Document 19, p 2
| 24 | ||||
| destroyed by a flood without having | ||||
| previously appeared to have suffered | ||||
| by Decay | ||||
| I examined it 10 days | ||||
| before the Bridge was forced | ||||
| down & it then appeared perfect | ||||
| I attended by the Direction | ||||
| of Mr Smeaton the Architect from | ||||
| time to time to make Observations | ||||
| & replace Stones that might be | ||||
| displaced by floods | ||||
| I sometimes replaced | ||||
| loose Stones that had been laid | ||||
| down to defend the Pier – they | ||||
| were not Stones belonging to | ||||
| the Bridge – exclusi[ve?] of these | ||||
| I saw no Marks of the | ||||
| smallest Injury or Decay to the | ||||
| Bridge & none of these were | ||||
| beat | ||||
| 2 | ||||
Note: Minutes of Committee to consider Mr Errington's Petition, 27 February 1783, p 2
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 TB