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.