chapter xxix

., volume 1, page 242; where it is said that ‘Men of trades, and sellers of wares in this City, have oftentimes,’--since the days of Fitz Stephen--‘changed their places as they have found to their best advantage. For, whereas, Mercers and Haberdashers used then to keep their shops in West-Cheap, of later time they held them on London Bridge, where, partly, they do yet remain.’

“One would expect to find frequent references to London Bridge, in the works of our ancient Dramatists, yet my memory supplies me with but very few instances; though I may observe, that Shakspeare has an allusion to the heads of traitors erected over the gate of this edifice, in Act iii. Scene 2, of ‘_King Richard the Third_,’ where _Catesby_ says to _Hastings_:

‘The Princes both make high account of you,-- For they account his head upon the Bridge. [_Aside._’

Another passage, referring to this custom, is also to be found in the second Act of George Wilkins’s ‘_Miseries of Inforced Marriage_,’ first printed in quarto, 1607, and inserted in Dodsley’s ‘_Select Collection of Old Plays_,’ London, 1780, duodecimo, volume v., page 27; where _Ilford_ says to _Wentloe_, ‘S’foot! you chittiface, that looks worse than a collier through a wooden window, an ape afraid of a whip, or a knave’s head, shook seven years in the weather on London Bridge;--do you catechise me?’ In Act v., Scene 1, of Shakerley Marmion’s ‘_Antiquary_,’ originally printed in 1641, quarto, and published in the preceding collection, volume x., page 97, is likewise the following passage, the idea of which appears to be taken from the noisy situation of the houses on the Old Bridge: ‘That man that trusts a woman with a privacy, and hopes for silence, may as well expect it at the fall of a bridge.’ But ‘rare Ben Jonson,’ in his ‘_Staple of News_,’ Act ii.,

## Scene 1, has a reference to those frequent, and almost useless, repairs

of this edifice, of which we have recounted so many; since he makes _Shunfield_ say of _Old Pennyboy_,

‘He minds A courtesy no more than London Bridge, What Arch was mended last.’

“In William Gifford’s ‘_Works of Ben Jonson_,’ London, 1816, octavo, volume v., page 215, he has rather a violent note upon this passage, in which he says, ‘Two hundred years have nearly elapsed since this was written, and the observation still holds. This pernicious structure has wasted more money in perpetual repairs, than would have sufficed to build a dozen safe and commodious Bridges; and cost the lives, perhaps, of as many thousand people. This may seem little to those whom it concerns, but there is blood on the City, and a heavy account is before them. Had an Alderman or a turtle been lost there, the nuisance would have been long since removed.’ As I have already referred to the heads of the Regicides, &c. standing over the Bridge-gate at the time of the Great Fire, I may observe, that ‘glorious John Dryden,’ in his ‘_Annus Mirabilis_,’ stanza 223, has this solemn mention of them, with a fine allusion to the infernal hymns chanted on a Witches’ sabbath:

‘The ghosts of traitors from the Bridge descend, With bold fanatic spectres to rejoice; About the fire into a dance they bend, And sing their sabbath-notes with feeble voice.’

See ‘_The Works of John Dryden_,’ edited by Walter Scott, Esq., London, 1808, octavo, volume ix., pages 144, 186, _Note_ xlv.

“In recording these analecta of Old London Bridge, I may also take the opportunity of observing to you, that from about July to September, you may see almost every ‘jutty, frieze, and coigne of ’vantage, made the pendent bed and procreant cradle’ of the small yellow flowers and pointed leaves of the _Sisymbrium Irio_, or London Rocket. It probably made its first appearance on this edifice soon after the Great Fire of 1666, since the famous Botanist, Robert Morison, who lived at the period, has a singular dialogue upon it in his rare and curious ‘_Præludia Botanica_,’ printed in 1669; where he states, that in 1667-68 it sprang up in such abundance from the City ruins, that in many places it might have been mown like corn, though London Bridge is not specially referred to. A coloured engraving of the plant, with the foregoing particulars, will be found in William Curtis’s ‘_Flora Londinensis_,’ London, 1767, folio. Fasciculus vi., plate 48, marked 311.

“I have but few other fragments to mention; and the first of them relates to the very extensive use which is made of London Bridge as a thoroughfare. What it must have been formerly, when it was the only passage across the Thames, we know not; but after the introduction of a toll, the rent at which I have told you it was farmed, affords some general idea of its importance. In July, 1811, however, when the Southwark Bridge was projected, the Directors of that Company attended one whole day, to ascertain the probable amount of passengers, &c. over London Bridge; when it was found that 89,640 persons on foot, 769 waggons, 2924 carts and drays, 1240 coaches, 485 gigs and taxed carts, and 764 horses, went across it.

“But, to descend from the roadway to the foundation, I shall next remark, that the natural soil of the Thames, where the present London Bridge is erected, consists chiefly of black gravel, for about 2 feet in depth, below which it is gravel with red sand: and this we learn from a table of ‘_Borings of the River betwixt London and Blackfriars’ Bridges, performed betwixt the 19th of May and the 16th of June, 1800, by John Foulds and assistants_;’ printed in the ‘_Third Report_’ of the Port of London Committee, ‘_Appendix_,’ A. 2, page 39.

“Another point, connected with this part of the edifice, concerning which I am very desirous of giving some little information, is the etymology of the word Sterling, or perhaps Starling, according to the general pronunciation; yet what can I presume to say upon it, when we find that, in the meaning of a defence to bridges, it is unnoticed in the learned glossaries of Somner, Minsheu, Stephen Skinner, Sir Henry Spelman, John Jacob Hoffman, Du Fresne, Edward Phillips, Francis Junius, Doctors Johnson and Jamieson, and Archdeacon Nares? In the last edition of ‘_Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary_,’ indeed, by the Rev. H. J. Todd, this signification is inserted, though the Editor candidly adds, ‘I know not the etymology;’ and, therefore, it seems alike futile to search after, and presumptuous to conjecture it; howbeit, take what hints I have met with upon the subject. And firstly, in a small tract entitled ‘_A short Review of the several Pamphlets and Schemes that have been offered to the Public, in relation to the building of a Bridge at Westminster_,’ by John James, of Greenwich; London, 1736, octavo, at page 16, we find the following conjecture. ‘It is very probable, that the _Stallings_,--as I choose to call them, our workmen after the Normans, having, perhaps, taken the name from the French word, _créche_, which signifies a manger, or crib in a stall,--may have been much enlarged since the first building of the Bridge.’ For my own part, however, I am greatly inclined to think that the term is of Northern origin, not very much corrupted, since the Danish word _Staer_, and the German, _Starr_, or _Starck_, a defence, evidently appear to be the root of it; and Christian Ludwig, in his ‘_Dictionary of English, German, and French_,’ Leipsic, 1763, quarto, volume i., page 840, translates the word Starling by _Stahr_, explaining it to be ‘a spur to the pillar of a stone bridge, for dividing the water.’ It is common, in most Dictionaries, to consider the word Sterling as referring only to that authorized coin, originally manufactured by the Flemings or Easterlings, whose name it has made immortal. Even in this sense, however, it is still connected with the history of London Bridge; since in Thomas Hearne’s ‘_Collection of Curious Discourses_,’ edit. London, 1771, octavo, volume ii., article xliii., page 316, is a paper on the derivation of the expression Sterling Money, written by that eminent Antiquary Arthur Agarde, containing a singular anecdote on this subject; which, however, I shall give from the original manuscript in the Cottonian collection, marked ‘_Faustina_,’ E V., article 10, folio 52 a. ‘I suppose,’ says he, ‘the name came by meanes the Easterlinges from vs, being Germaynes, brought vp in the mynes of syluer and copper there, were vsed here in Englaunde for the reducynge and refyninge the diuersyte of coynes into a perfecte Standarde. As in the beginning of the Quenes Mat^s raigne, they were brought hyther by Alderman Lodge, (w^{th} whom I was famylyarlye acquaynted,) by her Mat^s order, for the refining of o^r base coignes: And this he toulde me, That the mooste of them in meltinge fell sycke to deathe w^{th} the sauoure, so as they were advised to drynke in a dead man’s skull for theyre recure. Whereupon he, w^{th} others who had thoversyght of that worke, procured a warrant from the Counsaile to take of the heades vppon London Bridge, and make cuppes thereof, whereof they dranke and founde some reliefe, althoughe the mooste of them dyed.’ This wild and romantic circumstance probably took place about the year 1560 or 1561, when Queen Elizabeth had all the base coin in the Realm brought to the Tower and melted there; when it is supposed that the fumes of the arsenic which it contained induced the illness of the foreigners: see Ruding’s ‘_Annals of the Coinage_,’ which I have already quoted, volume iii., page 38, _note_. When, to these particulars, I have added, that you will find a view of part of Old London Bridge with the houses, in the sixth plate of Hogarth’s ‘_Marriage à la Mode_,’ my reminiscences of this edifice are concluded to the end of the eighteenth century.”

“Well, sir, well,” said I, fetching a long breath, which sounded a good deal like a yawn, “I know what you would say,--another libation of Sack, to the memory of Old London Bridge; in the which I more readily join you, seeing that your history of it is rapidly closing, and that we are something like the Merchant Abudah, in Ridley’s Tales of the Genii, when he first saw the distant light after his wanderings in the murky caverns of Tasgi: though, indeed, Master Barnaby, I should ask you, on your veracity, if we really are coming to a conclusion, or am I only deceiving myself in thinking so?”

“No, truly,” answered the Antiquary, “I have but little more to speak, and you but little to hear; for, excepting the usual accidents of London Bridge, which I shall omit to notice, the great employment of the last quarter of a century has been coming to the resolution of building a new one, and considering the best means of doing it. Whilst, however, I give you my hearty thanks for your attention and assistance during upwards of eight hundred years of our Bridge-history, I would only remind you of the great mass of information which we have collected upon it, much of which was either never before brought together, or adapted to it.”

“Why, really,” said I, with that kind of half agreement with which men admit a truth not discovered by themselves, “there is something in your remark; and he who next writes the history of London Bridge will have some difficulty in finding new materials for it, at least in any ordinary authorities. But then, you know, others, who are not acquainted with the mass of matter relating to it, may accost us with the old Italian saying of, ‘Where the Devil did you get all this rubbish from?’”

“Out upon them for unthankful knaves, then,” replied Master Postern; “let us console ourselves with the thought that virtue rewards itself; and so, as I see that you are again set in a position either for listening or sleeping, I shall, for the last time, take up my tale.” To this remark I nodded assent, and the old Gentleman thus went on.

“The present century, Mr. Barbican, commenced with some active exertions for the immediate erection of a new London Bridge, upon the most extensive and elaborate scale; of the numerous schemes for which, however, I can give you little more than a catalogue, referring you for full particulars to various parts of ‘_The Third Report from the Select Committee upon the Improvement of the Port of London_,’ 1800, Folio, and the large volume of engraved ‘_Plans and Drawings_’ belonging to it. It is stated in sections i. ii. of the former authority, pages 4-6, that the great, continual, and ineffectual expenses of the old Bridge, its irremediable insecurity, and the dangers of its navigation, had induced the Committee to collect information and provide designs for the building of a new one. In this edifice it was proposed to construct a free passage for vessels not exceeding 200 tons’ burthen, to that part of the River between London and Blackfriars’ Bridges; where it was supposed, upon examination, that they would always have a depth of from 12 to 15 feet above low-water, formed and maintained at only a slight expense after the shoals had been cleared away. To ascertain the number of ships which might be expected to use this passage, the Committee procured an account of the Foreign and Coasting Trade of London for 1799, with the measurements of their masts, by which it appeared that an Arch of 65 feet above high-water mark, at medium Spring-Tides, would allow vessels of 200 tons to pass it with their top-masts struck; and that of Coasters under that burthen the number was 7248. Such, then, being the general design, the Artists, who proposed sending in drawings, were directed

## particularly to consider a convenient passage over the Bridge, with as

little acclivity as possible, as well as its access to the principal avenues of London; to the attainment of these objects with the least interference with private property; to the embellishment of the Metropolis of London; and to the length of time, and expense of the whole work. The designs presented were of three different characters: being, firstly, for a Bridge with a lofty Centre Arch, and a descending causeway leading to some principal street on each side of the River; secondly, for a similar Bridge, having its approaches at right angles, and parallel to the shores, to be raised on Arches on a new embankment in front of the old wharfs, &c.; and, thirdly, for two Parallel Bridges, enclosing a space sufficient for so many vessels as would probably pass in one tide, their passage being through corresponding drawbridges, one of which should always remain lowered for the use of passengers. See the ‘_Third Report_,’ already cited, page 7; and having mentioned these particulars, let us now take a glance at some of the plans themselves.

“1. Mr. Ralph Dodd, Engineer, proposed the erection of a stone Bridge of six Arches, 60 feet wide, and a centre one of iron 300 feet span, and about 100 high, to admit shipping up the River; calculating that the space between London and Blackfriars’ Bridges contained 3,353,180 square feet, and would accommodate nearly 1000 vessels. As this Bridge was to be erected on the old foundations, and even to be built in such a manner over the original structure as not to interfere with the passage across it, it was to consist of two separate tiers, somewhat in the manner of an aqueduct, excepting at the Centre Arch; the lower range consisting of small elliptical Arches lying horizontally, and the upper,--which was to be about 100 feet high,--of segmental Arches. The whole was to be adorned with an entablature and ballustrade, statues, sculptures on the lower Piers, and Corinthian columns above them; and its declivity to extend from the upper corner of Monument Yard to St. Thomas’s Street, Southwark, at an inclination of about 2-1/2 inches in a yard. A pictorial elevation and ground-plan of this design, with its relative bearing to the old Bridge, are to be seen in Plates ii. and vii. of the Plans and Drawings belonging to the Third of the Port of London Reports. Vide also the ‘_Report_’ itself, section 3, page 7, and ‘_Appendix_,’ B. 1, page 49.

“This Plan, however, having led Mr. Dodd attentively to survey the foundations of old London Bridge, he became convinced of their insecurity and of its impracticability, and referring to it only as a specimen of its peculiar character, he sent the Committee another design (2) for a highly decorated Stone Bridge, which he proposed to be erected about 40 yards above the ancient one, on the East side of Fishmongers’ Hall on the North, and near Pepper-Alley on the South Shore. It was to consist of five elliptical Arches, the centre being 160 feet span and 80 feet high, the succeeding two 140 feet span and 75 in height, and the outer two 120 feet span, and 70 in height; the structure was to be raised 90 feet from high-water, and occupy 210 feet of the river, leaving 840 for water-way. The whole was to be embellished with statues, columns, &c.; and the estimate for building it, including the avenues, &c. &c. was £350,000 for a Centre Arch of 80 feet; £332,000 for one of 70 feet; and £314,000 for one of 60 feet; the erection to occupy five years. An Elevation and Ground-plan of Mr. Dodd’s second design are in the volume of Plates already referred to, Plate iii.; and farther particulars will be found in the ‘_Report_,’ page 7, _Appendix_ B. 1, page 51. These plans are also farther illustrated by a pamphlet published in 1799, entitled ‘_Letters to a Merchant_;’ for which see the ‘_Gentleman’s Magazine_,’ volume lxix.,

## part ii., November, page 965.

“3. The next design, upon the principle of a large Centre Arch, was by Mr. Samuel Wyatt, constructed wholly of cast-iron, with granite piers, and the bulk of the superstructure filled up with chalk. This Architect, however, sent only a model, without drawings, plans, or estimates; see the ‘_Report_,’ page 8.

“4. The design furnished by Mr. Robert Mylne, proposed that a Bridge of 5 Arches, the centre being 60 feet above high-water mark, and 150 feet wide, should be directed towards the Monument, which was to form the centre of a square, and terminate in a new road into Kent on the South. The particulars of this plan also propose a considerable improvement in all the streets connected with the Bridge, as may be seen in the ‘_Third Report_,’ _Appendix_ B. 2, pages 51-56; but it has neither estimates nor drawings.

“Mr. Thomas Wilson, Architect of the celebrated Bridge at Bishop’s Wearmouth, near Sunderland, furnished a design (5) for one of cast-iron, with stone piers, consisting of three large segmental Arches, the centre one being 240 feet span, and 65 high, and the two sides of 220 feet: the breadth of the road above was to have been 45 feet; and his estimate for the iron-work alone amounted to £55,061. See the ‘_Third Report_,’ pages 9 and 17, and _Appendix_ C. page 76. A large engraving of the Elevation and Sections is also contained in the folio of Plans, &c. Plate viii. In section 4, article 9, page 14 of the ‘_Report_,’ the Committee appears to have given a preference to this design, with the side-approaches and improvements of the shores by other Architects; it being supposed that an ascent of about 2-1/2 inches in a yard would have been sufficient for such a Centre Arch.

“The next three designs (6, 7, and 8,) were also confined to Iron Bridges, and were furnished by Messrs. Thomas Telford, Surveyor, and James Douglass, Engineer, of which only one was published. Their first idea was to diminish the ascent by increasing the length of the Bridge on the Surrey side, and by placing the largest arch nearest the City shore; its dimensions being 160 feet span, and 65 rise. Their estimate, including some extensive improvements along the banks of the River, amounted to £988,154; but this design was particularly objectionable, both on account of its unsymmetrical appearance, and the inconvenience of its navigation; and in their subsequent plans, therefore, they placed the great arch in the centre, without any other material alteration. The estimate for this was £1,041,654; but their chief design (9) was constructed on the principle of inclined planes gradually descending at the sides on to the wharfs at each end of the Bridge, and rounded for the convenience of carriages. The edifice itself was to be of iron, having an ascent of 2-1/4 inches in a yard, and was to consist of five arches decorated with statues, trophies, &c., commemorative of the Naval Triumphs of England, which were to give it the name of ‘Victory Bridge.’ The principal Arch was to be 180 feet span, and 65 high; and the lateral approaches were to be formed upon wharfs gained out of the River by embankments, and supported also by iron Arches, having warehouses beneath them. As a protection to the Bridge and its adjoining buildings, it was proposed that all the Arches, but the centre, should be closed at night by a chain; that in the spandrils of the great Arch, watch-houses should be constructed; and that the communications with the wharfs should be cut off by gates. The site of this Bridge was proposed to be the very line which the New one is now taking, and the estimate for it was £1,054,804: see the ‘_Third Report_,’ pages 8, 9, 17, _Appendix_ B. 3, pages 57-73; and Plates ix.-xii. in the folio volume of Illustrations. The Report states that this plan would prove, in some degree, the most speedy and economical, and that it would interfere with existing buildings less than the former; though it is admitted that the turns to the ascent would be both inconvenient and dangerous.

“Mr. George Dance, Architect to the City, and Professor of Architecture in the Royal Academy, was the only person who at this time furnished the Port of London Committee with a design (10) for parallel Bridges with Drawbridges for the passage of vessels; and a single glance at the fac-similes of his drawings in Plates xiv-xix. of the folio of Plans, &c., will probably be quite convincing as to their inconvenience. The best idea of this peculiar design is, however, to be gained from a large coloured bird’s-eye view of the perfect edifice, drawn by the Architect, and engraven in aqua-tinta by Thomas Daniell, dedicated to Lord Hawkesbury, and published November 10th, 1800; a copy of which is in volume xiii. of Mr. Crowle’s Illustrated Pennant in the British Museum. It was intended to consist of two low level bridges, one on each side of the present; containing six elliptical Arches, having a drawbridge of two leaves in the centre of each, flanked by four round towers containing the mechanism for working them, and signal-staffs for flags, or reflecting lamps, to announce which of the passages was open. The space between the Bridges was to be 300 feet wide, furnished with mooring-chains, &c. &c., for securing the ships in tiers, so as not to interrupt the passage of smaller vessels. Each end of the edifice was to be formed into a grand semi-elliptical area, surrounding the Monument on the London side; and the estimate for executing the whole was £1,279,714; though Mr. Dance also sent in two more contracted plans, one amounting to £968,677, and the other to £807,537. In speaking of his Double Bridge, I should observe that he was led to the form of it by the great expense, steepness, deformity, and inconvenience attendant on an Arch high enough for the passage of vessels, which he explained in a Drawing marked Plate xiii. in the folio volume of Plans, &c. The inclination of Ludgate-Hill he found to be the steepest which he could adopt for an Arch of 60 feet, and that would have extended the approaches from East Cheap to beyond Union Street. The principal objections made to this plan were the great expense and delay connected with it; that the shipping moored in the basin would be exposed to a strong tide, with some danger; and that whenever their number was considerable, it would be difficult to provide for their uninterrupted passage, as well as for that of smaller vessels. For all these particulars, see the ‘_Third Report_,’ pages 9, 10, 17; and the _Appendix_ D. pages 77-81.

“Such, then, were the designs laid before the House of Commons; and the Committee concluded its labour for the year 1800, by recommending the rebuilding of London Bridge of iron, with a centre Arch of at least 65 feet above high-water. It was advised, also, that the old edifice should remain till the new one were completed; the place for erecting which was opposite the West end of St. Saviour’s Church, as being the narrowest part of the River, and having buildings of the least value upon its banks, whilst the Northern end should form a street to the Royal Exchange. The removal of the Water-works was also recommended; and the funds for carrying these works into effect were proposed to be raised, firstly, by a Bridge-toll on horses and carriages, which, it was calculated, in 20 years would discharge a debt of £100,000; secondly, by a sum charged upon the Bridge-House Estates equal to their annual expenditure, which being taken at £4200, in 25 years would amount to £105,000; and, thirdly, £100,000 more were to be raised by an additional debt on the Orphans’ Fund: this sum of £305,000 being considered as more than sufficient for erecting Mr. Wilson’s Bridge, and making a proper compensation to the Water-works.

“Soon after the appearance of these resolutions, but too late for publication in the Committee’s Report, two other designs were presented, an account of which was printed in a _Supplement_ to it. The first of these, see _Appendix_ H. pages 143-147, consisted of a design by Mr. James Black, Civil-Engineer, (11) for a Bridge of Granite, with three elliptical Arches; the centre being 230 feet span and 65 high, and the sides having a span of 220 feet each: the inclination was to be 2 inches in a yard, and the estimate, £294,089: 6_s._ Two folding engravings, consisting of a Profile and Sections, will be found in Plates xxii.-xxiii. of the Supplementary Illustrations of the folio volume of Drawings.

“The other design (12) was by Messrs. Telford and Douglass,--see _Appendix_ I., pages 148, 149,--for a cast-iron Bridge of a single semi-circular Arch 65 feet high, and 600 feet in the clear; the roadway being 45 feet wide in the centre, and increasing to 90 feet at each granite abutment, to strengthen the foundation, afford a greater space, and communicate better with the inclined planes. The estimate was £262,289, and a very large engraving of it by Lowry, comprehending an Elevation and Sectional Ground-plan, with another outline of the ribs and framing, form Plates xxiv. and xxv. of the Supplemental folio Illustrations.

“In consequence of this last design, the attention of the Committee was directed to the consideration of a metal Bridge with one Arch; and on their meeting in 1801, a series of Questions was transmitted with this last plan to Dr. Nevil Maskelyne, Astronomer Royal; the Rev. A. Robertson, Savilian Professor of Geometry at Oxford; John Playfair, Professor of Mathematics at Edinburgh; John Robeson, Professor of Natural Philosophy at Edinburgh; Dr. Milner; Dr. Charles Hutton, of the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich; Mr. Atwood of Knightsbridge; Colonel Twiss, of Woolwich; Mr. William Jessop, of Newark; the late Messrs. John Rennie and James Watt; Messrs. John Southern, of Soho, Birmingham; William Reynolds, of Coalbrook-Dale; John Wilkinson, of Bradley in Staffordshire; Charles Bage, of Shrewsbury; and General Samuel Bentham, Inspector General of the Naval Works of the Admiralty; whose answers for an Appendix to the ‘_Report of the Select Committee_’ for 1801: Nos. 1-16, pages 9-83. For the Questions themselves, see pages 4-7 of the _Report_; they were 21 in number, and inquired the nature of pressure and gravity in such a Bridge? whether it would be strengthened by increasing towards the abutments? how the weight should be distributed to make it uniformly strong? what weight it would bear? and what force would overturn it at any particular part? concerning the form of the Arch, and how to improve it? the importance of models and experiments? the means of keeping ships in the centre of the stream? the proportionate strength of the abutments? the possibility of constructing centering for it, without obstructing the ordinary navigation? the nature, power, dimensions, and method of casting the metal and cement to be employed? how the design might be improved and rendered more durable? and whether the estimates equalled or exceeded the execution of the works?

“It was probably the very great diversity of sentiment prevailing in the answers to these inquiries, which caused this design to be ultimately abandoned; for though its practicability, magnificence, and excellence, were universally admitted, yet there were so many doubts as to the actual strength and cohesion of cast-iron, the power of the crown of the Arch, the possibility of making the structure as one self-dependent frame, and of fortifying the haunches without overloading them, that few of the returns agreed with each other throughout. Drs. Maskelyne, Hutton, and Mr. Rennie, recommended an elliptical arch; Professors Robertson, Playfair, and Robeson, a circular one: some considered increasing the width of the roadway at each end of great importance; others proposed making it still wider; Professor Robeson thought it not very essential; and Professors Playfair and Robertson conceived that it took away from the strength of the whole. Dr. Hutton, Mr. Robeson, and Mr. Watt, supposed that the gravity of the Bridge would of itself be so great, that any additional weight would be trifling; and that the mast of a ship striking it, would break only that particular part, without damaging the rest, though repeated shocks might in time destroy it. For its construction, however, cast-iron of the soft-grey kind, or rather gun-metal, was generally preferred, as well as liquid iron for a cement; which some practical persons considered as not adapted for the purpose, and only advised the whole to be well fitted together. The papers of Col. Twiss and Mr. Watt recommended that the Bridge should consist of three arches; and with that of Mr. Southern was sent a drawing,--Plate xxvi. in the folio of Plans, &c.--of his method of more securely constructing the arch and frame-work.

“The return sent in by General, afterwards Sir Samuel, Bentham, see ‘_Appendix_,’ No. 16, page 76-83, instead of considering the lofty Bridge of Messrs. Telford and Douglass, was occupied by detailing a new design, (13) engraven by Basire, on Plate xxvii., in the folio of Illustrations. Its principal characteristic was an enlargement in the centre, into a sexangular form of more than twice its ordinary breadth, having in the middle an octagonal basin, spacious enough for a ship to lie in, without touching a Drawbridge constructed in each side; which Drawbridges were to be 30 feet wide, and so contrived, that either should be sufficient for a temporary passage; and the vessel having passed through one, it was to be let down and fixed, before the other was opened. The edifice itself was to be of granite, on a rise of an inch in a yard, and to have eight segmental arches, with the Drawbridge-passage in the centre, guarded by four low round towers for the machinery: the estimate was £210,411.

“The ‘_Appendix_,’ No. 17, pages 83-85, contains an additional paper from Mr. Wilson, giving a farther account of his design, and of a model which he had constructed of it; and concluding with an estimate of £163,496 for the whole work.

“An interval of several years now occurs before we meet with any farther proceedings concerning the erection of a New London Bridge; which I shall fill up with some notices of the engraved views of the present edifice, and a few memoranda of the other modern Bridges built over the Thames. The prospects of this part of London are extremely numerous; since it has not only frequently been delineated in separate prints, but is also to be found in almost every volume which treats of our metropolitan history. Perhaps some of the best representations are those drawn by Joseph Farrington, R. A., about the latter end of the last century, and engraven by F. C. Stadler to imitate the originals. One of these is a large folio, and the other will be found in Boydell’s ‘_History of the River Thames_,’ London, 1794, folio, volume ii., plate 16, page 226. A small neat print of London Bridge is also contained in Samuel Ireland’s ‘_Picturesque Views of the River Thames_,’ London, 1792, octavo, volume ii., plate 24, page 221: but etchings of an infinitely superior class, by William Bernard Cooke, are in his beautiful work of ‘_The Thames_,’ London, 1811, octavo, volume ii., plates 16 and 18. Two of the most recent views of this edifice were published in Charles Heath’s ‘_Views of London_,’ 1825, octavo, both taken on the Eastern side, by W. Westall and P. Dewint. A perspective elevation of the Bridge, shewing the obliquity of its arches, and a curious section of the River bed, also on the Eastern side, surveyed by Mr. Ralph Dodd, is inserted in the folio volume of ‘_Plans, &c., belonging to the Third Report of the Port of London Committee_,’ Plate vii.: and the same Engineer has likewise given a large and interesting print of the ‘_South Pier of the Great Arch of London Bridge_,’ exhibiting the two chasms in it, the iron clamps which hold it together, and a section of the water-way. See Plate vi. of the same volume, and the _Report_ itself, ‘_Appendix_,’ B. 1, page 52.* A similar representation was furnished by Mr. Mylne, and is marked ‘_Drawing_, C.’ on Plate i. of the same illustrations: it consists of a profile through the middle of the Great Arch, taken at still low-water in 1767, and shows the excavations above and below Bridge, made by the rushing of the current. The remainder of this Plate is occupied by Tables of Soundings, Measurements, &c. at various points of the River near this place; and ‘_A Section of the Locks and construction of the Piers of London Bridge as ascertained in taking up of the Pier under the Great Arch in 1762_.’ See Drawing A. Of this I have already given several particulars, and in Mr. Mylne’s paper belonging to it, printed in the ‘_Third Report_,’ ‘_Appendix_,’ A. 1, page 26, he has a curious account of taking up the Piers, and its consequent effects. He was at that time occupied in erecting Blackfriars’ Bridge, and a lighterman, named Parsons, employed under him, having contracted for removing the Pier, consulted him as to the best means of doing so. Having examined the building, he advised his procuring some powerful screws, used in raising the heavy wheels of the Water-works, which were fastened to the heads of the soundest and securest piles. They first drew out a few from the outer row, and then some of the original in the interior, when all the stone-work which was worth preserving being removed, and the remainder thrown into the River, the cross-ties of timber and iron were loosened, and the whole Pier soon fell into ruins. It was immediately carried away by the impetuosity of the fall; for the other piles being removed, the middle of the work was borne off so suddenly as scarcely to allow of its construction being examined and measured. The Arch being thus opened, the danger at first anticipated by Mr. Mylne soon followed; for the accumulated volume of water drawn from all the other arches acted so violently upon the River bed, as greatly to increase the depth and force of the tide; whilst the corrosion spreading to the old Piers of the new Arch, attacked the stability of the Sterlings beneath them: these defences being only 6 feet broad under the haunches of the Arch, and so close to the Piers, that there was neither room to make any substantial repairs, nor sufficient space for a pile-engine to act. It was in this difficulty that Mr. Smeaton advised the City-Gates to be thrown into the River, for transferring the deep water to the lower side of the Bridge; an idea which he seems to have taken from Henri Gautier’s statement concerning the Bridge of St. Esprit. Mr. Mylne remarks, however, that the whole of this advice not being followed, a farther quantity of 2000 tons of rubble-stone was recommended for the construction of a new bed. And now, to come back to my starting-place, and conclude my notices of views of this edifice, let me remark that if you would see it in all its interest, with the water rushing through its Locks, and the building itself surmounted and bounded by the Monument and the Spire of St. Magnus’ Church, then the very spot for such a prospect is the EASTERN SIDE OF LONDON BRIDGE.

[Illustration]

“I come next to perform my promise of giving some account of the other modern Bridges of London, and shall begin by reminding you that the proposal for those at Westminster and Blackfriars was met by a steady and violent opposition. This objection to new Bridges appears, however, to have existed so early as the year 1671, when it was first designed to build one over the Thames at Putney; upon the argument of loss to the Thames watermen, to the tolls of London Bridge, and to the City of London, as natural consequences. You will find all the particulars of this subject contained in the Hon. Anchitell Grey’s ‘_Debates of the House of Commons, from the year 1667 to the year 1694_,’ London 1763, octavo, volume i., pages 416-417: and it is singular, that in this discussion the very places at which Bridges are now erected, are mentioned as the most improper for such edifices. The kind of prophetic objection which runs through the whole debate has rendered it a very amusing article for modern reading; and an ingenious, but amplified, paraphrase of it was inserted in the ‘_European Magazine_,’ for September, 1825, _New Series_, page 20-27. But even in the notes to the Debates themselves, it is stated that ‘Experience has at length convinced us of the weakness and fallacy of the objections raised against another Bridge, though private interest, it may be presumed, was the principal motive: since, not to mention the many Bridges that have been raised higher up the River, this Metropolis now boasts,’--1763--‘without any of the inconveniences, not only a Bridge at Putney, but one at Westminster, where use and magnificence go hand in hand; to which is adding a third at Blackfriars.’ The first of these modern structures was the VAUXHALL BRIDGE, which was remarkable for having had, in consequence of disputes, four Architects, Mr. Ralph Dodd, Sir Samuel Bentham, Mr. Rennie, and lastly, Mr. James Walker, who carried the design into effect. It consists of nine arches of cast-iron, of 78 feet span, and 26 above high-water at spring-tides; the first stone was laid by Lord Dundas, as proxy for the Prince Regent, about 3 o’clock, on Thursday, May 9th, 1811; it was opened in July, 1816; and its cost amounted to upwards of £300,000. The Strand, or WATERLOO BRIDGE, was partly projected by Mr. George Dodd, but wholly brought to perfection by Mr. Rennie: it has 9 elliptical arches of 120 feet span, and 36 feet above high-water at spring-tides; the first stone was laid on the Surrey side of the River close to Cuper’s Bridge, by the Chairman, Henry Swann, Esq., and the Directors of the Company, about 4 o’clock in the afternoon, of Friday, October 11th, 1811; the building amounted to about £400,000; and it was opened with great splendour by a procession of the Prince Regent, and the Dukes of York and Wellington, about 3 o’clock on Wednesday, June 18th, 1817, the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo, when it received its name. The last was the SOUTHWARK BRIDGE, of which the first stone was laid by the late Admiral Lord Keith, at 12 o’clock on Tuesday, May 23rd, 1815, the Bill for erecting it having passed May 6th, 1811. It consists of three immense Arches of cast-iron, the centre being 240 feet in span, and those at the sides 210, and about 42 feet above the highest spring-tides: the whole work was estimated at £400,000; the Architect was the late Mr. Rennie; and the edifice was opened by lamp-light on Wednesday, March 24th, 1819, as the clock of St. Paul’s Cathedral tolled midnight.

“I come now, Mr. Barbican, to speak of the last Fair held on the River Thames, by London Bridge, in the beginning of 1814. The Frost commenced with a thick fog, on the evening of the preceding December 27th, which lasted for several days; followed by heavier falls of snow than any within the memory of man, and continuing for almost two days, with very short intervals. During nearly four weeks’ frost, the wind blew, with little intermission, from the North and North-East; and the cold was intense. The River was covered with vast pieces of floating ice, bearing piles of snow, moving slowly with the tide, or collected into masses wherever their progress was obstructed. A thaw, which continued from January 26th to the 29th, floated so many of these down the River, that the space between London and Blackfriars’ Bridges was almost impassable; and the severe Frost, which recommenced the day following, and lasted to February 5th, speedily united the whole into one immoveable sheet of ice. Even on Sunday, the 30th, some persons ventured to walk over it at different parts; and on Tuesday, February 1st, the usual entries were formed by the unemployed watermen;

## particularly between Blackfriars’ Bridge and Three Cranes’ Wharf,

notices being written against the streets leading to them, announcing a safe footway over the River, by the toll on which, many of them received £6 per day. The standing amusements of an English Frost Fair now commenced, and many cheerfully paid to see and partake of that upon the frozen Thames, which at any other time they would not have deigned to look upon. Beside the roughly-formed paths paved with ashes, leading from shore to shore, there was a street of tents, called the ‘City Road,’ in which gay flags, inviting signs, music, and dancing, evinced what excellent entertainment was to be found there. That ancient wonder, peculiar to the place, the roasting of a small sheep over a fire, was exhibited to many a sixpenny audience, whilst the provision itself, under the name of ‘Lapland Mutton,’ sold for one shilling a slice! Several Printing-Presses were also erected, to furnish memorials of the Frost, in old verse, and new prose; and as I have already given specimens of the ancient Thames’ printing, let us not pass over this last Great Frost without recording a few of its papers.

‘You that walk here, and do design to tell Your children’s children what this year befell, Come buy this print, and then it will be seen, That such a year as this hath seldom been.’

‘OMNIPOTENT PRESS! Tyrant Winter has enchained the noblest torrent that flows to the main; but Summer will return and set the captive free. So may tyranny for a time ‘freeze the genial current of the soul;’ but a Free Press, like the great source of light and heat, will, ere long, dissolve the tyranny of the mightiest. Greatest of Arts! what do we not owe to thee? The knowledge which directs industry; the liberty which encourages it; the security which protects it. And of Industry how precious are the fruits! Glowing and hardy temperaments which defy the vicissitudes of seasons, and comfortable homes which make you regret not the gloom that is abroad. But for Industry, but for Printing, you might now have been content, like the Russ and Laplander, to bury yourselves under that snow, over which you now tread with mirth and glee. Printed on the River Thames, and in commemoration of a Great Fair held upon it on the 31st of January, 1814, when it was completely frozen over, from shore to shore. The Frost commenced 27th December, 1813; was accompanied by a thick fog that lasted eight days; and after the fog came a heavy fall of snow, that prevented all communication with the Northern and Western parts of the country, for several days.’

“Another bill, on the same subject, ran thus:--

‘Friends! now is your time to support the freedom of the Press! Can the Press have greater liberty? Here you find it working in the middle of the Thames; and if you encourage us by buying our impressions, we will keep it going in the true spirit of liberty, during the Frost.’

“One of the last papers printed on the River was as follows:--

‘To Madam Tabitha Thaw.

‘Dear Dissolving Dame,

‘FATHER FROST and SISTER SNOW have _Bonyed_ my borders, formed an _idol of ice_ upon my bosom, and all the LADS of LONDON come to make merry: now, as you love mischief, treat the multitude with a few CRACKS by a sudden visit, and obtain the prayers of the poor upon both banks. _Given at my own Press_, the 5th Feb. 1814.

THOMAS THAMES.’

“During the obstruction of this Frost, the tide did not appear to rise above half its usual height; and about the Bridge the ice lay in enormous blocks, where their occasional splitting very much endangered the edifice, and caused several accidents; one of which forms the subject of a highly spirited etching in Mr. J. T. Smith’s ‘_Antiquities of London_,’ page 24, representing ‘AN ARCH OF LONDON BRIDGE,

[Illustration]

_as it appeared during the Great Frost, Drawn February 5th, 1814_.’ This is a North-East view of the Prince’s Lock, or the 6th from the City-end; and is particularly curious for shewing at once the modern casing of the present Bridge, and the ancient edifice beneath it. In the evening of Saturday, the very day when this view was taken, Frost-Fair was visited by rain and a sudden thaw, when the ice cracked and floated in several places. On the following day, about 2 o’clock, the tide began to flow with great rapidity; the immense masses of ice were broken up in all directions, and the River was covered with wrecks; until returning industry and the rushing current removed every vestige of the last Frost-Fair. The features of this British Carnival are in the memories of the greater part of the present generation; though, if it were otherwise, the representations of it are few and scarce, and generally very inferior.

“It was, probably, the damage done to the Bridge by this Frost, which again called the public attention to its effectual improvement, by widening its water-way; and in November, 1814, Messrs. George Dance, William Chapman, Daniel Alexander, and James Mountague, addressed a Report to a Committee of the Corporation, for substituting four large Arches for eight of the present. Their estimate amounted to £92,000, supposing the Piers to be strong enough to bear the increased weight; which were to be examined by Coffer-dams, each Coffer-dam amounting to about £20,000, additional; when, if the edifice should be found too weak, the expense would be considerably increased. By direction of the Corporation, one of the Piers was opened, when Messrs. Chapman, and Ralph and James Walker, were nearly satisfied as to the practicability of the alteration; though Mr. Rennie’s confidence in the structure was rather decreased. These particulars are given at length in ‘_An Abstract of the Proceedings and Evidence relative to London Bridge, taken from the Reports of a select Committee of the House of Commons, the Journals of the Common-Council, and the Committee for letting the Bridge-House Estates_,’ London, 1819, folio, pages 68-107: and also in a Report of a Committee of the House of Commons, printed in ‘_Reports and Evidences relative to London Bridge_,’ 1820, 1821, folio, pages 49-52. This Report candidly states the uncertainty and expense of the whole plan, and earnestly recommends the erection of a new Bridge, with not more than five Arches, as near as possible to the site of the present: adding, from the evidence of numerous witnesses, the universal agreement on the decided advantages to be gained from a free current of water, and that the Water-works should certainly be removed, whether the Bridge were altered or rebuilt. The annual rental of the Bridge-House Estates, amounting to £25,800, and the property and stock of the Trustees, £112,000 more, were conceived to be sufficient for the proposed works; or that the remainder might be raised without levying a toll upon foot-passengers.

“This Report is dated May 25th, 1821, and its strenuous reccommendation of a new building was a natural result of the inquiries of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, specially appointed for that purpose; the Minutes of which are printed in the ‘_Reports and Evidences_’ already cited, pages 7-47. This examination of witnesses took place in consequence of several Petitions from water-men, owners of barges, &c. relative to the dangerous navigation of London Bridge, Mr. Heathfield being agent for the Petitioners; and as the nature of their complaint is generally known, I shall be very brief in my account of it. They stated, then, that the craft, &c. on the River having increased one-third within the last 20 years, the water-way at London Bridge was no longer sufficient for them; since the larger loaded barges, in general, went through the Great Arch, which they could pass only for about 6 hours out of 24, or the first 3 after high-water. On this account, there was considerable danger at the flood-tide, because the loaded barges, then crowding to get through, were all equally impelled to the same point; and thus very frequently damaged, sunk, or locked together in the Arch. Another cause of great danger was the getting on a Sterling, when the water had covered it only enough to prevent its form being visible; for if a barge passed over it but a few feet, or even inches, and stopped upon not finding sufficient water, if it got on the edge, as the water sank, it fell over; or, if in the middle, was detained there until the next tide. This evil, too, was stated to be continually increasing, from the constant repairs of the Sterlings, which considerably extended their size; whilst much of the chalk, &c. being daily washed over, served only to fill up the Arches. For barges, however, not exceeding 25 tons’ burthen, St. Mary’s and the Draw-Locks were both occasionally used at high-water; but, besides their extreme narrowness,--neither of them being more than 16 feet between the Sterlings,--they are both subject to peculiar and contrary sets of tides; whilst the Sterling of the former has so great a projection, that a barge striking it would probably go stern foremost into the 4th Lock, where it would be detained the rest of the tide, and considerably damaged, or sunk. Omitting the numerous accidents at London Bridge recounted in these answers, I shall observe only, that some of the Lightermen, &c. estimated their losses by it at £100 yearly; and that Mr. Anthony Nicholl, a Wharfinger at Dowgate, stated, that, having, in April, 1820, lost goods there to the amount of £1000, he could not insure property passing through the Bridge, under a premium of 5 per cent.

“Whilst this evidence, however, seemed decisive as to the great importance of a new edifice, the Corporation of London appears to have been much more inclined to alter the old one; since, on February 22nd, 1821, the Committee for letting the Bridge-House Estates was ordered to attend the Select Committee of the House of Commons, during their deliberations respecting London Bridge: and on the 22nd of the ensuing March, the Select Bridge Committee was also directed to consider of the Report on altering the structure, as proposed by Mr. Dance, &c. The result of the latter inquiry was given in a Report dated April 11th, contained in the tract of Documents already cited, page 78; and it stated that, on March 30th, a conference having been held with the Earl of Liverpool and the Right Hon. Nicholas Vansittart, the Committee, &c. were informed that His Majesty’s Ministers would not sanction the appropriation of the public revenue towards the erection of a new Bridge; though it was considered that tolls might be levied for that purpose. From this interview, the Committee was induced to recommend the alteration of the old London Bridge, as all the proposed funds for building a new one were either objectionable or wholly insufficient. The Corporation of London having agreed to this return, it was delivered to the Select Committee of the House of Commons, where evidence was being received on the part of the Corporation; as contained in the tract of Documents before referred to, _Appendix_ No. 1., pages 53-129; the proceedings lasting from Wednesday, March 23rd, 1821, to Monday, May 14th, and the examinations on the part of the City being conducted by Mr. Randle Jackson. This evidence was divided into two principal parts; the first being intended to disprove the allegations of the petitioners respecting the inconveniences; and the second, that the proposed alteration of the Bridge would be both a practicable and sufficient improvement. To ascertain whether the centre had undergone any recent or continued settlement, since the great alteration of 1758, Mr. Francis Giles surveyed it on March 6th, 1821, and found, by a spirit-level on the cornice of the Great Arch, that the Western side inclined only 2-1/2 inches below a right line of 83 feet, whilst the variation on the East was no more than 2-3/8 inches; and even this depression was supposed to have taken place soon after the striking of the new Arch, as there appeared neither crevices in the joints, nor fractures in the stones, as indicating any later sinking. The Sterlings and Piles were stated to be in generally good repair, though the former had been increased from 4 to 5 feet each at the Great Arch, to make them of a more easy sweep, and form a smoother passage for the current. To guard against any increase of depth there, which might render the Piles insecure, it was stated, that monthly soundings were taken and registered, and large stones occasionally dropped in, which were found to remain; but it was not the custom to throw them in large quantities, though the Sterlings of St. Mary’s and the 4th and 5th Locks had recently received about 153 tons of chalk.

“These particulars were chiefly communicated by James Mountague, Esq., Superintendant of the Works at London Bridge, and Mr. John Kitching, the Tide-Carpenter; but the most interesting and curious evidence, which was intended to shew the nature and amount of the Bridge-House funds, was given by Robert Finch Newman, Esq., Comptroller of the Bridge-House Estates; and embraced a great variety of information relating to the history, property, and officers belonging to this edifice. From his answers, it appeared, that the real and personal property of London Bridge produced an income of £30,503: 7_s._ 8_d._; out of which the rental of the Bridge-House Estates amounted, in 1819, to £23,990: 5_s._, and in 1820 to £25,805: 13_s._ 2_d._ This rental consisted of ‘Proper Rents,’ or those arising from premises within the City; ‘Foreign Rents,’ derived from places without London; ‘Quit Rents,’ which have been already explained; and ‘Lands Purchased,’ or possessions formerly bought of the Crown. Before the Reformation, we have seen that some of these were subject to the expense of certain religious services; and the ancient estate at Stratford, producing a rent of £409: 4_s._, is still charged with the support of St. Michael’s and Peg’s Hole Bridges there, on which £2,467: 8_s._ 11_d._, have been laid out since 1724; and £50 per annum are paid as a composition for repairing the causeway. It was farther added, that the City was indebted to the Bridge-House the sums of £36,383: 4_s._ 6_d._ in cash, and £9,000 in 3 per cent. Consols; whilst its capital consisted of

4 per Cent. Consolidated Bank Annuities, vested in the names of the Chamberlain, Town-Clerk, and Comptroller of the Bridge-House Estates. £54,000 0 0

3 per Cent. Consolidated Bank Annuities 17,257 1 6

3 per Cent. ditto, in the name of the Accountant General of the Court of Chancery, to be vested in Freehold property 3,860 12 6

Exchequer Bills, and Cash, for the same purpose. 850 17 1

Cash in the hands of the Chamberlain of London, as Banker to the Bridge-House Estates, and the Bridge Masters, about 4,200 0 0

“The next branch of the evidence was to shew the practicability and advantage of the proposed alterations, contrasted with the erection of a new Bridge; Mr. Rennie’s estimate for which amounted to £450,000, including £20,000 for a temporary passage, as it was to be erected on the old site, with nearly the present approaches. The crown of the principal Arch of this structure was intended to be 29 feet 6 inches over high-water mark, being 14 feet 3 inches more than the present; and the quantity of stone for it was calculated at 70,000 tons. The principal argument for altering the old edifice was, that the Piers might be examined at low-water, at a trifling cost, without Coffer-dams, and in about a month’s time; on account of the apparent strength of the fabric as discovered in an excavation made in May, 1821, on the City side of the North Pier of the Great Arch, about 14 feet from the Western front. There is a lithographic print of this opening, by Mr. James Walker; and particular descriptions of its construction are contained with it, in the tract of ‘_Reports and Evidences_,’ as given by that Engineer, Mr. William Chapman, and Mr. Thomas Piper, Stone-Mason to the City, see pages 87, 102, 111, and 127; but with its formation, as examined in this very year by Mr. Knight, we are already perfectly well acquainted. As it was found, however, as he also stated, that, in all probability, none of the Piers rested solely on Piles, they were considered capable of bearing a much greater weight than the present Bridge, though that was proposed to be lightened in the alteration; and as the Piers of the Great Arch supported the superstructure when the depth under it was 24 feet at low-water, they were believed to be perfectly equal to carrying it with a depth of 10, to which the River-bed was proposed to be levelled. Mr. Chapman also stated, that though a new Bridge would admit of greater perfection, yet that the intended alteration might answer the purpose, and the whole work be rendered secure, if the Sterlings were kept in repair; though he thought they might be both lowered and contracted. And should this alteration prove even insufficient as to the water-way, he considered that two new Arches might be formed at the North end, giving an addition of 43 feet, for the expense of about £20,000 each. This alteration was expected to reduce the annual repairs of the Bridge, from one half to two-thirds of its former amount; and abate the quantity of the fall of water from 5 feet to 3 inches: though the velocity of the stream above Bridge would be thereby increased, since a greater quantity of water would have to run through in the same time; and as the tide would flow higher, and ebb lower, the inclination of the River’s surface would likewise be increased. This inclination amounts at present to 6 inches in a mile, or 1 foot between Westminster and London Bridges, at low-water; and estimating it at double after the alterations, it was calculated by Messrs. James Walker, and Stephen Leach, Superintendant of Improvements in the Thames Navigation, that its effect would extend as far as Kew Bridge. They also supposed that the water would ebb sooner from the wharfs, and thus leave their barges less time afloat; from all which circumstances, it seemed important that the River should be artificially deepened, the shoals cleared, and the whole navigation gradually prepared to meet the effects of the enlargement of London Bridge.

“The last part of the evidence was intended to prove, that the increased water-way would be more than sufficient to satisfy the petitioners; but though the owners of the Coal-craft were contented with this, some of the Wharfingers still objected to the short time their vessels could work, from the rapid flow of the tide; and contended that the remaining six Arches on the North would collect ice enough to block up the River above the Bridge. From these examinations, the Bridge-Committee was convinced of the superior advantage of erecting a New Bridge, as expressed to the Corporation in a Report dated April 12th, 1821; though, from the difficulty of raising funds for it, unassisted by Parliament, on June 2nd, another Report was made, stating that a Select Committee having attended the House of Commons, it had adduced evidence to prove the stability of the Bridge; that the inconveniences complained of were exaggerated; and that the proposed alteration was both sufficient and practicable: notwithstanding which, however, the House of Commons’ Committee, in its Report of May 25th, recommended a Bill for a new Bridge to be presented early in the next Session.

“These proceedings were followed by a survey of the Thames, from the present Bridge to Old Swan-Stairs, made by appointment of the City, about August, 1822, and taken at low-water mark, when the depth was found to vary from 9 feet to 33-1/2; the greatest being at 84 feet from the Sterlings, and the least at 290. The measurements were taken by a line divided into spaces of 12 feet by pieces of red cloth, passing between two others; one being extended from the Old Swan entirely across the River, and the second from the Sterling-points at the Great Arch.

“To procure designs for a new Bridge, on June 15th, 1822, the Corporation advertised premiums of £250, £150, and £100, for the first, second, and third in merit, which produced about an hundred drawings; their inspection being referred, November 15th, by the Bridge-House Committee, to John Nash, John Soane, Robert Smirke, and William Mountague, Esqrs.: whose answers were given in three Reports in December, 1822, and the following January, and the premiums awarded to Messrs. Fowler, Borer, and Busby; though one of the designs of the late Mr. Rennie was that ultimately adopted. The rebuilding of London Bridge was then officially referred to Parliament by order of the Corporation, February 19th, 1823, when a Select Committee, formed from that for managing the Bridge-House Estates, provided a Bill; though the measure was still a matter of dispute, from the doubts existing of its effects on the navigation, the expense which it would incur, and on the designs already presented.

“On July 4th, however, 1823,--the 4th year of George IV.