Meanwhile Mr. Telford prepared his design, and it was exhibited in Bristol in January 1830. It consisted of a suspension bridge of three spans (the centre span 360 feet, and the side ones 180 feet each), the chains being supported at the intermediate points by tall stone piers rising from the river’s banks at just sufficient distance apart to avoid interfering with the roadways on either side of the stream. The style of architecture was a florid Gothic; and, in order to display the peculiar features of that style, the faces of the piers were covered with elaborate panelling, and the chains ornamented with fret-work. This design was received with a flourish of trumpets; numerous engravings were published, exhibiting the bridge from various points of view, and ‘thousands of copies were disposed of;’ but, after a time, it would appear that the captivating effect of the Gothic belfries wore off, and that the more the citizens of Bristol looked at Mr. Telford’s plan, the less they were satisfied with it; for, although it was deposited in the Private Bill Office, on application being made for an Act of Parliament, the trustees who were appointed under the Act determined to invite a second competition. On this occasion, Mr. Telford appeared as a competitor and not as a referee, that office being filled by Mr. Davies Gilbert, sometime President of the Royal Society. The site of the bridge was fixed, being that selected by Mr. Telford; but the trustees expressly left it to the judgment of the competitors to decide whether there should be intermediate piers or one unbroken span. Of the thirteen designs sent in, five, including those submitted by Mr. Telford and Mr. Brunel, were reserved for further examination. On March 17, 1831, Mr. Davies Gilbert (who had been assisted by Mr. Seward) made his report. Mr. Telford’s design was put aside, ‘on account of the inadequacy of the funds requisite for meeting the cost of such high and massive towers as were essential to the plan which that distinguished individual had proposed.’ Mr. Brunel’s design was placed second.[29] Although Mr. Gilbert reported that it presented every desirable strength and security, he saw objections to many of the details, and therefore did not recommend it for adoption. However, on the following day, March 18, he stated to the trustees that he had seen Mr. Brunel, and that it gave him much pleasure to state that the explanations made by Mr. Brunel had materially altered his views as to the details of the plans, which he (Mr. Gilbert) was now satisfied were quite equal to those which he had placed first, and that, considering the superiority of Mr. Brunel’s design in the essential particular of strength, he should judge it preferable to any of the others. Thereupon the trustees, ‘having considered Mr. Davies Gilbert’s report, and referred to all the plans, including Mr. Telford’s, unanimously gave the preference to Mr. Brunel’s,’ and appointed him their engineer.