120 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[April, 



BOW BRIDGE, AT STRATFORD-LE-BOW, IN ESSEX. 



The great and still-increasing traffic between the county of Essex 

 and the metropolis has of late years led to many important improve- 

 ments in the line of the Great Essex-road, but nothing yet done has 

 been so highly appreciated by the public as the new bridge across the 

 river Lea, at Bow, which is built upon the site of the ancient structure 

 and was opened for traffic last February. Before we proceed to de- 

 scribe the new bridge, we will give some particulars of the old bridge, 

 a view of which is given above, a description of it we extract from an 

 interesting account by Mr. Burges, in the Arcbseologia, vol. 27, pp. 77 

 to 95, communicated May 17, 1836. 



Of the antiquity of Bow Bridge there can be little doubt, as we have 

 proved from the best authorities that it was erected by order of Matilda, 

 queen of Henry the First, which must have been between the years 1100, 

 when she became queen, and 1118, the year of her death. 



If any portion of the present structure can be identified as part of the 

 original edifice, it may be considered, if not the oldest bridge extant, as 

 at all events possessing an age which few other bridges in the Icingdom 

 can so satisfactorily trace, the long period of upwards of seven hundred 

 years, and it must consequently be considered as a higlily interesting work 

 of antiquity. 



In the construction of this bridge, we find all that characterises the 

 very early specimens of bridge architecture; the small openings for the 

 water, and wide piers with large angidar projections, not only to divide 

 and throw off the force of the current, but for foot passengers to retire into, 

 to avoid the danger from carriages and horsemen when passing along the 

 narrow roadway. 



■' That the bridge was originally built of stone can need no further 

 confirmation ; but the number of arches it originally consisted of is a 

 question we have now no means of ascertaiiung, though, m all probability, 

 it never had fewer openings than it has had in our day. Lysons indeed 

 states it be a bridge of one arch, but ho does not give his authority ; neither 

 have I met with any other writer who has favoured that opinion, or advan- 

 cpd one argument to lead to such a conclusion. That it had at any time 

 more than the present number of arclies is tuicertain, tmless it were 

 furnished with small openings or archways at each end under the causeway 

 for the passage of the land floods; but if there were such, they could not in 

 fairness be considered as forming any part of the bridge. Of such arches, 

 however, I have not been able to discover the slightest remains, either 

 from the excavations made purposely to determme that point, or from any 

 examinations of the bridge itself. 



"That the present pointed arches formed no part of the original construc- 

 tion of the bridge must be evident, as no other but a circular arch would 

 have been used at that time ; the pointed form of arch not having been 

 introduced into the buildings of this country till many years after. The 

 original arches therefore appear to have been removed, and may probably 

 have given place to several forms of construction, each partaking of the 

 fashion prevalent at the time of their erection. It may also be observed 

 that the form of the present arches is of that particular description which 

 was last of all introduced mto our architecture, and is commonly known as 

 the Tudor Arch, from being foimd in most of the buildings erected hi the 

 reigns of the two last Henries, or about the latter end of the 15th century; 

 and it may therefore fairly be stated, that the present arches cannot be 

 older than the date assigned for the introduction of that species of arch, 

 to which they are similar, but have in all probability been erected since 

 that time, as is clearly the case with regard to the arch of the centre 

 opening of the bridge. 



" Before closhig this account of the bridge, we are led to inquire into the 

 origin of its name, and the circumstances which gave rise to its being 

 called the Bow, or Bow-bridge. Most writers ascribe the derivation to the 

 resemblance of the arch to the form of a bow, then called de Arcubus, or 

 the Bows. The description given by Stow, in his annals, goes to state 

 ' the bridge was arched like a bowe, a rare piece of worke, for before that 

 tjie like had never been seen in England;' and Grose observes, it might 

 derive its appellation from the word beau, or handsome, an epithet very 

 Ukely to be given to it in those days.* » • • • 



'■ The piers for the support of the arches occupy a very large proportion 

 of water-way of the river, and, like many other ancient stmctures of this 

 description, are placed at an angle with the stream, causing intcn-uption 

 alike to the navigation and to the passage of the tlood-waters. 



" The width of the bridge was originally only thirteen feet six inches 

 between the parapets, but in the year 1741 it was mcrcased to twenty- 

 one-feet. 



"A few years previous to the bridge being widened, an accommodation 

 had been made for foot-passengers, by projecting a wooden platform five 

 feet wide over the piers on the north side ; this has lately been rebuilt, at 

 t le expense of the two counties, after having been the subject of litigation 

 for two or three years. 



" Very little attention appears to have been paid to uniformity in budding 

 this bridge, as scarcely any two corresponding points in the structure 

 agree. We find the springing courses upon different levels, and also the 

 elevation of the arches above the surface of the water, besides which the 

 two piers arc imlike both in width and length. 



"The side arches claim particular notice, from having a centre rib of 

 con.siderable strength projecting below the line of the arch; a form of 

 construction fiequently to be met with in old buildings of this kind. 



" The centre arch, which is without .iny rib, has evidently been rebuilt 

 upon the remains of a former one, probably to meet the demands of an 

 improved navigation, it being in its present state much better adapted for 

 the passage of vessels than if formed after the model of the side ones, as it 

 no doubt was before being altered, for the springing stones still remain. 



" At tliis distant period it is difficult to determine with anv degree of 

 certainty the description of stone used in the original construction of the 

 bridge. As in many other ancient buddings erected in this part of the 

 country, Caen stone appears to have been used for arching, some of which 

 still remains, while Kentish rag and Purbeck stone were employed in the 

 inferior parts of the work. The present face of the piers consists of 

 Portland and Kentish stone, laid in courses of various shapes and dimen- 

 sions. 



" Bow Bridge, unlike many of the old English bridges, has no starlings 

 or projections beyond the line of masonry of the piers, which may be ac- 

 counted for by the shallowness of the river at the spot; at low water, 

 during the summer mouths, the difficulty of constructing the founda- 

 tions could not have been great, as they are laid upon a stratum of gravel 

 3 to 4 feet below the present bed of tfie river. 



" The filling-in of the arches between the face-courses and the centre 

 rib is little better than nibble masonry, the stones of which are both rough 

 and irregular in size, the joints wide, and in several places tdes are em- 

 ployed to wedge the whole together. 



" The masonrj- of the centre arch is of a different character to that already 

 described; the outside face-courses are alsit in two thicknesses, composed 

 of Kentish rag stone, with a few of Caen stone, which no doubt had been 

 saved from a former arch, while the filling-in between is entirely built of 

 Kentish stone in regular courses very neatly put together, and, as .already 

 stated, without any rib or other projection. 



" The external face of the bridge above the arches is formed of common 

 rubble masoniy, and the interior part over the piers and arches, no doubt 

 filled up nearly to the level of the roadway with chalk or stone built in 

 mortar, the plan generally adopted by the ancient builders in works of this 

 description. 



" The masonry of the additional arching, &c. made to the bridge in 1741, 

 consists principally of Purbeck and Portland stone, built in regidar courses 

 in a firm and substantial manner." 



After many years of unceasing endeavours on the part of the trustees 

 of the road, an act of Parliament was obtained in 1834 for taking down 

 the old structure and building a new bridge. As this was to occupy 

 the same site as the old one, it became necessary to provide a tem- 

 porary bridge for the public durini; the erection of the new one, and 

 this was done by the erection of a wooden bridge across the river, near 

 to the same spot, which was opened for traffic July 25th, 1835, and on 

 the same day the old bridge was closed, and in a short time after " not 

 one stone was left upon another" of that once celebrated structure, 

 which Stow relates to have been " a rare piece of worke,'' at the period 

 when he wrote. 



The works of the foundation of the new bridge, on the Essex side, 

 having been sufficiently advanced, the ceremony of laying the first 

 stone took place on the 12th day of December, 1835. The stone was 

 of granite about 5i tons weight, in which was deposited, in a holkw 

 made for the purpn»o, a glnss bottle, containing a ^eries of new coins, 

 and a brass plate upon which was engraved the following inscription : — 



Boh) BriDgc. 



The old bridge over the River Lea, founded on this site by Matilda 

 Queen of Henry I., having become inadequate for the increased tliorougli- 

 fare by land and water, and a new bridge to replace the ancient structure 

 having been resolved upon, this first stone was laid on XII December, 

 MDCCCXXXV, by Emma, the lady of John Henry Pelly, of Upion, lu 

 the County ef Essex, Esquire, F.R.S., Deputy Master of the Trinity House, 

 and Chairman of Trustees of the Middlesex and Essex turnpike roads, assisted 

 by the Committee of Trustees ap|jointed to carry into effect the pro- 

 visions of the Act 4 & 5 William IV., chap. 89. in relation to Bow Bridge. 



COMMITTEE. 

 John Henry Pelly, Esq., F.R.S. 

 Chairman. 

 The Venerable Achdeacon Jones James Graves, Esq. 



Sir Thomas Barrett Leonard, Bart. Richard Gregory, Esq. 



Robert Westley Hall Dare, Esq., M.P. Richard Hallett, Esq. 

 James Bridger, Esq. John George Hammatk, Esq. 



Benjamin Brushfield, Esq. John Hodgson, Esq. 



John Burnell, Esq. John Hubbard, jun., Esq. 



John Carstairs, Esq., F.R.S. William Maiden, Esq. 



Nicholas Charrington, Esq. John Milner, Esq. 



WilliamCotton, Esq., F.R.S. William Pearce. Esq. 



William Dav-s, Esq. Joshua Pedley, Esq, 



John Drinkald, Esq. Samuel Taylor, Esq. 



George Fox, Esq. John S. Thompson, Esq. 



John Francis, Esq. Edward Vincent, Esq. 



John Hillson Giles, Esq. 



George Dacre, Clerk to the Trust. 

 James Walker, F.R.S., and Alfred Burges, Engineers. 

 Samuel Farey, Surveyor to the Trust. 

 Thomas Curtis, sen., and Thomas Curtis, jun., Builders. 



