Crossing the River: The History of London's Thames River Bridges From Richmond to the Tower

by Brian Cookson

  Bronze bust of Joseph Bazalgette, located on the Embankment near Hungerford Bridge

  The new Hammersmith Bridge, like the old, was designed on the suspension principle, but it has a much more fanciful appearance than its predecessor. Structurally, there are major differences in the use of materials. The suspension chains are of steel rather than wrought iron. The river-towers, instead of being built of stone, have frames of wrought iron which are clad in ornamental cast iron. Since iron is lighter than the equivalent strength masonry, the towers take up less space and allow a wider opening for road traffic through the arches. As a result, the carriageway under the arches is now 21 feet wide, instead of 14 feet, and there is room for two 6-foot-wide footways, which are cantilevered and curl round the outside of the towers, rather than sharing the carriageway as was the case with the old bridge. On the riverbanks, instead of the toll-gates which had been located there when the old bridge was built, Bazalgette constructed highly decorative abutments which take the suspension chains underground to a depth of 40 feet, where they are firmly anchored. The most striking of the many ornamental cast-iron features are the coats of arms to be found on the sides of the abutments. The MBW was not granted an official coat of arms but used an unofficial design with the Royal Arms in the centre surrounded by the arms of the various civic authorities that came under their auspices. Unfortunately, Hammersmith did not receive its coat of arms until 1897, and so it is not represented on its own bridge.

  The contractors were Messrs Dixon, Appleby and Thorne, who completed the work in less than three years at a cost of £82,177. The opening ceremony on 18 June 1887 seems to have been a much less splendid affair than the ceremony for the freeing of the tolls. Hammersmith Vestry refused to put up any street decorations, as it considered that this would be a waste of public money. Instead of the Prince of Wales himself, his son, Prince Albert Victor, conducted the ceremony before going on to open Battersea Bridge, also designed by Bazalgette. One further addition to the new bridge occurred in 1894 when a new steamboat pier was constructed. Shortly after this, steamboat services started to decline and the pier was removed in 1921.

  Ornate cast-iron coat of arms at the south end of Hammersmith Bridge

  The new Hammersmith Bridge has certainly had an eventful life over the 130 years of its existence. Its owner, the MBW, was replaced in 1889 by the London County Council (LCC), which was responsible for it until 1964, when the LCC was abolished and the newly created Greater London Council (GLC) took over. Finally, in 1986, the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, abolished the GLC, and the bridge returned to local control, that of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, which still manages it today. Politics were involved in all these changes, and the Labour-controlled borough council could not help making capital out of the fact that the Conservative government had abolished the GLC one year before Hammersmith Bridge’s centenary, by promising to celebrate the occasion in style itself. The most significant preparation for the ceremony was the repainting of the bridge. This proved a challenge, as no fewer than 46 coats of paint were found underneath the current battleship-grey colour, some of them dating right back to when the bridge was built 100 years before. In fact, the bridge has changed colour a number of times over its lifetime since the initial green-and-gold scheme designed by Bazalgette. The new colour scheme for the centenary was designed by Ken Mellors, the GLC architect, and approved as authentically Victorian by the Royal Society of Fine Arts. Unfortunately, it was not possible to paint over the existing paintwork, as rust had permeated into the ironwork in places, so all 46 coats had to be blasted off down to bare metal and 7 new coats applied. The result was certainly very attractive, but unfortunately it was considered too expensive to use gold leaf for the gilding, and so gold paint was used instead. Bazalgette himself had specified gold leaf for the bridge, but nowadays this is seldom used for large-scale exterior decoration. One place where it is possible to see true gold-leaf gilding is on the insignia on top of Sea Containers House near Blackfriars Bridge.

  Despite the criticisms of William Morris and others, the bridge has proved to be a much-loved structure. Unfortunately, it has suffered from problems similar to those that beset Tierney Clark’s bridge. As the river-towers were constructed on the same foundations, it is still really far too narrow for modern traffic conditions. Moreover, it has had to be strengthened a number of times. In 1973, major reconstruction was required, including replacement of the timber decking under the road surfaces and repairs to and strengthening of much of the ironwork. As a result, the original lamp-posts which straddled the wrought-iron girders had to be replaced with fibreglass replicas, which do still look authentic. Further major repairs were initiated in 1997, and the bridge was closed while these were carried out. Indeed, there was even doubt as to whether Hammersmith Bridge would ever reopen for traffic apart from buses. A local referendum was held, as many local people were pleased at the reduction in traffic where they lived. Cyclists and bus companies were definitely opposed to the reopening, as they had exclusive use of the carriageway when the repairs were completed in 1999. Businesses, however, were strongly in favour, as fewer customers had been coming into the area while the bridge was closed. In the end, people voted three to two in favour of reopening the bridge to general traffic. Weight restrictions were imposed on the reopening, as indeed had been the case since the first concerns were raised in the 1960s. Since the vote in favour had been less than overwhelming, the bridge was reopened without any ceremony.

  Natural deterioration has not been the only danger to which Hammersmith Bridge has been exposed. The IRA has tried to blow it up on no fewer than three occasions. The first was on 29 March 1939, when, in the early morning, Maurice Childs was walking across the bridge and saw smoke and sparks coming out of a suitcase. Bravely, he opened the suitcase and saw that there was a bomb inside. Immediately, he picked it up and threw it into the river. Shortly after, it exploded and threw up a 60-foot column of water. A second device did explode and caused some damage to the suspension chains and rods, as well as to nearby houses. For his brave act, Childs was awarded an MBE.

  Hammersmith Bridge today

  The events surrounding the terrorist attack were most extraordinary. Two members of the IRA had hired a car and forced the chauffeur, Mr Moffat, to drive them to the bridge. Once the bombs were in place, they made Moffat drive them to Putney Bridge, where they left him and walked on across the bridge, presumably thinking he would not dare follow them. As it happened, a policeman came by, and he and Moffat gave chase. The men were caught and Moffat had no difficulty in identifying them in court. They were sentenced to a total of 30 years’ penal servitude between them. This could be considered the first action of the Second World War, as the war officially started a few months later and it is known that the IRA in general supported Germany because of its hatred of Britain. The enemy bombers were far less effective in damaging Hammersmith Bridge than was the IRA.

  The second IRA attempt occurred in 1996 when two of the largest Semtex devices ever planted in mainland Britain failed to go off. In June 2000, the IRA tried again, and this time a hole was blasted in one of the girders at the south end of the bridge. The repairs were supposed to be completed by September 2000, but completion was delayed until December because of a catalogue of errors. The wrong sort of steel had been delivered from Belgium and was returned for replacement, and problems with the newly relaid road surface meant that the work had to be redone. This caused the Evening Standard of 18 September 2000 to publish a banner headline, ‘A Bridge Too Far and It’s Traffic Mayhem’. The article listed a number of problems on other bridges as well as the delays on Hammersmith Bridge. Kew Bridge, Kingston Bridge and Westminster Bridge were undergoing repairs at the same time, and Putney Bridge had introduced a 24-hour bus lane. Following the eventual completion of the repairs, 20 CCTV cameras were installed with a view to preventing any further terrorist attacks.

  Hammersmith Bridge will always be remembered for a singular a
ct of heroism. As reported in the West London Observer of 2 January 1920, Lieutenant Charles Campbell Wood had been walking with a friend, Mr Monk, across Hammersmith Bridge late at night on 27 December 1919. They both heard a scream and saw a woman fall from the parapet into the river. Lieutenant Wood dived straight in after her and brought her safely to the riverbank. The woman had had an argument with her daughter and apparently tried to commit suicide. She survived. Wood had dived from 30 feet into icy water only 12 feet deep and had injured his head. The doctor who examined him in hospital said that he could not understand how he was able to retain his senses and swim ashore with the woman, as he collapsed immediately afterwards with serious head injuries and in a state of shock. He died soon after from his injuries. His friend said that he had plunged into the water without any thought of danger to himself. Wood was born in South Africa, had joined the Boy Scouts and St John Ambulance, and was an accomplished sportsman. He had come to England in 1917 to serve in the RAF as a pilot. As the coroner stated, a man who lived life to the full had sacrificed himself for someone who apparently did not wish to live. He received the posthumous award of a bronze medal from the Royal Humane Society and is buried in St Marylebone cemetery, where his tombstone still stands.

  Despite its history and landmark status, Hammersmith Bridge has in the past been threatened with replacement by a more modern structure capable of handling multiple lanes of traffic. The 1926 Royal Commission on Cross-river Traffic commented on the frequent repairs to the bridge, which resulted in congestion as traffic had to be reduced to a single lane. The Commission recommended that the bridge should be pulled down and rebuilt to carry four lanes of traffic. No final decision was taken at the time, although the recommendation was revived on several occasions. No serious attempt to replace the bridge has been made since the 1960s. However, when the bridge was closed for refurbishment in 1996, Brian Sewell wrote an article in the Evening Standard of 11 February resurrecting this idea. He described the bridge as a ‘monument to low technology rooted in the age of Isambard Kingdom Brunel devised a decade before the motor car that has now … brought it to its knees’. He went on: ‘… as it is a much-loved structure for its whimsical charm, it should be redone as a footbridge elsewhere over the Boat Race course using lottery money. This would allow a new bridge fit for modern traffic to be built in its place.’ Today, no one would seriously contemplate the removal of Bazalgette’s bridge, as it would probably lead to revolution on the peaceful riverside at Hammersmith.

  CHAPTER 5

  Putney and Wandsworth

  Putney Bridge crosses the Thames between Fulham on the north bank and Putney on the south bank. Today’s bridge replaced the old wooden bridge known as Fulham Bridge, which was opened in 1729. This had been the first bridge constructed across the tidal Thames in London since the thirteenth-century Old London Bridge. At the time, it was the only bridge between London Bridge and Kingston, where a bridge had existed from medieval times. Wandsworth, on the other hand, had no bridge until 1873. Wandsworth Bridge was then built one mile downstream from Putney Bridge. It lasted only 65 years and was then replaced by the present steel structure in 1938. In between them is Putney Railway Bridge, built in 1889 to take the District Line over the river to Wimbledon.

  Putney Bridge

  The settlement of Fulham has a long history. In the eighth century, the Bishop of London, Waldhere, was granted the manor of Fulham together with the duty to maintain four bridges over two of the rivers that used to flow into the Thames in the area. The rivers, with their bridges, disappeared in the nineteenth century because of pollution, but the manor house still stands in its large landscaped grounds to the west of Putney Bridge. Parts of the building date back to the sixteenth century, when Bishop Fitzjames built the Tudor courtyard. Later, the manor house became known as Fulham Palace, and it served as the summer residence of the bishops of London until they handed it over to the local council in the early twentieth century.

  Fulham’s importance was greatly enhanced by the presence of the bishops of London, many of whom went on to become archbishops of Canterbury and who frequently played a part in events which affected the history of the nation. Bishop Grindal once stood up to Queen Elizabeth I and told her: ‘Although you are a mighty prince, the Lord in Heaven is mightier.’ Perhaps surprisingly, he did not lose his head or even his position for setting up the Church against the monarch. Others were not so fortunate. Bishop Ridley was burned at the stake in Oxford by Elizabeth’s half-sister, Mary, for refusing to acknowledge the supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church, and Archbishop Laud was executed on the orders of Parliament for opposing Puritan dogma.

  Fulham started as a small settlement around the Bishop’s Palace. Its original name, Fulhanham, means ‘foul’ or ‘muddy’ hamlet and arises from the large areas of mud deposited on the low-lying riverbanks by the ebb and flow of the tide. Local employment was originally concerned with fishing and growing fruit and vegetable produce to supply the increasing demands of London. In 1670, the potter John Dwight invented the process of making salt-glazed stoneware and set up his famous Fulham Pottery just to the east of today’s Putney Bridge. The pottery lasted until the 1940s. In the eighteenth century, Fulham, like Hammersmith, became a favourite location for the rich to build mansions and villas where they could spend summer weekends away from the city. Most of these mansions are long gone, but Hurlingham House and Fulham House survive.

  The bishops of London used the river to travel from London to Fulham Palace in their private barges from the earliest times. In addition, they owned a ferry which they leased to local businessmen, who in turn sublet it to ferrymen to transport pedestrians and vehicles between Fulham and Putney. The first record of a ferry here dates back to 1210. Since Fulham was on the main south-western route out of London, the ferry was busy, and many inns and taverns grew up to cater for travellers who wished to refresh themselves on the journey while their coaches were loaded onto the ferry. The most famous of these was the Swan Inn, which was situated by the ferry, about 100 yards to the east of today’s bridge. The Swan Inn was built in 1695 and lasted until 1871, when it was burnt down, probably by an arsonist.

  The ferry increasingly created a bottleneck, as well as often causing risk to life and limb. In 1642, during the Civil War, a bridge was built at Fulham for the first time. Charles I and Prince Rupert had advanced on London with the Royalist army from their headquarters in Oxford. They won a skirmish at Brentford against a smaller Parliamentary force, but retreated to Kingston when the Earl of Essex went to meet them with his main army of 24,000 men at Turnham Green. Since the Royalists controlled Kingston Bridge, Essex decided to build a bridge across the river at Fulham so that he could attack Kingston from the south. The bridge was constructed with boats tied together and with defensive earthwork fortifications on both riverbanks. It was never used in anger because the Royalists retreated back to Oxford before Essex could cross the river to attack them. The earthworks on the south bank remained until 1845.

  The first attempt at creating a permanent crossing at Putney was made in 1671, when a Bill for the construction of a wooden bridge was introduced to Parliament. The Bill met strong opposition, and records of the debate make for entertaining reading. Opponents claimed that a bridge at Putney would jeopardise the prosperity of London and even annihilate the city altogether. They argued it would stop the tide and destroy the Thames as a navigable river. It would prevent wherries passing at low tide and this would affect the interests of the watermen on whom the nation depended for providing experienced seafarers in time of war. A Mr Boscawen complained that Putney Bridge would be the thin end of the wedge and could result in further bridges at Westminster, Blackfriars, Somerset House and Guildhall. He added, to great hilarity from his supporters, that some of these might even be built of iron. He ended with a peroration in which he ironically threatened to bring in Bills for bridges at Chelsea, Hammersmith and Brentford. Mr Boscawen sat down to great acclaim and the Bill was thrown out by 67 v
otes to 54. He would surely have turned in his grave to find that bridges were built at each of the locations he had identified within the next 100 years.

  Despite the opposition from vested interests, pressure continued to mount for a second bridge over the Thames at Westminster, Vauxhall or Putney. Matters came to a head in 1720, when Prime Minister Robert Walpole was returning from a visit to George I in Kingston to attend a debate in the House of Commons. He rode on horseback with his servant to Putney only to find the ferry was on the other side of the river. The ferrymen were drinking in the Swan Inn and took no notice of Walpole’s shouts for them to take him across the river on vital national business. It was hinted that they were all Tories opposed to Walpole’s Whig Party, but ferrymen were notoriously heavy drinkers and may well have been in no fit state to answer his calls. In any case, Walpole had to take a longer way round to Parliament, and this incident seems to have made up his mind to have a bridge built at Fulham.

  In 1726, with Walpole’s support, an Act was passed ‘for Building a Bridge across the River Thames from the town of Fulham in the County of Middlesex to the town of Putney in the County of Surrey’. Commissioners were appointed to manage the project and maintain the bridge, but, to avoid the possibility of corruption, they were not allowed to invest money themselves. Since it proved impossible to raise the money from other sources, an amended Act was passed in 1728 which allowed more financial flexibility. Thirty subscribers, of whom one was Walpole himself, invested £1,000 each in shares which gave the right to receive income from the tolls in perpetuity. The shares also gave the right to vote in both Middlesex and Surrey elections. It was not long before the shares were divided into fractions and the fractions sold off to people who wanted extra votes. Since far fewer people had the vote in those days, this was an important privilege, only abolished in 1864. The Act also laid down toll charges, which were similar to those at Richmond, and the punishment of a death sentence for anyone convicted of damaging the bridge.