stall, and led about by two men to exercise daily. They complain of its wild and untameable spirit, and when I saw it, they had hampered its mouth with such an apparatus of bit and bridle, that the poor thing was almost choked. It is extremely strong and bony, of beautiful form, has a fine eye and good countenance, and though not striped like the zebra, is beautifully clouded with different tints of ash and mouse colour.

We met two lynxes during our ride, also taking the air, led each by his keeper, one of them in body-clothes, like an English greyhound, both perfectly tame, and extremely beautiful creatures, about the size of a large spanie., and in form and colour something between a fox and a cat, but with the silky fur and characteristic actions of the latter. The other animals, consisting of two or three tigers and leopards, two different kinds of bears,-one Bengalee, the other from Sincapore, a porcupine, a kangaroo, monkeys, moose-deer, birds, &c., are kept in a menagerie, their dens all very clean, and, except one of the bears and one hyæna, all very tame.

Alligators come on shore to bask, and there is one small one in a pond in the park. They are of two kinds, one, which seems like the common crocodile of the Nile, has a long nose, and is harmless, unless provoked. The other is somewhat smaller, has a round snubbed head, and frequently attacks dogs and other similar animals, and is sometimes dangerous to men who go into the river. The Indian squirrel, which abounds in the park, is smaller than ours, more of an ash-colour, with two black and white streaks down its back; and lives not only in trees, but in the thatch of houses.

There are,

The garrison of Barrackpore consists of several regiments of sepoys, under the command of a majorgeneral; the staff is exceedingly numerous, embracing appointments peculiar to the station. besides, a considerable number of private residents, the families of retired officers, and widows, who, possessing large connexions in India, prefer it as a residence to the parent state; many of these persons possess considerable wealth, and live in a style of appropriate splendour. Cadets, formerly, on their arrival at Calcutta, were permitted to travel alone, or in company with other lads, as ignorant and inexperienced as themselves, to the places of their destina

tion; but now, such as are posted to regiments stationed at different places, are appointed to do duty at Barrackpore, until they can be sent up the river, under the care of an experienced officer. Here they are taught their first military lessons, and perform their duties under the eye of a major-general. Bishop Heber again visited Barrackpore, which he reached from Calcutta by water.

On the 27th of December, (he says,) I paid a visit to the governor at Barrackpore. I went by water early enough in the morning to preach to the congregation, which, for want of a church, assembles in the great hall of the government-house. The distance by water is about twenty-four miles, which, with a favourable tide and a good set of rowers, may be ascended in two hours and a half. The river continues of nearly the same width as at Calcutta ; its banks are covered with fruit-trees and villages, with many very handsome pagodas.

It is with regret we observe the circumstance here alluded to by the bishop, that in so important a station as Barrackpore the members of the Established Church had then no place devoted to the celebration of divine worship according to their own faith. Let us hope that such is not still the case. D. I. E. [From the Asiatic Journal, and BISHOP HEBER'S Journal.]

THE heavenly bodies were not made for man, and to them his utmost power cannot reach. The world which he inhabits forms but the fraction of an unit in the vast scale upon which they are moulded. It disappears even in the range of distance at which they are placed; and when seen from some of the nearest planets, it is but a dull speck in the firmament. Under this conviction, the astronomer must feel his own comparative insignificance; and amidst the sublimity and grandeur of this material universe, the proudest spirit must be abased, and fitted for the reception of those noble truths which can be impressed only on an humble and a softened heart. He, indeed, who has rightly interpreted the hand-writing of God in the heavens, must be well prepared to appreciate it in the record of His revealed will.-Quarterly Review

HAVING already given an account of Suspension Bridges*, | we now proceed with a history of Bridges of the usual construction; comprising under that term every kind of structure intended to carry a road or canal across a river, valley, or other obstruction to its continuity.

The antiquity of Bridges must be nearly coeval with that of the human race. After providing food, dwelling-places, and clothes, one of the first wants of which society would be sensible would be that of some means of crossing the streams and brooks by which it was surrounded; and natural bridges, consisting of trunks of trees which had fallen across a rivulet, or masses of rock wedged in a mountain-fissure, would present models for imitation where such did not already exist.

The earliest mention of a bridge in history is of that stated by Herodotus (Book i.) to have been built by a queen Nitocris across the Euphrates at Babylon, to connect the two portions of the city lying on either shore. According to that historian, this work consisted of squared beams laid along the tops of a series of stone piers, which were built in the bed of the river, the waters having been diverted for a time from their natural channel, to admit of this being done. Some of the beams composing the road-way were removed every evening, to prevent the inhabitants of the two banks from robbing one another. We believe that modern travellers have not succeeded in tracing any vestiges of this bridge among the interesting remains of that city, and its site is therefore uncertain.

Such must have been the form of all bridges previous to the application of the arch. The precise period of its discovery has been much disputed. Two masses of stone, or two trees, mutually supporting each other over a chasm, by being wedged together, present the general principle of See Saturday Magazine, Vol. VII., p. 210. VOL. VIII.

the arch, which must have been known from the earliest times. Nor does it appear to require great ingenuity to place three, or even four stones in a similar position to support one another, by being hewed into such a form that none could fall between those adjacent to it, without first displacing them, which their weight and mutual friction prevented them from doing. Arches of this simple form are now known to exist in the pyramids of Egypt; and it is supposed by some that such arches were used by the Babylonian builders.

But an arch, in the proper sense of the word, implies many separate stones, arranged to support one another in a curve, for the purpose of economizing material; and at what period, and by what people, such an arch was first used, is uncertain. The Etrurians were acquainted with it, and the great sewers of ancient Rome called the Cloace Maximæ, generally referred to the supposed period of the Tarquins (about 600 years B.C.), are the oldest works existing, in which the arch is found.

As the arch never appears in any existing remains of Grecian architecture, we may infer that nation to have either been unacquainted with it, or to have neglected it from some principle of taste or habit. As there must have been frequent intercourse between the Dorian colonies of Italy and their mother-country, we can hardly suppose this important invention could have been long concealed from so intellectual a people, and yet the second supposition is equally difficult of explanation. It is certain that, during the most flourishing times of the Athenian republic, there was no means of crossing the river Cephisus, except by boats, till the emperor Hadrian built a bridge over it.

The Romans, having been taught the construction of the arch by their brethren of Etruria, availed themselves of it on all occasions, and were enabled to construct bridges in

240

every part of their enormous empire, which remain to the present day to attest their power and their skill.

ROMAN BRIDGES.

THERE were eight bridges in ancient Rome, the oldest of which, called Pons Sublicius, is stated to have been erected by Ancus Martius, and was that alleged to have been defended against the troops of Porsenna by Horatius Cocles. This bridge was originally of timber; it was rebuilt with stone by Emilius Lepidus, and thence received the name of Pons Emilianus; it was again restored in marble by the Emperor Antoninus Pius, and it was from this bridge that the body of the infamous Heliogabalus was cast into the Tiber. Portions of its ruins are still extant near the Aventine Hill.

The Pons Triumphalis was that over which persons passed in their way to the Capitol, to whom an ovation had been decreed by the senate; its ruins are still visible near the palace of the Vatican.

The present Ponte Sisto was rebuilt by Pope Sixtus the Fourth, on the site of the Janiculine bridge, restored in marble by Antoninus Pius, from one still more ancient, situated in the oldest part of the city.

The Pons Alius was originally built by the Emperor Hadrian, opposite the Mausoleum he intended for the place of his sepulture. It was restored by Pope Clement the Ninth, and is now called Ponte Sant Angelo, the Mausoleum being the present Castel di Sant' Angelo.

The bridge now called, from the church near it, Ponte Santa Maria, but more commonly Ponte rotto, from two of its arches being fallen in, is all that remains of the old Roman Pons Senatorius, over which the senate went in procession to consult the Sibylline books. This bridge is near the Palatine Hill.

The Pons Milvius was built by Scaurus in the time of Sylla, at a short distance from the city, on the modern road to Florence. There are two historical events of interest connected with this bridge; on it Cicero caused the ambassadors of the Allobroges to be arrested, and obtained confirmation of Catiline's conspiracy by the letters found in their possession; and it was near the Milvian bridge that Constantine the Great defeated his rival Maxentius, on which occasion the former asserted he had that miraculous vision of the Cross which effected his conversion. bridge was restored by Nicholas the Fifth, and is now called Ponte molle.

This

There are many other bridges in the neighbourhood of Rome, chiefly erected during the decline of the empire.

The celebrated bridge erected by order of the Emperor Trajan over the Danube, is only known from the descriptions of Dion Cassius and others, whose accounts of it are very various, though they all agree as to its magnitude. The historian just mentioned states, that it had twenty piers, and that its largest arches were 170 feet in span* and raised 150 feet above the river. The architect was Apollodorus, the same who designed the forum and column at Rome, commemorating the victories of Trajan over the Dacians. The foundations of the piers of this bridge are still visible under the shallow waters of the Danube, about three miles from Gladova, near the frontier division of Wallachia and Bulgaria; but according to the account of modern travellers, there are not more than six or seven piers visible in the bed of the stream.

The Roman empire and its successors were also indebted to Trajan for the fine bridge over the Tagus in the province of Estramadura; the Arabians gave the name of Alcantarat-al-seif, or Bridge of the Sword, to the structure, and hence the town where it is situated derives its present name.

There are several terms employed in describing arches and bridges, with which the reader should be acquainted.

The span or chord of an arch, is the horizontal distance between the piers or abutments which support it, measured at the points where the arch begins or springs. A straight line being supposed drawn at those points.

The versed sine is the height from this line or chord, to the highest point of the underside, or soffite, of the arch. This term, though properly applied to the circle only, will be used in this paper even when speaking of elliptic and other curves.

The arch-stones, or voussoirs, are the separate pieces of which the arch is composed; they are usually odd in number, the centre one being called the key-stone, which is at the highest part of the curve. Of the two curves formed by the lower and upper faces of the voussoirs, the former, or real outline of the arch, is called the intrado, the other the extrado.

The spandril is the space comprised between the upright line of the pier, the road-way, and the curve of the extrado. Each arch, therefore, has two spandrils, which are usually equal and similar.

This bridge was 670 feet long, and consisted of six semicircular arches, the largest being 101 feet in span, and of such an altitude as to raise the level road-way 200 feet above the river. The town of Alcantara being an important point in military operations, this bridge was nearly destroyed by the British during the campaign of 1809, in order to cut off the communication, and to impede the advance of the French army. In our paper on Suspension Bridges, we mentioned that a temporary rope bridge was subsequently thrown across one of the ruined arches, to allow of the passage of a detachment of our troops.

The arch of the widest span which occurs in any Roman bridge is in that at Verona, called the Ponte del Castel Vecchio; the centre one of the three is 170 feet.

Our limits will not allow of any description of the numerous other works of this class spread over all southern and western Europe.

ROMAN AQUEDUCTS.

THE Construction of those stupendous works for the conveyance of water from distant sources, to towns deficient in that necessary, so abundant over every part of the Roman empire, is commonly, though erroneously, attributed to the ignorance of that people in the simplest laws of hydrostatics. According to Julius Frontinus, Rome, in his time (about A.D. 70), was supplied with water from nine sources, brought from distances varying from ten to sixty miles, partly along subterranean passages, and partly, on stone arcades across the valleys, according to the nature of the ground. One of these aqueducts, the Anio vetus, was carried on arches for a distance of forty-two miles. Every great city in the Roman empire was equally provided with a constant supply of water by means of similar works, and the remains of the arcades required for these purposes are among the most interesting monuments of antiquity.

The finest existing specimen of an ancient aqueduct is that portion of one called the Pont du Gard, three leagues north of Nismes, in the province of Languedoc. From some initials still legible on it, it is supposed to have been built by Agrippa, the friend and general of Augustus, to convey the waters of the spring of the present Eure to Nemausus, or Nismes. The lower tier of arches, of 80 feet in span, are six in number. The second tier consists of eleven, and the upper of thirty-five. The level of the top of these is about fifty yards above that of the river Gardon. Louis the Fourteenth built a bridge alongside of this tier and corresponding with it; and all travellers agree that the imperfections of the modern structure form a striking contrast to the beauty and solidity of the ancient work. The structure is ruined at each extremity, and thus disjoined from the rest of the aqueduct, the remains of which, however, are in tolerable preservation. The injury is supposed to have been committed by the Northern barbarians when they took possession of the country. But one still more formidable to the structure was perpetrated by the Duc de Rohan at the beginning of the last century, who, to facilitate the passage of his artillery during the religious persecutions in Languedoc, cut away the piers of the second range of arches for one third of their thickness, and three yards in height. Nothing but the solidity of the structure could have saved it from subsequent destruction; as it was, it suffered considerable settlements.

Aqueducts, in the proper sense of the word, have been constructed in modern times, and we now carry canals over valleys by means of arcades similar to those of ancient Roman work. When such a structure is employed for a road-way or rail-road it is called a viaduct,—an useless term,-for to all intents and purposes it is a bridge.

Our readers will be better able to appreciate the merits of such works, if we briefly explain in what the difficulty of constructing arches consists. If an arch had no superstructure to support, there are certain curves in which the wedge-shaped voussoirs might be arranged so as to ensure perfect stability, or so that no portion of the surfaces of these stones which are in contact, shall be pressed more

+ There is a view of the bridge with this addition, in the frontispiece to Sir H. Douglas's work on military bridges.

When labour was cheap, because it could be commanded to an unlimited extent, in consequence of the existence of slavery, it was perhaps considered an easier and shorter method of effecting the object, to build a ponderous aqueduct of stone arches, than to form and unite short pipes of metal or earthenware for an equal distance We know that the Romans could make such pipes, but possibly not of any great length, or of sufficiently good workmanship to resist the pressure of a current of water descending from a considerable eleva

tion.

than another, and therefore there would be no tendency | to give way in one part more than another. A dome, to cover over a building, may be built of small stones or bricks, which would be perfectly secure, of whatever magnitude it might be, provided the materials were sound, and properly put together*. But arches are generally intended to support some superstructure, and on account of the curvature of the arch, there must be a greater depth of materials over the spandrils than over the crown, or highest part; and consequently, a greater weight pressing on the haunches of the arch.

This causes the necessity for varying the size of the voussoirs, so that those which form the lower part of the arch may be enabled to resist this additional weight; and the whole must be constructed with reference to the inequality of pressure exerted among the arch-stones, in consequence of this change in the conditions of the problem.

To construct an arch with any other curve than the circle, considerably increases the practical difficulty, both in framing the centering of timber to support the arch-stones while they are being put up, and because in this case it is necessary to give each of these a different form of outline, so that when put together, the intrado may be of the proper curve. Hence builders, in all times, rejecting these complicated curves, have almost always adopted the circle; and in order to obviate the sources of weakness arising from the theoretical deficiency, they have made the voussoirs large enough to ensure stability; that is, they have made them deep enough in every part of the arch to include the proper curve of equal pressure between the intrado and extrado.

It however now became a point of importance to ascertain the minimum of size of the voussoirs compatible with the stability of a circular arch,—this is the point on which the architect must show his science, so that there may be no useless waste of material. One mode of obtaining increased stability would obviously be to load the vertex, or crown, of the arch, so as to counterbalance the weight of the spandrils on the haunches, which has always a ten dency to force up the voussoirs at that part. But this remedy would preclude the possibility of making the road-way of a bridge straight, and would give an inelegant clumsiness to the outline of the structure. The next resource consists in lightening the weight on the haunches, by leaving arched cavities in the spandrils, and this is what is usually done in modern bridges; the same end combined with a more elegant outline of intrado, is obtained by adopting elliptic arches, as was done with the Waterloo and new London bridges.

THE first important epoch in the history of bridge building, which occurred after the overthrow of the Roman empire, was the establishment of the religious society called the "Brethren of the Bridge," the object of which was to secure travellers from the dangers arising from the anarchy which reigned over Western Europe after the decline of the second, and previous to the establishment of the third, or Capetian, race of French monarchs. The mode adopted for effecting their benevolent purpose by the members of this admirable institution, was to keep up and improve the principal roads, and to build bridges where they crossed rivers. We refer our readers to Vol. VI. p. 110, for an account of the bridge at Avignon, built under the auspices of this institution.

The "Brethren of the Bridge" erected a bridge at Lyons of 20 arches, and another also over the Rhone of 19 arches, besides several smaller in the abutments. Both these works are remarkable for not being in a straight line on their plans, but curved so as to present a convex front to the current of the river; they still exist.

An interesting anecdote relating to this subject, is mentioned in the Encyclopædia Metropolitana, article, "Bridge." A gentleman wishing to cover over a chamber, intended for chemical processes, with a brick arch, drew an outline of the proper curve (a catenary), by suspending a chain of the requisite length against a smooth upright surface, and by marking on this in chalk the exact curve in which the chain hung; the centering for the arch being made according to this model, the arch was built, and found to be perfectly secure in every part. Soon after, requiring another vault precisely like the first, he left orders with the workmen to adopt the same precautions in every respect; but during his absence, the men, conceiting that the gentleman was "over particular," and that a circle would "do just as well," made the new centering accordingly, and built the arch on it; the gentleman returned to see the centering struck, and when that was done, down fell the arch,-a valuable comment on the popular prejudice in favour of practical over theoretical knowledge, as it is termed, "a bricklayer must know how to build an arch better than a gentleman."

It may be easily imagined that those architects and workmen who for so many centuries could design and execute the magnificent Gothic cathedrals which embellish Europe, must have been perfect masters of every resource in the practical part of their arts, and were capable of erecting stone arches of the largest span. The bridge over the Allier, at Brioude, in Auvergne, and called Vieille Brioude, was built in 1454, by Grenier and Estone; its principal arch is 183 feet in span, and 70 feet in height, the voussoir at the crown being only 5 feet 3 inches deep.

There is another at Claix, over the Drac at Grenoble, of 150 feet in span; and a bridge built at Verona, in 1354, has an arch of 160 feet.

The Arabians, who, in every part of the extensive empire they founded in the sixth, seventh, and subsequent centuries, led the way in cultivating literature and science, by studying the works of the Greeks and Romans, were not backward in the erection of new bridges in their Spanish dominions, to facilitate mutual intercourse between the different provinces; and rivalled the Roman structures of the same description in the magnitude and solidity of their own. A view and account of one of the finest, that at Cordova, built by Hescham, son of Abdalrahman, in the beginning of the ninth century of our era, will be found in the Saturday Magazine, Vol. VI. p. 235.

One of the most noted bridges in Europe, from its being mentioned in several poetic works of the highest order, is the RIALTO at Venice, built by Antonio da Ponte, in 1591, after a design of Michael Angelo as it is said. The arch is only 89 feet in span, the versed sine being 203; with so large a segment, the roadway is necessarily very steep up each side, and is formed into a flight of marble steps; there are two rows of shops on it, dividing the road into three narrow streets, which communicate with one another by an archway at the centre, running across the width of the bridge, which is 66 feet. The whole structure resembles less a bridge than an architectural composition supported by an arch, and we think that, if divested of its associations, it would not excite much admiration in any respect. From the nature of the site, it required an extended foundation, which rests on about 12,000 piles of elm, the expense of the whole amounted to 250,000 ducats. Venice possesses altogether no less than 340 bridges over its canals.

THE BRIDGES OF GREAT BRITAIN.

As might be supposed, our own country yields to none in the world, as regards the number, magnitude, beauty, and variety of our bridges; and though we cannot boast of possessing any Roman work of this kind, yet we have one more ancient than any in Europe, not erected by that people, and which is unrivalled for its singular construction; we mean that at Croyland, in Lincolnshire. This is supposed to have been built about the year 860; it consists of three semi-pointed arches, meeting together in the centre, the abutments standing on the angles of an equilateral triangle. It is placed at the junction of three roads, which thus terminate at the crown of the bridge. The steep ascents are made into steps, paved with small stones set edgewise; at the foot of one segment there is the ruined statue of some Saxon monarch, by some supposed to be Ethelbert.

The Bridge at Burton-on-Trent was built in the twelfth century by Bernard, abbot of that place. It is the longest bridge in England, being 1545 feet from one extremity to the other, and consisting of 34 arches.

A brief notice of the London Bridges has appeared in the first volume of the Saturday Magazine; but the interest of the subject to every inhabitant of the metropolis, will warrant us in entering into a more detailed account, and we shall bestow the greater part of our space on old London Bridge, a structure peculiarly endeared to all antiquarians and historians of our city, and the destruction of which they must deplore while they admit its necessity.

The first Bridge over the Thames was one of wood, erected in the year 993, opposite the site of the present St. Botolph's wharf. A statute of King Ethelred the Second,

It is nearly equalled by one in a bridge over the Danube, buil by Wicbeking, in 1806. This arch is 181 feet, and only 22 feet 3 inches versed sine; the voussoirs at the crown being 6 feet deep; and both are surpassed by that over the Dee at Chester, erected within these few years.

By Shakspeare, in the Merchant of Venice, by Otway in Venice Preserved, and by Lord Byron in Childe Harold, besides many others. 240-2

fixing the tolls to be paid by boats bringing fish to Bylyngsgate," alludes to this bridge; and the fleet of Sweyn, King of Denmark, in an invasion he made on this country, was injured and impeded in its progress up the river by running foul of it.

The origin of this bridge is curious, and deserves to be noticed. There had been a ferry at the spot, the proprietor of which left it to an only daughter, named Mary, who, being in good circumstances, founded a house of sisters, or convent, near the church of St. Mary Overie, in Southwark, the present St. Saviour's, and endowed it with the ferry and its proceeds. This convent was afterwards converted into a college of priests, who built this wooden bridge, and maintained it in repair, till finding that the expense would be ultimately saved by a greater immediate outlay, agreed with the citizens of London, who were chiefly benefited by it, to substitute one of stone.

The wooden bridge had been exposed to many vicissitudes; it was nearly destroyed soon after its erection by the Norwegian Prince, Olaf, who attacked the city in behalf of his ally, King Ethelred, whom the citizens had refused to acknowledge. In 1016, Canute, being prevented by the bridge from sailing up the river, dug a channel at the southern end and carried his fleet through it to the western side of the bridge. In November, 1091, the greater part of the bridge was carried away by a violent flood; it was then repaired by a tax levied on the city by William the Second. In 1136 it was again damaged by a fire, and though again restored, in 1163 it was found to be in so dilapidated a condition as to require to be nearly entirely rebuilt, which it was under the direction of PETER OF COLECHURCH†, a priest and chaplain. When the college resolved to erect a stone bridge, attention was turned to Peter, as the person best qualified for conducting the work, and, as it proved, he amply justified the choice; for so sound was the edifice he raised, that it endured for 600 years, trials which would have destroyed most others.

The new bridge was begun about 1176, a little to the west of the old wooden one. So strongly was the necessity for such a work felt, that contributions to it flowed from all parts; the king gave the proceeds of a tax on wool, the pope's legate, the Cardinal di Petraleone, gave 1000 marks towards the expense, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and multitudes of other persons, contributed according to their means.

The piers were built on a framework of elm piles, driven in as close as they could stand, with oak-sleepers laid on the tops, and the intervals filled in with rubble. The coffre-dams, which were made round each, were never removed, and constituted the sterlings, which formed so singular a feature in this venerable structure. The lower courses of the masonry, exposed to the action of the water, were laid in pitch instead of mortar, for at that time no cement of lime was known, which was capable of setting under, and resisting the action of water.

In 1205 Peter died §, and three merchants of London were appointed to complete the work, which they did in four years more. The bridge when finished contained 20 arches, of the pointed Gothic form, of unequal magnitude; the total length was 915 feet, and its width 73 feet.

The master-mason of the work, whose name has not been recorded, erected a chapel, at his own cost, on the east *There is an antique monumental figure in St. Saviour's Church, Southwark, which is traditionally said to be that of this ferryman.— See J. T. SMITH'S Antiquities of London.

+ St. Mary Colechurch was a small church built by a citizen named Cole; it was situated at the corner of the present Grocer'salley, in the Poultry. After the destruction of it by the Great Fire in 1666, the parish was annexed to that of St. Mildred. Misled by the name, some antiquaries have supposed that Peter was of Colchester, but it appears most probable that he was a native of London. Hence arose the popular belief and saying, that the foundations of Old London Bridge were laid on wool-packs.

The similarity in the history of this work and its architect, to that of the Avignon Bridge, built at the same time by Benezet, will strike our readers; each obviously was a man of superior talents, in every way capable of attracting the confidence and esteem of their fellow-citizens, and honoured accordingly at their deaths; only that our countryman was not canonized, and miracles were not attributed to his remains, because the English ever have been a sober people. We could have wished that they had shown a little more feeling lately on the subject. When the Old London Bridge was pulled down, the stone-coffin of Peter was broken open by the workmen, and not containing any treasures, was thrown into the Thames; this was not unnatural in persons of that class, but we think more care should have been taken by the principals to obviate such an occurrence, or at least to recover the relic, and deposit it in some fane, as Westminster Abbey, along with the remains of other men of genius and benefactors to their race.

side of the ninth pier from the northern end of the bridge. This chapel, which was dedicated to St. Thomas, was remarkable in many respects; it was a Gothic structure of great elegance of design; the lower story was a crypt, and stood on the sterling of the pier, which was carried out for the purpose 50 feet further than any of the others; the upper part, or chapel, was level with the roadway of the bridge, and stood partly on the pier, presenting a front to the road 40 feet high and 30 wide; the length of the whole building was 60 feet. The body of Peter of Colechurch was deposited in a stone tomb in the crypt of this chapel, within the pier of the bridge; a proper burial-place for the architect. This chapel was, at successive times, augmented by several chantries, so that in the time of Henry the Sixth there were four chaplains belonging to it, whose stipends were bequeathed by different persons at their death. It afterwards became the property of St. Katherine's Hospital, and though it was suppressed as a monastic institution at the Reformation, yet divine service was performed in it till the beginning of the last century; it was then occupied as a shop, and the crypt converted into a paper-warehouse; and such was the solidity of the work, that, though the floor of this story was nearly 10 feet below high-water mark, yet no damp penenetrated the walls. In the enclosure of the sterling, in front of the end of the edifice, a fish-preserve had been made, into which the tide carried the fish, and they were secured by a wire grating; a winding staircase led down to this pond from the chapel. A person who had all his life been connected with the Bridge-House Estate, was living within the last few years, who well remembered descending by this access to fish in the preserve.

This interesting chapel was pulled down in 1760, on the occasion of the repairs and improvements being made to the bridge, and the workmen had some difficulty in detaching the stone-work and iron cramps with which it had been put together: an antique marble font, and some ancient coins were found. The tomb in the crypt was enclosed in the portion situated within the pier by the new facing erected at that time.

The arches of the bridge were of different widths, as most of our readers will still remember; four of the widest, which admitted the passage of larger boats, were called locks, and there was a moveable draw-bridge instead of a stone arch, between the sixth and seventh piers, to admit of still larger vessels coming up the river; this draw-bridge is frequently alluded to in the histories of those times.

There was a tower erected at each end of the bridge at the time of its completion, a practice general with such structures in those periods, when, of course, a bridge would be the first point of attack by a foe approaching the city to which it furnished access. In 1426 a third was built at the north side of the draw-bridge just alluded to; but that various other dwellings were erected on the bridge immediately after its completion, is proved by the mention of the destruction of 3000 persons three years afterwards, who were on the bridge when a fire, which had begun at the Southwark end, communicated to some buildings at the other extremity; these unfortunate people, neglecting to retreat in time, and thus enclosed, were either drowned in endeavouring to escape by the river, crushed in the struggle, and by falling ruins, or miserably burnt in the flames.

These houses were soon generally spread over the whole bridge, and a curious view of the structure, executed by one Norden, in the time of queen Elizabeth, but not published till that of her successor, has the following passage in an eulogy appended to it.

"This famous bridge is adorned with sumptuous buildings and statelie and beautifull houses on either syde, inhabited by wealthy citizens, and furnished with all manner of trades, comparable in itself to a little city, whose buildyngs are so arteficially contryved, and so firmly combined, as it seemeth more than an ordinary street, for it is as one continuous vaute, or rooff, except certain voyd places reserved from buildings for the retyre of passengers from the danger of cars, carts, and droves of cattle, usually passing that way. The vaults, cellars, and places in the bowels, as it were, of the same bridge are many and admi rable, which arte cannot discover to the outwarde view." (that is, could not be shown in the picture.)

These "voyd places" seem to have been especially neces sary, for when it is mentioned that the street left between the houses on each side was only twenty feet wide in its widest part, and had no footway, it may be supposed the transit of the bridge, to pedestrians, was not a little hazardous; indeed it is stated by some chronicler, that their