XI the Great Inundation of 1771 and the Rebuilding of the North-East's
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
XI The Great Inundation of 1771 and the Rebuilding of the North-East’s Bridges R. W. Rennison n 1771 a major flood on the rivers of north- All but one of the bridges were of masonry – east England led to the destruction of many arched in form – and the majority of those Ibridges. As an entity, the programme of damaged or destroyed were the responsibility reconstruction has never before been recorded of the Counties’ Justices and administered and this paper has been prepared in an eVort to through Quarter Sessions; some bridges, how- rectify this omission. The majority of the bridges ever, were built under the aegis of private indi- were the property of the respective County viduals or bodies. Rebuilding work was the administrations and, in order to describe the responsibility of either the oYcers of the Coun- rebuilding, the Quarter Sessions records of the ties’ government or consultants. Brief bio- four counties aVected have been used extensively. graphical details of some of these are given in the Appendix – their names are followed by an asterisk (*) where they appear in the text. INTRODUCTION Bridge rebuilding took place at the time of the formation of a civil engineering profession – In the history of river crossings in the north the Society of Civil Engineers was founded in east of England, the major flood of 1771 – the 1771 – and it brought to the area two of its ‘Great Inundation’ – was a landmark, resulting earliest and most distinguished members, John as it did in the destruction of a score of bridges Smeaton and Robert Mylne, although they on the rivers Tyne, Wear and Tees. The Tyne were not solely responsible for reconstruction was the worst aVected and it was reported work; much was undertaken by locally-based contemporaneously that there was ‘‘not one engineers and architects. bridge standing on either North or South Tyne, out of about thirteen or fourteen, except one, called Corbridge’’.1 In spite of the magnitude THE FLOOD OF 1771 of the inundation, nevertheless two further very significant floods followed, in 1782 and in 1815; On Saturday and Sunday, 16/17 November both of them caused substantial damage but 1771, the north east of England was subjected did not have such disastrous consequences as to a disastrous flood which destroyed or dam- had the earlier occurrence. aged many of the bridges on the rivers Tyne, The three floods resulted in an unpreceden- Wear and Tees, in addition to causing extensive ted demand for bridge building on all three riparian damage as well as several deaths. The rivers; in order to give a cohesive account of result of torrential rainfall in the Pennines, this work it was decided that this paper should where all three rivers originate in close proxim- cover only the period 1771 to 1815, dealing ity to each other, the inundation was such that with each river in turn and describing events on the flows then experienced have not been each of them in sequence from source to sea. exceeded since and it is ‘‘probable that the flow The locations of the bridges in question are in this extraordinary flood was at least twice shown on the accompanying map (fig. 1). the highest measured in recent decades’’.2 On 270 ARCHAEOLOGIA AELIANA 5 XXIX Fig. 1 The bridges damaged or destroyed by the 1771 flood. [R. W. Rennison] THE REBUILDING OF THE NORTH-EAST’S BRIDGES AFTER 1771 271 the Tyne, the flood was perhaps not unpreced- with the damage being estimated at £800.7 ented as an apparently greater flood had Flooding also occurred at the Teams, Scots- occurred in 1339 when a section of Newcastle’s wood and Newburn. town wall had been destroyed, resulting in more As would be expected, the greatest publicity than 100 deaths.3 was given to Newcastle where, in addition to Damage caused by the rise in the rivers took the collapse of the bridge (fig. 2), there was four forms: shipping; simple flooding by the widespread flooding of the lower parts of the virtually static rise of water; the carrying away town, from the Close to the Ouseburn.8 The of persons and property; and the destruction of collapse of the bridge, with its houses and the region’s bridges. Bridge damage and shops, cost the lives of six people but the extens- rebuilding forms the basis for this paper and is ive flooding – the river level was said to be 12ft covered in detail – river by river – in the narrat- above normal high water9 – led to much distress ive which follows. Although the matter of flood on the part of the inhabitants; a contemporary damage generally has been fully described in account noted that ‘‘in every house near the contemporary accounts, nevertheless some River an immense quantity of mud and ooze’’10 details must be included to show its extent. had been left when the flood abated. Shipping The chronology is diYcult to establish as was also the subject of damage. All the mer- much of the damage occurred during the hours chandise lying on the Quay was carried away as of darkness, greatly adding to the terror which were almost all the ships; ‘‘three sloops and a was undoubtedly induced by the happening. brig were driven upon the Quayside, and left The inhabitants of the flooded downriver towns there’’11 and much shipping was swept down- were puzzled by the lack of accompanying rain- river where many boats and keels were stranded fall as they had experienced only a light fall: the on the river’s banks or were carried out to sea, Rev. John Wesley – being appraised of the with some wrecked along the coast. Down- calamity when in London – noted that there stream of Newcastle, however, perhaps because had been but ‘‘a little mizzling rain till the very of the widening of the river valley and the hour when the rivers rose . Such an over- beneficial eVects of Jarrow Slake, the flood was flowing . none ever saw before . .’’.4 Wesley, little higher than a spring tide.12 The bed of the however, had been misinformed as to rainfall river was so altered by the flood that Trinity in the rivers’ headwaters and although no House requested that a survey be made ‘‘that figures were available it was recorded that at ships might be conducted up and down with Kendal, for example, it had rained for three the usual safety’’.13 days and nights.5 Although not specifically recorded, the flood On the Tyne, a house was swept away at must have severed the water supply to New- Featherstone; near Haltwhistle damage castle’s wealthier inhabitants, then provided by occurred to fields; part of the town of Hexham a pipe carrying water from Gateshead Fell over was flooded; and Bywell was severely aVected the bridge and so to storage tanks in the town. as a result of a weir in the river causing water to Fortuitously, a proposal had earlier been made back up, so causing the collapse of ten houses for a new system, bringing water from and resulting in extensive damage to other Coxlodge to a reservoir at the south end of the property, including the village’s two churches Town Moor. All this planned work was com- and the churchyard itself where ‘‘dead bodies pleted by mid-December 1771,14 implying that and coYns were torn out of the church-yard, the town was without its main source of water and the living and the dead promiscuously only for a month; other public supplies were clashed in the torrent’’.6 The most concentrated available during the hiatus. loss of life occurred at Ovingham where the On the river Wear, too, much damage was boat house was carried away with eight deaths occasioned although it was principally to ship- while at Wylam damage was confined to prop- ping rather than to property or lives. Some 34 erty; 300 acres of coal-workings were flooded ships were wrecked on the bar and almost 200 272 ARCHAEOLOGIA AELIANA 5 XXIX Fig. 2 The ruins of Newcastle bridge following the flood of 16/17 November 1771. [J. Brand, The History and Antiquities . of Newcastle (London, 1789)] keels were carried down the river and so to the of two of them were ruined; more than 30 sea where many were wrecked.15 It was horses were drowned underground. Flooding recorded that ‘‘many men and boys were was also experienced at Chester-le-Street and drowned’’;16 their number has not been accur- at Durham where ‘’the inhabitants in the lower ately ascertained although it was written that parts of the two Elvets sustained great dam- eight or nine bodies came ashore in the harbour age’’,18 a result of the water being eight feet that morning. The force of the flood damaged higher than ever before. the pier at the mouth of the Wear, some of the The towns on the banks of the river Tees did damage due to the force of water and some to not escape the inundation and both Stockton ships driven against it. Ballast had been cast up and Yarm were aVected, the latter being almost in the river between Biddick Ford and Sun- completely under water, in places to a depth of derland and its removal was put in hand imme- 12ft. Several houses were destroyed and seven diately; some 3000 tons of material were people drowned. The bridge at Yarm had been subsequently moved.17 Plans for the pier’s unable to pass the flow in the river with the reconstruction were made by the Commis- result that a ‘‘dreadful torrent’’19 ran down the sioners’ engineer, Joseph Robson, who was also west side of the town.