but to continue only until the principal and interest of the borrowed
monies should be discharged. The additional tolls were, ‘for every
horse drawing any coach, chariot, hearse, berlin, landau, calash,
chaise, or chair, over the Bridge, 1_d._; for every such carriage
itself, 1_d._; and for every horse not drawing, passing across the
Bridge, 1/2_d._’ Loaded vessels also, passing under the Bridge, were
to pay 2_d._ for every 5 tons burthen; 3_d._ for ten tons; 6_d._ for
25 tons, and 1_s._ for vessels of greater capacity. In the Act for
building a Bridge at Blackfriars, 29th of George II.--1756,--Chapter
lxxxvi., it is stated, that the taking away of all tolls from that
of London, as soon as possible, would be of general advantage, they
being then leased out for 21 years at a fine of £2100, and a yearly
rent of £735; the redemption of all which was estimated at £36,000.
In 1757, the 31st of George II., Chapter xx., an aid of £15,000
was granted by Parliament towards the rebuilding of London Bridge,
because the tolls were not only difficult to collect, but were also
a considerable hindrance to commerce and navigation: _vide_ the
‘_Continuation of Maitland’s History_,’ at the end of volume ii.,
page 19. The powers of the new Act--which also protected the Bridge
and its works, by making it felony to destroy them,--commenced from
the 21st of April, and the additional tolls of the former one ceased
from the 24th of June, 1758. Whilst I am upon the subject, it will
probably be as well to include all our notices of the tolls of London
Bridge under one head; and therefore I may remark, that in 1767,
the 7th of George III., Chapter xxxvii., an Act was passed for the
completing of Blackfriars Bridge, making several improvements in the
City, and for treating with Mr. Edward Neale, the Lessee of the tolls
of London Bridge, for their redemption; to which latter purpose, the
sum of £30,000 was appropriated. About the end of September, 1770,
the Corporation proceeded to act upon this power, fifteen years and
three quarters being then unexpired of the lease; but the lessee
having altered his demand, on account of the tolls having increased
upwards of £600 per annum since 1766, it was found, that to reimburse
the City, it was essential that they should continue both upon London
and Blackfriars Bridges for some years longer. Upon petition of the
Corporation, therefore, in the 11th of George III., 1771, Chapter xx.,
an Act was passed for further continuing the tolls on London Bridge
until March the 25th, 1782, when the remainder of the lease was to be
bought and the tolls finally to cease. All these particulars will be
found in the ‘_Statutes at Large_,’ volumes vii., pages 728-738, 742;
viii., page 210; x., pages 306, 307; and xi., pages 154, 155; there
is also considerable information upon this subject, to be found in
Malcolm’s ‘_Londinum Redivivum_,’ volume ii., pages 392-396, derived
from authentic documents. From these authorities it appears that the
amount of the prescriptive tolls of London Bridge, at Midsummer, 1763,
produced £1785: 10_s._ 5_d._; in 1764, £1946: 4_s._ 1_d._; in 1765,
£1846: 7_s._ 4_d._; in 1766, £1878: 16_s._ 6_d._; and in 1770, £2465:
14_s._ 3_d._; estimating, therefore, the average to be about £1864, and
deducting from that sum the Rent, £735; Land Tax, £180: 12_s._ and the
expenses of collecting, £150, the lessee’s clear annual income would be
£798: 15_s._
“It was upon this calculation that the value of the remainder of his
lease was ascertained, and the Act for continuing the tolls first
devised; though on Wednesday, April, 24th, 1765, the Committee of City
Lands let to Mr. Neale a lease of 21 years of the toll of carts and
wheelage over London Bridge, for a fine of 2000 guineas, and the old
rent of £735 _per annum_. See the ‘_Gentleman’s Magazine_’ for 1765,
volume xxxv., page 197.
“Notwithstanding, however, these active proceedings for the improvement
of this edifice, the parties in favour of, and against, a new
building ran extremely high, as you may see in the ‘_Continuation
of Maitland’s History_,’ page 4. That several interests were to be
consulted in the alteration of London Bridge, is evident, and they are
particularly shewn in the counter-petitions presented to Parliament
whilst the Bridge Bills were pending; as, one drawn up by the most
ardent supporters of the new Bridge at Blackfriars; and another by
the Rev. Edmund Gibson, Rector of St. Magnus and St. Margaret,
for recompense in loss of tythes, &c. to the amount of £48: 6_s._
2_d._, by taking down the houses. _Vide_ the ‘_Journals of the House
of Commons_,’ volume xxvii., page 574; and the ‘_Continuation of
Maitland’s History_,’ page 11; on page 7 of which authority it is also
stated, that on the 12th of June, 1755, ‘the Common-Council allowed
the Comptroller of the Bridge-House £410 _per annum_, in lieu of his
customary bills, which were so much reduced by the loss that would
accrue to the Bridge-House estate, in the repairing and improvement
of London Bridge.’ But whilst many persons were too much interested
even in the worst state of it, with all its inconvenient buildings,
not to oppose their alteration, they were found to be almost equally
dangerous both on the edifice and on the water. In the proceedings
in Parliament concerning the alterations, Mr. Dance, the Architect,
stated, that the piers were solid for ten feet above the sterlings,
upon which were erected walls of three feet in thickness, forming
cellars to the houses; and they having settled, the walls were much
injured. In consequence, also, of the contracted passage between the
houses upon the Bridge, the inhabitants experienced many inconveniences
peculiar to their situation. Mr. Deputy James Hodges declared, that he
‘had frequently known it happen, that coals had been thrown through
the windows of the houses, out of the barges going under the Bridge;
and that, as he is informed, the reason is, that the candle-lights
in the houses make it dangerous in the night-time to go through the
locks. That people on the river have always a glimmering light by which
they can distinguish objects, unless a very thick fog. That light
leaves them just when they come to shoot the locks, as far as the
shadows of the houses extend; and thereby they lose the possibility of
discerning the passage between the sterlings.’ See Malcolm’s ‘_Londinum
Redivivum_,’ volume ii., page 388, and the ‘_Journals of the House
of Commons_.’ The improvement of the passage over London Bridge was,
however, much accelerated by the passing of an Act in 1755, the 28th of
George II., Chapter ix., for taking away the ancient Market then held
in High Street, Southwark, after Lady-day, 1756: and in Chapter xxii.
of the former year, it was removed to its recent place on the site of
Rochester Yard. See Bray’s ‘_History of Surrey_,’ volume iii., page
550; and the ‘_Statutes at Large_,’ volume vii., pages 579, 620. Having
thus, then, given some idea of the proceedings of the Corporation
before the improvement of the old London Bridge, let us now go on to
consider the nature and manner of that alteration itself: and so, if
you’re not asleep, Mr. Barbican, here’s your health.”
“No, truly,” replied I, wakefully endeavouring to appear as brisk as my
drowsiness would let me, “Time has a wonderful effect in reconciling
us to the most tiresome employments; and I doubt not but to be able to
hold out through the remainder of your discourse, with the aid of this
Sack-posset, which seems to be little less interminable, and heated
beyond the power of cooling again. But go on, Master Barnaby, go on,
Sir.”
“You are next to be informed then,” recommenced the Antiquary, “that we
are told by the Rev. John Entick, in his ‘_Continuation of Maitland’s
History_,’ page 19, that the Committee appointed to repair London
Bridge resolved to take down all the buildings and erections which
stood upon it, of every kind whatsoever: to remove the great middle
pier, and to lay the two adjoining locks into one, by turning an
entire new arch, occupying the whole space: to add the depth of the
removed houses to the width of the Bridge: and to secure both sides
by a stone wall breast-high, surmounted by lofty ballustrades. To
effect all this, it was essential to stop up the Bridge, and, at the
same time, to provide a convenient passage to Southwark; on which, it
was determined to construct a Temporary Bridge of Wood. This edifice
consisted of stout unplaned oak timbers, to the amount of £2000; and
it was erected on the sterlings in a curved form, on the Western side
of the stone one, into which it opened at each end, extending from the
water-works to about the fourth arch on the Surrey side of the river.
The timber being taken back by the builder, his labour in erecting and
removing it being compensated, and one penny per cube foot allowed him
for the use of the materials. In Harrison’s ‘_History of London_,’
page 409, it is stated, that this temporary Bridge was opened in the
month of October, 1757, when it was ‘found to be very convenient, not
only for foot-passengers, but also for horsemen and carriages;’ but
there are few notices to be found of it in the public prints of the
period. By ‘_Lloyd’s Evening Post and British Chronicle_,’ however,
a quarto newspaper of several leaves, then published every Monday,
Wednesday, and Friday, we are informed, in the paper for Wednesday,
September 21st, page 219, that, ‘to-morrow they will begin to lay
the first coat of gravel on the Temporary Bridge, so that it will be
passable by the end of this month:’ and the ‘_Public Advertiser_’
of Saturday, October 22nd, thus fixes the time when the Bridge was
actually finished. ‘Yesterday, the Committee appointed under the late
Act of Parliament for the improvement of London Bridge, met and view’d
the Temporary Bridge, and gave orders to have it open’d to-morrow
morning for foot-passengers.’ The houses on the stone edifice,
indeed, were already began to be removed; for, in the ‘_Gentleman’s
Magazine_,’ for 1757, volume xxvii., page 91, it is stated, that on
Tuesday, February 22nd, ‘three pots of money, silver and gold, of the
coin of Queen Elizabeth, were found by the workmen in pulling down the
houses on London Bridge.’ The whole of these buildings, however, were
not entirely taken away until some years after this time; for in the
‘_London Chronicle_’ of Thursday, May 17th, 1759, the name of ‘William
Herbert on London Bridge,’ occurs as one of the publishers of ‘_The
Lives of the Reformers_.’ By the same paper, too, for Thursday, August
the 14th, 1760, page 161, we are informed, that ‘in pulling down the
house called the Chapel-House, on London Bridge, there has been found
this week a very antique marble font, &c. curiously engraved, and
several ancient coins, &c. The stones used in the building of this
structure were so strongly cemented with different kinds of mortar,
and strong iron clamps, that the workmen found a most difficult task
in the demolition of it, which is not yet completed.’ The Committee
for altering London Bridge had, however, previously advertised for
persons to carry their intentions into effect, to meet at Guildhall on
the 1st of February, 1757; as may be seen in the ‘_Public Advertiser_’
of Monday, January 24th; and in the same authority for Monday, May the
2nd following, it is further stated, that Messrs. Blackden and Flight,
the contractors for taking down and clearing away the houses on London
Bridge, completed their engagement on the Saturday evening previously:
and that from the commencement of their work, there had not occurred
a single accident. The view of old London Bridge and its buildings by
Scott, to which I have already referred, furnishes us with large and
interesting prospects of several of the principal edifices which, after
this period, were removed; and I may add, that in the x.th volume of
Mr. Crowle’s Illustrated Pennant, there is an enlarged drawing of this
picture, executed by John Varley, in colours, measuring 3 feet 9-1/2
inches, by 1 foot 5-3/4; ruthlessly cut into three parts to fit the
size of the book. In these views, one of the most curious objects is a
prospect of the EASTERN EXTERIOR OF THE CHAPEL OF ST. THOMAS IN 1757;
[Illustration]
a more particular engraving of which you will find in the ‘_Gentleman’s
Magazine_,’ for 1753, volume xxiii., page 432. But few remains of
the original structure were then perceptible on the outside of this
building; though its form of a semi-hexagon might be traced, whilst the
old pier of the Bridge, the basement standing on the sterling, and some
of the pinnacles and buttresses of the Chapel, were discernible in the
centre and at the sides. The greater part of it, however, was scarcely
to be distinguished from the other houses, being covered with brickwork
or boarding; whilst the Upper Chapel was converted into apartments,
and the Lower one into the Paper Warehouse of Messrs. Gill and Wright,
having a crane attached to it to take in goods from boats. In front of
the Bridge pier, a square fish-pond was formed in the sterling, into
which the fish were carried by the tide, and then detained there by a
wire-grating placed over it: and an ancient servant of London Bridge,
now verging upon his hundredth summer, well remembers to have gone down
through the Chapel to fish in this pond.
“THE NONESUCH HOUSE ON LONDON BRIDGE IN 1756,
[Illustration]
is also represented by Scott in a very dilapidated appearance,
especially when contrasted with its splendour in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries; and, when it was taken down, was probably in
the occupation of several persons in trade, or perhaps was shut up and
allowed to fall into decay. One of the most picturesque and interesting
objects in Scott’s View, is that group of buildings formed of the
EASTERN SIDE OF THE MODERN SOUTHWARK GATE AND TOWERS,
[Illustration]
with the Second Gate beyond it; beneath which is a very perfect
representation of one of the original arches, called the Rock Lock,
and one of the old piers, whilst above is shewn the third of those
open spaces guarded with iron rails, which alone varied the street-like
character of old London Bridge, and indicated to its passengers that
they were actually crossing a river. I know but of one engraving,
Mr. Geoffrey Barbican, which gives us any view directly up the
Bridge-street; and even that is so slight, that were it not that I
am unwilling to lose any fragment relating to old London Bridge, I
should omit mentioning it altogether. You will find it, however, in
that half-sheet copper-plate, after Antonio Canaletti, published
in ‘_Bowles’s Perspectives_,’ entitled ‘_The Monument of London in
remembrance of the dreadfull Fire in 1666. Bowles delin. et sculp.
Published according to Act of Parliament, 1752. Printed for John Bowles
and Son, at the Black Horse in Cornhil._’ This prospect, then, being
taken on Fish-Street-Hill, shews the Monument on the left hand, and the
termination of the street in the first Northern gate of London Bridge,
with some indication of the houses beyond it; though the whole view has
certainly a far more spacious appearance, than this part of London ever
possessed.
“Before I close my notices of the year 1757, I have to observe, from
the printed document I have so frequently quoted, that from 1639 until
this time, ‘no addition of salary was paid to the Bridge-Masters,
nor any other allowance; but when the houses were taken down on
London Bridge, the sum of £10 per annum was ordered to be paid to
each of the Bridge-Masters, in lieu of fees, &c. arising from the
said houses. Order of the Committee made May 4, 1757. And also when
certain warehouses were taken away, and laid into the Bridge-House,
the annual sum of £6. 10_s._ was ordered to be paid in lieu of the
said warehouses to the Senior Bridge-Master. And after the Bridge was
finished, lighted, and watched, one of the Bridge-Masters was ordered
to superintend the Watchman on the said Bridge, and in the Bridge-Yard,
for which he received the sum of £12 by order of the Committee. The
whole Income of the Senior Bridge-Master at the present time (1786)
£100. 10_s._ Rental at Christmas 1785, £8280. 1_s._ 4_d._
Present Income of the Junior Bridge-Master: Salary,
&c. as before 72 0 0
In lieu of a stable 4 0 0
In lieu of fees for the houses lately standing on
London-Bridge 10 0 0
In lieu of Warehouses 0 7 6
------
Total Income £86 7 6’
------
“So terminates this very curious document, which has furnished so many
authentic particulars of the Bridge accounts at different periods,
shewing its increasing prosperity and revenues, between the times of
Edward the Fourth, and those of George the Third.
“Whilst the alteration of London Bridge was being carried rapidly into
effect, in the early part of the year 1758, an event occurred, which
not only destroyed some portion of the building itself, but also
nearly the whole of the works surrounding it. This was the fatal FIRE
ON THE TEMPORARY BRIDGE,
[Illustration]
which burst out about eleven o’clock, in the night of Tuesday, April
11th, as it is related in Entick’s ‘_Continuation of Maitland_,’
page 20; in the ‘_Gentleman’s Magazine_,’ volume xxviii., page 192;
in John Noorthouck’s ‘_History of London_,’ 1773, quarto, page 390;
and in Harrison’s ‘_History of London_,’ page 410, where there is an
engraving of the fire, probably by Wale, after a drawing by Grignion.
From these accounts, we learn that the conflagration brake out suddenly
from the two ends of the Wooden Bridge, which, having been dried by
several days of bright sunshine, appeared instantly to be in flames,
entirely preventing any approach to suppress it. Though Sir Charles
Asgill, the Lord Mayor, came very early to the spot, and remained there
almost the whole time of the fire, exerting himself exceedingly to
stop its progress, it continued raging until the next day, when the
burning ruins fell into the river; and Entick observes, that he saw
the drawbridge a-light at twelve o’clock at noon. All communication
between the City and Southwark being thus suspended, excepting so
far as it could be carried on by water, forty additional boats were
licensed by the Lord Mayor to work as ferries on the three succeeding
Sundays; though the inhabitants of Southwark suffered still greater
privation from the destruction of the troughs which conveyed water to
them over the Bridge whilst it was repairing, instead of the pipes
which had been dug up from the water-works. The navigation was also
equally interrupted by the vast timbers that fell across the arches,
and the many large stones which almost blocked up the current of the
tide; so that the locks at each end only remained entirely clear. As
it was very generally suspected that this fire was not accidental,
the Lord Mayor waited on Mr. Pitt by nine o’clock the next morning,
by whom a Proclamation, dated Whitehall, April the 12th, was issued,
containing the King’s Pardon to any of the incendiaries, excepting the
person who actually set the Bridge on Fire; with a reward of £200 for
his discovery, from the Corporation of London. From the examinations
of several persons, there appears to have been considerable grounds
for this suspicion. The Watchmen and others in the vicinity, on both
sides of the river, declared that about eleven o’clock they observed
lights in several places under the Bridge; soon after which, the whole
building burst into flames; and it was also reported, that about
ten o’clock, on the night of the fire, several persons, apparently
intoxicated, were seen coming over the Bridge, with a torch, which,
in a struggle between themselves, was flung over the boarded fence,
where the light disappeared, till all the timber beneath burst into
flames. Another account, contained in the ‘_London Chronicle, or
Universal Evening Post_,’ for April the 11th to the 13th, 1758, page
350, states, that the Watchmen actually saw ‘a person in a boat with a
candle in a lanthorn, busy about the stone pier, which is to be taken
down to lay two arches into one; and after a short time he was seen
to extinguish the candle, and the boat went off, and in a few minutes
after the Bridge burst out in flames, and continued so until there was
no wood left above the water to burn.’ The deposition, also, of Mary,
wife of John Dennis, of George Alley, Thames Street, taken before the
Lord Mayor on April 14th, stated, that about ten o’clock on the night
of the fire, she was in the Watch House belonging to Dyers’ Hall,
near London Bridge, and, looking over the hatch of the door, she saw
a lanthorn in the Chapel pier. Soon after, she observed another, and
then, losing sight of both, there presently appeared three in the same
place. At first, she supposed that some vessel was at the Bridge, but
the appearance of the second light shewed her that they were between
the wood-work at the great pier; and when the three lanthorns were
visible together, she observed that one was held up and another down
towards the timbers. These lights she imagined to proceed from workmen,
but in a short time she saw a small flame burst out on the same spot,
which was damped, and then brake out again, and, after having been
damped a second time, blazed very fiercely; upon which the deponent
went to the next wharf, and gave notice that London Bridge was on
fire. This testimony of Mrs. Dennis was confirmed by that of several
other persons, who declared that they also saw the lanthorns. The City
was indeed filled with rumours and suspicions of every description;
the lower orders accused the Watermen and Lightermen; another class
attributed the fire to the supporters of the new Bridge at Blackfriars;
whilst a third party intimated that the scheme lay still deeper, and
believed the design to have been long concerted. We know, indeed, that
the Temporary Bridge was the object of many an imprecation from the
common people, who might be tempted to fire it from the inconveniences
which they experienced upon it; as in the Winter it was so excessively
dirty, that some supposed the Committee had contrived it so to increase
the toll, by obliging all passengers to cross it in carriages: whilst
in dry weather it was no less incommoded by dust. The real origin of
the fire, however, was never discovered; and Noorthouck observes,
that as there were enough of natural causes to have produced it, so
it is not probable that persons interested in obstructing the works
or creating new ones, would have exposed themselves to detection for
such an attempt. ‘In such a mixture of stone and wood,’ says he,
‘a heap of quicklime on the sterlings, accidentally wetted by the
tide, might kindle any adjoining timbers: or, as it is usual for
servants behind coaches, with flambeaux in their hands, to clear them
by striking them on the hinder wheels, it is no forced supposition
that some thoughtless fellow might have struck his flambeau on the
pallisade of the Bridge for the same purpose; the flaming wax of which,
dropping into some joint on the outside, would have been sufficient
for such a disaster.’ A curious letter on this subject, from which I
have added many particulars to my information, will be found in the
‘_London Chronicle_’ for April the 13th to the 15th, 1758, page 359. In
consequence of this destruction, the Corporation of London addressed
the Parliament for relief; and on Friday, April 21st, a resolution
passed the House of Commons, that ‘a sum not exceeding £15,000 be
granted to his Majesty, to be applied towards the rebuilding of London
Bridge.’ This produced the Act to which I have already referred, which
made any wilful attempt to destroy the Bridge or its works, to be death
without benefit of clergy.
LONDON BRIDGE AFTER THE FIRE OF 1758
[Illustration]