“I have already observed that Hollar’s View of London after the Fire, shews the fine old Church of St. Magnus, which we may consider the North-East boundary of London Bridge, reduced to a pile of ruined walls; having all those costly repairs and beautifyings, which Stow, in his ‘Survey,’ volume i., page 494, records as having taken place from 1623 to 1629, destroyed in the flames. Before I speak, however, of the re-edification of this fane, I shall notice the means employed for that of the Bridge itself, as they are related by the continuators of Stow in his ‘Survey,’ volume i., page 62. Most of the buildings erected upon it, were, as they tell us, totally consumed; excepting the Chapel, and a few edifices standing on the South end, of the time of King John: though this, as I have shewn you, must be erroneous. We may believe, however, from all the circumstances attendant upon the fire, that the stone-work of the Bridge was so battered and weakened, ‘that it cost the Bridge-House £1500. to make good the damage in the piers and arches, before the leaseholders could attempt to rebuild the premises destroyed by the fire.’ Though ‘the stone work,’ continues this passage, ‘was no sooner secured, than a sufficient number of tenants offered; who conditioned with the Bridge-House for building-leases of 61 years, at the rate of 10s. per foot, running, yearly, and to build after such a form and substantial manner as was prescribed.’ This was so rapidly carried into effect, that in five years the North end was all completely finished, with houses four stories high, and a street of 20 feet in breadth between them, measuring from side to side. To make the South end equally perfect, however, and, at the same time, to equalize the rent of the whole, required the invention of some expedient; since the older buildings were already leased to several tenants, with longer and shorter portions of their time yet to elapse, whilst the leases of others were entirely expired. To arrange all these with propriety, the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty, who were appointed for the letting of the Bridge-House lands, with the assistance of Mr. Philip Odde, then Clerk Comptroller of those estates, took the following method. For the first class of tenants, they measured the number of feet in the front of each house; and ascertained the amount of rent, and the time of the lease yet unexpired: whilst a second and third classes were formed of those whose leases were nearly out, or entirely finished. To such as had the longest term to run, a moderate time was added, with an abatement of rent answerable to the cost of re-erecting their buildings, in uniformity with those at the North end. Of the tenants whose leases were nearly expired, and who were unable to build, they were redeemed for valuable considerations; the dilapidated stone-work for the new buildings was then repaired by the City, at an expense of nearly £1000; and in about four or five years the whole edifice was completed.
“We are not, however, now informed of any repair of the Draw-Bridge, although it certainly existed until the great alteration of 1758; but, probably, even long before this time, had ceased to be of any great utility. You may see, in Stow’s historical notices of Queenhithe, (vide his ‘Survey,’ volume i., pages 697-700,) that in the reign of King Henry III. ships and boats laden with corn and fish for sale, were compelled to pass beyond the Bridge to that most ancient wharf and market. In 1463, however, the third year of King Edward IV., the same authority informs us that the market at Queenhithe was ‘hindered by reason of the slackness of drawing up of London Bridge,’ which seems to infer some difficulty in raising it even at that period; fresh ordinances being then made to cause vessels with provisions to proceed up the river. I cannot, however, tell you at what time the Draw-Bridge was made wholly stationary; though it seems not to have been till after the publication of the last ancient edition of Stow’s ‘Survey,’ in 1633, folio, as, in Strype’s excellent new one, of 1720, volume i., book i., page 58, he adds some notices of the arches, in which occurs the following passage. ‘Two of these arches are much larger than the rest, viz. that over which is the Draw-bridge; and the other called the Simile Lock. These were for the use of greater vessels that went through Bridge Westward. The Draw-Bridge formerly was, upon such occasions, taken up; but now-a-days never, but when it wants repairing.’ The additions of Richard Bloome also, on page 56 in the same volume, furnish us with several particulars of these arches, which I shall introduce to you in this place, because they apply, almost equally, both to the Bridge before the Fire, and to the ancient appearance of the present one. ‘There were,’ says he, ‘three vacancies, with stone walls, and iron grates,’—rather rails,—‘over them, on either side, opposite to each other; through which grates, people, as they pass over the Bridge, may take a view of the river both East and West; and also may go aside, more to each side, out of the way of carts and coaches, the passage being but narrow, and not only troublesome but dangerous. These three vacancies are over three of the middle arches, for all the piers are not of a like thickness, nor stand at equal distance one from the other; for under those three vacancies are much wider than the rest, and are called the navigable locks, because vessels of considerable burthen may pass through them. One of these is near unto the second gate, and is called the Rock Lock. The second is under the second vacancy, and is called the Draw-Bridge Lock. And the third is near the Chapel, and is called St. Mary’s Lock. There is a fourth between St. Magnus’ Church and the first vacancy, and is called the King’s Lock, for that the King in his passage through Bridge, in his barge, goes through this lock.’ In Strype’s additions to these particulars, which I have already referred to, he says, ‘The two Arches next London are now stopped up for the use of the Water-mills, but without any prejudice to the current of the Thames. The third arch on the Southwark side is seldom, and very rarely, passed through, because of a rock grown there a little to the East, which is visible at low water. This rock hath been observed this many a year, and is called the Rock Lock. The reparation of these arches, and the striking down piles for securing them, is continual, and men are kept on purpose to take care of it, and to do it. Whereof they have two Master-workmen, viz. a Head-Carpenter,’—whose name in Strype’s time was Wise,—‘and a Head-Mason, whose office it is to look after the Bridge under the Bridge-Masters.’ The common report of the rock growing beneath the water, under one of the Arches of London Bridge, is, however, one of those popular traditions which are generally to be found connected with almost every edifice, engendered partly by ignorance, and partly by the desire mentioned by the Indian in Robinson Crusoe, ‘To make the great wonder look!’ ‘We have been assured,’ says the Rev. John Motley, in ‘Seymour’s Survey of London,’ volume i. page 48, ‘by a person of great veracity as well as curiosity, that a friend of his in the year 1715, when the tide was so kept back that many people walked over the river, went near enough to examine this, and found it to be stones joined together with cement, and iron in some places; and therefore supposed it was part of an arch that had formerly been broken down, and never since removed,’ It has been generally believed, that these ruins were the fragments of the two arches, and the Bridge-gate, which, as I have related to you, fell down in the year 1437: and which, having now lain nearly four centuries, and been increased by the deposits which millions of tides have cast upon them, have become almost as impenetrable as a solid rock, and the arch, therefore, retains its ancient name. Such was London Bridge after it was rebuilt, ‘peopled’—as Evelyn says of the City, but a very few days after the fire,—‘with new shops, noise, and business, not to say vanity.’—‘A Bridge,’ exclaims Richard Bloome, in his continuations to Stow, volume i. page 499, ‘not inferior to any in Europe for its length, breadth, and buildings thereon, being sustained by nineteen great stone arches, secured by piles of timber drove to the bottom of the river, having a Draw-Bridge towards Southwark, as also strong gates; and, by its houses built thereon on both sides, it seemeth rather a street than a Bridge, being now garnished with good timber buildings, which are very well inhabited by sufficient tradesmen, who have very considerable dealings, as being so great a thoroughfare from Southwark into London.’
“Whilst I am mentioning this praise of London Bridge, I may express my wonder that Michael Drayton, in his ‘Poly-Olbion,’ London, 1613, folio, says so little concerning it, whilst John Selden, in his very learned notes to that poem, wholly omits it. As I purpose next to say a few words touching the rebuilding of St. Magnus’ Church, I will close this part of our Bridge history by repeating Drayton’s verses from Song xvii., page 259: where, speaking of the Thames, he says,—
‘Then goes he on along by that more beauteous strand,
Expressing both the wealth and brauery of the land;
——So many sumptuous bow’rs, within so little space,
The all-beholding sun scarce sees in all his race:—
And on by London leads, which like a crescent lies,
Whose windowes seem to mock the star-befreckled skies:
Besides her rising spyres, so thick themselues that show,
As doe the bristling reedes within his banks that growe:
There sees his crowded wharfes, and people-pester’d shores,
His bosome overspread with shoales of labouring oares;
With that most costly Bridge, that doth him most renowne,
By which he clearly puts all other Riuers downe.’
“Bloome, the continuator of Stow, to whose labours we are in general little less indebted than we are to those of the old historian himself, gives us but few particulars concerning the rebuilding of St. Magnus’ Church; stating only that it was erected of free-stone, with ‘a tower and steeple of curious workmanship; to which Church,’ he adds, ‘is united the Parish of St. Margaret, New Fish-street, that Church not being rebuilt.’ Newcourt, in his account of the Rectory of St. Magnus, says likewise very little as to its history; though he tells us, that when the Parishes were united, the yearly value of them was made £170, whereas, in 1632, that of St. Magnus amounted only to £83, and that of St. Margaret to £70: and he states also, that part of their Church, before it was rebuilt, was laid into the street, for enlarging the passage. We have, however, a very fair though brief description of the new Church of St. Magnus, in the ‘Memoirs of the Life and Works of Sir Christopher Wren,’ by James Elmes; London, 1823, quarto, pages 357, 490; wherein he states that it was begun in 1676, and that the lofty tower, lanthorn, cupola, and spire, were added in 1705. It is then, as all may see for themselves, an elegant and substantial Church, built of stone and oak timber, covered with lead, and crowned with a handsome lofty steeple, consisting of a tower, a lanthorn containing ten bells, and a cupola surmounted by a well-proportioned spire. The interior, measuring 90 feet in length, 59 in breadth, and 41 in height, is divided into a nave and two aisles, by columns, and an entablature of the Ionic Order; whilst the roof, over the nave, is camerated, and enriched with arches of fret work, executed in stucco. For the monuments, epitaphs, and benefactors of this Church, both ancient and modern, I must refer you to Strype’s Stow, volume i., page 494; and will mention only the gift of the clock by Sir Charles Duncomb, in the year 1700, at the cost of £485. 5s. 4d. The dial of this clock was formerly ornamented with several richly gilded figures, which have since been removed, but a view of the Church, before the archway was opened,—of which we shall speak hereafter,—having also the clock in its original state, will be found in Stow’s ‘Survey,’ at my last reference, and in Maitland’s ‘History of London,’ volume ii., page 1124. Tradition says, that it was erected in consequence of a vow made by the donor, who, in the earlier part of his life, had once to wait a considerable time in a cart upon London Bridge, without being able to learn the hour, when he made a promise, that if he ever became successful in the world, he would give to that Church a public clock, and an hour-glass, that all passengers might see the time of day. There is in ‘The Protestant Mercury,’ of September the 11th, 1700, the following rather curious mention of this clock: ‘On Monday last, the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor, accompanied by the worshipful Aldermen and Sheriffs, went, with the usual formalities, to proclaim Southwark fair; after which they were nobly entertained at the Bridge House, according to an ancient annual custom. In their passing by St. Magnus’ Church, they were presented with the view of that noble and magnificent Dial erected at the West end, at the charge of the generous Sir Charles Duncomb, which equalizing, if not exceeding, all others of that kind, seems to answer the design of the donor.’ This donation is also recorded upon the clock itself; for upon a small metal plate, shaped like a shield, and silvered, screwed to the interior, are engraven the giver’s arms,—a chevron between three talbot’s heads erased,—with the following inscription: ‘The Gift of Sir Charles Duncomb, Knight, Lord Major, and Alderman of this Ward. Langley Bradley fecit, 1709.’ The same liberal Citizen also presented the modern fane of St. Magnus with an organ, of which the ‘Spectator’ of February the 8th, 1712, thus speaks: ‘Whereas Mr. Abraham Jordan, senior and junior, have, with their own hands, joynery excepted, made and erected a very large organ in St. Magnus’ Church, at the foot of London Bridge, consisting of four sets of keys, one of which is adapted to the art of emitting sounds by swelling notes, which never was in any organ before; this instrument will be publicly opened on Sunday next, the performance by Mr. John Robinson. The above-said Abraham Jordan gives notice to all masters and performers, that he will attend every day next week at the said Church, to accommodate all those gentlemen who shall have a curiosity to hear it.’ I will conclude these notices by referring you to Malcolm’s ‘Londinum Redivivum,’ volume iv., pages 30-35, where you will find several other particulars concerning St. Magnus.
“Upon the rebuilding of London, after the Great Fire, it was the proposal of Sir Christopher Wren to form a grand quay, or esplanade, from the foot of London Bridge to the Temple; of which scheme there is the fullest information, from an original manuscript, in Mr. Elmes’s ‘Memoirs,’ pages 270 to 284, Notes. It was proposed that the Quay should be 40 feet in width, between the Thames and the houses on its banks; and, in the year 1670, a petition from the inhabitants of this part of London was presented to the Privy Council, stating that it would be of great detriment to them if such way or wharf should not be carried into effect, from London Bridge to Bridewell Dock, the petitioners having commenced their several houses near the Bridge, as well as the pipes and engines of the Water-House. Of the ancient Water-House at this place, I have already given you some idea; but I may observe, from the authority last cited, that its supplies were constantly defiled by the public drains, and other offensive buildings erected upon this spot. Notwithstanding that the Commissioners of Sewers had ordered their removal, and the King’s Surveyor General had directed that no such contagious places should be constructed here, even so late as 1670 they had been again renewed, polluting both the water and the passage across the Thames. In consequence of the petition, Sir Christopher Wren, assisted by the City Surveyors, inspected the whole line of the intended wharf; and his report was:—That the houses then begun to be built fronting the Thames, which were not a third in number of what the range would contain, were, in general, conformable to the act, as to their being 40 feet distant from the River, and that some of them towards the Bridge were not ungraceful; but that others were unequally low, and, as well as the warehouses, irregularly built; whilst some habitations were constructed only of board. The Quay between the row of houses and the River, which should have been left open for passage, was every where enclosed either with pales or brick walls; and covered with stacks of timber, faggots, and coals. The cranes erected West of the Bridge, he states to be unhandsome, and larger than were required, boarded down to the ground, and having warehouses beneath them. The old towers of Baynard’s Castle, he observes, were also still standing upon the wharf; the walls, wharfings, and landing-stairs, were, for the most part, unrepaired; and, in some places, the Quay was likely to be broken by bridges and docks. Sir Christopher’s report also mentions numerous other obstacles, in consequence of which, their immediate removal was ordered, and the construction of the Quay directed, by an Act of Parliament, in the 22nd of Charles II., 1670, chapter 11, Sections xliv.-xlix.; as well as by a Patent passed in the year following.
“The impediments to this design, however, were never entirely removed; and, in modern times, their number has considerably increased. Of these, Calvert’s Brewery is one of the most prominent, which is supposed to occupy the exact site of the mansion anciently called Cold Harbour; where it now forms the two sides of Champion-lane, formerly called Quay-Wharf-lane, which, with All-hallows and Red-bull lanes, was once open to the river. The last important remains of Sir Christopher’s grand Civic esplanade was shewn in a line of wharf 40 feet in width, and extending from London Bridge to the Steelyard, entitled New Quay; and it may be seen in the plans in Strype’s ‘Stow’s Survey,’ volume i., pages 486, 510; and in Maitland’s ‘History,’ volume ii., pages 790, 1046.
“The Act of Parliament which I have recently cited, also contains a very considerable portion of information relative to the new buildings of London; and from section liii. we learn, that the Water-House at London Bridge was not renewed at the time of its being passed, though in the Act for rebuilding London, passed in 1667, the 19th of Charles II., chapter 3, section xli., it is ordained: ‘that it shall and may be lawful for the Water-House, called Mr. Thomas Morris his Water-House, formerly adjoining to London Bridge, to be rebuilt upon the place it formerly stood, with timber, for the supplying the South side of the City with water, as it for almost an hundred years hath done.’ Most of the ancient engravings of London Bridge, after the Fire, present us with a view of this Water-House, by which it appears that it was a lofty narrow wooden building, standing close to the North West corner of the Bridge. On its Western side, a flight of stairs led down to the river; and its front looked on to the wooden stage which supported the Water-works. Strype, in his ‘Stow’s Survey,’ volume i., page 500, says, that ‘by wheels, iron chains, &c., it drinketh, or rather forceth up water through leaden pipes to the top, where there is a cistern, and from thence descendeth in other leaden pipes to the bottom, and thence, received by other pipes, is conveyed under the pavements of the streets, and so serveth many families in this part of the City with water; who have branches, or small pipes, laid from the main ones unto their houses, to their great convenience, and no small profit to the City.’ In the very amusing ‘Voyages’ of Mons. Aubri De la Motraye, Hague, 1727-32, folio, volume iii., pages 360-362, and plate iv., we have an engraving of the interior mechanism of a public fire-engine erected near this building, with an account of the means employed in it for raising of the water. One of the most picturesque and interesting representations of this modern Water-house at London Bridge,
