“Maitland, and his Editor Entick, are also both opposed to the idea that the River was turned during the erection of London Bridge, as they evince on page 46 of their ‘_History_;’ where they ground their objections to it on the following arguments. Firstly, it is supposed that the vestiges of Knute’s Canal--which, as we have seen, took the same course as Stow supposes the River to have taken,--might have deceived him; a reason also adopted by Hawksmoor, in the place I last cited. Secondly, the charge of such an immense work is next objected to; as the cost of the ground intended for the trench, the embankment of it, and the damming off the River itself, must have amounted to at least treble the sum which would otherwise have been required to erect the Bridge. The total silence of those Historians who mention the construction of London Bridge, upon the subject of so great a work as the turning of the River, is next insisted upon: and, finally, the length of time which the building occupied,--thirty-three years,--is adduced as alone sufficient to overthrow the whole hypothesis. ‘For,’ adds the author, ‘had the people concerned in erecting it, had dry ground to have built upon, it might have been finished in a tenth part of the time, and in a much more durable manner.’ Maitland then proceeds to state, that, in 1730, he surveyed the Bridge, in company with Mr. Bartholomew Sparruck, the Water-Carpenter of the same; and that he observed in many places,--where the stones were washed from the sterlings,--the mighty frames of piles whereon the stone piers or pillars were founded; the exterior parts of which, consisted of huge piles driven as closely together as art could effect. ‘On the tops of these,’ he continues, ‘are laid long planks, or beams of timber, of the thickness of ten inches, strongly bolted; whereon is placed the base of the stone pier, nine feet above the bed of the River, and three below the sterlings; and on the outside of this wooden foundation,--and for its preservation,--are drove the piles called the sterlings.’ He then goes on to observe, that Mr. Sparruck informed him, that he and the Bridge-Mason had frequently taken out of the lowermost layers of stones in the piers, several of the original stones, which were laid in pitch instead of mortar; and that from this circumstance they imagined, that all the outside stones of the piers, as high as the sterlings, were originally bedded in the same material, to prevent the water from damaging the work. This labour was, he thinks, continued at every ebb tide, until the piers were raised above high-water mark; and hence he argues, that if the Thames had been turned, there would not have been any occasion for the use of pitch, and that Plaster of Paris was not then in use in this country. These are the principal heads of the dispute concerning the turning of the River: to which I only add my own settled conviction, that _the course of the Thames was not altered_.”