volume ii., page 316. Another view of London Bridge with the houses,

of considerably less merit, but rather more rarity, was ‘_Printed and sold for John Bowles, Print and Map-seller, over against Stocks-Market, 1724_.’ It consists of a small square plate, and shews the houses on the Western side of the edifice in bad perspective, with a short historical account beneath it; and it forms plate y of a folio volume, entitled, ‘_Several Prospects of the most noted Buildings in and about the City of London_.’ There are also some rather large representations of this Bridge, in most of the old two and three-sheet views of London; as in those published by Bowles ‘_at the Black Horse in Cornhill_,’ about 1732, &c.; and in the series of prints usually called ‘_Boydell’s Perspectives_,’ is a folio half-sheet plate very much resembling Scott’s, entitled ‘_A view of London Bridge taken near St. Olave’s Stairs. Published according to Act of Parliament by J. Boydell, Engraver, at the Globe, near Durham Yard in the Strand. 1731. Price 1s. J. Boydell, delin. et sculp._’ I could mention several others, as in the Title-page to the old ‘_London Magazine_;’ in Strype’s edition of Stow; in Maitland; Motley’s ‘Seymour’s _Survey_;’ in Hughson, Lambert, and numerous other works; but for fidelity of feature, and excellence of effect, none of them are in any respect equal to that of Scott, representing LONDON BRIDGE BEFORE THE ALTERATION OF 1758.

“As at this period the public attention was generally directed towards this edifice, the proprietors of Maitland’s ‘_History of London_,’ which was then appearing in numbers, issued an Advertisement, in the ‘_Public Advertiser_’ of Saturday, April the 6th, 1754, stating that ‘Number xv. will be illustrated with two fine Prospects of London Bridge as it may be altered agreeable to drawings presented to Sir Richard Hoare, by Charles Labelye, Esq.; and humbly inscribed to the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common-Council, who _now_ have the state of that Bridge under consideration.--Not one of this Number will be delivered to any but Subscribers, and such as have bought, or shall buy, the former Numbers.’ Like Strype’s edition of Stow, this work was published at 6_d._ each Number.

“On Thursday, September the 26th, 1754, the Bridge Committee presented their Report to the Court of Common-Council, an original verbatim copy of which is in the xxviiith. volume of ‘_London Tracts_’ in the British Museum, small folio. This Report stated, that the piles, &c. of old London Bridge having been surveyed by Mr. George Dance, then Clerk of the Works to the City, the foundations were declared good, and, with common repairs, likely to last for ages. That the houses on the Bridge being a public inconvenience, it was recommended that they should be removed, from St. Magnus’ Church to the City Gate, on the East; and from the corner of Thames Street to the Bear Tavern in the Borough, on the West. That Mr. Dance had produced a plan for an alteration of the Bridge, with estimates amounting to £30,000, in which were a carriage-road of 33 feet, with two foot-paths of 6 feet each; but that such expense might be reduced to £27,000, by leaving the houses standing on the South side of the Gate. That the annual rents of the houses to be taken down amounted to about £828: 6_s._, which would be lost to the Bridge-House estates; whilst the Parishes of St. Magnus and St. Olave would also lose in taxes, rents, and tythes, about the yearly sum of £484: 19_s._ 10_d._; and that the estimate of the houses then out upon lease, with others which must be bought, came to £8940: 11_s._ 7_d._; besides other satisfaction which might be required by the under-tenants.

“The substance of Labelye’s plan for altering this edifice, is given in Maitland’s ‘_History_,’ volume ii., pages 826-832, together with the result of several other reports made in 1746. His chief objection to old London Bridge was to the sterlings surrounding the piers; which, occupying almost one fourth part in five of the water-way, caused a fall of nearly five feet perpendicular, during the greater part of every tide, thus rendering the passage of vessels through the locks equally difficult and dangerous. He, consequently, proposed casing the piers with four feet of Portland Stone, and to lessen the sterlings so as always to have about 400 feet of water-way, which, being twice as much as the Bridge originally possessed, would reduce the fall to about 15 inches. The expense of this plan, he conceived, would be about £2000 for each pier; two or three of which could be altered in a year, without stopping the passage either over or under the Bridge. He also proposed to adopt the idea of Sir Christopher Wren, in new-modelling the appearance of the building itself, by taking away eleven piers, and forming nine broad-pointed Gothic arches, springing from the lowest low-water mark: these were to be of different dimensions, and the fifth from the South end was to be 90 feet in span. The parapet was to be ornamented with Gothic crocketted recesses surmounting the piers; by a cast-iron ballustrade; or by a dwarf-wall, or even houses; and, according to this plan, there would have been a water-way of 540 feet, and a fall of not more than 9 inches; whilst the amount of time and expense would not be considerably greater than in the former.

“The Reports of Mr. George Dance, Clerk of the City Works, and Bartholomew Sparruck, the Water-Carpenter of London Bridge, in answer to the questions of the Committee, in 1746, also furnish several very curious and interesting particulars concerning the building at that period, and the original is to be found at length in Maitland’s ‘_History_,’ already cited; and in Nos. II. and III. of Dr. Charles Hutton’s ‘_Tracts on Mathematical and Philosophical Subjects_,’ London, 1812, volume i., pages 115-122. The Report commences with a table of the depth of water, above, immediately under, and below every arch, beginning at the South end of the Bridge, which is to the following effect.

“‘Name of the Lock. West Side. Under the Arch. East Side. Feet. Inch. Feet. Inch. Feet. Inch.

Shore Lock 16 -- 5 9 8 10 Second Lock from Surrey Shore 14 6 9 -- 10 4 Rock Lock 22 3 3 -- 14 -- Fourth Lock from Surrey Shore 14 -- 7 -- 15 7 Fifth Lock from Surrey Shore 18 9 10 3 18 7 Roger Lock 17 7 8 7 15 11 Draw Lock 18 1 8 10 15 11 Nonesuch Lock 25 1 9 2 18 3 Pedlar’s Lock 17 8 5 9 18 6 Gutt Lock 21 2 5 6 17 8 Long Entry Lock 18 11 3 5 12 8 Chapel Lock 17 -- 2 4 22 -- St. Mary’s Lock 24 6 8 9 20 -- Little Lock 22 3 9 -- 17 4 King’s Lock 23 9 6 9 20 7 Shore Lock 19 9 6 11 21 10 Mill Lock 20 3 4 6 21 10 Mill Lock 19 4 7 9 14 1 Mill Lock 10 10 4 -- 13 10 Mill Lock 6 7 6 1 10 10’

“The Report then proceeds to state, that the height of the under bed of the first course of stones is very unequal; some being 2 feet 4 inches; and others varying from 1 foot 3 inches, to 1 foot 11 inches above low-water mark; and from 4 to 6 feet above the level of the sterlings. The rough and unhewn piles were found to be shod with iron, and but little decayed: in some instances, they were separated from the stone-work by planks of oak and elm, from 4 to 6 inches in thickness, which were probably first inserted at some of the numerous repairs; and each of the piers was protected by a stone base, extending about 7 inches beyond them. It was from these reports, that Mr. Labelye drew up his plans, which, together with his remarks on the old Bridge, were presented to the Committee, on Wednesday, the 17th of September, 1746. As this Architect desired that his designs might be examined by some eminent, scientific, and disinterested individuals, several such persons were called in to assist the deliberations of the Committee; though, after many other inquiries and consultations, the discussions terminated in a proposal for building a new Bridge at Blackfriars.

“At a Court of Common Council holden on Thursday, December 18th, 1755, after a very protracted opposition, the Corporation consequently agreed to petition Parliament for leave to bring in a Bill to erect another Bridge over the Thames at Fleet-Ditch, and on Tuesday, January 13th, 1756, the petition was presented and referred to a Committee; another petition being also presented at the same time, praying leave to bring in a Bill for improving and widening the passage over London Bridge, by removing the houses and other obstructions thereon, and for raising money to enable the Trustees to render the same safer and more commodious. This also was referred to a Committee; on Friday, March 12th, 1756, leave was granted to bring in the Bills; and on Thursday, the 27th of May, they both received the Royal assent, when the King closed the Session of Parliament. These Acts are printed in Maitland’s ‘_History_,’ volume ii., page 1387; though the best authority is Ruffhead’s ‘_Statutes at Large_,’ volume vii., pages 728-738, 29th of George II., Chapter xl.; and I shall first give a very few particulars of the Act relating to London Bridge, and next shew how the alteration was effected. By this Statute, then, the Corporation was empowered to buy and remove all buildings on, and contiguous to, the Bridge, for enlarging its avenues, improving the passage over, and widening one or more of its arches:--to devise how the same should be executed, and kept in repair:--to erect an uniform ballustrade on each side, with a passage of 31 feet for carriages, &c., and 7 feet for each of the footways:--to have it lighted and watched at the expense of the Bridge-House estates:--to preserve the arches and pipes belonging to the Water-works:--to establish, after the 24th of June, 1756, an additional toll for the payment of the expenses incurred by the alterations:--to keep the Bridge clear of buildings, and of carriages standing upon it for hire, after the houses should be removed; and to make all carriages keep on the Eastern side in going towards Southwark, and on the Western side in coming to London. The Act also provided penalties for destroying the Bridge or any of its works; extensive powers for the Corporation in buying the various property; an equivalent for the tythes, rates, &c., payable to the Rectors of St. Magnus and St. Margaret, and St. Olave; and particular ordinances concerning the tolls.

“Gates and toll-houses were to be erected on, or near, London Bridge; but to continue only until the principal and interest of the borrowed monies should be discharged. The additional tolls were, ‘for every horse drawing any coach, chariot, hearse, berlin, landau, calash, chaise, or chair, over the Bridge, 1_d._; for every such carriage itself, 1_d._; and for every horse not drawing, passing across the Bridge, 1/2_d._’ Loaded vessels also, passing under the Bridge, were to pay 2_d._ for every 5 tons burthen; 3_d._ for ten tons; 6_d._ for 25 tons, and 1_s._ for vessels of greater capacity. In the Act for building a Bridge at Blackfriars, 29th of George II.--1756,--Chapter lxxxvi., it is stated, that the taking away of all tolls from that of London, as soon as possible, would be of general advantage, they being then leased out for 21 years at a fine of £2100, and a yearly rent of £735; the redemption of all which was estimated at £36,000. In 1757, the 31st of George II., Chapter xx., an aid of £15,000 was granted by Parliament towards the rebuilding of London Bridge, because the tolls were not only difficult to collect, but were also a considerable hindrance to commerce and navigation: _vide_ the ‘_Continuation of Maitland’s History_,’ at the end of volume ii., page 19. The powers of the new Act--which also protected the Bridge and its works, by making it felony to destroy them,--commenced from the 21st of April, and the additional tolls of the former one ceased from the 24th of June, 1758. Whilst I am upon the subject, it will probably be as well to include all our notices of the tolls of London Bridge under one head; and therefore I may remark, that in 1767, the 7th of George III., Chapter xxxvii., an Act was passed for the completing of Blackfriars Bridge, making several improvements in the City, and for treating with Mr. Edward Neale, the Lessee of the tolls of London Bridge, for their redemption; to which latter purpose, the sum of £30,000 was appropriated. About the end of September, 1770, the Corporation proceeded to act upon this power, fifteen years and three quarters being then unexpired of the lease; but the lessee having altered his demand, on account of the tolls having increased upwards of £600 per annum since 1766, it was found, that to reimburse the City, it was essential that they should continue both upon London and Blackfriars Bridges for some years longer. Upon petition of the Corporation, therefore, in the 11th of George III., 1771, Chapter xx., an Act was passed for further continuing the tolls on London Bridge until March the 25th, 1782, when the remainder of the lease was to be bought and the tolls finally to cease. All these particulars will be found in the ‘_Statutes at Large_,’ volumes vii., pages 728-738, 742; viii., page 210; x., pages 306, 307; and xi., pages 154, 155; there is also considerable information upon this subject, to be found in Malcolm’s ‘_Londinum Redivivum_,’ volume ii., pages 392-396, derived from authentic documents. From these authorities it appears that the amount of the prescriptive tolls of London Bridge, at Midsummer, 1763, produced £1785: 10_s._ 5_d._; in 1764, £1946: 4_s._ 1_d._; in 1765, £1846: 7_s._ 4_d._; in 1766, £1878: 16_s._ 6_d._; and in 1770, £2465: 14_s._ 3_d._; estimating, therefore, the average to be about £1864, and deducting from that sum the Rent, £735; Land Tax, £180: 12_s._ and the expenses of collecting, £150, the lessee’s clear annual income would be £798: 15_s._

“It was upon this calculation that the value of the remainder of his lease was ascertained, and the Act for continuing the tolls first devised; though on Wednesday, April, 24th, 1765, the Committee of City Lands let to Mr. Neale a lease of 21 years of the toll of carts and wheelage over London Bridge, for a fine of 2000 guineas, and the old rent of £735 _per annum_. See the ‘_Gentleman’s Magazine_’ for 1765,