Eau Brink Cut--Ramsgate Harbour--Sheerness Dockyard--Plymouth
Breakwater--Anecdote of the late Mr. J. Fox--London Bridge and
Approaches--Sir F. Trench’s Plan for Quaying the Thames--Nene
Outfall--Cross Keys Bridge--Norfolk Estuary--Improvement of the
Witham--Ancholme Drainage.
It was some time before I could recover from the shock. I had been
absent abroad nearly two years and four months, and had passed through
so many different scenes, that when I returned to England everything
seemed perfectly new to me; being deprived of my father so unexpectedly
threw me almost into a state of despair, so that I scarcely felt myself
equal to undertake the responsibility of following his noble career,
which I could never expect to equal. After giving way to my melancholy
reflections for about a month, I determined to rouse myself to the
utmost and to do my best, and with his brilliant example before me, and
cheered on by his numerous attached friends, I felt that if I had no
chance of attaining the same degree of celebrity as my dear father, I
might still do something, and although _lungo intervállo_, I might still
keep up the name. I determined therefore to set to work in right earnest
and endeavour to obtain some of my father’s numerous appointments. My
first ambition was to succeed him in his numerous great works then being
carried on by the Admiralty, such as the Plymouth Breakwater, and the new
Chatham and Woolwich dockyards.
That most excellent and able man, the late Lord Melville, was at the head
of the Admiralty; the distinguished and gallant Sir George Cockburn, one
of Nelson’s officers at the Nile and elsewhere, was the First Naval Lord;
John Wilson Croker and Sir John Barrow were the Secretaries; and there
never has been such a galaxy of talent at the Admiralty since. All these
great and good men have since passed away from us, not without, however,
leaving behind them indisputable monuments of their skill and the great
benefits they conferred upon their country. As for myself, I owe them
my deepest gratitude, and shall never forget their kindness. I was
appointed by the Admiralty to succeed my father as their engineer. This
high honour at my early age (for I was only seven-and-twenty) filled me
with the greatest thankfulness, although I felt it was due to no merit of
my own, but rather to the regard and respect which they entertained for
my father; I therefore resolved to do everything in my power to render
myself worthy of it, and set to work with right good will.
The next appointment I obtained was as drainage engineer to the Eau Brink
Commissioners. This was at that time the greatest work of the kind, at
the head of which were the late General Lord William Bentinck, afterwards
Governor-General of India; the late Sir Andrew Hammond, Bart.; the late
Sir Charles Browne, physician to the King of Prussia; and the late
Thomas Hoseason, Esq., of Banklands, in the district of Marshland, near
Lynn. These able and distinguished men formed the Committee for carrying
into effect the Eau Brink Cut, for the improvement of the drainage of
the great level of the fens, called the Bedford Level, amounting to
about 300,000 acres of valuable land. This work consisted of a cut for
altering the channel of the Ouse, by means of which nearly two miles of
the navigation of that river would be saved, and an additional fall for
the drainage of five feet perpendicular would be gained. This great work
had been planned nearly a century before, but had always been opposed
by the inhabitants of the fens, as being in their opinion inadequate to
effect the desired object. At length, after great opposition on the part
of the townspeople, who alleged that it would ruin their harbour and
trade, the plan was decided on, and an Act of Parliament was obtained,
in the year 1781, to carry it into effect, and to lay a tax of 4_d._ per
acre per annum upon all fen lands which it was supposed would derive
benefit from it; certain guarantees were given to Lynn Harbour and the
interior navigation interests, as well as to the owners of the banks of
the Ouse, that they should be indemnified for any damages they might
sustain in consequence of the Eau Brink Cut being executed. Under this
Act it was decreed that there should be two engineers, one appointed by
the drainage interests, namely, the late Robert Mylne (the architect of
Blackfriars Bridge), and Sir Thomas Hyde Page, R.E., as the engineer
for navigation. These two gentlemen were to decide the direction and
dimensions of the proposed Eau Brink Cut, which was to commence below
German’s Bridge and to terminate a short distance above the boat wharf
at Lynn. They, however, differed so materially that it was necessary to
call in an umpire to decide between them, and the late scientific Captain
Joseph Huddart, of the Trinity Board, and the inventor of the celebrated
patent cable machinery, was appointed arbitrator. Captain Huddart made
his award; but when it was determined to carry on the works, it was found
that the whole of the funds appropriated for that purpose, which amounted
to about 80,000_l._, had been expended in litigation and the cost of
obtaining the Act of Parliament, so that the whole matter fell to the
ground.
Meanwhile the defective state of drainage of the great level of the fens
still continued, and everybody was convinced that the only remedy was to
carry into effect the Eau Brink Cut as awarded by Captain Huddart. It was
therefore resolved that a new Act of Parliament should be obtained for
this purpose, increasing the tax upon the lands proposed to be benefited
sufficiently to cover the costs according to the estimate of my father,
who was appointed engineer-in-chief of the drainage interests; and the
above-mentioned gentlemen, Lord W. Bentinck, Sir A. Hammond, Sir Charles
Browne, and Thomas Hoseason, Esq., were appointed as the executive
committee.
The Act having passed, Messrs. Jolliffe and Banks tendered for, and
received and executed the contract.
The effect of this work greatly exceeded the most sanguine expectations
of its supporters. Immediately after it was opened the low-water mark at
the upper end of the cut fell five feet, and the drainage waters were
carried off with a degree of rapidity which astonished the whole country.
The autumn and winter of 1821-2 was characterized by an unusual quantity
of rainfall, and if it had not been for the opening of the Eau Brink
Cut the whole, or the greater part, of the level of the fens would have
been under water, and therefore the fenmen were very well pleased with
the result. At this time I was appointed to succeed my father as chief
drainage engineer, and the late Mr. Telford had been previously appointed
the chief engineer for navigation. Immediately after my appointment,
which was in the month of December, 1821, I went to Lynn to examine the
works, and was much astonished to find the great effects which had been
produced by the Eau Brink Cut. Instead of the circuitous old shallow
course, full of shoals and obstructions of every kind, there was a fine
straight, deep channel, two miles shorter than the old one, of the proper
width, bordered by strong banks of the full height; the floods passed off
without difficulty, and the navigation was so much improved that the
lighters and barges going up the river from Lynn saved several tides.
It is true that upon examining the country between Denver Sluice and
Cambridge, there was a great deal of water out in several places, but
this was attributed to the interior drains and rivers not being properly
defended and embanked, so that they could carry off the water to the main
outfall below. I also examined the new steam pumping apparatus, which had
lately been erected for draining Soham and other fens. This, although
proposed by my father in 1786, was the first of the kind that had been
erected. It consisted of a scoop wheel, with a perpendicular lift, worked
by a condensing engine. It answered its object completely, and has since
been imitated by numerous others with equal success in different parts
of the fen and lowland districts. Yet in many places it has been found
very difficult to induce the fen proprietors to combine together in order
to effect a natural drainage, which would be better and less expensive;
they prefer to act independently of each other, and adopt the steam
wheel. Still, even with this, the main outfalls must be improved to their
fullest extent, otherwise the water cannot run off; and when the floods
in the adjacent rivers rise so high that the banks are endangered, the
pumping must be discontinued, otherwise the banks will break, and then a
greater injury will ensue. Nevertheless, the steam pumping apparatus is
an immense improvement on the old windmill, which could only work when
there was wind.
My next appointment was to succeed my father as engineer-in-chief to
Ramsgate Harbour.
This harbour was established by special Act of Parliament for the purpose
of affording shelter to vessels of 300 tons lying in the Downs during
south-west gales. When these winds prevail that anchorage is crowded with
all classes of vessels, and the smaller ones, not being so well found
with ground tackle as the larger, are liable to be driven from their
moorings and fall foul of the larger vessels, causing them to go adrift
also, and thus creating considerable confusion and damage; but by having
Ramsgate under their lee, the small vessels can always get under way,
run for it at the commencement of the flood, and reach it in safety long
before high water, at which time the Goodwin Sands are covered, and a
heavy sea rolls into the Downs. In fact, Ramsgate Harbour was made for
clearing the Downs of small vessels, so that the large ones may ride in
safety, and so far has effectually answered its object.
There were a certain number of trustees appointed under the Act, who
were selected from the principal merchants and shipowners of London,
and the Deputy Master and three or four Elder Brethren of the Trinity
were members of the Board of Trustees _ex officio_. At the time I was
appointed engineer, the celebrated Sir William Curtis, Bart., member for
the City of London, was chairman, and the worthy Deputy Master of the
Trinity House, Sir John Woolmore, represented that Corporation with three
others of the Elder Brethren. As this was one of the oldest and most
important harbour trusts in the kingdom, I felt great honour in being
appointed their chief engineer, the more so as the celebrated Smeaton and
my father had previously occupied that position. It was here that Smeaton
followed out the idea that had been originally proposed at Dundee, of
establishing an inner basin with sluices for the purpose of scouring
away the mud which continually accumulated in the outer harbour, owing
to the great quantity of alluvial matter brought in from the adjacent
coast and waters, which otherwise in a very short time would have filled
it up and rendered it useless. Ramsgate Harbour was also celebrated for
being the first place of the kind where the diving bell was introduced by
Smeaton for the purpose of laying down moorings and removing obstacles
under water. The diving bell was afterwards, in 1813, much improved,
and rendered, for the first time, applicable to building masonry under
water with as much security and accuracy as building upon dry land. In
such an exposed situation it was more economical and expeditious than
the old cofferdams; it was in this manner Mr. Rennie rebuilt the east
pier-head in 17 feet at low-water spring tides, which was originally made
by Smeaton, and which failed. I also succeeded my father at Sunderland,
Donaghadee, Port Patrick, and Kingstown harbours, the West India Docks,
besides other places soon afterwards, so that I had a large business, and
was daily getting more.
The most difficult and anxious work, however, at that time was the
new dockyard at Sheerness, designed and partly carried into effect by
my father. He originally, in the year 1807, recommended that the old
dockyard, which was composed only of some old wooden slips imbedded in
the mud, a few storehouses, a wretched basin, lined with wooden walls,
and some timber jetties, should be abolished. He said that it was on the
lee or wrong side of the harbour, that the foundation for new works was
of mud and quicksand, that the space, on account of the buildings in the
old town, was very confined, and, therefore, that to make a good dockyard
there would be very expensive, and he thought it would be far better to
make a new complete establishment at Northfleet, just above Gravesend,
and to get rid of Woolwich, Deptford, and Sheerness altogether. Mr. Pitt,
then Prime Minister, decided that it should be done; but when he died the
matter fell to the ground, as I have before said, although the land was
bought for the purpose.
However, after the great war had terminated, in 1815, the nation was
naturally anxious to reduce the expenditure as much as possible, so that
the House of Commons would not listen to the idea of expending any large
sums upon great new works either for the navy or the army; and it was
only after considerable difficulty that the House of Commons would grant
money for the repairs of Sheerness Dockyard, and, like most extensive
repairs, it was found, when too late, that it would have been far better
to have abandoned Sheerness altogether.
Nevertheless it was absolutely necessary to do something to the Thames
and Medway dockyards, to keep in repair the large fleet of vessels which
was there laid up in ordinary. The total number of pennants flying at the
close of the war was about 1000, and the last vote for seamen in 1815
included 127,000 sailors and marines. As there was greater depth of water
at Sheerness than at any of the dockyards, and as the harbour immediately
contiguous was capable of accommodating with ease any number of large
vessels, Sheerness was decided upon as the place where the greatest
repairs and improvements should be made, and it ended in an entirely new
dockyard being built. The works accordingly commenced in 1815, and the
late Lord Melville laid the first stone at the north end that year. It
ended in expending nearly 3,000,000_l._, 1,700,000_l._ of which went to
the engineering department, and the remainder in the purchase of ground,
buildings in the town of Sheerness, in storehouses, mast and timber
ponds, smithery, admiral’s and officers’ houses. The engineering works
were of the most difficult kind; the foundations were composed of nothing
but soft mud and loose quicksands to an almost interminable depth, so
that my father was obliged to invent an entirely new system of hollow
walls faced with granite in front and brick behind. This system of walls,
which was entirely new, by giving a greater superficial area of bearing
surface with the same weight of materials, rendered them thoroughly
secure. He had adopted this kind of construction with perfect success at
the docks at Great Grimsby, in Lincolnshire, and they succeeded equally
well at Sheerness, although exposed to much greater difficulties. The
dockyard as completed consists of one basin of nearly 3 acres, at the
east end of which are three docks for first-rate vessels of war, with a
depth of 9 feet at low water of spring tides, the basin being of the same
depth, so that with a rise of tide of 18 feet at spring tides the largest
vessels can always be docked at those times. There is also another tidal
basin of about the same size, together with large storehouses, smithery,
mast ponds, boathouses, admiral’s and officers’ houses, chapel, &c., and
ample space for timber and other materials. This dockyard, therefore, as
was the intention, is well adapted for keeping in repair the numerous
vessels lying up in ordinary in the adjacent harbour, or for executing
any repairs which vessels on the northern stations may require; it never
was intended to be a building yard, and it answers its original purpose
well. It should be mentioned, that here Mr. Rennie first introduced
cast-iron gates for the dry docks; these fitted to the granite quoins so
nicely by polishing the two surfaces, iron and stone, with emery, that
they worked together perfectly, and were completely water-tight; and
although they have now been in use forty-five years, they are as good as
on the day when they were made.
At the time that these works were proceeding, it was decided to make a
new large granite dry dock at Chatham, similar to those at Sheerness; and
some improvements in the line of river wall, which partly interfered with
the free circulation of the tide there, were being constructed when I was
appointed, and I finished them.
The breakwater in Plymouth Sound, which was designed by my father and
commenced in 1815, had made considerable progress; in fact, the great
mass of rubble stone had been deposited throughout its entire length,
so that vessels of war as well as merchantmen could safely lie under
its protection during the heaviest gales from the westward. When I was
appointed engineer to the Admiralty, the late excellent Mr. Joseph
Whidbey, who was distinguished for his scientific acquirements, and who
had sailed round the world with Vancouver, was the superintendent of the
breakwater, so that I had but little to do with it until the latter end
of 1824, when, on the 22nd and 23rd of November of that year, a violent
storm occurred from the south-south-west, the most dangerous wind, and
its effect upon the breakwater above low water of spring tides was to
disarrange nearly the whole of the superstructure, and to transfer a
very large portion of the stone from the south to the north slope. The
effects of this severe storm were considered to be so serious as to
create considerable doubts as to the security of the breakwater, and
even Mr. Whidbey was alarmed. I was accordingly sent by the Admiralty to
make a detailed report as to what had occurred. I carefully examined the
whole work, and had numerous transverse and longitudinal sections taken
to show its exact state, and reported that the main body of the work
remained as substantial as ever, but that the rubble from above low water
to the top, on the south or sea slope, had only been laid at an angle of
3 to 1, and the waves during the storm above mentioned had in a great
measure disturbed it, and had transferred a very large portion from the
south to the north slope, increasing the south slope to 5 to 1. Now it
is singular that my father, when it was decided to raise the breakwater
from the level of half tide (which was the original intention) to above
high water of spring tides, always said that the outer slope should be
laid at 5 to 1. After his death, however, Mr. Whidbey, with an idea of
economy, reduced the south slope to 3 to 1, so that the effects of the
storm had been to confirm my father’s views; and not only had no real
damage been done, but it had consolidated and strengthened the breakwater
materially, and had given a practical example as to the best mode of
completing it, and I recommended that the outer slope should be finished
at 5 to 1, and the inner at 2 to 1. The Admiralty, however, feeling their
responsibility, thought it advisable, in addition to myself, to consult
three other experienced engineers, and the late Mr. Telford, Mr. Josias
Jessop, and my eldest brother, George, were appointed for that purpose.
We proceeded to Plymouth in the month of March, 1825, and spent several
days in examining the breakwater. We finally recommended that the outer
slope should be finished at 5 to 1 and the inner at 2 to 1 (as I had
previously suggested to the Admiralty), that the outer slope and top
should be paved with rough square blocks set closely together, and
that the inside slope should be paved with rubble. Mr. Whidbey was,
unfortunately, of a different opinion, and recommended a nearly vertical
wall of solid masonry on the top, of which the Admiralty did not approve,
and adopted our plan, which was ordered to be carried into effect. Mr.
Whidbey was so much annoyed that he resigned his situation and retired
into private life near Taunton. This was much regretted, as he was a most
able and honest public servant, and beloved and respected by everybody
who knew him. I was then appointed chief engineer, and upon considering
the subject again, I thought that, as the base or toe of the outer slope
was the most exposed part of the work, it would be better to strengthen
it by benching, which would effectually break the force of the waves
before they could reach the main body of the work. This was approved
by the Admiralty, and has since been carried into effect with complete
success.
I may here relate a curious anecdote in connection with the death of Mr.
Perceval. Messrs. Fox, Williams, and Co., the great mining contractors in
Cornwall, took the first contract for blasting the rock and depositing
the stones on the breakwater. In 1815 Mr. John Fox, a Quaker, having
come to town on business, breakfasted with my father and several others,
including myself. The conversation happened to turn on the death of Mr.
Perceval. Mr. Fox said in a simple, unaffected manner, “I remember it
very well; it is a curious story, and now I will tell it you. I was then
visiting my friend Williams at Redruth. I went to bed as usual, and awoke
in a most restless state, having had an extraordinary dream. I dreamed
that I went to the House of Commons, where I had never been before, and
having no admission into the interior of the House, I sat down quietly
on one of the benches in the lobby, expecting a Cornish member who
had promised when I came to London to give me a ticket of admission
to hear the debates. Beside me on the bench sat a tall, muscular man
(describing Bellingham most exactly), who appeared to be very restless,
and continually asking whether Mr. Perceval had come to the House, and
every now and then putting his right hand into his left breast pocket.
At length, after waiting some minutes, there was a bustle, and several
persons near me said that Mr. Perceval was coming; and shortly after
Mr. Perceval made his appearance (Mr. Fox describing the exact dress
he wore, namely, a blue coat with gilt metal buttons, white cravat and
waistcoat, with nankeen shorts, white stockings, and shoes, according to
his usual attire in the summer). Immediately after Mr. Perceval made his
appearance, the man who sat next to me got up, and, advancing close to
Mr. Perceval, drew a pistol from his left breast pocket, fired, and Mr.
Perceval fell at his feet. This occasioned great commotion. The man who
fired the pistol was at once seized, and I rushed out and asked what
had happened, and the bystanders told me that Mr. Perceval had been shot
by a man named Bellingham, who was the identical individual who had been
a few minutes before sitting by my side. When my dream had come to this
point I awoke in the greatest agitation. I could not account for it. I
had never seen Mr. Perceval, nor his murderer, Bellingham; I had never
been in the lobby of the House, and I had been in no way connected with
Mr. Perceval, either by correspondence or otherwise, still I was so much
affected by the dream that I felt convinced that Mr. Perceval had been
murdered. I passed the remainder of the night in great restlessness. I
could not sleep, but was always thinking of the dream, being thoroughly
convinced that it was true. I came down to breakfast at the usual hour,
in the most anxious and nervous state, which I in vain endeavoured to
conceal as much as possible; but my friend and partner Williams and his
whole family observed it, and said that I looked very ill, and kindly
asked me to explain the cause. After much pressing, I told my story.
Friend Williams and the whole of his amiable family said that it was
nonsense; that I had been unwell, and still was so, and said that they
would send for their family doctor. I said no; I felt perfectly convinced
that my dream would, unfortunately, prove but too true, and that the
mail, which would arrive in the evening, would bring a confirmation of
it. They tried to laugh me out of it, but nothing would do; I therefore
went about with my friend Williams, transacting our mining business,
being convinced that the arrival of the mail in the evening would confirm
the truth of my dream in all particulars. We returned to dinner at five
o’clock; at nine the mail arrived, and confirmed every particular of my
dream. I was afterwards taken to the House of Commons, where I had never
been before, and I correctly pointed out the whole particulars of the
melancholy transaction exactly as they occurred, to the astonishment of
my friends and the bystanders. The whole story seems so strange that I
cannot account for it. I relate it to you just as it occurred to me.”[2]
This is certainly one of those marvellous instances of foresight
which baffles all comprehension. John Fox was generally considered
by his numerous friends and acquaintance to be a most honest, plain,
straightforward, business man, and incapable of stating anything but what
he believed to be true. I heard him relate the dream, and my father and
all present believed it. The curious part of the story is how he should
have dreamed such a thing, being in no way connected with it.
About this time (1825) the several victualling departments of the navy
at Plymouth were very inefficient, and divided into three or four
establishments--one at Southdown, opposite to Devonport, another at
Cremill Point, near Stonehouse, a third at Plymouth, and the fourth in
Plymouth town--being several miles from each other, so that the extra
expense and delay in provisioning vessels of war was considerable. Upon
this being represented to the Admiralty by the Victualling Board, of
which the late General Stapleton was the chairman, they determined to
make an entirely new victualling establishment, concentrating the whole
of the several departments into one, upon a well-organized plan, so that
every operation should be carried out with the greatest dispatch and
economy.
After much discussion Cremill Point, being nearest to the dockyard at
Devonport, and being in other respects, as to depth of water, &c.,
possessed of peculiar advantages, was finally selected as the best place
for the new establishment, and I was ordered by the Victualling Board to
prepare the necessary plans, specifications, and estimates, and to see
them carried into effect.
Whilst these works were proceeding, a proposal was made to the Admiralty
to apply the Cornish system of engines to the Admiralty steam-vessels. Up
to this time steam, according to the principle of Watt, not exceeding 5
lb. pressure upon the square inch, was only used, whereas in the Cornish
condensing engines steam of the pressure of 37 lb. per square inch was
then usual, with much greater effect and economy. I was accordingly sent
by the Admiralty to Cornwall to investigate their scheme. I took with
me my principal assistant, the late Mr. William Lewin, a very zealous,
able, practical engineer. We examined the whole system very carefully
at different mines, measured the actual work done and the quantity of
fuel consumed, and came to the conclusion that the Cornish system of
high-pressure condensing might be applied to the navy with the greatest
advantage, and reported the same to the Admiralty. It was not adopted
at the time, although high-pressure condensing engines have since been
introduced into the navy; at the present time the pressure has advanced
to 27 and 28 lb. per square inch, and in the non-condensing engines to
100 and 120 lb. Watt, although he had tried steam at every temperature,
yet generally preferred low pressure; his reason for this must have been
the imperfect means then at command for controlling it, and perhaps
he was right at the time, for the manufacture of wrought iron had not
then made sufficient progress to render it capable of resisting with
safety the great power of high-pressure steam. He pointed out the
way, and others, through the improvements in the manufacture of iron,
have profited by his discoveries. I must not omit, in justice to the
very talented Mr. Perkins, his views as to the value of high-pressure
steam, upon which he made numerous experiments; amongst other things,
he proposed to use it as a destructive power in war, by means of his
celebrated steam gun, which created much sensation at the time; and it
is rather singular that this has not been taken up in modern times, when
every invention which can add to the methods of destruction is most
greedily adopted. There can be no doubt that the “_steam gun_” may be
used with the most terrible effect in fixed batteries either for musketry
or artillery, and probably the day will come when we shall see batteries
worked by steam, with a great diminution of manual agency; and the men
employed to work them will be so protected as to render the destruction
of human life comparatively trifling.
Amongst the other legacies which my dear father had left to me, was
that of building London Bridge. He had shown, to the satisfaction of
the Committee of the House of Commons, the impracticability of keeping
up the old bridge by any amount of repair or alteration; that it could
not be rendered fit for the improvement of the river Thames, nor for the
continually increasing traffic which must pass over it, at any reasonable
expense, and that therefore an entirely new bridge would be by far the
most satisfactory. The House of Commons was so fully convinced by his
arguments that it unanimously condemned the old bridge, and refused to
comply with the recommendation of the City of London that it should be
altered, but resolved that a new bridge should be built according to the
design made by my father. An Act of Parliament was accordingly passed
to this effect, the late talented and energetic Mr. Holme Sumner being
the leading member of the Committee. The Corporation demurred to this,
saying that there were other engineers equal to Mr. Rennie, and demanding
a public competition. The advertisement for designs was accordingly
issued, and a great number were sent in and referred to the Committee of
the House of Commons and the Government, according to the previous Act.
After considering the various rival plans, it was finally decided that
that of my father was the only one which complied with all the required
conditions, and it was therefore adopted. At this resolution great
discontent was manifested by the different competitors. The Corporation
of London also objected to this decision, as they considered that they
ought to have been the sole judges. But finding that the Government
adhered to its decision, they submitted, at the same time urging that
they, who were to pay the expense of the new bridge, ought to select the
engineer that was to execute the work. The Government agreed to this,
subject to their approval; and finally the Committee appointed by the
Corporation to carry into effect my father’s design, fixed upon me as the
engineer-in-chief; Mr. Richard Lambert Jones was appointed the chairman
of the executive committee of the Corporation. A very able and efficient
chairman he was, and conducted the whole to a conclusion, to the great
satisfaction of the Corporation and of the Government.
The design, as I have already observed, was made by my father, but no
detailed working drawings, specification, or estimate, had been prepared
by him; it fell to my lot, therefore, to do this. As I had acted under my
father during the construction of the Waterloo and Southwark bridges, I
had become so thoroughly acquainted with his system, that I had no very
great difficulty about it.
The design consisted of five semi-elliptical arches, the centre being 150
feet span, the two next arches 140 feet span each, the two side or land
arches 130 feet span each; the two centre piers were 24 feet thick at
the springing, and the two side piers 22 feet each; the whole was to be
built of the best grey granite. The width of the roadway was originally
designed to be 48 feet, but was afterwards increased to 54 feet wide, at
an extra cost of 46,000_l._
It was intended by my father that the new bridge should be built on the
site of the old one, which was to be pulled down in the first instance,
and a temporary wooden one was to be built above it to accommodate the
traffic whilst the new bridge was building. It was considered that
as soon as the fall of 5 feet occasioned by the old bridge should be
removed, the river would be restored to its natural state, and there
would then be less difficulty and expense in making the cofferdams and
founding the piers and abutments; the old approaches to the bridge would
then be preserved, and thus a less quantity of valuable property would
be required. The wish, however, of the Corporation to preserve the old
bridge during the construction of the new one was so strong, that there
was no possibility of resisting it. I therefore yielded to their desire,
and agreed to build the new bridge immediately above the old one, and as
near as practicable to it; notwithstanding, I felt at the time that there
would be considerable difficulty, risk, and extra expense in so doing, on
account of the great depth of water in which the piers must be founded,
namely, 28 feet at low water of spring tides, and the strong current and
fall through the old bridge both during the flood and ebb, particularly
during the latter. It should be observed that the old bridge stood as it
were upon a hill, the foundations of the piers being from 28 to 30 feet
above the bottom of the river immediately above and below it, occasioned
by the great fall and scour produced by the contracted waterway; thus
it was necessary to secure the piers by large projecting starlings, and
to throw considerable quantities of stone continually round them, in
order to prevent the old bridge from being carried away. However, there
was no alternative but to build the new bridge above the old one, and
I accordingly set about taking every possible precaution in order to
prevent accident.
As the loose stone thrown round the piers of the old bridge was
continually washed into the holes immediately above and below, it was in
vain to attempt driving the piles for the cofferdams of the piers until
this stone was removed, which was done by dredging. The cofferdams for
the piers were elliptical in form, this shape being the best adapted for
resisting the strong current in which they were placed; they consisted of
two main rows of piles each 14 inches square, each pile being properly
hooped and shod with wrought iron, and driven 25 feet into the bed of the
river. These piles were connected together in the horizontal direction
by three rows of braces 15 inches square, namely, one at the level of
the lowest tides, another at the level of half tide, and the third at
the level of high water. At every 10 feet the two rows of piles were
fastened together with wrought-iron bolts 2½ inches diameter, which
passed through the horizontal braces or walings, as they are technically
termed, and were secured outside and inside with additional wooden cleats
15 inches square and 8 feet long, so as to cover the joints where the
main horizontal braces met; outside of these were large iron plates, and
as the bolts were screwed at each end, they could be tightened up to the
full bearing without crushing the timber. On the outside of these two
main rows of piles was a third row of the same dimensions, and driven the
same depth into the bed of the river at a distance of 6 feet in the clear
from the two main rows, and connected together with a tier of horizontal
braces, and to the two main rows of piles with bolts, cleats, and plates
of the same dimensions as those already described. When the piles had
been driven to their proper depth, and had been properly secured to each
other as above described, the joints between every pile, which had been
previously fitted to each other, were well caulked with oakum, and the
outside joints were covered with melted pitch, so as to render them
water-tight; the spaces between the three rows of piles were then filled
with strong well-puddled clay.
In addition to the above three rows of piles, there was a fourth row on
the inside, driven down in the form of a parallelogram, corresponding
with the exact size of the foundation of the piers, and to the same depth
as the outer piles. Every tenth pile, and those at the corners or angles,
extended up to the level of low water. Upon the heads of these piles
longitudinal and transverse braces were fixed across the inside of the
dam, at the level of low water, half tide, and high water; so that the
dam was braced internally and externally in every direction to resist the
pressure of the water, like a well-made cask. There was a powerful steam
engine, with the requisite pumps, attached to each dam, to remove any
water which might either rise from the foundation or from the outside.
Each dam was provided with a trunk secured by a valve 3 feet diameter,
laid at the level of low water, so that in the event of any unusual
pressure of water coming against the dam, these valves were opened, and
the dam was then filled with water, and all mischief was prevented. The
first pier cofferdam on the Southwark side was completed, the water
pumped out, and the earth was excavated to the depth of 30 feet, going
below low-water mark of spring tides; the bottom consisted of the stiff
London clay. Piles, consisting of Baltic fir, elm, and beech, 22 feet
long, and 12 inches diameter in the middle, properly hooped and shod with
wrought iron, were then driven 20 feet into the solid ground, or until,
with a weight of 12 cwt. falling 18 to 20 feet, they would not move above
an inch at a blow. These piles were driven 3 feet 6 inches from centre
to centre, both in the longitudinal and transverse direction. After
having driven them, their heads were cut off and accurately levelled.
The loose earth between their heads was then removed, to the depth of 12
inches, and the spaces filled in with stone bedded in concrete; all the
rows of piles were then connected together in the transverse direction
by Baltic fir sills or beams 14 inches square, well fitted to each pile
head by jagged wrought-iron spikes 20 inches long and three quarters of
an inch square, driven through the sills into the pile heads below; the
spaces between the sills were well filled in with stone and brickwork;
another row of sills was then laid in the transverse direction above
the pile heads and spiked down to the lower sills in the same manner;
the spaces between the upper sills were then filled in with stone and
brickwork. The whole surface of the foundation was covered with elm plank
6 inches thick, closely jointed together and bedded in mortar, and well
spiked down to the sills below with jagged spikes 10 inches long and half
an inch square. Upon this platform the masonry was built, each course
diminishing in length and width by a series of offsets 12 inches wide,
until they reached the shaft of the pier, when it was carried up solid to
the springing of the arches. The whole of the exterior masonry was of the
best whitish-grey granite, and the interior stone was of the best hard
Yorkshire grit stone from the quarries of Bramley Fall. The abutments
were constructed upon piles and masonry of the same character as the
piers.
The first stone was laid with considerable ceremony on the first pier
cofferdam from the Surrey shore by His Royal Highness the late Duke
of York. The dam was fitted up with great taste like an amphitheatre,
with seats all round, the whole being covered at top with a handsome
coloured canvas awning adorned with numerous flags of all nations. The
Lord Mayor, assisted by the Aldermen, Common Councilmen, and Committee,
with Mr. Jones, the Chairman, attended in great state, and everything
went off well. After this pier had advanced nearly to the level of high
water, one day whilst examining it, standing upon one of the cross
beams, my foot slipped, and I fell headlong into the dam upon the top
of the masonry; fortunately, my left foot caught in a nail in the beam,
and I hung by it for a few seconds. This somewhat broke and changed the
direction of my fall, and I pitched upon an inclined plank, upon which I
slid until I struck my head against a stone; my hat deadened the blow;
as it was, however, I was cut about the forehead and half stunned. The
after effects of this fall were very serious; my whole system got such
a severe shaking, that I did not recover thoroughly until nearly ten
years afterwards, and I carried on my large professional business with
the greatest difficulty. The works made satisfactory progress, and the
centres for the first and second arches from the Surrey shore were soon
fixed.
Each centre was composed of eight ribs, framed upon the truss principle,
resting upon a continued series of wedges in one piece, laid horizontally
and resting upon tressels or legs formed by the piles of the cofferdams,
which had been cut off and levelled for that purpose. The mode of setting
and fixing the ribs was the same as that adopted at the Waterloo and
Southwark bridges. A large lighter was constructed especially for this
purpose. In the centre was placed a strong framing, which rested upon
eight screws, four in each row, working in a strong cast-iron box, to
which levers were attached, by means of which the screws and framing
above them could be gradually raised and lowered at pleasure; at one
end of the framing there was an upright scaffold. The centres, I have
already said, consisted of eight main ribs framed together separately.
As there was no room to frame these centres near the bridge, a special
workshop and wharf were provided by the contractors at Millwall, in
the Isle of Dogs; when ready they were launched in one piece, from a
properly-prepared platform, into the river, and towed to the Southwark
end of the bridge, where the lighter, with its apparatus of powerful
sheers, crabs, and tackle, was in readiness to receive them; by these
means they were gradually hauled up an inclined plane, and then raised
upright upon the platform, supported by the frame and screws beneath,
and firmly braced to the scaffolding in the lighter; two centre frames
were thus placed upon it at one time, and adjusted by the screws to an
extra height of 2 feet, so as to allow for any deficiency in the rise of
the tide. Two ribs having been placed upon the framing, the lighter was
hauled off from the shore and placed in front of the opening in which the
centre was to be, the lighter being moored 100 yards from it, about half
an hour before high water; upon the turning of the tide it was gradually
allowed to float down with the ebb current to its place. By the time that
the lighter with the centre ribs arrived in its exact position there was
always 2 feet to spare, in order to allow for any deficiency of the tide;
as the tide fell the two ribs were securely deposited in their places
upon the framing and wedges below them. It should be observed, that upon
the wedges there was an additional framing so as to reduce the weight
of the main ribs of the centring. When the main ribs had been deposited
upon the framing wedges, they were securely braced together until the
whole number of ribs required for each centre was fixed, when they were
all braced firmly together longitudinally, transversely, and diagonally.
This mode of fixing centres for arches of any span was most successful
and economical, and I believe that my father was the inventor of it, if
it may be termed an invention. My excellent and talented friend, the
late Robert Stephenson, adopted the same method for fixing the tubes of
the Conway and Menai Straits bridges. He told me that he was not aware
that my father had proposed it before him; but in the ‘History of the
Britannia and Conway Bridges,’ edited, I believe, by the present Mr.
Edwin Clarke, who was employed under Mr. Stephenson at the Conway Bridge,
it is expressly mentioned that my father had previously employed the same
plan.[3]
But to return to London Bridge. The works proceeded successfully; the
fifth or last arch on the City side was completed in 1829. The centres of
the first, second, and centre arches having been removed, it was found
that they had subsided only 3 inches each, which was the exact distance
that had been allowed for, with an extra half inch for the centre arch.
Upon examining the arches and piers after it was supposed that they had
subsided, it was found that there had been an unequal sinking, that the
two centre piers had subsided on the east side slightly more than on
the west side. I was much puzzled at this, and could not for some time
account for the difference. Three or four of the quoin arch-stones of
the second arch from the City shore had been fractured for about 8 or 9
inches; this, however, was of no consequence, for it is always difficult
in such large arches to get the workmen to bed the quoins accurately.
The same thing had occurred in the Waterloo and other bridges; I was
therefore led to investigate the subject more thoroughly during the
construction of the new bridge. It was found that the cofferdams for the
piers in several instances were made in front of the openings or arches
of the old bridge, which could not be avoided. These dams necessarily
still further obstructed the waterway through the old bridge; I therefore
felt that it was absolutely essential to find relief for the ebbing and
flowing tides, detained both by the old bridge and the cofferdams of the
new bridge, and accordingly recommended that, on the south side of the
main arch of the old bridge, which was only 80 feet wide, two arches
should be thrown into one, and that the intermediate pier should be
removed, by which means a single wide opening would be made facing the
space between the cofferdams of the arch and the centre on the Surrey
side of the new bridge, but the difficulty of doing this arose from the
fact that the traffic over the old bridge could not be interrupted for a
moment. I soon, however, found an expedient; I ordered that the requisite
number of logs of the best Baltic fir timber 15 inches square should be
prepared sufficiently long to extend over the two arches and piers of
the old bridge which I proposed to remove. Having got these ready, I
stopped up one half of the roadway, leaving the other half open for the
traffic, and working night and day, I laid these whole timbers spanning
the two arches to the adjoining piers close together, bolted them to each
other, and secured them to a longitudinal bearer of the same dimensions
imbedded in the masonry of the adjoining piers, so that the timbers which
were to form the increased opening rested firmly upon them. Having done
this, I removed the masonry of the intermediate arch by degrees from
beneath the timber girders, placing a strong diagonal strut or support
under each girder as I proceeded, at the same time connecting together
all these diagonal struts. Having completed one half of the temporary
arch or opening, the traffic was diverted over it, and the other half
was completed in the same manner; the whole operation was accomplished
within ten days, and the traffic was not stopped for one hour. The
intermediate pier of the old arch was then removed entirely. As the work
advanced to the fourth pier on the City side another similar opening
was made. These alterations relieved the river materially, and enabled
the works to be carried on much more securely, and greatly diminished
the fall through the old bridge at low water. Nevertheless, there was
increased scour against the dams where the openings were made, which
occasioned the slight unequal subsidence before mentioned. The last or
fifth arch was completed on the City side, January, 1829.
It has been mentioned that Lord Liverpool’s Government had always taken
the greatest interest in the construction of new London Bridge, and gave
the Corporation of London every support in their power, not only for the
accommodation of the great traffic across it, but for the improvement
of the Thames, which the removal of the old bridge would effect; and
amongst the men most zealous in Lord Liverpool’s Government were the
late Marquis of Salisbury, then Lord Cranbourne, and the late Earl
of Lonsdale, then Lord Lowther; both these noblemen had considerable
talent, and, fully alive to the advancing ideas of the day, were mainly
instrumental in forwarding this great work. That amiable, able, and
conscientious nobleman, the Earl of Liverpool, had succumbed to the
effects of a paralytic stroke, and the Duke of Wellington was now
Premier; he took the greatest interest in the promotion of London Bridge
and everything connected with it; so that the Corporation of London,
who had hitherto been radically inclined, or had rather been opposed to
the Tory Government, turned rather Conservative than otherwise, and the
Duke became most popular with them; he invariably, whenever he could,
accepted their invitations to Guildhall and the Mansion House, and was
always received by them with the greatest respect and attention. Richard
Lambert Jones, the Chairman of the London Bridge Committee, was his
particular favourite, and he always shook Jones by the hand, a favour
which he did not accord to everyone.
At this time the bridge had made considerable progress towards
completion, and the important question arose, what was the best plan for
the approaches? It was originally intended, in order to save expense,
that the old line of Fish Street Hill, on the City side, should be
adopted, pulling down such of the houses on this line as might be
necessary to make the incline not steeper than 1 in 30; but inasmuch as
the great traffic of Upper and Lower Thames Street interposed materially
with the main body of the traffic coming north and south, it became
most important to consider how this might be avoided, and the old idea
of making an arch over Thames Street was revived, and was favourably
received by the London Bridge Committee; the question was accordingly
referred by them to me. I had always felt that the old approach by Fish
Street Hill was a very great difficulty; but, restricted as I was to
the old line of approach, I felt that I could not get out of it without
some pressing necessity; I was therefore glad to have the opportunity of
reconsidering the subject, particularly when proposed by the Committee.
It was quite clear, that in any case an arch over Thames Street to
separate the great cart traffic of that quarter from the main coach and
passenger traffic coming from the City, Southwark, and the northern and
southern parts of the town, was absolutely necessary, and I should have
proposed it myself in the first instance, if there had at that time been
any chance of its adoption, and I am quite sure that my father would have
done the same. But if it had been proposed to divert the traffic from
the old line of Fish Street Hill at the first, it is most probable that
it would never have been carried; I was obliged, therefore, to confine
myself to the old approaches, leaving the future to develop itself. The
Committee, however, having taken up the idea of an arch over Thames
Street, I was only too happy to fall in with it; but as nothing could
be done without the sanction of the Government, it was determined by
the Committee to bring the subject before them at once; the more so, as
it would require a much larger sum than originally calculated to make
the approaches, for which the Committee had no funds, and a new Act
of Parliament would be required. Plans and estimates were accordingly
prepared for the new approaches, and submitted to His Majesty’s
Government. The Duke of Wellington took the greatest interest in the
subject, and investigated it to the fullest extent; he visited the place
himself, he interrogated the Chairman of the Committee and myself most
closely, and at length, being fully convinced that it was necessary, gave
the consent of the Government, provided that the funds could be found.
In order to meet this difficulty, the Committee proposed to increase
the coal tax, which, with the necessary sinking fund, would pay off the
whole sum necessary to make the new approaches, which were estimated at
1,400,000_l._, in a given number of years. The Government consented to
this, and the requisite notices, plans, &c., were given and deposited in
the month of November, 1828.
Early in 1829 the Bill was brought into Parliament, and was most
strongly opposed by the great northern coal-owners, Lord Durham, Lord
Londonderry, Lord Lauderdale, and others, as well as by a considerable
body of Londoners, and after a hard fight the Bill passed the House
of Commons and got into the Lords; but here the opposition was more
violent and powerful than ever. The Duke of Wellington, however, having
been thoroughly convinced of the necessity and justice of the measure,
determined that it should be carried if possible, whilst the Opposition
were equally determined to throw it out. The Committee accordingly met
in the Painted Chamber of the House of Lords, and the extraordinary
number of forty peers, including seven cabinet ministers, assembled, the
Duke of Wellington being in the chair. The Opposition comprised, amongst
others, Earl Grey, his son-in-law the Earl of Durham, the Marquis of
Londonderry, the Earl of Lauderdale, &c. Such a committee upon a private
Bill has never since been seen in the Lords, and perhaps never will be
again. The brunt of the battle fell upon me; I was the leading witness,
and had to establish the whole case. I never felt more nervous in my
life; I was to be prepared upon all points to defend everybody else’s
errors as well as my own. I knew there were several weak points, and
though I had an excellent case upon the whole, I still felt the greatest
difficulty about it; I knew also perfectly well, that if I broke down, my
career as an engineer was ruined for ever, for the Government had pinned
their faith upon me; I therefore had made myself thoroughly master of
the subject, and determined to sink or swim with it. Mr. W. Montague,
then surveyor to the City, was a very sensible, practical man, and of
great experience in the valuation of property, and possessed considerable
influence with the Corporation; but whether it was jealousy at my being
so much younger than himself, or whether he thought the post of honour
should have been given to him, I cannot say, but he did not act cordially
with me. That very remarkable man, Richard Lambert Jones, the Chairman
of the Bridge, with his usual tact and sagacity, at once saw this, and
thought that if he was examined there might be some discrepancy which
our enemies would take advantage of; he therefore, with the concurrence
of his Committee, determined that I alone should fight the battle of the
estimates, upon which the whole fate of the Bill depended. It was well,
both for Montague and myself, that this course was taken; for Montague,
when the first Bill of 1821 was carried, had made the surveys of the
property to be taken for the approaches on both sides of the bridge,
which was confined to 180 feet above the old bridge. This limit ought
to have been taken in a direct line, at right angles to the old bridge;
but unfortunately it was taken according to the line of the shore, which
near the old bridge receded considerably, whilst the old Fishmongers’
Hall projected beyond it, making the direct line, if taken, as it ought
to have been, at right angles to the old bridge, 20 feet longer than if
measured according to the line of the shore. This difference of 20 feet
rendered it necessary that old Fishmongers’ Hall should be removed, and
negotiations immediately commenced between the London Bridge Committee
and the Fishmongers’ Company with respect to the purchase of this piece
of land. The Fishmongers’ Company behaved very fairly; they said that
they did not wish to build a new hall, as the existing structure answered
their purpose very well; but if they were compelled to part with this
20 feet of ground, they must build a new hall, which they did not want
to do. However, as they had no wish to impede the construction of the
bridge and approaches, they were willing to sell the strip of land on
which part of their hall stood, namely, 20 feet in width, for 20,000_l._
1000_l._ per foot at first sight appeared a very large sum, although at
present it would be considered remarkably cheap. The Committee of the
bridge, looking at the matter fairly, resolved to pay the Fishmongers’
Company the required sum in full compensation for everything, and the
Fishmongers’ Company might, if they thought fit, build a new hall at
their own expense. This agreement was then settled, provided that the
Bill for making the new approaches by an arch across Thames Street should
pass the legislature. Knowing this fact, I was very anxious that this
error of Mr. Montague’s should not come out before the Committee of
the House of Lords, as it was no doubt a great mistake, and if it had
transpired, it might materially have injured our case. I determined,
therefore, during my examination, to keep it out of view as far as
possible; at the same time, if it was fairly put to me, of course I felt
myself bound to give every honest explanation. Perhaps Mr. Montague was
not anxious to be examined; anyhow, he was not, and the whole burthen
fell upon me.
The opposition in the Lords’ Committee was headed by the Earl of Durham,
a very able and intelligent man; he would have made an excellent lawyer
if Providence had so designed it, and in this instance he conducted his
case admirably. I got through the examination in chief very well, and
the opposing counsel commenced his cross-examination, and made nothing
of it. Then Lord Durham got up and for three days I underwent as severe
a cross-examination as I ever experienced, either before or since. He
seemed to be aware of all the facts, and omitted nothing to render his
case triumphant. I always feared that he was coming to the mistake about
Fishmongers’ Hall, but he never did, and I had to lead him away from it
as far as possible; at last he got to the frontages in the different
streets of the respective parishes which were proposed to be taken, and
the new frontages of the new streets which were to be erected. Here I
showed very clearly that the lineal frontage according to the proposed
new streets would be greater than the frontages taken away. This,
however, did not satisfy his Lordship, for he contended that some of the
parishes would lose a great deal more frontage than they would obtain. I
had some idea that this would be the case, and therefore did not think
it necessary to take the individual frontage gained and lost by each
parish. I thought it was quite sufficient to know that upon the whole a
greater line of frontage would be given by the new approaches, than taken
away from the old. The parishes which had petitioned against the Bill
on this account, argued that in some of them the rates would be greatly
diminished, and that in others they would be greatly increased, which
would cause an unequal and unjust distribution. I still kept to my point,
and said upon the whole, without going into detail, the parishes would be
the gainers, and it was for them to adjust the rates amongst themselves.
Lord Durham was very indignant at my obstinacy in maintaining this point,
and tried in every way to make me confess that I had made a mistake; I
nevertheless stuck to it, and said that if I had tried to equalize all
the frontages, my survey might have extended to the Tower, and there
would have been no end of the expense. By this time he was losing his
temper, and said that if I was not very careful I might go to the Tower
still. At this the Committee smiled, and his Lordship, being fairly
baffled, sat down, and I, having been told that they had no further
questions, left the witness-box with the greatest alacrity.
It was considered that I had made out the case for the Bill so
completely, both as regards the estimates and the absolute necessity, in
a public point of view, of carrying the new approaches into effect, that
no other professional witness was put into the box, except the present
able chamberlain, Mr. Scott, then chamberlain’s chief assistant, who
gave such clear and straightforward evidence with regard to the funds
which were disposable by the Corporation, and the way in which they
were administered, that the Committee of the Lords passed the Bill for
the London Bridge Approaches with but few dissentient voices. The Duke
of Wellington, and five or six Cabinet Ministers with him, attended
every day, and in fact kept Parliament sitting to pass the Bill. It was
curious to observe that he never for a moment interrupted the opponents
of the measure; he gave them full scope, and never said a word until
they had had their say, then he put the question, and carried it without
difficulty.
After the fifth arch, the first on the Surrey side, was keyed, the
sinking was observed to be 4 inches, or about 1 inch more than the
others. I could not very well account for this. I also observed that two
of the quoins on the south-east end of the fourth arch from the Surrey
shore had splintered off at the soffit, but no crack could be observed in
the spandril walls; but upon levelling the piers, it was found that the
east end had subsided from 10 to 14 inches more than the upper or west
end. This I could account for in no other way but that there had been
a greater scour here than at the upper end, and that the piles had to
some extent been laid bare. I levelled the arches and piers constantly
after this for several months from a fixed standard gauge, but could find
no alteration; I therefore felt satisfied that the whole of the pier
abutments had come to their final bearing, and the works were continued
as fast as possible towards completion.
In 1830 the Duke’s Government retired, and he himself became as unpopular
as he before had been popular; yet he never deserted London Bridge, and
was more frequent in his visits than ever. I often used to attend him at
five and six in the summer mornings; he generally came on horseback, and
remained from half an hour to an hour, and sometimes more if necessary.
At length the whole bridge and the approaches were completed, and His
Majesty, King William, at the special request of the Corporation of
London, condescended to fix a day on which he would open the bridge in
person. Earl Grey, who had strongly opposed the Bill for the improved
approaches two years before, now, as Premier, accompanied His Majesty
to inaugurate the opening of the same. Perhaps, as a spectacle of the
kind, it was the most brilliant of any that had taken place for fully
a century; and the whole Corporation, including the Bridge Committee,
did everything in their power, for the honour of the City of London,
to render the pageant as splendid as possible. The whole of the space
at the north or City end of the bridge was covered with a magnificent
tent, several hundred feet long, decorated in the greatest taste with
the flags of all nations, and with ancient and modern arms grouped
round the standards forming the supports of the tent, under which were
arranged tables for 1400 guests, for whom a splendid collation was
provided. His Majesty, King William, came in the royal barge in state,
accompanied by all his ministers, and upon his arrival was greeted with
a salute of twenty-one guns from the Tower. All the piers and arches
were decorated with lofty standards displaying the national emblems; the
whole of these, as well as the great tent and decorations, were under
the direction of Mr. Stacey, of the Ordnance department of the Tower,
and the greatest credit is due to him for the admirable taste which
he displayed. The ceremony consisted in King William walking over the
bridge, accompanied by his ministers, the Lord Mayor and Corporation, and
the Bridge Committee. When His Majesty arrived at the Southwark end a
balloon ascended, carrying Mr. Richard Crawshay; the Tower guns then sent
forth another salute, and King William and his _cortège_ returned to the
tent at the City end of the bridge, where they partook of lunch with the
usual ceremonies, and returned by water as they came, with another royal
salute from the Tower. The day was remarkably fine, the river was covered
with boats filled with gaily-dressed people; the wharves, warehouses,
and bridges were thronged with spectators; in fact, it was a great
metropolitan holiday; everything went off well, and all appeared to be
satisfied; I was particularly so. I had been very hard worked, I may say
almost night and day, for some time past, to get things ready, and was of
course rather tried; nevertheless, the success which attended the whole
rendered me completely unmindful of myself, and I forgot all my fatigues,
for I was amply rewarded for all my troubles and anxieties.
A few days after the opening of London Bridge, Jeffreys, the cheesemonger
of Ludgate Hill, presented a petition to Parliament through the
well-known Henry Hunt, stating that the new bridge was coming down.
Jeffreys was very much annoyed because he had received no recompense for
his repeated proposals with regard to the new approaches, though he was
never regularly employed; but he was one of those active, intelligent
persons, who are always interfering in matters which do not concern
them. If he had devoted himself to his own business he might have done
well; but, unfortunately, he neglected this, and fancied himself a great
engineer, a post for which he was absurdly incompetent. He mistook his
vocation, and in attempting to do that for which he was wholly unfit,
he neglected the business of a tradesman, for which he was thoroughly
suited. The petition ended in its being referred to a Commission,
consisting of J. Walker, Telford, and Tierney Clark, who examined the
bridge carefully and made their report, which was colourless and came to
nothing, as the subsidence spoken of had taken place two years and a half
before, and had not increased, nor has it done so up to the present day.
In all works of great magnitude, and particularly in such a difficult
situation as that in which London Bridge is built, it is impossible to
be certain of attaining absolute perfection, but the Committee, being
perfectly satisfied of the stability of the new bridge, determined to
remove the old one forthwith, and I received orders accordingly. The
removal was contracted for by Messrs. Jolliffe and Banks, for the sum of
10,000_l._, they having the benefit of the old materials, except in so
far that they were to fill up the holes in the river below both bridges,
to the extent of 14 feet below low water of spring tides, which was
rather more than the average depth of the river in the vicinity; they
were also bound to remove the whole of the foundations of the piers,
starlings, &c., of the old bridge, to the same depth. The whole of these
operations were completed in the year 1834, when the river, after a lapse
of 658 years, was restored to its natural state.