be actually no putting into a passion, “I am aware how much these
observations serve to lengthen and interrupt our history; but still
they are vastly important to its illustration. ‘Our life,’ says an
interesting and romantic author, ‘cannot be like an Arabian manuscript,
all flowers and gold,’ and neither can history be composed only of the
facts which naturally belong to it. There must be various incidental
notices, seemingly unconnected with it, which are at last found to
combine with the story, and to render it much more intelligible; and
if ever, Mr. Barbican, you publish these Chronicles of London Bridge,
make my words both your defence and your apology. The fact is, I really
am half unwilling to proceed to the close of the alterations of this
edifice, because we have subsequently so few interesting particulars on
record concerning it; and other events,--excepting the usual unhappy
accidents beneath its Arches,--are almost entirely wanting. At the
time of the formation of the Great Arch, it appears that the wooden
Draw-Bridge was first taken away,--though it had then long ceased to
be used,--and the present Stone Arch, entitled the Draw-Lock, about 30
feet in width, or 16 feet between the Sterlings, was erected instead of
it. This we learn from the ‘_Public Ledger_,’ of Monday, January 28th,
1760, which states ‘that the centre of the new Draw-Lock Arch of London
Bridge is struck; so that there is now a free passage for boats, &c.’
In this very Lock, however, only a few months afterwards, an accident
occurred which might have almost proved fatal to the Bridge itself; and
it is thus related in the ‘_Public Advertiser_’ of Monday, December
29th, 1760. ‘On Tuesday, a large old French ship, that was coming
through the Draw-Lock at London Bridge, to be broken up above Bridge,
stuck in the Lock, and still continues there, having done considerable
damage to the same; and it is thought that she cannot now be got out,
but must be broken up where she now lies.’ The same paper for Friday,
January 9th, 1761, states, that ‘yesterday the workmen, who have been
employed, for this fortnight past, in breaking up the large French ship
that stuck in the Draw-Lock at London Bridge, as she was going up the
river, endeavoured, on the strong flow of the tide, to get her through
the Bridge, but could not effect it. This ship, it appears, was but 18
inches wider than the Lock.’ At length, however, in the same paper for
Friday, January 30th, it was announced that ‘Yesterday the watermen
cleared the Draw-Lock at London Bridge, of the large French ship that
stuck there some weeks ago.’
“The destruction of part of St. Magnus’ Church, by most authors
attributed to the year 1759, but which actually took place in 1760,
was the cause of a further improvement of the North-East end of London
Bridge; by the opening of that arched passage beneath the Church
Steeple, which the wisdom of Sir Christopher Wren had foreseen, and
provided for, fifty-five years before. This destruction then, took
place by a fire, which brake out between 9 and 10 o’clock, in the
morning of Friday, April 18th, at the house of Messrs. Barrow and
Reynolds, Oilmen, in Thames street, adjoining to the Church. It
consumed seven dwelling-houses, all the warehouses on Fresh Wharf,
with a considerable quantity of goods contained in them, and the
roof of the Church itself; which, falling in, very much damaged the
pews and altar-piece. The organ, the excellence of which we have
already noticed, was taken away, but was considered to have received
very serious injury in the removal. The whole of this destruction
was estimated at £40,000; and it was occasioned, says Entick, in his
‘_Continuation of Maitland’s History_,’ page 29, by the neglect of a
servant, who was appointed to watch the boiling of some inflammatory
substances, and who left his charge on the fire, whilst he went to
see the famous Earl Ferrers return from his trial and condemnation.
Before he could get back, the whole shop was in flames. Some of these
particulars you will also find recorded in the ‘_Public Advertiser_’
for Saturday, April 19th, 1760; and in the ‘_Gentleman’s Magazine_’ for
that year, volume xxx., page 199. Before this fire, the main body of
St. Magnus’ Church extended to the tower, which was originally about
equal with the houses on London Bridge; but when they were taken away,
the West end so greatly interfered with the foot-path, that it was
proposed to take down so much of the building as enclosed the tower
on each side, and to form a passage under the steeple by arches. This
plan, however, does not appear to have been proposed, until after the
Church had been repaired; because the first notice of it which we
meet with, is in the ‘_Public Advertiser_’ of Monday, September 29th,
1760, in the following terms. ‘The workmen have paved a great part of
the foot-path on the lower side of London Bridge; and the tower part
of St. Magnus’ Church has been lately surveyed, in order to make some
alteration in the lower part thereof, conducive to the convenience
of the passage of the Bridge.’ The danger which was supposed to be
attendant upon its alteration, was probably the cause of delay in its
execution; but the surveyor who was employed, had the ingenuity to
discover, that Sir Christopher, conceiving that such a convenience must
be required at some future period, had contrived the arch on which
the steeple stood, of such strength, that it was essential only to
clear away the intermediate space to perfect the alteration. Still the
work proceeded but slowly, since the next notice of it is contained
in the ‘_Public Advertiser_’ for Wednesday, August 4th, 1762. ‘The
North and West Porticoes adjoining to the tower of St. Magnus’ Church
at London Bridge, are taking down, in order to form a passage to and
from that building, through the spacious arch upon which the steeple
is built; the South Portico is also down, which fronts the Bridge,
and makes a very agreeable appearance; and the taking down of the
West Portico, to compleat that useful work, is in great forwardness.’
It was yet, however, almost another twelvemonth before this
improvement was perfected, as we learn by the following notice, from
the last mentioned paper of Thursday, June 30th, 1763. ‘On Saturday
last,--25th,--the foot-passage under the arch of St. Magnus’ steeple
was opened; which, besides the convenience for foot-passengers, makes
a very pretty appearance. A vestry, built of stone, is to be erected
in the Church-yard, to front the new Toll-house, just erected at the
corner of London Bridge.’ Before we finally part with St. Magnus’
Church, I must not forget to state, that Malcolm, in his ‘_Londinum
Redivivum_,’ volume iv., page 31, observes,--though without citing his
authority,--that ‘in October, 1713, the Rector received an anonymous
letter, which discovered a design of setting fire to London Bridge, for
the purpose of plundering the inhabitants. The greatest precautions
were adopted in consequence, and nothing uncommon occurred.’ I find,
however, no notice of this letter in any of the periodical prints of
the time.
“In the mean time, the alterations of the Bridge itself were in
continual progression; though all the buildings were not even yet
removed, and the Temporary Bridge was still standing. The ‘_Public
Advertiser_’ for Thursday, December 25th, 1760, states that ‘notice
has been given to the people on the West side of London Bridge, to
quit their premises by the 25th of March next.’ In the same paper,
for Tuesday, February 3rd, 1761, an advertisement announces, that
six houses on the West side of London Bridge, from the North end of
the Temporary Bridge to the Toll House, were to be sold by auction
at Guildhall, to be put up at £156: and in the paper for Wednesday,
February 11th, we are informed that those houses were begun to be
pulled down. In your notices, Mr. Barbican, of the tokens issued
by the tradesmen of old London Bridge, you mentioned two who lived
at the sign of the Bear, at the Bridge-foot, which, perhaps, was
the building referred to in the following passage contained in the
‘_Public Advertiser_’ of Saturday, December 26th, 1761. ‘Thursday last,
the workmen employed in pulling down the Bear Tavern at the foot of
London Bridge, found several pieces of gold and silver coin of Queen
Elizabeth, and other monies to a considerable value.’”
“By no means unlikely,” replied I, “and I may also add, that at this
period was probably removed the house of the original manufacturer
of Walkden’s Ink-powder, with which we are still familiar. We learn
the situation of his dwelling by his Shop-bill, an impression of
which is in the possession of Mr. Upcott of the London Institution,
engraven on a copper plate, measuring 6-1/4 inches by 4-1/8. Within
a double line, and beneath an ornamented compartment containing a
Bell, is inscribed:--‘_Richard Walkden, Stationer, at y^e Bell on
London Bridge, near S^t Magnus Church, Makes and Sells all Sorts
of Accomptants and Shopkeepers Books, y^e greatest Variety of
Paper-Hangings for Rooms, and all other Sorts of Stationary Wares,
Wholesale or Retail at the Lowest Prices. Where may be had Bibles,
Common Prayers, Testaments, Psalters, &c. N. B. He is also the Maker
of the Fine British Ink-Powder, for making Black Writing Ink, w^{ch}
is Universally Allowed to Excell all other whatsoever, yet made, and
is of the greatest Convenience for Country Shopkeepers to make their
own Ink, to Sell again, as Likewise for Merchants and Sea Captains who
goe or Send Ventures to Sea, to whom great allowance will be given
with printed Directions of its Excellence and Use. At the same place
may be had y^e best Liquid Ink, in its Greatest Perfection. Customers
may Depend on being Serv’d as well by Letter as if present._’ I must
also take this opportunity of mentioning another Shop-bill connected
with this edifice, communicated to me by Henry Smedley, Esq.; and
consisting of a copper-plate executed about the latter end of the
17th century, representing a circle surrounded by fruit and foliage,
having two Cupids standing at the upper corners, and containing in the
centre, two palm-branches, enclosing a Sceptre surmounted by a Heart.
Round the whole are suspended lancets, trepans, saws, &c., and beneath
the device is engraven, ‘_Samvell Grover, at the Sceptre and heart on
London bridge, who maketh all sorts of Chirugeons Instruments, the best
sort of Razors, pen-knives, Scissers, and Lancetts: there are also the
best Hoans, and fine Fish Skin Cases_.’ You may remember, Mr. Postern,
that one of my former Shop Bills was that of James Brooke, Stationer,
‘near the Square on London Bridge,’ This Square was formed in the first
opening on the Bridge, above the 8th Arch from the North end, called
St. Mary’s Lock. It was surrounded by massive iron rails, and Mr. J. T.
Smith, in his ‘_Antiquities of London_,’ page 26, states, that when the
houses were taken down, the iron-work was bought by several inhabitants
of the Parish of St. Botolph, Bishopsgate, and placed upon the dwarf
wall on the Eastern side of the Church yard, where it is yet to be
seen.”
“I have again to offer you my thanks,” answered the Antiquary, “for
your very curious and _recherché_ illustrations; and we will now close
up the year 1761 by stating, that we are informed by the ‘_Continuation
of Maitland’s History_,’ page 35, that on Monday, February 2nd, the
tide flowed so short up the Thames, that at high-water there was not
sufficient to cover the Sterlings; so that several persons waded over,
both above, and a little below, the Bridge at low water. We may, I
think, fairly consider the history of _Old_ London Bridge terminated
at this place; since the alterations we have recently described, made
its features almost such as we now behold them. I should not forget,
however, that one of the last pieces of poetry connected with it,
was written by the famous Anne Killegrew, celebrated by Dryden, and
entitled ‘_On my Aunt, Mrs. A. K. Drown’d under London Bridge in the
Queen’s Bardge: Anno 1641_.’ You will find it printed in Southey’s
‘_Specimens of the later English Poets_,’ London, 1807, Octavo, volume
i., page 15.
“As we are informed by the ‘_Public Advertiser_’ of Monday, June 7th,
1762, that the workmen had then begun to lay down the iron pipes, for
the conveyance of water from London Bridge into the Borough, we may
conclude that the stone-work of the edifice was then perfect; although
from those pipes leaking between the stones, there arose a report that
the new Bridge was falling to pieces, which was, some years after, the
origin of a particular inquiry.
“The destructive effects of some very high tides which happened early
in 1763, are the principal events connected with London Bridge at that
period; as the ‘_Continuation of Maitland’s History_,’ page 48, informs
us that, on Tuesday, February 15th, the tide rose to such a height in
the River, that many parts of Westminster were overflowed; and, below
London Bridge, the inhabitants of Tooley Street were obliged to keep
to their upper rooms. In the ‘_Public Advertiser_’ of the following
Thursday, it is stated that the damage done to goods in warehouses
adjoining the Thames, was estimated at upwards of £20,000; the great
land-floods having occasioned the water to rise higher than it had ever
been known. That the Bridge itself was in some danger, may be inferred
from the same paper of Wednesday, February 23rd, where it is recorded
that ‘three engines are at work driving piles, for the security of the
large Arch of London Bridge; some of the small ones, it is said, will
be entirely stopt, to prevent the water from ebbing away too fast.’
It was probably this circumstance that was alluded to by Mylne, the
Architect, in his Report to the Corporation of London, concerning a new
grant to the Water-works, made in June, 1767; and which you will find
in the ‘_Public Advertiser_’ for Friday, July 17th. He there states,
that in the beginning of 1763, the first winter after taking up the
Pier from under the Great Arch, when the other Arches were stopped up
with ice, the whole force of the tide rushed so violently through it,
as to tear up the bed of the river, and the Sterlings, being deprived
of their support, gave way, and left the foundation-piles entirely
exposed to the water. He adds, too, that only to repair this damage,
the sum of £6800 was expended by the Bridge Committee. Mr. Smeaton’s
answers on the best manner of enlarging and improving London Bridge,
delivered on March 18th, 1763, may also be seen in the paper last
referred to, for Monday, July 20th, 1767, and subsequent numbers. In
the same journal of Tuesday, April 15th, 1763, it had been related,
that ‘the water in the Thames rose so high on Sunday, that many houses
on the Surrey shore were two or three feet deep in water; and at
Lambeth, the long walk by the Bishop’s Palace was overflowed, and boats
were employed in the town to carry people from house to house.’
“Although the famous winter of 1766-67 continued with remarkable
severity until January 16th, we find but few particulars of it
connected with London Bridge; excepting that the ‘_Gazetteer and New
Daily Advertiser_’ for Monday, January 12th, states that several of its
Arches were then stopped by the ice, and some accidents, which happened
there, are recorded in the subsequent numbers of the same paper. In a
notice of the proceedings of a Court of Common Council on Wednesday,
July 30th, 1766, also contained in the ‘_Gazetteer_’ of the following
Friday, it is stated that the Committee for conducting the recent
repairs of London Bridge, made the last report of their works; in which
they set forth, that they had executed the several trusts reposed in
them by the Acts of Parliament which I have recited to you, and at
the same time rendered an account of the money then owing for the
alterations. Of these it is observed by John Gwynn, in his ‘_London and
Westminster Improved_,’ London, 1766, quarto, page 120, _Note_, that
they amounted to nearly £100,000, beside the materials of the houses,
many of which were new. He adds, too, that the Bridge was rendered
worse than it had been, by the exceeding rapidity of the stream under
the Great Arch; and condemns both the appearance and effects of the
Water-works. Of the remaining debt, then, the Court ordered that £3000
in the Chamberlain’s hands should be immediately paid; and that bonds
should be given for the remainder, not exceeding £12,000, redeemable by
the City, and bearing interest at 4 per cent. The Committee was then
dissolved, and the concerns of London Bridge were again restored to
that belonging to the Bridge-House Estates.
“There seems, however, to have been but little satisfaction given by
the extensive alterations and improvements of this edifice; for, at
the very same Court, a petition for relief was presented from the
Watermen’s Company, stating that the navigation through the Great Arch
of London Bridge was very dangerous, from the two adjoining Arches
on the North side being stopped up; and vessels being caught in the
eddy it occasioned, received considerable damage before they could
escape, which had sometimes occasioned the loss of life. It was soon
discovered, too, that the iron pipes belonging to the Water-works,
laid across the Bridge, had greatly injured the stone-work and crowns
of the Arches, by frequent leaking; whilst the piers of the Great
Arch were weakened, and the current of the tide was altered, by a new
Arch being granted to the Water-works. These particulars are noticed
in the ‘_Gazetteer_’ of Thursday, October 23rd, 1766; whilst in
the ‘_Public Advertiser_’ for Tuesday, November 4th, and the former
paper for Saturday, November 22nd, a report is mentioned of entirely
removing both the Bridge and Water-works, and greatly improving the
whole of their vicinity. In the ‘_Gazetteer_,’ too, for Friday and
Monday, December 5th and 8th, the dirty and dusty state of the Bridge
is mentioned as arising from total neglect of cleaning and watering
it, though the usual advertisements for their performance were then
publishing.
“For the consideration and removal of these defects, a very fair
opportunity was now offered; a Committee of the Proprietors of the
Water-works having presented a petition to the Corporation, for
renting, and erecting a wheel in, the 5th Arch at the North end of
London Bridge, which had been referred to a Committee, to examine, and
report upon. This petition was read at the Court of Common Council on
Thursday, November 28th, 1765, as we learn by the ‘_Public Advertiser_’
of the following day; and you will find a copy of it in the same paper
for Friday, July 3rd, 1767, forming part of a series of 13 official
documents, on the subject, inserted in that journal down to Thursday,
July 23rd, of the same year. I have already had occasion slightly to
notice these proceedings, of which you may find several particulars
in the ‘_Gentleman’s Magazine_’ for 1767, volume xxxvii., pages 337,
407; but I shall now give you some account of them from these more
authentic sources, and close up my history of the Water-works with a
short description of their mechanism, and final removal.
“The petition alluded to, contains a curious historical outline of the
Water-works at London Bridge, tracing their gradual extension from
one to four of its Arches; the leases of all which were to terminate
in the year 2082, being 500 years from the time when the original
grant was made, the remainder taking only the unexpired term. The 1st
and 2nd Northern Arches were let for 500 years, from November 24th,
1582, at 10_s._ _per annum_; and the 4th Arch, from August 24th, 1701,
for 381-1/4 years, also at 10_s._ _per annum_, and a fine of £300.
The lease of the 3rd Arch, however,--formerly stopped up and let to
a Wharfinger,--did not commence until Michaelmas day, 1761, when it
was granted for the term of 321 years, at the old rent; though the
Proprietors of the Water-works had made proposals for it in 1731 and
1743, when it was unoccupied, the last tenant having quitted it at
Lady-day, 1718. These leases were the more readily granted, as it was
supposed that the Water-works were a protection to the Bridge and the
vessels below it; whilst it was asserted that the Arches they occupied
were but very seldom used, and the lessees covenanted to secure their
engines by piles, as well as to keep the Piers and Sterlings built
upon, in proper repair. Their fire-plugs, too, were to be under the
direction of the Committee of City-Lands; the Works were not to rise
higher than the cellars of the buildings on London Bridge; and houses
in general, in the City and its liberties, were to be supplied with
water at 20_s._ _per annum_. In petitioning for a fifth Arch, it was
represented, that, notwithstanding the great expense incurred for the
Water-works, the engine was yet inadequate to the furnishing at all
times a sufficient supply of water. The wheels under the other four
Arches would never act with the same velocity as they did before the
late alteration of the Bridge; but as the 5th Arch stood nearer the
central current of the River, the continual flowing of the tide would
give the works additional power, without being any obstacle to the
navigation. On the other hand, however, several counter-petitions were
presented from the Wharfingers and Lightermen, stating the dangerous
eddy at the Great Arch, arising from the closing of those Arches
called the Long Entry and Chapel Locks, to give force to the current
at the Water-works; and praying that they might be opened, the middle
of the River kept free, or that two Arches at the South end might be
closed instead of them. We have already seen, that these suits made
but slow progress; and accordingly we find that the petition from the
Water-works was first referred to a Sub-committee by the Committee of
City-Lands, on Wednesday, December 4th, 1765; to the Committee itself
on Friday, November 28th, 1766: and on Tuesday, December 16th, their
Report was delivered to the Court of Common Council. Before these
Committees, the Proprietors of the Water-works appeared on Tuesday,
October 21st, and Wednesday, November 19th, 1766; when the complaints
of their pipes leaking, and the navigation being endangered, were
stated, and remedies ordered to be provided. They were also asked,
whether they would undertake, on forfeiture of their lease, ‘to keep
their engine at work during the times of dead high and low-water, when
their wheels lay still, provided they had leave to raise their tenants
1_s._ yearly for every house.’ To this they ultimately agreed, the
additional rent being made 2_s._; and to remedy the leakage of such
pipes as lay across the Bridge for the supply of Southwark, it was
proposed that they should be entirely removed, the first Arch on the
Surrey side of the Bridge being stopped up, and a wheel erected in the
second, 10_s._ _per annum_ being paid for each, whilst the Long Entry
and Chapel Locks were to be re-opened. Such then were the measures
recommended in the Committee’s Report, as being without danger and of
general benefit; but before they were acceded to, these particulars
were ordered to be printed, and a copy sent to some of the most eminent
Surveyors of the time, Messrs. Brindley, Smeaton, Yeoman, Mylne, and
Wooler, whose answers were read to the Common Council, on Wednesday,
February 25th, 1767. At the same time, too, as we are informed by the
‘_Gazetteer_’ of the day following, the Proprietors of the Water-works
were heard upon the subject of their alterations, though the decision
was referred to the next Court. The Engineers generally agreed, that
by opening the Long Entry and Chapel Locks, taking away the water-pipes
upon the Bridge, erecting a wheel in the 5th Arch, and occupying the
farthest two on the Surrey side, the edifice and navigation would be
generally improved. Mr. Mylne, however, recommended that the 5th Arch
should not be granted; but that so many Arches at the South end should
be wholly stopped, as would be equal to compensate the Water-works
for their loss by the Great Arch; adding, that the pipes were slowly,
but certainly, ruining the Bridge; and that a Water-company, then
established in Southwark, should be encouraged to supply the whole of
the Borough. The Corporation, however, did not yet come to a decision,
but on Friday, March 13th, 1767, the Town Clerk was again ordered to
solicit the Engineers to re-consider the subject, and to point out the
course most proper to be followed. The second series of answers, which
was read at a Court of Common Council, on Tuesday, June 23rd, chiefly
confirmed and referred to the former. Messrs. Wooler and Mylne were,
however, decidedly against any new grants to the Water-works, of which
they earnestly recommended the removal, as well as the opening of the
closed-up Arches; proposing to substitute a horse, or fire, engine,
on both sides of the river, or closing up three Arches on the Surrey
shore. Mr. Yeoman also recommended the taking away of the Water-works;
whilst Mr. Smeaton, considering that the bed of the Thames had become
so unequal that it would require several centuries to restore its
level, argued that the stoppage of London Bridge was useful both to the
Water-works and navigation in general, and that it remained only to
employ the force of water in the most beneficial manner. By his Report
the Corporation seems to have been determined; since the ‘_Gazetteer_’
of June 24th states, that Mr. Mylne was examined, and, after a
long debate, the 5th Arch was granted to the Water-works, upon the
conditions already mentioned: though there were, subsequently, several
disputes on points of law, and particularly upon the power which the
Corporation had to grant away the passage of a navigable river.