It was inevitable that demand for a river crossing to the Surrey side would at some stage prove overwhelming. As far back as 1724, Daniel Defoe had written that Hammersmith aimed to obtain the grant of a market and that there was:
Some talk also of building a fine stone bridge over the Thames; but these things are yet but in embryo, tho’ it is not unlikely but they may both be accomplished in time, and also Hammersmith and Chiswick joining thus, would in time be a city indeed.10
By the early nineteenth century, with the increase in population and improvements in transport from London, the situation was much more favourable to the project of constructing a bridge. People who wanted to cross the river from here to the Surrey side had to make a five-mile detour via either Kew or Putney Bridge. Pedestrians had the choice of walking to Chiswick Wharf, where there was a ferry crossing to Ferry Lane in Barnes, or of hiring one of the watermen who frequented the Black Lion pub near the West Middlesex Waterworks.
Although it was rejected, the initial idea for building a bridge at Hammersmith came from the eccentric engineer Ralph Dodd. Finance for Dodd’s proposal was to be raised by tontine, just as at Richmond. Evidently there was strong local support, but an insurmountable problem arose when Henry Hugh Hoare of Hoare’s Bank refused to sell the strip of land needed to construct the approach road on the Surrey side. The proposal had to be abandoned, much to the gratification of the proprietors of Kew and Putney bridges. The latter had strongly opposed the idea because it would have introduced unwelcome competition and reduced their own profits.
Ralph Dodd (c.1756–1822)
Dodd’s entry in the Dictionary of National Biography must be one of the saddest ever written. It starts with a question mark about the real date and place of his birth, which is stated to be either South or North Shields. Almost everything he turned his hand to ended in failure. His first major engineering venture was to promote a tunnel under the Thames from Gravesend to Tilbury. This ambitious project lasted from 1799 to 1802, when it had to be abandoned. His scheme for the Grand Surrey Canal was no more successful. The plan was to link the market gardens of Surrey to London by a canal from Epsom to the Greenland Dock at Rotherhithe. The construction project never advanced much further than building a long extension dock leading out of the Greenland Dock. Dodd produced design proposals for many other major construction projects which were eventually implemented, but not by him. These included designs for the new Waterloo and the replacement London bridges, both of which were taken over and completed by John Rennie. Dodd did finally manage to build an iron bridge over the River Chelmer at Springfield in 1820. If only half his other schemes had come to fruition, he would stand with Telford and Brunel as one of the great British engineers of the Industrial Revolution.
However, the proprietors of Kew and Putney bridges were not to enjoy their triumph for long. A group of local people formed the Hammersmith Bridge Company and raised £80,000 with a view to presenting another Bill before Parliament. The difference this time was that agreement was reached with Mr Hoare that the company would purchase his whole estate rather than just the land needed for the Surrey approach road. Strong opposition was again voiced in parliamentary debates, mainly inspired by the proprietors of Kew and Putney bridges. When it was clear that the Bill would be passed, they attempted to obtain compensation for the damaging effect the new bridge would have on their businesses. This was rejected largely because it was felt that they had already made exorbitant profits out of their virtual monopolies. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the impending construction of Hammersmith Bridge and its likely impact on the profits from Kew Bridge was probably the reason why the proprietor, Robert Tunstall, decided to sell his stake in Kew Bridge soon afterwards.
The Act enabling the building of Hammersmith Bridge, which was to be the first suspension bridge over the River Thames, finally received Royal Assent on 9 June 1824. The Act incorporated the Hammersmith Bridge Company and appointed the first management committee members. It also laid down a complicated set of rules covering the duties of the committee and shareholders’ voting rights. Shareholders who were infants had a vote through their guardians, and ‘lunatics’ through their ‘lunatic committee’. Females could vote only through a male proxy. Tolls were also laid down. These must have confirmed the worst fears of the proprietors of the other bridges, as they were cheaper for every category except pedestrians. A local newspaper published a table of comparison from which this is an extract:
Punishments were set for any damage caused to the bridge. The standard fine was five pounds. In addition, those convicted of damage had to pay for the necessary repairs. This seems reasonable compared with the severity of the punishments laid down in the Richmond Bridge Act of 1774, which provided for deportation to America. One of the most important provisions of the Act covered the approach roads. Improved communications between London and the west was one of the main justifications for building the bridge. On the Middlesex side, the approach road was scheduled to connect directly to the Great West Road. On the Surrey side, a much longer road was required to pass through Mr Hoare’s estate to Barnes Common and then on to the Upper Richmond Road.
William Tierney Clark plaque on the site of the Middlesex Waterworks
The engineer chosen to design Hammersmith Bridge was William Tierney Clark, who had worked closely with the Hammersmith Bridge Company on the proposal. Like Ralph Dodd, the original proponent of a bridge here, Clark was involved with the West Middlesex Waterworks. In fact, he had been appointed chief engineer. Clark’s proposed design for a suspension bridge at Hammersmith was attractive as it required the construction of only two river-piers and provided a 400-foot-wide navigation path for shipping.
William Tierney Clark (1783–1852)
William Tierney Clark was born in Bristol, where he served his apprenticeship to a millwright. He then moved to Coalbrookdale, where he was employed in the ironworks of Abraham Darby, constructor of the world’s first iron bridge, over the Severn Gorge in 1779. In 1808, John Rennie visited the ironworks and was so impressed by the young Tierney Clark that he offered him a job at his own works at Blackfriars. There he supervised several of Rennie’s projects in cast-iron construction. When the job of engineer to the West Middlesex Waterworks came up, Rennie was happy to recommend him. The company was established in 1806 and many of the personalities involved were also connected with the Hammersmith Bridge project. In 1818, the waterworks company allowed him to practise as a consulting engineer, and his first major project was Hammersmith Bridge. In 1829, he took over the project to construct another suspension bridge on the River Thames, at Marlow. Marlow Suspension Bridge lasted until after the Second World War, when it was reconstructed so as to retain the appearance of Tierney Clark’s original bridge. Fortunately, this allows us to see what the first Hammersmith Bridge looked like, albeit on a smaller scale.
Tierney Clark’s magnum opus was undoubtedly the famous chain bridge over the Danube at Budapest. This was also a suspension bridge, and the first bridge to span the fast-flowing 1,500-foot-wide river between the two previously separate towns of Buda and Pest. The bridge was completed in 1849 and survived until its destruction by the retreating German army in 1945 at the end of the Second World War. After the end of the war, the bridge was rebuilt according to Tierney Clark’s original design, and it stands today as a foreign monument to the great engineer. Tierney Clark died in 1852 and was buried in St Paul’s Church, Hammersmith. His memorial, engraved with the image of a suspension bridge, can be seen there today.
The choice of a suspension bridge was a daring decision to take, since no successful large-scale suspension bridge had ever been built except for the pioneering Union Bridge over the Tweed near Berwick, constructed in 1820 by Captain Samuel Brown (1776–1852). Previous suspension bridges had not been stiff enough to keep the platform stable in high winds or when there was heavy traffic or people movement. Brown had invented a system using solid, straight eye-bars joined together in order to form a firm over
head structure from which to hang the rods which hold up the road platform. Brown supplied the ironwork for Hammersmith Bridge, but it was Tierney Clark who designed it with two massive stone river-towers which supported the suspension chains and formed a Tuscan archway through which the road platform ran. There were no towers on the banks of the river. The chains disappeared under the octagonal toll-gates located on each end of the bridge and were anchored firmly in lengthy abutments underneath the road.
Since Thomas Telford (1757–1834) was in the process of constructing a similar suspension bridge over the Menai Straits between Wales and Anglesey at this time, Clark submitted his plans for Telford’s comments. There was considerable mutual respect as well as rivalry between the great engineers of the nineteenth century, and so it was not surprising when they asked each other’s advice. In this case, Telford was paid a consultancy fee of £52 10 s. Further cooperation between the two resulted from Telford’s work on his only London project, at St Katherine’s Docks. Some of the spoil excavated to form the dock basins was shipped to Hammersmith to fill in the marshy land on the Surrey side of the river so as to support the approach road. The rest of the excavated spoil was used by the entrepreneur Thomas Cubitt to fill in the area of marshy land between Buckingham Palace and Chelsea before developing it for the landowner, Lord Grosvenor. The resulting development, known as Belgravia, is still part of the Grosvenor estate and is one of London’s most fashionable residential districts.
Telford’s Menai Bridge was completed in 1826, one year earlier than Hammersmith Bridge. The Menai Bridge has a central span between the supporting towers of 579 feet. However, the road between the towers and the shore is supported on masonry arches. At Hammersmith, the central span between the river-towers is 400 feet but the suspension chains also support the road platforms between the river-towers and the riverbank. This gives a total length of 688 feet and allows the claim that Clark’s Hammersmith Bridge was the longest suspension bridge in the world at the time it was built.
Hammersmith Bridge of 1827
During construction, crowds flocked to watch as the pioneering bridge emerged from the river. One of the most assiduous visitors was George IV’s younger brother Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, who often walked there from his ‘Smoking Box’, which today is called Sussex House, situated nearby on the riverside in Dove’s Passage. It was he who laid the foundation stone on 7 May 1825. According to the invitation ticket, this was done in a Masonic ceremony. Cofferdams had already been installed for the construction of the pier foundations and an amphitheatre was constructed inside so that the foundation stone could be suspended in readiness for the Duke to lower it into the cavity together with a bottle containing coins of the realm and a brass plate commemorating the event. The Duke was also invited to conduct the opening ceremony, which took place on 6 October 1827. For some reason, much debated by local historians, he declined. However, this does not seem to have dampened the enthusiasm of the crowds, who were greeted by the firing of cannons and treated to a firework display as the ceremony ended.
The new bridge attracted sightseers from all over London and this increased the takings from the tolls. It was highly praised in the press. According to the Franklin Journal and American Mechanics Magazine of April 1828, ‘The architectural beauty of the masonry is a great improvement to the hitherto clumsy masses of stone in the other erections of a similar description, and the whole edifice forms a highly ornamental feature to the River Thames.’
From a practical point of view, the bridge had significant shortcomings. The width of the carriageway was 20 feet, and there were two footpaths of 5 feet on either side. This was not unreasonable for the traffic conditions at the time, except that where the road went under the thick stone arches, its width was reduced to only 14 feet and at this point had to provide for both vehicles and pedestrians. Traffic was about to increase substantially, not least because of the existence of the bridge itself. It could even be said that the bridge put Hammersmith on the map rather than vice versa. Different modes of transport were also about to come on-stream. The year 1829 saw not only the first Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race but also the invention of the horse-drawn omnibus. In that year, George Shillibeer instituted an omnibus service from Paddington to Liverpool Street, and soon omnibuses were bringing passengers to Hammersmith and beyond. There was certainly not enough room for two-lane traffic if an omnibus was passing under the arch of one of the river-piers. A further problem arose from the fact that the roadway was only 18 feet above THW, which was much too low for steamers, with their tall funnels, to pass. Fortunately, George Dodd, the son of Ralph Dodd, had invented a method of lowering the funnels, but this could cause some discomfort to the passengers and in 1842 was lampooned in Punch:
A vessel passing under the bridge is compelled to lower its chimney onto the heads or into the laps of the passengers, besides rendering it incumbent on all on board to bend to circumstances by placing their heads between their knees during the time occupied in passing under the elegant commodious structure.
By 1843, the Hammersmith Bridge Company decided that there was money to be made out of the steamboat traffic, and they installed a steamboat pier against the Surrey-side river-tower. This is considered to be the first structural feature on a bridge to recognise the coming of the steam age.
A major change in London’s government came in 1855 with the passing of the Metropolis Management Act. This set up the Metropolitan Board of Works, with responsibility for central services, including extensive powers over the management of bridges. Local boards were set up to run local affairs, and Hammersmith came under the Fulham District Board of Works. The scene was now set to bring the Thames bridges under public control. Already in 1840 a petition had been submitted by the Metropolitan Anti-Bridge Toll Association to free Waterloo and Vauxhall bridges from tolls. The petition concentrated on Waterloo Bridge, which people avoided because of the tolls, causing crowding on the free bridges which were under the control of the Corporation of London. This caused delays and made people late for work, as they would walk miles to avoid the tolls. With the creation of the MBW, pressure grew to free all the bridges in its area of control, especially since the upstream bridges from Kew to Staines had already been freed, as described in Chapter 2. In 1877, the Metropolis Toll Bridges Act was passed to allow for the MBW to purchase the bridges and abolish the tolls. Hammersmith Bridge was eventually sold to the MBW in 1880 for £112,000. Hammersmith, Fulham and Wandsworth bridges were all declared toll-free on the same day, 26 June 1880. The Prince of Wales attended the celebration ceremonies, which drew wildly enthusiastic crowds.
By now, Hammersmith Bridge was causing increasing concern, because of both its narrow width and the heavier loads of traffic. With the extension of the Metropolitan Line to Hammersmith, the population received a further boost on the Middlesex side of the river. On the Surrey side, where there had been mainly open ground when the land was bought from Henry Hoare in 1824, major development had taken place along the road to Barnes Common.
The general increase in traffic was exacerbated on the day of the Boat Race, when, by the 1870s, over 11,000 people crammed onto the bridge and many climbed on the chains to get a view. A famous picture of the crowding on Hammersmith Bridge at the 1862 Boat Race, which was won by Oxford, was painted by 16-year-old Walter Greaves, the son of a local boat builder. Sadly, he never made a living out of his art, and died in poverty in a charity home. Today, this painting hangs in Tate Britain and has spawned thousands of postcards and reproductions. A letter from a member of a Cambridge crew who had rowed in the Boat Race during the 1870s appeared in The Times of 17 March 1922, describing the atmosphere as the boats passed under Hammersmith Bridge: ‘Of the bridge itself little or nothing could be seen, but only a mass of humanity, which, like a swarm of bees, hung itself on every available point, high or low, not counting risk to life or limb.’ By 1876, Hammersmith Bridge was closed on the day of the Boat Race because of fears for its safety as well as the
safety of the crowds. Later that year, a strange rumour spread through London that the bridge had collapsed and that many people had drowned. The rumour was given credence because of the earlier closure, and by 5 p.m. thousands had travelled to Hammersmith to see the non-existent spectacle.
1866 scene of the Boat Race crowds on the old Hammersmith Bridge
Reports on the safety of the bridge were produced by Rowland Mason Ordish, the designer of the Albert Bridge, and by John Hawkshaw, the designer of Hungerford Bridge, in 1869 and 1878 respectively. Both found some faults but in general were impressed by its strength and declared it in good enough shape to carry current levels of traffic. However, in 1882, a boat collided with the bridge and an investigating policeman fell through a hole in the walkway into the river. Sir Joseph Bazalgette, the chief engineer of the MBW, which by this stage owned the bridge, had already raised safety concerns. He now produced a report recommending the complete reconstruction of the bridge superstructure on top of the existing pier foundations, after the Surrey-side pier had been underpinned. The shareholders of the Hammersmith Bridge Company must have been relieved to have sold out just two years before. An Act was passed in August 1883 enabling the reconstruction of the bridge along the lines recommended by Bazalgette, as well as the building of a temporary wooden bridge to cope with cross-river traffic until the work was complete. Needless to say, Bazalgette himself was chosen to design the new bridge.
Crossing the River: The History of London's Thames River Bridges From Richmond to the Tower Page 7
