Document 65, p 4
| [??] [??] & impracticable for at that time this dept was wholly unacquainted with | ||||
| the velocity of the Currt of the River in great and violent floods there being at that time no | ||||
| means of knowing it for had this Dept then known it was capable of acquiring of 1000 | ||||
| Cubical feet in one Minute in passg the afsd Bridge or if he had known what aftwd turned | ||||
| |
||||
| capable of a velocity of 900 feet pr minute he wd not have expected that the rough Rubble stones | ||||
| that he originally proposed to lay and afterwd actually did lay for the defence of the foundn | ||||
| of the piers would have kept their places & therefore he would not have advised the Complt | ||||
| to have attempted the Buildg of a Bridge either at that place or at any or near Hexham and saith | ||||
| that the experience of the flood in 1779 showed that the Rubble Stone did actually lay witht derangmt | ||||
| notwithstandg the Waters velocity of 900 feet P Minute which he this Dept imputed to the parlar | ||||
| material used The Quarry from whence those Stones were raised being not only of the best | ||||
| quality for the purpose this Dept has seen but situated very near the Site of the Bridge | ||||
| which Circumst of proximity was a very great Inducement to this Dept to attempt Building a Bridge | ||||
| in the place where he did but the experience of the flood of 1782 has shewn that those Defences of Rubble | ||||
| Stones that resisted the action of the flood in 1779 & every one subsequent witht the least derangemt | ||||
| yet an Increase of the velocity of the water from 900 to 1000 Cubical feet in a minute not only | ||||
| deranged them but dispersed the whole Body in a few hours thereby leaving the immediate founds | ||||
| to the action of a rapid Currt & in consequence |
||||
| so equable had been its action in every pt that the whole in a Minute failed togr & furr saith | ||||
| that had the Bridge shown any previous symptoms of failure of any of its parts & had not | ||||
| even the parapet remained entire which is a pt liable to failure in Bridges of the very | ||||
| best Workmanship something might have foreboded the possibility of such an Event & had not | ||||
| the intended defences been compleated & remained compleat & had not a very large Body of | ||||
| Rubble Stones been deposited below the immediate Scite of the Bridge by the order & direction of | ||||
| this Dept in order occasionally to support & strengthen the Body of Rubble deposited immedly around | ||||
| the foundns & in short had not every thing been done so far as had come to the Knowl & bel | ||||
| of this Dept in conformity with the Suggestions of this Dept for the permanent security of the sd Bridge | ||||
| that Dept could devise then Dept might have blamed ors & gone to work a Second time with greater | ||||
| rospect of Success than he did at first & have thought that to be a practicable Scheme now | ||||
| that he thought so then But saith that his expectations of the powers of the sd River now is so very | ||||
| difft from what they origly appeared or indeed appeared at any time preceding the last fatal | ||||
| catastrophe that had an intimation been suggested of the possibility of such an accident | ||||
| the day before it happened we shd have thought it utterly impossible in nature that a | ||||
| Bridge so founded & defended could have been brot down by any one flood witht some | ||||
| previous attack upon it that showed symptoms of failure Nothing but the event that has | ||||
| happd could have convinced this Dept to the contrary & he shod think it a down right folly | ||||
| to attempt the same thing a second time & this Dept verily bels that if the Bridge is built up and | ||||
| restored upon the plan & principles that it was origly built that there is so much of it left | ||||
| standg & so many of the Materials near the place where they may be used that it might be made | ||||
| as good & safe as it was before the accident for a sum of 3000£ accordg to a careful Estimate that | ||||
| this Dept has made thereof & that the Bridge so restored wld remain safe till another | ||||
| violent flood happens as that which destroyed it & such flood may happen the yr after | ||||
| it is rebuilt or it may not happen in 50 yrs but that to build it upon any difft plan | ||||
| or principle that may be reasonably expected to give it a Chance of permanency by resisting | ||||
| Similar floods to such as have happd or that in a Course of nature may happen could | ||||
| [necessarily?] cost a Sum far exceeding not only what the last Bridge Built cost but | ||||
| even the penalty of the Bond wherein this Dept is infd the Complt is bound to Support it | ||||
| +2 [intd?] further deposeth not – fo [60] | ||||
| Copy of Mr Smeaton’s Deposition* | ||||
| on behalf of the Complt Errington | ||||
| FO 60 | ||||
| Taken [??] Examiner agt* to Ct of Chay | ||||
| 28 Oct 1786 | ||||
Note: Mr Smeaton's deposition, 28 October 1786, p 4
Abbreviations are underlined like this Wm. and the expansion may be seen by moving the cursor over it.
| An entry outlined like this has a note which may be seen by hovering over it. |
Transcribed by CTW and KS