volume xxxv., page 197.

“Notwithstanding, however, these active proceedings for the improvement of this edifice, the parties in favour of, and against, a new building ran extremely high, as you may see in the ‘_Continuation of Maitland’s History_,’ page 4. That several interests were to be consulted in the alteration of London Bridge, is evident, and they are particularly shewn in the counter-petitions presented to Parliament whilst the Bridge Bills were pending; as, one drawn up by the most ardent supporters of the new Bridge at Blackfriars; and another by the Rev. Edmund Gibson, Rector of St. Magnus and St. Margaret, for recompense in loss of tythes, &c. to the amount of £48: 6_s._ 2_d._, by taking down the houses. _Vide_ the ‘_Journals of the House of Commons_,’ volume xxvii., page 574; and the ‘_Continuation of Maitland’s History_,’ page 11; on page 7 of which authority it is also stated, that on the 12th of June, 1755, ‘the Common-Council allowed the Comptroller of the Bridge-House £410 _per annum_, in lieu of his customary bills, which were so much reduced by the loss that would accrue to the Bridge-House estate, in the repairing and improvement of London Bridge.’ But whilst many persons were too much interested even in the worst state of it, with all its inconvenient buildings, not to oppose their alteration, they were found to be almost equally dangerous both on the edifice and on the water. In the proceedings in Parliament concerning the alterations, Mr. Dance, the Architect, stated, that the piers were solid for ten feet above the sterlings, upon which were erected walls of three feet in thickness, forming cellars to the houses; and they having settled, the walls were much injured. In consequence, also, of the contracted passage between the houses upon the Bridge, the inhabitants experienced many inconveniences peculiar to their situation. Mr. Deputy James Hodges declared, that he ‘had frequently known it happen, that coals had been thrown through the windows of the houses, out of the barges going under the Bridge; and that, as he is informed, the reason is, that the candle-lights in the houses make it dangerous in the night-time to go through the locks. That people on the river have always a glimmering light by which they can distinguish objects, unless a very thick fog. That light leaves them just when they come to shoot the locks, as far as the shadows of the houses extend; and thereby they lose the possibility of discerning the passage between the sterlings.’ See Malcolm’s ‘_Londinum Redivivum_,’ volume ii., page 388, and the ‘_Journals of the House of Commons_.’ The improvement of the passage over London Bridge was, however, much accelerated by the passing of an Act in 1755, the 28th of George II., Chapter ix., for taking away the ancient Market then held in High Street, Southwark, after Lady-day, 1756: and in Chapter xxii. of the former year, it was removed to its recent place on the site of Rochester Yard. See Bray’s ‘_History of Surrey_,’ volume iii., page 550; and the ‘_Statutes at Large_,’ volume vii., pages 579, 620. Having thus, then, given some idea of the proceedings of the Corporation before the improvement of the old London Bridge, let us now go on to consider the nature and manner of that alteration itself: and so, if you’re not asleep, Mr. Barbican, here’s your health.”

“No, truly,” replied I, wakefully endeavouring to appear as brisk as my drowsiness would let me, “Time has a wonderful effect in reconciling us to the most tiresome employments; and I doubt not but to be able to hold out through the remainder of your discourse, with the aid of this Sack-posset, which seems to be little less interminable, and heated beyond the power of cooling again. But go on, Master Barnaby, go on, Sir.”

“You are next to be informed then,” recommenced the Antiquary, “that we are told by the Rev. John Entick, in his ‘_Continuation of Maitland’s History_,’ page 19, that the Committee appointed to repair London Bridge resolved to take down all the buildings and erections which stood upon it, of every kind whatsoever: to remove the great middle pier, and to lay the two adjoining locks into one, by turning an entire new arch, occupying the whole space: to add the depth of the removed houses to the width of the Bridge: and to secure both sides by a stone wall breast-high, surmounted by lofty ballustrades. To effect all this, it was essential to stop up the Bridge, and, at the same time, to provide a convenient passage to Southwark; on which, it was determined to construct a Temporary Bridge of Wood. This edifice consisted of stout unplaned oak timbers, to the amount of £2000; and it was erected on the sterlings in a curved form, on the Western side of the stone one, into which it opened at each end, extending from the water-works to about the fourth arch on the Surrey side of the river. The timber being taken back by the builder, his labour in erecting and removing it being compensated, and one penny per cube foot allowed him for the use of the materials. In Harrison’s ‘_History of London_,’ page 409, it is stated, that this temporary Bridge was opened in the month of October, 1757, when it was ‘found to be very convenient, not only for foot-passengers, but also for horsemen and carriages;’ but there are few notices to be found of it in the public prints of the period. By ‘_Lloyd’s Evening Post and British Chronicle_,’ however, a quarto newspaper of several leaves, then published every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we are informed, in the paper for Wednesday, September 21st, page 219, that, ‘to-morrow they will begin to lay the first coat of gravel on the Temporary Bridge, so that it will be passable by the end of this month:’ and the ‘_Public Advertiser_’ of Saturday, October 22nd, thus fixes the time when the Bridge was actually finished. ‘Yesterday, the Committee appointed under the late Act of Parliament for the improvement of London Bridge, met and view’d the Temporary Bridge, and gave orders to have it open’d to-morrow morning for foot-passengers.’ The houses on the stone edifice, indeed, were already began to be removed; for, in the ‘_Gentleman’s Magazine_,’ for 1757, volume xxvii., page 91, it is stated, that on Tuesday, February 22nd, ‘three pots of money, silver and gold, of the coin of Queen Elizabeth, were found by the workmen in pulling down the houses on London Bridge.’ The whole of these buildings, however, were not entirely taken away until some years after this time; for in the ‘_London Chronicle_’ of Thursday, May 17th, 1759, the name of ‘William Herbert on London Bridge,’ occurs as one of the publishers of ‘_The Lives of the Reformers_.’ By the same paper, too, for Thursday, August the 14th, 1760, page 161, we are informed, that ‘in pulling down the house called the Chapel-House, on London Bridge, there has been found this week a very antique marble font, &c. curiously engraved, and several ancient coins, &c. The stones used in the building of this structure were so strongly cemented with different kinds of mortar, and strong iron clamps, that the workmen found a most difficult task in the demolition of it, which is not yet completed.’ The Committee for altering London Bridge had, however, previously advertised for persons to carry their intentions into effect, to meet at Guildhall on the 1st of February, 1757; as may be seen in the ‘_Public Advertiser_’ of Monday, January 24th; and in the same authority for Monday, May the 2nd following, it is further stated, that Messrs. Blackden and Flight, the contractors for taking down and clearing away the houses on London Bridge, completed their engagement on the Saturday evening previously: and that from the commencement of their work, there had not occurred a single accident. The view of old London Bridge and its buildings by Scott, to which I have already referred, furnishes us with large and interesting prospects of several of the principal edifices which, after this period, were removed; and I may add, that in the x.th volume of Mr. Crowle’s Illustrated Pennant, there is an enlarged drawing of this picture, executed by John Varley, in colours, measuring 3 feet 9-1/2 inches, by 1 foot 5-3/4; ruthlessly cut into three parts to fit the size of the book. In these views, one of the most curious objects is a prospect of the EASTERN EXTERIOR OF THE CHAPEL OF ST. THOMAS IN 1757;

a more particular engraving of which you will find in the ‘_Gentleman’s Magazine_,’ for 1753, volume xxiii., page 432. But few remains of the original structure were then perceptible on the outside of this building; though its form of a semi-hexagon might be traced, whilst the old pier of the Bridge, the basement standing on the sterling, and some of the pinnacles and buttresses of the Chapel, were discernible in the centre and at the sides. The greater part of it, however, was scarcely to be distinguished from the other houses, being covered with brickwork or boarding; whilst the Upper Chapel was converted into apartments, and the Lower one into the Paper Warehouse of Messrs. Gill and Wright, having a crane attached to it to take in goods from boats. In front of the Bridge pier, a square fish-pond was formed in the sterling, into which the fish were carried by the tide, and then detained there by a wire-grating placed over it: and an ancient servant of London Bridge, now verging upon his hundredth summer, well remembers to have gone down through the Chapel to fish in this pond.

“THE NONESUCH HOUSE ON LONDON BRIDGE IN 1756,

is also represented by Scott in a very dilapidated appearance, especially when contrasted with its splendour in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; and, when it was taken down, was probably in the occupation of several persons in trade, or perhaps was shut up and allowed to fall into decay. One of the most picturesque and interesting objects in Scott’s View, is that group of buildings formed of the EASTERN SIDE OF THE MODERN SOUTHWARK GATE AND TOWERS,

with the Second Gate beyond it; beneath which is a very perfect representation of one of the original arches, called the Rock Lock, and one of the old piers, whilst above is shewn the third of those open spaces guarded with iron rails, which alone varied the street-like character of old London Bridge, and indicated to its passengers that they were actually crossing a river. I know but of one engraving, Mr. Geoffrey Barbican, which gives us any view directly up the Bridge-street; and even that is so slight, that were it not that I am unwilling to lose any fragment relating to old London Bridge, I should omit mentioning it altogether. You will find it, however, in that half-sheet copper-plate, after Antonio Canaletti, published in ‘_Bowles’s Perspectives_,’ entitled ‘_The Monument of London in remembrance of the dreadfull Fire in 1666. Bowles delin. et sculp. Published according to Act of Parliament, 1752. Printed for John Bowles and Son, at the Black Horse in Cornhil._’ This prospect, then, being taken on Fish-Street-Hill, shews the Monument on the left hand, and the termination of the street in the first Northern gate of London Bridge, with some indication of the houses beyond it; though the whole view has certainly a far more spacious appearance, than this part of London ever possessed.

“Before I close my notices of the year 1757, I have to observe, from the printed document I have so frequently quoted, that from 1639 until this time, ‘no addition of salary was paid to the Bridge-Masters, nor any other allowance; but when the houses were taken down on London Bridge, the sum of £10 per annum was ordered to be paid to each of the Bridge-Masters, in lieu of fees, &c. arising from the said houses. Order of the Committee made May 4, 1757. And also when certain warehouses were taken away, and laid into the Bridge-House, the annual sum of £6. 10_s._ was ordered to be paid in lieu of the said warehouses to the Senior Bridge-Master. And after the Bridge was finished, lighted, and watched, one of the Bridge-Masters was ordered to superintend the Watchman on the said Bridge, and in the Bridge-Yard, for which he received the sum of £12 by order of the Committee. The whole Income of the Senior Bridge-Master at the present time (1786) £100. 10_s._ Rental at Christmas 1785, £8280. 1_s._ 4_d._

Present Income of the Junior Bridge-Master: Salary, &c. as before 72 0 0

In lieu of a stable 4 0 0

In lieu of fees for the houses lately standing on London-Bridge 10 0 0

In lieu of Warehouses 0 7 6 ------ Total Income £86 7 6’ ------

“So terminates this very curious document, which has furnished so many authentic particulars of the Bridge accounts at different periods, shewing its increasing prosperity and revenues, between the times of Edward the Fourth, and those of George the Third.

“Whilst the alteration of London Bridge was being carried rapidly into effect, in the early part of the year 1758, an event occurred, which not only destroyed some portion of the building itself, but also nearly the whole of the works surrounding it. This was the fatal FIRE ON THE TEMPORARY BRIDGE,

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_,’