“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for the construction of a new Bridge between London and Southwark: when, after a debate of nearly four hours, it was withdrawn, and a Committee appointed, consisting, as usual, of the Aldermen, Deputies, and one Common-Councilman from each Ward, to consider of the best means of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, Feby. 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, 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 6d. 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: 6s., 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: 19s. 10d.; and that the estimate of the houses then out upon lease, with others which must be bought, came to £8940: 11s. 7d.; 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.