Wateringbury Bridge (1702)

Post date: Sep 21, 2012 7:26:10 PM

In Kent Archives as reference CKS-Q/SRm/3/4 are two copies (both in Latin) of a Quarter Sessions judgment by a jury of 12 finding that the inhabitants of Wateringbury were not liable for the repair of Wateringbury bridge. They make no comment as to who is liable for the repairs.

The bridge is described in 1701 as 'pons lapidea' (i.e. a stone bridge) which was of an unknown age (since time immemorial) which had been used by 'pedestra, equestra, pallestra, carrucis, caraig' (pedstrians, horses,????, wagons, ???) which could not now be used without danger as it was in great decay to the harm of the king's subjects. At the Quarter Sessions at Canterbury on 14th July in the 13th year of King William III , James Codd and Thomas Beadle (both from known Wateringbury families) came to answer the charge levied against all the inhabitants of Wateringbury and to say they were not liable. They had been ordered to appear at the next Quarter Session at Maidstone on 7th October and to enter into recognisances; John Brewer had represented the crown. An inspection of the bridge took place on 4th November and reported to the Quarter Sessions on 29th April. in the meantime King Willam III had died and Queen Anne was recognised as monarch.

The fact that the bridge was of stone and from "time immemorial" (i.e. no one could remember when it had not been there) pushes the origins of Wateringbury Bridge back to the medieval times.

No one was found liable for the bridge's repair but an act of 1531 stated that where no other liability could be definitely proved then the burden of maintenance should fall on the county or the town within which the bridge lay. However, C. Chalklin's article entitled "Bridge Building in Kent, 1700-1830: the work of the justices of the Peace" (published in "Studies in Modern Kent History" by KAS, 1983) does not mention Wateringbury Bridge as a county bridge in the 18th century, whereas East Farleigh, Teston, Yalding (including Twyford), Branbridges and Tonbridge all were, and the amounts spent on repair of these bridges during the 18th century are all well documented. Maidstone was the responsibility of the town corporation; and Rochester the responsibility of many parishes in Kent including Wateringbury. Up until 1739 special bridge rates would have been levied by the county for county bridge repairs but after that date bridge work was financed out of the general county rate. Some bridges that were not county bridges would have been the responsibility of a local landowner or of the hundred (Wateringbury was part of the Hundred of Twyford).

By 1868 the bridge had become the responsibility of the Medway Navigation Company (founded 1739) and South Eastern railway (line through Wateringbury in 1844) and in 1911 a report described the bridge as wooden and probably dating from 1740 when the Medway was made navigable by the Medway Navigation Company.

Could it have been that the original stone bridge had been allowed to decline as no one could be made responsible and then in 1740 The Medway Navigation Company took the cheap route of clearing the old bridge and replacing it with a wooden one?

See also Bow Bridge (1836), Bow Bridge past effectual repair (1911), New Bridge across Medway (1912) and Russian national anthem marks opening of Bow Bridge (1915).