Autobiography of Sir John Rennie, F.R.S. 27

Autobiography of Sir John Rennie, F.R.S. 27

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

1,400,000_l._, 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 20,000_l._

1000_l._ per foot at first sight appeared a very large sum, although at