Autobiography of Sir John Rennie, F.R.S. 28

Autobiography of Sir John Rennie, F.R.S. 28

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

10,000_l._, 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