The disease which killed my poor father was that of the kidneys and liver, as far as we could ascertain. All my brothers and sisters were assembled round his deathbed. It was a sad, sad sight, and afflicted us most severely; we had, however, the melancholy satisfaction of having done all in our power, though of no avail, to arrest the fatal event. He was universally known and respected; the news of his death spread immediately throughout the town, the public papers were filled with leading articles giving accounts of his public and private life, and everybody deplored his loss. One of the most powerful and touching articles was written by his talented friend Perry, the proprietor of the ‘Morning Chronicle,’ who was then at Brighton in bad health, and died there three months afterwards.

It seemed to be the universal wish that he who had rendered so many services to his country and was so generally beloved, should be buried in St. Paul’s, and arrangements were made accordingly. The funeral took place a few days afterwards, at eleven o’clock, and he was attended to his last resting-place by a vast concourse of literary, scientific, and private friends. The late talented John Wilson Croker, Esq., then First Secretary of the Admiralty, wrote the epitaph, which was composed in the most feeling and scholar-like manner for which that able gentleman was so particularly well qualified.

CHAPTER III.

It was some time before I could recover from the shock. I had been absent abroad nearly two years and four months, and had passed through so many different scenes, that when I returned to England everything seemed perfectly new to me; being deprived of my father so unexpectedly threw me almost into a state of despair, so that I scarcely felt myself equal to undertake the responsibility of following his noble career, which I could never expect to equal. After giving way to my melancholy reflections for about a month, I determined to rouse myself to the utmost and to do my best, and with his brilliant example before me, and cheered on by his numerous attached friends, I felt that if I had no chance of attaining the same degree of celebrity as my dear father, I might still do something, and although lungo intervállo, I might still keep up the name. I determined therefore to set to work in right earnest and endeavour to obtain some of my father’s numerous appointments. My first ambition was to succeed him in his numerous great works then being carried on by the Admiralty, such as the Plymouth Breakwater, and the new Chatham and Woolwich dockyards.

That most excellent and able man, the late Lord Melville, was at the head of the Admiralty; the distinguished and gallant Sir George Cockburn, one of Nelson’s officers at the Nile and elsewhere, was the First Naval Lord; John Wilson Croker and Sir John Barrow were the Secretaries; and there never has been such a galaxy of talent at the Admiralty since. All these great and good men have since passed away from us, not without, however, leaving behind them indisputable monuments of their skill and the great benefits they conferred upon their country. As for myself, I owe them my deepest gratitude, and shall never forget their kindness. I was appointed by the Admiralty to succeed my father as their engineer. This high honour at my early age (for I was only seven-and-twenty) filled me with the greatest thankfulness, although I felt it was due to no merit of my own, but rather to the regard and respect which they entertained for my father; I therefore resolved to do everything in my power to render myself worthy of it, and set to work with right good will.

The next appointment I obtained was as drainage engineer to the Eau Brink Commissioners. This was at that time the greatest work of the kind, at the head of which were the late General Lord William Bentinck, afterwards Governor-General of India; the late Sir Andrew Hammond, Bart.; the late Sir Charles Browne, physician to the King of Prussia; and the late Thomas Hoseason, Esq., of Banklands, in the district of Marshland, near Lynn. These able and distinguished men formed the Committee for carrying into effect the Eau Brink Cut, for the improvement of the drainage of the great level of the fens, called the Bedford Level, amounting to about 300,000 acres of valuable land. This work consisted of a cut for altering the channel of the Ouse, by means of which nearly two miles of the navigation of that river would be saved, and an additional fall for the drainage of five feet perpendicular would be gained. This great work had been planned nearly a century before, but had always been opposed by the inhabitants of the fens, as being in their opinion inadequate to effect the desired object. At length, after great opposition on the part of the townspeople, who alleged that it would ruin their harbour and trade, the plan was decided on, and an Act of Parliament was obtained, in the year 1781, to carry it into effect, and to lay a tax of 4d. per acre per annum upon all fen lands which it was supposed would derive benefit from it; certain guarantees were given to Lynn Harbour and the interior navigation interests, as well as to the owners of the banks of the Ouse, that they should be indemnified for any damages they might sustain in consequence of the Eau Brink Cut being executed. Under this Act it was decreed that there should be two engineers, one appointed by the drainage interests, namely, the late Robert Mylne (the architect of Blackfriars Bridge), and Sir Thomas Hyde Page, R.E., as the engineer for navigation. These two gentlemen were to decide the direction and dimensions of the proposed Eau Brink Cut, which was to commence below German’s Bridge and to terminate a short distance above the boat wharf at Lynn. They, however, differed so materially that it was necessary to call in an umpire to decide between them, and the late scientific Captain Joseph Huddart, of the Trinity Board, and the inventor of the celebrated patent cable machinery, was appointed arbitrator. Captain Huddart made his award; but when it was determined to carry on the works, it was found that the whole of the funds appropriated for that purpose, which amounted to about 80,000l., had been expended in litigation and the cost of obtaining the Act of Parliament, so that the whole matter fell to the ground.

Meanwhile the defective state of drainage of the great level of the fens still continued, and everybody was convinced that the only remedy was to carry into effect the Eau Brink Cut as awarded by Captain Huddart. It was therefore resolved that a new Act of Parliament should be obtained for this purpose, increasing the tax upon the lands proposed to be benefited sufficiently to cover the costs according to the estimate of my father, who was appointed engineer-in-chief of the drainage interests; and the above-mentioned gentlemen, Lord W. Bentinck, Sir A. Hammond, Sir Charles Browne, and Thomas Hoseason, Esq., were appointed as the executive committee.

The Act having passed, Messrs. Jolliffe and Banks tendered for, and received and executed the contract.

The effect of this work greatly exceeded the most sanguine expectations of its supporters. Immediately after it was opened the low-water mark at the upper end of the cut fell five feet, and the drainage waters were carried off with a degree of rapidity which astonished the whole country. The autumn and winter of 1821-2 was characterized by an unusual quantity of rainfall, and if it had not been for the opening of the Eau Brink Cut the whole, or the greater part, of the level of the fens would have been under water, and therefore the fenmen were very well pleased with the result. At this time I was appointed to succeed my father as chief drainage engineer, and the late Mr. Telford had been previously appointed the chief engineer for navigation. Immediately after my appointment, which was in the month of December, 1821, I went to Lynn to examine the works, and was much astonished to find the great effects which had been produced by the Eau Brink Cut. Instead of the circuitous old shallow course, full of shoals and obstructions of every kind, there was a fine straight, deep channel, two miles shorter than the old one, of the proper width, bordered by strong banks of the full height; the floods passed off without difficulty, and the navigation was so much improved that the lighters and barges going up the river from Lynn saved several tides. It is true that upon examining the country between Denver Sluice and Cambridge, there was a great deal of water out in several places, but this was attributed to the interior drains and rivers not being properly defended and embanked, so that they could carry off the water to the main outfall below. I also examined the new steam pumping apparatus, which had lately been erected for draining Soham and other fens. This, although proposed by my father in 1786, was the first of the kind that had been erected. It consisted of a scoop wheel, with a perpendicular lift, worked by a condensing engine. It answered its object completely, and has since been imitated by numerous others with equal success in different parts of the fen and lowland districts. Yet in many places it has been found very difficult to induce the fen proprietors to combine together in order to effect a natural drainage, which would be better and less expensive; they prefer to act independently of each other, and adopt the steam wheel. Still, even with this, the main outfalls must be improved to their fullest extent, otherwise the water cannot run off; and when the floods in the adjacent rivers rise so high that the banks are endangered, the pumping must be discontinued, otherwise the banks will break, and then a greater injury will ensue. Nevertheless, the steam pumping apparatus is an immense improvement on the old windmill, which could only work when there was wind.

My next appointment was to succeed my father as engineer-in-chief to Ramsgate Harbour.

This harbour was established by special Act of Parliament for the purpose of affording shelter to vessels of 300 tons lying in the Downs during south-west gales. When these winds prevail that anchorage is crowded with all classes of vessels, and the smaller ones, not being so well found with ground tackle as the larger, are liable to be driven from their moorings and fall foul of the larger vessels, causing them to go adrift also, and thus creating considerable confusion and damage; but by having Ramsgate under their lee, the small vessels can always get under way, run for it at the commencement of the flood, and reach it in safety long before high water, at which time the Goodwin Sands are covered, and a heavy sea rolls into the Downs. In fact, Ramsgate Harbour was made for clearing the Downs of small vessels, so that the large ones may ride in safety, and so far has effectually answered its object.

There were a certain number of trustees appointed under the Act, who were selected from the principal merchants and shipowners of London, and the Deputy Master and three or four Elder Brethren of the Trinity were members of the Board of Trustees ex officio. At the time I was appointed engineer, the celebrated Sir William Curtis, Bart., member for the City of London, was chairman, and the worthy Deputy Master of the Trinity House, Sir John Woolmore, represented that Corporation with three others of the Elder Brethren. As this was one of the oldest and most important harbour trusts in the kingdom, I felt great honour in being appointed their chief engineer, the more so as the celebrated Smeaton and my father had previously occupied that position. It was here that Smeaton followed out the idea that had been originally proposed at Dundee, of establishing an inner basin with sluices for the purpose of scouring away the mud which continually accumulated in the outer harbour, owing to the great quantity of alluvial matter brought in from the adjacent coast and waters, which otherwise in a very short time would have filled it up and rendered it useless. Ramsgate Harbour was also celebrated for being the first place of the kind where the diving bell was introduced by Smeaton for the purpose of laying down moorings and removing obstacles under water. The diving bell was afterwards, in 1813, much improved, and rendered, for the first time, applicable to building masonry under water with as much security and accuracy as building upon dry land. In such an exposed situation it was more economical and expeditious than the old cofferdams; it was in this manner Mr. Rennie rebuilt the east pier-head in 17 feet at low-water spring tides, which was originally made by Smeaton, and which failed. I also succeeded my father at Sunderland, Donaghadee, Port Patrick, and Kingstown harbours, the West India Docks, besides other places soon afterwards, so that I had a large business, and was daily getting more.

The most difficult and anxious work, however, at that time was the new dockyard at Sheerness, designed and partly carried into effect by my father. He originally, in the year 1807, recommended that the old dockyard, which was composed only of some old wooden slips imbedded in the mud, a few storehouses, a wretched basin, lined with wooden walls, and some timber jetties, should be abolished. He said that it was on the lee or wrong side of the harbour, that the foundation for new works was of mud and quicksand, that the space, on account of the buildings in the old town, was very confined, and, therefore, that to make a good dockyard there would be very expensive, and he thought it would be far better to make a new complete establishment at Northfleet, just above Gravesend, and to get rid of Woolwich, Deptford, and Sheerness altogether. Mr. Pitt, then Prime Minister, decided that it should be done; but when he died the matter fell to the ground, as I have before said, although the land was bought for the purpose.

However, after the great war had terminated, in 1815, the nation was naturally anxious to reduce the expenditure as much as possible, so that the House of Commons would not listen to the idea of expending any large sums upon great new works either for the navy or the army; and it was only after considerable difficulty that the House of Commons would grant money for the repairs of Sheerness Dockyard, and, like most extensive repairs, it was found, when too late, that it would have been far better to have abandoned Sheerness altogether.

Nevertheless it was absolutely necessary to do something to the Thames and Medway dockyards, to keep in repair the large fleet of vessels which was there laid up in ordinary. The total number of pennants flying at the close of the war was about 1000, and the last vote for seamen in 1815 included 127,000 sailors and marines. As there was greater depth of water at Sheerness than at any of the dockyards, and as the harbour immediately contiguous was capable of accommodating with ease any number of large vessels, Sheerness was decided upon as the place where the greatest repairs and improvements should be made, and it ended in an entirely new dockyard being built. The works accordingly commenced in 1815, and the late Lord Melville laid the first stone at the north end that year. It ended in expending nearly 3,000,000l., 1,700,000l. of which went to the engineering department, and the remainder in the purchase of ground, buildings in the town of Sheerness, in storehouses, mast and timber ponds, smithery, admiral’s and officers’ houses. The engineering works were of the most difficult kind; the foundations were composed of nothing but soft mud and loose quicksands to an almost interminable depth, so that my father was obliged to invent an entirely new system of hollow walls faced with granite in front and brick behind. This system of walls, which was entirely new, by giving a greater superficial area of bearing surface with the same weight of materials, rendered them thoroughly secure. He had adopted this kind of construction with perfect success at the docks at Great Grimsby, in Lincolnshire, and they succeeded equally well at Sheerness, although exposed to much greater difficulties. The dockyard as completed consists of one basin of nearly 3 acres, at the east end of which are three docks for first-rate vessels of war, with a depth of 9 feet at low water of spring tides, the basin being of the same depth, so that with a rise of tide of 18 feet at spring tides the largest vessels can always be docked at those times. There is also another tidal basin of about the same size, together with large storehouses, smithery, mast ponds, boathouses, admiral’s and officers’ houses, chapel, &c., and ample space for timber and other materials. This dockyard, therefore, as was the intention, is well adapted for keeping in repair the numerous vessels lying up in ordinary in the adjacent harbour, or for executing any repairs which vessels on the northern stations may require; it never was intended to be a building yard, and it answers its original purpose well. It should be mentioned, that here Mr. Rennie first introduced cast-iron gates for the dry docks; these fitted to the granite quoins so nicely by polishing the two surfaces, iron and stone, with emery, that they worked together perfectly, and were completely water-tight; and although they have now been in use forty-five years, they are as good as on the day when they were made.

At the time that these works were proceeding, it was decided to make a new large granite dry dock at Chatham, similar to those at Sheerness; and some improvements in the line of river wall, which partly interfered with the free circulation of the tide there, were being constructed when I was appointed, and I finished them.

The breakwater in Plymouth Sound, which was designed by my father and commenced in 1815, had made considerable progress; in fact, the great mass of rubble stone had been deposited throughout its entire length, so that vessels of war as well as merchantmen could safely lie under its protection during the heaviest gales from the westward. When I was appointed engineer to the Admiralty, the late excellent Mr. Joseph Whidbey, who was distinguished for his scientific acquirements, and who had sailed round the world with Vancouver, was the superintendent of the breakwater, so that I had but little to do with it until the latter end of 1824, when, on the 22nd and 23rd of November of that year, a violent storm occurred from the south-south-west, the most dangerous wind, and its effect upon the breakwater above low water of spring tides was to disarrange nearly the whole of the superstructure, and to transfer a very large portion of the stone from the south to the north slope. The effects of this severe storm were considered to be so serious as to create considerable doubts as to the security of the breakwater, and even Mr. Whidbey was alarmed. I was accordingly sent by the Admiralty to make a detailed report as to what had occurred. I carefully examined the whole work, and had numerous transverse and longitudinal sections taken to show its exact state, and reported that the main body of the work remained as substantial as ever, but that the rubble from above low water to the top, on the south or sea slope, had only been laid at an angle of 3 to 1, and the waves during the storm above mentioned had in a great measure disturbed it, and had transferred a very large portion from the south to the north slope, increasing the south slope to 5 to 1. Now it is singular that my father, when it was decided to raise the breakwater from the level of half tide (which was the original intention) to above high water of spring tides, always said that the outer slope should be laid at 5 to 1. After his death, however, Mr. Whidbey, with an idea of economy, reduced the south slope to 3 to 1, so that the effects of the storm had been to confirm my father’s views; and not only had no real damage been done, but it had consolidated and strengthened the breakwater materially, and had given a practical example as to the best mode of completing it, and I recommended that the outer slope should be finished at 5 to 1, and the inner at 2 to 1. The Admiralty, however, feeling their responsibility, thought it advisable, in addition to myself, to consult three other experienced engineers, and the late Mr. Telford, Mr. Josias Jessop, and my eldest brother, George, were appointed for that purpose.

We proceeded to Plymouth in the month of March, 1825, and spent several days in examining the breakwater. We finally recommended that the outer slope should be finished at 5 to 1 and the inner at 2 to 1 (as I had previously suggested to the Admiralty), that the outer slope and top should be paved with rough square blocks set closely together, and that the inside slope should be paved with rubble. Mr. Whidbey was, unfortunately, of a different opinion, and recommended a nearly vertical wall of solid masonry on the top, of which the Admiralty did not approve, and adopted our plan, which was ordered to be carried into effect. Mr. Whidbey was so much annoyed that he resigned his situation and retired into private life near Taunton. This was much regretted, as he was a most able and honest public servant, and beloved and respected by everybody who knew him. I was then appointed chief engineer, and upon considering the subject again, I thought that, as the base or toe of the outer slope was the most exposed part of the work, it would be better to strengthen it by benching, which would effectually break the force of the waves before they could reach the main body of the work. This was approved by the Admiralty, and has since been carried into effect with complete success.

I may here relate a curious anecdote in connection with the death of Mr. Perceval. Messrs. Fox, Williams, and Co., the great mining contractors in Cornwall, took the first contract for blasting the rock and depositing the stones on the breakwater. In 1815 Mr. John Fox, a Quaker, having come to town on business, breakfasted with my father and several others, including myself. The conversation happened to turn on the death of Mr. Perceval. Mr. Fox said in a simple, unaffected manner, “I remember it very well; it is a curious story, and now I will tell it you. I was then visiting my friend Williams at Redruth. I went to bed as usual, and awoke in a most restless state, having had an extraordinary dream. I dreamed that I went to the House of Commons, where I had never been before, and having no admission into the interior of the House, I sat down quietly on one of the benches in the lobby, expecting a Cornish member who had promised when I came to London to give me a ticket of admission to hear the debates. Beside me on the bench sat a tall, muscular man (describing Bellingham most exactly), who appeared to be very restless, and continually asking whether Mr. Perceval had come to the House, and every now and then putting his right hand into his left breast pocket. At length, after waiting some minutes, there was a bustle, and several persons near me said that Mr. Perceval was coming; and shortly after Mr. Perceval made his appearance (Mr. Fox describing the exact dress he wore, namely, a blue coat with gilt metal buttons, white cravat and waistcoat, with nankeen shorts, white stockings, and shoes, according to his usual attire in the summer). Immediately after Mr. Perceval made his appearance, the man who sat next to me got up, and, advancing close to Mr. Perceval, drew a pistol from his left breast pocket, fired, and Mr. Perceval fell at his feet. This occasioned great commotion. The man who fired the pistol was at once seized, and I rushed out and asked what had happened, and the bystanders told me that Mr. Perceval had been shot by a man named Bellingham, who was the identical individual who had been a few minutes before sitting by my side. When my dream had come to this point I awoke in the greatest agitation. I could not account for it. I had never seen Mr. Perceval, nor his murderer, Bellingham; I had never been in the lobby of the House, and I had been in no way connected with Mr. Perceval, either by correspondence or otherwise, still I was so much affected by the dream that I felt convinced that Mr. Perceval had been murdered. I passed the remainder of the night in great restlessness. I could not sleep, but was always thinking of the dream, being thoroughly convinced that it was true. I came down to breakfast at the usual hour, in the most anxious and nervous state, which I in vain endeavoured to conceal as much as possible; but my friend and partner Williams and his whole family observed it, and said that I looked very ill, and kindly asked me to explain the cause. After much pressing, I told my story. Friend Williams and the whole of his amiable family said that it was nonsense; that I had been unwell, and still was so, and said that they would send for their family doctor. I said no; I felt perfectly convinced that my dream would, unfortunately, prove but too true, and that the mail, which would arrive in the evening, would bring a confirmation of it. They tried to laugh me out of it, but nothing would do; I therefore went about with my friend Williams, transacting our mining business, being convinced that the arrival of the mail in the evening would confirm the truth of my dream in all particulars. We returned to dinner at five o’clock; at nine the mail arrived, and confirmed every particular of my dream. I was afterwards taken to the House of Commons, where I had never been before, and I correctly pointed out the whole particulars of the melancholy transaction exactly as they occurred, to the astonishment of my friends and the bystanders. The whole story seems so strange that I cannot account for it. I relate it to you just as it occurred to me.”[2]

This is certainly one of those marvellous instances of foresight which baffles all comprehension. John Fox was generally considered by his numerous friends and acquaintance to be a most honest, plain, straightforward, business man, and incapable of stating anything but what he believed to be true. I heard him relate the dream, and my father and all present believed it. The curious part of the story is how he should have dreamed such a thing, being in no way connected with it.

About this time (1825) the several victualling departments of the navy at Plymouth were very inefficient, and divided into three or four establishments—one at Southdown, opposite to Devonport, another at Cremill Point, near Stonehouse, a third at Plymouth, and the fourth in Plymouth town—being several miles from each other, so that the extra expense and delay in provisioning vessels of war was considerable. Upon this being represented to the Admiralty by the Victualling Board, of which the late General Stapleton was the chairman, they determined to make an entirely new victualling establishment, concentrating the whole of the several departments into one, upon a well-organized plan, so that every operation should be carried out with the greatest dispatch and economy.

After much discussion Cremill Point, being nearest to the dockyard at Devonport, and being in other respects, as to depth of water, &c., possessed of peculiar advantages, was finally selected as the best place for the new establishment, and I was ordered by the Victualling Board to prepare the necessary plans, specifications, and estimates, and to see them carried into effect.

Whilst these works were proceeding, a proposal was made to the Admiralty to apply the Cornish system of engines to the Admiralty steam-vessels. Up to this time steam, according to the principle of Watt, not exceeding 5 lb. pressure upon the square inch, was only used, whereas in the Cornish condensing engines steam of the pressure of 37 lb. per square inch was then usual, with much greater effect and economy. I was accordingly sent by the Admiralty to Cornwall to investigate their scheme. I took with me my principal assistant, the late Mr. William Lewin, a very zealous, able, practical engineer. We examined the whole system very carefully at different mines, measured the actual work done and the quantity of fuel consumed, and came to the conclusion that the Cornish system of high-pressure condensing might be applied to the navy with the greatest advantage, and reported the same to the Admiralty. It was not adopted at the time, although high-pressure condensing engines have since been introduced into the navy; at the present time the pressure has advanced to 27 and 28 lb. per square inch, and in the non-condensing engines to 100 and 120 lb. Watt, although he had tried steam at every temperature, yet generally preferred low pressure; his reason for this must have been the imperfect means then at command for controlling it, and perhaps he was right at the time, for the manufacture of wrought iron had not then made sufficient progress to render it capable of resisting with safety the great power of high-pressure steam. He pointed out the way, and others, through the improvements in the manufacture of iron, have profited by his discoveries. I must not omit, in justice to the very talented Mr. Perkins, his views as to the value of high-pressure steam, upon which he made numerous experiments; amongst other things, he proposed to use it as a destructive power in war, by means of his celebrated steam gun, which created much sensation at the time; and it is rather singular that this has not been taken up in modern times, when every invention which can add to the methods of destruction is most greedily adopted. There can be no doubt that the “steam gun” may be used with the most terrible effect in fixed batteries either for musketry or artillery, and probably the day will come when we shall see batteries worked by steam, with a great diminution of manual agency; and the men employed to work them will be so protected as to render the destruction of human life comparatively trifling.

Amongst the other legacies which my dear father had left to me, was that of building London Bridge. He had shown, to the satisfaction of the Committee of the House of Commons, the impracticability of keeping up the old bridge by any amount of repair or alteration; that it could not be rendered fit for the improvement of the river Thames, nor for the continually increasing traffic which must pass over it, at any reasonable expense, and that therefore an entirely new bridge would be by far the most satisfactory. The House of Commons was so fully convinced by his arguments that it unanimously condemned the old bridge, and refused to comply with the recommendation of the City of London that it should be altered, but resolved that a new bridge should be built according to the design made by my father. An Act of Parliament was accordingly passed to this effect, the late talented and energetic Mr. Holme Sumner being the leading member of the Committee. The Corporation demurred to this, saying that there were other engineers equal to Mr. Rennie, and demanding a public competition. The advertisement for designs was accordingly issued, and a great number were sent in and referred to the Committee of the House of Commons and the Government, according to the previous Act. After considering the various rival plans, it was finally decided that that of my father was the only one which complied with all the required conditions, and it was therefore adopted. At this resolution great discontent was manifested by the different competitors. The Corporation of London also objected to this decision, as they considered that they ought to have been the sole judges. But finding that the Government adhered to its decision, they submitted, at the same time urging that they, who were to pay the expense of the new bridge, ought to select the engineer that was to execute the work. The Government agreed to this, subject to their approval; and finally the Committee appointed by the Corporation to carry into effect my father’s design, fixed upon me as the engineer-in-chief; Mr. Richard Lambert Jones was appointed the chairman of the executive committee of the Corporation. A very able and efficient chairman he was, and conducted the whole to a conclusion, to the great satisfaction of the Corporation and of the Government.

The design, as I have already observed, was made by my father, but no detailed working drawings, specification, or estimate, had been prepared by him; it fell to my lot, therefore, to do this. As I had acted under my father during the construction of the Waterloo and Southwark bridges, I had become so thoroughly acquainted with his system, that I had no very great difficulty about it.

The design consisted of five semi-elliptical arches, the centre being 150 feet span, the two next arches 140 feet span each, the two side or land arches 130 feet span each; the two centre piers were 24 feet thick at the springing, and the two side piers 22 feet each; the whole was to be built of the best grey granite. The width of the roadway was originally designed to be 48 feet, but was afterwards increased to 54 feet wide, at an extra cost of 46,000l.

It was intended by my father that the new bridge should be built on the site of the old one, which was to be pulled down in the first instance, and a temporary wooden one was to be built above it to accommodate the traffic whilst the new bridge was building. It was considered that as soon as the fall of 5 feet occasioned by the old bridge should be removed, the river would be restored to its natural state, and there would then be less difficulty and expense in making the cofferdams and founding the piers and abutments; the old approaches to the bridge would then be preserved, and thus a less quantity of valuable property would be required. The wish, however, of the Corporation to preserve the old bridge during the construction of the new one was so strong, that there was no possibility of resisting it. I therefore yielded to their desire, and agreed to build the new bridge immediately above the old one, and as near as practicable to it; notwithstanding, I felt at the time that there would be considerable difficulty, risk, and extra expense in so doing, on account of the great depth of water in which the piers must be founded, namely, 28 feet at low water of spring tides, and the strong current and fall through the old bridge both during the flood and ebb, particularly during the latter. It should be observed that the old bridge stood as it were upon a hill, the foundations of the piers being from 28 to 30 feet above the bottom of the river immediately above and below it, occasioned by the great fall and scour produced by the contracted waterway; thus it was necessary to secure the piers by large projecting starlings, and to throw considerable quantities of stone continually round them, in order to prevent the old bridge from being carried away. However, there was no alternative but to build the new bridge above the old one, and I accordingly set about taking every possible precaution in order to prevent accident.

As the loose stone thrown round the piers of the old bridge was continually washed into the holes immediately above and below, it was in vain to attempt driving the piles for the cofferdams of the piers until this stone was removed, which was done by dredging. The cofferdams for the piers were elliptical in form, this shape being the best adapted for resisting the strong current in which they were placed; they consisted of two main rows of piles each 14 inches square, each pile being properly hooped and shod with wrought iron, and driven 25 feet into the bed of the river. These piles were connected together in the horizontal direction by three rows of braces 15 inches square, namely, one at the level of the lowest tides, another at the level of half tide, and the third at the level of high water. At every 10 feet the two rows of piles were fastened together with wrought-iron bolts 2½ inches diameter, which passed through the horizontal braces or walings, as they are technically termed, and were secured outside and inside with additional wooden cleats 15 inches square and 8 feet long, so as to cover the joints where the main horizontal braces met; outside of these were large iron plates, and as the bolts were screwed at each end, they could be tightened up to the full bearing without crushing the timber. On the outside of these two main rows of piles was a third row of the same dimensions, and driven the same depth into the bed of the river at a distance of 6 feet in the clear from the two main rows, and connected together with a tier of horizontal braces, and to the two main rows of piles with bolts, cleats, and plates of the same dimensions as those already described. When the piles had been driven to their proper depth, and had been properly secured to each other as above described, the joints between every pile, which had been previously fitted to each other, were well caulked with oakum, and the outside joints were covered with melted pitch, so as to render them water-tight; the spaces between the three rows of piles were then filled with strong well-puddled clay.

In addition to the above three rows of piles, there was a fourth row on the inside, driven down in the form of a parallelogram, corresponding with the exact size of the foundation of the piers, and to the same depth as the outer piles. Every tenth pile, and those at the corners or angles, extended up to the level of low water. Upon the heads of these piles longitudinal and transverse braces were fixed across the inside of the dam, at the level of low water, half tide, and high water; so that the dam was braced internally and externally in every direction to resist the pressure of the water, like a well-made cask. There was a powerful steam engine, with the requisite pumps, attached to each dam, to remove any water which might either rise from the foundation or from the outside. Each dam was provided with a trunk secured by a valve 3 feet diameter, laid at the level of low water, so that in the event of any unusual pressure of water coming against the dam, these valves were opened, and the dam was then filled with water, and all mischief was prevented. The first pier cofferdam on the Southwark side was completed, the water pumped out, and the earth was excavated to the depth of 30 feet, going below low-water mark of spring tides; the bottom consisted of the stiff London clay. Piles, consisting of Baltic fir, elm, and beech, 22 feet long, and 12 inches diameter in the middle, properly hooped and shod with wrought iron, were then driven 20 feet into the solid ground, or until, with a weight of 12 cwt. falling 18 to 20 feet, they would not move above an inch at a blow. These piles were driven 3 feet 6 inches from centre to centre, both in the longitudinal and transverse direction. After having driven them, their heads were cut off and accurately levelled. The loose earth between their heads was then removed, to the depth of 12 inches, and the spaces filled in with stone bedded in concrete; all the rows of piles were then connected together in the transverse direction by Baltic fir sills or beams 14 inches square, well fitted to each pile head by jagged wrought-iron spikes 20 inches long and three quarters of an inch square, driven through the sills into the pile heads below; the spaces between the sills were well filled in with stone and brickwork; another row of sills was then laid in the transverse direction above the pile heads and spiked down to the lower sills in the same manner; the spaces between the upper sills were then filled in with stone and brickwork. The whole surface of the foundation was covered with elm plank 6 inches thick, closely jointed together and bedded in mortar, and well spiked down to the sills below with jagged spikes 10 inches long and half an inch square. Upon this platform the masonry was built, each course diminishing in length and width by a series of offsets 12 inches wide, until they reached the shaft of the pier, when it was carried up solid to the springing of the arches. The whole of the exterior masonry was of the best whitish-grey granite, and the interior stone was of the best hard Yorkshire grit stone from the quarries of Bramley Fall. The abutments were constructed upon piles and masonry of the same character as the piers.

The first stone was laid with considerable ceremony on the first pier cofferdam from the Surrey shore by His Royal Highness the late Duke of York. The dam was fitted up with great taste like an amphitheatre, with seats all round, the whole being covered at top with a handsome coloured canvas awning adorned with numerous flags of all nations. The Lord Mayor, assisted by the Aldermen, Common Councilmen, and Committee, with Mr. Jones, the Chairman, attended in great state, and everything went off well. After this pier had advanced nearly to the level of high water, one day whilst examining it, standing upon one of the cross beams, my foot slipped, and I fell headlong into the dam upon the top of the masonry; fortunately, my left foot caught in a nail in the beam, and I hung by it for a few seconds. This somewhat broke and changed the direction of my fall, and I pitched upon an inclined plank, upon which I slid until I struck my head against a stone; my hat deadened the blow; as it was, however, I was cut about the forehead and half stunned. The after effects of this fall were very serious; my whole system got such a severe shaking, that I did not recover thoroughly until nearly ten years afterwards, and I carried on my large professional business with the greatest difficulty. The works made satisfactory progress, and the centres for the first and second arches from the Surrey shore were soon fixed.

Each centre was composed of eight ribs, framed upon the truss principle, resting upon a continued series of wedges in one piece, laid horizontally and resting upon tressels or legs formed by the piles of the cofferdams, which had been cut off and levelled for that purpose. The mode of setting and fixing the ribs was the same as that adopted at the Waterloo and Southwark bridges. A large lighter was constructed especially for this purpose. In the centre was placed a strong framing, which rested upon eight screws, four in each row, working in a strong cast-iron box, to which levers were attached, by means of which the screws and framing above them could be gradually raised and lowered at pleasure; at one end of the framing there was an upright scaffold. The centres, I have already said, consisted of eight main ribs framed together separately. As there was no room to frame these centres near the bridge, a special workshop and wharf were provided by the contractors at Millwall, in the Isle of Dogs; when ready they were launched in one piece, from a properly-prepared platform, into the river, and towed to the Southwark end of the bridge, where the lighter, with its apparatus of powerful sheers, crabs, and tackle, was in readiness to receive them; by these means they were gradually hauled up an inclined plane, and then raised upright upon the platform, supported by the frame and screws beneath, and firmly braced to the scaffolding in the lighter; two centre frames were thus placed upon it at one time, and adjusted by the screws to an extra height of 2 feet, so as to allow for any deficiency in the rise of the tide. Two ribs having been placed upon the framing, the lighter was hauled off from the shore and placed in front of the opening in which the centre was to be, the lighter being moored 100 yards from it, about half an hour before high water; upon the turning of the tide it was gradually allowed to float down with the ebb current to its place. By the time that the lighter with the centre ribs arrived in its exact position there was always 2 feet to spare, in order to allow for any deficiency of the tide; as the tide fell the two ribs were securely deposited in their places upon the framing and wedges below them. It should be observed, that upon the wedges there was an additional framing so as to reduce the weight of the main ribs of the centring. When the main ribs had been deposited upon the framing wedges, they were securely braced together until the whole number of ribs required for each centre was fixed, when they were all braced firmly together longitudinally, transversely, and diagonally. This mode of fixing centres for arches of any span was most successful and economical, and I believe that my father was the inventor of it, if it may be termed an invention. My excellent and talented friend, the late Robert Stephenson, adopted the same method for fixing the tubes of the Conway and Menai Straits bridges. He told me that he was not aware that my father had proposed it before him; but in the ‘History of the Britannia and Conway Bridges,’ edited, I believe, by the present Mr. Edwin Clarke, who was employed under Mr. Stephenson at the Conway Bridge, it is expressly mentioned that my father had previously employed the same plan.[3]

But to return to London Bridge. The works proceeded successfully; the fifth or last arch on the City side was completed in 1829. The centres of the first, second, and centre arches having been removed, it was found that they had subsided only 3 inches each, which was the exact distance that had been allowed for, with an extra half inch for the centre arch. Upon examining the arches and piers after it was supposed that they had subsided, it was found that there had been an unequal sinking, that the two centre piers had subsided on the east side slightly more than on the west side. I was much puzzled at this, and could not for some time account for the difference. Three or four of the quoin arch-stones of the second arch from the City shore had been fractured for about 8 or 9 inches; this, however, was of no consequence, for it is always difficult in such large arches to get the workmen to bed the quoins accurately. The same thing had occurred in the Waterloo and other bridges; I was therefore led to investigate the subject more thoroughly during the construction of the new bridge. It was found that the cofferdams for the piers in several instances were made in front of the openings or arches of the old bridge, which could not be avoided. These dams necessarily still further obstructed the waterway through the old bridge; I therefore felt that it was absolutely essential to find relief for the ebbing and flowing tides, detained both by the old bridge and the cofferdams of the new bridge, and accordingly recommended that, on the south side of the main arch of the old bridge, which was only 80 feet wide, two arches should be thrown into one, and that the intermediate pier should be removed, by which means a single wide opening would be made facing the space between the cofferdams of the arch and the centre on the Surrey side of the new bridge, but the difficulty of doing this arose from the fact that the traffic over the old bridge could not be interrupted for a moment. I soon, however, found an expedient; I ordered that the requisite number of logs of the best Baltic fir timber 15 inches square should be prepared sufficiently long to extend over the two arches and piers of the old bridge which I proposed to remove. Having got these ready, I stopped up one half of the roadway, leaving the other half open for the traffic, and working night and day, I laid these whole timbers spanning the two arches to the adjoining piers close together, bolted them to each other, and secured them to a longitudinal bearer of the same dimensions imbedded in the masonry of the adjoining piers, so that the timbers which were to form the increased opening rested firmly upon them. Having done this, I removed the masonry of the intermediate arch by degrees from beneath the timber girders, placing a strong diagonal strut or support under each girder as I proceeded, at the same time connecting together all these diagonal struts. Having completed one half of the temporary arch or opening, the traffic was diverted over it, and the other half was completed in the same manner; the whole operation was accomplished within ten days, and the traffic was not stopped for one hour. The intermediate pier of the old arch was then removed entirely. As the work advanced to the fourth pier on the City side another similar opening was made. These alterations relieved the river materially, and enabled the works to be carried on much more securely, and greatly diminished the fall through the old bridge at low water. Nevertheless, there was increased scour against the dams where the openings were made, which occasioned the slight unequal subsidence before mentioned. The last or fifth arch was completed on the City side, January, 1829.

It has been mentioned that Lord Liverpool’s Government had always taken the greatest interest in the construction of new London Bridge, and gave the Corporation of London every support in their power, not only for the accommodation of the great traffic across it, but for the improvement of the Thames, which the removal of the old bridge would effect; and amongst the men most zealous in Lord Liverpool’s Government were the late Marquis of Salisbury, then Lord Cranbourne, and the late Earl of Lonsdale, then Lord Lowther; both these noblemen had considerable talent, and, fully alive to the advancing ideas of the day, were mainly instrumental in forwarding this great work. That amiable, able, and conscientious nobleman, the Earl of Liverpool, had succumbed to the effects of a paralytic stroke, and the Duke of Wellington was now Premier; he took the greatest interest in the promotion of London Bridge and everything connected with it; so that the Corporation of London, who had hitherto been radically inclined, or had rather been opposed to the Tory Government, turned rather Conservative than otherwise, and the Duke became most popular with them; he invariably, whenever he could, accepted their invitations to Guildhall and the Mansion House, and was always received by them with the greatest respect and attention. Richard Lambert Jones, the Chairman of the London Bridge Committee, was his particular favourite, and he always shook Jones by the hand, a favour which he did not accord to everyone.

At this time the bridge had made considerable progress towards completion, and the important question arose, what was the best plan for the approaches? It was originally intended, in order to save expense, that the old line of Fish Street Hill, on the City side, should be adopted, pulling down such of the houses on this line as might be necessary to make the incline not steeper than 1 in 30; but inasmuch as the great traffic of Upper and Lower Thames Street interposed materially with the main body of the traffic coming north and south, it became most important to consider how this might be avoided, and the old idea of making an arch over Thames Street was revived, and was favourably received by the London Bridge Committee; the question was accordingly referred by them to me. I had always felt that the old approach by Fish Street Hill was a very great difficulty; but, restricted as I was to the old line of approach, I felt that I could not get out of it without some pressing necessity; I was therefore glad to have the opportunity of reconsidering the subject, particularly when proposed by the Committee. It was quite clear, that in any case an arch over Thames Street to separate the great cart traffic of that quarter from the main coach and passenger traffic coming from the City, Southwark, and the northern and southern parts of the town, was absolutely necessary, and I should have proposed it myself in the first instance, if there had at that time been any chance of its adoption, and I am quite sure that my father would have done the same. But if it had been proposed to divert the traffic from the old line of Fish Street Hill at the first, it is most probable that it would never have been carried; I was obliged, therefore, to confine myself to the old approaches, leaving the future to develop itself. The Committee, however, having taken up the idea of an arch over Thames Street, I was only too happy to fall in with it; but as nothing could be done without the sanction of the Government, it was determined by the Committee to bring the subject before them at once; the more so, as it would require a much larger sum than originally calculated to make the approaches, for which the Committee had no funds, and a new Act of Parliament would be required. Plans and estimates were accordingly prepared for the new approaches, and submitted to His Majesty’s Government. The Duke of Wellington took the greatest interest in the subject, and investigated it to the fullest extent; he visited the place himself, he interrogated the Chairman of the Committee and myself most closely, and at length, being fully convinced that it was necessary, gave the consent of the Government, provided that the funds could be found. In order to meet this difficulty, the Committee proposed to increase the coal tax, which, with the necessary sinking fund, would pay off the whole sum necessary to make the new approaches, which were estimated at 1,400,000l., in a given number of years. The Government consented to this, and the requisite notices, plans, &c., were given and deposited in the month of November, 1828.

Early in 1829 the Bill was brought into Parliament, and was most strongly opposed by the great northern coal-owners, Lord Durham, Lord Londonderry, Lord Lauderdale, and others, as well as by a considerable body of Londoners, and after a hard fight the Bill passed the House of Commons and got into the Lords; but here the opposition was more violent and powerful than ever. The Duke of Wellington, however, having been thoroughly convinced of the necessity and justice of the measure, determined that it should be carried if possible, whilst the Opposition were equally determined to throw it out. The Committee accordingly met in the Painted Chamber of the House of Lords, and the extraordinary number of forty peers, including seven cabinet ministers, assembled, the Duke of Wellington being in the chair. The Opposition comprised, amongst others, Earl Grey, his son-in-law the Earl of Durham, the Marquis of Londonderry, the Earl of Lauderdale, &c. Such a committee upon a private Bill has never since been seen in the Lords, and perhaps never will be again. The brunt of the battle fell upon me; I was the leading witness, and had to establish the whole case. I never felt more nervous in my life; I was to be prepared upon all points to defend everybody else’s errors as well as my own. I knew there were several weak points, and though I had an excellent case upon the whole, I still felt the greatest difficulty about it; I knew also perfectly well, that if I broke down, my career as an engineer was ruined for ever, for the Government had pinned their faith upon me; I therefore had made myself thoroughly master of the subject, and determined to sink or swim with it. Mr. W. Montague, then surveyor to the City, was a very sensible, practical man, and of great experience in the valuation of property, and possessed considerable influence with the Corporation; but whether it was jealousy at my being so much younger than himself, or whether he thought the post of honour should have been given to him, I cannot say, but he did not act cordially with me. That very remarkable man, Richard Lambert Jones, the Chairman of the Bridge, with his usual tact and sagacity, at once saw this, and thought that if he was examined there might be some discrepancy which our enemies would take advantage of; he therefore, with the concurrence of his Committee, determined that I alone should fight the battle of the estimates, upon which the whole fate of the Bill depended. It was well, both for Montague and myself, that this course was taken; for Montague, when the first Bill of 1821 was carried, had made the surveys of the property to be taken for the approaches on both sides of the bridge, which was confined to 180 feet above the old bridge. This limit ought to have been taken in a direct line, at right angles to the old bridge; but unfortunately it was taken according to the line of the shore, which near the old bridge receded considerably, whilst the old Fishmongers’ Hall projected beyond it, making the direct line, if taken, as it ought to have been, at right angles to the old bridge, 20 feet longer than if measured according to the line of the shore. This difference of 20 feet rendered it necessary that old Fishmongers’ Hall should be removed, and negotiations immediately commenced between the London Bridge Committee and the Fishmongers’ Company with respect to the purchase of this piece of land. The Fishmongers’ Company behaved very fairly; they said that they did not wish to build a new hall, as the existing structure answered their purpose very well; but if they were compelled to part with this 20 feet of ground, they must build a new hall, which they did not want to do. However, as they had no wish to impede the construction of the bridge and approaches, they were willing to sell the strip of land on which part of their hall stood, namely, 20 feet in width, for 20,000l. 1000l. per foot at first sight appeared a very large sum, although at present it would be considered remarkably cheap. The Committee of the bridge, looking at the matter fairly, resolved to pay the Fishmongers’ Company the required sum in full compensation for everything, and the Fishmongers’ Company might, if they thought fit, build a new hall at their own expense. This agreement was then settled, provided that the Bill for making the new approaches by an arch across Thames Street should pass the legislature. Knowing this fact, I was very anxious that this error of Mr. Montague’s should not come out before the Committee of the House of Lords, as it was no doubt a great mistake, and if it had transpired, it might materially have injured our case. I determined, therefore, during my examination, to keep it out of view as far as possible; at the same time, if it was fairly put to me, of course I felt myself bound to give every honest explanation. Perhaps Mr. Montague was not anxious to be examined; anyhow, he was not, and the whole burthen fell upon me.

The opposition in the Lords’ Committee was headed by the Earl of Durham, a very able and intelligent man; he would have made an excellent lawyer if Providence had so designed it, and in this instance he conducted his case admirably. I got through the examination in chief very well, and the opposing counsel commenced his cross-examination, and made nothing of it. Then Lord Durham got up and for three days I underwent as severe a cross-examination as I ever experienced, either before or since. He seemed to be aware of all the facts, and omitted nothing to render his case triumphant. I always feared that he was coming to the mistake about Fishmongers’ Hall, but he never did, and I had to lead him away from it as far as possible; at last he got to the frontages in the different streets of the respective parishes which were proposed to be taken, and the new frontages of the new streets which were to be erected. Here I showed very clearly that the lineal frontage according to the proposed new streets would be greater than the frontages taken away. This, however, did not satisfy his Lordship, for he contended that some of the parishes would lose a great deal more frontage than they would obtain. I had some idea that this would be the case, and therefore did not think it necessary to take the individual frontage gained and lost by each parish. I thought it was quite sufficient to know that upon the whole a greater line of frontage would be given by the new approaches, than taken away from the old. The parishes which had petitioned against the Bill on this account, argued that in some of them the rates would be greatly diminished, and that in others they would be greatly increased, which would cause an unequal and unjust distribution. I still kept to my point, and said upon the whole, without going into detail, the parishes would be the gainers, and it was for them to adjust the rates amongst themselves. Lord Durham was very indignant at my obstinacy in maintaining this point, and tried in every way to make me confess that I had made a mistake; I nevertheless stuck to it, and said that if I had tried to equalize all the frontages, my survey might have extended to the Tower, and there would have been no end of the expense. By this time he was losing his temper, and said that if I was not very careful I might go to the Tower still. At this the Committee smiled, and his Lordship, being fairly baffled, sat down, and I, having been told that they had no further questions, left the witness-box with the greatest alacrity.

It was considered that I had made out the case for the Bill so completely, both as regards the estimates and the absolute necessity, in a public point of view, of carrying the new approaches into effect, that no other professional witness was put into the box, except the present able chamberlain, Mr. Scott, then chamberlain’s chief assistant, who gave such clear and straightforward evidence with regard to the funds which were disposable by the Corporation, and the way in which they were administered, that the Committee of the Lords passed the Bill for the London Bridge Approaches with but few dissentient voices. The Duke of Wellington, and five or six Cabinet Ministers with him, attended every day, and in fact kept Parliament sitting to pass the Bill. It was curious to observe that he never for a moment interrupted the opponents of the measure; he gave them full scope, and never said a word until they had had their say, then he put the question, and carried it without difficulty.

After the fifth arch, the first on the Surrey side, was keyed, the sinking was observed to be 4 inches, or about 1 inch more than the others. I could not very well account for this. I also observed that two of the quoins on the south-east end of the fourth arch from the Surrey shore had splintered off at the soffit, but no crack could be observed in the spandril walls; but upon levelling the piers, it was found that the east end had subsided from 10 to 14 inches more than the upper or west end. This I could account for in no other way but that there had been a greater scour here than at the upper end, and that the piles had to some extent been laid bare. I levelled the arches and piers constantly after this for several months from a fixed standard gauge, but could find no alteration; I therefore felt satisfied that the whole of the pier abutments had come to their final bearing, and the works were continued as fast as possible towards completion.

In 1830 the Duke’s Government retired, and he himself became as unpopular as he before had been popular; yet he never deserted London Bridge, and was more frequent in his visits than ever. I often used to attend him at five and six in the summer mornings; he generally came on horseback, and remained from half an hour to an hour, and sometimes more if necessary. At length the whole bridge and the approaches were completed, and His Majesty, King William, at the special request of the Corporation of London, condescended to fix a day on which he would open the bridge in person. Earl Grey, who had strongly opposed the Bill for the improved approaches two years before, now, as Premier, accompanied His Majesty to inaugurate the opening of the same. Perhaps, as a spectacle of the kind, it was the most brilliant of any that had taken place for fully a century; and the whole Corporation, including the Bridge Committee, did everything in their power, for the honour of the City of London, to render the pageant as splendid as possible. The whole of the space at the north or City end of the bridge was covered with a magnificent tent, several hundred feet long, decorated in the greatest taste with the flags of all nations, and with ancient and modern arms grouped round the standards forming the supports of the tent, under which were arranged tables for 1400 guests, for whom a splendid collation was provided. His Majesty, King William, came in the royal barge in state, accompanied by all his ministers, and upon his arrival was greeted with a salute of twenty-one guns from the Tower. All the piers and arches were decorated with lofty standards displaying the national emblems; the whole of these, as well as the great tent and decorations, were under the direction of Mr. Stacey, of the Ordnance department of the Tower, and the greatest credit is due to him for the admirable taste which he displayed. The ceremony consisted in King William walking over the bridge, accompanied by his ministers, the Lord Mayor and Corporation, and the Bridge Committee. When His Majesty arrived at the Southwark end a balloon ascended, carrying Mr. Richard Crawshay; the Tower guns then sent forth another salute, and King William and his cortège returned to the tent at the City end of the bridge, where they partook of lunch with the usual ceremonies, and returned by water as they came, with another royal salute from the Tower. The day was remarkably fine, the river was covered with boats filled with gaily-dressed people; the wharves, warehouses, and bridges were thronged with spectators; in fact, it was a great metropolitan holiday; everything went off well, and all appeared to be satisfied; I was particularly so. I had been very hard worked, I may say almost night and day, for some time past, to get things ready, and was of course rather tried; nevertheless, the success which attended the whole rendered me completely unmindful of myself, and I forgot all my fatigues, for I was amply rewarded for all my troubles and anxieties.

A few days after the opening of London Bridge, Jeffreys, the cheesemonger of Ludgate Hill, presented a petition to Parliament through the well-known Henry Hunt, stating that the new bridge was coming down. Jeffreys was very much annoyed because he had received no recompense for his repeated proposals with regard to the new approaches, though he was never regularly employed; but he was one of those active, intelligent persons, who are always interfering in matters which do not concern them. If he had devoted himself to his own business he might have done well; but, unfortunately, he neglected this, and fancied himself a great engineer, a post for which he was absurdly incompetent. He mistook his vocation, and in attempting to do that for which he was wholly unfit, he neglected the business of a tradesman, for which he was thoroughly suited. The petition ended in its being referred to a Commission, consisting of J. Walker, Telford, and Tierney Clark, who examined the bridge carefully and made their report, which was colourless and came to nothing, as the subsidence spoken of had taken place two years and a half before, and had not increased, nor has it done so up to the present day.

In all works of great magnitude, and particularly in such a difficult situation as that in which London Bridge is built, it is impossible to be certain of attaining absolute perfection, but the Committee, being perfectly satisfied of the stability of the new bridge, determined to remove the old one forthwith, and I received orders accordingly. The removal was contracted for by Messrs. Jolliffe and Banks, for the sum of 10,000l., they having the benefit of the old materials, except in so far that they were to fill up the holes in the river below both bridges, to the extent of 14 feet below low water of spring tides, which was rather more than the average depth of the river in the vicinity; they were also bound to remove the whole of the foundations of the piers, starlings, &c., of the old bridge, to the same depth. The whole of these operations were completed in the year 1834, when the river, after a lapse of 658 years, was restored to its natural state.

The history of old London Bridge is replete with interest, and forms a very curious epoch in the annals of bridge building before the embankment of the river Thames by the Romans. The Southwark side, which is in many places considerably below the level of high water of spring tides, was frequently flooded, and numerous creeks were formed in it, so that the river must have been very unequal in its depth, and filled with numerous shoals, and fordable at low water in several places near London; and there was evidently an appearance of a ford at the site of old London Bridge, as in many cases the piers were founded on the original ground, which must have been dry, or nearly so, at low water; these piers were in many instances wider than the adjoining arches, so that they offered considerable obstruction to the free flow of the tidal and fresh waters through the bridge. These obstructions necessarily increased the velocity and scour of the current, and threatened to carry away the old bridge. Great starlings, or timber casings of piles, were erected round the bridge piers, and the spaces between them were filled in with chalk. These starlings still further narrowed the openings of the arches, so that at low water some of them were little more than 8 or 10 feet wide, and the obstructions became so great, that the fall at low water increased to 5 feet perpendicular. Five openings on the south end and one in the north end were occupied by water-wheels for pumping water for the City. The obstruction caused by these works was so great that the celebrated Smeaton was employed by the Corporation of London to take down the two arches near the centre, and replace them by a single one of 80 feet span.

The original bridge is said to have been built in the year 1176; but between that time and the period of its removal in 1834, it underwent so many alterations and changes that it may almost be said to have been rebuilt several times. It was originally covered with houses, as everyone knows, leaving a narrow passage between for the traffic. To describe the numerous alterations would require a large volume, and the reader is therefore referred to an interesting account of this curious old structure called ‘The Chronicles of Old London Bridge.’

Numerous speculations were made by scientific men, engineers and others, on the effect the removal of the old bridge would have upon the river. My father pointed out the probable results in a very simple manner; he said that the river was in an artificial state in consequence of the old bridge acting as a dam to the free passage of the waters upwards and downwards, both tidal and fresh; and the consequence was, that the river above had to a certain extent accommodated itself to circumstances. By the removal of this obstruction the river would soon be reduced to its natural level; the fall of 4 to 5 feet through the bridge would be removed, consequently the tide would rise so much higher and fall so much lower above bridge, and so much more tidal water would be admitted above the old bridge throughout the whole length of the tidal flow as far as Teddington Lock; and this increased quantity of tidal water passing up and down twice each way during the twenty-four hours would scour the bed of the river, and thus remove the great quantity of mud deposited along the shores. And further, that the drainage of the metropolis, and in fact the whole valley of the Thames, at least as far as Teddington, would be greatly improved; and the water, being constantly changed, would be clearer and fresher. He further said, that the actual level of high water would scarcely be materially affected, perhaps not exceeding 5 or 6 inches; and lastly, that the process would be gradual, and that it would take several years before the river would attain its final and natural state. Such has proved to be the result.

As the works of new London Bridge proceeded attention was drawn to the irregular outline of the wharves, which were not only unsightly but extremely injurious to the regular passage of the waters. At this time also, people having visited Paris and other great continental cities, were struck with the architectural beauties which they had seen, and became much disgusted with the mean, shabby-looking appearance of London; and well they might, for there were no great leading thoroughfares worthy of the name. Cockspur Street, leading from the Strand to Pall Mall, was scarcely 20 feet wide; the Royal Mews occupied Trafalgar Square; the Haymarket was encumbered by haycarts; Cross’s Menagerie and Exeter Change blocked up the Strand near Waterloo Bridge; the connection between Holborn and Oxford Street was round by old St. Giles’, and Farringdon Street was filled with a market, and surrounded by undertakers. Regent Street had been commenced under the direction of that clever architect Nash, which, from his novel mode of grouping shops into distinct masses of different styles, excited considerable attention, and was totally different to anything we had hitherto seen in the metropolis. This great and really magnificent street was, I am told, entirely his own idea, and according to the opinion of the late Sir Robert Smirke, was a Herculean task, on account of the great variety of interests to be dealt with, and he told me that nobody but the indefatigable Nash could have carried it through. He built a house there for himself, now the Gallery of Illustration, opposite to the Club Chambers near Waterloo Place, where George IV. honoured him with a visit. In fact, just about this time there was a perfect mania for architectural improvements.