Autobiography of Sir John Rennie, F.R.S., Past President of the Institute of Civil Engineers. Sir John Rennie
progress in anything but classics, in which I became a tolerable proficient, and had Homer, Thucydides, Euripides, Sophocles, Virgil, Horace, &c., at my fingers’ ends, whilst I could scarcely demonstrate the Pons asinorum of Euclid; in fact, in those days a knowledge of Greek and Latin was considered as including everything else, and anything like a science or physics was considered of secondary consequence. I made the acquaintance of two men, who afterwards much distinguished themselves by their scientific acquirements, namely, the late Herbert Mayo, the well-known surgeon and physiologist; also the late Sir George Everest, the scientific Director of the Triangular Survey of India; and Dr. Milman, late Dean of St. Paul’s. Dr. Burney’s school was by no means so well managed as that of Dr. Greenlaw in everything which regarded the comfort of the boys, neither were they so well fed or looked after, and it was a great relief to me when I left the school in 1809.
It then became a question with my father whether I should go to Oxford or Cambridge, or whether I should finish my education at home, under the superintendence of proper masters. About this period, and ever since the year 1802, there was nothing but war heard or talked of all over the world. The whole country was as it were turned into a camp; every man capable of bearing arms became a volunteer, and at school even we were regularly drilled to the use of arms; and I was so excited by the extraordinary victories of Nelson and the early career of Wellington that I determined to enter the army, but to this my father was decidedly opposed, as he wished to bring me up to his own profession. I was therefore reluctantly obliged to give up all idea of the military profession and follow that of a civil engineer; and my father wisely determined that I should go through all the gradations, both practical and theoretical, which could not be done if I went to the University, as the practical part, which he considered most important, must be abandoned; for, he said, after a young man has been three or four years at the University of Oxford or Cambridge, he cannot, without much difficulty, turn himself to the practical part of civil engineering. All idea, therefore, of my going to Cambridge or Oxford was given up. My father at that period had one department of his business exclusively devoted to practical mechanics, that is, to the making of machinery of all kinds; this department, although it formed by no means the principal part of his profession, nevertheless enabled him to make experiments which were of great value in the other departments of his business, and was by no means unprofitable, as the importance of machinery and mechanical contrivances was then to a certain extent appreciated, and was daily becoming more so. My father always said that theoretical and practical mechanics were the true foundations of all civil engineering; and he therefore insisted that as I had to a certain extent learned the theoretical, so I must now learn the practical part. I was therefore sent into the mechanical department, and commenced work planing and sawing boards, making patterns, and other similar works. After this I was put to turning both wood and metal; and although I did not attain complete practical efficiency in these departments, which would have required several years, nevertheless I learned sufficient to enable me to become a tolerable judge of workmanship.
I was then put into the drawing office, where I learned to copy geometrical plans, by which, in a short time, in combination with what I had acquired in the workshop, I gained a general knowledge of design and construction.
My time was employed in this manner about eight hours daily, but my evenings were devoted to the acquisition of geometry, algebra, and trigonometry, plane and spherical; also astronomy under the late Astronomer Royal, Mr. Pond, and his father-in-law, Dr. Bradley, and in learning French, Italian, and German. Having acquired to a certain extent a proficiency in the mathematical sciences, I was placed under the direction of the late Mr. Francis Giles, a land surveyor of considerable experience and ability, who was generally employed by my father to make his various hydraulic surveys for canals and harbours under his immediate direction, which Mr. Giles executed with his usual fidelity and ability. Under Mr. Giles I learned the use of the chain, level, and theodolite, and was enabled to apply my theoretical knowledge in trigonometry, plane and spherical, to practice. About this period, viz. the year 1813, having obtained a tolerable knowledge of the rudiments of my profession, both theoretical and practical, my father determined to place upon my shoulders a certain degree of responsibility, and put me under the direction of that late worthy and excellent man, Mr. James Hollingsworth, whom my father had appointed to be resident engineer of the Waterloo Bridge, which was then building. I felt the responsibility of this office a good deal, and entered upon it with every determination and desire to meet my father’s approbation; and during the inclement winter of 1813–14, when the frost lasted about two months, and the Thames above London Bridge was frozen over for several weeks, I was obliged to attend the piling of the foundations of the first and second piers on the Surrey side of the river night and day for three days each week, which severely tried my constitution.
At this period Vauxhall Bridge was also in course of construction, and I was directed by my father to attend to this also, under Mr. Jones, the resident engineer; but they had scarcely finished the Middlesex abutment up to the springing of the first arch, and were preparing the caisson for founding the first pier, when the Company found that they had not sufficient funds to carry into effect Mr. Rennie’s design, which was very beautiful. The bridge was to be made entirely of the fine blue sandstone from Dundee, and was to consist of seven arches, segments of circles, the centre arch being 110 feet span, with a rise or versed sine of 19 feet, and depth of keystone 4 feet 6 inches; piers 18 feet 6 inches thick at the springing of the arch, the two arches next the centre being 105 feet span each, with a rise or versed sine of 17 feet, keystone 4 feet 5 inches, and springing stones 9 feet long, and the two piers 17 feet 6 inches thick each. The two next arches were 100 feet span, with a rise or versed sine of 15 feet, keystones 4 feet 4 inches, and springers 9 feet, and piers 17 feet thick each; the two sub or shore arches 90 feet span each, with a rise or versed sine of 13 feet, keystones 4 feet, and springers 8 feet, abutments 21 feet thick at the springing, having a total width of waterway of 700 feet. The arches were surmounted by a Roman Doric cornice and plain block and plinth parapet, and the projecting points of the piers were surmounted by solid square pilasters, with a niche in the centre. The roadway was 34 feet wide between the parapets, and was formed by a very flat segment of a circle rising 1 in 53. The piers were intended to be founded by caissons resting upon a platform supported by bearing and surrounded by sheeting piles. This was upon the whole a very elegant, light, and chaste design. Finding that the Company had not sufficient funds to carry into effect the stone design, Mr. Rennie proposed another wholly of iron, consisting of eleven arches, with a total waterway of 732 feet, supported upon cast-iron columns filled with masonry and resting upon a platform supported upon piles and surrounded by sheeting piles. The centre arch was to be 86 feet span and 8 feet rise, and the others diminishing regularly to each end so as to enable the roadway to be formed into a graceful curve rising 1 foot in 60. This also was an extremely light, elegant, and economical design. The total cost of this elegant design was estimated at 100,000l., and would have been executed first, but at that time even this amount was not forthcoming. The works then stopped, and some time elapsed before the Company was resumed, and ultimately constructed the present bridge.
In the year 1814–15 my father was appointed engineer-in-chief of the Southwark Bridge Company, and as this was proposed to be constructed in the narrowest part of the river between Blackfriars and the Old London Bridge, considerable opposition was made to the Act of Parliament for its construction by the Corporation of London and the Conservators of the river, on account of the obstruction which they said the bridge would offer to the navigation; this however was finally overcome, but it was decided by Parliament that the bridge should be constructed with as large arches as possible. Accordingly Mr. Rennie submitted a design consisting of three cast-iron arches, the centre being 240 feet span, with a versed sine of 24 feet, and two side arches of 210 feet each, with a versed sine or rise of 18 feet 10 inches each, with piers of 24 feet wide each at the springing, thus giving a clear lineal waterway of 660 feet, which was a great deal more than that of the Old London Bridge at that time existing. This design was approved of and ordered to be carried into effect. By this time, with the experience of the Waterloo and Vauxhall bridges and my other studies, I had gained considerable knowledge in bridge building, and my father was anxious to give me as much encouragement as possible; although, therefore, he appointed a worthy and practical man, Mr. Meston, as nominally the resident engineer, yet he confided to me the arduous task of making out the working drawings under his own direction, and of carrying them into