Highway Bridges.
Page 10
Page 11
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
"The Commercial Motor" by H. Howard Humphreys, M.Inst.C.E., M.Inst.Mech.E., Consulting Engineer on Roads to the British War Office.
[in dealing with the early history of bridges, it is a little difficult to know quite bow far back to carry one's researches. The problems connected with the erection of such structures appear to have had a certain amount oF sporting int,rest for a
section of the human race for many thousands of years, and there is a well-known design extant, which was prepared by an Alexandrian geometrician (of pious memory) at least 2,200 years ago, and which it is believed has been more stressed by the passage of slow-moving heavy bodies than any other bridge in existence. Vitruvius seems to have been engaged in the design of numerous bridges, and we have it on the authority of the late Dr. William Smith that Cresar junxii liellespontem ante, though whether this statement emanated from Cmsar for the purposes of self-glorification, or was the outcome of a desire by the worthy doctor to exercise and cultivate the minds of budding classics, is still in doubt. One thing, however, is abundantly clear, the Roman invasion of England gave the first serious impetus to road and bridge construction.'
The construction of the earliest bridges, in this country, was a work undertaken by members of the various pious persuasions. jut;scrand says that, in France, a religious order was formed with the objtct of building bridges, as far back as the Twelfth Century, and was named " The Pontife Brothers." This society appears to have spread to several Continental countries, but, whilst it is difficult to find a definite record of any such brotherhood in England, it appears fairly certain from the early episcopal registers that the Freena n of England were inveigled by the priests under promise of indulgences—nature not specifiedif they would " draw from the treasure that God has given them valuable and charitable aid towards the building and repair of certain bridges." In the time of Richard II., Birmingham (ever the home of the reformer) gave birth to a " gild " not, as might be supposed, for the embellishment of its natural product, but for the more prosaic repair of roads and bridges. The said gild " kept in good reparaciouns two greate stoma bridges, and divers foule and daungerous high wayes, the charge whereof the towne of hitselife ys not hable to anainteign. So that the lathe thereof will be a greate noysaunee to the hinges ma lies subjectes passing to and from the marches of Wales and an vier ruyne to the same towne, being one of the fayrest and most proffittible townes to the hinges highnesse in all the shyre." Stratford-atte-Bow was the scene of a tragedy in the Twelfth Century; but the natural outcome of evil in a sufficiently concentrated form is ever good, for the wetting of Queen Matilda's august feet is popularly supposed to have been the cause of the erection of Bow Bridge, a quaint old structure which existed for many centuries and brought
much profit to one, Pratt, who took heavy tolls from foot passengers and studiously avoided making any repairs. The pious associations of Bow Bridge are shown by its dedication to St. Catherine, but her reputed virtue does not seem to have proved as effectual as it might have been against the mercenary tendencies of Godfrey Pratt; the strong arm of the Law, however, stepped in to do the work which the shade of St. Catherine had failed to achieve.
London Bridge was commenced in It7(i to replace an old wooden structure. It was considered to be one of the wonders of the world. Peter Colechurch started it, but died before its completion, a Frenchman named lsembert being called in to complete the edifice. The date of the opening of the bridge to traffic is a little doubtful, but this is generally supposed to have been during the year 1209. For many years London Bridge was the only means of crossing the Thames; special pilotage was desirable for those who had the temerity to sail under its arches and who wished to escape a watery grave. Slowly but surely the work of bridge building was transferred from the pious guilds and ecclesiastics to the coarser-fibred contractors, whose object appears to have been to do the minimum of work for the maximum of recompense, The Evolution of Bridge Law.
Curious and innumerable are the special enactments relating to the bridges built in the Dark .1g,es. Jusserand says : " Henry 111 granted the farm of bridge revenues to his beloved wife, who neglected to maintain it and appropriated to herself without scruple the rents of the building." One of the earliest enactments relating to the repair of bridges appears in Magna Charta, throwing, an in wresting side-light upon one of the many grievances which the Norman barons compelled John Lackland to remedy. The clause reads; " No town nor free man shall be distrained to build bridges unless they are hound thereto by custom." To encourage the substitution of bridges for fords, pontage grants were often made to the burgesses of towns : whilst, generally speaking, these grants were not abused in the way in which grants to private individuals were, a heavy toll was nevertheless taken from foot passengers, and the taxation was often extremely inequitable, It has been pointed out in the preceding historical introduction to this article that bridges came to be built in a variety of ways; consequently, the law relating to their up-keep, etc., was (and in many cases still is) of a most complex nature. The Statute of Bridges, 22 Henry VIII Cap. 5, was enacted to remedy " all manner of annoyances of brides broken in the highways to the damage of the King's liege people." Under this statute, if a bridge was found to be of public utility the county appeared to be liable to repair the same unless it could be shown " what persons, lands, tenements and bodies politic ought to undertake the work." In the year 1803, the County Bridges Act, otherwise known as Lord Ellenborough's Act, was passed. Section 5 thereof enacts that" no bridge hereafter to be erected or built in any county by or at the expense of any individual or private persons, body politic or corporate, shall be deemed or taken Lo be a county bridge or a bridge which the inhabitants of any County shall be compellable or liable to maintain or repair, 'unless such bridge shall be erected in a substantial and commodious manner under the direction or to the satisfaction of the county surveyors." This naturally limits the responsibilities of counties so far as the period subsequent to 1803 is concerned, but the liability with regard to bridges erected prior . to that dare has been held to remain. The next advance was made by sections 21 and 22 of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act of 1878.