should rather be doubled in width, and dry arches formed on either side for traffic, than have to give way to iron and ornamentation. "I enclose copy of a letter sent by myself to the T o w n Council, with m y design, in which I was assisted by the late Mr. Samuel Jackson. W e got the second prize. T h e following m e m o (6th June, '44) was also forwarded in connection with the plan submitted :— " ' In the accompanying design the viaducts on either side of the river are so arranged as to support the arch of the bridge. " 'These viaducts, or dry archways, are, moreover, available for communication through the raised roadway, which is intended to befilledup from the line of Flinders Street on the one side, and back to the rise on the south side of the river, giving additional value to the Government land in the latter situation. T h e estimated cost of this bridge, including viaducts, is ,£12,000; the formation of roads as approaches is estimated at ,£600 ; thefilling-upapproaches at ,£1000.' There was a wooden bridge also constructed, whilst the stone one was progressing, and in July, 1845, I n a v e a n entry of payment received by m e on account of superintendence of same." T h e undertaking here specified is manifestly the Company's pile bridge, previously described. NEW PRINCE'S BRIDGE.
The Prince's Bridge of 38 years ago being a thing of the past, it will be interesting to place in juxtaposition a few particulars connected with the inception, progress, and opening of the magnificent structure which has succeeded it in the same place. Explanation, if not apology, is needed for this step, as only under exceptional circumstances could the apparent solecism of including herein events that happened nearly forty years after the C H R O N I C L E S are supposed to close, be pardonable. O n e of these exceptional circumstances will be found in the connecting link that the bridge forms between the past and the present—the O m e g a of engineering skill and colonial enterprise. Another circumstance is the perfect contrast (not at all favourable to the latter) presented by the opening demonstrations of the two bridges. A n d to these m a y be added a third, that a similar course has been adopted herein with regard to other Institutions, in the material advancement of which a noteworthy public interest is taken. Previous " rejoicings " and grand " processional displays " that took place at the opening of the old Prince's Bridge in 1850, have been alluded to. But it must be confessed with humiliation, that there is no material with which to rejoice or make display in connection with the opening of the new bridge. True, there was a kind of demonstration at the laying of the foundation stone of the latter; but even that had its heart-burnings, for the " powers that be " and the " power that would be " clashed considerably. There was a good deal of talk, and not a little correspondence in the public press, upon the questions of right and etiquette to be observed. O n one hand it was held that the Government of the day should have elaborated the occasion as one, the importance of which would have warranted it being identified with at least a public, if not an universal, celebration. O n the other hand, His Excellency the Governor was spoken of as being the most appropriate celebrant of a performance that will live in our colonial history. But it is difficult to arrest the influences of personal vanity, or to counterpoise the temptations of private caprice j and so the contractor's own whim carried the day. O n e of Melbourne's most popular mayors (Mr. J. C. Stewart, m e m b e r of a firm of Solicitors) reigned over the metropolis in the year 1886 ; the anniversary of his wife's birthday was fixed as the day on which to " lay the stone," and the lady herself was the chosen means by which the work should be performed. T h e compliment was an exceedingly appropriate one, which it need not be said was as gracefully accepted • but the proposal came from the wrong quarter. T h e Government was robbed of its opportunity (for it has not been upheld that the contractor was right in usurping the functions of the Ministry and the public, whose business he was engaged to perform), notwithstanding Mr. Stewart's assertion that Mr. Munro's " selection had met with the approval of the Government." T h e matter was personal to M r M u n r o — nothing m o r e — a fact that stripped it of its inherent political and commercial significance. W h a t the legal aspect of the question m a y be is outside m y province to argue ; but as questions of taste and palpable duty
