This project originated in a bequest made in 1753, by Alderman William Vick, of the sum of 1,000_l._ to be placed in the hands of the Society of Merchant Venturers of Bristol, with directions that it should acc.u.mulate at compound interest until it reached 10,000_l._, when it was to be expended in the erection of a stone bridge over the river Avon, from Clifton Down to Leigh Down. Alderman Vick stated that he had heard and believed that the building of such a bridge was practicable, and might be completed for less than 10,000_l._

The legacy was duly paid to the Society of Merchant Venturers, and invested by them. The interest acc.u.mulated; and in 1829, when the fund amounted to nearly 8,000_l._, a committee was appointed to consider in what way it would be possible to carry out Alderman Vick's intentions.

An estimate for a stone bridge was procured, but as it gave the cost at 90,000_l._, it was evident that this scheme must be abandoned.

The committee then advertised for designs for a suspension bridge. Mr.

Brunel, on hearing through a friend of the proposed compet.i.tion, went to Bristol; and, after examining the locality, he selected four different points within the limits prescribed by the instructions of the committee, and made a separate design for each of them. His plans were sent in on the day appointed, Nov. 19, 1829, with a long statement, from which the following description of them is taken.

The first design was for a bridge of 760 feet span between the points of suspension, the length of the suspended floor being 720 feet. In order to obtain a height of 215 feet above high-water mark (which was the least that the levels allowed of), towers 70 feet high would have had to be built on the cliffs to carry the chains. The total length of chain, including the land-ties, was about 1,620 feet. Mr. Brunel did not approve of this design, as the situation was not favourable to architectural effect, a point to which the committee attached great importance; but he suggested it from its being somewhat more economical in construction than his other plans.

In another design, the situation being some way farther down the river than that of the design last mentioned, towers would also have been necessary. The distance between the points of suspension was 1,180 feet, with a suspended floor of over 900 feet. It is probable that Mr. Brunel only proposed this plan because the site came within the limits of deviation, as he does not say anything in favour of it in his report.

The two remaining plans are the most interesting of the series, as there can be no doubt that, if Mr. Brunel had had his own way, he would have adopted one of them for execution; and it appears from a little sketch on the top of one of his earliest letters from Bristol, that his first idea for the bridge was that which is carried out in these two designs.

The site selected was one where the rocks rise perpendicularly for a considerable height above the proposed level of the bridge, and therefore piers and land-ties were dispensed with, the chains being hung directly from the rock. No masonry was required except for architectural effect.[25]

[Ill.u.s.tration: CLIFTON SUSPENSION BRIDGE.

Plate I.

Fig. 1.

Elevation of Drawing N 3 of Mr. Brunel's Designs in the first compet.i.tion. AD. 1829

Fig. 2.

H. Adlard So.

Elevation of the Bridge according to the Design on which the works were commenced. AD. 1836.]

The princ.i.p.al difference between these two designs is that in the second a short tunnel is avoided at one end. The style of architecture selected for the tunnel-front and the face of the rock, as shown on the drawings sent in to the committee, is Norman. There are also extant many beautiful sketches made by Mr. Brunel for different parts of the design.[26]

In determining upon the mode of construction, which was the same in the four designs, Mr. Brunel acted upon the principle which guided him in all his subsequent undertakings, which was, as he states in his report, 'to make use of all that has been found good in similar works, and to avail himself of the experience gained in them, and to combine with all their advantages the precautions which time and experience had pointed out.'

He dismissed in a few words the plan of breaking the span into two or three lengths. This was in his opinion unnecessary, and he computed that the cost of a pier built up from the water's edge to sufficient height above the bridge to carry the chains, would be at least 10,000_l._ For this reason he recommended the adoption of spans, the smallest of which far exceeded any up to that time constructed.

In designing the chains, he dispensed with the short connecting links, which had been previously adopted in suspension bridges, introducing instead the method now universally used, of connecting each set of links directly with the adjoining one by means of a pin pa.s.sed through the holes of both. The number of joints and pins was thus reduced one half, and a considerable saving of expense, as well as diminution of weight, effected.

Another improvement, which diminished still further the weight of the chains, was making the links in lengths of 16 feet, or nearly double that of the longest links at the Menai bridge. The chief reason for this alteration was to ensure a near approximation to equality in the strains on the different links, should all the distances between the holes not be exactly equal. This improvement was afterwards carried still further in the Hungerford Suspension Bridge, the links of which were 24 feet long.[27]

Mr. Brunel also intended to introduce equalising beams in the supports of the floor, so that each chain should bear an equal share of the load.

By this arrangement, there would have been comparatively few points of suspension, and 'the view of the scenery would not be impeded from the observer being surrounded by a forest of suspension rods.'

The disturbance of the strains on the links arising from the greater expansion of the metal of the outer links by the direct heat of the sun, he proposed to obviate by sheet-iron plates placed on each side of the chains, but separated from them by a small interval, and thus screening them from the heat. He did not, however, use this protecting covering at the Hungerford bridge.

All the designs show a camber or rise in the centre of the platform of the bridge, to the extent of two or three feet; and the main chains are brought down almost to the level of the platform. To this last arrangement, as tending to prevent undulation, Mr. Brunel attached some importance; and he further intended to stiffen the bridge against the action of high winds by a system of transverse bracing, and by the addition of inverted chains, similar to those used with success by his father in the Bourbon bridges.[28]

Such, then, were the main features of the bold and carefully matured designs placed by Mr. Brunel before the committee. Out of twenty-two plans submitted, only those of Mr. Brunel and four other compet.i.tors were deemed worthy of consideration. He and his friends were naturally much gratified at this, and were full of hope for his ultimate victory.

But now, when he seemed to have a fair chance of success in a contest which he justly deemed would have a most important bearing upon his future professional career, an obstacle presented itself, which for the time seemed almost insurmountable; for he met with an unexpected opponent in Mr. Telford, the foremost engineer of the day, and the designer of the famous suspension bridge over the Menai Straits.

The committee of the Society of Merchants had, not unnaturally, found themselves unable to decide upon the merits of designs for a suspension bridge, and had asked Mr. Telford to act as their adviser in the matter.

Unfortunately for Mr. Brunel, Mr. Telford was of opinion that the maximum span admissible was that of the Menai bridge, _i.e._ under 600 feet, and that Mr. Brunel's proposed bridge, though very pretty and ingenious, would most certainly tumble down in a high wind.

This decision was, of course, fatal to the success of any design which subst.i.tuted one large span for two or more smaller ones, and dispensed with pillars. Mr. Brunel therefore obtained permission to withdraw his plans from the compet.i.tion.

Mr. Telford then reported to the committee that none of the remaining designs were suitable for adoption without the introduction of such material alterations as would, in fact, const.i.tute a new design.

Whereupon the committee took the only course which, under the circ.u.mstances, was open to them, and requested Mr. Telford to prepare a design himself.

Mr. Brunel was not a little disappointed at the turn matters had taken; but, having, as he said,'smoked away his anger,' he took leave of his friends at Bristol, and went for a visit to some of the princ.i.p.al manufacturing towns in the north.

Meanwhile Mr. Telford prepared his design, and it was exhibited in Bristol in January 1830. It consisted of a suspension bridge of three spans (the centre span 360 feet, and the side ones 180 feet each), the chains being supported at the intermediate points by tall stone piers rising from the river's banks at just sufficient distance apart to avoid interfering with the roadways on either side of the stream. The style of architecture was a florid Gothic; and, in order to display the peculiar features of that style, the faces of the piers were covered with elaborate panelling, and the chains ornamented with fret-work.

This design was received with a flourish of trumpets; numerous engravings were published, exhibiting the bridge from various points of view, and 'thousands of copies were disposed of;' but, after a time, it would appear that the captivating effect of the Gothic belfries wore off, and that the more the citizens of Bristol looked at Mr. Telford's plan, the less they were satisfied with it; for, although it was deposited in the Private Bill Office, on application being made for an Act of Parliament, the trustees who were appointed under the Act determined to invite a second compet.i.tion.

On this occasion, Mr. Telford appeared as a compet.i.tor and not as a referee, that office being filled by Mr. Davies Gilbert, sometime President of the Royal Society.

The site of the bridge was fixed, being that selected by Mr. Telford; but the trustees expressly left it to the judgment of the compet.i.tors to decide whether there should be intermediate piers or one unbroken span.

Of the thirteen designs sent in, five, including those submitted by Mr.

Telford and Mr. Brunel, were reserved for further examination. On March 17, 1831, Mr. Davies Gilbert (who had been a.s.sisted by Mr. Seward) made his report. Mr. Telford's design was put aside, 'on account of the inadequacy of the funds requisite for meeting the cost of such high and ma.s.sive towers as were essential to the plan which that distinguished individual had proposed.'

Mr. Brunel's design was placed second.[29] Although Mr. Gilbert reported that it presented every desirable strength and security, he saw objections to many of the details, and therefore did not recommend it for adoption. However, on the following day, March 18, he stated to the trustees that he had seen Mr. Brunel, and that it gave him much pleasure to state that the explanations made by Mr. Brunel had materially altered his views as to the details of the plans, which he (Mr. Gilbert) was now satisfied were quite equal to those which he had placed first, and that, considering the superiority of Mr. Brunel's design in the essential particular of strength, he should judge it preferable to any of the others.

Thereupon the trustees, 'having considered Mr. Davies Gilbert's report, and referred to all the plans, including Mr. Telford's, unanimously gave the preference to Mr. Brunel's,' and appointed him their engineer.

Subscriptions came in but slowly, and it was not till 1836 that the works were commenced.

The first stone of the abutment on the Leigh woods or Somersetshire side of the river was laid on August 27 by the Marquis of Northampton, President of the British a.s.sociation, which was then holding its meeting in Bristol.[30]

The span of the bridge is greater than that of Mr. Brunel's design for the second compet.i.tion, but much less than the spans of the earlier designs, to which he had given the preference.[31] On this point, as well as on the question of site, he had to conform to the wishes of the trustees.[32] The span approved of by them necessitated the building of a very large abutment on the Leigh woods side, the height of which, from the surface of the rock to the level of the roadway, is 110 feet. Above the roadway, the tower to carry the chains is built to a height of 86 feet. On the Clifton side, the base of the tower is formed by one of the boldest of the range of St. Vincent's rocks, which here rise almost perpendicularly to a height of 230 feet above high water, and consequently a very small abutment was required. The tower on this side is 3 feet higher than that on the Leigh woods side, and the roadway has a general inclination of about 1 in 233. Mr. Brunel thought that if the roadway were level, it would have the appearance of falling towards Clifton, owing to the ground there being precipitous, while on the Leigh woods side it is sloping.

He intended, in the construction of the bridge, to have followed out the ideas embodied in his report of 1829, and would have preferred to have had only one chain on each side of the bridge, and that much stronger than was usually adopted; but, in deference to public opinion, he put two chains, though he doubted if they would expand equally. 'A rigid platform would in some degree prevent the unequal distribution of load thus caused, but he endeavoured to lessen the effect of unequal expansion by arranging a stirrup at the top of each suspending rod, so as to hold equally at all times on both chains, and thus to cause each to sustain its proportion of the load.'

The road platform was to have had beneath it 'a complete system of triangular bracing, which would render it very stiff.'

In order to lessen the action of wind on the bridge, he brought down the main chains in the centre nearly to the level of the platform, and intended to apply the system of brace chains at a small angle to check vibration. There were, moreover, to be two curved chains lying horizontally, and attached underneath the platform, so as to resist the lateral action of the wind.[33]

He here introduced movable saddles to carry the chains on the top of the towers, with rollers running on perfectly flat and horizontal roller beds.[34] By this arrangement no pressure except a vertical one could come on the towers.

He also devised means, by levers and hydraulic presses, for relieving the rollers and roller beds from pressure, in the event of their requiring renewal.

Mr. Brunel ultimately determined to adopt the Egyptian style of architecture. His brother-in-law, Mr. John Callcott Horsley, R.A., gives the following account of the proposed designs for the towers:--

'His conception of the towers or gateways at either end of the bridge was peculiarly grand and effective, as may be seen from his sketches still existing. They were to be purely Egyptian; and, in his design, he had caught the true spirit of the great remains at Philae and Thebes. He intended to case the towers with cast iron, and, as in perfect accordance with the Egyptian character of his design, to decorate them with a series of figure subjects, ill.u.s.trating the whole work of constructing the bridge, with the manufacture of the materials--beginning with quarrying the iron ore, and making the iron, and ending with a design representing the last piece of construction necessary for the bridge itself. The subjects would have been arranged in tiers (divided by simple lines) from top to bottom of the towers, and in the exact proportion of those found upon Egyptian buildings. He made very clever sketches for some of these proposed figure subjects, just to show what he intended by them. I remember a group of men carrying one of the links of the chainwork, which was excellent in character. He proposed that I should design the figure subjects, and he asked me to go down with him to Merthyr Tydvil, and make sketches of the iron processes. We accomplished our journey, and all the requisite drawings for the intended designs were made.'

The works were commenced with the Leigh abutment, which was completed in 1840, great delay having been caused by the failure of the contractors.