volume i., page 29; and in Maitland’s ‘_History_,’ volume i., pages 51,

52. Subsequently, however, a fifth arch was granted by the Court of Common Council, after a long debate, on June the 23rd, 1767; under an express condition that if, at any time, it should be found injurious to the navigation of the river, the City might revoke their grant, upon re-payment of the expenses. A particular description of these works, which I shall speak of hereafter, will be found in the ‘_Philosophical Transactions, volume xxxvii. for the years 1731, 1732_,’ London, 1733, 4to. No. 417, pages 5-12, written by Henry Beighton, with a plate, of which I possess the original drawing, executed very carefully in pen-and-ink.

“The earliest view of London Bridge in this century, I take to be that very barbarous print by Sutton Nicholls, an Engraver who resided in London, about the year 1710, was much employed by the booksellers, and who executed several of the plates in Strype’s edition of ‘Stow’s _Survey_.’ His prospect of the Bridge is a large and coarse engraving in two sheets, measuring 35 inches, by 22-1/2, and is divided lengthways into two parts; the upper one entitled ‘_The West side of London Bridge_,’ on a ribbon, and the lower one the Eastern side, in the same manner. Both of these views are horizontal, and of most execrable drawing, especially with respect to the water and vessels; and the Print seldom produces more than a few shillings, though I should observe that there are two editions of it. One bearing the imprint of ‘_Printed for and Sold by I. Smith, in Exeter Exchange in the Strand_,’ which is the earliest and best; and another marked ‘_Printed for, and Sold by, Tho. Millward and Bis. Dickinson, at Inigo Jones Head, next the Globe Tavern, in Fleet Street_;’ which latter is probably still in existence, as impressions of it are by no means rare. Below the views are engraven ‘_An Historical Description of the great and admirable Bridge in the City of London over the River of Thames_,’ and Howell’s verses, which I have already cited to you. But although its present value is so trifling, it is yet far beyond the original price of it, for in the Harleian MSS., No. 5956, is an impression of the following curious original copper-plate Prospectus for its publication:--

“‘Proposals for Printing a Prospect of London Bridge, Thirty-five Inches Long, and Twenty-three Inches Broad.

‘1st. Every Subscriber paying half a Crown at the time of subscription, shall have a Prospect pasted on Cloath in a Black Frame, paying half a Crown more at the receipt thereof.

‘2dly. Every Subscriber paying one shilling at the time of subscription, shall have one of the Prospects on Paper only, paying one shilling more at the receipt thereof.

‘3dly. He that subscribes, or procures subscriptions, for six framed ones, shall have a seventh in a Frame, Gratis; and he that subscribes, or procures subscriptions, for six in sheets, shall have a seventh in sheets, Gratis.

‘4thly. Any person that desires it, may see a Drawing of the same in the hands of Sutton Nicholls, Ingraver, against the George Inn, in Aldersgate Street, London, where subscriptions are taken in. At the same place is taught the Art of Drawing, by Sight, Measure, or Instrument; also the Art of Writing: Prints and Mapps, Surveys, Ground Plotts, Uprights, and Perspectives, are there Drawn and Coloured at reasonable rates.’ This view of London Bridge is mentioned by Gough, in his ‘_British Topography_,’ volume i., page 734.

“Although the Thames was again frozen over at intervals in the year 1709, and some persons crossed it on the ice, yet the frost was neither so intense nor so permanent as to cause another fair; though, in the illustrated Pennant in the British Museum, there is an impression of a coarse bill, within a wood-cut border of rural subjects, containing the words ‘_Mr. John Heaton, Printed on the Thames at Westminster, Jan. the 7th, 1709. The Art and Mystery of Printing first invented by John Guttemberg, in Harlem, in 1440, and brought into England by John Islip_.’ 7 inches by 5-3/4.

“About the end of November 1715, however, a very severe frost commenced, which continued until the 9th of the following February, when the sports of 1683 were all renewed; but of this I shall mention only the few curious memorials of it to be found in Mr. Crowle’s London collections in the British Museum.

“A copper-plate, 6 inches by 7-1/4, representing a view of London from the opposite shore, with London Bridge on the right hand, and a line of tents on the left, leading from ‘_Temple Stairs_.’ In front, another line of tents marked ‘_Thames Street_,’ and the various sports, &c. before them: below the print are alphabetical references, with the words ‘_Printed on the Thames 17-16/15_;’ and above it, ‘_Frost Fair on the River Thames_.’

“A copper-plate, 16 inches by 20-1/4, representing London at St. Paul’s, with the tents, &c. and with alphabetical references; ‘_Printed and Sold by John Bowles, at the Black Horse, in Cornhill_.’ In the right hand corner above, the arms and supporters of the City; and in the left, a cartouche with the words ‘_Frost Fayre, being a True Prospect of the Great varietie of Shops and Booths for Tradesmen, with other curiosities and humors, on the Frozen River of Thames, as it appeared before the City of London, in that memorable Frost in y^e second year of the Reigne of Our Sovereigne Lord King George, Anno Domini 1716_.’

“‘_Frost Fair: or a View of the booths on the frozen Thames, in the 2nd Year of King George, 1716._’ A wood-cut.

“‘_An exact and lively view of the booths, and all the variety of shows, &c. on the ice, with an alphabetical explanation of the most remarkable figures, 1716._’ A copper plate.

“In the year 1716, a very remarkable phenomenon occurred at London Bridge, when, in consequence of the long drought, the stream of the River Thames was reduced so low, and from the effects of a violent gale of wind, at West-South-West, was blown so dry, that many thousands of people passed it on foot, both above and below the Bridge, and through most of the arches. Strype, in his edition of Stow’s ‘_Survey_,’ volume i., page 58, states, that he was an eye-witness to this event; and observes that, on September 14th, the channel in the middle of the River was scarcely ten yards wide, and very shallow; the violence of the wind having prevented the tide from coming up for the space of four and twenty hours. Whilst the Thames remained in this state, many interesting observations were made on the construction and foundation of London Bridge; and the ‘_Weekly Packet_,’ from September the 15th to September the 22d, states, that a silver tankard, a gold ring, a guinea, and several other things which had been lost there, were then taken up.

“The author of ‘_Wine and Walnuts_,’ in one of his chapters, which relate to this edifice, volume ii., page 112, gives a few notices of a feast held upon it in April, 1722, whilst some repairs were carrying on about the Draw-Bridge: and states, that it being settled that the Bridge should be shut on the Saturday and Sunday, the old street was empty and silent; tables were set out in the highway, where, besides the residents, several of the wealthy tradesmen in the vicinity sat drinking through the afternoon; that they might be enabled to say--adds Malcolm,--who notices the circumstance in his ‘_Anecdotes of the Manners and Customs of London during the Eighteenth Century_,’ London, 1808, quarto, volume ii., page 233,--‘however crowded the Bridge is, I have drank punch upon it for great part of a day.’ Though I do not find this festivity recorded in any of the public prints, yet in the ‘_Daily Courant_’ for Friday, April the 13th, 1722, is a notice from the Wardens of London Bridge, that the Draw-Bridge Lock, through which hoys, lighters, and other vessels usually passed, would be boomed up on the following Wednesday, the 18th, for repairing; whilst in the same paper for Friday, April the 20th, a second notice appeared, that on Saturday, the 12th of May, between the hours of 9 and 10 in the evening, the Draw-Bridge itself would be taken up in order to lay down a new one, which was completed by the Thursday following. At the same time, the Rulers of the Company of Watermen issued a notice, that the Stairs at Pepper Alley would be dangerous during the repairs; and that persons were requested to take water higher up the River. It is also stated in the ‘_Daily Post_’ of Tuesday, May the 15th, that the new Draw-Bridge was to be considerably stronger than the old one, both in wood and iron; and that the former had been laid down in the Whitsun holidays, exactly fifty years previously, on May the 12th, 1672, the work being completed in five days.

“About the end of the seventeenth century, the improvement of the passage over London Bridge seems to have been actively considered, if not executed: for in 1697, the 8th and 9th year of William III., (chapter xxxvii.,) an Act was passed concerning the Streets in London, Westminster, Southwark, &c. ‘_and for widening the Street at the South end of London Bridge_.’ In section 8 of which, it is stated that ‘the Corporation of London have of late years, with great charge and difficulty, pulled down and new built all the houses upon London Bridge, and caused the street or common passage over the same to be opened and enlarged; which good and public intention is not yet perfected, by reason of certain tenements on or near the South end of the Bridge, which yet continue a great hindrance to commerce by occasioning frequent stops, and endangering the lives of many passengers.’ Commissioners are then appointed to treat with the owners of such houses, as they shall think fit to be pulled down. See the Act itself in Ruffhead’s ‘_Statutes at Large_,’ volume iii., page 687. Again, in the year 1722, during the Mayoralty of Sir Gerard Conyers, an Act was issued by the Corporation of the City, for preserving the passage of the Bridge free, which you may read at length in Motley’s ‘_Seymour’s Survey_,’ volume i., page 49: it ordains that there shall be three persons, appointed by the Governors of Christ’s Hospital, the inhabitants of Bridge Ward Within, and the Bridge-Masters, to give daily attendance at each end of the Bridge. Their duty being, to oblige all carriages coming from Southwark, to keep the West side, and others the contrary; and to prevent any cart from standing across the Bridge to load or unload. It was also ordered, that the Toll Collector--whose station was in the present Watch House, at the North-west corner of the Bridge,--should collect the duties without delay; and, in 1723, they were ‘For every cart or waggon with shod wheels, 4_d._; For a dray with five barrels, 1_d._; For every pipe or butt, 1_d._; For a ton of any goods, 2_d._; for any thing less than a ton, 1_d._;’ which order was directed to be printed and published in the most public places within the City, and upon London Bridge itself. I may merely add, that Maitland tells us in his ‘_History_,’ volume i., page 48, that in 1725, when it was proposed to erect a Bridge at Westminster, Mr. Henry Garbrand, the Deputy Comptroller of London Bridge, and Mr. Bartholomew Sparruck, the Water Carpenter, measured the River at this building, and found it to be 915 feet 1 inch in breadth; the height of the Bridge, 43 feet, 7 inches; the width of the street, 20 feet; and the depth of the houses on each side, 53 feet, or 73 feet in the whole. One of the last fires which happened on London Bridge, took place on the 8th of September in this year, during the Mayoralty of Sir George Mertins, Knight; and, as Motley tells us in his ‘_Seymour’s Survey_,’ volume i., page 49, commenced at the house of a brush-maker, near St. Olave’s, Tooley Street, through the carelessness of a servant. It burned down all the houses on that side of the way as far as the Bridge-Gate, with several of the buildings on the other; and ‘_Mist’s Weekly Journal_,’ of Saturday, September the 11th, describes it in the following words:--‘On Wednesday night, between eleven and twelve o’clock, a fire broke out at a Haberdasher’s of Hats, on the Bridge foot in Southwark, which burnt on both sides of the way with great violence for four or five hours. We hear that about sixty houses are consumed, some upon the first and second arch of the Bridge; and had it not been for the stone gate which stopp’d the fire very much, the rest of the houses on the Bridge had in all likelyhood been down: the Bridge for some time was, by the fall of the timber and rubbish, render’d impassable for coaches, waggons, and carts, which were oblig’d to cross over at Lambeth Ferry. The damage done amounts to many thousands of pounds, but no just computation can yet be made.’ The old Bridge-Gate was so much damaged by this conflagration, that in 1726 it was taken down and re-built, being finished in the year 1728. THE NEW SOUTH GATE ON LONDON BRIDGE,

was furnished with two posterns for foot-passengers, and was decorated with the Royal Arms, under which was inscribed, ‘This Gate was widened from eleven to eighteen feet, in the Mayoralty of Sir Edward Becher, Knight, S. P. Q. L.’ The medalet, with a representation of this edifice, I have already mentioned to you, and it may now be stated that it was taken down in the year 1760, with all the other buildings on the Bridge, and the materials sold by auction. At which sale, the fine old sculpture of the Royal Arms was bought, with some other articles, by a Mr. Williams, a stone-mason of Tooley Street; who, being soon after employed to take down the gateway at Axe and Bottle Yard, and to form the present King Street, in the Borough, introduced several of the old Bridge materials in erecting it. The ancient Royal Arms, too, are yet to be seen on the front of a small public house, on the right-hand side of the Western end of the same street, between the numbers 4 and 67; with the inscription ‘G. III. R. 1760., King Street,’ carved around them. Mr. Williams also bought several of the facing stones of the old London Bridge, of which he built a very curious house, the roof being of the same stone, and which, about three years since, was standing in Lock’s Fields, near Prospect Row, Newington, usually known by the name of ‘_Williams’s Folly_.’ The new Bridge-Gate stood near the corner of Pepper Alley Stairs, and you will find a representation of it in the Frontispiece to the first volume of Maitland’s ‘_History_.’ I imagine, that upon the removal of the old gate, the custom of erecting the heads of traitors there was discontinued, as I find no subsequent notice of it; and the last heads which, probably, were placed upon its towers, are said to have been those of the Regicides in 1661, as I have shewn from Monconys, though, in the numerous pamphlets of their Trials, &c., I find no account of their being thus disposed. From ‘_The Traytors’ Perspective Glass_,’ London, 1662, 4to., we learn, however, that the heads of Cromwell and Ireton were set over Westminster Hall; and of the others, it is said, ‘their heads, _in several places_, are become a spectacle both to angels and men, and a prey to birds of the air.’

In Maitland’s ‘_History_,’ volume i., page 49, we are furnished with ‘a brief state of the Bridge Account, from Lady-day 1726 to ditto 1727, by the Bridge-Masters, Matthew Snablin and John Web.

‘_Charge._ £. _s._ _d._ ‘By Money in the Bridge-Masters’ hands, at the} foot of the last Account } 576 9 9 By ditto in the Tenants’ hands in arrears 4271 13 3 By the General Rental this year 3299 0 5 By Fines this Year 493 4 2 By Casual Receipts 267 6 8 --------------- The whole charge. £8907 14 3 ===============

‘_Discharge._ £. _s._ _d._ ‘To Rents and Quit-Rents 49 12 8 To Taxes and Trophy-Money 209 14 3 To Weekly Bills, Expenses, and Emptions 1648 0 7 To Timber and Boards 430 18 9 To Stones, Chalk, Lime, Terrass, and Bricks 197 6 0 To Iron-work 170 0 0 To Plumber, Glazier, Painter, and Paviour 278 8 0 To Shipwrights’ Work and Cordage 61 5 0 To Benevolence to the Lord Mayor, &c. 145 6 8 To particular Payments by Order of Court 173 7 0 To Fees and Salaries 270 4 0 To Costs at Audit and Lady Fair 296 2 0 To Money due to balance 4977 9 4 -------------- £8907 14 3’ ==============

On Wednesday, the 26th of December, 1739-40, commenced another Frost, the most severe which had occurred since 1716. The Thames, as we are told by the ‘_Gentleman’s Magazine_,’ of 1740, volume x., page 35, January 31, floated with rocks and shoals of ice; and when they fixed, represented a snowy field, every where rising in masses and hills of ice and snow. Of this scene, several artists made sketches; whilst tents and printing-presses were erected, and a complete Frost-fair was again held upon the River, over which multitudes walked, though some lost their lives by their rashness. It was in this fair that Doll, the Pippin-woman, whom I before mentioned, lost her life, as Gay relates it in the Second Book of his ‘_Trivia_,’ verses 375-392; the last line of which seems to be an imitation of that song which we formerly considered, and which was extremely popular even in the time of Gay himself. The passage I particularly allude to is this:

‘Doll every day had walk’d these treacherous roads; Her neck grew warp’d beneath Autumnal loads Of various fruit: she now a basket bore; That head, alas! shall basket bear no more. Each booth she frequent past, in quest of gain, And boys with pleasure heard her thrilling strain. Ah, Doll! all mortals must resign their breath, And industry itself submit to death! The crackling crystal yields; she sinks, she dies, Her head, chopt off, from her lost shoulders flies; Pippins she cried, but death her voice confounds, And pip--pip--pip, along the ice resounds.’

“Mr. J. T. Smith, in his ‘_Ancient Topography of London_,’ page 24, states that another remarkable character, called ‘_Tiddy Doll_,’ died in the same place and manner.

“In the treasures of Mr. Crowle’s Illustrated Pennant, are several contemporary memorials of this Fair; which I shall very briefly mention, and give some specimens of the poetry attached to them.

“A coarse copper-plate, entitled ‘_The View of Frost Fair_,’ 10-1/4 inches by 12, scene taken from York-buildings Water-Works; twelve verses beneath.

“A copper-plate, 7-1/2 inches by 5, representing an altar-piece with the ten commandments, engraven between the figures of Moses and Aaron; and beneath, on a cartouche, ‘_Printed on the Ice on the River of Thames, Jan^{ry.} 15, 1739_.’

“A coarse copper-plate engraving, looking down the River, entitled ‘_Frost Fair_,’ with eight lines of verse beneath; and above ‘_Printed upon the River Thames when Frozen, Janu. the 28, 173-9/40_.’ 9-1/2 inches by 12-1/4.

“A copper-plate 5 inches by 8-1/4, representing an ornamental border with a female head, crowned at the top; and below, two designs of the letter-press and rolling press. In the centre in type, ‘_Upon the Frost in the year 1739-40_;’ six verses, and then ‘_Mr. John Cross, aged 6. Printed on the Ice upon the Thames, at Queen-Hithe, January the 29th, 1739-40_.’

‘Behold the Liquid THAMES now frozen o’er! That lately SHIPS of mighty Burden bore. Here You may PRINT your Name, tho’ cannot Write, ’Cause numb’d with Cold: ’Tis done with great Delight. And lay it by; That AGES yet to come May see what THINGS upon the ICE were done.’

“A copper-plate, representing a view of the Thames at Westminster, with the tents, sports, &c., and alphabetical references, entitled ‘_Ice Fair_.’ ‘_Printed on y^e River Thames, now frozen over, Jan^y 31, 1739-40_;’ 7-1/2 inches by 12-1/2.

‘Amidst y^e arts y^t on y^e Thames appear, To tell y^e Wonders of this frozen Year, Sculpture claims Prior place, since y^t alone Preserves y^e Image when y^e Prospect’s gone.’

“An altered copy of these verses was printed upon the Thames in the great Frost of 1814; and from an advertisement in the ‘_London Daily Post_’ of Thursday, January the 31st, 1739-40, we learn that this and the following print were originally sold for 6_d._ each.

“A Copper-plate printed in red, 9-1/2 inches by 13-1/4, the view taken opposite St. Paul’s, with tents, sports, &c. in front, sixteen lines of verse beneath, with ‘_Frost and Ice Fair, shewing the diversions upon the River Thames, began the 26th of Decem^r 1739-40, ended Febru^{ry} the 17th_.’”

“In the beginning of this Frost, the houses on London Bridge appear to have received considerable damage, from the many vessels which broke from their moorings, and lay beating against them; the notice of which, we derive from the two most celebrated newspapers of the time,--the ‘_Daily Post_,’ and Woodfall’s ‘_General Advertiser_.’ The latter of these, for Monday, December the 31st, 1739, states that ‘all the watermen above the Bridge have hauled their boats on shore, the Thames being very nigh frozen over:’ and in the same paper, for Wednesday, January 2nd, 1739-40, it is observed, that ‘several vintners in the Strand bought a large Ox in Smithfield on Monday last, which is to be roasted whole on the ice on the River of Thames, if the Frost continues. Mr. Hodgeson, a Butcher in St. James’s Market, claims the privilege of selling, or knocking down, the Beast, as a right inherent in his family, his Father having knocked down the Ox roasted on the River in the great Frost, 1684; as himself did that roasted in 1715, near Hungerford Stairs. The Beast is to be fixt to a stake in the open market, and Mr. Hodgeson comes dress’d in a rich lac’d cambric apron, a silver steel, and a Hat and Feathers, to perform the office.’ After the mention of numerous accidents near London Bridge, the repetition of which would occupy considerable time with but little gratification, the ‘_Daily Post_,’ of Tuesday, January the 22nd, 1740, thus notices the first breaking-up of this famous frost. ‘Yesterday morning, the inhabitants of the West prospect of the Bridge were presented with a very odd scene, for, on the opening of their windows, there appear’d underneath, on the River, a parcel of booths, shops, and huts, of different forms, and without any inhabitants, which, it seems, by the swell of the waters and the ice separating, had been brought down from above. As no lives were lost, it might be view’d without horror. Here stood a booth with trinkets, there a hut with a dram of old gold; in another place a skittle-frame and pins, and in a fourth ‘the Noble Art and Mystery of Printing, by a servant to one of the greatest trading companies in Europe.’ With much difficulty, last night, they had removed the most valuable effects.’ To conclude my information upon this subject, I have to observe only that the ‘_Daily Post_’ of Thursday, February the 14th, states that the Sterlings of London Bridge had received so much damage during the frost from the great weight of ice, that their repairs would amount to several thousand pounds.

“The last extract given us by Maitland, in his ‘_History_’ page 49, from the Bridge-House revenues and accounts, extends from Lady-day 1752 to Lady-day 1753, and consists of the following particulars.”

£ _s._ _d._ “‘In the hands of the Bridge-Masters,} at the foot of their last account } 2669 9 6

In the hands of the Chamberlain of } London, paid to him by Webb’s } 600 0 0 securities } --------------3269 9 6

In Tenants’ hands in arrears at Lady-day, 1752 2413 18 9-1/2 In arrear for fines then 70 6 11 Rental General this year, including Quit Rents 3843 8 7 Fines set this year 662 0 0 ----------------- Whole charge £10259 3 9-1/2 =================

£ _s._ _d._ ‘Rents and Quit-Rents paid 52 9 3 Taxes and Trophy-money: sums collected for the } accoutrements and maintenance of the Militia } 194 11 4-1/2 Expenses 351 17 1-1/2 Emptions of Timber 471 7 6 Stone, Chalk, Terrass 340 4 4 Iron-work 158 18 0 --------------- 970 9 10 Mason, Painter, Glazier, Carpenter, &c. 1904 13 9 Shipwrights’ work and Cordage 104 18 0 Benevolence 232 13 4 Particular Payments by Order 1254 7 3-3/4 Fees and Salaries 287 4 5 Costs at Audit and Lady Fair 160 11 0 ---------------- £5513 15 4-3/4 ================

£ _s._ _d._ ‘Amount of the preceding Charge 10259 3 9-1/2 Deduct the foregoing expenses 5513 15 4-3/4 ---------------- Remainder 4745 8 4-3/4 Whereof discharged by desperate arrears and } 89 0 0 remitted } ---------------- Remaining due to the Bridge-house, at Lady-day,} 1753 } 4656 8 4-3/4

_And thus disposed of._

Arrears of Fines and Quit-rents 2483 15 1-3/4 Arrears and Fines 70 6 11 In the hands of the Bridge-Masters 1502 5 5 In the hands of the Chamberlain of London 600 0 0 ---------------- £4656 7 5-3/4’ ================

“There appears to be some little inaccuracy in this statement by Maitland, since the amounts which he sets down are not the products of the sums when added together; but these I have rectified, though the balance of the whole account does not quite accord with the sums remaining in hand.

“We have at length reached that period, when the extensive alteration, or even re-building, of London Bridge, began to form a matter of grave and active consideration; and in relating the proceedings of these times, there will be no little difficulty in condensing into one consecutive account, all the numerous surveys, reports, plans, proposals, and objections, which were then published. In treating of this part of the subject, however, as it will be best and briefest to do it in order, we will first consider the state of old London Bridge, as it was represented by the various Architects employed to survey it; then give some account of the schemes proposed for its alteration; and lastly, describe that which was adopted, and the means used for carrying it into effect.

“It appears extremely probable, that the contrast presented by the broad and clear road of the new Bridge at Westminster,--which was commenced in September, 1738, and completed in November, 1749,--chiefly contributed to turn the attention of the Corporation of London to the exceeding inconvenience of their own. Though to the building of Westminster Bridge, Maitland, who knew the circumstances, tells us in his ‘_History_,’ volume ii., page 1349, that there was very considerable opposition; and that the City of London, the Borough of Southwark, the Company of Watermen, and the West-Country Bargemen, all petitioned the Parliament against it. On Friday, February the 22d, 1754, as we learn from the ‘_Public Advertiser_’ of the day following, the Court of Common Council took into consideration a motion for the construction of a new Bridge between London and Southwark: when, after a debate of nearly four hours, it was withdrawn, and a Committee appointed, consisting, as usual, of the Aldermen, Deputies, and one Common-Councilman from each Ward, to consider of the best means of rendering the old Bridge safe and convenient; who were empowered to draw upon the Chamberlain to the amount of £100, for plans, surveys, &c. The Report of this Committee stated, that the Bridge foundation was still good, and that, by pulling down the houses, and making such repairs as should then be required, the edifice might be rendered equally serviceable with Westminster Bridge; being capable of receiving four carriages abreast, with a good foot way on each side. By pulling down the houses at the corners of the narrow streets leading to the old Bridge, it was also represented that it would be rendered so convenient as to supersede the erection of any new one. To this it was objected, that most of the houses declined considerably out of the perpendicular; and that those on the Eastern side of the Bridge decayed much faster than the opposite ones. In Harrison’s ‘_History_,’ page 24, this account is partly confirmed; since we are there told that ‘on the outer part of the Bridge, on the East side, the view from the wharfs and quays was exceedingly disagreeable. Nineteen disproportioned arches, with sterlings increased to an amazing size by frequent repairs, supported the street above. These arches were of very different sizes, and several that were low and narrow were placed between others that were broad and lofty. The back part of the houses next the Thames had neither uniformity nor beauty; the line being broken by a great number of closets that projected from the buildings, and hung over the sterlings. This deformity was greatly increased by the houses extending a considerable distance over the sides of the Bridge, and some of them projecting farther over it than the others; by which means, the tops of almost all the arches, except those that were nearest, were concealed from the view of the passengers on the quays, and made the Bridge appear like a multitude of rude piers, with only an arch or two at the end, and the rest, consisting of beams, extending from the tops of flat piers, without any other arches, quite across the river.’

“The best view of London Bridge in this state, is represented in an engraving by Peter Charles Canot, from a picture painted by Samuel Scott, of whom Walpole says, ‘if he were but second to Vandevelde in sea-pieces, he excelled him in variety, and often introduced buildings in his pictures with consummate skill. His views of London Bridge, of the Quay at the Custom-House, &c. were equal to his Marines.’ He died October the 12th, 1772; _vide_ the ‘_Anecdotes of Painting_,’ page 445. This view is also noticed by Gough in his ‘_British Topography_,’ volume i., page 735: and Mr. J. T. Smith, in his ‘_Ancient Topography_,’ page 25, observes, that it was in the possession of Edward Roberts, Esq., Clerk of the Pells, who probably still retains it. It was exhibited, says the author of ‘_Wine and Walnuts_,’ volume i., page 65, in 1817, at the British Institution; and of the excellent engraving from it there are two editions: the earliest and best is marked, ‘_Published according to Act of Parliament, Feb^y. 25, 1761_:’ and the latter may be known by the imprint of ‘_Printed for Bowles and Carver, R. H. Laurie, and R. Wilkinson_.’ This plate has been more than once copied in a reduced form; but the best, engraved by Warren, appeared in that work by Dr. Pugh, known by the name of ‘_Hughson’s History of London_,’ London, 1806-9, octavo,