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, 4_d._; For a dray with five barrels, 1_d._; For every pipe or butt, 1_d._; For a ton of any goods, 2_d._; for any thing less than a ton, 1_d._;’ 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,

[Illustration]

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 the old 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 Account } 576 9 9 By ditto in the Tenants’ hands in arrears 4271 13 3 By the General Rental this year 3299 0 5 By Fines this Year 493 4 2 By Casual Receipts 267 6 8 --------------- The whole charge. £8907 14 3 ===============

‘_Discharge._ £. _s._ _d._ ‘To Rents and Quit-Rents 49 12 8 To Taxes and Trophy-Money 209 14 3 To Weekly Bills, Expenses, and Emptions 1648 0 7 To Timber and Boards 430 18 9 To Stones, Chalk, Lime, Terrass, and Bricks 197 6 0 To Iron-work 170 0 0 To Plumber, Glazier, Painter, and Paviour 278 8 0 To Shipwrights’ Work and Cordage 61 5 0 To Benevolence to the Lord Mayor, &c. 145 6 8 To particular Payments by Order of Court 173 7 0 To Fees and Salaries 270 4 0 To Costs at Audit and Lady Fair 296 2 0 To Money due to balance 4977 9 4 -------------- £8907 14 3’ ==============

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 formerly considered, 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 loads Of 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_,’ 10-1/4 inches by 12, scene taken from York-buildings Water-Works; twelve verses beneath.

“A copper-plate, 7-1/2 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 River of Thames, Jan^{ry.} 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, 173-9/40_.’ 9-1/2 inches by 12-1/4.

“A copper-plate 5 inches by 8-1/4, 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 Liquid THAMES now frozen o’er! That lately SHIPS of mighty Burden bore. Here You may PRINT your Name, tho’ cannot Write, ’Cause numb’d with Cold: ’Tis done with great Delight. And lay it by; That AGES yet to come May see what THINGS upon the ICE were 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 y^e River Thames, now frozen over, Jan^y 31, 1739-40_;’ 7-1/2 inches by 12-1/2.

‘Amidst y^e arts y^t on y^e Thames appear, To tell y^e Wonders of this frozen Year, Sculpture claims Prior place, since y^t alone Preserves y^e Image when y^e Prospect’s gone.’

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

“A Copper-plate printed in red, 9-1/2 inches by 13-1/4, 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 Decem^r 1739-40, ended Febru^{ry} the 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 to be 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 account } 2669 9 6

In the hands of the Chamberlain of } London, paid to him by Webb’s } 600 0 0 securities } --------------3269 9 6

In Tenants’ hands in arrears at Lady-day, 1752 2413 18 9-1/2 In arrear for fines then 70 6 11 Rental General this year, including Quit Rents 3843 8 7 Fines set this year 662 0 0 ----------------- Whole charge £10259 3 9-1/2 =================

£ _s._ _d._ ‘Rents and Quit-Rents paid 52 9 3 Taxes and Trophy-money: sums collected for the } accoutrements and maintenance of the Militia } 194 11 4-1/2 Expenses 351 17 1-1/2 Emptions of Timber 471 7 6 Stone, Chalk, Terrass 340 4 4 Iron-work 158 18 0 --------------- 970 9 10 Mason, Painter, Glazier, Carpenter, &c. 1904 13 9 Shipwrights’ work and Cordage 104 18 0 Benevolence 232 13 4

## Particular Payments by Order 1254 7 3-3/4

Fees and Salaries 287 4 5 Costs at Audit and Lady Fair 160 11 0 ---------------- £5513 15 4-3/4 ================

£ _s._ _d._ ‘Amount of the preceding Charge 10259 3 9-1/2 Deduct the foregoing expenses 5513 15 4-3/4 ---------------- Remainder 4745 8 4-3/4 Whereof discharged by desperate arrears and } 89 0 0 remitted } ---------------- Remaining due to the Bridge-house, at Lady-day,} 1753 } 4656 8 4-3/4

_And thus disposed of._

Arrears of Fines and Quit-rents 2483 15 1-3/4 Arrears and Fines 70 6 11 In the hands of the Bridge-Masters 1502 5 5 In the hands of the Chamberlain of London 600 0 0 ---------------- £4656 7 5-3/4’ ================

“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 the subject, 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 the Chamberlain 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 projecting farther 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; _vide_ the ‘_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, Feb^y. 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 has been 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’s _Survey_;’ 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, representing LONDON BRIDGE BEFORE THE ALTERATION OF 1758.

[Illustration]

“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, who _now_ have 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 6_d._ 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: 6_s._, 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: 19_s._ 10_d._; and that the estimate of the houses then out upon lease, with others which must be bought, came to £8940: 11_s._ 7_d._; 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 Lock 16 -- 5 9 8 10 Second Lock from Surrey Shore 14 6 9 -- 10 4 Rock Lock 22 3 3 -- 14 -- Fourth Lock from Surrey Shore 14 -- 7 -- 15 7 Fifth Lock from Surrey Shore 18 9 10 3 18 7 Roger Lock 17 7 8 7 15 11 Draw Lock 18 1 8 10 15 11 Nonesuch Lock 25 1 9 2 18 3 Pedlar’s Lock 17 8 5 9 18 6 Gutt Lock 21 2 5 6 17 8 Long Entry Lock 18 11 3 5 12 8 Chapel Lock 17 -- 2 4 22 -- St. Mary’s Lock 24 6 8 9 20 -- Little Lock 22 3 9 -- 17 4 King’s Lock 23 9 6 9 20 7 Shore Lock 19 9 6 11 21 10 Mill Lock 20 3 4 6 21 10 Mill Lock 19 4 7 9 14 1 Mill Lock 10 10 4 -- 13 10 Mill Lock 6 7 6 1 10 10’

“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 was granted 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.,