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. 10s. 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. 10s. Rental at Christmas 1785, £8280. 1s. 4d.

Present Income of the Junior Bridge-Master: Salary, &c. as before7200
In lieu of a stable400
In lieu of fees for the houses lately standing on London-Bridge1000
In lieu of Warehouses076
Total Income£8676’

“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.