Chapter 16

“About the end of the seventeenth century, the improvement of the passage over London Bridge seems to have been actively considered, if not executed: for in 1697, the 8th and 9th year of William III., (chapter xxxvii.,) an Act was passed concerning the Streets in London, Westminster, Southwark, &c.‘and for widening the Street at the South end of London Bridge.’ In section 8 of which, it is stated that ‘the Corporation of London have of late years, with great charge and difficulty, pulled down and new built all the houses upon London Bridge, and caused the street or common passage over the same to be opened and enlarged; which good and public intention is not yet perfected, by reason of certain tenements on or near the South end of the Bridge, which yet continue a great hindrance to commerce by occasioning frequent stops, and endangering the lives of many passengers.’ Commissioners are then appointed to treat with the owners of such houses, as they shall think fit to be pulled down. See the Act itself in Ruffhead’s ‘Statutes at Large,’ volume iii., page 687. Again, in the year 1722, during the Mayoralty of Sir Gerard Conyers, an Act was issued by the Corporation of the City, for preserving the passage of the Bridge free, which you may read at length in Motley’s ‘Seymour’s Survey,’ volume i., page 49: it ordains that there shall be three persons, appointed by the Governors of Christ’s Hospital, the inhabitants of Bridge Ward Within, and the Bridge-Masters, to give daily attendance at each end of the Bridge. Their duty being, to oblige all carriages coming from Southwark, to keep the West side, and others the contrary; and to prevent any cart from standing across the Bridge to load or unload. It was also ordered, that the Toll Collector—whose station was in the present Watch House, at the North-west corner of the Bridge,—should collect the duties without delay; and, in 1723, they were ‘For every cart or waggon with shod wheels, 4d.; For a dray with five barrels, 1d.; For every pipe or butt, 1d.; For a ton of any goods, 2d.; for any thing less than a ton, 1d.;’ which order was directed to be printed and published in the most public places within the City, and upon London Bridge itself. I may merely add, that Maitland tells us in his ‘History,’ volume i., page 48, that in 1725, when it was proposed to erect a Bridge at Westminster, Mr. Henry Garbrand, the Deputy Comptroller of London Bridge, and Mr. Bartholomew Sparruck, the Water Carpenter, measured the River at this building, and found it to be 915 feet 1 inch in breadth; the height of the Bridge, 43 feet, 7 inches; the width of the street, 20 feet; and the depth of the houses on each side, 53 feet, or 73 feet in the whole. One of the last fires which happened on London Bridge, took place on the 8th of September in this year, during the Mayoralty of Sir George Mertins, Knight; and, as Motley tells us in his ‘Seymour’s Survey,’ volume i., page 49, commenced at the house of a brush-maker, near St. Olave’s, Tooley Street, through the carelessness of a servant. It burned down all the houses on that side of the way as far as the Bridge-Gate, with several of the buildings on the other; and ‘Mist’s Weekly Journal,’ of Saturday, September the 11th, describes it in the following words:—‘On Wednesday night, between eleven and twelve o’clock, a fire broke out at a Haberdasher’s of Hats, on the Bridge foot in Southwark,which burnt on both sides of the way with great violence for four or five hours. We hear that about sixty houses are consumed, some upon the first and second arch of the Bridge; and had it not been for the stone gate which stopp’d the fire very much, the rest of the houses on the Bridge had in all likelyhood been down: the Bridge for some time was, by the fall of the timber and rubbish, render’d impassable for coaches, waggons, and carts, which were oblig’d to cross over at Lambeth Ferry. The damage done amounts to many thousands of pounds, but no just computation can yet be made.’ The old Bridge-Gate was so much damaged by this conflagration, that in 1726 it was taken down and re-built, being finished in the year 1728.The New South Gate on London Bridge,was furnished with two posterns for foot-passengers, and was decorated with the Royal Arms, under which was inscribed, ‘This Gate was widened from eleven to eighteen feet, in the Mayoralty of Sir Edward Becher, Knight, S. P. Q. L.’ The medalet, with a representation of this edifice, I have already mentioned to you, and it may now be stated that it was taken down in the year 1760, with all the other buildings on the Bridge, and the materials sold by auction. At which sale, the fine old sculpture of the Royal Arms was bought, with some other articles, by a Mr. Williams, a stone-mason of Tooley Street; who, being soon after employed to take down the gateway at Axe and Bottle Yard, and to form the present King Street, in the Borough, introduced several of the old Bridge materials in erecting it. The ancient Royal Arms, too, are yet to be seen on the front of a small public house, on the right-hand side of the Western end of the same street, between the numbers 4 and 67; with the inscription ‘G. III. R. 1760., King Street,’ carved around them. Mr. Williams also bought several of the facing stones of the old London Bridge, of which he built a very curious house, the roof being of the same stone, and which, about three years since, was standing in Lock’s Fields, near Prospect Row, Newington, usually known by the name of ‘Williams’s Folly.’ The new Bridge-Gate stood near the corner of Pepper Alley Stairs, and you will find a representation of it in the Frontispiece to the first volume of Maitland’s ‘History.’ I imagine, that upon the removal of theold gate, the custom of erecting the heads of traitors there was discontinued, as I find no subsequent notice of it; and the last heads which, probably, were placed upon its towers, are said to have been those of the Regicides in 1661, as I have shewn from Monconys, though, in the numerous pamphlets of their Trials, &c., I find no account of their being thus disposed. From ‘The Traytors’ Perspective Glass,’ London, 1662, 4to., we learn, however, that the heads of Cromwell and Ireton were set over Westminster Hall; and of the others, it is said, ‘their heads,in several places, are become a spectacle both to angels and men, and a prey to birds of the air.’In Maitland’s ‘History,’ volume i., page 49, we are furnished with ‘a brief state of the Bridge Account, from Lady-day 1726 to ditto 1727, by the Bridge-Masters, Matthew Snablin and John Web.‘Charge.£.s.d.‘By Money in the Bridge-Masters’ hands, at the foot of the last Account57699By ditto in the Tenants’ hands in arrears4271133By the General Rental this year329905By Fines this Year49342By Casual Receipts26768The whole charge.£8907143‘Discharge.£.s.d.‘To Rents and Quit-Rents49128To Taxes and Trophy-Money209143To Weekly Bills, Expenses, and Emptions164807To Timber and Boards430189To Stones, Chalk, Lime, Terrass, and Bricks19760To Iron-work17000To Plumber, Glazier, Painter, and Paviour27880To Shipwrights’ Work and Cordage6150To Benevolence to the Lord Mayor, &c.14568To particular Payments by Order of Court17370To Fees and Salaries27040To Costs at Audit and Lady Fair29620To Money due to balance497794£8907143’On Wednesday, the 26th of December, 1739-40, commenced another Frost, the most severe which had occurred since 1716. The Thames, as we are told by the ‘Gentleman’s Magazine,’ of 1740, volume x., page 35, January 31, floated with rocks and shoals of ice; and when they fixed, represented a snowy field, every where rising in masses and hills of ice and snow. Of this scene, several artists made sketches; whilst tents and printing-presses were erected, and a complete Frost-fair was again held upon the River, over which multitudes walked, though some lost their lives by their rashness. It was in this fair that Doll, the Pippin-woman, whom I before mentioned, lost her life, as Gay relates it in the Second Book of his ‘Trivia,’ verses 375-392; the last line of which seems to be an imitation of that song which we formerlyconsidered, and which was extremely popular even in the time of Gay himself. The passage I particularly allude to is this:‘Doll every day had walk’d these treacherous roads;Her neck grew warp’d beneath Autumnal loadsOf various fruit: she now a basket bore;That head, alas! shall basket bear no more.Each booth she frequent past, in quest of gain,And boys with pleasure heard her thrilling strain.Ah, Doll! all mortals must resign their breath,And industry itself submit to death!The crackling crystal yields; she sinks, she dies,Her head, chopt off, from her lost shoulders flies;Pippins she cried, but death her voice confounds,And pip—pip—pip, along the ice resounds.’“Mr. J. T. Smith, in his ‘Ancient Topography of London,’ page 24, states that another remarkable character, called ‘Tiddy Doll,’ died in the same place and manner.“In the treasures of Mr. Crowle’s Illustrated Pennant, are several contemporary memorials of this Fair; which I shall very briefly mention, and give some specimens of the poetry attached to them.“A coarse copper-plate, entitled ‘The View of Frost Fair,’ 10¼ inches by 12, scene taken from York-buildings Water-Works; twelve verses beneath.“A copper-plate, 7½ inches by 5, representing an altar-piece with the ten commandments, engraven between the figures of Moses and Aaron; and beneath, on a cartouche, ‘Printed on the Ice on the Riverof Thames, Janry.15, 1739.’“A coarse copper-plate engraving, looking down the River, entitled ‘Frost Fair,’ with eight lines of verse beneath; and above ‘Printed upon the River Thames when Frozen, Janu. the 28, 1739⁄40.’ 9½ inches by 12¼.“A copper-plate 5 inches by 8¼, representing an ornamental border with a female head, crowned at the top; and below, two designs of the letter-press and rolling press. In the centre in type, ‘Upon the Frost in the year 1739-40;’ six verses, and then ‘Mr. John Cross, aged 6. Printed on the Ice upon the Thames, at Queen-Hithe, January the 29th, 1739-40.’‘Behold the LiquidThamesnow frozen o’er!That latelyShipsof mighty Burden bore.Here You mayPrintyour Name, tho’ cannot Write,’Cause numb’d with Cold: ’Tis done with great Delight.And lay it by; ThatAgesyet to comeMay see whatThingsupon theIcewere done.’“A copper-plate, representing a view of the Thames at Westminster, with the tents, sports, &c., and alphabetical references, entitled ‘Ice Fair.’ ‘Printed on yeRiver Thames, now frozen over, Jany31, 1739-40;’ 7½ inches by 12½.‘Amidst yearts yton yeThames appear,To tell yeWonders of this frozen Year,Sculpture claims Prior place, since ytalonePreserves yeImage when yeProspect’s gone.’“An altered copy of these verses was printed upon the Thames in the great Frost of 1814; and from anadvertisement in the ‘London Daily Post’ of Thursday, January the 31st, 1739-40, we learn that this and the following print were originally sold for 6d.each.“A Copper-plate printed in red, 9½ inches by 13¼, the view taken opposite St. Paul’s, with tents, sports, &c. in front, sixteen lines of verse beneath, with ‘Frost and Ice Fair, shewing the diversions upon the River Thames, began the 26th of Decemr1739-40, ended Februrythe 17th.’”“In the beginning of this Frost, the houses on London Bridge appear to have received considerable damage, from the many vessels which broke from their moorings, and lay beating against them; the notice of which, we derive from the two most celebrated newspapers of the time,—the ‘Daily Post,’ and Woodfall’s ‘General Advertiser.’ The latter of these, for Monday, December the 31st, 1739, states that ‘all the watermen above the Bridge have hauled their boats on shore, the Thames being very nigh frozen over:’ and in the same paper, for Wednesday, January 2nd, 1739-40, it is observed, that ‘several vintners in the Strand bought a large Ox in Smithfield on Monday last, which is to be roasted whole on the ice on the River of Thames, if the Frost continues. Mr. Hodgeson, a Butcher in St. James’s Market, claims the privilege of selling, or knocking down, the Beast, as a right inherent in his family, his Father having knocked down the Ox roasted on the River in the great Frost, 1684; as himself did that roasted in 1715, near Hungerford Stairs. The Beast is tobe fixt to a stake in the open market, and Mr. Hodgeson comes dress’d in a rich lac’d cambric apron, a silver steel, and a Hat and Feathers, to perform the office.’ After the mention of numerous accidents near London Bridge, the repetition of which would occupy considerable time with but little gratification, the ‘Daily Post,’ of Tuesday, January the 22nd, 1740, thus notices the first breaking-up of this famous frost. ‘Yesterday morning, the inhabitants of the West prospect of the Bridge were presented with a very odd scene, for, on the opening of their windows, there appear’d underneath, on the River, a parcel of booths, shops, and huts, of different forms, and without any inhabitants, which, it seems, by the swell of the waters and the ice separating, had been brought down from above. As no lives were lost, it might be view’d without horror. Here stood a booth with trinkets, there a hut with a dram of old gold; in another place a skittle-frame and pins, and in a fourth ‘the Noble Art and Mystery of Printing, by a servant to one of the greatest trading companies in Europe.’ With much difficulty, last night, they had removed the most valuable effects.’ To conclude my information upon this subject, I have to observe only that the ‘Daily Post’ of Thursday, February the 14th, states that the Sterlings of London Bridge had received so much damage during the frost from the great weight of ice, that their repairs would amount to several thousand pounds.“The last extract given us by Maitland, in his ‘History’ page 49, from the Bridge-House revenues and accounts, extends from Lady-day 1752 to Lady-day 1753, and consists of the following particulars.”£s.d.“‘In the hands of the Bridge-Masters, at the foot of their last account266996In the hands of the Chamberlain of London, paid to him by Webb’s securities60000——————326996In Tenants’ hands in arrears at Lady-day, 17522413189½In arrear for fines then70611Rental General this year, including Quit Rents384387Fines set this year66200Whole charge£1025939½£s.d.‘Rents and Quit-Rents paid5293Taxes and Trophy-money: sums collected for the accoutrements and maintenance of the Militia194114½Expenses351171½Emptions of Timber47176Stone, Chalk, Terrass34044Iron-work158180——————970910Mason, Painter, Glazier, Carpenter, &c.1904139Shipwrights’ work and Cordage104180Benevolence232134Particular Payments by Order125473¾Fees and Salaries28745Costs at Audit and Lady Fair160110£5513154¾£s.d.‘Amount of the preceding Charge1025939½Deduct the foregoing expenses5513154¾Remainder474584¾Whereof discharged by desperate arrears and remitted8900Remaining due to the Bridge-house, at Lady-day, 1753465684¾And thus disposed of.Arrears of Fines and Quit-rents2483151¾Arrears and Fines70611In the hands of the Bridge-Masters150255In the hands of the Chamberlain of London60000£465675¾’“There appears to be some little inaccuracy in this statement by Maitland, since the amounts which he sets down are not the products of the sums when added together; but these I have rectified, though the balance of the whole account does not quite accord with the sums remaining in hand.“We have at length reached that period, when the extensive alteration, or even re-building, of London Bridge, began to form a matter of grave and active consideration; and in relating the proceedings of these times, there will be no little difficulty in condensing into one consecutive account, all the numerous surveys, reports, plans, proposals, and objections, which were then published. In treating of this part of thesubject, however, as it will be best and briefest to do it in order, we will first consider the state of old London Bridge, as it was represented by the various Architects employed to survey it; then give some account of the schemes proposed for its alteration; and lastly, describe that which was adopted, and the means used for carrying it into effect.“It appears extremely probable, that the contrast presented by the broad and clear road of the new Bridge at Westminster,—which was commenced in September, 1738, and completed in November, 1749,—chiefly contributed to turn the attention of the Corporation of London to the exceeding inconvenience of their own. Though to the building of Westminster Bridge, Maitland, who knew the circumstances, tells us in his ‘History,’ volume ii., page 1349, that there was very considerable opposition; and that the City of London, the Borough of Southwark, the Company of Watermen, and the West-Country Bargemen, all petitioned the Parliament against it. On Friday, February the 22d, 1754, as we learn from the ‘Public Advertiser’ of the day following, the Court of Common Council took into consideration a motion for the construction of a new Bridge between London and Southwark: when, after a debate of nearly four hours, it was withdrawn, and a Committee appointed, consisting, as usual, of the Aldermen, Deputies, and one Common-Councilman from each Ward, to consider of the best means of rendering the old Bridge safe and convenient; who were empowered to draw upon theChamberlain to the amount of £100, for plans, surveys, &c. The Report of this Committee stated, that the Bridge foundation was still good, and that, by pulling down the houses, and making such repairs as should then be required, the edifice might be rendered equally serviceable with Westminster Bridge; being capable of receiving four carriages abreast, with a good foot way on each side. By pulling down the houses at the corners of the narrow streets leading to the old Bridge, it was also represented that it would be rendered so convenient as to supersede the erection of any new one. To this it was objected, that most of the houses declined considerably out of the perpendicular; and that those on the Eastern side of the Bridge decayed much faster than the opposite ones. In Harrison’s ‘History,’ page 24, this account is partly confirmed; since we are there told that ‘on the outer part of the Bridge, on the East side, the view from the wharfs and quays was exceedingly disagreeable. Nineteen disproportioned arches, with sterlings increased to an amazing size by frequent repairs, supported the street above. These arches were of very different sizes, and several that were low and narrow were placed between others that were broad and lofty. The back part of the houses next the Thames had neither uniformity nor beauty; the line being broken by a great number of closets that projected from the buildings, and hung over the sterlings. This deformity was greatly increased by the houses extending a considerable distance over the sides of the Bridge, and some of them projectingfarther over it than the others; by which means, the tops of almost all the arches, except those that were nearest, were concealed from the view of the passengers on the quays, and made the Bridge appear like a multitude of rude piers, with only an arch or two at the end, and the rest, consisting of beams, extending from the tops of flat piers, without any other arches, quite across the river.’“The best view of London Bridge in this state, is represented in an engraving by Peter Charles Canot, from a picture painted by Samuel Scott, of whom Walpole says, ‘if he were but second to Vandevelde in sea-pieces, he excelled him in variety, and often introduced buildings in his pictures with consummate skill. His views of London Bridge, of the Quay at the Custom-House, &c. were equal to his Marines.’ He died October the 12th, 1772;videthe ‘Anecdotes of Painting,’ page 445. This view is also noticed by Gough in his ‘British Topography,’ volume i., page 735: and Mr. J. T. Smith, in his ‘Ancient Topography,’ page 25, observes, that it was in the possession of Edward Roberts, Esq., Clerk of the Pells, who probably still retains it. It was exhibited, says the author of ‘Wine and Walnuts,’ volume i., page 65, in 1817, at the British Institution; and of the excellent engraving from it there are two editions: the earliest and best is marked, ‘Published according to Act of Parliament, Feby. 25, 1761:’ and the latter may be known by the imprint of ‘Printed for Bowles and Carver, R. H. Laurie, and R. Wilkinson.’ This plate hasbeen more than once copied in a reduced form; but the best, engraved by Warren, appeared in that work by Dr. Pugh, known by the name of ‘Hughson’s History of London,’ London, 1806-9, octavo, volume ii., page 316. Another view of London Bridge with the houses, of considerably less merit, but rather more rarity, was ‘Printed and sold for John Bowles, Print and Map-seller, over against Stocks-Market, 1724.’ It consists of a small square plate, and shews the houses on the Western side of the edifice in bad perspective, with a short historical account beneath it; and it forms plate y of a folio volume, entitled, ‘Several Prospects of the most noted Buildings in and about the City of London.’ There are also some rather large representations of this Bridge, in most of the old two and three-sheet views of London; as in those published by Bowles ‘at the Black Horse in Cornhill,’ about 1732, &c.; and in the series of prints usually called ‘Boydell’s Perspectives,’ is a folio half-sheet plate very much resembling Scott’s, entitled ‘A view of London Bridge taken near St. Olave’s Stairs. Published according to Act of Parliament by J. Boydell, Engraver, at the Globe, near Durham Yard in the Strand. 1731. Price 1s. J. Boydell, delin. et sculp.’ I could mention several others, as in the Title-page to the old ‘London Magazine;’ in Strype’s edition of Stow; in Maitland; Motley’s ‘Seymour’sSurvey;’ in Hughson, Lambert, and numerous other works; but for fidelity of feature, and excellence of effect, none of them are in any respect equal to that of Scott, representingLondon Bridge before the alteration of 1758.“As at this period the public attention was generally directed towards this edifice, the proprietors of Maitland’s ‘History of London,’ which was then appearing in numbers, issued an Advertisement, in the ‘Public Advertiser’ of Saturday, April the 6th, 1754, stating that ‘Number xv. will be illustrated with two fine Prospects of London Bridge as it may be altered agreeable to drawings presented to Sir Richard Hoare, by Charles Labelye, Esq.; and humbly inscribed to the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common-Council, whonowhave the state of that Bridge under consideration.—Not one of this Number will be delivered to any but Subscribers, and such as have bought, or shall buy, the former Numbers.’ Like Strype’s edition of Stow, this work was published at 6d.each Number.“On Thursday, September the 26th, 1754, the Bridge Committee presented their Report to the Court of Common-Council, an original verbatim copy of which is in the xxviiith. volume of ‘London Tracts’ in the British Museum, small folio. This Report stated, that the piles, &c. of old London Bridge having been surveyed by Mr. George Dance, then Clerk of the Works to the City, the foundations were declared good, and, with common repairs, likely to last for ages. That the houses on the Bridge being a public inconvenience, it was recommended that they should be removed, from St. Magnus’ Church to the City Gate, on the East; and from the corner of Thames Street to the Bear Tavern in the Borough,on the West. That Mr. Dance had produced a plan for an alteration of the Bridge, with estimates amounting to £30,000, in which were a carriage-road of 33 feet, with two foot-paths of 6 feet each; but that such expense might be reduced to £27,000, by leaving the houses standing on the South side of the Gate. That the annual rents of the houses to be taken down amounted to about £828: 6s., which would be lost to the Bridge-House estates; whilst the Parishes of St. Magnus and St. Olave would also lose in taxes, rents, and tythes, about the yearly sum of £484: 19s.10d.; and that the estimate of the houses then out upon lease, with others which must be bought, came to £8940: 11s.7d.; besides other satisfaction which might be required by the under-tenants.“The substance of Labelye’s plan for altering this edifice, is given in Maitland’s ‘History,’ volume ii., pages 826-832, together with the result of several other reports made in 1746. His chief objection to old London Bridge was to the sterlings surrounding the piers; which, occupying almost one fourth part in five of the water-way, caused a fall of nearly five feet perpendicular, during the greater part of every tide, thus rendering the passage of vessels through the locks equally difficult and dangerous. He, consequently, proposed casing the piers with four feet of Portland Stone, and to lessen the sterlings so as always to have about 400 feet of water-way, which, being twice as much as the Bridge originally possessed,would reduce the fall to about 15 inches. The expense of this plan, he conceived, would be about £2000 for each pier; two or three of which could be altered in a year, without stopping the passage either over or under the Bridge. He also proposed to adopt the idea of Sir Christopher Wren, in new-modelling the appearance of the building itself, by taking away eleven piers, and forming nine broad-pointed Gothic arches, springing from the lowest low-water mark: these were to be of different dimensions, and the fifth from the South end was to be 90 feet in span. The parapet was to be ornamented with Gothic crocketted recesses surmounting the piers; by a cast-iron ballustrade; or by a dwarf-wall, or even houses; and, according to this plan, there would have been a water-way of 540 feet, and a fall of not more than 9 inches; whilst the amount of time and expense would not be considerably greater than in the former.“The Reports of Mr. George Dance, Clerk of the City Works, and Bartholomew Sparruck, the Water-Carpenter of London Bridge, in answer to the questions of the Committee, in 1746, also furnish several very curious and interesting particulars concerning the building at that period, and the original is to be found at length in Maitland’s ‘History,’ already cited; and in Nos. II. and III. of Dr. Charles Hutton’s ‘Tracts on Mathematical and Philosophical Subjects,’ London, 1812, volume i., pages 115-122. The Report commences with a table of the depth of water, above,immediately under, and below every arch, beginning at the South end of the Bridge, which is to the following effect.“‘Name of the Lock.West Side.Under the Arch.East Side.Feet.Inch.Feet.Inch.Feet.Inch.Shore Lock16—59810Second Lock from Surrey Shore1469—104Rock Lock2233—14—Fourth Lock from Surrey Shore14—7—157Fifth Lock from Surrey Shore189103187Roger Lock177871511Draw Lock1818101511Nonesuch Lock25192183Pedlar’s Lock17859186Gutt Lock21256178Long Entry Lock181135128Chapel Lock17—2422—St. Mary’s Lock2468920—Little Lock2239—174King’s Lock23969207Shore Lock1996112110Mill Lock203462110Mill Lock19479141Mill Lock10104—1310Mill Lock67611010’“The Report then proceeds to state, that the height of the under bed of the first course of stones is very unequal; some being 2 feet 4 inches; and others varying from 1 foot 3 inches, to 1 foot 11 inches above low-water mark; and from 4 to 6 feet above the level of the sterlings. The rough and unhewn piles were found to be shod with iron, and but little decayed:in some instances, they were separated from the stone-work by planks of oak and elm, from 4 to 6 inches in thickness, which were probably first inserted at some of the numerous repairs; and each of the piers was protected by a stone base, extending about 7 inches beyond them. It was from these reports, that Mr. Labelye drew up his plans, which, together with his remarks on the old Bridge, were presented to the Committee, on Wednesday, the 17th of September, 1746. As this Architect desired that his designs might be examined by some eminent, scientific, and disinterested individuals, several such persons were called in to assist the deliberations of the Committee; though, after many other inquiries and consultations, the discussions terminated in a proposal for building a new Bridge at Blackfriars.“At a Court of Common Council holden on Thursday, December 18th, 1755, after a very protracted opposition, the Corporation consequently agreed to petition Parliament for leave to bring in a Bill to erect another Bridge over the Thames at Fleet-Ditch, and on Tuesday, January 13th, 1756, the petition was presented and referred to a Committee; another petition being also presented at the same time, praying leave to bring in a Bill for improving and widening the passage over London Bridge, by removing the houses and other obstructions thereon, and for raising money to enable the Trustees to render the same safer and more commodious. This also was referred to a Committee; on Friday, March 12th, 1756, leave wasgranted to bring in the Bills; and on Thursday, the 27th of May, they both received the Royal assent, when the King closed the Session of Parliament. These Acts are printed in Maitland’s ‘History,’ volume ii., page 1387; though the best authority is Ruffhead’s ‘Statutes at Large,’ volume vii., pages 728-738, 29th of George II., Chapter xl.; and I shall first give a very few particulars of the Act relating to London Bridge, and next shew how the alteration was effected. By this Statute, then, the Corporation was empowered to buy and remove all buildings on, and contiguous to, the Bridge, for enlarging its avenues, improving the passage over, and widening one or more of its arches:—to devise how the same should be executed, and kept in repair:—to erect an uniform ballustrade on each side, with a passage of 31 feet for carriages, &c., and 7 feet for each of the footways:—to have it lighted and watched at the expense of the Bridge-House estates:—to preserve the arches and pipes belonging to the Water-works:—to establish, after the 24th of June, 1756, an additional toll for the payment of the expenses incurred by the alterations:—to keep the Bridge clear of buildings, and of carriages standing upon it for hire, after the houses should be removed; and to make all carriages keep on the Eastern side in going towards Southwark, and on the Western side in coming to London. The Act also provided penalties for destroying the Bridge or any of its works; extensive powers for the Corporation in buying the various property; an equivalent for thetythes, rates, &c., payable to the Rectors of St. Magnus and St. Margaret, and St. Olave; and particular ordinances concerning the tolls.“Gates and toll-houses were to be erected on, or near, London Bridge; but to continue only until the principal and interest of the borrowed monies should be discharged. The additional tolls were, ‘for every horse drawing any coach, chariot, hearse, berlin, landau, calash, chaise, or chair, over the Bridge, 1d.; for every such carriage itself, 1d.; and for every horse not drawing, passing across the Bridge, ½d.’ Loaded vessels also, passing under the Bridge, were to pay 2d.for every 5 tons burthen; 3d.for ten tons; 6d.for 25 tons, and 1s.for vessels of greater capacity. In the Act for building a Bridge at Blackfriars, 29th of George II.—1756,—Chapter lxxxvi., it is stated, that the taking away of all tolls from that of London, as soon as possible, would be of general advantage, they being then leased out for 21 years at a fine of £2100, and a yearly rent of £735; the redemption of all which was estimated at £36,000. In 1757, the 31st of George II., Chapter xx., an aid of £15,000 was granted by Parliament towards the rebuilding of London Bridge, because the tolls were not only difficult to collect, but were also a considerable hindrance to commerce and navigation:videthe ‘Continuation of Maitland’s History,’ at the end of volume ii., page 19. The powers of the new Act—which also protected the Bridge and its works, by making it felony to destroy them,—commenced from the21st of April, and the additional tolls of the former one ceased from the 24th of June, 1758. Whilst I am upon the subject, it will probably be as well to include all our notices of the tolls of London Bridge under one head; and therefore I may remark, that in 1767, the 7th of George III., Chapter xxxvii., an Act was passed for the completing of Blackfriars Bridge, making several improvements in the City, and for treating with Mr. Edward Neale, the Lessee of the tolls of London Bridge, for their redemption; to which latter purpose, the sum of £30,000 was appropriated. About the end of September, 1770, the Corporation proceeded to act upon this power, fifteen years and three quarters being then unexpired of the lease; but the lessee having altered his demand, on account of the tolls having increased upwards of £600 per annum since 1766, it was found, that to reimburse the City, it was essential that they should continue both upon London and Blackfriars Bridges for some years longer. Upon petition of the Corporation, therefore, in the 11th of George III., 1771, Chapter xx., an Act was passed for further continuing the tolls on London Bridge until March the 25th, 1782, when the remainder of the lease was to be bought and the tolls finally to cease. All these particulars will be found in the ‘Statutes at Large,’ volumes vii., pages 728-738, 742; viii., page 210; x., pages 306, 307; and xi., pages 154, 155; there is also considerable information upon this subject, to be found in Malcolm’s ‘Londinum Redivivum,’ volume ii., pages 392-396, derived from authentic documents. From these authorities it appears that the amount of the prescriptive tolls of London Bridge, at Midsummer, 1763, produced £1785: 10s.5d.; in 1764, £1946: 4s.1d.; in 1765, £1846: 7s.4d.; in 1766, £1878: 16s.6d.; and in 1770, £2465: 14s.3d.; estimating, therefore, the average to be about £1864, and deducting from that sum the Rent, £735; Land Tax, £180: 12s.and the expenses of collecting, £150, the lessee’s clear annual income would be £798: 15s.“It was upon this calculation that the value of the remainder of his lease was ascertained, and the Act for continuing the tolls first devised; though on Wednesday, April, 24th, 1765, the Committee of City Lands let to Mr. Neale a lease of 21 years of the toll of carts and wheelage over London Bridge, for a fine of 2000 guineas, and the old rent of £735per annum. See the ‘Gentleman’s Magazine’ for 1765, volume xxxv., page 197.“Notwithstanding, however, these active proceedings for the improvement of this edifice, the parties in favour of, and against, a new building ran extremely high, as you may see in the ‘Continuation of Maitland’s History,’ page 4. That several interests were to be consulted in the alteration of London Bridge, is evident, and they are particularly shewn in the counter-petitions presented to Parliament whilst the Bridge Bills were pending; as, one drawn up by the most ardent supporters of the new Bridge at Blackfriars; and another by the Rev. EdmundGibson, Rector of St. Magnus and St. Margaret, for recompense in loss of tythes, &c. to the amount of £48: 6s.2d., by taking down the houses.Videthe ‘Journals of the House of Commons,’ volume xxvii., page 574; and the ‘Continuation of Maitland’s History,’ page 11; on page 7 of which authority it is also stated, that on the 12th of June, 1755, ‘the Common-Council allowed the Comptroller of the Bridge-House £410per annum, in lieu of his customary bills, which were so much reduced by the loss that would accrue to the Bridge-House estate, in the repairing and improvement of London Bridge.’ But whilst many persons were too much interested even in the worst state of it, with all its inconvenient buildings, not to oppose their alteration, they were found to be almost equally dangerous both on the edifice and on the water. In the proceedings in Parliament concerning the alterations, Mr. Dance, the Architect, stated, that the piers were solid for ten feet above the sterlings, upon which were erected walls of three feet in thickness, forming cellars to the houses; and they having settled, the walls were much injured. In consequence, also, of the contracted passage between the houses upon the Bridge, the inhabitants experienced many inconveniences peculiar to their situation. Mr. Deputy James Hodges declared, that he‘had frequently known it happen, that coals had been thrown through the windows of the houses, out of the barges going under the Bridge; and that, as he is informed, the reason is, that the candle-lights in the houses make it dangerous in the night-time to go through the locks. That people on the river have always a glimmering light by which they can distinguish objects, unless a very thick fog. That light leaves them just when they come to shoot the locks, as far as the shadows of the houses extend; and thereby they lose the possibility of discerning the passage between the sterlings.’ See Malcolm’s ‘Londinum Redivivum,’ volume ii., page 388, and the ‘Journals of the House of Commons.’ The improvement of the passage over London Bridge was, however, much accelerated by the passing of an Act in 1755, the 28th of George II., Chapter ix., for taking away the ancient Market then held in High Street, Southwark, after Lady-day, 1756: and in Chapter xxii. of the former year, it was removed to its recent place on the site of Rochester Yard. See Bray’s ‘History of Surrey,’ volume iii., page 550; and the ‘Statutes at Large,’ volume vii., pages 579, 620. Having thus, then, given some idea of the proceedings of the Corporation before the improvement of the old London Bridge, let us now go on to consider the nature and manner of that alteration itself: and so, if you’re not asleep, Mr. Barbican, here’s your health.”“No, truly,” replied I, wakefully endeavouring to appear as brisk as my drowsiness would let me,“Time has a wonderful effect in reconciling us to the most tiresome employments; and I doubt not but to be able to hold out through the remainder of your discourse, with the aid of this Sack-posset, which seems to be little less interminable, and heated beyond the power of cooling again. But go on, Master Barnaby, go on, Sir.”

was furnished with two posterns for foot-passengers, and was decorated with the Royal Arms, under which was inscribed, ‘This Gate was widened from eleven to eighteen feet, in the Mayoralty of Sir Edward Becher, Knight, S. P. Q. L.’ The medalet, with a representation of this edifice, I have already mentioned to you, and it may now be stated that it was taken down in the year 1760, with all the other buildings on the Bridge, and the materials sold by auction. At which sale, the fine old sculpture of the Royal Arms was bought, with some other articles, by a Mr. Williams, a stone-mason of Tooley Street; who, being soon after employed to take down the gateway at Axe and Bottle Yard, and to form the present King Street, in the Borough, introduced several of the old Bridge materials in erecting it. The ancient Royal Arms, too, are yet to be seen on the front of a small public house, on the right-hand side of the Western end of the same street, between the numbers 4 and 67; with the inscription ‘G. III. R. 1760., King Street,’ carved around them. Mr. Williams also bought several of the facing stones of the old London Bridge, of which he built a very curious house, the roof being of the same stone, and which, about three years since, was standing in Lock’s Fields, near Prospect Row, Newington, usually known by the name of ‘Williams’s Folly.’ The new Bridge-Gate stood near the corner of Pepper Alley Stairs, and you will find a representation of it in the Frontispiece to the first volume of Maitland’s ‘History.’ I imagine, that upon the removal of theold gate, the custom of erecting the heads of traitors there was discontinued, as I find no subsequent notice of it; and the last heads which, probably, were placed upon its towers, are said to have been those of the Regicides in 1661, as I have shewn from Monconys, though, in the numerous pamphlets of their Trials, &c., I find no account of their being thus disposed. From ‘The Traytors’ Perspective Glass,’ London, 1662, 4to., we learn, however, that the heads of Cromwell and Ireton were set over Westminster Hall; and of the others, it is said, ‘their heads,in several places, are become a spectacle both to angels and men, and a prey to birds of the air.’

In Maitland’s ‘History,’ volume i., page 49, we are furnished with ‘a brief state of the Bridge Account, from Lady-day 1726 to ditto 1727, by the Bridge-Masters, Matthew Snablin and John Web.

On Wednesday, the 26th of December, 1739-40, commenced another Frost, the most severe which had occurred since 1716. The Thames, as we are told by the ‘Gentleman’s Magazine,’ of 1740, volume x., page 35, January 31, floated with rocks and shoals of ice; and when they fixed, represented a snowy field, every where rising in masses and hills of ice and snow. Of this scene, several artists made sketches; whilst tents and printing-presses were erected, and a complete Frost-fair was again held upon the River, over which multitudes walked, though some lost their lives by their rashness. It was in this fair that Doll, the Pippin-woman, whom I before mentioned, lost her life, as Gay relates it in the Second Book of his ‘Trivia,’ verses 375-392; the last line of which seems to be an imitation of that song which we formerlyconsidered, and which was extremely popular even in the time of Gay himself. The passage I particularly allude to is this:

‘Doll every day had walk’d these treacherous roads;Her neck grew warp’d beneath Autumnal loadsOf various fruit: she now a basket bore;That head, alas! shall basket bear no more.Each booth she frequent past, in quest of gain,And boys with pleasure heard her thrilling strain.Ah, Doll! all mortals must resign their breath,And industry itself submit to death!The crackling crystal yields; she sinks, she dies,Her head, chopt off, from her lost shoulders flies;Pippins she cried, but death her voice confounds,And pip—pip—pip, along the ice resounds.’

“Mr. J. T. Smith, in his ‘Ancient Topography of London,’ page 24, states that another remarkable character, called ‘Tiddy Doll,’ died in the same place and manner.

“In the treasures of Mr. Crowle’s Illustrated Pennant, are several contemporary memorials of this Fair; which I shall very briefly mention, and give some specimens of the poetry attached to them.

“A coarse copper-plate, entitled ‘The View of Frost Fair,’ 10¼ inches by 12, scene taken from York-buildings Water-Works; twelve verses beneath.

“A copper-plate, 7½ inches by 5, representing an altar-piece with the ten commandments, engraven between the figures of Moses and Aaron; and beneath, on a cartouche, ‘Printed on the Ice on the Riverof Thames, Janry.15, 1739.’

“A coarse copper-plate engraving, looking down the River, entitled ‘Frost Fair,’ with eight lines of verse beneath; and above ‘Printed upon the River Thames when Frozen, Janu. the 28, 1739⁄40.’ 9½ inches by 12¼.

“A copper-plate 5 inches by 8¼, representing an ornamental border with a female head, crowned at the top; and below, two designs of the letter-press and rolling press. In the centre in type, ‘Upon the Frost in the year 1739-40;’ six verses, and then ‘Mr. John Cross, aged 6. Printed on the Ice upon the Thames, at Queen-Hithe, January the 29th, 1739-40.’

‘Behold the LiquidThamesnow frozen o’er!That latelyShipsof mighty Burden bore.Here You mayPrintyour Name, tho’ cannot Write,’Cause numb’d with Cold: ’Tis done with great Delight.And lay it by; ThatAgesyet to comeMay see whatThingsupon theIcewere done.’

“A copper-plate, representing a view of the Thames at Westminster, with the tents, sports, &c., and alphabetical references, entitled ‘Ice Fair.’ ‘Printed on yeRiver Thames, now frozen over, Jany31, 1739-40;’ 7½ inches by 12½.

‘Amidst yearts yton yeThames appear,To tell yeWonders of this frozen Year,Sculpture claims Prior place, since ytalonePreserves yeImage when yeProspect’s gone.’

“An altered copy of these verses was printed upon the Thames in the great Frost of 1814; and from anadvertisement in the ‘London Daily Post’ of Thursday, January the 31st, 1739-40, we learn that this and the following print were originally sold for 6d.each.

“A Copper-plate printed in red, 9½ inches by 13¼, the view taken opposite St. Paul’s, with tents, sports, &c. in front, sixteen lines of verse beneath, with ‘Frost and Ice Fair, shewing the diversions upon the River Thames, began the 26th of Decemr1739-40, ended Februrythe 17th.’”

“In the beginning of this Frost, the houses on London Bridge appear to have received considerable damage, from the many vessels which broke from their moorings, and lay beating against them; the notice of which, we derive from the two most celebrated newspapers of the time,—the ‘Daily Post,’ and Woodfall’s ‘General Advertiser.’ The latter of these, for Monday, December the 31st, 1739, states that ‘all the watermen above the Bridge have hauled their boats on shore, the Thames being very nigh frozen over:’ and in the same paper, for Wednesday, January 2nd, 1739-40, it is observed, that ‘several vintners in the Strand bought a large Ox in Smithfield on Monday last, which is to be roasted whole on the ice on the River of Thames, if the Frost continues. Mr. Hodgeson, a Butcher in St. James’s Market, claims the privilege of selling, or knocking down, the Beast, as a right inherent in his family, his Father having knocked down the Ox roasted on the River in the great Frost, 1684; as himself did that roasted in 1715, near Hungerford Stairs. The Beast is tobe fixt to a stake in the open market, and Mr. Hodgeson comes dress’d in a rich lac’d cambric apron, a silver steel, and a Hat and Feathers, to perform the office.’ After the mention of numerous accidents near London Bridge, the repetition of which would occupy considerable time with but little gratification, the ‘Daily Post,’ of Tuesday, January the 22nd, 1740, thus notices the first breaking-up of this famous frost. ‘Yesterday morning, the inhabitants of the West prospect of the Bridge were presented with a very odd scene, for, on the opening of their windows, there appear’d underneath, on the River, a parcel of booths, shops, and huts, of different forms, and without any inhabitants, which, it seems, by the swell of the waters and the ice separating, had been brought down from above. As no lives were lost, it might be view’d without horror. Here stood a booth with trinkets, there a hut with a dram of old gold; in another place a skittle-frame and pins, and in a fourth ‘the Noble Art and Mystery of Printing, by a servant to one of the greatest trading companies in Europe.’ With much difficulty, last night, they had removed the most valuable effects.’ To conclude my information upon this subject, I have to observe only that the ‘Daily Post’ of Thursday, February the 14th, states that the Sterlings of London Bridge had received so much damage during the frost from the great weight of ice, that their repairs would amount to several thousand pounds.

“The last extract given us by Maitland, in his ‘History’ page 49, from the Bridge-House revenues and accounts, extends from Lady-day 1752 to Lady-day 1753, and consists of the following particulars.”

“There appears to be some little inaccuracy in this statement by Maitland, since the amounts which he sets down are not the products of the sums when added together; but these I have rectified, though the balance of the whole account does not quite accord with the sums remaining in hand.

“We have at length reached that period, when the extensive alteration, or even re-building, of London Bridge, began to form a matter of grave and active consideration; and in relating the proceedings of these times, there will be no little difficulty in condensing into one consecutive account, all the numerous surveys, reports, plans, proposals, and objections, which were then published. In treating of this part of thesubject, however, as it will be best and briefest to do it in order, we will first consider the state of old London Bridge, as it was represented by the various Architects employed to survey it; then give some account of the schemes proposed for its alteration; and lastly, describe that which was adopted, and the means used for carrying it into effect.

“It appears extremely probable, that the contrast presented by the broad and clear road of the new Bridge at Westminster,—which was commenced in September, 1738, and completed in November, 1749,—chiefly contributed to turn the attention of the Corporation of London to the exceeding inconvenience of their own. Though to the building of Westminster Bridge, Maitland, who knew the circumstances, tells us in his ‘History,’ volume ii., page 1349, that there was very considerable opposition; and that the City of London, the Borough of Southwark, the Company of Watermen, and the West-Country Bargemen, all petitioned the Parliament against it. On Friday, February the 22d, 1754, as we learn from the ‘Public Advertiser’ of the day following, the Court of Common Council took into consideration a motion for the construction of a new Bridge between London and Southwark: when, after a debate of nearly four hours, it was withdrawn, and a Committee appointed, consisting, as usual, of the Aldermen, Deputies, and one Common-Councilman from each Ward, to consider of the best means of rendering the old Bridge safe and convenient; who were empowered to draw upon theChamberlain to the amount of £100, for plans, surveys, &c. The Report of this Committee stated, that the Bridge foundation was still good, and that, by pulling down the houses, and making such repairs as should then be required, the edifice might be rendered equally serviceable with Westminster Bridge; being capable of receiving four carriages abreast, with a good foot way on each side. By pulling down the houses at the corners of the narrow streets leading to the old Bridge, it was also represented that it would be rendered so convenient as to supersede the erection of any new one. To this it was objected, that most of the houses declined considerably out of the perpendicular; and that those on the Eastern side of the Bridge decayed much faster than the opposite ones. In Harrison’s ‘History,’ page 24, this account is partly confirmed; since we are there told that ‘on the outer part of the Bridge, on the East side, the view from the wharfs and quays was exceedingly disagreeable. Nineteen disproportioned arches, with sterlings increased to an amazing size by frequent repairs, supported the street above. These arches were of very different sizes, and several that were low and narrow were placed between others that were broad and lofty. The back part of the houses next the Thames had neither uniformity nor beauty; the line being broken by a great number of closets that projected from the buildings, and hung over the sterlings. This deformity was greatly increased by the houses extending a considerable distance over the sides of the Bridge, and some of them projectingfarther over it than the others; by which means, the tops of almost all the arches, except those that were nearest, were concealed from the view of the passengers on the quays, and made the Bridge appear like a multitude of rude piers, with only an arch or two at the end, and the rest, consisting of beams, extending from the tops of flat piers, without any other arches, quite across the river.’

“The best view of London Bridge in this state, is represented in an engraving by Peter Charles Canot, from a picture painted by Samuel Scott, of whom Walpole says, ‘if he were but second to Vandevelde in sea-pieces, he excelled him in variety, and often introduced buildings in his pictures with consummate skill. His views of London Bridge, of the Quay at the Custom-House, &c. were equal to his Marines.’ He died October the 12th, 1772;videthe ‘Anecdotes of Painting,’ page 445. This view is also noticed by Gough in his ‘British Topography,’ volume i., page 735: and Mr. J. T. Smith, in his ‘Ancient Topography,’ page 25, observes, that it was in the possession of Edward Roberts, Esq., Clerk of the Pells, who probably still retains it. It was exhibited, says the author of ‘Wine and Walnuts,’ volume i., page 65, in 1817, at the British Institution; and of the excellent engraving from it there are two editions: the earliest and best is marked, ‘Published according to Act of Parliament, Feby. 25, 1761:’ and the latter may be known by the imprint of ‘Printed for Bowles and Carver, R. H. Laurie, and R. Wilkinson.’ This plate hasbeen more than once copied in a reduced form; but the best, engraved by Warren, appeared in that work by Dr. Pugh, known by the name of ‘Hughson’s History of London,’ London, 1806-9, octavo, volume ii., page 316. Another view of London Bridge with the houses, of considerably less merit, but rather more rarity, was ‘Printed and sold for John Bowles, Print and Map-seller, over against Stocks-Market, 1724.’ It consists of a small square plate, and shews the houses on the Western side of the edifice in bad perspective, with a short historical account beneath it; and it forms plate y of a folio volume, entitled, ‘Several Prospects of the most noted Buildings in and about the City of London.’ There are also some rather large representations of this Bridge, in most of the old two and three-sheet views of London; as in those published by Bowles ‘at the Black Horse in Cornhill,’ about 1732, &c.; and in the series of prints usually called ‘Boydell’s Perspectives,’ is a folio half-sheet plate very much resembling Scott’s, entitled ‘A view of London Bridge taken near St. Olave’s Stairs. Published according to Act of Parliament by J. Boydell, Engraver, at the Globe, near Durham Yard in the Strand. 1731. Price 1s. J. Boydell, delin. et sculp.’ I could mention several others, as in the Title-page to the old ‘London Magazine;’ in Strype’s edition of Stow; in Maitland; Motley’s ‘Seymour’sSurvey;’ in Hughson, Lambert, and numerous other works; but for fidelity of feature, and excellence of effect, none of them are in any respect equal to that of Scott, representingLondon Bridge before the alteration of 1758.

“As at this period the public attention was generally directed towards this edifice, the proprietors of Maitland’s ‘History of London,’ which was then appearing in numbers, issued an Advertisement, in the ‘Public Advertiser’ of Saturday, April the 6th, 1754, stating that ‘Number xv. will be illustrated with two fine Prospects of London Bridge as it may be altered agreeable to drawings presented to Sir Richard Hoare, by Charles Labelye, Esq.; and humbly inscribed to the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common-Council, whonowhave the state of that Bridge under consideration.—Not one of this Number will be delivered to any but Subscribers, and such as have bought, or shall buy, the former Numbers.’ Like Strype’s edition of Stow, this work was published at 6d.each Number.

“On Thursday, September the 26th, 1754, the Bridge Committee presented their Report to the Court of Common-Council, an original verbatim copy of which is in the xxviiith. volume of ‘London Tracts’ in the British Museum, small folio. This Report stated, that the piles, &c. of old London Bridge having been surveyed by Mr. George Dance, then Clerk of the Works to the City, the foundations were declared good, and, with common repairs, likely to last for ages. That the houses on the Bridge being a public inconvenience, it was recommended that they should be removed, from St. Magnus’ Church to the City Gate, on the East; and from the corner of Thames Street to the Bear Tavern in the Borough,on the West. That Mr. Dance had produced a plan for an alteration of the Bridge, with estimates amounting to £30,000, in which were a carriage-road of 33 feet, with two foot-paths of 6 feet each; but that such expense might be reduced to £27,000, by leaving the houses standing on the South side of the Gate. That the annual rents of the houses to be taken down amounted to about £828: 6s., which would be lost to the Bridge-House estates; whilst the Parishes of St. Magnus and St. Olave would also lose in taxes, rents, and tythes, about the yearly sum of £484: 19s.10d.; and that the estimate of the houses then out upon lease, with others which must be bought, came to £8940: 11s.7d.; besides other satisfaction which might be required by the under-tenants.

“The substance of Labelye’s plan for altering this edifice, is given in Maitland’s ‘History,’ volume ii., pages 826-832, together with the result of several other reports made in 1746. His chief objection to old London Bridge was to the sterlings surrounding the piers; which, occupying almost one fourth part in five of the water-way, caused a fall of nearly five feet perpendicular, during the greater part of every tide, thus rendering the passage of vessels through the locks equally difficult and dangerous. He, consequently, proposed casing the piers with four feet of Portland Stone, and to lessen the sterlings so as always to have about 400 feet of water-way, which, being twice as much as the Bridge originally possessed,would reduce the fall to about 15 inches. The expense of this plan, he conceived, would be about £2000 for each pier; two or three of which could be altered in a year, without stopping the passage either over or under the Bridge. He also proposed to adopt the idea of Sir Christopher Wren, in new-modelling the appearance of the building itself, by taking away eleven piers, and forming nine broad-pointed Gothic arches, springing from the lowest low-water mark: these were to be of different dimensions, and the fifth from the South end was to be 90 feet in span. The parapet was to be ornamented with Gothic crocketted recesses surmounting the piers; by a cast-iron ballustrade; or by a dwarf-wall, or even houses; and, according to this plan, there would have been a water-way of 540 feet, and a fall of not more than 9 inches; whilst the amount of time and expense would not be considerably greater than in the former.

“The Reports of Mr. George Dance, Clerk of the City Works, and Bartholomew Sparruck, the Water-Carpenter of London Bridge, in answer to the questions of the Committee, in 1746, also furnish several very curious and interesting particulars concerning the building at that period, and the original is to be found at length in Maitland’s ‘History,’ already cited; and in Nos. II. and III. of Dr. Charles Hutton’s ‘Tracts on Mathematical and Philosophical Subjects,’ London, 1812, volume i., pages 115-122. The Report commences with a table of the depth of water, above,immediately under, and below every arch, beginning at the South end of the Bridge, which is to the following effect.

“The Report then proceeds to state, that the height of the under bed of the first course of stones is very unequal; some being 2 feet 4 inches; and others varying from 1 foot 3 inches, to 1 foot 11 inches above low-water mark; and from 4 to 6 feet above the level of the sterlings. The rough and unhewn piles were found to be shod with iron, and but little decayed:in some instances, they were separated from the stone-work by planks of oak and elm, from 4 to 6 inches in thickness, which were probably first inserted at some of the numerous repairs; and each of the piers was protected by a stone base, extending about 7 inches beyond them. It was from these reports, that Mr. Labelye drew up his plans, which, together with his remarks on the old Bridge, were presented to the Committee, on Wednesday, the 17th of September, 1746. As this Architect desired that his designs might be examined by some eminent, scientific, and disinterested individuals, several such persons were called in to assist the deliberations of the Committee; though, after many other inquiries and consultations, the discussions terminated in a proposal for building a new Bridge at Blackfriars.

“At a Court of Common Council holden on Thursday, December 18th, 1755, after a very protracted opposition, the Corporation consequently agreed to petition Parliament for leave to bring in a Bill to erect another Bridge over the Thames at Fleet-Ditch, and on Tuesday, January 13th, 1756, the petition was presented and referred to a Committee; another petition being also presented at the same time, praying leave to bring in a Bill for improving and widening the passage over London Bridge, by removing the houses and other obstructions thereon, and for raising money to enable the Trustees to render the same safer and more commodious. This also was referred to a Committee; on Friday, March 12th, 1756, leave wasgranted to bring in the Bills; and on Thursday, the 27th of May, they both received the Royal assent, when the King closed the Session of Parliament. These Acts are printed in Maitland’s ‘History,’ volume ii., page 1387; though the best authority is Ruffhead’s ‘Statutes at Large,’ volume vii., pages 728-738, 29th of George II., Chapter xl.; and I shall first give a very few particulars of the Act relating to London Bridge, and next shew how the alteration was effected. By this Statute, then, the Corporation was empowered to buy and remove all buildings on, and contiguous to, the Bridge, for enlarging its avenues, improving the passage over, and widening one or more of its arches:—to devise how the same should be executed, and kept in repair:—to erect an uniform ballustrade on each side, with a passage of 31 feet for carriages, &c., and 7 feet for each of the footways:—to have it lighted and watched at the expense of the Bridge-House estates:—to preserve the arches and pipes belonging to the Water-works:—to establish, after the 24th of June, 1756, an additional toll for the payment of the expenses incurred by the alterations:—to keep the Bridge clear of buildings, and of carriages standing upon it for hire, after the houses should be removed; and to make all carriages keep on the Eastern side in going towards Southwark, and on the Western side in coming to London. The Act also provided penalties for destroying the Bridge or any of its works; extensive powers for the Corporation in buying the various property; an equivalent for thetythes, rates, &c., payable to the Rectors of St. Magnus and St. Margaret, and St. Olave; and particular ordinances concerning the tolls.

“Gates and toll-houses were to be erected on, or near, London Bridge; but to continue only until the principal and interest of the borrowed monies should be discharged. The additional tolls were, ‘for every horse drawing any coach, chariot, hearse, berlin, landau, calash, chaise, or chair, over the Bridge, 1d.; for every such carriage itself, 1d.; and for every horse not drawing, passing across the Bridge, ½d.’ Loaded vessels also, passing under the Bridge, were to pay 2d.for every 5 tons burthen; 3d.for ten tons; 6d.for 25 tons, and 1s.for vessels of greater capacity. In the Act for building a Bridge at Blackfriars, 29th of George II.—1756,—Chapter lxxxvi., it is stated, that the taking away of all tolls from that of London, as soon as possible, would be of general advantage, they being then leased out for 21 years at a fine of £2100, and a yearly rent of £735; the redemption of all which was estimated at £36,000. In 1757, the 31st of George II., Chapter xx., an aid of £15,000 was granted by Parliament towards the rebuilding of London Bridge, because the tolls were not only difficult to collect, but were also a considerable hindrance to commerce and navigation:videthe ‘Continuation of Maitland’s History,’ at the end of volume ii., page 19. The powers of the new Act—which also protected the Bridge and its works, by making it felony to destroy them,—commenced from the21st of April, and the additional tolls of the former one ceased from the 24th of June, 1758. Whilst I am upon the subject, it will probably be as well to include all our notices of the tolls of London Bridge under one head; and therefore I may remark, that in 1767, the 7th of George III., Chapter xxxvii., an Act was passed for the completing of Blackfriars Bridge, making several improvements in the City, and for treating with Mr. Edward Neale, the Lessee of the tolls of London Bridge, for their redemption; to which latter purpose, the sum of £30,000 was appropriated. About the end of September, 1770, the Corporation proceeded to act upon this power, fifteen years and three quarters being then unexpired of the lease; but the lessee having altered his demand, on account of the tolls having increased upwards of £600 per annum since 1766, it was found, that to reimburse the City, it was essential that they should continue both upon London and Blackfriars Bridges for some years longer. Upon petition of the Corporation, therefore, in the 11th of George III., 1771, Chapter xx., an Act was passed for further continuing the tolls on London Bridge until March the 25th, 1782, when the remainder of the lease was to be bought and the tolls finally to cease. All these particulars will be found in the ‘Statutes at Large,’ volumes vii., pages 728-738, 742; viii., page 210; x., pages 306, 307; and xi., pages 154, 155; there is also considerable information upon this subject, to be found in Malcolm’s ‘Londinum Redivivum,’ volume ii., pages 392-396, derived from authentic documents. From these authorities it appears that the amount of the prescriptive tolls of London Bridge, at Midsummer, 1763, produced £1785: 10s.5d.; in 1764, £1946: 4s.1d.; in 1765, £1846: 7s.4d.; in 1766, £1878: 16s.6d.; and in 1770, £2465: 14s.3d.; estimating, therefore, the average to be about £1864, and deducting from that sum the Rent, £735; Land Tax, £180: 12s.and the expenses of collecting, £150, the lessee’s clear annual income would be £798: 15s.

“It was upon this calculation that the value of the remainder of his lease was ascertained, and the Act for continuing the tolls first devised; though on Wednesday, April, 24th, 1765, the Committee of City Lands let to Mr. Neale a lease of 21 years of the toll of carts and wheelage over London Bridge, for a fine of 2000 guineas, and the old rent of £735per annum. See the ‘Gentleman’s Magazine’ for 1765, volume xxxv., page 197.

“Notwithstanding, however, these active proceedings for the improvement of this edifice, the parties in favour of, and against, a new building ran extremely high, as you may see in the ‘Continuation of Maitland’s History,’ page 4. That several interests were to be consulted in the alteration of London Bridge, is evident, and they are particularly shewn in the counter-petitions presented to Parliament whilst the Bridge Bills were pending; as, one drawn up by the most ardent supporters of the new Bridge at Blackfriars; and another by the Rev. EdmundGibson, Rector of St. Magnus and St. Margaret, for recompense in loss of tythes, &c. to the amount of £48: 6s.2d., by taking down the houses.Videthe ‘Journals of the House of Commons,’ volume xxvii., page 574; and the ‘Continuation of Maitland’s History,’ page 11; on page 7 of which authority it is also stated, that on the 12th of June, 1755, ‘the Common-Council allowed the Comptroller of the Bridge-House £410per annum, in lieu of his customary bills, which were so much reduced by the loss that would accrue to the Bridge-House estate, in the repairing and improvement of London Bridge.’ But whilst many persons were too much interested even in the worst state of it, with all its inconvenient buildings, not to oppose their alteration, they were found to be almost equally dangerous both on the edifice and on the water. In the proceedings in Parliament concerning the alterations, Mr. Dance, the Architect, stated, that the piers were solid for ten feet above the sterlings, upon which were erected walls of three feet in thickness, forming cellars to the houses; and they having settled, the walls were much injured. In consequence, also, of the contracted passage between the houses upon the Bridge, the inhabitants experienced many inconveniences peculiar to their situation. Mr. Deputy James Hodges declared, that he‘had frequently known it happen, that coals had been thrown through the windows of the houses, out of the barges going under the Bridge; and that, as he is informed, the reason is, that the candle-lights in the houses make it dangerous in the night-time to go through the locks. That people on the river have always a glimmering light by which they can distinguish objects, unless a very thick fog. That light leaves them just when they come to shoot the locks, as far as the shadows of the houses extend; and thereby they lose the possibility of discerning the passage between the sterlings.’ See Malcolm’s ‘Londinum Redivivum,’ volume ii., page 388, and the ‘Journals of the House of Commons.’ The improvement of the passage over London Bridge was, however, much accelerated by the passing of an Act in 1755, the 28th of George II., Chapter ix., for taking away the ancient Market then held in High Street, Southwark, after Lady-day, 1756: and in Chapter xxii. of the former year, it was removed to its recent place on the site of Rochester Yard. See Bray’s ‘History of Surrey,’ volume iii., page 550; and the ‘Statutes at Large,’ volume vii., pages 579, 620. Having thus, then, given some idea of the proceedings of the Corporation before the improvement of the old London Bridge, let us now go on to consider the nature and manner of that alteration itself: and so, if you’re not asleep, Mr. Barbican, here’s your health.”

“No, truly,” replied I, wakefully endeavouring to appear as brisk as my drowsiness would let me,“Time has a wonderful effect in reconciling us to the most tiresome employments; and I doubt not but to be able to hold out through the remainder of your discourse, with the aid of this Sack-posset, which seems to be little less interminable, and heated beyond the power of cooling again. But go on, Master Barnaby, go on, Sir.”

Back to Index Next