EVERYMAN’S LIBRARY
EDITED BY ERNEST RHYS

TRAVEL AND TOPOGRAPHY

STOW’S SURVEY OF LONDON
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
HENRY B. WHEATLEY

THE PUBLISHERS OF EVERYMAN’S LIBRARY WILL BE PLEASED TO SEND FREELY TO ALL APPLICANTS A LIST OF THE PUBLISHED AND PROJECTED VOLUMES TO BE COMPRISED UNDER THE FOLLOWING THIRTEEN HEADINGS:

TRAVEL ❦ SCIENCE ❦ FICTION
THEOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY
HISTORY ❦ CLASSICAL
FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
ESSAYS ❦ ORATORY
POETRY & DRAMA
BIOGRAPHY
REFERENCE
ROMANCE

IN FOUR STYLES OF BINDING: CLOTH, FLAT BACK, COLOURED TOP; LEATHER, ROUND CORNERS, GILT TOP; LIBRARY BINDING IN CLOTH, & QUARTER PIGSKIN

London: J. M. DENT & SONS, Ltd.
New York: E. P. DUTTON & CO.

TO
THE
WISE MAN
ALL THE
WORLD’S
A SOIL
BEN JONSON

THE SURVEY
OF LONDON

BY ❦ JOHN
STOW Citizen
of London

LONDON PUBLISHED
by J M DENT & SONS L^TD
AND IN NEW YORK
BY E P DUTTON & CO

INTRODUCTION

Stow’s Survey of London, from its first publication in 1598, has taken rank as the first authority on the history of London, but this very fame has been the cause of some injury to the unity of the work, owing to the additions of successive editors, whose words have often been quoted as if they were written by the original author, although often referring to occurrences long after Stow’s death.

What the reader of to-day wants, is the original work as it left the hands of the veteran antiquary, or as nearly as the change of spelling allows, because this gives him a vivid picture of Elizabethan London—the city in which Shakespeare lived and worked among a multitude of the men and women of those “spacious days,” respecting whom we are all eager to learn something more. The Survey is a masterpiece of topographical literature written by a Londoner of ripe experience, who was interested in everything that occurred around him.

Stow founded his work upon documents of great value collected by himself, and also upon the splendid series of manuscripts belonging to the city of London, to which he had access as “fee’d chronicler” of the corporation.

The great charm of the book to the general reader is to be found in the personal touches by which we are informed of changes and incidents which occurred in Stow’s own experience. Of this special feature several instances have been singled out, such as the boy fetching milk from the farm attached to the abbey of the minoresses, for which he paid one halfpenny for three pints; and the staking out by the tyrannical Thomas Cromwell of part of the gardens of Stow’s father and others in Throgmorton Street to be added to his own garden, which after his execution came into the possession of the Drapers’ Company, and are now covered by Throgmorton Avenue. Stow, in his description of the monuments of St. Paul’s, alluding to the burial places of Sir Philip Sidney, Sir Francis Walsingham and Sir Christopher Hatton, says of the latter “under a most sumptuous monument where merry poet writ thus—

“Philip and Francis have no tombe,
For great Christopher takes all the roome.”

Henry Holland, in his Monumenta Sepulchralia Sancti Pauli, 1614, tells us that there is “no doubt but the merry poet was the merry old man Stow himself.”

During the whole of his life Stow was indefatigable in his work, but he kept the best wine for the last. The first edition of the Survey of London was published in 1598, when he was past seventy years of age, but there can be no doubt that the whole of his previous life was a preparation for his great work. He always lived in London, and he was interested in every particular connected with his native city. Nothing of value in its history ever escaped him, and what he did not personally know, he often obtained information of from older men than himself. Some of his informants could tell what their fathers saw, so that their reminiscences often take us back to a long past time. It is this mixture of the personal remembrances of old men with his own memory of what he had seen, and his careful examination of places himself, in corroboration of tradition, which give such special value to his book.

Stow was always in search of information at first hand, and other authors were glad to avail themselves of his wide experience. Sir George Buck, when writing the History of Richard III., availed himself of Stow’s information that he had talked to old men who remembered that maligned king as “a comely prince.” Stow’s arrangement of his materials is admirable, and many modern topographers might imitate him with advantage. He himself acknowledged that the model for his Survey was his friend William Lambarde’s excellent Perambulation of Kent, 1576. Some of his explanations of the names of places, being grounded on historical evidence, are often of great value, but others are little better than crude guesses. This is not to the discredit of an author writing in the sixteenth century, but some modern writers, who ought to have a better knowledge of the origin of place names, have been unwise enough to quote these as possible etymologies. Mr. C. L. Kingsford, in his excellent edition of the Survey, has corrected most of these from trustworthy old documents. Stow improved his book in the second edition, published in 1603, two years before his death, but he omitted some passages in the first edition which are of interest to us, and which are noted in this edition.

Although it is chiefly the Survey which keeps Stow’s memory green in popular esteem, his other literary productions were highly appreciated by many distinguished contemporaries. He found a valuable patron in Archbishop Parker, for whom he edited some old chronicles. Among his many friends must be named Camden, Lambarde, Savile, Dr. Dee, Robert Glover, Somerset Herald, and Fleetwood the Recorder, who hung in his study a portrait of Stow inscribed, “Johannes Stowe, Antiquarius Angliæ.” The “antiquary” was very proud of this honour, and he told Massingham, who records the incident in his diary, that he thought himself “worthy of that title for his pains.”

Stow was born about the year 1525, and came of a good London stock, his grandfather and father were tallow chandlers, and supplied the church of St. Michael, Cornhill, with lamp oil and candles. Thomas Stow, the grandfather, died in 1527, and directed his body “to be buried in the little green churchyard of St. Michael, Cornhill, nigh the wall as may be by my father and mother.”

We have no particulars as to John Stow’s schooling, and Mr. Kingsford points out that his remarks in the “chapter of Schools and other houses of Learning,” respecting his seeing the scholars of divers grammar schools repair to the churchyard of St. Bartholomew, Smithfield, to a scholastic battle of disputation “hardly suggests that he took part in their exercises.”

The general opinion seems to be that he was self-taught, but it is strange that the son of a fairly well-to-do citizen should not have been a scholar at one of these free grammar schools. He did not follow his father’s business as a tallow chandler, but set up for himself as a tailor, in a house by the well within Aldgate, over which in later times a structure was erected widely known as Aldgate pump. Tailors have very generally had to put up with threadbare jokes on their trade, and Stow was no exception to the rule. Aubrey reports that Sir Henry Spelman said to Sir William Dugdale, “We are beholding to Mr. Speed and Stow for stitching up for us our English history,” and Aubrey adds, “It seems they were both tailors.” Stow was admitted to the freedom of the Merchant Taylors’ Company, on 25th November 1547, but was never called to the livery or any office in the company. At the same time he seems to have been highly esteemed, and was helpful to the company. He became a pensioner about 1578, and received four pounds a year until mid-summer 1600; this is sometimes called his “fee” and sometimes his “pension.” At the latter date, when he had fallen upon evil days, his pension was increased to ten pounds a year. This information is given by Mr. C. M. Clode, under the heading of “the loving brother of this mysterie, John Stowe,” in his Memorials of the Fraternity, 1875.

Stow’s first literary work is one that does him great credit, namely, the 1561 edition of Chaucer’s works, and subsequently he helped his “loving friend” Speght with notes from “divers records and monuments,” which that friend used in his edition of Chaucer published in 1597. He then turned to the publication of the results of his historical studies. In 1565, he brought out A Summarie of Englyshe Chronicles, which was frequently reprinted, also The Summarie abridged, first in 1566, and often reprinted. The Chronicles of England were published in 1580 and not reprinted. The Annals of England appeared first in 1592, other editions issued by Stow himself in 1601 and 1605. Editions continued by Edmond Howes were published in 1615 and 1631.

The Annals are much of a compilation, but Stow has made them interesting by the frequent insertion of his own opinions and remarks. The bibliography of these works is somewhat complicated, but Mr. Kingsford has set forth the dates and distinctive characters of the different books with much clearness.

Stow early fell into a discord with the chronicler Grafton, and the two belaboured one another in print, sometimes having resort to bad puns. Grafton sneered at the “Memories of superstitious foundations, fables foolishly stowed together,” and Stow replied by alluding to “empty townes and unfruitfull grafts of Momus’ offspring.”

Stow’s life was a stormy one, and he had much to endure, both publicly and in his own family, but his friends helped him through many of his difficulties. His younger brother Thomas was ungrateful, and a thorn in his side for many years.

In the early part of 1569 he was brought before the Lord Mayor for having in his possession a copy of the manifesto of the Spanish Ambassador on behalf of the Duke of Alva, but he seems to have been able to clear himself. The same matter was brought before the master and wardens of the Merchant Taylors’ Company. Mr. Clode remarks respecting this occurrence: “It is curious to note from the depositions of the several examinants how very shy of knowing much about the matter they appear to have been. The knowledge or memory of the nine taylors examined was too frequently failing them to bring guilt home to any brother of the craft.”

The trouble about the Alva manifesto drew the attention of the Queen’s Council to Stow’s library, and the Bishop of London (Grindal) was directed to have his house searched, and in reply the Bishop enclosed to Cecil a catalogue of “Stowe the taylour his unlawfull bookes,” amongst these are “a great store of folishe fabulous bokes of old prynt as of Sir Degory, Sir Tryamore,” etc., “old fantastical popish books printed in the old type.” Thomas Stapleton’s translation of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History is among the objectionable books. Nothing, however, came of all this pother.

Stow appears to have been fairly well off for some years of his life, when he spent a considerable amount of money on the extensive collection of manuscripts which he gathered together. This library was well known to and much appreciated by his fellow antiquaries. Many of the important documents are now in the British Museum and other public libraries.

He gave up his business in order to devote himself uninterruptedly to his antiquarian labours. Although these labours were much appreciated they were not profitable, and in consequence his means were very limited in his later years. His poverty was brought under the notice of James I., who acknowledged his claims, but instead of giving substantial aid the king granted letters patent, dated 8th March 1604, authorising John Stow and his deputies to collect money—the “voluntary contribution and kind gratuities” of the king’s subjects. This authority brought little money to the chronicler’s wasted coffers, and it was indeed a pitiful reward for the well-directed labours of a life-time.

Stow did not long survive this remarkable instance of royal favour. He died on the 6th April 1605, and was buried in the Church of St. Andrew Undershaft, Leadenhall Street, where his widow erected a terra cotta monument to his memory, this, which shows the man as he lived, is one of the most interesting monuments in the city of a past London worthy.

Edmond Howes, his literary executor, and continuator of his Annals, has left a vivid picture of the old chronicler, which completes this short notice of one of the most distinguished “Lovers of London.”

“He was tall of stature, lean of body and face, his eyes small and crystalline, of a pleasant and cheerful countenance; his sight and memory very good; very sober, mild, and courteous to any that required his instructions; and retained the true use of all his senses unto the day of his death, being of an excellent memory. He always protested never to have written anything either for malice, fear, or favour, nor to seek his own particular gain or vain-glory; and that his only pains and care was to write truth. He could never ride, but travelled on foot unto divers cathedral churches, and other chief places of the land to search records. He was very careless of scoffers, back-biters, and detractors. He lived peacefully, and died of the stone colic, being four-score years of age.”

Stow is greatly to be commended for printing as an appendix to his Survey, William Fitzstephen’s Descriptio Londoniæ, which originally formed an introduction to the same writer’s Life of Becket. It is a remarkable relic, and unique in its interest as a vivid description of London in the twelfth century. The author is carried away by his enthusiasm, and probably exaggerates the beauties of the city. But he is not blind to evils, for he wisely says, “The city is delightful indeed, if it has a good governor,” and we know that it did not always have that. The account of the sports of the citizens is particularly valuable, especially the early notice of the use of skates on the Moorfields during the winter time. We may be proud as Englishmen that no other city in Europe possesses so early a description of a mediæval town. It should be noted incidentally that “King Henry the Third” mentioned at the close of Fitzstephen’s account is not the king usually known by that name; but Henry the second son of Henry II. This prince was crowned during his father’s life-time; but died in 1182, seven years before his father. Matthew Paris also speaks of him as Henry III.

An enlarged edition of the Survey was prepared by Anthony Munday after Stow’s death, and published in 1618. In 1633, four months after Munday’s death, another edition, in folio, appeared “completely finished by the study of A. M., H. D., and others.” John Strype took the matter in hand in the next century and made a new book of the Survey in two volumes, folio, 1720. The sixth edition, enlarged by John Strype, “brought down to the present time by careful hands,” was published in the same form in 1754-5. Strype died in 1737. This edition of Stow is an excellent history of London, but most persons will agree with Thomas Hearne in his criticism, “Stow should have been simply reprinted as a venerable original, and the additions given in a different character.”

It was not until 1842 that Stow’s edition of 1603 was reprinted, when it was edited by Mr. W. J. Thoms, founder and first editor of Notes and Queries. Mr. C. L. Kingsford produced a critical edition of Stow’s second edition (1603) which is of great value. It was published by the Clarendon Press, Oxford, in 1908. The editor gives an account of Stow’s collections and MSS., tracing their present location.

HENRY B. WHEATLEY.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ed. Woorkes of Geffrey Chaucer, 1561; Summarie of Englyshe Chronicles, 1565; other editions, 1566, 1570, 1574, 1575, 1590; The Summary abridged, 1566, 1567, 1573, 1584, 1587, 1598, 1604, 1607, 1611, 1618; ed. Matthew of Westminster’s Flores Historiarum, 1567; ed. Matthew Paris’s Chronicle, 1571; ed. Thos. Walsingham’s Chronicle, 1574; The Chronicles of England, 1580; re-arranged as The Annales of England, 1592; other editions, 1601, 1605; re-edited by Edmund Howse, 1615, 1631; The Successions of the History of England, 1638 (Lourdes); ed. second edition of Holinshed’s Chronicle, 1585-1587; A Survey of London, 1598, 1603; enlarged edition by Anthony Munday, 1618 and 1633; by J. Strype, 1720, 1754; modernised by Wm. J. Thoms, 1842, 1876; by Henry Morley, 1890, 1893 (with index), 1908; by C. L. Kingsford, 1908; Selections from A Survey of London, ed. by A. Barter, 1910.

Biographies.—By Edmund Howe (in Annales of England), 1615; by J. Strype (in Survey of London), 1720; by Wm. J. Thoms (in Survey of London), 1876; by C. M. Clode (in The Early History of the Guild of Merchant Taylors), 1888; by C. L. Kingsford (in Survey of London), 1908.

NORDEN’S
MAP OF LONDON
1593

LONDON
For Letter and Figure References, see Page xviii.

REFERENCES TO THE MAP
ON PAGES xvi AND xvii

a Bushops gate streete.
b Papie.
c Alhallowes in the wall.
d S. Taphyns.
e Syluer streete.
f Aldermanburye.
g Barbican.
h Aldersgate streete.
i Charterhowse.
k Holborne conduct.
l Chauncery lane
m Temple barr.
n Holbourn.
o Grayes Inn lane.
p S. Androwes.
q Newgate.
r S. Iones.
s S. Nic shambels.
t Cheap syde.
u Bucklers burye.
w Brode streete.
x The Stockes.
y The Exchannge.
z Cornehill.

2. Colman streete.
3. Bassings hall.
4. Honnsditche.
5. Leaden hall.
6. Gratious streete.
7. Heneage house.
8. Fancshurche.
9. Marke lane.
10. Minchyn lane.
11. Paules.
12. Eastcheape.
13. Fleetstreete.
14. Fetter lane.
15. S. Dunshous.
16. Themes streete.
17. Lodon Stone.
18. Olde Baylye.
19. Clerkenwell.
20. Winchester house.
21. Battle bridge.
22. Bermodsoy streete.

CONTENTS

A
SVRVAY OF
LONDON.

Conteyning the Originall, Antiquity,
Increase, Moderne estate, and description of that
City, written in the yeare 1598, by Iohn Stow
Citizen of London.

Since by the same Author increased,
with diuers rare notes of Antiquity, and
published in the yeare,
1603.

Also an Apologie (or defence) against the
opinion of some men, concerning that Citie,
the greatnesse thereof.

VVith an Appendix, contayning in Latine
Libellum de situ & nobilitate Londini: Written by
William Fitzstephen, in the raigne of
Henry the second.

Imprinted by Iohn Windet, Printer to the honorable
Citie of London.
1603.

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
ROBERT LEE
LORD MAYOR OF THE CITY OF LONDON
TO THE COMMONALTY AND CITIZENS OF THE SAME
JOHN STOW, CITIZEN, WISHETH LONG HEALTH AND FELICITY

Since the first publishing of the perambulation of Kent by that learned gentleman, William Lambert, Esq., I have heard of sundry other able persons to have (according to the desire of that author) essayed to do somewhat for the particular shires and counties where they were born or dwelt; of which none that I know (saving John Norden, for the counties of Middlesex and Hertford) have vouchsafed their labour to the common good in that behalf. And, therefore, concurring with the first, in the same desire to have drawn together such special descriptions of each place, as might not only make up a whole body of the English chorography amongst ourselves, but also might give occasion and courage to M. Camden to increase and beautify his singular work of the whole, to the view of the learned that be abroad, I have attempted the discovery of London, my native soil and country, at the desire and persuasion of some of my good friends, as well because I have seen sundry antiquities myself touching that place, as also for that through search of records to other purposes, divers written helps are come to my hands, which few others have fortuned to meet withall; it is a service that most agreeth with my professed travels; it is a duty that I willingly owe to my native mother and country, and an office that of right I hold myself bound in love to bestow upon the politic body and members of the same. What London hath been of ancient time men may here see, as what it is now every man doth behold. I know that the argument, being of the chief and principal city of the land, required the pen of some excellent artisan, but fearing that none would attempt and finish it, as few have essayed any, I chose rather (amongst other my labours) to handle it after my plain manner, than to leave it unperformed. Touching the dedication, I am not doubtful where to seek my patron, since you be a politic estate of the city, as the walls and buildings be the material parts of the same. To you, therefore, do I address this my whole labour, as well that by your authority I may be protected, as warranted by your own skill and understanding of that which I have written. I confess that I lacked my desire to the accomplishment of some special parts,[1] which some other of better ability promised to perform; but as I then professed, have since out of mine old store-house added to this work many rare notes of antiquity, as may appear to the reader, which I do afford in all duty, and recommend to your view, my labours to your consideration, and myself to your service, during life, in this or any other.

THE AUTHOR TO THE READER

Because amongst others mine authors, I have oftentimes alleged Fitz-Stephens as one more choice than other, namely, for the ancient estate of this city, more than four hundred years since: and also the said author being rare, I have in this place thought good by impression to impart the same to my loving friends, the learned antiquaries, as the author wrote it in the Latin tongue; and first to note in effect what Master Bale, in commendation of the said author, writeth:

“William Stephanides, or Fitzstephen, a monk of Canterbury, born of worshipful parents in the city of London, well brought up at the first under good masters, did more and more increase in honest conditions and learning; for ever in his young years there appeared in him a certain light of a gentleman-like disposition, which promised many good things, afterwards by him performed. Such time as other spent in brawls and idle talk, he employed in wholesome exercises for the honour of his country, following therein the example of Plato, and was very studious both in humanity and divinity.”

The city of London, his birth-place, the most noble of all other cities of this land, and the prince’s seat, situated in the south part of this island, he loved above all the other, so that at length he wrote most elegantly in Latin of the site and rights of the same. Leland, in divers of his books, commendeth him for an excellent writer. He lived in the reign of King Stephen, wrote in the reign of Henry II., and deceased in the year of Christ 1191, in the reign of Richard I.

THE SURVEY OF LONDON CONTAINING THE ORIGINAL, ANTIQUITY, INCREASE, MODERN ESTATE, AND DESCRIPTION OF THAT CITY

As the Roman writers,[2] to glorify the city of Rome, derive the original thereof from gods and demi-gods, by the Trojan progeny, so Geoffrey of Monmouth, the Welsh historian, deduceth the foundation of this famous city of London, for the greater glory thereof, and emulation of Rome, from the very same original. For he reporteth that Brute, lineally descended from the demi-god Æneas, the son of Venus, daughter of Jupiter, about the year of the world 2855, and 1108 before the nativity of Christ, built this city near unto the river now called Thames, and named it Troynovant, or Trenovant. But herein, as Livy, the most famous historiographer of the Romans, writeth, antiquity is pardonable, and hath an especial privilege, by interlacing divine matters with human, to make the first foundation of cities more honourable, more sacred, and, as it were, of greater majesty.

King Lud (as the aforesaid Geoffrey of Monmouth noteth) afterwards not only repaired this city, but also increased the same with fair buildings, towers, and walls, and after his own name called it Caire-Lud,[3] as Lud’s town; and the strong gate which he built in the west part of the city he likewise, for his own honour, named Ludgate.

This Lud had issue two sons, Androgeus and Theomantius, who being not of age to govern at the death of their father, their uncle Cassibelan took upon him the crown; about the eighth year of whose reign, Julius Cæsar arrived in this land with a great power of Romans to conquer it; the manner of which conquest I will summarily set down out of his own Commentaries, which are of far better credit than the relations of Geoffrey Monmouth.

The chief government of the Britons, and ordering of the wars, was then by common advice committed to Cassibelan, whose seigniory was separated from the cities towards the sea-coast by the river called Thames, about fourscore miles from the sea. This Cassibelan, in times past, had made continual war upon the cities adjoining; but the Britons being moved with the Roman invasion, had resolved in that necessity to make him their sovereign, and general of the wars (which continued hot between the Romans and them); but in the meanwhile the Troynovants, which was then the strongest city well near of all those countries (and out of which city a young gentleman, called Mandubrace, upon confidence of Cæsar’s help, came unto him into the mainland of Gallia, now called France, and thereby escaped death, which he should have suffered at Cassibelan’s hand), sent their ambassadors to Cæsar, promising to yield unto him, and to do what he should command them instantly, desiring him to protect Mandubrace from the furious tyranny of Cassibelan, and to send him into their city with authority to take the government thereof upon him. Cæsar accepted the offer, and appointed them to give unto him forty hostages, and withal to find him grain for his army; and so sent he Mandubrace unto them.

When others saw that Cæsar had not only defended the Trinobants against Cassibelan, but had also saved them harmless from the pillage of his own soldiers, then did the Conimagues, Segontians, Ancalits, Bibrokes, and Cassians, likewise submit themselves unto him; and by them he learned that not far thence was Cassibelan’s town, fortified with woods and marsh ground, into the which he had gathered a great number both of men and cattle.

For the Britons call that a town (saith Cæsar), when they have fortified a cumbersome wood with a ditch and rampart, and thither they resort to abide the approach of their enemies; to this place therefore marched Cæsar with his legions; he found it excellently fortified, both of nature and by man’s advice; nevertheless, he resolved to assault it in two several places at once, whereupon the Britons, being not able to endure the force of the Romans, fled out at another part, and left the town unto him: a great number of cattle he found there, and many of the Britons he slew, and others he took in the chase.

Whilst these things were doing in these quarters, Cassibelan sent messengers into Kent, which lieth upon the sea, in which there reigned then four particular kings, named Cingetorex, Carvill, Taximagull, and Segonax, whom he commanded to raise all their forces, and suddenly to set upon and assault the Romans in their trenches by the sea-side; the which, when the Romans perceived, they sallied out upon them, slew a great sort of them, and taking Cingetorex their noble captain prisoner, retired themselves to their camp in good safety.

When Cassibelan heard of this, and had formerly taken many other losses, and found his country sore wasted, and himself left almost alone by the defection of the other cities, he sent ambassadors by Comius of Arras to Cæsar, to intreat with him concerning his own submission; the which Cæsar did accept, and taking hostages, assessed the realm of Britain to a yearly tribute, to be paid to the people of Rome, giving strait charge to Cassibelan that he should not seek any revenge upon Mandubrace or the Trinobantes, and so withdrew his army to the sea again.

Thus far out of Cæsar’s Commentaries concerning this history, which happened in the year before Christ’s nativity 54. In all which process there is for this purpose to be noted, that Cæsar nameth the city of Trinobantes, which hath a resemblance with Troynova, or Trinobantum, having no greater difference in the orthography than changing b into v, and yet maketh an error whereof I will not argue; only this I will note, that divers learned men do not think “civitas Trinobantum” to be well and truly translated, “the city of the Trinobantes;” but it should rather be the state, commonalty, or seigniory of the Trinobantes; for that Cæsar in his Commentaries useth the word civitas, only for a people living under one and the selfsame prince and law; but certain it is that the cities of the Britons were in those days neither artificially built with houses, nor strongly walled with stone, but were only thick and cumbersome woods, plashed within and trenched about. And the like in effect do other the Roman and Greek authors directly affirm, as Strabo, Pomponius Mela, and Dion a senator of Rome, which flourished in the several reigns of the Roman emperors, Tiberius, Claudius, Domitian, and Severus; to wit, that before the arrival of the Romans the Britons had no towns, but called that a town which had a thick entangled wood, defended, as I said, with a ditch and bank, the like whereof, the Irishmen, our next neighbours, do at this day call Fastness.[4] But after that these hither parts of Britain were reduced into the form of a province by the Romans, who sowed the seeds of civility over all Europe; this city, whatsoever it was before, began to be renowned, and of fame. For Tacitus, who first of all authors nameth it Londinum, saith, that in the 62nd year after Christ, it was, albeit no colony of the Romans, yet most famous for the great multitude of merchants, provision, and intercourse. At which time, in that notable revolt of the Britons from Nero, in which 70,000 Romans and their confederates were slain, this city, with Verulam, near St. Albans, and Maldon in Essex, then all famous, were ransacked and spoiled. For Suetonius Paulinus, then lieutenant for the Romans in this isle, abandoned it, as not then fortified, and left it to the spoil.

Shortly after, Julius Agricola, the Roman lieutenant, in the time of Domitian, was the first that by adhorting the Britons publicly, and helping them privately, won them to build houses for themselves, temples for the gods, and courts for justice, to bring up the noblemen’s children in good letters and humanity, and to apparel themselves Roman-like, whereas before (for the most part) they went naked, painting their bodies, etc., as all the Roman writers have observed.

True it is, I confess, that afterwards many cities and towns in Britain, under the government of the Romans, were walled with stone and baked bricks or tiles, as Richborrow or Ryptacester,[5] in the Isle of Thanet, until the channel altered his course, beside Sandwich in Kent; Verulamium,[6] beside St. Albans, in Hertfordshire; Cilcester[7] in Hampshire; Wroxcester[8] in Shropshire; Kencester[9] in Herefordshire, three miles from Hereford town; Ribcester,[10] seven miles above Preston, on the water of Rible; Aldburgh,[11] a mile from Boroughbridge, or Watling Street, on Ure river, and others; and no doubt but this city of London was also walled with stone, in the time of the Roman government here, but yet very lately, for it seemeth not to have been walled in the year of our Lord 296, because in that year, when Alectus the tyrant was slain in the field, the Franks easily entered London and had sacked the same, had not God, of his great favour, at the very instant, brought along the river of Thames, certain bands of Roman soldiers, who slew those Franks in every street of the city.

WALL ABOUT THE CITY OF LONDON

In a few years after, as Simeon of Durham, an ancient writer, reporteth, Helen, the mother of Constantine the Great, was the first that inwalled this city, about the year of Christ 306; but however those walls of stone might have been built by Helen, yet the Britons, I know, had no skill of building with stone, as it may appear by that which followeth, about the year of Christ 399, when Arcadius and Honorius, the sons of Theodosius Magnus, governed the empire, the one in the east, the other in the west; for Honorius having received Britain, the city of Rome was invaded and destroyed by the Goths, after which time the Romans left to rule in Britain, as being employed in defence of their territories nearer home, whereupon the Britons not able to defend themselves against the invasions of their enemies, were many years together under the oppression of two most cruel nations, the Scots and Picts, and at the length were forced to send their ambassadors with letters and lamentable supplications to Rome, requiring aid and succour from thence, upon promise of their continual fealty, so that the Romans would rescue them out of the hands of their enemies. Hereupon the Romans sent unto them a legion of armed soldiers, which coming into this island, and encountering with the enemies, overthrew a great number of them, and drove the rest out of the frontiers of the country; and so setting the Britons at liberty, counselled them to make a wall, extending all along between the two seas, which might be of force to keep out their evil neighbours, and then returned home with great triumph. The Britons wanting masons built that wall, not of stone as they were advised, but made it of turf, and that so slender, that it served little or nothing at all for their defence, and the enemy perceiving that the Roman legion was returned home, forthwith arrived out of their boats, invaded the borders, overcame the country, and, as it were, bore down all that was before them.

Whereupon ambassadors were eftsoon dispatched to Rome, lamentably beseeching that they would not suffer their miserable country to be utterly destroyed: then again another legion was sent, which coming upon a sudden, made a great slaughter of the enemy, and chased him home, even to his own country. These Romans at their departure, told the Britons plainly, that it was not for their ease or leisure to take upon them any more such long and laborious journeys for their defence, and therefore bade them practice the use of armour and weapons, and learn to withstand their enemies, whom nothing else did make so strong as their faint heart and cowardice; and for so much as they thought that it would be no small help and encouragement unto their tributary friends whom they were now forced to forsake,[12] they built for them a wall of hard stone from the west sea to the east sea, right between those two cities, which were there made to keep out the enemy, in the selfsame place where Severus before had cast his trench. The Britons also putting to their helping hands as labourers.

This wall they built eight feet thick in breadth, and twelve feet in height, right, as it were by a line, from east to west, as the ruins thereof remaining in many places until this day do make to appear. Which work, thus perfected, they give the people strait charge to look well to themselves, they teach them to handle their weapons, and they instruct them in warlike feats. And lest by the sea-side southwards, where their ships lay at harbour, the enemy should come on land, they made up sundry bulwarks, each somewhat distant from the other, and so bid them farewell, as minding no more to return. This happened in the days of the Emperor Theodosius the younger, almost 500 years after the first arrival of the Romans here, about the year after Christ’s incarnation 434.

The Britons after this, continuing a lingering and doubtful war with the Scots and Picts, made choice of Vortigern to be their king and leader, which man (as saith Malmesbury[13]) was neither valorous of courage, nor wise of counsel, but wholly given over to the unlawful lusts of his flesh; the people likewise, in short time, being grown to some quietness, gave themselves to gluttony and drunkenness, pride, contention, envy, and such other vices, casting from them the yoke of Christ. In the mean season, a bitter plague fell among them, consuming in short time such a multitude that the quick were not sufficient to bury the dead; and yet the remnant remained so hardened in sin, that neither death of their friends, nor fear of their own danger, could cure the mortality of their souls, whereupon a greater stroke of vengeance ensued upon the whole sinful nation. For being now again infested with their old neighbours the Scots and Picts, they consult with their king Vortigern,[14] and send for the Saxons, who shortly after arrived here in Britain, where, saith Bede, they were received as friends; but as it proved, they minded to destroy the country as enemies; for after that they had driven out the Scots and Picts, they also drove the Britons, some over the seas, some into the waste mountains of Wales and Cornwall, and divided the country into divers kingdoms amongst themselves.

These Saxons were likewise ignorant of building with stone until the year 680; for then it is affirmed that Benet, abbot of Wirrall,[15] master to the reverend Bede, first brought artificers of stone houses and glass windows into this island amongst the Saxons, arts before that time unto them unknown, and therefore used they but wooden buildings. And to this accordeth Policronicon, who says, “that then had ye wooden churches, nay wooden chalices and golden priests, but since golden chalices and wooden priests.” And to knit up this argument, King Edgar in his charter to the abbey of Malmesbury, dated the year of Christ 974, hath words to this effect: “All the monasteries in my realm, to the outward sight, are nothing but worm-eaten and rotten timber and boards, and that worse is, within they are almost empty, and void of Divine service.”

Thus much be said for walling, not only in respect of this city, but generally also of the first within the realm. Now to return to our Trinobant (as Cæsar hath it), the same is since by Tacitus, Ptolemæus, and Antoninus, called Londinium, Longidinum; of Ammiamus, Lundinum, and Augusta, who calleth it an ancient city; of our Britons, Lundayne; of the old Saxons, Lundenceaster, Lundenbrig, Londennir; of strangers Londra and Londres; of the inhabitants, London; whereof you may read a more large and learned discourse, and how it took the name, in that work of my loving friend, Master Camden, now Clarencieux, which is called Britannia.

This city of London having been destroyed and burnt by the Danes and other Pagan enemies, about the year of Christ 839, was by Alfred, king of the West Saxons, in the year 886, repaired, honourably restored, and made again habitable. Who also committed the custody thereof unto his son-in-law, Ethelred, Earl of Mercia, unto whom before he had given his daughter Ethelfled.

And that this city was then strongly walled may appear by divers accidents, whereof William of Malmsbury hath, that about the year of Christ 994, the Londoners shut up their gates, and defended their king Ethelred within their walls against the Danes.

In the year 1016,[16] Edmund Ironsides reigning over the West Saxons, Canute the Dane bringing his navy into the west part of the bridge, cast a trench about the city of London, and then attempted to have won it by assault, but the citizens repulsed him, and drove them from their walls.

Also, in the year 1052, Earl Goodwin, with his navy, sailed up by the south end of the bridge, and so assailed the walls of this city.

William Fitzstephen, in the reign of King Henry II., writing of the walls of this city, hath these words: “The wall is high and great, well towered on the north side, with due distances between the towers. On the south side also the city was walled and towered, but the fishful river of Thames, with his ebbing and flowing, hath long since subverted them.”

By the north side, he meaneth from the river of Thames in the east to the river of Thames in the west, for so stretched the wall in his time, and the city being far more in length from east to west than in breadth from south to north, and also narrower at both ends than in the midst, is therefore compassed with the wall on the land side, in form of a bow, except denting in betwixt Cripplegate and Aldersgate; but the wall on the south side, along by the river of Thames, was straight as the string of a bow, and all furnished with towers or bulwarks (as we now term them) in due distance every one from other, as witnesseth our author, and ourselves may behold from the land side. This may suffice for proof of a wall, and form thereof, about this city, and the same to have been of great antiquity as any other within this realm.

And now touching the maintenance and reparing the said wall. I read, that in the year 1215, the 16th of King John,[17] the barons, entering the city by Aldgate, first took assurance of the citizens, then brake into the Jews’ houses, searched their coffers to fill their own purses, and after with great diligence repaired the walls and gates of the city with stone taken from the Jews’ broken houses. In the year 1257, Henry III. caused the walls of this city, which were sore decayed and destitute of towers, to be repaired in more seemly wise than before, at the common charges of the city. Also in the year 1282,[18] King Edward I. having granted to Robert Kilwarby, archbishop of Canterbury, license for the enlarging of the Blackfriars’ church, to break and take down a part of the wall of the city, from Ludgate to the river of Thames; he also granted to Henry Wales, mayor, and the citizens of London, the favour to take, toward the making of the wall and enclosure of the city, certain customs or toll, as appeareth by his grant. This wall was then to be made from Ludgate west to Fleet bridge along behind the houses, and along by the water of the Fleet unto the river of Thames. Moreover, in the year 1310, Edward II. commanded the citizens to make up the wall already begun, and the tower at the end of the same wall, within the water of Thames near unto the Blackfriars, etc. 1328, the 2nd of Edward III., the walls of this city were repaired. It was also granted by King Richard II. in the tenth year of his reign, that a toll should be taken of the wares sold by land or by water for ten years, towards the repairing of the walls, and cleansing of the ditch about London. In the 17th of Edward IV. Ralph Joceline, mayor, caused part of the wall about the city of London to be repaired; to wit, betwixt Aldgate and Aldersgate. He also caused Moorfield to be searched for clay, and brick thereof to be made and burnt; he likewise caused chalk to be brought out of Kent, and to be burnt into lime in the same Moorfield, for more furtherance of the work. Then the Skinners to begin in the east made that part of the wall betwixt Aldgate and Bevis Marks, towards Bishopsgate, as may appear by their arms in three places fixed there: the mayor, with his company of the Drapers, made all that part betwixt Bishopsgate and Allhallows church, and from Allhallows towards the postern called Moorgate. A great part of the same wall was repaired by the executors of Sir John Crosby, late alderman, as may appear by his arms in two places there fixed: and other companies repaired the rest of the wall to the postern of Cripplegate. The Goldsmiths repaired from Cripplegate towards Aldersgate, and there the work ceased. The circuit of the wall of London on the land side, to wit, from the Tower of London in the east unto Aldgate, in 82 perches; from Aldgate to Bishopsgate, 86 perches; from Bishopsgate in the north to the postern of Cripplegate, 162 perches; from Cripplegate to Aldersgate, 75 perches; from Aldersgate to Newgate, 66 perches; from Newgate in the west to Ludgate, 42 perches; in all, 513 perches of assize. From Ludgate to the Fleet-dike west, about 60 perches; from Fleetbridge south to the river Thames, about 70 perches; and so the total of these perches amounteth to 643, every perch consisting of five yards and a half, which do yield 3536 yards and a half, containing 10,608 feet, which make up two English miles and more by 608 feet.

OF ANCIENT AND PRESENT RIVERS, BROOKS, BOURNS, POOLS, WELLS, AND CONDUITS OF FRESH WATER, SERVING THE CITY, AS ALSO OF THE DITCH COMPASSING THE WALL OF THE SAME FOR DEFENCE THEREOF.

Anciently, until the Conqueror’s time, and two hundred years after, the city of London was watered, besides the famous river of Thames on the south part, with the river of Wells, as it was then called, on the west; with the water called Walbrooke running through the midst of the city in the river of Thames, serving the heart thereof; and with a fourth water or bourn, which ran within the city through Langborne ward, watering that part in the east. In the west suburbs was also another great water, called Oldborne, which had its fall into the river of Wells; then were there three principal fountains, or wells, in the other suburbs; to wit, Holy well, Clement’s well, and Clarkes’ well. Near unto this last-named fountain were divers other wells, to wit, Skinners’ well, Fags’ well, Tode well, Loder’s well, and Radwell. All which said wells, having the fall of their overflowing in the aforesaid river, much increased the stream, and in that place gave it the name of Well. In West Smithfield there was a pool, in records called Horsepoole, and one other pool near unto the parish church of St. Giles without Cripplegate. Besides all which, they had in every street and lane of the city divers fair wells and fresh springs; and after this manner was this city then served with sweet and fresh waters, which being since decayed, other means have been sought to supply the want, as shall be shown. But first of the aforenamed rivers and other waters is to be said, as following:

Thames, the most famous river of this island, beginneth a little above a village called Winchcombe, in Oxfordshire; and still increasing, passeth first by the University of Oxford, and so with a marvellous quiet course to London, and thence breaketh into the French ocean by main tides, which twice in twenty-four hours’ space doth ebb and flow more than sixty miles in length, to the great commodity of travellers, by which all kind of merchandise be easily conveyed to London, the principal storehouse and staple of all commodities within this realm; so that, omitting to speak of great ships and other vessels of burthen, there pertaineth to the cities of London, Westminster, and borough of Southwark, above the number, as is supposed, of 2000 wherries and other small boats, whereby 3000 poor men, at the least, be set on work and maintained.

That the river of Wells, in the west part of the city, was of old so called of the wells, it may be proved thus:—William the Conqueror in his charter to the college of St. Marten le Grand, in London, hath these words: “I do give and grant to the same church all the land and the moor without the postern, which is called Cripplegate, on either part of the postern; that is to say, from the north corner of the wall, as the river of the Wells, there near running, departeth the same moor from the wall, unto the running water which entereth the city.”[19] This water hath long since been called the river of the Wels, which name of river continued; and it was so called in the reign of Edward I., as shall be shown, with also the decay of the said river. In a fair book of parliament records, now lately restored to the Tower, it appeareth[20] that a parliament being holden at Carlile in the year 1307, the 35th of Edward I., “Henry Lacy, earl of Lincoln, complained, that whereas in times past the course of water, running at London under Oldborne bridge and Fleete bridge into the Thames, had been of such breadth and depth, that ten or twelve ships navies at once, with merchandise, were wont to come to the foresaid bridge of Fleete, and some of them to Oldborne bridge: now the same course, by filth of the tanners and such others, was sore decayed; also by raising of wharfs; but especially, by a diversion of the water made by them of the new Temple, for their mills standing without Baynardes Castle, in the first year of King John,[21] and divers other impediments, so as the said ships could not enter as they were wont, and as they ought: wherefore he desired that the mayor of London with the sheriffs and other discreet aldermen, might be appointed to view the course of the said water; and that by the oaths of good men, all the aforesaid hindrances might be removed, and it to be made as it was wont of old. Whereupon Roger le Brabason, the constable of the Tower, with the mayor and sheriffs, were assigned to take with them honest and discreet men, and to make diligent search and enquiry how the said river was in old time, and that they leave nothing that may hurt or stop it, but keep it in the same state that it was wont to be.” So far the record. Whereupon it followed that the said river was at that time cleansed, these mills removed, and other things done for the preservation of the course thereof, notwithstanding never brought to the old depth and breadth; whereupon the name of river ceased, and it was since called a brook, namely, Turnmill or Tremill brook, for that divers mills were erected upon it, as appeareth by a fair register-book, containing the foundation of the priory at Clarkenwell, and donation of the lands thereunto belonging, as also divers other records.

This brook hath been divers times since cleansed, namely, and last of all to any effect, in the year 1502, the 17th of Henry VII., the whole course of Fleete dike, then so called, was scowered, I say, down to the Thames, so that boats with fish and fuel were rowed to Fleete bridge, and to Oldborne bridge, as they of old time had been accustomed, which was a great commodity to all the inhabitants in that part of the city.

In the year 1589 was granted a fifteenth, by a common council of the city, for the cleansing of this brook or dike; the money amounting to a thousand marks, was collected, and it was undertaken, that by drawing divers springs about Hampstead heath into one head and course, both the city should be served of fresh water in all places of want; and also, that by such a follower, as men call it, the channel of this brook should be scowered into the river of Thames; but much money being therein spent, the effect failed, so that the brook, by means of continual encroachments upon the banks getting over the water, and casting of soilage into the stream, is now become worse cloyed and choken than ever it was before.

The running water, so called by William the Conqueror in his said charter, which entereth the city, etc. (before there was any ditch) between Bishopsgate and the late made postern called Moorgate, entered the wall, and was truly of the wall called Walbrooke, not of Gualo, as some have far fetched: it ran through the city with divers windings from the north towards the south into the river of Thames, and had over the same divers bridges along the streets and lanes through which it passed. I have read in a book[22] entitled the Customs of London,[23] that the prior of the Holy Trinity within Aldgate ought to make over Walbrooke in the ward of Brod street, against the stone wall of the city, viz., the same bridge that is next the Church of All Saints, at the wall. Also that the prior of the new hospital, St. Mary Spittle without Bishopsgate, ought to make the middle part of one other bridge next to the said bridge towards the north: and that in the twenty-eight year of Edward I. it was by inquisition found before the mayor of London, that the parish of St. Stephen upon Walbrooke ought of right to scour the course of the said brook, and therefore the sheriffs were commanded to distrain the said parishioners so to do, in the year 1300. The keepers of those bridges at that time were William Jordan and John de Bever. This water-course, having divers bridges, was afterwards vaulted over with brick, and paved level with the streets and lanes where through it passed; and since that, also houses have been built thereon, so that the course of Walbrooke is now hidden underground, and thereby hardly known.

Langborne water, so called of the length thereof, was a great stream breaking out of the ground in Fenchurch street, which ran down with a swift course, west, through that street, athwart Gra street, and down Lumbard street, to the west end of St. Mary Wolnothes church, and then turning the course down Shareborne lane, so termed of sharing or dividing, it brake into divers rills or rillets to the river of Thames: of this bourn that ward took the name, and is till this day called Langborne ward. This bourn also is long since stopped up at the head, and the rest of the course filled up and paved over, so that no sign thereof remaineth more than the names aforesaid.

Oldborne, or Hilborne, was the like water, breaking out about the place where now the bars do stand, and it ran down the whole street till Oldborne bridge, and into the river of the Wells, or Turnemill brook. This bourn was likewise long since stopped up at the head, and in other places where the same hath broken out, but yet till this day the said street is there called High Oldborne hill, and both the sides thereof, together with all the grounds adjoining, that lie betwixt it and the river of Thames, remain full of springs, so that water is there found at hand, and hard to be stopped in every house.

There are (saith Fitzstephen) near London, on the north side, special wells in the suburbs, sweet, wholesome, and clear; amongst which Holy well, Clarkes’ well, and Clement’s well, are most famous, and frequented by scholars and youths of the city in summer evenings, when they walk forth to take the air.

The first, to wit, Holy well, is much decayed and marred with filthiness purposely hid there, for the heightening of the ground for garden-plots.

The fountain called St. Clement’s well, north from the parish church of St. Clement’s and near unto an inn of Chancerie called Clement’s Inn, is fair curbed square with hard stone, kept clean for common use, and is always full.

The third is called Clarkes’ well, or Clarkenwell, and is curbed about square with hard stone, not far from the west end of Clarkenwell church, but close without the wall that incloseth it. The said church took the name of the well, and the well took the name of the parish clerks in London, who of old time were accustomed there yearly to assemble, and to play some large history of Holy Scripture.[24] And for example, of later time, to wit, in the year 1390, the 14th of Richard II., I read, the parish clerks of London, on the 18th of July, played interludes at Skinners’ well, near unto Clarkes’ well, which play continued three days together; the king, queen, and nobles being present. Also in the year 1409, the 10th of Henry IV., they played a play at the Skinners’ well, which lasted eight days, and was of matter from the creation of the world. There were to see the same the most part of the nobles and gentles in England, etc.

Other smaller wells were many near unto Clarkes’ well, namely Skinners’ well, so called for that the skinners of London held there certain plays yearly, played of Holy Scripture, etc. In place whereof the wrestlings have of later years been kept, and is in part continued at Bartholomew tide.

Then there was Fagges well, near unto Smithfield by the Charterhouse, now lately damned up, Todwell, Loder’s well, and Radwell, all decayed, and so filled up, that their places are hardly now discerned.

Somewhat north from Holywell is one other well curved square with stone, and is called Dame Annis the clear, and not far from it, but somewhat west, is also one other clear water called Perillous pond, because divers youths, by swimming therein, have been drowned; and thus much be said for fountains and wells.

Horsepoole, in West Smithfield, was some time a great water; and because the inhabitants in that part of the city did there water their horses, the same was in old records called Horsepoole; it is now much decayed, the springs being stopped up, and the land water falling into the small bottom, remaining inclosed with brick, is called Smithfield pond.[25]

By St. Giles’ churchyard was a large water called a Pool. I read in the year 1244 that Anne of Lodburie was drowned therein; this pool is now for the most part stopped up, but the spring is preserved, and was coped about with stone by the executors of Richard Whittington.

The said river of the Wells, the running water of Walbrooke, the bourns aforenamed, and other the fresh waters that were in and about this city, being in process of time, by incroachment for buildings and heightenings of grounds, utterly decayed, and the number of citizens mightily increased, they were forced to seek sweet waters abroad; whereof some, at the request of King Henry III., in the twenty-first year of his reign,[26] were, for the profit of the city, and good of the whole realm, thither repairing, to wit, for the poor to drink, and the rich to dress their meat, granted to the citizens and their successors, by one Gilbert Sanforde, with liberty to convey water from the town of Teyborne by pipes of lead into their city.

The first cistern of lead, castellated with stone in the city of London, was called the great Conduit in West Cheape, which was begun to be built in the year 1285, Henry Wales being then mayor. The water-course from Paddington to James head hath 510 rods; from James head on the hill to the Mewsgate, 102 rods; from the Mewsgate to the Cross in Cheape, 484 rods.

The tun upon Cornhill was cisterned in the year 1401; John Shadworth then being mayor.

Bosses of water at Belinsgate, by Powle’s wharf, and by St. Giles’ church without Cripplegate, made about the year 1423.

Water conveyed to the gaols of Newgate and Ludgate, 1432.

Water was first procured to the Standard in West Cheape about the year 1285, which Standard was again new built by the executors of John Welles, as shall be shown in another place. King Henry VI., in the year 1442, granted to John Hatherley, mayor, license to take up two hundred fodders of lead for the building of conduits, of a common garnery, and of a new cross in West Cheape, for the honour of the city.

The Conduit in West Cheape, by Powle’s gate, was built about the year 1442; one thousand marks were granted by common council for the building thereof, and repairing of the other conduits.

The Conduit in Aldermanbury, and the Standard in Fleet street, were made and finished by the executors of Sir William Eastfield in the year 1471; a cistern was added to the Standard in Fleete street, and a cistern was made at Fleetbridge, and one other without Cripplegate, in the year 1478.

Conduit in Gra street, in the year 1491.

Conduit at Oldbourne cross about 1498; again new made by William Lambe 1577.

Little conduit by the Stockes market, about 1500.

Conduit at Bishopsgate, about 1513.

Conduit at London wall, about 1528.

Conduit at Aldgate without, about 1535.

Conduit in Lothbury, and in Coleman street, 1546.

Conduit of Thames water at Dowgate, 1568.

Thames water, conveyed into men’s houses by pipes of lead from a most artificial forcier standing near unto London bridge, and made by Peter Moris, Dutchman, in the year 1582, for service of the city, on the east part thereof.

Conduits of Thames water, by the parish churches of St. Mary Magdalen, and St. Nicolas Colde Abbey near unto old Fish street, in the year 1583.

One other new forcier was made near to Broken wharfe, to convey Thames water into men’s houses of West Cheape, about Powle’s, Fleete street, etc., by an English gentleman named Bevis Bulmer, in the year 1594. Thus much for waters serving this city; first by rivers, brooks, bourns, fountains, pools, etc.; and since by conduits, partly made by good and charitable citizens, and otherwise by charges of the commonalty, as shall be shown in description of wards wherein they be placed. And now some benefactors to these conduits shall be remembered.

In the year 1236 certain merchant strangers of cities beyond the seas, to wit, Amiens, Corby, and Nele, for privileges which they enjoyed in this city, gave one hundred pounds towards the charges of conveying water from the town of Teyborne. Robert Large, mayor, 1439, gave to the new water conduits then in hand forty marks, and towards the vaulting over of Walbrooke near to the parish church of St. Margaret in Lothbery, two hundred marks.

Sir William Eastfield, mayor, 1438, conveyed water from Teyborne to Fleete street, to Aldermanbury, and from Highbury to Cripplegate.

William Combes, sheriff, 1441, gave to the work of the conduits ten pounds.

Richard Rawson, one of the sheriffs, 1476, gave twenty pounds.

Robert Revell, one of the sheriffs, 1490, gave ten pounds.

John Mathew, mayor, 1490, gave twenty pounds.

William Bucke, tailor, in the year 1494, towards repairing of conduits, gave one hundred marks.

Dame Thomason, widow, late wife to John Percivall Taylor, mayor, in the year 1498 gave toward the conduit in Oldbourne twenty marks.

Richard Shore, one of the sheriffs, 1505, gave to the conduit in Oldbourne ten pounds.

The Lady Ascue, widow of Sir Christopher Ascue, 1543, gave towards the conduits one hundred pounds.

David Wodrooffe, sheriff, 1554, gave towards the conduit at Bishopsgate twenty pounds.

Edward Jackman, one of the sheriffs, 1564, gave towards the conduits one hundred pounds.

Barnard Randulph, common sergeant of the city, 1583, gave to the water conduits nine hundred pounds.[27]

Thus much for the conduits of fresh water to this city.

THE TOWN DITCH WITHOUT THE WALL OF THE CITY

The ditch, which partly now remaineth, and compassed the wall of the city, was begun to be made by the Londoners in the year 1211,[28] and was finished in the year 1213, the 15th of King John. This ditch being then made of 200 feet broad, caused no small hindrance to the canons of the Holy Trinity, whose church stood near unto Aldgate; for that the said ditch passed through their ground from the Tower of London unto Bishopsgate. This ditch, being originally made for the defence of the city, was also long together carefully cleansed and maintained, as need required; but now of late neglected and forced either to a very narrow, and the same a filthy channel, or altogether stopped up for gardens planted, and houses built thereon; even to the very wall, and in many places upon both ditch and wall houses to be built; to what danger of the city, I leave to wiser consideration, and can but wish that reformation might be had.

In the year of Christ 1354, the 28th of Edward III., the ditch of this city flowing over the bank into the Tower ditch, the king commanded the said ditch of the city to be cleansed, and so ordered, that the overflowing thereof should not force any filth into the Tower ditch.

Anno 1379, John Philpot, mayor of London, caused this ditch to be cleansed, and every householder to pay five pence, which was for a day’s work towards the charges thereof. Richard II., in the 10th of his reign, granted a toll to be taken of wares sold by water or by land, for ten years, towards repairing of the wall and cleansing of the ditch.

Thomas Falconer, mayor, 1414, caused the ditch to be cleansed.

Ralph Joceline, mayor, 1477, caused the whole ditch to be cast and cleansed, and so from time to time it was cleansed, and otherwise reformed, namely, in 1519, the 10th of Henry VIII., for cleansing and scowering the common ditch between Aldgate and the postern next the Tower ditch. The chief ditcher had by the day seven pence, the second ditcher six pence, the other ditchers five pence. And every vagabond (for so were they termed) one penny the day, meat and drink, at charges of the city. £95 3s. 4d.

In my remembrance also the same was cleansed, namely the Moore ditch, when Sir William Hollies was mayor, in the year 1540, and not long before, from the Tower of London to Aldgate.

It was again cleansed in the year 1549, Henry Amcotes being mayor, at the charges of the companies. And again, 1569, the 11th of Queen Elizabeth, for cleansing the same ditch between Aldgate and the postern, and making a new sewer, and wharf of timber, from the head of the postern into the town ditch, £814 15s. 8d. Before the which time the said ditch lay open, without wall or pale, having therein great store of very good fish, of divers sorts, as many men yet living, who have taken and tasted them, can well witness; but now no such matter: the charge of cleansing is spared, and great profit made by letting out the banks, with the spoil of the whole ditch.

I am not ignorant of two fifteenths granted by a common council in the year 1595, for the reformation of this ditch, and that a small portion thereof, to wit, betwixt Bishopsgate and the postern called Mooregate, was cleansed, and made somewhat broader; but filling again very fast, by reason of overraising the ground near adjoining, therefore never the better: and I will so leave it, for I cannot help it.

BRIDGES OF THIS CITY

The original foundation of London bridge, by report of Bartholomew Linsted, alias Fowle, last prior of St. Mary Overies church in Southwark, was this: A ferry being kept in place where now the bridge is built, at length the ferryman and his wife deceasing, left the same ferry to their only daughter, a maiden named Mary, which with the goods left by her parents, and also with the profits arising of the said ferry, built a house of Sisters, in place where now standeth the east part of St. Mary Overies church, above the choir, where she was buried, unto which house she gave the oversight and profits of the ferry; but afterwards the said house of Sisters being converted into a college of priests, the priests built the bridge (of timber) as all the other great bridges of this land were, and from time to time kept the same in good reparations, till at length, considering the great charges of repairing the same, there was, by aid of the citizens of London, and others, a bridge built with arches of stone, as shall be shown.

But first of the timber bridge, the antiquity thereof being great, but uncertain; I remember to have read,[29] that in the year of Christ 994, Sweyn, king of Denmark, besieging the city of London, both by water and by land, the citizens manfully defended themselves, and their king Ethelred, so as part of their enemies were slain in battle, and part of them were drowned in the river of Thames, because in their hasty rage they took no heed of the bridge.

Moreover, in the year 1016, Canute the Dane, with a great navy, came up to London, and on the south of the Thames caused a trench to be cast, through the which his ships were towed into the west side of the bridge, and then with a deep trench, and straight siege, he compassed the city round about.

Also, in the year 1052, Earl Goodwin, with the like navy, taking his course up the river of Thames, and finding none that offered to resist on the bridge, he sailed up the south side of the said river. Furthermore, about the year 1067, William the Conqueror, in his charter to the church of St. Peter at Westminster, confirmed to the monks serving God there, a gate in London, then called Buttolph’s gate, with a wharf which was at the head of London bridge.

We read likewise, that in the year 1114, the 14th of Henry I., the river of Thames was so dried up, and such want of water there, that between the Tower of London and the bridge, and under the bridge, not only with horse, but also a great number of men, women, and children, did wade over on foot.[30]

In the year 1122, the 22nd of Henry I., Thomas Arden gave the monks of Bermondsey the church of St. George, in Southward, and five shillings rent by the year, out of the land pertaining to London bridge.

I also have seen a charter under seal to the effect following:—“Henry king of England, to Ralfe B. of Chichester, and all the ministers of Sussex, sendeth greeting, know ye, etc. I command by my kingly authority, that the manor called Alcestone, which my father gave, with other lands, to the abbey of Battle, be free and quiet from shires and hundreds, and all other customs of earthly servitude, as my father held the same, most freely and quietly, and namely, from the work of London bridge, and the work of the castle at Pevensey: and this I command upon my forfeiture. Witness, William de Pontlearche, at Byrry.” The which charter, with the seal very fair, remaineth in the custody of Joseph Holland, gentleman.

In the year 1136, the 1st of king Stephen,[31] a fire began in the house of one Ailewarde, near unto London stone, which consumed east to Aldgate, and west to St. Erkenwald’s shrine, in Powle’s church; the bridge of timber over the river of Thames was also burnt, etc., but afterwards again repaired. For Fitzstephen writes, that in the reign of King Stephen and of Henry II., when pastimes were showed on the river of Thames, men stood in great number on the bridge, wharfs, and houses, to behold.

Now in the year 1163, the same bridge was not only repaired, but newly made of timber as before, by Peter of Cole church, priest and chaplain.

Thus much for the old timber bridge, maintained partly by the proper lands thereof, partly by the liberality of divers persons, and partly by taxations in divers shires, have I proved for the space of 215 years before the bridge of stone was built.

Now touching the foundation of the stone bridge, it followeth:—About the year 1176, the stone bridge over the river of Thames, at London, was begun to be founded by the aforesaid Peter of Cole church, near unto the bridge of timber, but somewhat more towards the west, for I read, that Buttolfe wharf was, in the Conqueror’s time, at the head of London bridge.[32] The king assisted this work: a cardinal then being legate here; and Richard, archbishop of Canterbury, gave one thousand marks towards the foundation; the course of the river, for the time, was turned another way about, by a trench cast for that purpose, beginning, as is supposed, east about Radriffe, and ending in the west about Patricksey, now termed Batersey. This work; to wit, the arches, chapel and stone bridge, over the river of Thames at London, having been thirty-three years in building, was in the year 1209 finished by the worthy merchants of London, Serle Mercer, William Almaine, and Benedict Botewrite, principal masters of that work, for Peter of Cole church deceased four years before, and was buried in the chapel on the bridge, in the year 1205.[33]

King John gave certain void places in London to build upon the profits thereof to remain towards the charges of building and repairing the same bridge: a mason being master workman of the bridge, builded from the foundation the large chapel on that bridge of his own charges, which chapel was then endowed for two priests, four clerks, etc., besides chantries since founded for John Hatfield and other.[34] After the finishing of this chapel, which was the first building upon those arches, sundry houses at times were erected, and many charitable men gave lands, tenements, or sums of money, towards maintenance thereof, all which was sometimes noted and in a table fair written for posterity remaining in the chapel, until the same chapel was turned into a dwelling-house, and then removed to the bridge house, the effect of which table I was willing to have published in this book, if I could have obtained the sight thereof. But making the shorter work, I find by the account of William Mariner and Christopher Eliot, wardens of London bridge from Michaelmas, in the 22nd of Henry VII., unto Michaelmas next ensuing, by one whole year, that all the payments and allowances came to £815 17s. 2¼d., as there is shown by particulars, by which account then made, may be partly guessed the great charges and discharges of that bridge at this day, when things be stretched to so great a price. And now to actions on this bridge.

The first action to be noted was lamentable; for within four[35] years after the finishing thereof, to wit, in the year 1212, on the l0th of July, at night,[36] the borough of Southwark, upon the south side the river of Thames, as also the church of our Lady of the Canons there, being on fire, and an exceeding great multitude of people passing the bridge, either to extinguish and quench it, or else to gaze at and behold it, suddenly the north part, by blowing of the south wind was also set on fire, and the people which were even now passing the bridge, perceiving the same, would have returned, but were stopped by fire; and it came to pass, that as they stayed or protracted time, the other end of the bridge also, namely, the south end, was fired, so that the people thronging themselves between the two fires, did nothing else but expect present death; then came there to aid them many ships and vessels, into the which the multitude so unadvisedly rushed, that the ships being drowned, they all perished.[37] It was said, that through the fire and shipwreck there were destroyed about three thousand persons, whose bodies were found in part, or half burnt, besides those that were wholly burnt to ashes, and could not be found.

About the year 1282, through a great frost and deep snow, five arches of London bridge were borne down and carried away.

In the year 1289, the bridge was so sore decayed for want of reparations that men were afraid to pass thereon, and a subsidy was granted towards the amendment thereof,[38] Sir John Britain being custos of London. 1381, a great collection or gathering was made of all archbishops, bishops, and other ecclesiastical persons, for the reparations of London bridge. 1381, Wat Tyler, and other rebels of Kent, by this bridge entered the city, as ye may read in my Summary and Annals.

In the year 1395, on St. George’s day, was a great justing on London bridge, betwixt David Earl of Crawford of Scotland, and the Lord Wells of England; in the which the Lord Wells was at the third course borne out of the saddle: which history proveth, that at that time the bridge being coped on either side, was not replenished with houses built thereupon, as it hath since been, and now is. The next year, on the 13th of November, the young Queen Isabell, commonly called the little, for she was but eight years old, was conveyed from Kenington besides Lamhith, through Southwarke to the Tower of London, and such a multitude of people went out to see her, that on London bridge nine persons were crowded to death, of whom the prior of Tiptre, a place in Essex, was one, and a matron on Cornhill was another.

The Tower on London bridge at the north end of the draw-bridge (for that bridge was then readily to be drawn up, as well to give passage for ships to Queenhithe, as for the resistance of any foreign force), was begun to be built in the year 1426, John Rainwell being mayor.

Another tower there is on the said bridge over the gate at the south end towards Southwarke, whereof in another place shall be spoken.

In the year 1450, Jack Cade, and other rebels of Kent, by this bridge entered the city: he struck his sword on London Stone, and said himself then to be lord of the city, but were by the citizens overcome on the same bridge, and put to flight, as in my Annals.

In the year 1471, Thomas, the bastard Fawconbridge, besieged this bridge, burnt the gate, and all the houses to the draw-bridge, that time thirteen in number.

In the year 1481, a house called the common siege on London bridge fell down into the Thames; through the fall whereof five men were drowned.

In the year 1553, the 3rd of February, Sir Thomas Wyat, and the Kentish men, marched from Depeford towards London; after knowledge whereof, forthwith the draw-bridge was cut down, and the bridge gates shut. Wyat and his people entered Southwarke, where they lay till the 6th of February, but could get no entry of the city by the bridge, the same was then so well defended by the citizens, the Lord William Howard assisting, wherefore he removed towards Kingstone, etc., as in my Annals.

To conclude of this bridge over the said river of Thames, I affirm, as in other my descriptions, that it is a work very rare, having with the draw-bridge twenty arches made of squared stone, of height sixty feet, and in breadth thirty feet, distant one from another twenty feet, compact and joined together with vaults and cellars; upon both sides be houses built, so that it seemeth rather a continual street than a bridge; for the fortifying whereof against the incessant assaults of the river, it hath overseers and officers, viz., wardens, as aforesaid, and others.

Fleete bridge in the west without Ludgate, a bridge of stone, fair coped on either side with iron pikes; on the which, towards the south, be also certain lanthorns of stone, for lights to be placed in the winter evenings, for commodity of travellers. Under the bridge runneth a water, sometimes called, as I have said, the river of the Wels, since Turnemill brooke, now Fleete dike, because it runneth by the Fleete, and sometimes about the Fleete, so under Fleete bridge into the river of Thames. This bridge hath been far greater in times past, but lessened, as the water course hath been narrowed. It seemeth this last bridge to be made or repaired at the charges of John Wels, mayor, in the year 1431, for on the coping is engraven Wels embraced by angels, like as on the standard in Cheape, which he also built. Thus much of the bridge: for of the water course, and decay thereof, I have spoken in another place.

Oldbourne bridge, over the said river of the Wels more towards the north, was so called, of a bourn that sometimes ran down Oldbourne hill into the said river. This bridge of stone, like as Fleet bridge from Ludgate west, serveth for passengers with carriage or otherwise, from Newgate toward the west and by north.

Cowbridge, more north, over the same water by Cowbridge street or Cowlane: this bridge being lately decayed, another of timber is made somewhat more north, by Chick lane, etc.

Bridges over the town ditch there are divers; to wit, without Aldgate, without Bishopsgate, the postern called Moorgate, the postern of Criplegate without Aldersgate, the postern of Christ’s hospital, Newgate, and Ludgate; all these be over paved likewise, with stone level with the streets. But one other there is of timber over the river of Wels, or Fleet dike, between the precinct of the Black Friers, and the house of Bridewell.

There have been of old time also, divers bridges in sundry places over the course of Walbrooke, as before I have partly noted, besides Horseshew bridge, by the church of St. John Baptist, now called St. John’s upon Walbrooke. I read, that of old time every person having lands on either side of the said brook, should cleanse[39] the same, and repair the bridges so far as their lands extended. More, in the 11th of Edward III. the inhabitants upon the course of this brook were forced to pile and wall the sides thereof. Also, that in the 3rd of Henry V. this water-course had many bridges, since vaulted over with bricks, and the streets where through it passed so paved, that the same water-course is now hardly discerned. For order was taken in the 2nd of Edward IV., that such as had ground on either side of Walbrooke, should vault and pave it over, so far as his ground extended. And thus much for bridges in this city may suffice.

GATES IN THE WALL OF THIS CITY

Gates in the wall of this city of old time were four; to wit, Aeldgate for the east, Aldersgate for the north, Ludgate for the west, and the Bridgegate over the river of Thames for the south; but of later times, for the ease of citizens and passengers, divers other gates and posterns have been made, as shall be shown.

In the reign of Henry II. (saith Fitzstephen) there were seven double gates in the wall of this city, but he nameth them not. It may therefore be supposed, he meant for the first, the gate next the Tower of London,[40] now commonly called the Postern, the next be Aeldgate, the third Bishopsgate, the fourth Ealdersgate, the fifth Newgate, the sixth Ludgate, the seventh Bridgegate. Since the which time hath been builded the postern called Moorgate, a postern from Christ’s hospital towards St. Bartholomew’s hospital in Smithfield, etc. Now of every of these gates and posterns in the wall, and also of certain water-gates on the river of Thames, severally somewhat may, and shall be noted, as I find authority, or reasonable conjecture to warrant me.

For the first, now called the postern by the Tower of London, it showeth by that part which yet remaineth, to have been a fair and strong arched gate, partly built of hard stone of Kent, and partly of stone brought from Caen in Normandy, since the Conquest, and foundation of the high tower, and served for passengers on foot out of the east, from thence through the city to Ludgate in the west. The ruin and overthrow of this gate and postern began in the year 1190, the 2nd of Richard I., when William Longshampe, bishop of Ely, chancellor of England, caused a part of the city wall, to wit, from the said gate towards the river of Thames to the white tower, to be broken down, for the enlarging of the said tower, which he then compassed far wide about with a wall embattled, and is now the outer wall. He also caused a broad and deep ditch to be made without the same wall, intending to have derived the river of Thames with her tides to have flowed about it, which would not be. But the southside of this gate, being then by undermining at the foundation loosened, and greatly weakened; at length, to wit, after two hundred years and odd, the same fell down in the year 1440, the 18th of Henry VI., and was never since by the citizens re-edified.[41] Such was their negligence then, and hath bred some trouble to their successors, since they suffered a weak and wooden building to be there made, inhabited by persons of lewd life, oft times by inquest of Portsoken ward presented, but not reformed; whereas of former times the said postern was accounted of as other gates of the city, and was appointed to men of good credit. Amongst other, I have read, that in the 49th of Edward III., John Cobbe was admitted custos of the said postern, and all the habitation thereof, for term of his life, by William Walworth, then mayor of London, etc. More, that John Credy, Esq., in the 21st of Richard II., was admitted custos of the said postern and appurtenances by Richard Whittington, mayor, the aldermen, and commonalty, etc.

AELDGATE

The next gate in the east is called Aeldgate, of the antiquity or age thereof. This is one and the first of the four principal gates, and also one of the seven double gates, mentioned by Fitzstephen. It hath had two pair of gates, though now but one; the hooks remaineth yet. Also there hath been two portcloses; the one of them remaineth, the other wanteth, but the place of letting down is manifest. For antiquity of the gate: it appeareth by a charter of King Edgar to the knights of Knighten Guild, that in his days the said port was called Aeldgate, as ye may read in the ward of Portsoken. Also Matilda the queen, wife to Henry I., having founded the priory of the Holy Trinity within Aeldgate, gave unto the same church, to Norman the first prior, and the canons that devoutly serve God therein,[42] the port of Aeldgate, and the soke or franchises thereunto belonging, with all customs as free as she held the same; in the which charter she nameth the house Christ’s church, and reporteth Aeldgate to be of his domain.

More, I read[43] in the year 1215, that in the civil wars between King John and his barons, the Londoners assisting the barons’ faction, who then besieged Northampton, and after came to Bedford castle, where they were well received by William Beauchampe, and captain of the same; having then also secret intelligence that they might enter the city of London if they would, they removed their camp to Ware, from thence in the night coming to London, they entered Aeldgate, and placing guardians or keepers of the gates, they disposed of all things in the city at their pleasure. They spoiled the friars’ houses, and searched their coffers;[44] which being done, Robert Fitzwalter, Geffry Magnavile Earl of Essex, and the Earl of Glocester, chief leaders of the army, applied all diligence to repair the gates and walls of this city with the stones taken from the Jews’ broken houses, namely, Aeldgate being then most ruinous (which had given them an easy entry), they repaired, or rather newly built, after the manner of the Normans, strongly arched with bulwarks of stone from Caen in Normandy, and small brick, called Flanders tile, was brought from thence, such as hath been here used since the Conquest, and not before.

In the year 1471,[45] the 11th of Edward IV., Thomas, the bastard Fawconbridge, having assembled a riotous company of shipmen and other in Essex and Kent, came to London with a great navy of ships, near to the Tower; whereupon the mayor and aldermen, by consent of a common council, fortified all along the Thames side, from Baynard’s castle to the Tower, with armed men, guns, and other instruments of war, to resist the invasion of the mariners, whereby the Thames side was safely preserved and kept by the aldermen and other citizens that assembled thither in great numbers. Whereupon the rebels, being denied passage through the city that way, set upon Aeldgate, Bishopsgate, Cripplegate, Aeldersgate, London bridge, and along the river of Thames, shooting arrows and guns into the city, fired the suburbs, and burnt more than threescore houses. And further, on Sunday the eleventh of May, five thousand of them assaulting Aeldgate, won the bulwarks, and entered the city; but the portclose being let down, such as had entered were slain, and Robert Basset, alderman of Aeldgate ward, with the recorder, commanded in the name of God to draw up the portclose; which being done, they issued out, and with sharp shot, and fierce fight, put their enemies back so far as St. Bottolph’s church, by which time the Earl Rivers, and lieutenant of the Tower, was come with a fresh company, which joining together, discomfited the rebels, and put them to flight, whom the said Robert Basset, with the other citizens, chased to the Mile’s End, and from thence, some to Popular, some to Stratford, slew many, and took many of them prisoners. In which space the Bastard having assayed other places upon the water side, and little prevailed, fled toward his ships. Thus much for Aeldgate.

BISHOPSGATE

The third, and next toward the north, is called Bishopsgate, for that, as it may be supposed, the same was first built by some Bishop of London, though now unknown when, or by whom; but true it is, that the first gate was first built for ease of passengers toward the east, and by north, as into Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, etc.; the travellers into which parts, before the building of this gate, were forced, passing out at Aeldgate, to go east till they came to the Mile’s end, and then turning on the left hand to Blethenhall green[46] to Cambridge heath, and so north, or east, and by north, as their journey lay. If they took not this way, by the east out at Aeldgate, they must take their way by the north out at Aeldersgate, through Aeldersgate street and Goswel street towards Iseldon, and by a cross of stone on their right hand, set up for a mark by the north end of Golding lane, to turn eastward through a long street, until this day called Alder street, to another cross standing, where now a smith’s forge is placed by Sewer’s-ditch church, and then to turn again north towards Totenham, Endfield, Waltham, Ware, etc. The eldest note that I read of this Bishopsgate, is that William Blund, one of the sheriffs of London,[47] in the year 1210, sold to Serle Mercer, and William Almaine, procurators or wardens of London bridge, all his land, with the garden, in the parish of St. Buttolph without Bishopsgate, between the land of Richard Casiarin, towards the north, and the land of Robert Crispie towards the south, and the highway called Berewards lane on the east, etc.

Next I read in a charter, dated the year 1235, that Walter Brune, citizen of London, and Rosia his wife, having founded the priory or new hospital of our blessed Lady, since called St. Mary Spittle without Bishopsgate, confirmed the same to the honour of God and our blessed Lady, for canons regular.

Also in the year 1247, Simon Fitzmarie, one of the sheriffs of London, the 29th of Henry III., founded the hospital of St. Mary, called Bethlem without Bishopsgate. Thus much for the antiquity of this gate.[48]

And now for repairing the same, I find that Henry III. confirmed to the merchants of the Haunce, that had a house in the city called Guildhalla Theutonicorum, certain liberties and privileges. Edward I. also confirmed the same; in the tenth year of whose reign it was found that the said merchants ought of right to repair the said gate called Bishopsgate; whereupon Gerard Marbod, alderman of the Haunce and other, then remaining in the city of London, for themselves, and all other merchants of the said Haunce, granted two hundred and ten marks sterling to the mayor and citizens; and covenanted that they and their successors should from time to time repair the same gate. This gate was again beautifully built in the year 1479, in the reign of Edward IV., by the said Haunce merchants.

Moreover, about the year 1551, these Haunce merchants, having prepared stone for that purpose, caused a new gate to be framed, there to have been set up, but then their liberties, through suit of our English merchants, were seized into the king’s hand; and so that work was stayed, and the old gate yet remaineth.

POSTERN OF MOREGATE

Touching the next postern, called Moregate, I find that Thomas Falconer, mayor, about the year 1415, the third of Henry V., caused the wall of the city to be broken near unto Coleman street, and there built a postern, now called Moregate, upon the moor side where was never gate before. This gate he made for ease of the citizens, that way to pass upon causeys into the field for their recreation: for the same field was at that time a parish. This postern was re-edified by William Hampton, fishmonger, mayor, in the year 1472. In the year also, 1511, the third of Henry VIII., Roger Acheley, mayor, caused dikes and bridges to be made, and the ground to be levelled, and made more commodious for passage, since which time the same hath been heightened. So much that the ditches and bridges are covered, and seemeth to me that if it be made level with the battlements of the city wall, yet will it be little the drier, such is the moorish nature of that ground.

POSTERN OF CRIPPLEGATE

The next is the postern of Cripplegate, so called long before the Conquest. For I read in the history of Edmond,[49] king of the East Angles, written by Abbo Floriacensis, and by Burchard, sometime secretary to Offa, king of Marcia, but since by John Lidgate, monk of Bury, that in the year 1010, the Danes spoiling the kingdom of the East Angles, Alwyne, bishop of Helmeham, caused the body of King Edmond the Martyr to be brought from Bedrisworth (now called Bury St. Edmondes), through the kingdom of the East Saxons, and so to London in at Cripplegate; a place, saith mine author, so called of cripples begging there: at which gate, it was said, the body entering, miracles were wrought, as some of the lame to go upright, praising God. The body of King Edmond rested for the space of three years in the parish church of St. Gregorie, near unto the cathedral church of St. Paul. Moreover, the charter of William the Conqueror, confirming the foundation of the college in London, called St. Martin the Great, hath these words:[50] “I do give and grant to the same church and canons, serving God therein, all the land and the moore without the postern, which is called Cripplegate, on either side the postern.” More I read, that Alfune built the parish church of St. Giles, nigh a gate of the city, called Porta Contractorum, or Cripplesgate, about the year 1099.

This postern was sometime a prison, whereunto such citizens and others, as were arrested for debt or common trespasses, were committed, as they be now, to the compters, which thing appeareth by a writ of Edward I. in these words: “Rex vic. London. salutem: ex graui querela B. capt. & detent. in prisona nostra de Criples gate pro x. l. quas coram Radulpho de Sandwico tunc custod. ciuitatis nostræ London. & I. de Blackwell ciuis recognit. debit. etc.” This gate was new built by the brewers of London in the year 1244, as saith Fabian’s manuscript. Edmond Shaw, goldsmith, mayor in the year 1483, at his decease appointed by his testament his executors, with the cost of four hundred marks, and the stuff of the old gate, called Cripplesgate, to build the same gate of new, which was performed and done in the year 1491.

ALDERSGATE

The next is Ældresgate, or Aldersgate,[51] so called not of Aldrich or of Elders, that is to say, ancient men, builders thereof; not of Eldarne trees, growing there more abundantly than in other places, as some have fabled,[51] but for the very antiquity of the gate itself, as being one of the first four gates of the city, and serving for the northern parts, as Aldegate for the east; which two gates, being both old gates, are for difference sake called, the one Ealdegate, and the other Aldersgate. This is the fourth principal gate, and hath at sundry times been increased with buildings, namely, on the south, or inner side, a great frame of timber hath been added and set up, containing divers large rooms and lodgings; also on the east side is the addition of one great building of timber, with one large floor, paved with stone or tile, and a well therein curbed with stone, of a great depth, and rising into the said room, two stories high from the ground; which well is the only peculiar note belonging to that gate, for I have not seen the like in all this city to be raised so high. John Day, stationer, a late famous printer of many good books, in our time dwelt in this gate, and built much upon the wall of the city towards the parish church of St. Anne.

POSTERN OUT OF CHRIST’S HOSPITAL

Then is there also a postern gate, made out of the wall on the north side of the late dissolved cloister of Friers minors, commonly of their habit called Grey friars, now Christ’s church and hospital. This postern was made in the first year of Edward VI. to pass from the said hospital of Christ’s church unto the hospital of St. Bartlemew in Smithfield.

NEWGATE

The next gate on the west, and by north, is termed Newgate, as latelier built than the rest, and is the fifth principal gate. This gate was first erected about the reign of Henry I. or of King Stephen, upon this occasion.[52] The cathedral church of St. Paul, being burnt about the year 1086, in the reign of William the Conqueror, Mauritius, then bishop of London, repaired not the old church, as some have supposed, but began the foundation of a new work, such as men then judged would never have been performed; it was to them so wonderful for height, length, and breadth, as also in respect it was raised upon arches or vaults, a kind of workmanship brought in by the Normans, and never known to the artificers of this land before that time, etc. After Mauritius, Richard Beamore did wonderfully advance the work of the said church, purchasing the large streets and lanes round about, wherein were wont to dwell many lay people, which grounds he began to compass about with a strong wall of stone and gates. By means of this increase of the church territory, but more by inclosing of ground for so large a cemetery or churchyard, the high and large street stretching from Aldegate in the east until Ludgate in the west, was in this place so crossed and stopped up, that the carriage through the city westward was forced to pass without the said churchyard wall on the north side, through Pater noster row; and then south, down Ave Mary lane, and again west, through Bowyer row to Ludgate; or else out of Cheepe, or Watheling street, to turn south, through the old Exchange; then west through Carter lane, again north by Creede lane, and then west to Ludgate: which passage, by reason of so often turning, was very cumbersome and dangerous both for horse and man; for remedy whereof a new gate was made, and so called, by which men and cattle, with all manner of carriages, might pass more directly (as afore) from Aldegate, through West Cheape by Paules, on the north side; through St. Nicholas shambles and Newgate market to Newgate, and from thence to any part westward over Oldborne bridge, or turning without the gate into Smithfielde, and through Iseldon to any part north and by west. This gate hath of long time been a gaol, or prison for felons and trespassers, as appeareth by records[53] in the reign of King John, and of other kings; amongst the which I find one testifying, that in the year 1218, the 3rd of King Henry III., the king writeth unto the sheriffs of London, commanding them to repair the gaol of Newgate for the safe keeping of his prisoners, promising that the charges laid out should be allowed unto them upon their account in the Exchequer.

Moreover, in the year 1241, the Jews of Norwich were hanged for circumcising a Christian child; their house called the Thor was pulled down and destroyed; Aron, the son of Abraham, a Jew, at London, and the other Jews, were constrained to pay twenty thousand marks at two terms in the year, or else to be kept perpetual prisoners in Newgate of London, and in other prisons. In 1255, King Henry III. lodging in the tower of London, upon displeasure conceived towards the city of London, for the escape of John Offrem, a prisoner, being a clerk convict, out of Newgate, which had killed a prior that was of alliance to the king, as cousin to the queen: he sent for the mayor and sheriffs to come before him to answer the matter; the mayor laid the fault from him to the sheriffs, forasmuch as to them belonged the keeping of all prisoners within the city; and so the mayor returned home, but the sheriffs remained there prisoners by the space of a month and more; and yet they excused themselves, in that the fault chiefly rested in the bishop’s officers; for whereas the prisoner was under custody, they at his request had granted license to imprison the offender within the gaol of Newgate, but so as the bishop’s officers were charged to see him safely kept. The king, notwithstanding all this, demanded of the city three thousand marks for a fine.

In the year 1326, Robert Baldoke, the king’s chancellor, was put in Newgate, the 3rd of Edward III. In the year 1337, Sir John Poultney gave four marks by the year to the relief of prisoners in Newgate. In the year 1385, William Walworth gave somewhat to relieve the prisoners in Newgate, so have many others since. In the year 1414, the gaolers of Newgate and Ludgate died, and prisoners in Newgate to the number of sixty-four. In the year 1418, the parson of Wrotham, in Kent, was imprisoned in Newgate. In the year 1422, the first of Henry VI., license was granted to John Coventre, Jenken Carpenter, and William Grove, executors to Richard Whittington, to re-edify the gaol of Newgate, which they did with his goods.

Thomas Knowles, grocer, sometime mayor of London, by license of Reynold, prior of St. Bartholomew’s in Smithfield, and also of John Wakering, master of the hospital of St. Bartholomew, and his brethren, conveyed the waste of water at the cistern near to the common fountain and chapel of St. Nicholas (situate by the said hospital) to the gaols of Newgate, and Ludgate, for the relief of the prisoners. Tuesday next after Palm Sunday 1431, all the prisoners of Ludgate were removed into Newgate by Walter Chartesey, and Robert Large, sheriffs of London; and on the 13th of April the same sheriffs (through the false suggestion of John Kingesell, jailor of Newgate) set from thence eighteen persons free men, and these were let to the compters, pinioned as if they had been felons; but on the sixteenth of June, Ludgate was again appointed for free men, prisoners for debt; and the same day the said free men entered by ordinance of the mayor, aldermen, and commons, and by them Henry Deane, tailor, was made keeper of Ludgate prison. In the year 1457, a great fray was in the north country between Sir Thomas Percie, Lord Egremond, and the Earl of Salisbury’s sons, whereby many were maimed and slain; but, in the end, the Lord Egremond being taken, was by the king’s counsel found in great default, and therefore condemned in great sums of money, to be paid to the Earl of Salisbury, and in the meantime committed to Newgate. Not long after, Sir Thomas Percie, Lord Egremond, and Sir Richard Percie his brother, being in Newgate, broke out of prison by night, and went to the king; the other prisoners took the leads of the gate, and defended it a long while against the sheriffs and all their officers, insomuch that they were forced to call more aid of the citizens, whereby they lastly subdued them, and laid them in irons: and this may suffice for Newgate.

LUDGATE

In the west is the next, and sixth principal gate, and is called Ludgate, as first built (saith Geoffrey Monmouth) by King Lud, a Briton, about the year before Christ’s nativity, 66. Of which building, and also of the name, as Ludsgate, or Fludsgate, hath been of late some question among the learned; wherefore I overpass it, as not to my purpose, only referring the reader to that I have before written out of Cæsar’s Commentaries, and other Roman writers, concerning a town or city amongst the Britons. This gate I suppose to be one of the most ancient; and as Aldgate was built for the east, so was this Ludsgate for the west. I read,[54] as I told you, that in the year 1215, the 17th of King John, the barons of the realm, being in arms against the king, entered this city, and spoiled the Jews’ houses; which being done, Robert Fitzwater and Geffrey de Magnavilla, Earl of Essex, and the Earl of Gloucester, chief leaders of the army, applied all diligence to repair the gates and walls of this city, with the stones of the Jews’ broken houses, especially (as it seemeth) they then repaired, or rather new built Ludgate. For in the year 1586, when the same gate was taken down to be newly built, there was found couched within the wall thereof a stone taken from one of the Jews’ houses, wherein was graven in Hebrew characters these words following: Hæc est statio Rabbi Mosis, filii insignis Rabbi Isaac: which is to say, this is the station or ward of Rabbi Moyses, the son of the honourable Rabbi Isaac, and had been fixed upon the front of one of the Jews’ houses, as a note or sign that such a one dwelt there. In the year 1260, this Ludgate was repaired, and beautified with images of Lud, and other kings, as appeareth by letters patent of license given to the citizens of London, to take up stone for that purpose, dated the 25th of Henry III. These images of kings in the reign of Edward VI. had their heads smitten off, and were otherwise defaced by[55] such as judged every image to be an idol; and in the reign of Queen Mary were repaired, as by setting new heads on their old bodies, etc. All which so remained until the year 1586, the 28th of Queen Elizabeth, when the same gate being sore decayed, was clean taken down; the prisoners in the meantime remaining in the large south-east quadrant to the same gate adjoining; and the same year the whole gate was newly and beautifully built, with the images of Lud and others, as afore, on the east side, and the picture of her majesty Queen Elizabeth on the west side: all which was done at the common charges of the citizens, amounting to fifteen hundred pounds or more.

This gate was made a free prison in the year 1378, the 1st of Richard II., Nicholas Brembar being mayor.[56] The same was confirmed in the year 1382, John Northampton being mayor, by a common council in the Guildhall; by which it was ordained that all freemen of this city should, for debt, trespasses, accounts, and contempts, be imprisoned in Ludgate, and for treasons, felonies, and other criminal offences, committed to Newgate, etc. In the year 1431, the 10th of King Henry VI., John Wells being mayor, a court of common council established ordinances (as William Standon and Robert Chicheley, late mayors, before had done), touching the guard and government of Ludgate and other prisons.

Also in the year 1463, the third of Edward IV., Mathew Philip, being mayor, in a common council, at the request of the well-disposed, blessed, and devout woman, Dame Agnes Forster, widow, late wife to Stephen Forster, fishmonger, sometime mayor, for the comfort and relief of all the poor prisoners, certain articles were established. Imprimis, that the new works then late edified by the same Dame Agnes, for the enlarging of the prison of Ludgate, from thenceforth should be had and taken as a part and parcel of the said prison of Ludgate; so that both the old and new work of Ludgate aforesaid be one prison, gaol keeping, and charge for evermore.

The said quadrant, strongly built of stone by the beforenamed Stephen Forster, and Agnes his wife, containeth a large walking-place by ground of thirty-eight feet and a half in length, besides the thickness of the walls, which are at the least six foot, makes altogether forty-four feet and a half; the breadth within the walls is twenty-nine feet and a half, so that the thickness of the walls maketh it thirty five feet and a half in breadth. The like room it hath over it for lodgings, and over it again fair leads to walk upon, well embattled, all for fresh air and ease of prisoners, to the end they should have lodging and water free without charge, as by certain verses graven in copper, and fixed on the said quadrant, I have read in form following:—

“Devout souls that pass this way,
For Stephen Forster, late mayor, heartily pray;
And Dame Agnes his spouse to God consecrate,
That of pity this house made for Londoners in Ludgate.
So that for lodging and water prisoners here nought pay,
As their keepers shall all answer at dreadful doomsday.”

This place and one other of his arms, three broad arrow-heads, taken down with the old gate, I caused to be fixed over the entry of the said quadrant; but the verses being unhappily turned inward to the wall, procured the like in effect to be graven outward in prose, declaring him to be a fishmonger, because some upon a light occasion (as a maiden’s head in a glass window) had fabled him to be a mercer, and to have begged there at Ludgate, etc. Thus much for Ludgate.

Next this is there a breach in the wall of the city, and a bridge of timber over the Fleet dike, betwixt Fleetebridge and Thames, directly over against the house of Bridewel. Thus much for gates in the wall.

Water-gates on the banks of the river Thames have been many, which being purchased by private men, are also put to private use, and the old names of them forgotten; but of such as remain, from the west towards the east, may be said as followeth:—

The Blacke-friers stairs, a free landing-place.

Then a water-gate at Puddle wharf, of one Puddle that kept a wharf on the west side thereof, and now of Puddle water, by means of many horses watered there.

Then Powle’s wharf, also a free landing-place with stairs, etc.

Then Broken wharf, and other such like.

But, Ripa Regina, the Queene’s bank, or Queene hithe may well be accounted the very chief and principal water-gate of this city, being a common strand or landing-place, yet equal with, and of old time far exceeding, Belins gate, as shall be shown in the ward of Queene hithe.

The next is Downe gate, so called of the sudden descending or down-going of that way from St. John’s church upon Walbrooke unto the river of Thames, whereby the water in the channel there hath such a swift course, that in the year 1574, on the fourth of September, after a strong shower of rain, a lad, of the age of eighteen years, minding to have leapt over the channel, was taken by the feet, and borne down with the violence of that narrow stream, and carried toward the Thames with such a violent swiftness, as no man could rescue or stay him, till he came against a cart-wheel that stood in the water-gate, before which time he was drowned and stark dead.

This was sometimes a large water-gate, frequented of ships and other vessels, like as the Queene hithe, and was a part thereof, as doth appear by an inquisition made in the 28th year of Henry III., wherein was found, that as well corn as fish, and all other things coming to the port of Downegate, were to be ordered after the customs of the Queene’s hithe, for the king’s use; as also that the corn arriving between the gate of the Guild hall of the merchants of Cullen (the Styleyard), which is east from Downegate, and the house then pertaining to the Archbishop of Canterbury, west from Baynarde’s Castle, was to be measured by the measure, and measurer of the Queene’s soke, or Queene hithe. I read also, in the 19th of Edward III., that customs were then to be paid for ships and other vessels resting at Downegate, as if they rode at Queene hithe, and as they now do at Belingsgate. And thus much for Downegate may suffice.

The next was called Wolfes gate,[57] in the ropery in the parish of Allhallowes the Lesse, of later time called Wolfes lane, but now out of use; for the lower part was built on by the Earle of Shrewsburie, and the other part was stopped up and built on by the chamberlain of London.

The next is Ebgate,[58] a water-gate, so called of old time, as appeareth by divers records of tenements near unto the same adjoining. It standeth near unto the church of St. Laurence Pountney, but is within the parish of St. Marten Ordegare. In place of this gate is now a narrow passage to the Thames, and is called Ebgate lane, but more commonly the Old Swan.

Then is there a water-gate at the bridge foot, called Oyster gate, of oysters that were there of old time, commonly to be sold, and was the chiefest market for them and for other shell-fishes. There standeth now an engine or forcier, for the winding up of water to serve the city, whereof I have already spoken.

BRIDGE GATE

The next is the Bridge gate, so called of London Bridge, whereon it standeth. This was one of the four first and principal gates of the city, long before the Conquest, when there stood a bridge of timber, and is the seventh and last principal gate mentioned by W. Fitzstephen; which gate being new[59] made, when the bridge was built was built of stone, hath been oftentimes since repaired. This gate, with the tower upon it, in the year 1436 fell down, and two of the farthest arches southwards also fell therewith, and no man perished or was hurt therewith. To the repairing whereof, divers wealthy citizens gave large sums of money; namely, Robert Large, sometime mayor, one hundred marks; Stephen Forster, twenty pounds; Sir John Crosbye, alderman, one hundred pounds, etc. But in the year 1471,[60] the Kentish mariners, under the conduct of bastard Fauconbridge, burned the said gate and thirteen houses on the bridge, besides the Beer houses at St. Katherine’s, and many others in the suburbs.

The next is Buttolphe’s gate, so called of the parish church of St. Buttolph, near adjoining. This gate was sometimes given or confirmed by William Conqueror to the monks of Westminster in these words: “W. rex Angliæ, etc., William, king of England, sendeth greeting to the sheriffes, and all his ministers, as also to all his loving subjects, French and English, of London: Know ye that I have granted to God and St. Peter of Westminster, and to the abbot Vitalis, the gift which Almundus of the port of S. Buttolph gave them, when he was there made monke: that is to say, his Lords court with the houses, and one wharf, which is at the head of London bridge, and all other his lands which he had in the same city, in such sort as King Edward more beneficially and amply granted the same; and I will and command that they shall enjoy the same well and quietly and honourably, with sake and soke, etc.”

The next is Bellinsgate, used as an especial port, or harbour, for small ships and boats coming thereto, and is now[61] most frequented, the Queen’s hithe being almost forsaken. How this gate took that name, or of what antiquity the same is, I must leave uncertain, as not having any ancient record thereof, more than that Geoffrey Monmouth writeth, that Belin, a king of the Britons, about four hundred years before Christ’s nativity, built this gate, and named it Belin’s gate, after his own calling; and that when he was dead, his body being burnt, the ashes, in a vessel of brass, were set upon a high pinnacle of stone over the same gate. But Cæsar and other Roman writers affirm, of cities, walls, and gates, as ye have before heard; and therefore it seemeth to me not to be so ancient, but rather to have taken that name of some later owner of the place, happily named Beling, or Biling, as Somar’s key, Smart’s key, Frosh wharf, and others, thereby took their names of their owners. Of this gate more shall be said when we come to Belin’s gate ward.

Then have you a water-gate, on the west side of Wool wharf, or Customers’ key,[62] which is commonly called the water-gate, at the south end of Water lane.

One other water-gate there is by the bulwark of the Tower, and this is the last and farthest water-gate eastward, on the river of Thames, so far as the city of London extendeth within the walls; both which last named water-gates be within the Tower ward.

Besides these common water-gates, were divers private wharfs and keys, all along from the east to the west of this city, on the bank of the river of Thames; merchants of all nations had landing-places, warehouses, cellars, and stowage of their goods and merchandises, as partly shall be touched in the wards adjoining to the said river. Now, for the ordering and keeping these gates of this city in the night time, it was appointed in the year of Christ 1258, by Henry III., the 42nd of his reign,[63] that the ports of England should be strongly kept, and that the gates of London should be new repaired, and diligently kept in the night, for fear of French deceits, whereof one writeth these verses:

“Per noctem portæ clauduntur Londoniarum,
Mœnia ne forte fraus frangat Francigenarum.”

OF TOWERS AND CASTLES

“The city of London (saith Fitzstephen) hath in the east a very great and a most strong palatine Tower, whose turrets and walls do rise from a deep foundation, the mortar thereof being tempered with the blood of beasts. In the west part are two most strong castles, etc.” To begin therefore with the most famous Tower of London, situate in the east, near unto the river of Thames: it hath been the common opinion, and some have written (but of none assured ground), that Julius Cæsar, the first conqueror of the Britons, was the original author and founder, as well thereof as also of many other towers, castles, and great buildings within this realm; but (as I have already before noted) Cæsar remained not here so long, nor had he in his head any such matter, but only to dispatch a conquest of this barbarous country, and to proceed to greater matters. Neither do the Roman writers make mention of any such buildings created by him here; and therefore leaving this, and proceeding to more grounded authority, I find in a fair register-book, containing the acts of the Bishops of Rochester, set down by Edmond de Hadenham, that William I., surnamed Conqueror, built the Tower of London; to wit, the great white and square tower there, about the year of Christ 1078, appointing Gundulph, then Bishop of Rochester, to be principal surveyor and overseer of that work, who was for that time lodged in the house of Edmere, a burgess of London; the very words of which mine author are these: “Gundulphus Episcopus mandato Willielmi Regis magni præfuit operi magnæ Turris London. quo tempore hospitatus est apud quendam Edmerum Burgensem London. qui dedit unum were Ecclesiæ Rofen.”

Ye have before heard that the wall of this city was all round about furnished with towers and bulwarks, in due distance every one from other; and also that the river Thames, with his ebbing and flowing, on the south side, had subverted the said wall and towers there. Wherefore King William, for defence of this city, in place most dangerous, and open to the enemy, having taken down the second bulwark in the east part of the wall from the Thames, built this tower, which was the great square tower, now called the White Tower, and hath been since at divers times enlarged with other buildings adjoining, as shall be shown. This tower was by tempest of wind[64] sore shaken in the year 1090, the 4th of William Rufus, and was again by the said Rufus and Henry I. repaired. They also caused a castle to be built under the said tower, namely, on the south side towards the Thames, and also incastellated the same round about.

Henry Huntingdon, libro sexto, hath these words: “William Rufus challenged the investure of prelates; he pilled and shaved the people with tribute, especially to spend about the Tower of London, and the great hall at Westminster.”

Othowerus, Acolinillus, Otto, and Geffrey Magnaville, Earl of Essex, were four the first constables of this Tower of London, by succession; all which held by force a portion of land (that pertained to the priory of the Holy Trinitie within Aldgate); that is to say, East Smithfield, near unto the Tower, making thereof a vineyard,[65] and would not depart from it till the 2nd year of King Stephen, when the same was abridged and restored to the church. This said Geffrey Magnaville was Earl of Essex, constable of the Tower, sheriff of London, Middlesex, Essex, and Hertfordshire, as appeareth by a charter of Maud the empress, dated 1141. He also fortified the Tower of London against King Stephen; but the king took him in his court at St. Albones, and would not deliver him till he had rendered the Tower of London, with the castles of Walden and Plashey in Essex. In the year 1153 the Tower of London and the castle of Windsor were by the king delivered to Richard de Lucie, to be safely kept. In the year 1155, Thomas Becket being chancellor to Henry II., caused the Flemings to be banished out of England,[66] their castles lately built to be pulled down, and the Tower of London to be repaired.

About the year 1190, the 2nd of Richard I., William Longshampe, Bishop of Elie, Chancellor of England, for cause of dissension betwixt him and Earl John, the king’s brother that was rebel, inclosed the tower and castle of London, with an outward wall of stone embattled, and also caused a deep ditch to be cast about the same, thinking (as I have said before) to have environed it with the river of Thames. By the making of this inclosure and ditch in East Smithfield, the church of the Holy Trinitie in London lost half a mark rent by the year, and the mill was removed that belonged to the poor brethren of the hospital of St. Katherine,[67] and to the church of the Holy Trinitie aforesaid, which was no small loss and discommodity to either part; and the garden which the king had hired of the brethren for six marks the year, for the most part was wasted and marred by the ditch. Recompense was often promised, but never performed, until King Edward coming after, gave to the brethren five marks and a half for that part which the ditch had devoured, and the other part thereof without he yielded to them again, which they hold: and of the said rent of five marks and a half, they have a deed, by virtue whereof they are well paid to this day.

It is also to be noted, and cannot be denied, but that the said inclosure and ditch took the like or greater quantity of ground from the city within the wall; namely, one of that part called the Tower Hill, besides breaking down of the city wall, from the White Tower to the first gate of the city, called the Postern; yet have I not read of any quarrel made by the citizens, or recompense demanded by them for that matter, because all was done for good of the city’s defence thereof, and to their good likings. But Matthew Paris writeth, that in the year 1239, King Henry III. fortified the Tower of London to another end; wherefore the citizens, fearing lest that were done to their detriment, complained, and the king answered, that he had not done it to their hurt, but (saith he) I will from henceforth do as my brother doth, in building and fortifying castles, who beareth the name to be wiser than I am. It followed in the next year, saith mine author, the said noble buildings of the stone gate and bulwark, which the king had caused to be made by the Tower of London, on the west side thereof, were shaken as it had been with an earthquake, and fell down, which the king again commanded to be built in better sort than before, which was done; and yet again, in the year 1247, the said wall and bulwarks that were newly built, wherein the king had bestowed more than twelve thousand marks, were irrecoverably thrown down, as afore; for the which chance the citizens of London were nothing sorry, for they were threatened that the said wall and bulwarks were built, to the end that if any of them would contend for the liberties of the city, they might be imprisoned; and that many might be laid in divers prisons, many lodgings were made that no one should speak with another: thus much Matthew Paris for this building. More of Henry III., his dealings against the citizens of London, we may read in the said author, in 1245, 1248, 1249, 1253, 1255, 1256, etc. But, concerning the said wall and bulwark, the same was finished, though not in his time; for I read that Edward I., in the second of his reign, commanded the treasurer and chamberlain of the Exchequer to deliver out of his treasury unto Miles of Andwarp two hundred marks, of the fines taken out of divers merchants or usurers of London, for so be the words of the record, towards the work of the ditch then new made, about the said bulwark, now called the Lion Tower. I find also recorded, that Henry III., in the 46th of his reign, wrote to Edward of Westminster, commanding him that he should buy certain perie plants, and set the same in the place without his Tower of London, within the wall of the said city, which of late he had caused to be inclosed with a mud wall, as may appear by this that followeth: the mayor and commonalty of London were fined for throwing down the said earthen wall against the Tower of London, the 9th of Edward II. Edward IV. in place thereof built a wall of brick. But now for the Lion Tower and lions in England, the original, as I have read, was thus.

Henry I. built his manor of Wodstock, with a park, which he walled about with stone, seven miles in compass, destroying for the same divers villages, churches, and chapels; and this was the first park in England. He placed therein, besides great store of deer, divers strange beasts to be kept and nourished, such as were brought to him from far countries, as lions, leopards, linces, porpentines,[68] and such other. More I read, that in the year 1235, Frederick the emperor sent to Henry III. three leopards, in token of his regal shield of arms, wherein three leopards were pictured; since the which time those lions and others have been kept in a part of this bulwark, now called the Lion Tower, and their keepers there lodged. King Edward II., in the 12th of his reign, commanded the sheriffs of London to pay to the keepers of the king’s leopard in the Tower of London sixpence the day for the sustenance of the leopard, and three-halfpence a day for diet for the said keeper, out of the fee farm of the said city. More, in the 16th of Edward III., one lion, one lioness, one leopard, and two cat lions, in the said Tower, were committed to the custody of Robert, the son of John Bowre.

Edward IV. fortified the Tower of London, and inclosed with brick, as is aforesaid, a certain piece of ground, taken out of the Tower Hill, west from the Lion Tower, now called the bulwark. His officers also, in the 5th of his reign, set upon the said hill both scaffold and gallows, for the execution of offenders; whereupon the mayor and his brethren complained to the king, and were answered that the same was not done in derogation of the city’s liberties, and thereof caused proclamation to be made, etc., as shall be shown in Tower street.

Richard III., repaired and built in this tower somewhat. Henry VIII., in 1532, repaired the White Tower, and other parts thereof. In the year 1548, the 2nd of Edward VI., on the 22nd of November, in the night, a Frenchman lodged in the round bulwark, betwixt the west gate and the postern, or drawbridge, called the warders’ gate, by setting fire on a barrel of gunpowder, blew up the said bulwark, burnt himself, and no more persons. This bulwark, was forthwith again new built.

And here, because I have by occasion spoken of the west gate of this tower the same, as the most principal, is used for the receipt and delivery of all kinds of carriages, without the which gate divers bulwarks and gates, towards the north, etc. Then near within this west gate, opening to the south, is a strong postern for passengers by the ward-house, over a drawbridge let down for that purpose. Next on the same south side, toward the east, is a large water-gate, for receipt of boats and small vessels, partly under a stone bridge from the river of Thames. Beyond it is a small postern, with a drawbridge, seldom let down but for the receipt of some great persons, prisoners. Then towards the east is a great and strong gate, commonly called the Iron gate, but not usually opened. And thus much for the foundation, building, and repairing of this tower, with the gates and posterns, may suffice. And now somewhat of accidents in the same shall be shown.

In the year 1196, William Fitzosbert, a citizen of London, seditiously moving the common people to seek liberty, and not to be subject to the rich and more mighty, at length was taken and brought before the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Tower, where he was by the judges condemned, and by the heels drawn thence to the Elms in Smithfield, and there hanged.

In 1214, King John[69] wrote to Geffrey Magnaville to deliver the Tower of London, with the prisoners, armour, and all other things found therein belonging to the king, to William, archdeacon of Huntingdon. In the year 1216, the 1st of Henry III., the said Tower was delivered to Lewis of France and the barons of England.[70]

In the year 1206 pleas of the crown were pleaded in the Tower; likewise in the year 1220, and likewise in the year 1224, and again in the year 1243, before William of Yorke, Richard Passelew, Henry Brahe, Jerome of Saxton, justices.

In the year 1222, the citizens of London having made a tumult against the abbot of Westminster, Hubert of Burge, chief justice of England, came to the Tower of London, called before him the mayor and aldermen, of whom he inquired for the principal authors of that sedition; amongst whom one, named Constantine Fitz Aelulfe, avowed that he was the man, and had done much less than he ought to have done: whereupon the justice sent him with two other to Falks de Brent, who with armed men brought them to the gallows, where they were hanged.

In the year 1244, Griffith, the eldest son of Leoline, Prince of Wales, being kept prisoner in the Tower, devised means of escape, and having in the night made of the hangings, sheets, etc., a long line, he put himself down from the top of the Tower, but in the sliding, the weight of his body, being a very big and a fat man, brake the rope, and he fell and brake his neck withall.

In the year 1253, King Henry III. imprisoned the sheriffs of London in the Tower more than a month, for the escape of a prisoner out of Newgate, as you may read in the chapter of Gates.

In the year 1260, King Henry, with his queen (for fear of the barons), were lodged in the Tower. The next year he sent for his lords, and held his parliament there.

In the year 1263, when the queen would have removed from the Tower by water towards Windsor, sundry Londoners got them together to the bridge, under the which she was to pass, and not only cried out upon her with reproachful words, but also threw mire and stones at her, by which she was constrained to return for the time; but in the year 1265, the said citizens were fain to submit themselves to the king for it, and the mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs were sent to divers prisons, and a custos also was set over the city; to wit, Othon, constable of the Tower, etc.

In the year 1282, Leoline, prince of Wales, being taken at Bewlth castle, Roger Lestrange cut off his head, which Sir Roger Mortimer caused to be crowned with ivy, and set it upon the Tower of London.

In the year 1290, divers justices, as well of the bench as of the assizes, were sent prisoners to the Tower, which with great sums of money redeemed their liberty. Edward II., the 14th of his reign, appointed for prisoners in the Tower, a knight twopence the day, an esquire one penny the day, to serve for their diet.

In the year 1320, the king’s justices sat in the Tower, for trial of matters; whereupon John Gifors, late mayor of London, and many others, fled the city, for fear to be charged of things they had presumptuously done.

In the year 1321, the Mortimers yielding themselves to the king, he sent them prisoners to the Tower, where they remained long, and were adjudged to be drawn and hanged. But at length Roger Mortimer, of Wigmore, by giving to his keepers a sleepy drink, escaped out of the Tower, and his uncle Roger, being still kept there, died about five years after.

In the year 1326, the citizens of London won the Tower, wresting the keys out of the constable’s hands, delivered all the prisoners, and kept both city and Tower to the use of Isabel the queen, and Edward her son.

In the year 1330, Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, was taken and brought to the Tower, from whence he was brought to the Elms, and there hanged.

In the year 1344, King Edward III., in the 18th of his reign, commanded florences of gold to be made and coined in the Tower; that is to say, a penny piece of the value of five shillings and eight pence, the halfpenny piece of the value of three shillings and four pence, and a farthing piece worth twenty pence; Percevall de Port of Lake being then master of the coin. And this is the first coining of gold in the Tower, whereof I have read, and also the first coinage of gold in England. I find also recorded, that the said king in the same year ordained his exchange of money to be kept in Serne’s Tower, a part of the king’s house in Bucklesbury. And here to digress a little (by occasion offered), I find that, in times before passed, all great sums were paid by weight of gold or silver, as so many pounds or marks of silver, or so many pounds or marks of gold, cut into blanks, and not stamped, as I could prove by many good authorities which I overpass. The smaller sums also were paid in starlings, which were pence so called, for other coins they had none. The antiquity of this starling penny usual in this realm is from the reign of Henry II., notwithstanding the Saxon coins before the Conquest were pence of fine silver the full weight, and somewhat better than the latter starlings, as I have tried by conference of the pence of Burghrede, king of Mercia, Aelfred, Edward, and Edelred, kings of the West Saxons, Plegmond, Archbishop of Canterbury, and others. William the Conqueror’s penny also was fine silver of the weight of the easterling, and had on the one side stamped an armed head, with a beardless face,—for the Normans wore no beards,—with a sceptre in his hand. The inscription in the circumference was this: “Le Rei Wilam;”[71] on the other side, a cross double to the ring, between four rowals of six points.

King Henry I. his penny was of the like weight, fineness, form of face, cross, etc.

This Henry, in the 8th year of his reign, ordained the penny, which was round, so to be quartered by the cross, that they might easily be broken into halfpence and farthings.[72] In the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th of King Richard I. his reign, and afterwards, I find commonly easterling money mentioned, and yet ofttimes the same is called argent, as afore, and not otherwise.

The first great sum that I read of to be paid in easterlings was in the reign of Richard I., when Robert, Earl of Leicester, being prisoner in France, proffered for his ransom a thousand marks easterlings, notwithstanding the easterling pence were long before. The weight of the easterling penny may appear by divers statutes, namely, of weights and measures, made in the 51st of Henry III. in these words: “Thirty-two graines of wheat, drie and round, taken in the middest of the eare, shoulde be the weight of a starling penie, 20 of those pence should waye one ounce, 12 ounces a pound Troy.” It followeth in the statute eight pound to make a gallon of wine, and eight gallons a bushel of London measure, etc. Notwithstanding which statute, I find, in the 8th of Edward I., Gregorie Rokesley, mayor of London, being chief master or minister of the Kinge’s Exchange, or mintes, a new coin being then appointed, the pound of easterling money should contain as afore twelve ounces; to wit, fine silver, such as was then made into foil, and was commonly called silver of Guthurons lane,[73] eleven ounces, two easterlings, and one ferling or farthing, and the other seventeen pence ob. q.[74] to be alloy. Also, the pound of money ought to weigh twenty shillings and three pence by account; so that no pound ought to be over twenty shillings and three pence, nor less than twenty shillings and two pence by account; the ounce to weigh twenty pence, the penny weight twenty-four grains (which twenty-four by weight then appointed were as much as the former thirty-two grains of wheat), a penny force twenty-five grains and a half, the penny deble or feeble twenty-two grains and a half, etc.[75]

Now for the penny easterling, how it took that name I think good briefly to touch. It hath been said, that Numa Pompilius, the second king of the Romans, commanded money first to be made, of whose name they were called nummi; and when copper pence, silver pence, and gold pence, were made, because every silver penny was worth ten copper pence, and every gold penny worth ten silver pence, the pence therefore were called in Latin, denarii, and oftentimes the pence are named of the matter and stuff of gold or silver. But the money of England was called of the workers and makers thereof; as the florin of gold is called of the Florentines, that were the workers thereof, and so the easterling pence took their name of the Easterlings which did first make this money in England, in the reign of Henry II.

Thus have I set down according to my reading in antiquity of money matters, omitting the imaginations of late writers, of whom some have said easterling money to take that name of a star, stamped in the border or ring of the penny; other some of a bird called a star or starling stamped in the circumference; and other (more unlikely) of being coined at Strivelin or Starling, a town in Scotland, etc.

Now concerning halfpence and farthings, the account of which is more subtle than the pence, I need not speak of them more than that they were only made in the Exchange at London, and nowhere else: first appointed to be made by Edward I. in the 8th of his reign; and also at the same time the said king coined some few groats of silver, but they were not usual. The king’s Exchange as London was near unto the cathedral church of St. Paul, and is to this day commonly called the Old Change, but in evidences the Old Exchange.

The king’s exchanger in this place was to deliver out to every other exchanger throughout England, or other the king’s dominions, their coining irons, that is to say, one standard or staple, and two trussels or puncheons; and when the same was spent and worn, to receive them with an account what sum had been coined, and also their pix or bore of assay, and deliver other irons new graven, etc. I find that in the 9th of King John, there was besides the mint at London, other mints at Winchester, Excester, Chichester, Canterburie, Rochester, Ipswich, Norwich, Linne, Lincolne, York, Carleil, Northampton, Oxford, St. Edmondsbury, and Durham. The exchanger, examiner, and trier, buyeth the silver for coinage, answering for every hundred pounds of silver bought in bullion or otherwise, ninety-eight pounds fifteen shillings, for he taketh twenty-five shillings for coinage.

King Edward I., in the 27th of his reign, held a parliament at Stebenheth, in the house of Henry Waleis, mayor of London, wherein amongst other things there handled, the transporting of sterling money was forbidden.

In the year 1351, William Edington, bishop of Winchester, and treasurer of England, a wise man, but loving the king’s commodity more than the wealth of the whole realm, and common people (saith mine author[76]) caused a new coin, called a groat, and a half-groat, to be coined and stamped, the groat to be taken for four pence, and the half-groat for two pence, not containing in weight according to the pence called easterlings, but much less, to wit, by five shillings in the pound; by reason whereof, victuals and merchandises became the dearer through the whole realm. About the same time also, the old coin of gold was changed into a new; but the old florin or noble, then so called, was worth much above the taxed rate of the new, and therefore the merchants engrossed up the old, and conveyed them out of the realm, to the great loss of the kingdom. Wherefore a remedy was provided by changing of the stamp.

In the year 1411, King Henry IV. caused a new coin of nobles to be made, of less value than the old by four pence in the noble, so that fifty nobles should be a pound troy weight.

In the year 1421 was granted to Henry V. a fifteenth, to be paid at Candlemas and at Martinmas, of such money as was then current, gold or silver, not overmuch clipped or washed; to wit, that if the noble were worth five shillings and eight pence, then the king should take it for a full noble of six shillings and eight pence, and if it were less of value than five shillings and eight pence, then the person paying that gold to make it good to the value of five shillings and eight pence, the king always receiving it for a whole noble of six shillings and eight pence. And if the noble so paid be better than five shillings and eight pence, the king to pay again the surplusage that it was better than five shillings and eight pence. Also this year was such scarcity of white money, that though a noble were so good of gold and weight as six shillings and eight pence, men might get no white money for them.

In the year 1465, King Edward IV. caused a new coin both of gold and silver to be made, whereby he gained much; for he made of an old noble a royal, which he commanded to go for ten shillings. Nevertheless, to the same royal was put eight pence of alloy, and so weighed the more, being smitten with a new stamp, to wit, a rose. He likewise made half-angels of five shillings, and farthings of two shillings and six pence, angelets of six shillings and eight pence, and half-angels of three shillings and four pence. He made silver money of three pence, a groat, and so of other coins after that rate, to the great harm of the commons. W. Lord Hastings, the king’s chamberlain, being master of the king’s mints, undertook to make the monies under form following, to wit,—of gold, a piece of eight shillings and four pence sterling, which should be called a noble of gold, of the which there should be fifty such pieces in the pound weight of the Tower; another piece of gold of four shillings and two pence sterling, and to be of them an hundred such pieces in the pound; and a third piece of gold, of two shillings and one penny sterling, two hundred such pieces in the pound; every pound weight of the Tower to be worth twenty pounds, sixteen shillings, and eight pence, the which should be twenty-three carats, three grains and a half fine, etc., and for silver thirty-seven shillings and six pence; the piece of four pence to be one hundred and twelve groats and two pence in the pound weight.

In the year 1504, King Henry VII. appointed a new coin, to wit, a groat, and half-groat, which bare but half faces; the same time also was coined a groat, which was in value twelve pence, but of those but a few, after the rate of forty pence the ounce.

In the year 1526, the 18th of Henry VIII., the angel noble being then the sixth part of an ounce troy, so that six angels were just an ounce, which was forty shillings sterling, and the angel was also worth two ounces of silver, so that six angels were worth twelve ounces of silver, which was forty shillings. A proclamation was made on the sixth of September, that the angel should go for seven shillings and four pence, the royal for eleven shillings, and the crown for four shillings and four-pence. And on the fifth of November following, again by proclamation, the angel was enhanced to seven shillings and sixpence, and so every ounce of gold to be forty-five shillings, and the ounce of silver at three shillings and nine pence in value.