This is the story of the bridge that existed at Marlow just before our current suspension bridge. It was short lived, relatively speaking, and had replaced an old wooden structure of forgotten age. The building process of it's replacement in turn, which is still standing, was full of drama. You can read about that in the post here. See note 2 below for a little about the older wooden bridge(s).
The bridge that we are talking about took a slightly different route across the Thames than the suspension bridge. It ran from the end of St Peter's Street to a point on the other side of the Compleat Angler, a route also taken by it's predecessors that we know of. That is why you may find St Peter's Street called Old Bridge Street in some old documents, as well as the better known alternative Duck Lane. Incidentally, St Peter's Street is a name that long predates the Catholic Church of St Peter. And Duck Lane and St Peter's Street were in use at the same time for a period, with the St Peter's Street usually referring to the portion nearest where Marlow Place is now, and the bit of Station Road where the mansion stands. The location here of the old rectory known as the Deanery/The Parsonage gives food for thought. For example you may find individuals refer to property they own, some of which is located at Duck Lane and some of it in St Peter's Street. Back to the bridge for now!
In 1747, the predecessor of the wooden bridge that is the star of this post, was still described as "a good bridge" with a handsome church aside it. Forty years later, the state of the wood was starting to worry some. "Ruinous" was one description. In 1786, plans were made to construct a replacement after a portion of the old bridge had fallen down obstructing navigation. It was closed at first for emergency repairs. Full of optimism, architect Mr Robert Brettingham was asked to design a new bridge and he came up with a suitable plan. Advertisements were placed in the newspapers asking for traders to submit tenders for both the construction of the bridge itself and for the provision of the heart of oak timbers to be used for the piles and planks and fir timbers for the joists. Everything seemed to be going so well but then there was the inevitable hitch. The question of who was going to pay for it all had to be settled. Many people agreed a new bridge was a good idea but none of them really thought that it was their responsibility to stump up the cost. No one could remember when the oldest bridge was built or by whom, which is not surprising given they believed it to be at least 400 years old. What they did know is for the previous 140 years, certain men within the town had carried the title of Bridge Warden. (They were elected to the role.) They were trustees looking after property, the income of which was intended to pay for the maintenance of the bridge. But there was confusion about which properties were actually theirs, and who had left or gifted them to the trustees in the first place. More importantly they did know that the properties they collected rent from only generated £20 a year, which definitely would not cover the building of even the most basic bridge. So two years after the tenders had been sought, not a piece of the new bridge was in place. Some thought the sudden collapse of the decayed old bridge was to be expected any day. This would be "inconvenient and most peculiarly distressing for the neighbourhood". It was feared the bridge was now too decayed for any repair to hold for long. Only replacement would do. The bridge connected Bucks and Berks so the Quarter Sessions in each county were applied to for assistance, but neither wanted to be pinned down and made to admit that the maintenance of the bridge was the responsibility of their counties citizens. They admitted the bridge was essential but said they did not feel justified in committing anyone to pay for it, there being no evidence they had previously done so. If someone else had been found in the past to pay for a bridge, why not now? It was eventually decided that the structure would have to be paid for by voluntary subscription, supposing enough donors could be found. This suggestion is supposed to have been initiated by the Marquis of Buckingham. The alternative would be to use a ferry, which would take longer to make the crossing and would be more dangerous, according to the Oxford Journal.
The new bridge would not be absolutely on the site of the old, but rather next to it because otherwise it would have been necessary to take the old structure down before the new could be built leaving the town without a means of passage across the river. Although the bottom of St Peter's was wider then than it is now, it still makes you wonder at the logistics of this. Nevertheless the secretary to both the Subscribers Committee and Bridge Wardens, Henry Allnutt, put up a notice to the effect that the old bridge would remain passable until the new was finished. A design plan had been decided on, although I am not sure that it was still exactly the same as the one settled on in 1786. (It was still by Brettingham, but he had made some adaptions, including the reuse of some of the old bridge timbers. It seems some adjustments were also made as building progressed.) This was put on display at the Upper Crown on Saturdays between 11-3 in order that would be subscribers could see what they were paying for, and also so that locals could put in a tender for constructing it, the previous bids having long lapsed. Anyone who wanted the challenge had until the 17th January 1789 to submit their tender, a process that involved heading to the Upper Crown again to hand the particulars to the ever busy Henry Allnutt. The bridge would be made of oak with brick abutments, in all 220ft long and 20ft wide. The plan this time was to make the passage arch "40ft further towards the middle than presently" and 18" higher. However when the subscriptions were slower than anticipated to come forward, the tendering process was delayed by a month and those who had already submitted tenders were told theirs would be kept unopened until then. Nevertheless the bridge was completed in December 1789. The following year, the "Old Bridge House" which belonged to the Bridgewardens, was demolished, in order to open up the approach to the new bridge. It had been used for at least 20 years as the Bowl and Pin inn at that point.
Subscribers to the bridge replacement fund include Stephen Remnant (the man for whom Remnantz of West Street is named) Miss Batting, the Duke of Marlborough, Thomas Wethered, William Drake Junior and Senior, the trustees of the turnpike trust, and other members of "the clergy, nobility and gentry." Enough donations had been made to allow the building to go on but they did not cover the projected finished cost of the bridge by a long chalk. So more appeals were made. Altogether £1,800 was raised, so presumably this was enough to pay for the work once Brettingham's revised money saving plan to reuse the timbers was accepted. The Thames Navigation Commissioners had offered £50 towards the cost for a higher headroom (18") under the navigation arches, as the low arches of the previous bridge was a common cause of complaint by bargeman.
The new bridge was described as handsome and commodious, picturesque, a pleasing object and something that much improved the approach into town from Bisham. (It's construction was supervised by Henley builder and surveyor William Bradshaw to the design of Robert Brettingham) Painted white, it was said to imitate stone from a distance at least. The turned oak balustrade was overall "extremely handsome". But in 1826 the bridge was no longer regarded as new, and what is more was described as in decay. It is sad it lasted so much less time than it's predecessors despite being made of the same material. No doubt the reuse of at least some of the old timbers was partially to blame. The story of the fraught process that was the building of a another new bridge, is mentioned elsewhere on the blog. So we will just mention the fate of "the bridge before". It was considered in too bad a state to make repair worthwhile. In 1832, the old bridge was put up for sale although it was not described as nearly demolished until February 1833. (I'm not sure of the source for stories that bridge collapsed completely into the river in 1828, it definitely did not. It did however need extensive repair that year and more of it fell down in 1830.) Also on offer was the wooden "flood bridge" recently constructed behind the Compleat Angler. This was crossing a channel that took excess water away from the lock and weir - some sources say there was a natural stream here. A brook on the other side of the Angler was filled in so as not to interfere with the Berkshire approach to the suspension bridge. This attracted criticism, because of the extra work and therefore cost involved. The auction of the old bridge was to be conducted in lots. All of the ex building material was on offer. The main bridge consisted of 104 strong oak piles, 322 oak joists, balusters, floor boards, and iron work. The more modest flood bridge has 33 oak piles 18ft in length, oak planks, 8 glass lamps and more iron work. Some people had suspected that there was more life in the pre suspension bridge than it's detractors suggested. They would have found plenty of fuel for their suspicions when the timbers of the main and flood bridge were suggested as suitable for the repair of a weir or anywhere that "strong timber is needed." The Windsor and Eton Express also noted the strong and solid state of the removed oak piles that looked far from decayed. They thought it convincing proof that "the bridge might have been repaired so as to last as long again as it had already done, had not the erection of a new one held out the promising prospect of a profitable harvest to certain professional gents." And when the Bucks magistrates met and discussed the debt remaining from the construction of the bridge, one speaker said he had had the stones and timber of the old bridge carefully examined. He said they were "perfectly sound" and he had it on good authority that no more than £200 would have been needed to make it good. But auctioneer Rolls warned that the wood was mostly rotten and cautioned the Bridge Wardens not to expect much for it. (To read about the auction antics see here ) Rightly or wrongly the wooden bridge was gone. Some of the old "massive" piles were described as still in existence in 1891 although it isn't clear if they meant some of those removed and sold for other use, or any that were left in the river. The suspension bridge was of course built in a different spot, a money saving measure as the river was a little narrower there. But more importantly the old bridge could be kept in place while the new one was built so removing the expense of providing a ferry for several months as an alternative crossing.
Note 1:
To answer a query about the 1860 date on the suspension bridge ironwork:
This date appears on the girders. The bridge was just 30 years old when an engineer surveying all bridges in Bucks for the magistrates of the quarter sessions found Marlow Bridge was the only one not in good condition. This engineer, Mr Amos, of Amos & Sons Southwark, reported that the best and cheapest option would be to replace the deal platform entirely but the reports of the finished repairs mention that the iron girders were replaced too ( "trellis iron" girders had replaced the original oak road girders in 1848. They were manufactured by Easton & Amos to a patent design by Marlow's own engineer superstar Edwin Clark) and naturally the roadway was re-laid as a result. The tenders sort two contractors, one to supply wrought iron work, and another to supply new woodwork and remove and renew the roadway itself. Mr Amos provided the plans for work. Scarred perhaps by the experience of those first building the suspension bridge, it was announced that any would be contractors would have to provide two sureties for the due performance of the work. It was estimated the repairs would cost £2,300. In the end it seemed one business had their tender accepted for the whole job, Mr W Griffith of Grange Rd, Bermondsey. Amazingly the bridge was kept open for the passage of foot traffic and those on horseback (but not horse drawn vehicles) for all but a few days. The project was finished early (October 1860) so well done Mr Griffiths! It was supervised by a joint committee of the Berks and Bucks Quarter sessions, and Berks paid one fifth of the costs. Unfortunately the deal planking replaced now "at great expense" were discovered to be suffering from dry rot in 1869 and so were taken up yet again. Also in 1869 it was recommended that the "platform" of the bridge would need extensive repair. It was described then as consisting of an upper layer of deal, and a lower platform of oak with a layer of "felt and asphalt" between the two. This middle layer was to be discontinued.
2. It seems the earlier versions of the wooden bridge were also sometimes hazardous to cross. In 1163 Brother Anselm of Reading Abbey had a hair raising experience while crossing Marlow Bridge while on the Abbot's business. He was leading his horse across, it a little behind him, when the animals hind legs fell through a large hole. Bystanders came to his aid and attempted to lever the animal free using poles but both the fragile state and "shape" (width) of the bridge prevented enough people mustering to succeed in their aims. The locals advised Brother Anselm that the only thing to do would be to make the hole bigger and let the animal fall through to the water below, as there was no chance of rescue any other way. Brother Anselm did not think the horse would survive and mindful of the long journey still ahead of him on foot, decided to pray for a miracle, to St Thomas of Canterbury. The miracle duly arrived and the horse suddenly freed itself and made it clear of the hole. The incident is recorded as Anselm wrote to another monk to tell him of the benevolence of St Thomas. Whether the saint also managed a repair on the obviously very rickety bridge is not recorded! Later on during the civil war, General Brown of the Parliamentary Army also damaged the bridge by inserting drawbridges into the structure which subsequently needed to be removed.
Researched and written by Kathryn Day.
Sources:
Reports of cases argued and determined in the English court of common law Vol XV (TJW Johnson 1872 edition)
Hinton, John. Universal Calendar Vol 1 November 1747.
Langley. The History and Antiquities of the Hundred of Desborough. 1797.
Belgravia Magazine Vol 14 Alfred Rimmer 1881
Morris, John. The Life & Times of Thomas a Beckett. (Burns & Oates 1885)
Phillips, Geoffrey. Thames Crossings. (David & Charles, 1981)
The Architect, April 17 1869, digitised by Google.
South Bucks Standard Directory of Marlow - 1891.
Reading Mercury 4 September 1786, 22 December 1788, 2nd Feb 1789, 29 September 1789 British Library Archive, accessed via the BNA
Oxford Journal 1st March 1788, 26 December 1789, 3 November 1832 as above.
Oxford Gazette 13 December 1788, as above
Oxford University and City Journal 7 January 1826
Berkshire Chronicle 3 November 1832, 7 January 1860 as above
Windsor and Eton Express 2 February 1833, as above
© Marlow Ancestors
To find all mentions of your ancestor here, use the A-Z person index and "biographies of individuals" options on the drop down menu. See the general history option for other subjects. Happy hunting!