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.