advantage so far as it has gone?--Yes, I apprehend it has; it has been beneficial to the parish of St. George's, inasmuch as they have got it all assessed, and rated; to Mr. Cubitt because he has let all the wharves along the banks, and to the public because it is a beautiful open road. 2868. The public have got the benefit of a very excellent road along the bank; the mud banks are obliterated, the river deepened, and there is less offence, therefore, generally along the river banks?-Yes, there has been a very great benefit. 2869. But above the point where it stops, does the formation of the mud with the other inconveniences still continue, and in order to make the work complete in itself, and to make the portion already finished more useful, do you think it is very desirable to finish it?—Yes. 2870. Who was the engineer that planned that line?-Mr. Page. 2872. Was part of it in connexion with the new Battersea Bridge?—Yes; I believe it was disconnected with the Bridge at first, and it was before the second Act that the whole had to be carried out simultaneously; they then had to come a second time on account of the abutment of the Bridge. 2873. And the vestry of Chelsea has petitioned the House?—Yes. 2874. How many persons does Chelsea contain ?-Seventy thousand. 2875. They have petitioned the House that the coal duty should be appropriated towards the embankment of the Thames?—Yes. 2876. From a conviction of its usefulness in their own neighbourhood, a conviction founded on their experience in fact ?-Yes; and for the benefit of the public at large. 2877. Lord John Manners.] You have told the Committee that this embankment was to be carried out partly by public funds, and partly by private subscriptions, according to a scale laid down by the Royal Commissioners ?--I believe that to be so, because I read it. 2878. And you have given us a list of subscriptions which are to be forthcoming from private individuals, amounting in the whole to upwards of 12,000 7.? -Yes. 2379. Can |