Chapter XVI: Part 16

which burst out about eleven o’clock, in the night of Tuesday, April 11th, as it is related in Entick’s ‘_Continuation of Maitland_,’ page 20; in the ‘_Gentleman’s Magazine_,’ volume xxviii., page 192; in John Noorthouck’s ‘_History of London_,’ 1773, quarto, page 390; and in Harrison’s ‘_History of London_,’ page 410, where there is an engraving of the fire, probably by Wale, after a drawing by Grignion. From these accounts, we learn that the conflagration brake out suddenly from the two ends of the Wooden Bridge, which, having been dried by several days of bright sunshine, appeared instantly to be in flames, entirely preventing any approach to suppress it. Though Sir Charles Asgill, the Lord Mayor, came very early to the spot, and remained there almost the whole time of the fire, exerting himself exceedingly to stop its progress, it continued raging until the next day, when the burning ruins fell into the river; and Entick observes, that he saw the drawbridge a-light at twelve o’clock at noon. All communication between the City and Southwark being thus suspended, excepting so far as it could be carried on by water, forty additional boats were licensed by the Lord Mayor to work as ferries on the three succeeding Sundays; though the inhabitants of Southwark suffered still greater privation from the destruction of the troughs which conveyed water to them over the Bridge whilst it was repairing, instead of the pipes which had been dug up from the water-works. The navigation was also equally interrupted by the vast timbers that fell across the arches, and the many large stones which almost blocked up the current of the tide; so that the locks at each end only remained entirely clear. As it was very generally suspected that this fire was not accidental, the Lord Mayor waited on Mr. Pitt by nine o’clock the next morning, by whom a Proclamation, dated Whitehall, April the 12th, was issued, containing the King’s Pardon to any of the incendiaries, excepting the person who actually set the Bridge on Fire; with a reward of £200 for his discovery, from the Corporation of London. From the examinations of several persons, there appears to have been considerable grounds for this suspicion. The Watchmen and others in the vicinity, on both sides of the river, declared that about eleven o’clock they observed lights in several places under the Bridge; soon after which, the whole building burst into flames; and it was also reported, that about ten o’clock, on the night of the fire, several persons, apparently intoxicated, were seen coming over the Bridge, with a torch, which, in a struggle between themselves, was flung over the boarded fence, where the light disappeared, till all the timber beneath burst into flames. Another account, contained in the ‘_London Chronicle, or Universal Evening Post_,’ for April the 11th to the 13th, 1758, page 350, states, that the Watchmen actually saw ‘a person in a boat with a candle in a lanthorn, busy about the stone pier, which is to be taken down to lay two arches into one; and after a short time he was seen to extinguish the candle, and the boat went off, and in a few minutes after the Bridge burst out in flames, and continued so until there was no wood left above the water to burn.’ The deposition, also, of Mary, wife of John Dennis, of George Alley, Thames Street, taken before the Lord Mayor on April 14th, stated, that about ten o’clock on the night of the fire, she was in the Watch House belonging to Dyers’ Hall, near London Bridge, and, looking over the hatch of the door, she saw a lanthorn in the Chapel pier. Soon after, she observed another, and then, losing sight of both, there presently appeared three in the same place. At first, she supposed that some vessel was at the Bridge, but the appearance of the second light shewed her that they were between the wood-work at the great pier; and when the three lanthorns were visible together, she observed that one was held up and another down towards the timbers. These lights she imagined to proceed from workmen, but in a short time she saw a small flame burst out on the same spot, which was damped, and then brake out again, and, after having been damped a second time, blazed very fiercely; upon which the deponent went to the next wharf, and gave notice that London Bridge was on fire. This testimony of Mrs. Dennis was confirmed by that of several other persons, who declared that they also saw the lanthorns. The City was indeed filled with rumours and suspicions of every description; the lower orders accused the Watermen and Lightermen; another class attributed the fire to the supporters of the new Bridge at Blackfriars; whilst a third party intimated that the scheme lay still deeper, and believed the design to have been long concerted. We know, indeed, that the Temporary Bridge was the object of many an imprecation from the common people, who might be tempted to fire it from the inconveniences which they experienced upon it; as in the Winter it was so excessively dirty, that some supposed the Committee had contrived it so to increase the toll, by obliging all passengers to cross it in carriages: whilst in dry weather it was no less incommoded by dust. The real origin of the fire, however, was never discovered; and Noorthouck observes, that as there were enough of natural causes to have produced it, so it is not probable that persons interested in obstructing the works or creating new ones, would have exposed themselves to detection for such an attempt. ‘In such a mixture of stone and wood,’ says he, ‘a heap of quicklime on the sterlings, accidentally wetted by the tide, might kindle any adjoining timbers: or, as it is usual for servants behind coaches, with flambeaux in their hands, to clear them by striking them on the hinder wheels, it is no forced supposition that some thoughtless fellow might have struck his flambeau on the pallisade of the Bridge for the same purpose; the flaming wax of which, dropping into some joint on the outside, would have been sufficient for such a disaster.’ A curious letter on this subject, from which I have added many particulars to my information, will be found in the ‘_London Chronicle_’ for April the 13th to the 15th, 1758, page 359. In consequence of this destruction, the Corporation of London addressed the Parliament for relief; and on Friday, April 21st, a resolution passed the House of Commons, that ‘a sum not exceeding £15,000 be granted to his Majesty, to be applied towards the rebuilding of London Bridge.’ This produced the Act to which I have already referred, which made any wilful attempt to destroy the Bridge or its works, to be death without benefit of clergy.

LONDON BRIDGE AFTER THE FIRE OF 1758

presented a truly ruinous prospect; for nearly all the centre houses being removed, there appeared a wide vacancy, with a broken chasm in the middle, down to the water’s edge, where the new arch was being constructed. There are three engravings of this edifice taken immediately subsequent to the destruction, the rarest of which is an extremely slight and rude etching, on a small folio half-sheet, entitled ‘_The Melancholy Prospect of London Bridge South-East, April 12th, 1758. J. Jump Del. et Sculp. Published according to Act. To be had at the Acorn in the Strand._’ In this most barbarous prospect the buildings are represented in flames; and I have seen it marked so high as 4_s._ I cannot imagine why Gough, in his ‘_British Topography_,’ volume i., page 735, calls the next of these engravings ‘a miserable view,’ since it is certainly as good as the generality of the prints of the period, and is very considerably better than the last. It consists of a large half-sheet, entitled ‘_An Exact View of London Bridge since the Conflagration of the Temporary Bridge_,’ which is a copper-plate of 8 inches by 13-1/4; and beneath it, in letter-press, is ‘_A Chronological and Historical Account from the first building a Bridge across the River Thames from London to Southwark, till the late Conflagration of the Temporary Bridge, the 11th of April, 1758. Sold by William Herbert, under the Piazzas on the Remains of London Bridge. Price One Shilling, Plain. Colour’d, Eighteen Pence._’ The only additional information which we derive from this narrative, is, that ‘as the wind providentially blew the whole time at East,--tho’ all the day before it had blown strong from the Southward,--it did no damage to any of the houses at either end.’ But by far the best representation of the effects of this fire, is a half-sheet copper-plate, entitled, in French and English, ‘_A View of London Bridge, with the Ruins of y^e Temporary Bridge, Drawn the day after the Dreadfull Fire, April the 11th, 1758, by A. Walker. Published according to Act of Parliament, June 28, 1758. London: Printed for John Ryall, at Hogarth’s Head in Fleet Street. A. Walker delin. et sculp._’ All these prospects were taken on the West side of the Bridge, and represent the building horizontally across the picture: Herbert’s extends from Fishmongers’ Hall to the Southwark Gate; but Anthony Walker’s takes in the whole Bridge, and part of the buildings on the Surrey shore.

“Yet, if this fire were sudden, and its destruction extensive, the exertions of the City Corporation were not less prompt and effectual in repairing of the damage. The Common Council, like Bunyan’s Captains in _Mansoul_, being always true lovers of London, like so many Samsons, shook themselves and came together to consult upon and contrive a remedy. The Court of Common Council met by one o’clock on the day after the fire, and was attended by Mr. Dance, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Phillips, the builder of the Bridge, whom the Lord Mayor had previously ordered to survey it; and their report was, that with a proper number of workmen, who should be allowed to labour on days, they would engage to make the old Bridge passable for carriages by the 1st of May. A new Temporary Bridge was ordered to be immediately erected, and upwards of 500 workmen were constantly employed upon it, by whose means, as it is stated in the ‘_Gentleman’s Magazine_’ for 1758, page 193, the Bridge was re-opened for foot-passengers, on Wednesday, the 19th of April; and the whole of the new wooden edifice was ready for carriages in less than a month after the fire. During the erection of this building, there seemed to be discovered an additional proof that the last conflagration was not accidental; for Daniel Capel, the Inspector of the Bridge, having been informed that Mary Dennis, before mentioned, and John Scott, one of the Bridge Watchmen, had seen lights about the new works at an unseasonable hour in the night of the 23rd of August, brought them to give their evidence before Mr. Alderman Francis Cokayne. The Inspector was then ordered to search if there were any appearance of fire, and make his report to the Lord Mayor; upon which he stated, that having carefully surveyed the Bridge with proper attendants, they found the appearance of an attempt in three places, where the new wood work was scorched quite black; and one of the Watchmen also produced the remains of a link found in the unfinished works of the Bridge. To prevent another conflagration, therefore, says Entick, in his ‘_Continuation of Maitland’s History_,’ page 21, it was ordered that two men, well armed, should be placed every night, from sun-set to sun-rise, in a gallery erected from end to end of the Temporary Bridge, just beneath the centre of the works, with lamps lighted, and a bell, to alarm the neighbourhood in case of an attack. This watch was continued under the direction of Mr. Capel, until the whole of the Temporary Bridge was taken down. Before this, however, as we are informed by ‘_Owen’s Weekly Chronicle, or Universal Journal_,’ for August 26th to September 2nd, 1758, page 173, five watermen, armed with blunderbusses and cutlasses, had watched for a fortnight, from ten at night until five in the morning, in a boat under the great Arch. The opening of the second wooden erection for carriages did not take place until Wednesday, the 18th of October, 1758, as we learn from ‘_Owen’s Weekly Chronicle_,’ October 14th to 21st, No. 29, page 230: on page 206 of a former number of which, the watch is particularly mentioned; and we are also told that there was a convenient pathway for foot-passengers, railed in and elevated above the carriage-road. Pages 183 and 198 of the same authority, shew that the edifice was strewed over with gravel above the planks; that on each side there were uprights for covering it; and that a month intervened between the gravelling and the opening of the Bridge. In consequence, too, of the recent attempt to destroy the New Bridge, this paper likewise informs us, page 238, that orders were issued by the Lord Mayor, that no coaches nor foot-passengers should carry any lighted torches over the Temporary Bridge.

“It was not, however, until the middle of the year 1759, that the new Arch of London Bridge began to assume its intended form; though we can trace its progress only by slight occasional notices contained in the periodicals of the day. Thus we learn from a paragraph in the ‘_London Chronicle_,’ of Saturday, July the 28th, 1759, page 88, that ‘the grand Arch at London Bridge is now completed. It is finished in the Gothick taste, and the ballustrades upon it are fixing. The foot-paths will be rather wider than those at Westminster; and it is proposed to fix posts along them with chains from one post to the other, to secure foot-passengers from any damage which might otherwise happen from cattle.’ The strength and complication of the timber used for forming this Arch, are particularly pointed out in an engraving and letter signed E. M., in ‘_The London Magazine_’ for that year, volume xxviii., page 672; where it is stated, that about 17,000 feet of wood were contained within the arch, which, at some little distance, appeared to be entirely solid, the vacant spaces being exceedingly small in proportion to the beams themselves. Its actual contents were 13,872 cubic feet of timber, forming the centre; and 3570 feet more occupied in booms, guard-piles, struts, and trusses required for the preservation of the old and new works, and for keeping off the River craft, tide-water, and ice. This alteration was carried into effect by Sir Robert Taylor, Architect to the Bank of England, and Mr. Dance, Senior; and the Carpenter employed for the construction of this CENTRING OF THE GREAT ARCH OF LONDON BRIDGE,

received 2_s._ per foot for the use of his timber, including labour, and took it back again at his own expense. It measured 70 feet span, by 48 feet wide, and the rise was 23 feet; it was formed of 16 ribs or frames, and was supported on three Sterlings; namely, the two side ones of about 6 feet each, and that from which the Chapel pier had been removed. The author of the letter which I have referred to, censuring the extraordinary quantity of wood used in the centre, observes that it employed nearly 10,500 feet more than were used at Westminster Bridge; notwithstanding the Arch at London Bridge is 4-3/4 feet narrower and 12 feet lower, though the Bridge itself is 4-3/4 feet wider. The author’s own plan, which is also annexed to the letter, more resembles that adopted by the late Mr. Rennie, in his alteration of Rochester Bridge, in the year 1821. It consisted of five radii, supporting as many timbers placed pentagonally; occupied only 7000 feet of timber, and would have amounted to £1000 less than the plan actually adopted.

“Many months had not elapsed, however, when it was discovered, that, by the removal of the large centre pier, the excavations around and underneath its Sterlings were so considerable, as to place the adjoining piers, and even the new arch itself, in very imminent danger. The presentiments of many, and the apprehensions of almost all, were consequently so great, that but few persons would pass either over or under it; the Surveyors themselves were not prepared with any adequate remedy; and Mr. John Smeaton, the celebrated Engineer, was instantly summoned express from Yorkshire to relieve the difficulty. Having immediately proceeded to survey the Bridge, and to sound about the dangerous Sterlings, he advised the Corporation to buy back again the stones of the City Gates, and throw them into the water, to guard the Sterlings; preserve the bottom from farther corrosion; raise the floor under the Arch; and restore the head of the current required for the Water-works, to its original power. These City Gates, you will remember, had been previously sold and taken down, in 1760 and 61, as appears by the ‘_Gentleman’s Magazine_’ for those years; volume xxx., pages 390, 440, 591, and volume xxxi., page 187: where we are informed, that on Wednesday, July 30th, were sold to Mr. Blagden, a Carpenter in Coleman Street, before the Commissioners of City Lands, the edifice of Aldgate for £177: 10_s._; Cripplegate for £91; and Ludgate for £148. Two months were allowed for the removal of each, the latter being begun on Monday, August 4th, and Aldgate on Monday, September 1st. Bishopsgate was sold on Wednesday, December 10th; and on Wednesday, April 22, 1761, Moorgate was also sold for £166, and Aldersgate for £91. It was probably the materials of the first of these, which lay in Moorfields, when Mr. Smeaton advised their being thrown into the Thames: and with so much promptitude was that advice followed, that the stones were bought the same day; horses, carts, and barges were instantly procured, and the work commenced immediately, although it was Sunday morning. These particulars are related in the Life of this Engineer, attached to his ‘_Reports made on various Occasions_,’ volume i, London, 1812, quarto, page xix.

“Whilst we are speaking of this alteration of London Bridge, it seems to be a proper place to say something of the massive features of our ancient edifice, and the oldest contrivances used for the support of Bridges in general. First, then, the Piers are said to be raised, so far as their nature can at present be known, upon rough piles of oak and elm, shod with iron, and driven very close, but apparently not fastened. Upon the heads of these are frequently found pieces of plank, chiefly oak, 4 to 6 inches in thickness; and the insides of the Piers are filled up with rubble laid in mortar. This kind of building is supposed to have been anciently used when the bed of the river could not be laid dry; and the stilts or piles were then surrounded by a row of other piles and planks, like a wall, called a Sterling or Jettee, the vacant spaces of which were filled with loose stones, &c. to the top. The inconveniences attending such a method are, however, so great, that it is now entirely disused: as, on account of the very loose composition of the Piers, they must be made both large and broad, to prevent their entire destruction upon drawing the centre of the Arch. This great breadth, also, very materially contracts the water-way, and incommodes navigation; whilst the Sterling itself is in considerable danger of bursting.”

“But, Mr. Postern,” said I, as the Antiquary arrived at this part of his narrative, “although Maitland tells us, in his ‘_History_,’ volume i., page 46, and volume ii., page 1349, that the use of Coffer-dams, or _Caissons_, for building of the Piers of Bridges, was first introduced into the Thames at the erection of Westminster Bridge, yet it has been supposed that even this of London was constructed somewhat after the same plan; and that those Sterlings are but the upper parts of the machines themselves, left in the water to guard the Piers; though it is certain, that in most of the Reports, illustrative of the great repair of London Bridge, the Sterlings are mentioned as additions to the original structure for the support of the Piers. I have been obligingly furnished, however, with an interesting drawing, and extract from the MS. Journal of Mr. William Knight, of Mr. Rennie’s office, by which we are enabled to understand the construction of these parts of the Bridge in a much clearer and more perfect manner. Mr. Knight observes, that having received several different statements as to the way in which the Piers of the old London Bridge had been erected, he determined upon convincing himself by an actual survey. This he effected on August 14th, 1821, when an excavation was made for ascertaining whether the original structure would support new Arches of a larger span; and he then found it to be built in the following manner. ‘The foundation of the Piers on the North side,--between the Great Lock and what is called the Long Entry Lock,--and in the Sterling round it, appeared to be about 3 feet above low-water mark. The bottom of the masonry originally laid of the pier, is about 2 feet 3 inches above low-water mark; and the first course is laid upon a sill of oak, 16 inches wide, by 9 in thickness, and perfectly sound. Immediately beneath this is a mass of Kentish rubble, mixed with flint, chalk, &c., thrown in irregularly, but not mixed with any cement. The masonry above the sill seems well bonded together, with good mortar joints, but there are _no piles under the oak sill_. The external parts of the pier seem to have been new-fronted at some period,--probably at the time when the centre Arch was formed in 1759,--as the base of this new fronting projects about 1 foot before the original Pier. There are _no piles under the original part of the Pier_; but to the _new part there are some small ones driven into the rubble_,--which can be of little service,--with some planks laid upon their edges. The new masonry is well bonded into the old work.’ Mr. Knight concludes, by observing that, in all the accounts which he has hitherto met with, the old Piers of this Bridge are described to _stand upon piles_; but that, as he found this to be erroneous in the present instance, he considers it to be a fair conclusion that all the other Piers were constructed upon the same principle. His drawing represents a SECTION OF THE NORTH PIER OF THE GREAT ARCH OF LONDON BRIDGE,

shewing the original manner of constructing it, and the Sterling, or ancient Coffer-dam, standing around it; which, it thus appears unquestionably evident that, not having the art to pump dry, was filled up with loose stones. The Arch on the right hand is denominated the Long Entry Lock, and that on the left is a part of the Great Arch in the centre. I should remark also, that Mr. Knight has examined several other parts of this edifice with no less care and industry, in order to ascertain the plans adopted at the famous alteration of London Bridge, of which we are now speaking; of all of which observations he has made interesting sketches and memoranda. He states that he has felt with his measuring rods the timber, &c., placed in the river to strengthen the piers of the Great Arch, and that his sounding leads have been broken by catching in it. In April, 1826, the opening of the roadway of London Bridge for throwing of two more Arches into one, to increase the water-way during the building of the New Bridge, also made a curious discovery of many of the more ancient parts of the original building. The crowns of the old Arches, observes Mr. Knight, were about 8 feet 6 inches from the present surface of the ground, which appeared to have been raised at different periods; and five several strata were evidently to be traced over the centre of the original Bridge, which was 20 feet in width. Immediately over the crowns of the Arches was a layer of fine gravel, about 20 inches in depth, perhaps the ancient roadway, as its upper surface had the appearance of being trodden down and dirty, when contrasted with that beneath it. The next stratum consisted of mixed chalk and gravel; the third of made ground of various materials; the fourth, a thick layer of burnt wood, ruins, and black earth; and the last another bed of different substances, over which was the granite paving. The filling-in between the Arches was composed of chalk and mortar, of so hard a nature that it was taken out with great difficulty. With respect to the building itself, he observes, that the stone of which the Arches were formed consists of two courses: that of the soffits or flying ribs, being Merstham Fire-stone, and the course above very similar to the stone of Caen, or Normandy. In the additions, or casings, on each side of the original structure, Portland stone has been used, as well for the facing, as for the Arches; whilst the backing and filling-in, between the spandrils of the Arches, was composed of chalk and mortar; which latter was evidently of a very bad quality and carelessly applied. Indeed, the ashler facing had been so little attended to in the bonding of the work together, that it is surprising, with the great weight behind, the careless manner of throwing in the backing, and the slight nature of the facing itself, that the whole work has not been thrown outwards some time since. Having thus, Mr. Barnaby, added these curious observations to your narrative, I must once more entreat you to proceed.”

“After making you my acknowledgments,” recommenced the Antiquary, “for the very curious illustration you have now furnished; and before quitting the Great Arch of London Bridge, let me observe, that it contains the Trinity Standard of High Water, which is placed there for the benefit of persons erecting buildings on the banks of the Thames, and originally inscribed upon a metal plate, affixed under the Great Arch upon the North East side, as it may be seen beneath the centre Arch of Blackfriars Bridge. It is at present engraven in the centre of each Pier of the Great Arch, in black Roman letters, about 7-1/2 feet above the springing line of the Arch, or 8-1/2 feet over the sterling; and consists of the inscription,--

+--------------+
| |
| TRINITY. |
| |
| H. W. |
| |
| 1800. |
| |
| ------ |
| |
| Λ [Greek: L] |
| |
+--------------+

the character beneath being the average point of the ordinary rise of a Spring Tide at High Water, which, above Bridge, is 14-1/2 feet or 15 feet, being 5 feet 3 inches above the Neap Tides. At high Spring Tides, however, it has risen 16 feet and upwards; and in that remarkable one combined with a land-flood on December 28th, 1821, it rose 2 feet, 10 inches, and five parts, above the mark below Bridge. From the official tidal observations of the Trinity Company, it has been ascertained, that, from Blackwall to London Bridge, the High Water ascends to the same level; and that from the upper side of London Bridge to that of Westminster the River is likewise generally level, excepting under the influence of winds or land-floods. During that of 1821, to which I have just referred, the banks of the River, and the marshes and gardens above Westminster, were overflowed and damaged to a very considerable extent; which has been attributed to the obstruction offered by the present London Bridge to the passage of the water towards the sea, as we learn from the ‘_Report of Ralph Walker, delivered into the House of Commons, 11th of April, 1823_,’ octavo, page 9; where he states, that the tides below this edifice during the flood, rose only to the ordinary height, whilst at Low water the fall was increased by several feet. This celebrated fall is, of course, most evident at Low water, when it is about 4 feet 6 inches, or 6 feet in the Winter season; and the most hazardous time for passing through any of the Bridge Locks, is probably half an hour previous to, or, for barges, the last two hours before, Low water below Bridge. The safest time of the tide is at High water, or slack Low water: but boats may pass with safety for 2-1/2 hours after flood, and the last half hour of the drain of the tide at ebb, above Bridge; the tide having then flowed nearly 4 feet below. Deeply laden barges also take the drain through at Low water. The Great Arch is doubtless one of the safest to pass under, and is always used by craft and barges; but before the erection of the New Bridge works, most of the other Locks were employed at the flood tide, when the fall is extremely trifling. When the tide is on the ebb, the Arches which are chiefly used for boats are, the Draw-Lock,--the 4th from the Great Arch,--on the South; and St. Mary’s Lock,--adjoining the Great Arch,--on the North, which is always taken on the first part of the ebb. The Long-Narrow, once a favourite Lock, is now nearly abandoned; but the Draw-Lock is perhaps considered the safest, and is the most generally used since the erection of the New Bridge Coffer-dams. The approach, however, is dangerous, and requires a skilful waterman, who is obliged to pull his boat into the draft or eddy of the dam before he can make the Lock. Though the works of the New Bridge have at present closed several of the Arches of the ancient edifice, yet the 4th and 5th Locks from the Southwark end have been thrown into one, with a strong wooden vaulting, parapet, and roadway above, to increase the water-way beneath. Since the commencement of these works, the fall of the river has also become less dangerous for barges, from the returning tide sooner meeting with resistance; and instead of a direct fall of 6 feet in 50, it is now only about 6-1/2 feet in 250. The draft of the tide, however, round the Coffer-dams, makes it very difficult for lightermen to enter the Locks fairly; and some of the outer rows of piles are driven inwards from their barges being carried against them. In 1820 and 1822, the average fall at High water was only from 8 to 13 inches; and in 1823, after the removal of the London Bridge Water-works, it decreased to between 3 and 4.

“Mr. Barnaby! Mr. Barnaby!” exclaimed I, fretted by this long digression in the Antiquary’s narrative, “I protest you really put me out of all patience: there’s no keeping you to one subject; for the last of your annals referred to that most wearisome alteration and repair of London Bridge which began in 1757, and now you are bewildered in a discourse on the navigation and tides of the Thames! Truly, it’s intolerable!”

“I am aware,” replied the placid Mr. Postern, whom there seemed to be actually no putting into a passion, “I am aware how much these observations serve to lengthen and interrupt our history; but still they are vastly important to its illustration. ‘Our life,’ says an interesting and romantic author, ‘cannot be like an Arabian manuscript, all flowers and gold,’ and neither can history be composed only of the facts which naturally belong to it. There must be various incidental notices, seemingly unconnected with it, which are at last found to combine with the story, and to render it much more intelligible; and if ever, Mr. Barbican, you publish these Chronicles of London Bridge, make my words both your defence and your apology. The fact is, I really am half unwilling to proceed to the close of the alterations of this edifice, because we have subsequently so few interesting particulars on record concerning it; and other events,--excepting the usual unhappy accidents beneath its Arches,--are almost entirely wanting. At the time of the formation of the Great Arch, it appears that the wooden Draw-Bridge was first taken away,--though it had then long ceased to be used,--and the present Stone Arch, entitled the Draw-Lock, about 30 feet in width, or 16 feet between the Sterlings, was erected instead of it. This we learn from the ‘_Public Ledger_,’ of Monday, January 28th, 1760, which states ‘that the centre of the new Draw-Lock Arch of London Bridge is struck; so that there is now a free passage for boats, &c.’ In this very Lock, however, only a few months afterwards, an accident occurred which might have almost proved fatal to the Bridge itself; and it is thus related in the ‘_Public Advertiser_’ of Monday, December 29th, 1760. ‘On Tuesday, a large old French ship, that was coming through the Draw-Lock at London Bridge, to be broken up above Bridge, stuck in the Lock, and still continues there, having done considerable damage to the same; and it is thought that she cannot now be got out, but must be broken up where she now lies.’ The same paper for Friday, January 9th, 1761, states, that ‘yesterday the workmen, who have been employed, for this fortnight past, in breaking up the large French ship that stuck in the Draw-Lock at London Bridge, as she was going up the river, endeavoured, on the strong flow of the tide, to get her through the Bridge, but could not effect it. This ship, it appears, was but 18 inches wider than the Lock.’ At length, however, in the same paper for Friday, January 30th, it was announced that ‘Yesterday the watermen cleared the Draw-Lock at London Bridge, of the large French ship that stuck there some weeks ago.’

“The destruction of part of St. Magnus’ Church, by most authors attributed to the year 1759, but which actually took place in 1760, was the cause of a further improvement of the North-East end of London Bridge; by the opening of that arched passage beneath the Church Steeple, which the wisdom of Sir Christopher Wren had foreseen, and provided for, fifty-five years before. This destruction then, took place by a fire, which brake out between 9 and 10 o’clock, in the morning of Friday, April 18th, at the house of Messrs. Barrow and Reynolds, Oilmen, in Thames street, adjoining to the Church. It consumed seven dwelling-houses, all the warehouses on Fresh Wharf, with a considerable quantity of goods contained in them, and the roof of the Church itself; which, falling in, very much damaged the pews and altar-piece. The organ, the excellence of which we have already noticed, was taken away, but was considered to have received very serious injury in the removal. The whole of this destruction was estimated at £40,000; and it was occasioned, says Entick, in his ‘_Continuation of Maitland’s History_,’ page 29, by the neglect of a servant, who was appointed to watch the boiling of some inflammatory substances, and who left his charge on the fire, whilst he went to see the famous Earl Ferrers return from his trial and condemnation. Before he could get back, the whole shop was in flames. Some of these particulars you will also find recorded in the ‘_Public Advertiser_’ for Saturday, April 19th, 1760; and in the ‘_Gentleman’s Magazine_’ for that year, volume xxx., page 199. Before this fire, the main body of St. Magnus’ Church extended to the tower, which was originally about equal with the houses on London Bridge; but when they were taken away, the West end so greatly interfered with the foot-path, that it was proposed to take down so much of the building as enclosed the tower on each side, and to form a passage under the steeple by arches. This plan, however, does not appear to have been proposed, until after the Church had been repaired; because the first notice of it which we meet with, is in the ‘_Public Advertiser_’ of Monday, September 29th, 1760, in the following terms. ‘The workmen have paved a great part of the foot-path on the lower side of London Bridge; and the tower part of St. Magnus’ Church has been lately surveyed, in order to make some alteration in the lower part thereof, conducive to the convenience of the passage of the Bridge.’ The danger which was supposed to be attendant upon its alteration, was probably the cause of delay in its execution; but the surveyor who was employed, had the ingenuity to discover, that Sir Christopher, conceiving that such a convenience must be required at some future period, had contrived the arch on which the steeple stood, of such strength, that it was essential only to clear away the intermediate space to perfect the alteration. Still the work proceeded but slowly, since the next notice of it is contained in the ‘_Public Advertiser_’ for Wednesday, August 4th, 1762. ‘The North and West Porticoes adjoining to the tower of St. Magnus’ Church at London Bridge, are taking down, in order to form a passage to and from that building, through the spacious arch upon which the steeple is built; the South Portico is also down, which fronts the Bridge, and makes a very agreeable appearance; and the taking down of the West Portico, to compleat that useful work, is in great forwardness.’ It was yet, however, almost another twelvemonth before this improvement was perfected, as we learn by the following notice, from the last mentioned paper of Thursday, June 30th, 1763. ‘On Saturday last,--25th,--the foot-passage under the arch of St. Magnus’ steeple was opened; which, besides the convenience for foot-passengers, makes a very pretty appearance. A vestry, built of stone, is to be erected in the Church-yard, to front the new Toll-house, just erected at the corner of London Bridge.’ Before we finally part with St. Magnus’ Church, I must not forget to state, that Malcolm, in his ‘_Londinum Redivivum_,’ volume iv., page 31, observes,--though without citing his authority,--that ‘in October, 1713, the Rector received an anonymous letter, which discovered a design of setting fire to London Bridge, for the purpose of plundering the inhabitants. The greatest precautions were adopted in consequence, and nothing uncommon occurred.’ I find, however, no notice of this letter in any of the periodical prints of the time.

“In the mean time, the alterations of the Bridge itself were in continual progression; though all the buildings were not even yet removed, and the Temporary Bridge was still standing. The ‘_Public Advertiser_’ for Thursday, December 25th, 1760, states that ‘notice has been given to the people on the West side of London Bridge, to quit their premises by the 25th of March next.’ In the same paper, for Tuesday, February 3rd, 1761, an advertisement announces, that six houses on the West side of London Bridge, from the North end of the Temporary Bridge to the Toll House, were to be sold by auction at Guildhall, to be put up at £156: and in the paper for Wednesday, February 11th, we are informed that those houses were begun to be pulled down. In your notices, Mr. Barbican, of the tokens issued by the tradesmen of old London Bridge, you mentioned two who lived at the sign of the Bear, at the Bridge-foot, which, perhaps, was the building referred to in the following passage contained in the ‘_Public Advertiser_’ of Saturday, December 26th, 1761. ‘Thursday last, the workmen employed in pulling down the Bear Tavern at the foot of London Bridge, found several pieces of gold and silver coin of Queen Elizabeth, and other monies to a considerable value.’”

“By no means unlikely,” replied I, “and I may also add, that at this period was probably removed the house of the original manufacturer of Walkden’s Ink-powder, with which we are still familiar. We learn the situation of his dwelling by his Shop-bill, an impression of which is in the possession of Mr. Upcott of the London Institution, engraven on a copper plate, measuring 6-1/4 inches by 4-1/8. Within a double line, and beneath an ornamented compartment containing a Bell, is inscribed:--‘_Richard Walkden, Stationer, at y^e Bell on London Bridge, near S^t Magnus Church, Makes and Sells all Sorts of Accomptants and Shopkeepers Books, y^e greatest Variety of Paper-Hangings for Rooms, and all other Sorts of Stationary Wares, Wholesale or Retail at the Lowest Prices. Where may be had Bibles, Common Prayers, Testaments, Psalters, &c. N. B. He is also the Maker of the Fine British Ink-Powder, for making Black Writing Ink, w^{ch} is Universally Allowed to Excell all other whatsoever, yet made, and is of the greatest Convenience for Country Shopkeepers to make their own Ink, to Sell again, as Likewise for Merchants and Sea Captains who goe or Send Ventures to Sea, to whom great allowance will be given with printed Directions of its Excellence and Use. At the same place may be had y^e best Liquid Ink, in its Greatest Perfection. Customers may Depend on being Serv’d as well by Letter as if present._’ I must also take this opportunity of mentioning another Shop-bill connected with this edifice, communicated to me by Henry Smedley, Esq.; and consisting of a copper-plate executed about the latter end of the 17th century, representing a circle surrounded by fruit and foliage, having two Cupids standing at the upper corners, and containing in the centre, two palm-branches, enclosing a Sceptre surmounted by a Heart. Round the whole are suspended lancets, trepans, saws, &c., and beneath the device is engraven, ‘_Samvell Grover, at the Sceptre and heart on London bridge, who maketh all sorts of Chirugeons Instruments, the best sort of Razors, pen-knives, Scissers, and Lancetts: there are also the best Hoans, and fine Fish Skin Cases_.’ You may remember, Mr. Postern, that one of my former Shop Bills was that of James Brooke, Stationer, ‘near the Square on London Bridge,’ This Square was formed in the first opening on the Bridge, above the 8th Arch from the North end, called St. Mary’s Lock. It was surrounded by massive iron rails, and Mr. J. T. Smith, in his ‘_Antiquities of London_,’ page 26, states, that when the houses were taken down, the iron-work was bought by several inhabitants of the Parish of St. Botolph, Bishopsgate, and placed upon the dwarf wall on the Eastern side of the Church yard, where it is yet to be seen.”

“I have again to offer you my thanks,” answered the Antiquary, “for your very curious and _recherché_ illustrations; and we will now close up the year 1761 by stating, that we are informed by the ‘_Continuation of Maitland’s History_,’ page 35, that on Monday, February 2nd, the tide flowed so short up the Thames, that at high-water there was not sufficient to cover the Sterlings; so that several persons waded over, both above, and a little below, the Bridge at low water. We may, I think, fairly consider the history of _Old_ London Bridge terminated at this place; since the alterations we have recently described, made its features almost such as we now behold them. I should not forget, however, that one of the last pieces of poetry connected with it, was written by the famous Anne Killegrew, celebrated by Dryden, and entitled ‘_On my Aunt, Mrs. A. K. Drown’d under London Bridge in the Queen’s Bardge: Anno 1641_.’ You will find it printed in Southey’s ‘_Specimens of the later English Poets_,’ London, 1807, Octavo, volume i., page 15.

“As we are informed by the ‘_Public Advertiser_’ of Monday, June 7th, 1762, that the workmen had then begun to lay down the iron pipes, for the conveyance of water from London Bridge into the Borough, we may conclude that the stone-work of the edifice was then perfect; although from those pipes leaking between the stones, there arose a report that the new Bridge was falling to pieces, which was, some years after, the origin of a particular inquiry.

“The destructive effects of some very high tides which happened early in 1763, are the principal events connected with London Bridge at that period; as the ‘_Continuation of Maitland’s History_,’ page 48, informs us that, on Tuesday, February 15th, the tide rose to such a height in the River, that many parts of Westminster were overflowed; and, below London Bridge, the inhabitants of Tooley Street were obliged to keep to their upper rooms. In the ‘_Public Advertiser_’ of the following Thursday, it is stated that the damage done to goods in warehouses adjoining the Thames, was estimated at upwards of £20,000; the great land-floods having occasioned the water to rise higher than it had ever been known. That the Bridge itself was in some danger, may be inferred from the same paper of Wednesday, February 23rd, where it is recorded that ‘three engines are at work driving piles, for the security of the large Arch of London Bridge; some of the small ones, it is said, will be entirely stopt, to prevent the water from ebbing away too fast.’ It was probably this circumstance that was alluded to by Mylne, the Architect, in his Report to the Corporation of London, concerning a new grant to the Water-works, made in June, 1767; and which you will find in the ‘_Public Advertiser_’ for Friday, July 17th. He there states, that in the beginning of 1763, the first winter after taking up the Pier from under the Great Arch, when the other Arches were stopped up with ice, the whole force of the tide rushed so violently through it, as to tear up the bed of the river, and the Sterlings, being deprived of their support, gave way, and left the foundation-piles entirely exposed to the water. He adds, too, that only to repair this damage, the sum of £6800 was expended by the Bridge Committee. Mr. Smeaton’s answers on the best manner of enlarging and improving London Bridge, delivered on March 18th, 1763, may also be seen in the paper last referred to, for Monday, July 20th, 1767, and subsequent numbers. In the same journal of Tuesday, April 15th, 1763, it had been related, that ‘the water in the Thames rose so high on Sunday, that many houses on the Surrey shore were two or three feet deep in water; and at Lambeth, the long walk by the Bishop’s Palace was overflowed, and boats were employed in the town to carry people from house to house.’

“Although the famous winter of 1766-67 continued with remarkable severity until January 16th, we find but few particulars of it connected with London Bridge; excepting that the ‘_Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser_’ for Monday, January 12th, states that several of its Arches were then stopped by the ice, and some accidents, which happened there, are recorded in the subsequent numbers of the same paper. In a notice of the proceedings of a Court of Common Council on Wednesday, July 30th, 1766, also contained in the ‘_Gazetteer_’ of the following Friday, it is stated that the Committee for conducting the recent repairs of London Bridge, made the last report of their works; in which they set forth, that they had executed the several trusts reposed in them by the Acts of Parliament which I have recited to you, and at the same time rendered an account of the money then owing for the alterations. Of these it is observed by John Gwynn, in his ‘_London and Westminster Improved_,’ London, 1766, quarto, page 120, _Note_, that they amounted to nearly £100,000, beside the materials of the houses, many of which were new. He adds, too, that the Bridge was rendered worse than it had been, by the exceeding rapidity of the stream under the Great Arch; and condemns both the appearance and effects of the Water-works. Of the remaining debt, then, the Court ordered that £3000 in the Chamberlain’s hands should be immediately paid; and that bonds should be given for the remainder, not exceeding £12,000, redeemable by the City, and bearing interest at 4 per cent. The Committee was then dissolved, and the concerns of London Bridge were again restored to that belonging to the Bridge-House Estates.

“There seems, however, to have been but little satisfaction given by the extensive alterations and improvements of this edifice; for, at the very same Court, a petition for relief was presented from the Watermen’s Company, stating that the navigation through the Great Arch of London Bridge was very dangerous, from the two adjoining Arches on the North side being stopped up; and vessels being caught in the eddy it occasioned, received considerable damage before they could escape, which had sometimes occasioned the loss of life. It was soon discovered, too, that the iron pipes belonging to the Water-works, laid across the Bridge, had greatly injured the stone-work and crowns of the Arches, by frequent leaking; whilst the piers of the Great Arch were weakened, and the current of the tide was altered, by a new Arch being granted to the Water-works. These particulars are noticed in the ‘_Gazetteer_’ of Thursday, October 23rd, 1766; whilst in the ‘_Public Advertiser_’ for Tuesday, November 4th, and the former paper for Saturday, November 22nd, a report is mentioned of entirely removing both the Bridge and Water-works, and greatly improving the whole of their vicinity. In the ‘_Gazetteer_,’ too, for Friday and Monday, December 5th and 8th, the dirty and dusty state of the Bridge is mentioned as arising from total neglect of cleaning and watering it, though the usual advertisements for their performance were then publishing.

“For the consideration and removal of these defects, a very fair opportunity was now offered; a Committee of the Proprietors of the Water-works having presented a petition to the Corporation, for renting, and erecting a wheel in, the 5th Arch at the North end of London Bridge, which had been referred to a Committee, to examine, and report upon. This petition was read at the Court of Common Council on Thursday, November 28th, 1765, as we learn by the ‘_Public Advertiser_’ of the following day; and you will find a copy of it in the same paper for Friday, July 3rd, 1767, forming part of a series of 13 official documents, on the subject, inserted in that journal down to Thursday, July 23rd, of the same year. I have already had occasion slightly to notice these proceedings, of which you may find several particulars in the ‘_Gentleman’s Magazine_’ for 1767, volume xxxvii., pages 337, 407; but I shall now give you some account of them from these more authentic sources, and close up my history of the Water-works with a short description of their mechanism, and final removal.