6

vents the tide from flowing so high up the countryas it naturally would do; that the velocity of thereflux is in like manner checked ; and that the water 'above bridge never ebbs out so low, by nearly thequantity of the whole fall, as it would do were thedam removed. “ That any additional depth at highwater would be perfectly useless to the navigation ;that the water-way at the bridge at even commonspring tides rapidly diminishes by the water rising inthe curvature of the arches, and of course to a greaterdegree when the influx is very great. That thecurrent at present is sufficient to carry, in one tide,craft from the pool to the extent of the up-current,and lighters have occasionally gone from Gravesendto Richmond in a tide ; that an increased velocitywould not be beneficial to the navigation, but onthe contrary increase the hazard; that wherries andsmall craft would not be able to make way againstthe stream as they can at present; that any alterationwhich tends to give the waters of the river a quickeroutfall, must injure the navigation ; that the bed ofthe river near London will be nearly laid dry at theebb of spring tides, and the filth from the sewers willhave a much greater extent of shore to deposit itselfon ; that if the flood-tide ran stronger, the upperparts of the river would be choked with mud, car-ried up from London ; and that less would be car-ried eastward than at present; for a more thanordinarily rapid current now causes a more thanordinary deposition of filth.” He anticipates thatthe low lands from Rotherhithe to Battersea, in-cluding St. George’s Fields, Vauxhall, and Lam-beth, will be rendered uninhabitable or unhealthyfrom damps and stagnant waters. He refers to the