Chronicles
OF
LONDON BRIDGE.

LONDON:
PRINTED BY D. S. MAURICE, FENCHURCH STREET.

Chronicles
OF
LONDON BRIDGE:
BY
AN ANTIQUARY.

LONDON:
SMITH, ELDER, AND CO.

CORNHILL.

M.DCCC.XXVII.

TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL
JOHN GARRATT, ESQ.
ALDERMAN OF THE WARD OF BRIDGE WITHIN;
WHO, AS
LORD MAYOR OF LONDON,
LAID THE FIRST STONE
OF THE
NEW LONDON BRIDGE,
ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15th, 1825;
These Chronicles
ARE MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED.

[PREFACE.]

The plan of narrative adopted in the ensuing pages, is recommended by both the sanction and the example of very learned antiquity; since, without referring to the numerous classical volumes, which have been written upon the same principle, two of the most ancient and esteemed works on English Jurisprudence have honoured it with their selection. Of the accuracy of the historical events here recorded, the authorities so explicitly cited are the most ample proofs; and, that they might be the more generally interesting, whatever may have been their original language, the whole are now given in English: so that an argument should lose none of its effect from its too erudite obscurity, nor an illustration any of its amusement by requiring to be translated.

The collection and arrangement of these materials have been a labour so unexpectedly toilsome and extended, as, it is hoped, fully to excuse every delay in the work’s appearance; and, but for the valuable aid of those numerous friends who have so kindly assisted its progress, it must have still been incomplete. Of these, the first and the most fervent has been John Garratt, Esq., who, by a singularly happy coincidence, was at once the founder of the New London Bridge, as Lord Mayor, and a native, and Alderman, of the Ward containing the Old one. Of other benefactors to these sheets, the names of Henry Smedley, Esq.; H. P. Standley, Esq.; Henry Woodthorpe, Esq., Town Clerk; Mr. Joseph York Hatton; Mr. John Thomas Smith, of the British Museum; Mr. William Upcott, of the London Institution; and Mr. William Knight, of the New Bridge Works; will sufficiently evince the importance of their communications; to whom, as well as to the many other friends, whose kindnesses I am forbidden to enumerate, I thus offer my sincerest acknowledgments. The Historians of the Metropolis have hitherto passed over the subject of this work far too slightingly: it will be my most ample praise to have endeavoured to supply that deficiency, by these

Chronicles of London Bridge.

June 15th, 1827.

[DESCRIPTIVE LIST]
OF
THE EMBELLISHMENTS.

1. [Historical Title-page], displaying a rich Gothic edifice, surrounded by the Effigies, Armorial Ensigns, &c. of the most eminent persons connected with the history of London Bridge. The two upper figures represent Richard, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Cardinal Hugo di Petraleone, who subscribed so liberally to its original foundation, (see [page 61],) and the two lower ones, Kings John and Edward I., commemorative of the Bridge having been finished in the reign of the former, and of the several grants made to it by the latter. In the upper centre is suspended a banner, with the present Royal Arms of England, alluding to the foundation of the New London Bridge in the reign of George IV.; and beneath it, a representation in tapestry, of the triumphal entry of Henry V. across the ancient Bridge, in 1415, after the victory of Agincourt, described on [pages 220-229]: at the sides of which are groups of banners, &c., commemorative of some of the principal persons engaged in the battle. Below, are the Armorial Ensigns of King Henry II., the Priory of St. Mary Overies, the ancient device of Southwark, and the Monograms of Peter of Colechurch, and Isenbert of Xainctes; the benefactors and Architects of the First Stone Bridge at London. Beneath these is a monumental effigy of Peter of Colechurch; under which appear the ancient and modern Arms of the City of London, see [page 177]; those of Robert Serle, Mercer, and Custos of London in 1214, the principal citizen to whom the finishing of the Bridge was entrusted, see [page 73]; those of Henry Walleis, Lord Mayor in 1282, and an eminent benefactor to London Bridge, see [pages 131], [132]; and in the centre, the shield of John Garratt, Esq., Alderman of the Ward of Bridge-Within, and Lord Mayor in 1824-25, who laid the First Stone of the New Edifice: see [pages 635-660].—Designed and Drawn by W. Harvey, from ancient Historical authorities. Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
2. [Antique Rosette Device on the Title-page], containing the Armorial Ensigns of England, the City of London, the Borough of Southwark, and the Priory of St. Mary Overies. Engraven by the late W. Hughes.
3. [Dedication Head-piece]: An Ornamental Group, consisting of the Armorial Ensigns, &c. of the City of London, the Company of Goldsmiths, and the Right Worshipful John Garratt. Engraven by A. J. Mason.
4. [Page 1]. Head-piece: Exterior view of the river-front of Fishmongers’ Hall, with the Shades’ Tavern below it. Drawn and Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
5. [Initial Letter]: View down Fish-Street-Hill, comprising the Monument, St. Magnus’ Church, and the Northern entrance to London Bridge. Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
6. [Page 39]. Ancient Monumental Effigy, from the Church of St. Mary Overies, Southwark; reported to represent John Audery, the Ferryman of the Thames, before the building of London Bridge. Copied from an Etching by Mr. J. T. Smith, Keeper of the Prints and Drawings in the British Museum. Drawn and Engraven by G. W. Moore.
7. [Page 57]. Ancient Water-Quintain, as it was played at upon the River Thames, near London Bridge, in the 12th century: Copied from an Illuminated Manuscript in the Royal Library in the British Museum. Drawn by W. H. Brooke; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
8. [Page 57]. Ancient Boat-Tournament of the same period: copied from the same authority. Drawn and Engraven by the same.
9. [Page 74]. Architectural Elevation of the Centre and Southwark end of the First Stone Bridge erected over the Thames at London, A. D. 1209. Drawn from Vertue’s Prints, and other authorities; Engraven by the late W. Hughes.
10. [Page 80]. Ground-plan of London Bridge, as first built of Stone by Peter of Colechurch, A. D. 1209. Drawn from the measurements and surveys of Vertue and Hawksmoor; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
11. [Page 84]. Western Exterior of the Chapel of St. Thomas, on the centre pier of the First Stone London Bridge, A. D. 1209. Drawn from the same authorities, and Engraven by the late W. Hughes.
12. [Page 85]. Interior View of the Upper Chapel contained in the above, looking Westward. Drawn from Vertue’s Prints, and Engraven by the late W. Hughes.
13. [Page 86]. Interior View of the Crypt, or Lower Chapel, contained in the above, looking Eastward. Drawn from the same authorities by W. H. Brooke; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
14. [Page 87]. Southern Series of Windows in ditto. Drawn from the same authorities, and Engraven by the late W. Hughes.
15. [Page 302]. Ancient Date of 1497, carved in stone, found on London Bridge in 1758, and supposed to commemorate a repair done in the former year. Engraven by G. W. Moore.
16. [Page 304]. Eastern View of part of London Bridge, as it appeared in the reign of King Henry VII.; shewing the houses, &c. then erected upon it, and the whole depth of the Chapel of St. Thomas. Copied from an Illuminated Manuscript in the Royal Library in the British Museum; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
17. [Page 308]. Ancient Dates of 1509 and 1514, carved in stone, and found in 1758 with the former. Engraven by G. W. Moore.
18. [Page 336]. Cage and Stocks on London Bridge, with the confinement of a Protestant Woman, in the reign of Queen Mary. Engraven by A. J. Mason.
19. [Page 339]. Southern View of Traitors’ Gate at the Southwark end of London Bridge, with the heads erected on it in 1579. Drawn from the Venetian copy of Visscher’s View of London, and other authorities; Engraven by H. White.
20. [Page 343]. Southern front of the old Southwark Gate and Tower, at the South end of London Bridge, as they appeared in 1647. Drawn from W. Hollar’s Long Antwerp View of London; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
21. [Page 344]. Southern front and Western side of the Nonesuch House and Drawbridge erected on London Bridge, at the above period. Drawn from the same authority; Engraven by T. Mosses.
22. [Page 346]. Western side of the Nonesuch House on London Bridge, as it appeared in the time of Queen Elizabeth. Copied from a Tracing of an Original Drawing on vellum, preserved in the Pepysian Library, in Magdalen College, Cambridge; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
23. [Page 356]. Ancient Corn Mills erected on the Western side of London Bridge, at Southwark. Drawn from the same authority; Engraven by H. White.
24. [Page 357]. Ancient Water-Works and Water-Tower standing on the Western side of London Bridge, at the North end. Drawn from the same authority; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
25. [Page 367]. General View of the Western side of London Bridge, with all its ancient buildings, taken from the top of St. Mary Overies’ Church in Southwark, at the close of the Sixteenth Century. Drawn by W. H. Brooke; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
26. [Page 384]. Copy of a Brass Token, issued by John Welday, living on London Bridge in 1657. Drawn from the Originals in the Collection of the late Barry Roberts, Esq., in the British Museum; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
27. [Page 385]. Other Tokens in Brass and Copper, issued by Tradesmen residing at London Bridge. Drawn from the Originals in the British Museum; Engraven by G. W. Moore.
28. [Page 387]. Obverses of Two Medalets struck by P. Kempson, and P. Skidmore, of London Bridge, and Bridge-Gate. Drawn from the Originals, and Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
29. [Page 397]. Group of buildings at the Northern end of London Bridge, destroyed in the Fire of 1632-33. Drawn from the Venetian Copy of Visscher’s View of London; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
30. [Page 403]. Ground Plan of the Old Stone Bridge of London after the Fire of 1632-33, the extent of which is indicated by the dotted line attached to the seventh sterling from the left hand, or City end, where the Waterhouse was situate. Copied from an Original Drawing on Parchment, preserved in the Print Room of the British Museum; Engraven by G. W. Moore.
31. [Page 405]. Northern end of London Bridge after the Fire of 1632-33, shewing the Old Church of St. Magnus, and the temporary wooden passage erected on the sites of the houses, as it appeared in 1647. Drawn from the Long Antwerp View by Hollar; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
32. [Page 407]. View of the same part of London Bridge in the year 1665, before the Great Fire of London, shewing the last wooden passage and King’s Gate, afterwards burned. Copied from a contemporary etching by Hollar; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
33. [Page 445]. View of the Northern end of London Bridge, and part of the banks of the Thames as they appeared in ruins after the Great Fire of London in 1666. Copied from a contemporary view by W. Hollar; Engraven by H. White.
34. [Page 446]. Ancient View of Fishmongers’ Hall from the river, before the Great Fire of London, A. D. 1666. Drawn from the Long Antwerp View, by W. Hollar; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
35. [Page 462]. View of the Northern end of London Bridge, with the Water Works and Tower, as they appeared in 1749. Copied from Buck’s View of London; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
36. [Page 487]. Southern side of Bridge Gate, as rebuilt in 1728. Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
37. [Page 501]. Eastern side of London Bridge before the taking down of the Houses in 1758. Drawn from Scott’s View, taken from St. Olave’s Stairs. Copied by W. H. Brooke; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
38. [Page 516]. Chapel of St. Thomas on London Bridge, with the adjoining houses, as they appeared at their taking down in 1758. Drawn from a contemporary Etching; Engraven by the late W. Hughes.
39. [Page 517]. Southern front of the Nonesuch House on London Bridge, with the Draw-Bridge, as they appeared in their dilapidated state previously to their taking down in 1758. Drawn from a picture then painted by J. Scott; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
40. [Page 518]. Eastern View of the Southwark Gate and Tower on London Bridge, as they appeared previously to their taking down in 1758. Drawn from the same authority; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
41. [Page 521]. Northern View of the Temporary Bridge adjoining London Bridge on fire during the night of April 11, 1758. Drawn by W. H. Brooke from an Engraving by Wale and Grignion, with other contemporary authorities; Engraven by H. White.
42. [Page 526]. Western side of London Bridge, shewing the ruins of the Temporary Bridge, and the destruction occasioned by the fire of 1758. Drawn by W. H. Brooke, from the view by A. Walker and W. Herbert; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
43. [Page 532]. Part of the middle of London Bridge, shewing the wooden Centering upon which the Great Arch was turned, when the Chapel Pier was taken away, and the whole edifice repaired in the year 1759. From a Drawing by Mr. W. Knight; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
44. [Page 537]. Section of the Northern Pier of the Great Arch of London Bridge, shewing its modern state, and the ancient method of constructing the Piers. From a Drawing by Mr. W. Knight, in August, 1821, when open for examining the foundation. Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
45. [Page 578]. Elevation and Ground-plan of Old London Bridge, shewing the various forms, &c. of the Sterlings, the line of soundings taken along their points, a section of the bed of the River, and the different sizes of the several Locks; with Mr. Smeaton’s method of raising the ground under the great Arch, and the timbers laid down to strengthen it in 1793-94. Reduced from the large survey made by Mr. George Dance in July, 1799, and published with the Second Report on the Improvement of the Port of London. Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
46. [Page 604]. South-Eastern View of London Bridge, A. D. 1825. Drawn and Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
47. [Page 612]. Eastern View of the Sixth Arch of London Bridge, from the City end, usually called the Prince’s Lock, as it appeared in the great Frost of 1814; shewing the modern stone casing, with the original building beneath it. Copied by permission from a View taken on the spot and engraved by Mr. J. T. Smith. Drawn and Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
48. [Page 628]. Silver Effigy of Harpocrates, discovered in digging the foundations of the New London Bridge, and presented to the British Museum by Messrs. Rundell, Bridge, and Rundell, November 12, 1825. Drawn from the Original by W. Harvey; Engraven by J. Smith.
49. [Page 631]. Architectural Elevation and Ground-plan of the New London Bridge, shewing its foundation-piles, and relative situation to the former edifice. From the original authorities. Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
50. [Page 641]. Entrance to the Coffer-Dam from London Bridge, as it appeared decorated for laying the First Stone of the New Bridge on Wednesday, June 15, 1825. Drawn on the spot; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
51. [Page 642]. Western end of ditto. Drawn from the River; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
52. [Page 643]. General View of the Exterior of ditto. Drawn on the Southern side; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
53. [Page 646]. General View of the Interior of ditto, looking Southward; shewing the position of the First Stone, with the cavity beneath it for depositing the Coins, &c. From a Drawing made on the spot; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
54. [Page 651]. Representation of the Silver-Gilt Trowel, presented to the Right Honourable John Garratt, for laying the First Stone of the New London Bridge. Drawn from the original; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.
55. [Page 662]. Obverse of a Medal struck to commemorate the above ceremony, containing busts of the Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress. Drawn by W. H. Brooke from the original Model, in the possession of Joseph York Hatton, Esq., executed by Peter Rouw and W. Wyon, Esquires, Modeller and Die-Sinker to His Majesty. Engraven by A. J. Mason.
56. [Page 664]. Western side of the New London Bridge, looking down the River. Drawn by T. Letts; Engraven by G. W. Bonner.

“This is a Gentleman, every inch of him; a Virtuoso, a clean Virtuoso:—a sad-coloured stand of claithes, and a wig like the curled back of a mug-ewe. The very first question he speered was about the auld Draw-Brig, that has been at the bottom of the water these twal-score years. And how the Deevil suld he ken ony thing about the auld Draw-Brig, unless he were a Virtuoso?”

Captain Clutterbuck’s Introductory Epistle to the Monastery.

Chronicles
OF
LONDON BRIDGE.

So numerous are the alterations and modernisms in almost every street of this huge metropolis, that I verily believe, the conservators of our goodly city are trying the strength of a London Antiquary’s heart; and, by their continual spoliations, endeavouring to ascertain whether it be really made “of penetrable stuff.” For my own part, if they continue thus improving, I must even give up the ghost; since, in a little time, there will not be a spot left, where any feature of age will carry back my remembrance to its ancient original. What with pullings-down, and buildings-up; the turning of land into canals, and covering over old water-ways with new paved streets; erecting pert plaister fronts to some venerable old edifices, and utterly abolishing others from off the face of the earth; London but too truly resembles the celebrated keepsake-knife of the sailor, which, for its better preservation, had been twice re-bladed, and was once treated with a new handle. One year carried with it that grand fragment of our city’s wall, which so long girdled-in Moorfields; while another bedevilled the ancient gate of St. John’s Priory with Heraldry, which Belzebub himself could not blazon, and left but one of the original hinges to its antique pier. Nay, there are reports, too, that even Derby House, the fair old College of Heralds,—where my youth was taught “the blasynge of Cote Armures,” under two of the wisest officers that ever wore a tabard,—that even that unassuming quadrangle is to be forthwith levelled with the dust, and thus for ever blotted from the map of London! Alas for the day! Moorgate is not, and Aldgate is not! Aldersgate is but the shadow of a name, and Newgate lives only as the title of a prison-house! In the absence, then, of many an antique building which I yet remember, I have little else to supply the vacuum in my heart, but to wander around the ruins of those few which still exist:—to gaze on the rich transomed bay-windows that even yet light the apartments of Sir Paul Pindar’s now degraded dwelling; to look with regret upon the prostituted Halls of Crosby House; or to roam over to the Bankside, and contemplate the fast-perishing fragments of Winchester’s once proud Episcopal Palace.

It was but recently, in my return from visiting the spot last mentioned, that I betook me to a Tavern where I was erst wont to indulge in another old-fashioned luxury,—which has also been taken away from me,—that of quaffing genuine wine, drawn reaming from the butt in splendid silver jugs, in the merry old Shades by London Bridge. I loved this custom, because it was one of the very few fragments of an ancient Citizen’s conviviality, which have descended to us: a worthy old friend and relative, many a long year since, first introduced me to the goodly practice, and though I originally liked it merely for his sake, yet I very soon learned to admire it for its own. It was a most lovely moonlight night, and I placed myself in one of the window boxes, whence I could see the fastly-ebbing tide glittering with silvery flashes; whilst the broad radiance of the planet, cast upon the pale stone colour of the Bridge, strikingly contrasted with the gas star-like sparks which shone from the lamps above it. “Alas!” murmured I, “pass but another twenty years, and even thou, stately old London Bridge!—even thou shalt live only in memory, and the draughts which are now made of thine image. In modern eyes, indeed, these may seem of little value, but unto Antiquaries, even the rudest resemblance of that which is not, is worth the gold of Ind; and Oh! that we possessed some fair limning of thine early forms; or Oh! for some faithful old Chronicler, who knew thee in all thine ancient pride and splendour, to tell us the interesting story of thy foundation, thine adventures, and thy fate!”

It was at this part of my reverie, that the Waiter at the Shades touched my elbow to inform me, that a stout old gentleman, who called himself Mr. Barnaby Postern, had sent his compliments, and desired the pleasure of my society in the drinking of a hot sack-posset. “My services and thanks,” said I, “wait upon the ancient, I shall be proud of his company: but for sack-posset, where, in the name of Dame Woolley, that all-accomplished cook, hath he learned how to——? but he comes.”

My visitor, as he entered, did not appear any thing very remarkable; he looked simply a shrewd, hale, short old gentleman, of stiff formal manners, wrapped in a dark-coloured cloak, and bearing in his hand a covered tankard, which he set upon the table betwixt us; after which, making a very low bow, he took his seat opposite to me, and at once opened the conversation.

“Your fame,” said he, “Mr. Geoffrey Barbican, as a London Antiquary, is not unknown to me; and I have sometimes pleased myself with the thought, that you must be even a distant relation of my own, since tradition says, that the Barbicans and the Posterns originally received their names from having been gate-keepers in various parts of this fair city: but of that I will not positively speak. Howbeit, I am right glad of this fellowship, because I have some communications and reflections which I would fain make to you, touching the earlier days of that Bridge, under which the tide is now so rapidly running.”

“My dear Mr. Postern,” said I, in rapture, “nothing could delight me more than an Antiquary’s stories of that famous edifice; but moralising I abominate, since I can do that for myself, even to admiration; so, my good friend Mr. Barnaby, as much description, and as many rich old sketches, as you please, but no reflections, my kinsman, no reflections.”

“Well,” returned my visitor, “I will do my best to entertain you; but you very well know, that we old fellows, who have seen generations rise and decay, are apt to make prosing remarks:—However, we’ll start fairly, and taste of my tankard before we set out: trust me, it’s filled with that same beverage, which Sir John Falstaff used to drink o’nights in East Cheap; for the recipé for brewing it was found, written in a very ancient hand upon a piece of vellum, when the Boar’s Head was pulled down many a long year ago. Drink, then, worthy Mr. Barbican; drink, good Sir;—you’ll find it excellent beverage, and I’ll pledge you in kind.”

Upon this invitation, I drank of my visitor’s tankard; and believe me, reader, I never yet tasted any thing half so delicious; for it fully equalled the eulogium which Shakspeare’s jovial knight pronounces upon it in the Second part of “King Henry the Fourth,” Act iv. sc. iii.; where the merry Cavalier of Eastcheap tells us, that “a good Sherris sack hath a two-fold operation in it: it ascends me into the brain, dries me there all the foolish, and dull, and crudy vapours which environ it: makes it apprehensive, quick, forgetive, full of nimble, fiery, and delectable shapes; which, delivered o’er to the voice, (the tongue,) which is the birth, becomes excellent wit. The second property of your excellent Sherris is,—the warming of the blood; which, before cold and settled, left the liver white and pale, which is the badge of pusillanimity and cowardice: but the Sherris warms it, and makes it course from the inwards to the parts extreme. It illumineth the face; which, as a beacon, gives warning to all the rest of this little kingdom, man, to arm; and then, the vital commoners, and inland petty spirits, muster me all to their Captain, the heart; who, great, and puffed up with this retinue, doth any deed of courage; and this valour comes of Sherris: so that skill in the weapon is nothing, without Sack: for that sets it a-work: and learning, a mere hoard of gold kept by a devil, till Sack commences it, and sets it in act and use.—If I had a thousand sons, the first human principle I would teach them, should be,—to forswear thin potations, and addict themselves to Sack!”

Truly, indeed, I felt all those effects in myself; whilst my visitor appeared to be so inspired by it, that, as if all the valuable lore relating to London Bridge had been locked up until this moment, he opened to me such a treasure of information concerning it, that, I verily believe, he left nothing connected with the subject untouched. He quoted books and authors with a facility, to which I have known no parallel; and, what is quite as extraordinary, the same magical philtre enabled me as faithfully to retain them. Indeed, the posset and his discourse seemed to enliven all my faculties in such a manner, that the very scenes of which my companion spake, appeared to rise before my eyes as he described them. When Mr. Postern had pledged me, therefore, by drinking my health, in a very formal manner, he thus commenced his discourse.

“You very well know, my good Mr. Barbican, that Gulielmus Stephanides, or, as the vulgar call him, William Fitz-Stephen, who was the friend and secretary of Thomas à Becket, a native of London, and who died about 1191, in his invaluable tract ‘Descriptio Nobilissimæ Civitatis Londoniæ,’ folio 26, tells us that to the North of London, there existed, in his days, the large remains of that immense forest which once covered the very banks of this brave river. ‘Proxime patet ingens foresta,’ &c. begins the passage; and pray observe that I quote from the best edition with a commentary by that excellent Antiquary Dr. Samuel Pegge, published in London, in the year 1772, in quarto. Ever, Mr. Barbican, while you live, ever quote from the editio optima of every author whom you cite; for, next to a knowledge of books themselves, is an acquaintance with the best editions. But to return, Sir; in those woody groves of yew, which the old citizens wisely encouraged for the making of their bows, were then hunted the stag, the buck, and the doe; and the great Northern road, which now echoes the tuneful Kent bugle of mail-coach-guards, was then an extensive wilderness, resounding with the shrill horns of the Saxon Chiefs, as they waked up the deer from his lair of vert and brushwood. The very paths, too, that now behold the herds of oxen and swine driven town-ward to support London’s hungry thousands, then echoed with the bellowing of savage bulls, and the harsh grunting of many a stout wild boar. But, as you have observed, I am to describe scenes, and you are to moralise upon their changes, so we’ll hasten down again to the water-side, only observing, that the site of the ancient British London is yet certainly marked out to you, by the old rhyming stone in Pannier Alley, by St. Paul’s, which saith:—

‘WHEN Y^V HAVE SOVGHT
THE CITY ROVND,
YET STILL THIS IS
THE HIGHEST GROVND.’

“Now, Julius Cæsar tells you in his Commentaries ‘De Bello Gallico,’ lib. v. cap. xxi. that ‘a British town was nothing more than a thick wood, fortified with a ditch and rampart, to serve as a place of retreat against the incursions of their enemies.’ Here, then, stood our good old city, upon the best ’vantage ground of the Forest of Middlesex; the small hive-shaped dwellings of the Britons, formed of bark, or boughs, or reeds from the rushy sides of these broad waters, being interspersed between the trees; whilst their little mountain metropolis, the ‘locum reperit egregiè naturâ, atque opere munitum,’ a place which appeared extremely strong, both by art and nature,—as the same matchless classic called those primitive defences,—was guarded on the North by a dark wood, that might have daunted even the Roman Cohorts; and to the South, where there was no wilderness, morasses, covered with fat weeds, and divided by such streams as the Wall-brook, the Shareburn, the Fleta, and others of less note, stretched downward to the Thames. As Cæsar and his Legions marched straight from the coast, worthy old Bagford was certainly in the right, when, in a letter to his brother-antiquary Hearne, he said, that the Roman invader came along the rich marshy ground now supporting Kent Street,—in truth very unlike the road of a splendid conqueror,—and, entering the Thames as the tide was just turning, his army made a wide angle, and was driven on shore by the current close to yonder Cement Wharf, at Dowgate Dock. This you find prefixed to Tom Hearne’s edition of Leland’s ‘Collectanea de Rebus Britannicis,’ London, 1774, 8vo., volume i. pp. lviii. lix.: and many an honest man, since ‘the hook-nosed fellow of Rome,’ before a bridge carried him over the waters dry-shod, has tried the same route, in preference to going up to the Mill-ford, in the Strand, or York-ford which lay still higher. In good time, however, the Romans, to commemorate their own successful landing there, built a Trajectus, or Ferry, to convey passengers to their famous military road which led to Dover. But history is not wholly without the mention of a Bridge over the Thames near London, even still earlier than this period; for, when Dion Cassius is recording the invasion of Britain by the Emperor Claudius I., A. D. 44, he says,—‘The Britons having betaken themselves to the River Thames, where it discharges itself into the Sea, easily passed over it, being perfectly acquainted with its depths and shallows: while the Romans, pursuing them, were thereby brought into great danger. The Gauls, however, again setting sail, and some of them having passed over by the Bridge, higher up the River, they set upon the Britons on all sides with great slaughter; until, rashly pursuing those that escaped, many of them perished in the bogs and marshes.’ This passage, which it must be owned, however, is not very satisfactory, is to be found in the best edition of the ‘Historiæ Romanæ,’ by Fabricius and Reimar, Hamburgh, 1750-52, folio, volume ii. page 958; in the 60th Book and 20th Section. The Greek text begins, ‘Ἀναχωρησάντων δ’ ἐντεῦθεν τῶν Βρεττανῶν ἐπὶ τὸν Ταμέσαν ποταμὸν,’ &c.; and the Latin—‘Inde se Britanni ad fluvium Tamesin.’ I have only to remind you that Dion Cassius flourished about A. D. 230. Before we finally quit Roman London, however, I must make one more historical remark. The inscription on the monument which I quoted from Pannier Alley, is dated August the 27th, 1688; and if even at that period,—through all the mutations of the soil, and more than sixteen centuries after the Roman Invasion,—the ground still retained its original altitude, it yet further proves on how admirable a site our ancient London was originally erected:—well worthy, indeed, to be the metropolis of the world. This also is remarked by honest Bagford, in his work already cited, where, at page lxxii., he says,—‘For many of our ancient kings and nobility took delight in the situation of the old Roman buildings, which were always very fine and pleasant, the Romans being very circumspect in regard to their settlements, having always an eye to some river, spring, wood, &c. for the convenience of life, particularly an wholesome air. And this no doubt occasioned the old Monks, Knights Templars, and, after them, the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, as also the Friars, to settle in most of the Roman buildings, as well private as public, which thing, if duly considered, will be found to be a main reason why we have so few remains of them.’

“As I have always considered that the Romans had no more to do with Britain, than Joe the waiter here would have in a Conclave of Cardinals, I will not trouble you with any sketch of the dress or manners of the ferryman and his customers, during their government. Indeed, as a native of London, I always lament over it as the time of our captivity; and so I shall hasten on to the tenth century, when our Runic Ancestors from Gothland were settled in Britain;—when courage was the chiefest virtue, and the rudest hospitality——”

“Have pity upon me, my excellent Mr. Postern,” interrupted I, “for I am naturally impatient at reflections; if you love me, then, give me scenery without meditations, and history without a moral.”

“Truly, Sir,” said he, “I was oblivious, for I’d got upon a favourite topic of mine, the worth of our Saxon fore-fathers; but we’ll cut them off short by another draught of the sack-posset, and take up again with the establishment of a ferry by one Master Audery, in the year nine hundred and ninety——Ah! see now, my memory has left me for the precise year, but nevertheless, Mr. Geoffrey Barbican, my service to you.” When he had passed me the tankard, after what I considered a very reasonable draught, Mr. Postern thus continued.

“I hold it right, my friend, to mix these convivialia with our antiquarian discussions, because I know that they are not only ancient, but in a manner peculiar to this part of the water-side; for we find Stephanides, Stephanus ab Stephano, as I may jocularly call him, whom I before quoted, saying at folio 32, ‘Præterea est in Londonia super ripam fluminis,’ &c. but we’ll give the quotation in plain English. ‘And moreover, on the banks of the river, besides the wine sold in ships’—that is to say, foreign wines of Anjou, Auxere, and Gascoigne, though even then we had some Saxon and Rhenish wines well worth the drinking,—‘besides the wines sold in ships and vaults, there is a public eating-house, or cook’s shop. Here, according to the season, you may find victuals of all kinds, roasted, baked, fried, or boiled. Fish, large and small, with coarse viands for the poorer sort, and more delicate ones for the rich, such as venison, fowls, and small birds. In case a friend should arrive at a Citizen’s house, much wearied with his journey, and chuses not to wait, an-hungered as he is, for the buying and cooking of meat,

The water’s served, the bread’s in baskets brought,

Virg. Æn. i. 705.

and recourse is immediately had to the bank above-mentioned, where every thing desirable is instantly procured. No number so great, of knights or strangers, can either enter the city at any hour of day or night, or leave it, but all may be supplied with provisions, so that those have no occasion to fast too long, nor these to depart the city without their dinner. To this place, if they be so disposed, they resort, and there they regale themselves, every man according to his abilities. Those who have a mind to indulge, need not to hanker after sturgeon, nor a guinea-fowl, nor a gelinote de bois,’—which some call red-game, and others a godwit—‘for there are delicacies enough to gratify their palates. It is a public eating-house, and is both highly convenient and useful to the city, and is a clear proof of its civilization.’

“Thus speaks Fitz-Stephen of the time of Henry II. between the years 1170 and 1182; and if you look but two centuries later, you shall find that John Holland, Duke of Exeter, held his Inn here at Cold Harbour, and gave to his half-brother, King Richard the Second, a sumptuous dinner, in 1397. Then too, when this spot became the property of the merry Henry Plantagenet, Prince of Wales, by the gift of Henry the Fourth, the same King filled his cellars with ‘twenty casks and one pipe of red wine of Gascoigne, free of duty.’ This you have on the authority of John Stow, on the one part, in his ‘Survey of London,’ the best edition by John Strype, &c. London, 1754, folio, volume i. page 523; and of Master Thomas Pennant, on the other, in his ‘Account of London,’ 2nd edition, London, 1791, 4to, page 330.”

“Aye, Master Postern,” said I, “and that same Cold Harbour is not the less dear to me, forasmuch as Stow noteth, in the very place which you have just now cited, that Richard the Third gave the Messuage, and all its appurtenances, to John Wrythe, Garter Principal King of Arms, and the rest of the Royal Heralds and Pursuivants, in 1485.”—“True, Mr. Geoffrey, true,” answered my visitor; “and you may remember that here also, in these very Shades, did King Charles the merry, regale incognito; and here, too, came Addison and his galaxy of wits to finish a social evening. Then, but a little above to the North, was the famous market of East Cheap; of which our own Stow speaks in his book before cited, page 503, quoting the very rare ballad of ‘London Lickpenny,’ composed by Dan John Lydgate, of which a copy in the old chronicler’s own hand writing, is yet extant in the Harleian Manuscripts, No. 542, article 17, folio 102, of which stanza 12 says,—

‘Then I hied me into Estchepe;
One cried ribes of befe, and many a pie,
Pewtar potts they clatteryd on a heape,
Ther was harpe, pipe, and sawtry,
Ye by cokke, nay by cokke, some began to cry,
Some sange of Jenken and Julian, to get themselves mede;
Full fayne I wold hade of that mynstralsie
But for lacke of money I cowld not spede!’

“Lydgate, you know, died in the year 1440, at the age of sixty. In the present day, indeed, we have only the indications of this festivity in the names of the ways leading down to, or not far from, the river; as, Pudding Lane, Fish Street Hill, the Vine-tree, or Vintry, Bread-street,——”

“Hold! hold! my dear Mr. Barnaby,” interrupted I, “what on earth has all this long muster-roll of gluttony to do with London Bridge? You are, as it were, endeavouring to prove, that yonder is the moon lighting the waters; for certes, it is a self-evident truth, that the citizens of London have from time immemorial been mighty trencher-men; nay, if I remember me rightly, your own favourite Stephanides says, ‘The only plagues of London are, immoderate drinking of idle fellows, and often fires:’ so that we’ll take for granted, and get on to the Bridge.”

“You are in the right,” answered Mr. Postern; “the passage begins ‘Solæ pestes Londoniæ,’ &c. at folio 42, and truly I wished but to shew you how proper a place these Shades are to be convivial in; but now we will but just touch upon the Saxon Ferry and Wooden Bridge, and then come at once to the first stone one, founded by the excellent Peter of Colechurch, in the year 1176. I would you could but have seen the curious boat in which, for many years, Audery the Ship-wight, as the Saxons called him, rowed his fare over those restless waters. It was in form very much like a crescent laid upon its back, only the sharp horns turned over into a kind of scroll; and when it was launched, if the passengers did not trim the barque truly, there was some little danger of its tilting over, for it was only the very centre of the keel that touched the water. But our shipman had also another wherry, for extra passengers, and that had the appearance of a blanket gathered up at each end, whilst those within looked as if they were about to be tossed in it. His oars were in the shape of shovels, or an ace of spades stuck on the end of a yard measure; though one of them rather seemed as if he were rowing with an arrow, having the barb broken off, and the flight held downwards. It is nearly certain, that at this period there was no barrier across the Thames; for you may remember how the ‘Saxon Chronicle,’ sub anno 993, tells you that the Dane Olaf, Anlaf, or Unlaf, ‘mid thrym et hundnigentigon scipum to Stane,’—which is to say, that ‘he sailed with three hundred and ninety ships to Staines, which he plundered without, and thence went to Sandwich.’

“Before I leave speaking of this King Olaf, however, I wish you to observe the paction which he made with the English King Ethelred, for we shall find him hereafter closely connected with the history of London Bridge. The same authority, and under the same year and page, tells you that, after gaining the battle of Maldon, and the death of Alderman Britnoth, peace was made with Anlaf, ‘and the King received him at Episcopal hands, by the advice of Siric, Bishop of Canterbury, and Elfeah of Winchester.’ On page 171, in the year 994, you also find this peace more solemnly confirmed in the following passage. ‘Then sent the King after King Anlaf, Bishop Elfeah, and Alderman Ethelwerd, and hostages being left with the ships, they led Anlaf with great pomp to the King, at Andover. And King Ethelred received him at Episcopal hands, and honoured him with royal presents. In return Anlaf promised, as he also performed, that he never again would come in a hostile manner to England.’ I quote, as usual, from the best edition of this invaluable record by Professor Ingram, London, 1823, 4to. It is generally believed, however, that the year following Anlaf’s invasion, namely 994, there was built a low Wooden Bridge, which crossed the Thames at St. Botolph’s Wharf yonder, where the French passage vessels are now lying; and a rude thing enough it was, I’ll warrant; built of thick rough-hewn timber planks, placed upon piles, with moveable platforms to allow the Saxon vessels to pass through it Westward. A Bridge of any kind is not so small a concern but what one might suppose you could avoid running against it, and yet William of Malmesbury, the Benedictine Monk, who lived in the reign of King Stephen, and died in 1142, says, that, in 994, King Sweyn of Denmark, the Invader, ran foul of it with his Fleet. This you find mentioned in his book, ‘De Gestis Regum Anglorum,’ the best edition, London, 1596, folio:—though, by the way, the preferable one is called the Frankfurt reprint of 1601, as it contains all the errata of the London text, and adds a good many more of its own; for I am much of the mind of Bishop Nicolson, and Sir Henry Spelman, who observe that the Germans committed abundance of faults with the English words. In this record, which is contained in Sir Henry Savile’s ‘Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores Post Bedam,’ of the foregoing date and size, at folio 38^b, is the passage beginning ‘Mox ad Australes regiones,’ &c. of which this is the purport.

“‘Some time after, the Southern parts, with the inhabitants of Oxford and Winchester, were brought to honour his’—that is to say King Sweyn’s—‘laws: the Citizens of London alone, with their lawful King’—Ethelred the Second—‘betook themselves within the walls, having securely closed the gates. Against their ferocious assailants, the Danes, they were supported by their virtue, and the hope of glory. The Citizens rushed forward even to death for their liberty; for none could think himself secure of the future if the King were deserted, in whose life he committed his own: so that although the conflict was valiant on both sides, yet the Citizens had the victory from the justness of their cause; every one endeavouring to shew, throughout this great work, how sweet he estimated those pains which he bore for him. The enemy was partly overthrown; and part was destroyed in the River Thames, over which, in their precipitation and fury, they never looked for the Bridge.’

“I know very well that the truth of this circumstance is much questioned by Master Maitland, at page 43 of his ‘History of London,’ continued by the Rev. John Entick, London, 1772, folio, volume i.; wherein he denies that any historian mentions a Bridge at London, in the incursion of Anlaf or Sweyn; and asserts that the loss of the army of the latter was occasioned ‘by his attempting to pass the River, without enquiring after Ford, or Bridge.’ He affirms too, that Stow mistakes the account given by William of Malmesbury; and that the Monk himself distorts his original authority in saying that the invaders had not a regard to the Bridge. Now, if, as the margin of Maitland’s History states, the Saxon Chronicle were that authority, the Library-keeper of Malmesbury had no greater right to speak as Maitland does, than he had for using those words which I have already translated,—‘part were destroyed in the River Thames, over which, in their precipitation and fury, they never looked for the Bridge:’ for the words of the Saxon Chronicle, at page 170, are, in reality,—‘And they closely besieged the City and would fain have set it on fire, but they sustained more harm and evil than they ever supposed that the Citizens could inflict on them. The Holy Mother of God’—for the Invasion took place on her Nativity, September the 8th,—‘on that day considered the Citizens, and ridded them of their enemies.’ Here then is no word of a Bridge, nor, indeed, does any Historian record the event as William of Malmesbury does. Lambarde—whom I shall quote anon,—when he relates it, cites the ‘Chronicle of Peterborough,’ and the ‘Annals of Margan,’ but neither of them have the word Bridge upon their pages. He, most probably, took this circumstance from Marianus Scotus, a Monk of Mentz, in Germany, who wrote an extensive History of England and Europe ending in 1083, but, of this, only the German part has been printed, although it was amazingly popular in manuscript.

“We have, however, an earlier description of London Bridge in a state of warlike splendour, than is commonly imagined, or at least referred to, by most Antiquaries; and that too from a source of no inconsiderable authority: for the learned old Icelander Snorro Sturlesonius, who wrote in the 13th century, and who was assassinated in 1241, on page 90 of that rather rare work by the Rev. James Johnstone, entitled ‘Antiquitates Celto-Scandicæ,’ Copenhagen, 1786, quarto, gives the following very interesting particulars of the Battle of Southwark, which took place in the year 1008, in the unhappy reign of Ethelred II., surnamed the Unready.

“‘They’—that is the Danish forces—‘first came to shore at London, where their ships were to remain, and the City was taken by the Danes. Upon the other side of the River, is situate a great market called Southwark,’—Sudurvirke in the original—‘which the Danes fortified with many defences; framing, for instance, a high and broad ditch, having a pile or rampart within it, formed of wood, stone, and turf, with a large garrison placed there to strengthen it. This, the King Ethelred,’—his name, you know, is Adalradr in the original,—‘attacked and forcibly fought against; but by the resistance of the Danes it proved but a vain endeavour. There was, at that time, a Bridge erected over the River between the City and Southwark, so wide, that if two carriages met they could pass each other. At the sides of the Bridge, at those parts which looked upon the River, were erected Ramparts and Castles that were defended on the top by penthouse-bulwarks and sheltered turrets, covering to the breast those who were fighting in them: the Bridge itself was also sustained by piles which were fixed in the bed of the River. An attack therefore being made, the forces occupying the Bridge fully defended it. King Ethelred being thereby enraged, yet anxiously desirous of finding out some means by which he might gain the Bridge, at once assembled the Chiefs of the army to a conference on the best method of destroying it. Upon this, King Olaf engaged,’—for you will remember he was an ally of Ethelred,—‘that if the Chiefs of the army would support him with their forces, he would make an attack upon it with his ships. It being ordained then in council, that the army should be marched against the Bridge, each one made himself ready for a simultaneous movement both of the ships and of the land forces.’

“I must here entreat your patience, Mr. Geoffrey Barbican, to follow the old Norwegian through the consequent battle; for although he gives us no more scenery of London Bridge, yet he furnishes us with a minute account of its destruction, and of a conflict upon it, concerning which all our own historians are, in general, remarkably silent. I say too, with Falstaff, ‘play out the play;’ for I have yet much to say on the behalf of that King Olaf, who, we shall find, is the patron protector of yonder Church at the South-East corner of London Bridge, since he died a Saint and a Martyr. Snorro Sturleson then, having cleared the way for the forcing of London Bridge on the behalf of King Ethelred, thus begins his account of the action, entitling it, in the Scandinavian tongue, Orrosta, or the fight. ‘King Olaf, having determined on the construction of an immense scaffold, to be formed of wooden poles and osier twigs, set about pulling down the old houses in the neighbourhood for the use of the materials. With these Vinea, therefore,’—as such defences were anciently termed—‘he so enveloped his ships, that the scaffolds extended beyond their sides; and they were so well supported, as to afford not only a sufficient space for engaging sword in hand, but also a base firm enough for the play of his engines, in case they should be pressed upon from above. The Fleet, as well as the forces, being now ready, they rowed towards the Bridge, the tide being adverse; but no sooner had they reached it, than they were violently assailed from above with a shower of missiles and stones, of such immensity that their helmets and shields were shattered, and the ships themselves very seriously injured. Many of them, therefore, retired. But Olaf the King and his Norsemen having rowed their ships close up to the Bridge, made them fast to the piles with ropes and cables, with which they strained them, and the tide seconding their united efforts, the piles gradually gave way, and were withdrawn from under the Bridge. At this time, there was an immense pressure of stones and other weapons, so that the piles being removed, the whole Bridge brake down, and involved in it’s fall the ruin of many. Numbers, however, were left to seek refuge by flight: some into the City, others into Southwark. And now it was determined to attack Southwark: but the Citizens seeing their River Thames occupied by the enemy’s navies, so as to cut off all intercourse that way with their interior provinces, were seized with fear, and having surrendered the City, received Ethelred as King. In remembrance of this expedition thus sang Ottar Suarti.’

“And now, Sir, as this is, without any doubt, the first song which was ever made about London Bridge, I shall give you the Norse Bard’s verses in Macpherson’s Ossianic measure, as that into which they most readily translate themselves; premising that the ensuing are of immeasurably greater authenticity.

‘And thou hast overthrown their Bridges, Oh thou Storm of the Sons of Odin! skilful and foremost in the Battle! For thee was it happily reserved to possess the land of London’s winding City. Many were the shields which were grasped sword in hand to the mighty increase of the conflict; but by thee were the iron-banded coats of mail broken and destroyed.’

And ‘besides this,’ continues Snorro, ‘he also sang:’

‘Thou, thou hast come, Defender of the Earth, and hast restored into his Kingdom the exiled Ethelred. By thine aid is he advantaged, and made strong by thy valour and prowess: Bitterest was that Battle in which thou didst engage. Now, in the presence of thy kindred the adjacent lands are at rest, where Edmund, the relation of the country and the people, formerly governed.’

‘Besides this, these things are thus remembered by Sigvatus.’

‘That was truly the sixth fight which the mighty King fought with the men of England: wherein King Olaf,—the Chief himself a Son of Odin, valiantly attacked the Bridge at London. Bravely did the swords of the Völscs defend it, but through the trench which the Sea-Kings, the men of Vikes-land, guarded, they were enabled to come, and the plain of Southwark was full of his tents.’

“Such were the martial feats of King Olafus, upon the water; and now let us turn to his more pious and peaceful actions upon the land, that caused the men of Southwark to found to his honour yonder fane, which still bears his name and consecrates his memory. And in so doing, I pray you to observe that I am not wandering from the subject before us; for that Church is one of the Southern boundaries of London Bridge, and, as such, possesses some interest in its history. The other, on the same side, is the Monastery of St. Mary Overies, of the which I shall hereafter discourse; whilst the two Northern ones are St. Magnus’ Church, and that abode of festivity which rises above us, Fishmongers’ Hall, of which the story will be best noticed when we shall have arrived at the time of the Great Fire. There are within the City walls and Diocese of London, three Churches dedicated to the Norwegian King and Martyr, St. Olaf; and in consequence, Richard Newcourt, in his ‘Repertorium Ecclesiasticum Parochiale Londinense,’ which I shall hereafter notice, volume i. page 509, takes occasion to speak somewhat of his history; collected, most probably, from Adam of Bremen’s ‘Historia Ecclesiarum Hamburgensis et Bremensis.’ He was the Son of Herald Grenscius, Prince of Westfold, in Norway, and was celebrated for having expelled the Swedes from that country, and recovering Gothland. It was after these exploits that he came to England, and remained here as an ally of King Ethelred for three years, expelling the Danes from the Cities, Towns, and Fortresses, and ultimately returning home with great spoil. He was recalled to England by Emma of Normandy, the surviving Queen of his friend, to assist her against Knute; but as he found a paction concluded between that King and the English, he soon withdrew, and was then created King of Norway by the voice of the nation. To strengthen his throne, he married the daughter of the King of Swedeland; but now his strict adherence to the Christian faith, and his active zeal for the spread of it, caused him to be molested by domestic wars, as well as by the Danes abroad: though these he regarded not, since he piously and valiantly professed, that he had rather lose his life and Kingdom than his faith in Christ. Upon this, the men of Norway complained to Knute, King of Denmark, and afterwards of England, charging Olaf with altering their laws and customs, and entreating his assistance; but the Norwegian hero was supported by a young soldier named Amandus, King of Swethland, who had been bred up under Olaf, and taught to fight by him. He, at first, overthrew the Dane in an engagement; but Knute, having bribed the adverse fleet, procured three hundred of his ships to revolt, and then attacking Olaf, forced him to retreat into his own country, where his subjects received him as an enemy. He fled from the disloyal Pagans to Jerislaus, King of Russia, who was his brother-in-law, and remained with him till the better part of his subjects, in the commotions of the Kingdom, calling him to resume his crown, he went at the head of an army; when, whilst one party hailed his return with joy, the other, urged by Knute, opposed him by force, and in a disloyal battle at Stichstadt, to the North of Drontheim, says Newcourt, page 510, with considerable pathos, they ‘murthered this holy friend of Christ, this most innocent King, in Anno 1028,’ but he should have said 1030. His feast is commemorated on the fourth of the Kalends of August, that is to say on the 29th of July; for Grimkele, Bishop of Drontheim, his capital City, a pious priest whom he had brought from England to assist him in establishing Christianity in Norway, commanded that he should be honoured as a Saint, with the title of Martyr. His body was buried in Drontheim, and was not only found undecayed in 1098, but even in 1541, when the Lutherans plundered his shrine of its gold and jewels; for it was esteemed the greatest treasure in the North. Such was St. Olave, to whose memory no less than four Churches in London are dedicated; for, says Newcourt, he ‘had well deserved, and was well beloved of our English Nation, as well for his friendship for assisting them against the Danes, as for his holy and Christian life, by the erection of many Churches which to his honourable memory they built and dedicated to him.’ I notice only one of these, because it is contiguous to London Bridge, which is called St. Olave, Southwark. It stands, as you very well know, on the Northern side of Tooley Street; and although many people would think St. Tooley to be somewhat of a questionable patron for a Church, yet I would remind you that it was only the more usual ancient English name of King Olave, as we are told on good authority, by the Rev. Alban Butler in his ‘Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and other principal Saints,’ London, 1812, 8vo. volume vii. where also, on pages 378-380, you have many further particulars of the life of this heroic Prince. You may also meet with him under a variety of other names, as Anlaf, Unlaf, Olaf Haraldson, Olaus, and Olaf Helge, or Olave the Holy. Of his Church in Southwark I will tell you nothing as to its foundation, but remark only that its antiquity is proved by William Thorn’s ‘Chronicle of the Acts of the Abbots of St. Austin’s Canterbury;’ which is printed in Roger Twysden’s ‘Historiæ Anglicanæ Scriptores Decem;’ London, 1652, folio. Thorn, you may remember, was a Monk of St. Augustine’s, in 1380; and on column 1932 of the volume now referred to, he gives the copy of a grant from John, Earl of Warren, to Nicholas, the Abbot of St. Augustine’s, giving to his Monastery all the estate which it held in ‘Southwark standing upon the River Thames, between the Breggehouse and the Church of Saint Olave.’ By this we know it to be ancient, for that grant was made in the year 1281. And now I will say no more of St. Olave, but that a very full and interesting memoir of him, and his miracles, is to be found in that gigantic work entitled the ‘Acta Sanctorum,’ Antwerp, 1643-1786, 50 volumes, folio, and yet incomplete, for the year descends to October only:—see the seventh volume of July, pages 87-120.

“And now let me chaunt you his Requiem, by giving you, from the same authority, a free translation of the concluding stanza of that Latin Hymn to his memory, which Johannes Bosch tells us was inserted in the Swedish Missal, and sung on his festival; it is in the same measure as the original.

‘Martyr’d King! in triumph shining,
Guardian Saint, whom bliss is ’shrining;
To thy spirit’s sons inclining
From a sinful world’s confining
By thy might, Oh set them free!
Carnal bonds are round them ’twining,
Fiendish arts are undermining,
All with deadly plagues are pining,
But thy power and prayers combining,
Safely shall we rise to thee!—Amen.’

“One of the last notices of London Bridge which occurs in the days of King Ethelred, and I place it here because it is without date, is in his Laws, as they are given in the ‘Chronicon’ of John Brompton, Abbot of Jorvaulx, in the City of York, who lived about the year 1328. His work was printed in Twysden’s Scriptores, which I last quoted; and at column 897, in the xxiii. Chapter of the Statutes there given, is the following passage.

“‘Concerning the Tolls given at Bylyngesgate.

‘If a small ship come up to Bilynggesgate, it shall give one halfpenny of toll: if a greater one which hath sails, one penny: if a small ship, or the hulk of a ship come thereto, and shall lie there, it shall give four pence for the toll. For ships which are filled with wood, one log of wood shall be given as toll. In a week of bread’—perhaps a festival time, ‘toll shall be paid for three days; the Lord’s day, Tuesday, and Thursday. Whoever shall come to the Bridge, in a boat in which there are fish, he himself being a dealer, shall pay one halfpenny for toll; and if it be a larger vessel, one penny.’

“Concerning Brompton’s translation of these laws, Bishop Nicolson, in his ‘English, Scotch, and Irish Historical Libraries,’ London, 1736, folio, page 65, says that they are pretty honestly done, and given at large: but they may be seen with several variations and additions very fairly written in the collections of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, preserved with the Harleian Manuscripts in the British Museum, No. 596. John Brompton, however, at column 891 of his Chronicle, tells us one circumstance more concerning London Bridge before the Invasion of Knute; for he says, under the year 1013, ‘After this, many people were overthrown in the Thames, at London, not caring to go by the Bridge;’ that is to say, because it had been broken in the two recent battles as I have already told you, and there were also erected several fortifications about the City.’

“Perhaps it was the error of Sweyn in getting his Fleet foul of London Bridge, which made Knute the Dane, his Son, go so laboriously to work with the Thames, upon his Invasion in 1016; and I shall give you this very wonderful story in the words of the Saxon Chronicle, page 197. ‘Then came the ships to Greenwich, and, within a short interval, to London; where they sank a deep ditch on the South side, and dragged their ships to the West side of the Bridge. Afterwards they trenched the City without, so that no man could go in or out, and often fought against it; but the Citizens bravely withstood them.’ There are some who doubt this story, but honest William Maitland, who loved to get to the bottom of every thing, as he went sounding about the river for Cæsar’s Ford, also set himself to discover proofs of Knute’s Trench: and you may remember that he tells us, in his work which I have already cited, volume i. page 35, that this artificial water-course began at the great wet-dock below Rotherhithe, and passing through the Kent Road, continued in a crescent form to Vauxhall, and fell again into the Thames at the lower end of Chelsea Reach. The proofs of this hypothesis were great quantities of fascines of hazels, willows, and brushwood, pointing northward, and fastened down by rows of stakes, which were found at the digging of Rotherhithe Dock in 1694; as well as numbers of large oaken planks and piles, also found in other parts.

“Florence of Worcester, who, you will recollect, wrote in 1101, and died in 1119, in his ‘Chronicon ex Chronicis,’ best edition, London, 1592, small 4to. page 413; and the famous old Saxon Chronicle, page 237; also both mention the easy passage of the rapacious Earl Godwin, as he passed Southwark in the year 1052. The tale is much the same in each, but perhaps the latter is the best authority, and it runs thus. ‘And Godwin stationed himself continually before London, with his Fleet, until he came to Southwark; where he abode some time, until the flood came up. When he had arranged his whole expedition, then came the flood, and they soon weighed anchor and steered through the Bridge by the South side.’ This relation is also supported by Roger Hoveden, in his Annals, Part I. in ‘Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores post Bedam,’ by Sir H. Savile, folio 253^b, line 41.

“And now, worthy Mr. Barbican, before we enter upon the conjectures and disputes relating to the real age and founders of the first Wooden Bridge over the Thames at London, let me give you a toast, closely connected with it, in this last living relique of old Sir John Falstaff. You must know, my good Sir, that when the Church-Wardens and vestry of St. Mary Overies, on the Bankside yonder, meet for conviviality, one of their earliest potations is to the memory of their Church’s Saint and the patroness who feeds them, under the familiar name of ‘Old Moll!’ and therefore, as we are now about to speak of them and their pious foundation most particularly, you will, I doubt not, pledge me heartily to the Immortal Memory of Old Moll!”

“I very much question,” returned I, “if either the good foundress of the Church, or she to whom it was dedicated,—if Mary the Saint, or Mary the Sinner,—were ever addressed by so unceremonious an epithet in their lives; but, however, as it’s a parochial custom, and your wish, here’s Prosperity to St. Saviour’s Church, and the Immortal Memory of Old Moll!” Mr. Postern having made a low bow of acknowledgment for my compliance, thus continued.

“I have made it evident then, and, indeed, it is agreed to on all sides, that there was a Wooden Bridge over the Thames, at London, at least as early as the year 1052; and Maitland, at page 44 of his History, is inclined to believe that it was erected between the years 993 and 1016, at the public cost, to prevent the Danish incursions up the River. John Stow, however, in volume i., page 57, of his ‘Survey,’ attributes the building of the first Wooden Bridge over the Thames, at London, to the pious Brothers of St. Mary’s Monastery, on the Bankside. He gives you this account on the authority of Master Bartholomew Fowle, alias Fowler, alias Linsted, the last Prior of St. Mary Overies; who, surrendering his Convent on the 14th of October, 1540,—in the 30th year of Henry VIII.,—had a pension assigned him of £100 per Annum, which it is well known, that he enjoyed until 1553. This honest gentleman you find spoken of in John Stevens’s ‘Supplement to Sir William Dugdale’s Monasticon Anglicanum,’ London, 1723, folio, volume ii., page 98; and from him old Stow states, that, ‘a Ferry being kept in the place where now the Bridge is built, the Ferryman and his wife deceasing, left the said Ferry to their only daughter, a maiden named Mary; which, with the goods left her by her parents, as also with the profits rising of the said Ferry, built a house of Sisters in the place where now standeth the East part of St. Mary Overies Church, above the choir, where she was buried. Unto the 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 shewed.’

“The first who attacks this story is William Lambarde, the Perambulator of Kent, in his ‘Dictionarium Angliæ Topographicum et Historicum,’ London, 1730, quarto, page 176; wherein he scruples not to call Prior Fowler ‘an obscure man,’ whom he charges with telling this narrative, ‘without date of time, or warrant of writing,’ and then sums up his remarks in these words. ‘As for the first buildinge, I leave it to eche man’s libertye what to beleve of it; but as for the name Auderie, I think Mr. Fowler mistoke it, for I finde bothe in the Recordes of the Queene’s Courtes and otherwise, it signifieth over the water, as Southrey, on the South side of the water: the ignorance whereof, might easily dryve Fowler—a man belyke unlearned in the Saxon tongue,—to some other invention.’

“Maitland and Entick, at page 44 of their History, are not much more believing than Lambarde, the Lawyer; for they assert that the Convent of Bermondsey, founded by Alwin Child, a Citizen of London, in the year 1082, was the first religious house on the South side of the River, within the Bills of Mortality. The second, say they, speaking after Sir William Dugdale in his ‘Monasticon Anglicanum,’ London, 1661, folio, pages 84, 940, was the Priory of St. Mary Overies, founded by William Giffard, Bishop of Winchester, in the reign of King Henry I. Now Bishop Tanner, in his ‘Notitia Monastica,’ best edition by James Nasmith, Cambridge, 1787, folio, XX. Surrey,—for you know the book is unpaged and arranged alphabetically under Counties, of which Pennant heavily complains,—is inclined to think that Stow was in the right, although he had not discovered any thing either in print or manuscript to support his narrative. He is also willing to believe, that Bishop Giffard did not do more for St. Mary Overies, than rebuild the body of the Church: and, certainly, that he did not, in 1106, place Regular Canons there, since he refers to Matthew of Westminster to prove that they were then but newly come into England, and placed in that Church; whilst Bishop Giffard was himself in exile until the year 1107. The ‘Domesday Book,’ also, the most veritable and invaluable record of our land, thus hints at a Religious House in Southwark; which, as that Survey was made about the year 1083, was, of course, long anterior to the times of which I spake last. You will find the passage in Nichols’ edition of the register, London, 1783, folio, volume i. Sudrie, folio 32 a, column 1; and the words are as follow. ‘The same Bishop,’—that is to say, Odo, Bishop of Baieux,—‘has in Southwark one Monastery, and one Harbour. King Edward held it on the day he died.’—January the 5th, 1066—‘Whoever had the Church, held it of the King. From the profits of the Harbour, where ships were moored, the King had two parts.’ ‘Now,’ concludes the worthy Dr. Tanner, ‘if Monasterium here denote any thing more than an ordinary Church, it may be thought to mean this Religious House, there being no pretence for any other in this Borough to claim to be as old as the Confessor’s time, or, indeed, as the making of the Domesday Book, A. D. 1083.’ Vide Sign. U u 2; Notes r, and s.

“Maitland, however, cannot be brought to believe in the foundation of a Wooden Bridge by the Brethren of St. Mary; and on page 44 of his work, already cited, he thus gives the reasons for his non-conformity. ‘As the Ferry,’ he commences, ‘is said to have been the chief support of the Priory, ’twould have been ridiculous in the Prior and Canons, to have sacrificed their principal dependence, to enrich themselves by a wild chimera of increasing their revenues in the execution of a project, which, probably, would have cost six times the sum of the intrinsic value of their whole estate; and, when effected, would, in all likelihood, not have brought in so great an annual sum as the profits arising by the Ferry, seeing it may be presumed that foot-passengers would have been exempt from Pontage.’ He next proceeds to quote a deed of King Henry I., which I shall produce in its proper order of time, exempting certain Abbey lands from being charged with the work of London Bridge: which he considers as a sufficient proof that the Priests of St. Mary did not preserve the erection in repair, and therefore, says he, ‘as the latter part of this traditionary account is a manifest falsehood, the former is very likely to be of the same stamp.’ He then sums up all by these bold words. ‘As it appears that some religious foundations only were exempt from the work of this Bridge, and they, too, by charter, I think ’tis not to be doubted, but all civil bodies and incorporations were liable to contribute to the repairs thereof. And, consequently, that Linsted and his followers exceed the truth, by ascribing all the praise of so public a benefaction to a small House of Religious; who, with greater probability, only consented to the building of this Bridge, upon sufficient considerations and allowances, to be made to them for the loss of their Ferry, by which they had been always supported.’ Such are the objections against the attributing the building of the First Wooden Bridge to the Monks of Southwark; but we may remark, by the way, that Stow was a laborious and inquisitive Antiquary, who saw and inquired, as well as read for himself, and, in all probability, had both seen and conversed with Prior Fowle; whilst Maitland and Entick were often contented to write in their libraries from the works of others, and speak of places with which they were but very slightly acquainted. We may add too, that, as the Priests of St. Mary were Regular Canons of St. Austin, by their rule they were not permitted to be wealthy, but were to sell the whole of their property, give to the poor, have all things in common, and never be unemployed. I know very well, that in opposition to Stow’s account of Mary Audery’s foundation, you may bring forward that assertion made in Stevens’s ‘Supplement to Dugdale,’ which I have already cited, volume ii. page 97; wherein she is called ‘a noble woman,’ and, consequently, could not be the Ferryman’s daughter. But of this let me observe, that the authority of Stow’s ‘Survey,’ given in the margin, is mis-quoted; for although it is certain that the action itself was sufficiently noble, yet the old Citizen never calls her other than ‘a Maiden named Mary.’ You may see the place to which Stevens refers, in Strype’s edition of the ‘Survey,’ volume ii. page 10; and let me remark now, before I quit the history of St. Mary Overies, as connected with that of London Bridge, that there is yet extant there, a monumental effigy conveying the strongest lesson of man’s mortality; it being the resemblance of a body in that state, when corruption is beginning its great triumph. Prating Vergers and Sextons commonly tell you, that the persons whom these figures represent, endeavoured to fast the whole of Lent, in imitation of the great Christian pattern, and that dying in the act, they were reduced to such a cadaverous appearance at their decease. There has, however, been a new legend invented for this sculpture, as it is commonly reported to be that of Audery, the Ferryman,

father of the foundress of St. Mary Overies. It was formerly placed on the ground, under the North window of the Bishop’s Court, which, before the present repairs, stood at the North East corner of the Chapel of the Virgin Mary. Where it will be removed to hereafter, time only can unfold, for, as yet, even the Churchwardens themselves know not.

“In speaking of this person’s tomb, I must not, however, omit to notice, that there is a singularly curious, although, probably, fabulous tract of 30 pages, of his life, the title of which I shall give you at length. ‘The True History of the Life and sudden Death of old John Overs, the rich Ferry-Man of London, shewing, how he lost his life, by his own covetousness. And of his daughter Mary, who caused the Church of St. Mary Overs in Southwark to be built; and of the building of London Bridge.’ There are two editions of this book, the first of which was published in 12mo., in 1637, and a reprint of it in 8vo., which, though it be shorn of the wood-cuts that decorated the Editio Princeps, is, perhaps, the most interesting to us, inasmuch as it bears this curious imprint.—‘London: Printed for T. Harris at the Looking-Glass, on London Bridge: and sold by C. Corbet at Addison’s Head, in Fleet-street, 1744. Price six pence.’ You may see this work in Sir W. Musgrave’s Biographical Tracts in the British Museum; its first nine pages are occupied with a definition and exhortation against covetousness, in the best Puritanic style of the seventeenth century; and then, on page 10, the history opens thus:—‘Before there was any Bridge at all built over the Thames, there was only a Ferry, to which divers boats belonged, to transport all passengers betwixt Southwark and Churchyard Alley, that being the high-road way betwixt Middlesex, and Sussex, and London. This Ferry was rented of the City, by one John Overs, which he enjoyed for many years together, to his great profit; for it is to be imagined, that no small benefit could arise from the ferrying over footmen, horsemen, all manner of cattle, all market folks that came with provisions to the City, strangers and others.’

“Overs, however, though he kept several servants, and apprentices, was of so covetous a soul, that notwithstanding he possessed an estate equal to that of the best Alderman in London, acquired by unceasing labour, frugality, and usury, yet his habit and dwelling were both strongly expressive of the most miserable poverty. He had, as we have already seen, an only daughter, ‘of a beautiful aspect,’ says the tract, ‘and a pious disposition; whom he had care to see well and liberally educated, though at the cheapest rate; and yet so, that when she grew ripe and mature for marriage, he would suffer no man of what condition or quality soever, by his good will, to have any sight of her, much less access unto her.’ A young gallant, however, who seems to have thought more of being the Waterman’s heir than his son-in-law, took the opportunity, whilst he was engaged at the Ferry, to be admitted into her company; ‘the first interview,’ says the story, ‘pleased well; the second better; but the third concluded the match between them.—In all this interim, the poor silly rich old Ferryman, not dreaming of any such passages, but thinking all things to be as secure by land as he knew they were by water,’ continued his former wretched and penurious course of life. From the disgusting instances which are given of this caitiff’s avarice, he would seem to have been the very prototype and model of Elwes and Dancer; and, as the title-page of the book sets forth, even his death was the effect of his covetousness. To save the expense of one day’s food in his family, he formed a scheme to feign himself dead for twenty-four hours; in the vain expectation that his servants would, out of propriety, fast until after his funeral. Having procured his daughter to consent to this plan, even against her better nature, he was put into a sheet, and stretched out in his chamber, having one taper burning at his head, and another at his feet, according to the custom of the time. When, however, his servants were informed of his decease, instead of lamenting, they were overjoyed; and, having danced round the body, they brake open his larder, and fell to banqueting. The Ferryman bore all this as long, and as much like a dead man, as he was able; ‘but, when he could endure it no longer,’ says the tract, ‘stirring and struggling in his sheet, like a ghost, with a candle in each hand, he purposed to rise up, and rate ‘em for their sauciness and boldness; when one of them thinking that the Devil was about to rise in his likeness, being in a great amaze, catched hold of the butt-end of a broken oar, which was in the chamber, and, being a sturdy knave, thinking to kill the Devil at the first blow, actually struck out his brains.’ It is added, that the servant was acquitted, and the Ferryman made accessary and cause of his own death. The estate of Overs then fell to his daughter, and her lover hearing of it, hastened up from the country; but, in riding post, his horse stumbled, and he brake his neck on the highway. The young heiress was almost distracted at these events, and was recalled to her faculties only by having to provide for her father’s interment; for he was not permitted to have Christian burial, being considered as an excommunicated man, on account of his extortions, usury, and truly miserable life. The Friars of Bermondsey Abbey were, however, prevailed upon, by money, their Abbot being then away, to give a little earth to the remains of the wretched Ferryman. But upon the Abbot’s return, observing a grave which had been but recently covered in, and learning who lay there, he was not only angry with his Monks for having done such an injury to the Church, for the sake of gain, but he also had the body taken up again, laid on the back of his own Ass, and, turning the animal out at the Abbey gates, desired of God that he might carry him to some place where he best deserved to be buried. The Ass proceeded with a gentle and solemn pace through Kent Street, and along the highway, to the small pond once called St. Thomas a Waterings, then the common place of execution, and shook off the Ferryman’s body directly under the gibbet, where it was put into the ground, without any kind of ceremony. Mary Overs, extremely distressed by such a succession of sorrows, and desirous to be free from the importunity of the numerous suitors for her hand and fortune, resolved to retire into a cloister; which she shortly afterwards did, having first provided for the foundation of that Church which still commemorates her name.

“Such is the story related by this tract; and, if it were possible, one might suppose, that the pious maiden, out of her filial love, had placed that effigy in her fane, which I before mentioned to be sculptured in memory of her father; since it would, by no means, improperly represent the cadaverous features of the old Waterman. The figure, itself, is of the third form of the classes of Sepulchral Monuments, invented by Maurice Johnson, Esq.,—namely, tables with effigies or sculptures,—and the last of the arrangement adopted by Smart Lethullier, Esq., that is to say,—the representation of a skeleton in a shroud, lying either under, or on, a table tomb. Richard Gough, you know, in his ‘Sepulchral Monuments,’ London, 1786-96, folio, volume i., part 1, Introduction, page cxi. where you will find all these particulars, attributes most of these figures to the fifteenth century, and Audery certainly died very long before the time of William I. However this may be, as I am laying before you all the illustrations of Bridge history, both authentic and traditional, which are now to be found, I must not omit to add, that the supposed effigy of Audery is six feet eight inches in length; and represents his decayed body lying in its winding-sheet. His hair is turned up in a roll above his head, though in the ‘History of Southwark,’ by M. Concannen, Junior, and A. Morgan, Deptford, 1795, octavo, page 101, Note, he is erroneously stated to have ‘a shorn crown,’ and is, therefore, supposed to represent Linsted, the last Prior of St. Mary’s.

“Captain Francis Grose has inserted this figure, not very respectably engraven, in his ‘Antiquities of England and Wales,’ London, 1773-87, royal quarto, six volumes, in the Addenda attached to volume iv., plate iii.; and he observes, on page 36, that ‘it is a skeleton-like figure, of which the usual story is told, that the person thereby represented attempted to fast forty days, in imitation of Christ,’ as he remarks on the preceding page, but died in the attempt, having first reduced himself to that appearance. The best engraving of this effigy was published in ‘Mr. J. T. Smith’s Antiquities of London, and its Environs,’ London, 1791, quarto.

“Be this figure, however, who it may, the Waterman or the Priest, his tomb has outlived both his name and his dust. Whether he only carried passengers over the River Thames, or was occupied in teaching them how to cross that last fatal River,—which John Bunyan quaintly tells you hath no Bridge,—‘after life’s fitful fever he sleeps well,’—

“Aye, and so shall I soon,” cried I, stretching myself, and interrupting Mr. Postern; “let him rest in peace, my good Sir, and come out of Church now; for, truly, it’s high time to close your Sermon, and let us hear somewhat about a River which hath a Bridge, that was once the wonder of the world.”

“I thank you,” replied my narrator, “I thank you, Mr. Geoffrey Barbican, for recalling me to the subject of our conversation; for this is the very point at which I would proceed with my history. You know, Sir,” continued he, in a much brisker tone, “I have already observed to you, that the First Wooden Bridge was erected much farther to the East than yonder stone bulwark; for when King William I. granted a Charter to the foundation of St. Peter’s Abbey, at West-Minster, in the second year of his reign, A. D. 1067, he confirmed to the Monks serving God in that place, a Gate in London, then called Butolph’s Gate, with a Wharf which stood at the head of London Bridge. This has ever been received as a well-established fact; for Stow relates it in his ‘Survey,’ volume i., pages 22 and 58; and Mr. John Dart, in his ‘History and Antiquities of the Abbey Church of St. Peter, Westminster,’ London, 1723, folio, volume i., page 20, supports it, in his List of Benefactors to the Abbey, in the time of King Edward the Confessor.

“The record is also given at length, by Stow, in English; but you may see it in the original Latin, in a curious Manuscript in the Cotton Library, marked Faustina, A. iii., which is entitled, ‘A Registry of the Regal and Pontifical Charters, Privileges, Agreements, and Covenants, of the Bishops and Abbots of the Church of the blessed Peter of Westminster; many whereof are Saxon ones, written in the Norman-Saxon characters.’ This volume is a little stout quarto, written in a small fair Church text, on parchment; adorned with many vermillion initial letters, and rubrics, or heads of chapters. The Charter to which I have now referred you, chapter xliv., is the last but one in the reign of King William I., folio 63, b, of the modern pagination; and, put into English, is as follows:—

“‘Concerning the lands of Almodus, of St. Butolph’s Gate, and of the Wharf at the head of London Bridge.

“‘William, King of England, to the Sheriffs and all Ministers, as, also, to his faithful subjects of London, French and English, greeting: Know ye, that I have granted unto God and to St. Peter of Westminster, and to the Abbot Vitalis, the House which Almodus, of the Gate of St. Botolph, gave to them when he was made a Monk; that is to say, his Lord’s Court, with his Houses, and one Wharf which is at the head of London Bridge, and others of his lands in the same City, like as King Edward more fully and beneficially granted them: and I will and command that they shall enjoy the same well, and quietly, and honourably, with sake and soke, and shall hold all the customs and laws of the aforesaid. And I defend them that none shall do them any injury. Witness, Walkeline, Bishop of Winchester, and William, Bishop of Durham, and R., Earl of Mell., and Hugh, Earl of Warwick.’

“And now let me remark that, by this we are informed that the City end of the Bridge was not anciently the foot of it, which is asserted by the evidence of Richard Newcourt, in his ‘Ecclesiastical History of the Diocess of London,’ London, 1708-10, folio, volume i., page 396, where he says, that ‘St. Magnus’ Church is sometimes called, in Latin, the Church of St. Magnus the Martyr, in the City of London, near the foot, or at the foot, of London Bridge.’

“This First Wooden Bridge, however, was not fated to stand long; for, on the sixteenth of November, the feast of St. Edmund the Archbishop, in the year 1091, ‘at the hour of six, a dreadful whirlwind from the South-East, coming from Africa, blew upon the City, and overthrew upwards of six hundred houses, several Churches, greatly damaged the Tower, and tore away the roof and part of the wall of the Church of St. Mary le Bow, in Cheapside. The roof was carried to a considerable distance, and fell with such force, that several of the rafters, being about twenty-eight feet in length, pierced upwards of twenty feet into the ground, and remained in the same position as when they stood in the Chapel.’

“The best accounts of this terrible event are to be found in the ‘Chronicle’ of Florence of Worcester, page 457, which was literally copied into the ‘Annales’ of Roger de Hoveden, Chaplain to King Henry II., printed in the ‘Scriptores post Bedam,’ already cited, page 462;—in William of Malmesbury, page 125;—and in the ‘Chronicle’ of John of Brompton, which I have also before quoted, page 987.

“During the same storm, too, the water in the Thames rushed along with such rapidity, and increased so violently, that London Bridge was entirely swept away; whilst the lands on each side were overflowed for a considerable distance. I cannot help observing how slightly, and erroneously, the ‘Annals of Waverley’ notice this most dreadful devastation; for at page 137, of the best edition by Dr. Thomas Gale, volume ii. of his ‘Historiæ Anglicanæ Scriptores xv.’ Oxford, 1691, folio, they merely state that ‘a vehement wind struck down London the 6th of the kalends of November,’—that is to say, on the 27th of October,—‘at the hour of six!’ I doubt not but the truth was, that the good Monks of Waverley Abbey in Surrey felt nothing of this ventus vehemens themselves, and therefore gave a much more trivial record of it, than if it had shaken but a single bell in the turrets of their own Cenobium. The ‘Annals of Waverley,’ you know, were, down to about 1120, almost a translation from the ‘Saxon Chronicle,’ executed in the twelfth century. The following year, 1092, the sixth of the reign of William Rufus, was marked by a season fatal to bridges in general; although there is no mention that our’s at London participated in the destruction. This fact is related by William of Malmesbury, page 125, and by Roger de Hoveden, page 464, in these words:—‘Also, in his sixth year, there was such an excessive rain, and such high floods, the rivers overflowing the low grounds that lay near them, as the like was remembered by none. And afterward, in the winter, ensued a sudden frost; whereby the great streams were congealed in such a manner that they could draw two hundred horsemen and carriages over them; whilst at their thawing, many bridges, both of wood and stone, were borne down, and divers water mills were broken up and carried away!’

“Frequent destructions by fire seem, also, to have been a very general fate of all our ancient buildings; for, in 1093, the wooden houses and straw roofs of the London Citizens were again in flames, and a great part of the City was thus destroyed.

“Too soon after this calamity, at a most inauspicious time for commencing, or executing, expensive public works, in 1097, King William Rufus imposed a heavy tax upon his subjects for the re-building of London Bridge,—though that might very well be defended,—the erecting of the palace of West-Minster Hall, and the construction of a wall round the Tower. The ‘Saxon Chronicle’ speaks of these ill-advised undertakings in the blended tones of sorrow and of anger. ‘This was, in all things,’ says that faithful old history, at pages 316, 317, ‘a very heavy-timed year, and beyond measure laborious from the badness of the weather, both when men attempted to till the land, and, afterwards, to gather the fruits of their tilth; and from unjust contributions they never rested. Many counties also, that were confined to London by work, were grievously oppressed, on account of the wall that was building about the Tower, and the Bridge that was nearly all afloat, and the King’s Hall that they were building at West-Minster; and many men perished thereby.’

“Our brave old River of Thames itself, however, is of the same changeful nature as Luna, the mistress of his tides; for, if at one time, he overflows his banks, blows up his Bridge, or drowns an invading army, by the fury of his waves; at another season he contracts his waters into their narrowest channel, or draws them back into his urn, without leaving enough to float a wherry over his bed. Of this I shall give you several instances, as we get lower down the stream of time; and now only remark, in chronological order, that on the 6th of the Ides of October, videlicet the 10th, in the 15th Year of the reign of Henry I. 1114, the River was so dried up, and there was such want of water, that between the Tower of London and the Bridge, and even under it, ‘a great number of men, women, and children,’—says Stow, in his ‘Survey,’ volume i. page 58,—‘did wade over both on horse and foot,’ the water coming up to their knees.

“The original account of this is to be found in the ‘Annales’ of Roger de Hoveden, page 473; from whom we derive the additional information, that this defect of water commenced in the middle of the night preceding, and lasted until the darkest part of the next. The same historian, also, records, on the same page, that in the year 1115, the winter was so severe, that all throughout England the Bridges were broken by the ice.

“But although London Bridge was an edifice to which there was a continual and heavy cost attached, yet its possessions were, even anciently, very extensive; for you find that so early as in the 23d year of Henry I., A. D. 1122, Thomas de Ardern, and Thomas his son, gave to the Monks of Bermondsey, and the Church of St. George in Southwark, the tenth of his Lord’s corn lands in Horndon, and the immense sum of Five Shillings per annum rent, out of the Lands pertaining to London Bridge. Calculate this, my good Sir, at twenty times its present value; for we know that in the Great Charter of King John, Chapter II. a knight paid but five pounds to the King as a Relief when he came to his estate; and that, Lord Coke tells you in his Second Institute, even several years later, was the fourth part of his annual income. Remember too, that sixpence by the week was then a living stipend to an ordinary labourer; that the Black Book of the Exchequer—which was written about the reign of Henry I.—ordains that a tenant shall pay one shilling to the King, instead of providing bread for one hundred soldiers for one meal; that the provender of twenty horses for one night, also to be paid by a tenant, was commuted for four pence; that in 1185, the tenants of Shireburn paid by custom two pence, or four hens, which they would; and, lastly, recollect, that in 1125,—called by Robert de Monte, the dearest year ever known,—a horseload of wheat was sold but for six shillings: in ordinary times, as in 1043, it was sixpence the quarter. Of all this you may see most abundant and curious proof, in Bishop Fleetwood’s ‘Chronicon Preciosum,’ London, 1745, 8vo. pages 55, 56; and therefore the gift of Thomas de Ardern was munificent.

“I should observe that Stow obtained the knowledge of this donation from the manuscript ‘Annals of Bermondsey Priory,’ which are now preserved in the Harleian Library in the British Museum, No. 231, very fairly written in a good legible black text upon vellum; having vermillion rubrics of the King’s Reign, and the date of the year. It is a rather small quarto volume, of 71 written leaves, delicately paged by some later hand; and the passage occurs on the reverse of folio 11. The Harleian Catalogue calls it, in Latin, ‘the Annals of the Abbey of St. Saviour’s of Bermondesie, from the year of our Lord 1042, down to the year of our Lord 1433; in which, beside the public affairs of each reign,’—told in the words of other Chronicles—‘many things are narrated which belong to the history of the same Abbey.’

“You have already seen that London Bridge was a public work, to which all England furnished some labourers; but, as I mentioned some time back, Maitland, in his ‘History of London,’ volume i. page 44, notices a deed cited by Stow, exempting the lands of Battle Abbey, in Sussex. This was granted by King Henry I. but is perhaps now lost, for it remains wholly unnoticed by the learned Editors of the new edition of Dugdale’s ‘Monasticon;’ and I must therefore give it you in the very words of the old Antiquary himself, who says, page 58, that in his time it remained with the seal very fair, in the custody of Joseph Holland, Esq.;—it is as follows:—

“‘Henry, King of England, to Ralph, Bishop of Chichester, and all the Officers of Sussex, sendeth greeting. Know ye, &c. I command by my kingly authority, that the manor called Alceston, 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 Pont de l’Arche, at Berry.’

“The second year of the succeeding King, however, namely Stephen, saw London Bridge in a state to require the exertions of all England to raise it: for, in 1136, a fire broke out in the dwelling of one Aileward, near London Stone, that consumed Eastward as far as Aldgate; and to the Shrine of St. Erkenwald, in St. Paul’s Cathedral, to the West. On the Southern side of London the Wooden Bridge over the Thames was destroyed, but was soon after repaired, since Stephanides, whose description of London was written between 1170 and 1182, speaks of it as affording a convenient standing place to the spectators of the Citizens’ Water Tournaments. I shall give you the whole passage, because it describes a very curious sport of the twelfth century, which was celebrated in the immediate vicinity of this very spot; and the account is at page 76, beginning ‘In feriis Paschalibus;’ we’ll content ourselves, however, with Dr. Pegge’s translation of it, which runs thus.

“‘At Easter, the diversion is prosecuted on the water; a target is strongly fastened to a trunk or mast, fixed in the middle of the River, and a youngster standing upright in the stern of a boat, made to move as fast as the oars and current can carry it, is to strike the target with his lance; and if in hitting it he break his lance, and keep his place in the boat, he gains his point, and triumphs; but if it happen that the lance be not shivered by the force of the blow, he is of course tumbled into the water, and away goes his vessel without him. However, a couple of boats full of young men is placed, one on each side of the target, so as to be ready to take up the unsuccessful adventurer, the moment he emerges from the stream, and comes fairly to the surface. The Bridge, and the balconies on the banks, are filled with spectators, whose business it is to laugh.’

“Of this singular sport, Joseph Strutt copied in his ‘Sports and Pastimes of the People of England,’ London, 1801, 4to. page 92, plate x. a very curious illumination, contained in a volume of the Royal Manuscripts in the British Museum,—2 B. vii.—which consists of a history of the Old Testament, the Psalter, the Hymns of the Church, and a Calendar; all richly painted in water-colours, and beautified with gold,—‘yellow, glittering, precious gold,’—so highly embossed, as to be ‘sensible to feeling as to sight.’

“That volume brings back old days to my recollection, whenever I behold it; for, in the year 1553, it belonged to Queen Mary of England, and is bound in a truly regal style for her; being in thick boards covered with crimson velvet, richly embroidered with large flowers in coloured silks and gold twist; besides being garnished with gilt brass bosses and clasps, on the latter of which are engraven the Royal devices and supporters. Another, and more pleasing proof of its having been her’s,—inasmuch as it records a good action of a London Citizen concerned with the affairs of this brave river,—is to be found in a Latin note written in a beautiful black text hand, on the reverse of the last leaf of the volume. ‘This Book,’ it states, ‘formerly a gift, was afterwards carried away by a sailor; but that excellent and honest person, Baldwin Smith, Receiver of the Customs of the Port of London, hath restored and given it unto the most illustrious Mary, Queen of England, France, and Ireland, in the month of October, in the year of our Lord, 1553, in the first year of her reign.’ The text of this volume is said to have been written, and the illuminations executed, in the fourteenth century, though, from their style, I cannot help thinking that the period is nearly an hundred years too late; for beneath the pages of the Psalter is a series of most interesting and excellent drawings, in pen-and-ink outlines, very slightly and delicately tinted with colours, which was certainly a far more ancient custom. However that may be, this series consists ‘de omnibus rebus, et quibusdam aliis,’ for there are the representations of animals and birds, field-sports, games, legends, martyrdoms, battles, and fables, of an almost infinite variety; and in the course of them occur the figures of a water-quintain, both as it is described by Fitzstephen, and also of a more warlike character. The first of these was engraved by Strutt in the work which I have before referred to, and gives a very perfect idea of the River Tilting of the Twelfth Century,

which the illuminator had, no doubt, personally witnessed in his own time. The other, which has also been engraven in the same work, page 113, plate xv. shews two armed knights getting ‘grysly together,’ as the ‘Morte d’Arthur’ calls it, in boats;

and you will find it under the 60th Psalm, ‘Dominus repulisti nos,’ &c.

“Stow, in his ‘Survey,’ volume i. page 301, mentions a very rude imitation of this kind of jousting on the water at London; when he says, ‘I have seen also in the summer season, upon the River of Thames, some rowed in wherries, with staves in their hands, flat at the fore-end, running one against another, and, for the most part, one or both of them were overthrown and well ducked.’ In Queen Mary’s Manuscript, under the psalm of ‘Misericordiam et judicium cantabo,’ is also a representation of two fiends hurling a Monk from a rude stone Bridge; but as I rather think that did not occur at London, I mention it no farther.

“But now, to return to our subject:—Stow relates the particulars of the great fire of 1135-36, at page 58 of his ‘Survey,’ citing in the margin the ‘Annals of Bermondsey,’ and the ‘Book of Trinity Priory,’ as his authorities. The latter of these is, perhaps, now no more; but in the former you may find the conflagration mentioned at page 13 b, where it is said to have happened in the year 1135, and to have extended to the Church of St. Clement Danes. It was probably in the Register of Trinity Priory, that Stow found a notice that London Bridge was not only repaired, but a new one erected of elm timber, in 1163, by the most excellent Peter of Colechurch, Priest and Chaplain; since I find it in none of the historians with whom I am acquainted. It is, however, much better authenticated that the same pious architect began his labours upon the first stone one in 1176; for, in the ‘Annals of Waverley,’ at page 161, you find the following entry.—‘1176. In this year, the Stone Bridge at London is begun by Peter, the Chaplain of Colechurch.’ Here, therefore, ends the history of the infancy of London Bridge: and a very chargeful infancy it was, for, as old Stow says, ‘it was maintained partly by the proper lands thereof, partly by the liberality of divers persons, and partly by taxations in divers shires, as I have proved, for the space of 215 years,’—And now, Mr. Geoffrey Barbican, your very good health.”

“Sir, my hearty thanks to you,” replied I, rubbing my eyes, “for this Bridge Story is as dull as proving a Peerage, where there’s no reliance, and much doubting:—but how’s this, Master Postern!” continued I, looking into the tankard, “you have drank, and I have drank, and yet the jug is as full as ever, and as hot as it was as first?”

“You’re pleased to be facetious, good Sir,” answered my visitor, “for truly I’m no Saint Richard to work such miracles; but, if you please, we’ll now return to the Bridge again.

“We are here entering upon the golden age of London Bridge, for the new stone building, by Peter of Colechurch, was such an ornament as the Thames had never before witnessed; indeed, in my poor judgment, it very far surpassed that erection, of which I shall hereafter have occasion to speak; and perhaps, for its time, even that which now stretches itself across the flood. The person to whom was entrusted the building of the first stone Bridge at London, was, as I have already told you, named Peter, a Priest and Chaplain of St. Mary Colechurch; an edifice, which, until the Great Fire of London, stood on the North side of the Poultry, at the South end of a turning denominated Conyhoop Lane, from a Poulterer’s shop having the sign of three Conies hanging over it. This Chapel, of which the skilful Peter was Curate, was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, and was famous as the place where St. Edmund and St. Thomas à Beckett were presented at the baptismal Font; still it must have been something very like having a church on a first floor, for you may remember Stow says, in his ‘Survey,’ volume i. page 552, that it was ‘built upon a vault above ground, so that men are forced to ascend into it by certain steps.’ Of the architectural knowledge of the Curate thereof, I have already shewed you that the Citizens of London had experienced some proofs, since he is said to have rebuilt their last wooden Bridge: and John Leland the Antiquary—whom I shall anon quote more particularly,—observes, in the notes to his famous ‘Song of the Swan,’—a book of which I will also speak hereafter,—that Radulphus de Diceto, Dean of London, who wrote about 1210, states from his own knowledge, that he was a native of this City. The same venerable Antiquary also tells us in his ‘Itinerary,’ edited by Thomas Hearne, Oxford, 1768-69, octavo, volume vii. part I. marginal folio 22, page 12,—that ‘a Mason beinge Master of the Bridge Howse, buildyd à fundamentis the Chapell on London Bridge, à fundamentis propriis impensis;’ or, as we should now say, from bottom to top, at his own costs and charges. The property of Peter of Colechurch, however, would not stand Bridge-building by itself; and therefore the present will be the most fitting place, to give you some account of the other contributors to this great national work.

“Master Leland, in the same place which I last quoted, observes that ‘a Cardinale, and Archepisshope of Cantorbyri, gave 1000 Markes or li. to the erectynge of London Bridge.’ Now, the Cardinal who is here alluded to, was Hugo, Hugocio, or Huguzen di Petraleone, a Roman, Cardinal Deacon of St. Angelo, whom Pope Alexander III. sent, in 1176, to France, Scotland, and England, as his Legate; which you may find stated in Alphonso Ciaconio’s noble book entitled ‘Vitæ et Res Gestæ Pontificum Romanorum, et Sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ Cardinalium,’ Rome, printed with the Vatican types, in 1630, folio, page 578, a work of about 3000 pages in extent; of an enormous size, fairly bound in embossed vellum, and adorned with a prodigious number of copper-plates and wood-cut Armorial Ensigns; by the latter of which we are shewn, that this foreign contributor to the building of London Bridge bore for his arms, Quarterly, Argent and Gules, and over all, in the centre point, a sieve of the first. Whilst the Cardinal resided in England, he took some notice of the dispute which was then going on concerning the Primacy, between the Archbishops of Canterbury and York: when at a meeting held at Westminster, Roger de Ponte, the turbulent possessor of the latter see, arrogantly took his seat at the Cardinal’s right hand. Upon which the domestics of Richard, the mild and amiable Archbishop of Canterbury, took him thence by force, and in the ensuing scuffle he was beaten, and turned out of the assembly, with his episcopal robes sadly rent. Now this Richard was a Benedictine Monk, and Prior of the Monastery of St. Martin’s, Dover; who was elected to the See of Canterbury on the death of Thomas à Beckett, in 1174. ‘He was a man,’ says Bishop Godwin, when writing his memoirs, ‘very liberal, gentle, and passing wise;’ and, what gives him great honour in my sight, he was the very Prelate whom Leland mentions in the passage I quoted, as subscribing so nobly to the foundation of London Bridge. And yet, ’tis strange, that only in his ‘Itinerary,’ and in Stow’s ‘Survey,’ volume i. page 58, is this donation recorded; for even in the best and most splendid edition of Bishop Godwin’s volume, ‘De Præsulibus Angliæ Commentarius,’ by William Richardson, Canon of Lincoln, Cambridge, 1743, folio, page 79, the old Citizen is referred to at note y, as his authority for the fact. I cannot omit now giving you the blazon of this Prelate’s own arms, as they appear in that noble illuminated copy of Archbishop Parker’s work, ‘De Antiquitate et Privilegiis Ecclesiæ Cantuariensis cum Archiepiscopis ejusdem 70,’ Lambeth, 1572, folio, page 123, which is estimated to be fully worth its weight in gold. This truly valuable volume was presented by our late good King George the Third to the British Museum, and formerly belonged to Queen Elizabeth. The arms, however, were Azure, three Mullets in bend, between two Cottises Argent; and whenever you turn to this volume, on which the ancient Art of Illuminating shed its latest rays, I pray you fail not carefully to inspect it: for you will find it a copy of that edition printed at his own palace, by John Day; with many leaves impressed on vellum, and the whole of the book carefully ruled with red-ink lines, the initials coloured and gilded, and all the Armorial Ensigns, with the Frontispiece, excellently well emblazoned. And I pray you also, forget not well to note the binding; since a richer, or more fancifully embroidered covering there are few tomes which can exhibit. The ground of it is green velvet, intended to represent the vert of a park, and it is surrounded by a broad border of pales with a gate, worked in brown silk and gold twist; whilst within are trees, flowers, shrubs, tufts of grass, serpents, hinds, and does, all executed in richly coloured silks, and gold and silver wire. At the back are the Queen’s badges of red and white roses; the edges of the leaves are gilt, and the volume was once secured by ribbons of crimson silk.

“Of this most splendid book I must, indeed, yet add another word, that it may be estimated as it so well deserves. Dr. Ducarel, in his account of that astonishing copy of it which is deposited in the Archiepiscopal Palace at Lambeth, says, ‘It was first printed at Lambeth by John Daye in 1572; and so small a number were then published, that, except this complete copy, there is but one extant in England, known to be so, which is preserved in the Public Library of Cambridge, as I am informed.’ See his Letter of July the 15th, 1758, addressed to Archbishop Secker, which is inserted in the Rev. H. J. Todd’s ‘Catalogue of the Archiepiscopal Manuscripts in Lambeth Palace.’ London, 1812, folio, page 242, Art. 959.

“The life of Archbishop Richard, which this book contains, is nearly the same as that related by Francis Godwin, Bishop of Landaff; and before I leave speaking of this early and Reverend patron of London Bridge, let me endeavour to clear his memory from something like a stain which attaches to it. He received the Archbishop’s Pall, immediately after the death of a man of unconquerable spirit and insurmountable pride, for you will remember that he was successor to Beckett: and, perhaps, it was the strong contrast afforded by his yielding and quiet disposition, which has made some suppose that he did nothing worthy of memory. I am, however, myself rather surprised at the manner of his decease, when it is allowed by all his biographers, that he was a man so charitable, of such benefit to the revenues of the church, and was so liberal both to the poor, the nation, the King, and even the Pontiff himself. The story of his death is related by Gervase of Dover, by Henry Knyghton, the Canon of Leicester, and in the Chronicle of William Thorne, the Monk of St. Augustine’s, Canterbury; but I shall recite it to you from the old English edition of Francis Godwin’s ‘Catalogue of the Bishops of England, from the first planting of the Christian Religion in this Island:’ London, 1615, 4to. page 96. ‘The end of this man,’ says the Prelate, ‘is thus reported, how that being a sleepe at his Mannor of Wrotham, there seemed to come vnto him a certaine terrible personage’—Knyghton and Thorne say ‘the Lord appeared unto his sight,’—‘demaunding of him, who he was; whereunto, when for feare, the Archbishop answered nothing, Thou art he, quoth the other, that hast destroyed the goods of the Church, and I will destroy thee from off the earth: this having said, he vanished away. In the morning betime, the Archbishop got him up, and taking his iourney toward Rochester, related this fearfull vision vnto a friend of his by the way. Hee had no sooner told the tale, but hee was taken suddenly with a great cold and stifenesse in his limmes, so that they had much adoo to get him so farre as Haling, a house belonging to the Bishop of Rochester. There he tooke his bed, and being horribly tormented with the cholike, and other greefes, vntill the next day, the night following, the 16th of February, hee gaue vp the ghost, anno 1183.’

“Though such was his untimely end, yet his being so great a benefactor to the original building of old London Bridge, ought to make his name revered by every true-hearted Citizen of London; and, indeed, Bridge-building has been thought by some to be an act of real piety, witness those rude old verses printed in Leland’s ‘Itinerary,’ volume vii. part I. Marginal folio 64 b, page 79, which were composed on the erecting of the Bridge at Culham, in Oxfordshire, and hung up by Master Richard Fannand, Ironmonger, of Abingdon, in the Hall of St. Helen’s Hospital.

‘Off alle werkys in this worlde that ever were wrought,
Holy Chirche is chefe, there children been chersid.
For by baptim these barnes to blisse been ybrought,
Thorough the grace of God, and fayre refresshed.
Another blessid besines is Brigges to make,
Where, that the pepul may not passe after greet showers;
Dole it is to drawe a deed body out of a lake,
That was fulled in a fount stoon, and a felow of oures.
King Herry the fifte, in his fourthe yere,
He hathe yfounde for his folke a Brige in Berke schyre,
For cartis with carriages may goo and come clere,
That many Wynters afore were mareed in the myre.
And some oute of ther sadels flette to the grounde
Went forthe in the water wist no man whare;
Fyve wekys after or they were yfounde,
Ther kyn and ther knowlech caught them uppe with care.’

“By this then, you see there is much virtue in your Bridge-builder. The names of all the Benefactors to London Bridge, indeed, were fairly painted on a tablet, and hung up in St. Thomas’s Chapel, which stood upon the middle of it; and, doubtless, the donation of King Henry II. would be found there recorded, if that grateful testimonial were yet in existence. The King’s gift, however, is supposed to have been, in fact, the gift of the people, being the produce of a tax upon wool; and hence arose that absurd tradition, which the commonalty invented to make a wonder of the matter, that ‘London Bridge was built upon woolpacks,’ I am, indeed, inclined to think that the measure was not very popular; for the people of England seldom failed to complain of any additional duty placed upon that commodity; and of this you find some reliques in Lord Coke’s Commentary on the 30th Chapter of the ‘Magna Charta’ of King Henry III., contained in his ‘Second Institute,’ pages 58, 59. He is there speaking, you know, of the taking away of evil tolls and customs, and he observes, that some have supposed that there was a tribute due to the King by the Common Law, upon all wools, wool-fells,—that is, the undressed sheep skins,—and leather, to be taken as well of the English as of strangers, known by the name of Antiqua Custuma. This amounted to half a mark, or 6s. 8d. for every sack of wool of 26 stone weight; and a whole mark upon every last of leather. But even this his Lordship also endeavours to prove a recent custom, by a Patent Roll from the Exchequer, of the 3rd of Edward I., A. D. 1274, which states, that the Prelates, Chiefs, and the whole Common Council of the kingdom, had consented to grant this new custom of wool to him, and to his heirs. Now, even the words ‘novam consuetudinem’ may signify only a revival of the ancient tax, for some specific cause; as it might have lain dormant since the days of building London Bridge; thus having reference to a new occasion, and not to the date. But shortly previous to the final confirmation of the Great and Forest Charters, however, in the 25th of Edward I., 1296, the King set a new toll of forty shillings upon every sack of wool, without the consent of his Parliament; which the Commonalty felt to be a very heavy imposition. Against this they petitioned, and in the aforesaid ‘Confirmationes Chartarum,’ Chapter vii. it was provided that such things should be abolished, and not taken, but by common consent and good will; excepting the customs before granted. There appears to me, however, even a still nearer connection between the Duties raised for the building of London Bridge, and the xxiii. Chapter of the ‘Magna Charta’ of King John, for you there find that ‘No City, nor Freeman, shall be distrained to make Bridges or water-banks, but such as have of old been accustomed to do so:’ from which it is evident, that the taxation was general, and that this instrument was to make it particular; though, according to Lord Coke’s exposition, there was nothing gained by it: for, in his ‘Second Institute,’ folio 29, he says, that in the reigns of Richard I. and John, fictitious exactions were made in the names of Bridges, Bulwarks, and the like, but that neither the erection, nor the paying for them, was abolished by this act, since they could not be erected but by the King himself, or by an Act of Parliament.—But Mr. Barbican!—You doze, worthy Sir!”

“Why truly, Mr. Postern,” said I, rubbing my eyes, “Tax-gathering is always dull work; and I verily thought we’d lost sight of the Bridge in the paying for it. You’re as minute with all your authorities, as a Flemish painter that marks every hair on a cat’s back, and I can turn over your old dull authors in my own dusty book-room.”

“I must acknowledge,” said my visitor, “that such details are rather dry; but you very well know, my good friend, as Father Le Long said, ‘Truth is so delightful, that we should consider no labour too great to obtain it:’ and, indeed, I wished to bring before you some circumstances which lie widely scattered, although they, nevertheless, most excellently illustrate the story, and I would do all honour to the memory of the worthy Peter of Colechurch.”

“Really, Sir,” answered I, “if his blessing be worth having, it ought to rest upon your head; for had you been Peter of Colechurch himself, ten times over, you could scarcely have taken more pains with your history: and so,—here’s your health, and his, Mr. Barnaby.”

“My best thanks to you, my honoured friend,” replied Mr. Postern, “and I’ll shortly repay your attention by a piece of a more brilliant description; for having once got the Bridge built, and paid for, we’ll take a look at the picturesque old edifice itself, and at some of the many gorgeous sights and interesting scenes which took place upon it: indeed it shall go hard but what I’ll find you amusement. The building, then, which the never-to-be-forgotten Peter of Colechurch began, took as long to complete as Solomon’s Temple, for thirty and three years were employed in erecting it. Ere that period, however, the charitable Priest who designed it, the learned Architect and wise builder who watched its progress, went the way of all flesh; as we shall find hereafter, in 1205, and not, as Maitland erroneously says, in the third of King John, A. D. 1201, though he also supposes that he might then be worn out by age or fatigue, since in the Patent Rolls of the Tower of London, of that year, M. 2, No. 9, is the following Letter Missive of the King to the Mayor and Citizens of London, recommending a new Architect. For other references you may consult Maitland’s History, page 45; Thomas Hearne’s edition of the ‘Liber Niger Scaccarii,’ London, 1771, octavo, volume i. page *470, where it is printed in the original Latin; and the ‘Calendarium Rotulorum Patentium in Turri Londinensi, Printed by Command,’ London, 1802, folio, page 1, column 1. The Letter is as follows:—

“‘John, by the Grace of God, King of England, &c. to his faithful and beloved the Mayor and Citizens of London, greeting. Considering how the Lord in a short time hath wrought in regard to the Bridges of Xainctes and Rochelle, by the great care and pains of our faithful, learned, and worthy Clerk, Isenbert, Master of the Schools of Xainctes: We therefore, by the advice of our Reverend Father in Christ, Hubert, (Walter) Archbishop of Canterbury, and that of others, have desired, directed, and enjoined him to use his best endeavour in building your Bridge, for your benefit, and that of the public: For we trust in the Lord, that this Bridge, so requisite for you, and all who shall pass the same, will, through his industry, and the divine blessing, soon be finished. Wherefore, without prejudice to our right, or that of the City of London, we will and grant, that the rents and profits of the several houses which the said Master of the Schools shall cause to be erected upon the Bridge aforesaid, be for ever appropriated to repair, maintain, and uphold the same. And seeing that the requisite work of the Bridge cannot be accomplished without your aid, and that of others, we charge, and exhort you, kindly to receive and honour the above-named Isenbert, and those employed by him, who will perform every thing to your advantage and credit, according to his directions, you affording him your joint advice and assistance in the premises. For whatever good office or honour you shall do to him, you ought to esteem the same as done to us. But, should any injury be offered to the said Isenbert, or to the persons employed by him, which we do not believe there will, see that the same be redressed so soon as it comes to your knowledge. Witness myself, at Molinel,’—in the Province of Bourbon, in France,—‘the eighteenth day of April.’ ‘A Letter,’ adds Hearne, on page *471, ‘of the same form, was written to all the King’s faithful subjects constituting the realm of England;’ and the instrument itself is also to be found at length in the original Latin, in Sir Symonds D’Ewes’ extracts from the Records, Harleian MSS. in the British Museum, No. 86, page 1 a.

“It is, however, by no means clear, notwithstanding this Royal Writ, that Isenbert was employed by the Citizens to complete the building of London Bridge; indeed, the Rev. John Entick, in his edition of Maitland’s ‘History of London,’ volume i. page 45, imagines quite otherwise, because he found that King John, in the seventh year of his reign, 1205, three years, as he says, before the Bridge was finished, granted the custody of it to one Friar West, taking it from the Lord Mayor, and obliging the City to apply certain void places within its walls to be built on for its support. Strype also quotes the former instrument as being yet preserved in the ‘Rotuli Clausi,’ or Close Rolls, in the Tower, 7 John, c. 19, for you know it was a private instrument, and therefore sealed up, and directed to the persons whom it specially concerned.

“But now let us see how far this supposition is founded in truth. In the first place, the reference to the Close Rolls is erroneous, for the writ is to be found on the 15th Membrane, there being no such article as c. 19; and, in the next place, there was no such person as Friar West, for the title of Friar was not in use until the fourteenth century, and the person referred to was called Wasce, though the name of West has been copied and re-copied, and the error thus perpetuated ad infinitum. The actual words of the writ are, in English, as follow.

“‘The King to Geoffrey Fitz Peter, &c.’—Chief Justice of England.—‘We will that Brother Wasce, our Almoner, and some other lawful man of London, provided by you and the Mayor of London, be Attorney for the custody of London Bridge. And, therefore, we command you that they give the whole to these men, like as Peter, the Chaplain of Colechurch, possessed the same from them. Witness for the same, the Prior of Stoke, at Marlebridge, the 15th day of September.’ Notwithstanding this instrument, we hear no more of Frater Wasce, nor of Isenbert of Xainctes, but are told by Stow, page 58, without his referring to any other authority, that ‘this work, to wit the Arches, Chapel, and Stone Bridge over the 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.’

“This new Bridge consisted, then, of a stone platform, erected somewhat westward of the former, 926 feet long, and 40 in width, standing about 60 feet above the level of the water; and containing a Drawbridge, and 19 broad pointed arches, with massive piers varying from 25 to 34 feet in solidity, raised upon strong elm piles, covered by thick planks, bolted together. Such was the first stone London Bridge, commenced by Peter of Colechurch, A. D. 1176.

“Deeply as I venerate the memory of the great builder of that Bridge, which continued for so many centuries the wonder of Europe, yet I must not omit to notice to you, that many persons have grievously condemned his labours; the principal objections to which are summed up in the ‘Londinium Redivivum,’ of Mr. James Peller Malcolm, London, 1802-1807, 4to. volume ii. page 386, where he thus heavily censures that erection. ‘Whatever were the pretensions of Peter of Colechurch to eminence as an Ecclesiastical Architect, I think any person who views Vertue’s print of London Bridge, as it stood in 1209, will allow that he was a very bad Civil Engineer. He seems to have delighted in the number of his piers, which amounted to nineteen; and he was so ignorant of the true principles by which he should have been governed, that the centre was swelled into a Chapel, reducing the adjoining arches to half the diameter of the remainder. Indeed, it is wonderful that those piers maintained their situation, when we reflect how the torrent now rushes through, hurling heavy laden barges along as if they were feathers on the stream, when every practicable remedy to enlarge them has been applied.’

“An Architect of nearly an hundred years since, however, has considered these objections with somewhat more of mathematical proof; and what is better, even whilst he admits their full force, he still venerates the memory, and dares to applaud the public spirit, of the blessed Peter of Colechurch. You will readily guess that I allude to Master Nicholas Hawksmoor’s ‘Short Historical Account of London Bridge, with a proposition for a New Stone Bridge at Westminster,’ a quarto pamphlet of 47 pages, and 5 folding Copper-plates, originally published in the year 1736, for two shillings. The Author observes, at page 9, that the whole breadth of the River from North to South is nearly 900 feet, and that in his time there were eighteen solid piers of different dimensions, varying from 34 to 25 feet in thickness. According to this disposition, he argues, ‘the greatest water way is when the tide is above the sterlings, which is 450 feet, and, considering the impediments, it is not half the width of the River for the water to pass; but when the tide is fallen below the sterlings, the water-way is reduced to 194 feet,—which is during the greatest part of the flux and reflux of the tide,—and the river of 900 feet broad, is forced through a channel of 194 feet, which is not a quarter of the whole.’ We can at last, however, hardly judge of the Bridge of Peter of Colechurch with any degree of fairness, for that great benefactor of London died before he completed his Pontificate, as I may jocularly call it; and the author whom I last quoted, very candidly observes of him, that he, perhaps, ‘did not intend to add those immense Sterlings that have so much obstructed the River’s passage betwixt the Stone piers,’ and which, after all, are the great cause of the evil: for, says the same person, at page 13, when answering the common objection to altering London Bridge, on account of the expense attending it, ‘I have heard some masters of Hoys and Lighters say, that a Tonnage would willingly be paid for such a conveniency and security of their goods and vessels; and, as I have heard, an offer was made to pay Tonnage, if the Drawbridge had been opened, when the City last repaired it, to avoid the losses they suffered frequently by the Sterlings.’ ‘It is very probable,’ continues the same authority, ‘that the Sterlings were made afterwards, to keep the foundation of the piers from being undermined;—or, perhaps, these Sterlings might be increased after some damages that befell the piers, by the great quantity of ice which might be stopt by the narrowness of the arches; and those that intended to make the legs more secure, used such means as rendered them the less so, by the violent rapidity which they gave to the River so restrained,’ In addition to this, he also attempts an apology even for that very part of Peter’s Bridge, which has been the most condemned; having, perhaps, designed, says Mr. Hawksmoor, ‘by the narrowness of his arches, to restrain the ebbing of the tide, the better to preserve the navigation of the River above the Bridge, though it would not have any great effect if the Sterlings were taken away,’ considering ‘that if the River had its free course, it would ebb away so fast, that there would be scarce any navigation above the Bridge, a little time after high-water.’ This pamphlet also contains a defence of the Great Pier, which so violently excited the censure of Malcolm, who thought a Church on a Bridge was thrown away; for at page 12, he states that it might be intended ‘firstly to be a steadying of the whole machine, instead of making an angle, as it is in the famous Bridge at Prague, and in some of the Bridges in France; so that this fortress was placed in the middle of the Bridge, to stem the violence of the floods, ice, and all other accidents that might be forced against it. Secondly,—that if by any accident of the ice or flood, or undermining any of the legs,’—he means the piers, but Hawksmoor frequently uses this very ungraceful epithet,—‘some of the arches might fall, as five did, Anno 1282, yet, by the help of this great buttress,—though this damage was done on one side,—the arches on the other side stood firm, so that there was less expense, and greater encouragement to make the repair. The third reason was, that he had an opportunity to shew his piety, having a situation for erecting a Chapel, which was done, and his body deposited in it.’

“At the great repair of London Bridge, which took place between 1757 and 1770, several additional arguments were brought forward against the original edifice; of which Mr. Robert Mylne, in his Answers to the Select Committee of the House of Commons, for improving the Port of London, dated May the 15th, and October the 30th, 1801, printed in the Fourth Report of that Committee, states the following particulars. ‘The houses,’ says he, ‘being then taken down, and the sides of the Bridge being dismantled, the internal masses of its great bulk were found little better than rubbish, and of bad mason-work, &c. without active exertion, or even inert resistance. The original Piles, under the original stone-work of a very narrow Bridge, between the two modern sides and extreme parts, by cutting into the sides of the piers, and by one old being opened up, and totally removed, have been found composed of Sapling Oak and some Elm, carelessly worked, neither round nor square, but much decayed.’

“And now, worthy Mr. Barbican, having told you some of the objections to, and apologies for, the Bridge of the venerable Peter of Colechurch, before we ascend to the parapet, to examine the buildings which stood upon it, let me observe to you, that there are engraved Ground-plans of this Bridge, in George Vertue’s prints, which I shall mention more particularly hereafter, and also in Hawksmoor’s tract from which I have so largely quoted.”

Here let me for a moment interrupt the narrative of Mr. Postern, by stating that on the next page the Reader has a reduced copy of the interesting plan last mentioned, to which are subjoined Hawksmoor’s own measurements, and some additional particulars, also taken from Vertue; on the accuracy of every part of which, we have the best authority for placing the most complete reliance.

Ground plan of the first stone Bridge At London: commenced A. D. 1176, and completed A. D. 1209.

DIMENSIONS AND REFERENCES.
COMMENCING AT THE CITY, OR NORTH END.

Vertue makes the extreme length of this Pier but 115 feet only.

Vertue makes this space 30 feet broad.

The Piers and Arches were both measured from the squares of the latter, the triangular ends being left un-noticed, excepting in the instance of the Great Pier. The length of the whole Bridge was 926 feet; its height, 60; and the breadth of the Street over it, 40 feet.

“Let us now then, my good Sir,” continued Mr. Postern, “ascend to the Platform or Street of the old London Bridge, erected by Peter of Colechurch, and look at the buildings which stood upon it; the most celebrated of which was the famous Chapel dedicated to St. Thomas à Becket, the Martyr of Canterbury, whence it was familiarly called St. Thomas of the Bridge. This was erected upon the Tenth, or Great Pier, which measured 35 feet in breadth, and 115 from point to point; whilst the edifice itself was 60 feet in length, by 20 feet broad, and stood over the parapet on the Eastern side of the Bridge, leaving a pathway on the West, about a quarter of the breadth of the Pier, in front of the Chapel. The face of the building itself was forty feet in height, having a plain gable, surmounted by a cross of about six feet more; whilst four buttresses, crowned by crocketted spires, divided the Western end into three parts. The wide centre contained a rich pointed-arch window, of one mullion, with a quatrefoil in the top; and the two sides were occupied by the entrances to the Chapel from the Bridge-Street, each being ascended by three steps. Such was the general appearance of the West Front of the Chapel on London Bridge.

“The interior of this edifice consisted of two stories, both consecrated to sacred purposes, and greatly resembling each other in their appearance. The Upper Chapel was lofty, being supported by fourteen groups of elegant clustered columns, and lighted by eight pointed-arch windows divided by stone mullions into a double range of arches, surmounted by a lozenge. Beneath each of the windows were three arched recesses, separated by small pillars; and the roof itself was also originally formed of lofty pointed arches; though, when this magnificent fane was transformed into a warehouse, a wooden ceiling, with stout beams crossing each other in squares, was erected, which cut off the arches where they sprang from the pillars, and divided into two parts the Interior of the Upper Chapel of St. Thomas.

The Eastern extremity of this building formed a semi-hexagon, having a smaller window in each of its divisions, with richly carved arches under them, corresponding with the series already mentioned on the side: and the architectural lightness and elegance of the whole, meriting the highest encomium. Beneath this principal edifice, was a short descending passage, having, on the left hand, a stone basin cut in a recess in the wall, for containing Holy Water, and leading, through the solid masonry of the Pier, into the Lower Chapel of St. Thomas, which was constructed in the Bridge itself.

“This Crypt was entered both from the upper apartment and the street, as well as by a flight of stone stairs winding round a pillar, which led into it from the nearest Pier: whilst in the front of this latter entrance, the Sterling formed a platform at low water, which thus rendered it accessible from the River. The Lower Chapel, which—even decorated as that was, in my estimation, very far exceeded the upper one in architectural beauty,—was about 20 feet in height, and its roof supported by clustered columns, similar to those I have already described; from each of which sprang seven ribs, the centre, and the two adjoining it in every division, being bound by fillets with roses on the intersections; whilst the great horizontal ribs had clusters of regal and ecclesiastical masks, producing an effect little to be expected in such a structure, in such a situation; though I may trust to your correct taste, my good Mr. Barbican, for duly appreciating it. There was also a rich Series of Windows in the Lower Chapel,

which looked on to the water, similar in character to, though much smaller than, those above: whilst the floor was beautifully paved with black and white marble; for in this place did the pious Architect propose to rest his bones. His monument, remarkable only for its plainness, was formed, according to Maitland’s ‘History,’ page 46, under the Chapel staircase, in the middle of the building; and it measured seven feet and an half, by four in breadth. There was, indeed, neither brass plate, nor inscription, nor carving found about the sepulchre, when Mr. Yaldwin, the inhabitant of the Chapel in 1737, then a dwelling, and warehouse, discovered the remains of a body in repairing the staircase; though, from the ‘Annals of Waverley,’ page 168, we know that the reliques of Peter were certainly entombed in this place. ‘In 1205,’—runs the passage,—‘died Peter the Chaplain of Colechurch, who began the Stone Bridge at London, and he is sepultured in the Chapel upon the Bridge.’ By this entry then, we are assured that he lay there; and as for an epitaph, was not the whole edifice an everlasting catafalco to his memory, which should speak for all times? How finely, indeed, might we apply to him that inscription, which the son of Sir Christopher Wren composed for his father’s burial-place in St. Paul’s,—‘He lived, not for himself, but for the public! Reader, if you seek his monument, look around you!’

“And now, before we enter upon an examination of the bed of the Thames at London Bridge, and consider whether the River were turned, as Stow thinks, to admit of its erection, let me cite you some ancient authorities concerning St. Thomas’s Chapel. The first of these shall be the ‘Itinerary of Symon Fitz Simeon, and Hugo the Illuminator,’ both of whom were Irish Monks, of the Order of Friars Minors, who visited London on their pilgrimage to Palestine, in 1322. ‘This flux and reflux,’—say they, at pages 4, 5,—‘continues to the sea from the famous River named Thames, upon the which is a Bridge, filled with inhabitants and wealth; and in the midst of them is a Church dedicated to the blessed Thomas, Archbishop and Martyr, which is well served continually.’ About the year 1418, also, William Botoner, a Monk of Worcester, of the Parish of St. James in Bristol, who then travelled from that City to St. Michael’s Mount in Cornwall, in his ‘Itinerarium,’ pages 301, 302, thus spake of London Bridge and the Chapel. ‘The length of the Chapel of St. Thomas the Martyr, upon London Bridge, is about twenty yards; having an under Chancel in the vault, with a choir, but the length of the nave of the said Chapel contains fourteen yards. The width of the middle steps is one yard. The length of the Bridge on the South, from the posts to the first gate newly founded by Henry the Cardinal, unto the two posts erected near the Church of St. Magnus, consists of five hundred of my steps. Item: there are five great windows on one side,’—of the Chapel,—‘each of which contains three panes:’ or rather divisions. Of these Itineraries I will observe nothing farther, than that they were published from the original Manuscripts in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, by James Nasmith, the Editor of Tanner’s ‘Notitia Monastica;’ in 1778, octavo; under the title of ‘Itineraria Symonis Simeonis, et Willielmi de Worcestre.’

“Of this Chapel, and also of the first Stone Bridge, there are two large folio engravings, taken and published, by George Vertue, in 1744-48, which, after his decease, were, with many of his other plates of Antiquities, presented by his widow to the Antiquarian Society in 1775. The first engraving measures 18¼ inches by 20 inches and ³⁄₈, and contains ‘A View of the West Front of the Chappel of St. Thomas, on London Bridge; also the Inside View from West to East of the said Chappel, as it was first built An°. 1209:’—and also ‘London Bridge as it was first built, An°. 1209:’—a Ground plan, and some measurements of the same, and a short Historical account of the structure, drawn up by Sir Joseph Ayloffe, Bart. Vice-President of the Society of Antiquaries. The publication line states, that it was ‘drawn, engrav’d, and publish’d by G. Vertue, in Brownlow-Street, Drury-Lane, 1748.’ A second edition was printed by the Society, in 1777.

“The other plate contains ‘The Inside Perspective View of the Under Chappel of St. Thomas within London Bridge, from the West to the East end,’ and beneath it: the ‘Inside South View of the Under Chappel from East to West, representing the manner and form of this rare piece of Ancient Architecture, thus drawn and transmitted to posterity, by G. V., Antiquary, 1744. Published and sold by G. Vertue, in Brownlow-Street, Drury-Lane, 1747’ This plate, which measures 18¼ inches by 20, contains a few additional historical notes, by Sir Joseph Ayloffe; and a reduced copy of the lower View was engraved in the 23d volume of the ‘Gentleman’s Magazine,’ for October, 1753, page 520. I must observe, also, that, in the large interior View on that plate of Vertue last-mentioned, there are introduced the portraits of the learned Samuel Gale, and the eccentric Dr. Ducarel. The former, by whose patronage and assistance Vertue produced these prints, is standing on the left hand, holding a plan of the Chapel, and listening to an outlandish-looking man, designed for Peter of Colechurch; whilst the latter Antiquary is employed in measuring. You find this information given from Gale’s own lips, in that monument of labour, the ‘Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century,’ by John Nichols, volume iv. London, 1812, 8vo. page 552, and volume vi. part I. page 402. I shall close this notice of these most ancient views of London Bridge, by observing to you, that there is a view and a ground-plan of it, with measurements, engraved by Toms, on the second plate in Hawksmoor’s work, already cited.

“Let me remark to you, however, Mr. Barbican, as touching the Chapel which I have thus described to you, that the custom of erecting Religious Houses on Bridges, is certainly of great antiquity. A notable instance of this kind was on the Bridge at Droitwich, where the road passed through the Chapel and separated the congregation from the reading-desk and pulpit. Another famous Bridge Chapel is also to be found erected over the River Calder, at Wakefield, in the West Riding of Yorkshire; of which, a folding view, by W. Lodge, is inserted in the ‘Ducatus Leodiensis’ of Ralph Thoresby, London, 1715, folio, sometimes placed at page 164. This beautiful fane, you know, was built by King Edward IV. in memory of his father, Richard, Duke of York, who was killed in the battle fought near Wakefield, on December the 31st, 1460. The Bridge Chapel, however, though extremely rich in its architecture, was not so singular as our’s at London, since it was not built in the pier, and descending even to the water’s edge, but upon the pier, and the platform of the Bridge itself. Somewhat like our shrine of St. Thomas, however, as it belonged to the poor of the town, it was, about 1779, converted into a dwelling-house, and let at a small annual rent to a retail dealer in old clothes! as that industrious Antiquary, Richard Gough, tells us, in his ‘British Topography,’ London, 1780, 4to. volume ii. page 437, note, r. ‘To what base uses may we not return, Horatio!’ The edifice which had been erected for Monks to chaunt forth their Requiescats in solemn procession; the shrine which had been endowed for the sweet repose of a warrior’s soul; the—”

“I’ll tell you what, Mr. Barnaby Postern,” said I, starting up, “you’ll contribute to my sweet repose, unless you leave wandering in Yorkshire, and return again to London Bridge: what have we to do with a bead-roll of all the Bridge Chapels that are scattered through England? I desire to know but of one; for, by its having existed, we are sure that there might have been some sort of custom for their erection; and, as old Chaucer saith,

‘Experience, though none auctoritye
Were in this world, is quite enough for me.’”

“True, Sir, true,” said the mild old Antiquary; “you have once more brought me back to my starting-post; for I own that I am too apt, when discoursing upon one subject, to branch out into others which seem to illustrate, or are in any degree connected with it. You will, however, I dare say, allow me to remark, that Plutarch denies the derivation of the word Pontifex from the old Roman custom of sacrificing on Bridges, which might, nevertheless, be the origin of Chapels being built upon them. He mentions this in his Life of Numa Pompilius, in his ‘Vitæ Parallelæ,’ best edition, by Augustine Bryan, and M. du Soul, London, 1729-24, 4to. volume i. page 142. The Greek passage begins, ‘Νουμᾷ δὲ και τὴν των αρχιερεων,’ &c., and the Latin, ‘Jam etiam sacerdotum;’ but I shall give you the excellent modern English version of Dr. Langhorne, in his very popular translation of the old Classic, from the edition of Mr. Archdeacon Wrangham, London, 1813, 8vo. volume i. pages 181, 182: ‘To Numa,’ says the passage, ‘is attributed the institution of that high order of priests, called Pontifices; over which, he is said to have presided himself. Some say, they were called Pontifices, as employed in the service of those powerful gods that govern the world; for potens, in the Roman language, signifies powerful. Others, that they were ordered by their law-giver to perform such offices as were in their power, and standing excused when there was some great impediment. But most writers assign a ridiculous reason for the term, as if they were called Pontifices, from their offering sacrifices upon the Bridge, which the Latins call Pontem; such kinds of ceremonies, it seems, being looked upon as the most sacred, and of the highest antiquity. These Priests, too, are said to have been commissioned to keep the Bridges in repair, as one of the most indispensable parts of their sacred office.’ Plutarchus, the author of this, you remember, died about A. D. 140; and the period of which he wrote, was about 630 years before the birth of Christ. That giant of learning, also, John Jacob Hoffmann, denies that the word Pontifex had any thing to do with a Bridge; as you may see discussed at considerable length, in his ‘Lexicon Universale,’ Leyden, 1698, folio, volume iii. page 836, column 2, where he says, it is compounded of posse and facere, that is to say, such persons as are able to do the thing, or sacrifice: but as the article is equally long, erudite, and curious, I refer you to the original.

“And now we come to speak of Stow’s singular hypothesis, that the River Thames was turned in its current, during the erection of the first Stone Bridge at London. He states this in his ‘Survey,’ volume i. page 58, where he also says, that the course of the stream was carried through ‘a trench cast for that purpose; beginning, as it is supposed, East about Rotherhithe, and ending in the West about Patricksey, now termed Battersey.’ Strype, the last, and, perhaps, the best Editor of our old Metropolitan Historian, on the page above cited, seems inclined to support this idea; for he says, ‘It is much controverted whether the River Thames was turned, when the Bridge over it was built, and whether the River was more subject to overflow its banks anciently than at present; and from all that hath been seen and written upon the turning of the River, it seems very evident to me, that it was turned while the Bridge was building, and that it is more subject to overflow its banks now, than it was formerly; for the channel of the River must have been deeper than it is now, or the Palace of Westminster would never have been built where the Hall and the rest of its remains are now situated. Is it to be supposed that any Prince would have built a Palace, where the lower rooms were liable to be overflowed at a spring-tide, as we see the Hall has been several times of late years, and the lawyers brought out on porters’ backs? The reason whereof is, that the sands have raised the channel, and, consequently, the tides must rise higher in proportion, than they did formerly; and unless some care is taken to cleanse the River, the buildings on the same level with the floor of Westminster-Hall, will not be habitable much longer, as the sand and ouse are still daily increasing, and choking up the bed of the River.’ Nicholas Hawksmoor, also, on page 8 of his work, which I have already quoted, says, that ‘many skilful persons have thought that the River Thames was not turned, but that the flowing of the tides was then different, and that the water did not rise so high at the Bridge; for the Thames might heretofore overflow the marshes near the sea, and have a greater spreading; which being now restrained by the bank, called the wall of the Thames, into narrower limits, and the water which comes from the sea into the mouth of the Thames during the flood, not being received by the marshes, must come up into the country, and so swell the tide higher at London than it usually did. The celebrated Sir Christopher Wren was of opinion, that when the foundation of London Bridge was laid, the course of the River was not turned, but that every pier was set upon piles of wood, which were drove as far as might be under low-water mark, on which were laid planks of timber, and upon them the foundation of the stone piers: the heads of the said piles have been seen at a very low ebb, and may be so still when some of the chalk or stone is removed to mend the Sterlings.’

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

“But pray, my worthy friend,” said I, as he concluded, “what other buildings stood upon the Bridge built by Peter of Colechurch, besides the Chapel of St. Thomas?”

“That is a point,” replied he, “upon which Antiquaries are very far from being decided: for whilst some assert, with Sir Joseph Ayloffe in his account of the Bridge attached to Vertue’s prints, that, at first, there were no houses upon it, and that it was only plainly coped with stone until 1395,—late in the reign of Richard II.,—others argue that it was built upon to some extent two centuries before, and, indeed, there is proof of this being the case in the reign of King Edward I., as I shall shew you anon. Stow, in his ‘Survey,’ volume i. page 22, says that the Bridge Gate, which was erected at the Southwark end, was one of the four first and principal gates of the City, and stood there long before the Conquest, when there was only a Bridge of timber, being the seventh and last mentioned by Fitz-Stephen. Maitland, at page 30 of his first volume, when he comes to speak of the same erection, denies not only the truth, but even the probability of Stow’s assertions; and, indeed, Stephanides himself says only at page 24, ‘On the West,’—that is of London,—‘are two Castles well fortified; and the City wall is both high and thick with seven double gates, and many towers on the North side, placed at proper distances. London once had its walls and towers in like manner on the South, but that vast River, the Thames, which abounds with fish, enjoys the benefit of tides, and washes the City on this side, hath, in a long tract of time, totally subverted and carried away the walls in this part.’ The Latin of this passage commences at ‘Ab Occidente duo Castella munitissima,’ &c. Maitland then goes on to argue, that Fitz-Stephen could have no regard to a gate on the South, there being no wall remaining; ‘whereas,’ says he, ‘on the contrary, it is manifest that his seven gates were in the continued wall on the land side.’

“It is probable, however, that, at a very early period after its erection, towers were reared upon London Bridge, for there was one standing at each end; but of these I shall speak more largely under future years: remarking only, that it is by no means impossible for a Watch-tower and gate to have stood upon the Bridge, even from its very first erection, seeing that it was, as it were, a new key to the City. A sort of Barbican, Mr. Geoffrey, such as you derive your name from; for you remember the essential importance which such buildings were of, and how Bagford speaks of them in his Letter to Hearne, which I have already quoted, page lxii. ‘Here,’ says he, ‘they kept Cohorts of Souldiers in continual service’—for your Barbican Tower was of Roman invention,—‘to watch in the night; that if any sudden fire should happen, they might be in a readiness to extinguish it, as also to give notice if an enemy were gathering or marching towards the City to surprise them. In short, it was a Watch-tower by day; and at night, they lighted some combustible material on the top thereof, to give directions to the weary traveller repairing to the City, either with provision or on some other occasion.’

“But to pass from probabilities to certainties, let us now, having got the Bridge fairly built of stone, consider the many events and changes which it hath experienced, from its infancy in the thirteenth Century, to its old age in the nineteenth: and so, my excellent auditor, Here begin the Books of the Chronicles of London Bridge.

“That sorrowful exclamation, ‘No sooner born than dead!’ may well, at the period at which we are now arrived, be uttered over this scarcely completed edifice; for in the night of the 10th of July, 1212, within four years after its being finished, a dreadful conflagration took place upon it. Stow, at page 60 of his ‘Survey,’ cites the Book of Dunmow, William de Packington, and William of Coventry, as his authorities for that excellent account of it which I shall presently repeat to you. Let me, however, first observe, that Packington was Secretary and Treasurer to Edward the Black Prince, in Gascoigne, about 1380. For William of Coventry, I conceive that we should read Walter of Coventry; because the former, who wrote about 1360, is celebrated in page 148 of Bishop Nicolson’s ‘Historical Libraries,’ already cited, as the Author of a work ‘concerning the coming of the Carmelites into England.’ Walter, on the contrary, at page 61, is mentioned as having compiled three books of Chronicles, about the year 1217, which yet remain in Manuscript in Bennet College, Cambridge. The ‘Chronicle of Dunmow,’ which is the other authority quoted by Stow, is now to be found only in a small quarto volume in the Harleian Library of Manuscripts, No. 530, article ii. page 2 a. It consists of a miscellaneous collection of notes, in the hand writings of Stow, Camden, and perhaps Sir Henry Savile; transcribed upon old, stained, and worn-out, paper. The notice of this great fire is very brief, and, with the heading of the extracts, runs thus: ‘Collectanea ex Chronico de Dunmowe.’—‘1213. London was burned and the Brydge also, and many peryshed by violence of the fyre.’ Stow’s own account, however, is the most interesting extant, and is as follows. ‘The Borough of Southwark,’ says he, ‘upon the South side of the River of Thames, as also the Church of our Lady of the Canons there,’—that is to say the Church of St. Mary Overies, which changed its name upon being re-founded, in 1106, for Canons Regular, by William de Pont de l’Arche, and William D’Auncy, Norman knights,—these ‘being on fire, and an exceeding great multitude of people passing the Bridge, either to extinguish and quench it, or else to gaze 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 the fire: and it came to pass, that as they stayed or protracted the 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 there came to aid them many ships and vessels, into which the multitude so unadvisedly rushed, that the ships being thereby drowned, they all perished. It was said, that through the fire and shipwreck, there were destroyed above three thousand persons, whose bodies were found in part or half burned, besides those that were wholly burned to ashes, and could not be found.’

“Such is Stow’s account of this melancholy event, which is best confirmed by the ‘Annals of Waverley,’ page 173; but they state also, that under this year, ‘1212, London, about the Bridge, was great part burned, together with the Priory of Southwark.’ Now, if we might credit the ‘Historiæ Angliæ’ of that wily, but elegant Italian, Polydore Vergil, we might be sure, that even at this period, London Bridge was built upon: ‘Ipso illo anno,’ says he, at page 276 of his book, setting out, however, with an erroneous date, ‘In that same year’—1211,—‘all the buildings that were erected upon London Bridge, were, even upon both sides, destroyed by fire: the which is esteemed a place of wonder.’ Polydore Vergil, you know, was an Historian of the reign of King Henry VIII. so we shall refer to him hereafter; and his work, now cited, was written at that Monarch’s request, so late as about the year 1521. It is esteemed chiefly for its elegant diction; and the best edition of it is considered to be that printed at Leyden, in 1651, octavo; though the foregoing reference is to the last impression of the Basil folio, A. D. 1570.

“There does not appear, however, to have been any very effectual or speedy order taken for the restoration of London Bridge; for in the ‘Rotuli Clausi,’ or the Close Rolls, of the 15th Year of King John, 1213, Membrane the 3rd, is the following entry. ‘It is commanded to the Mayor and Sheriffs of London, that the halfpence which are now taken of foreign Merchants, shall be given to the work of London Bridge. Witness Myself at the Tower of London, on the 18th day of December, in the 15th year of our reign.’—You will find the Latin of this printed in the second impression of Thomas Hearne’s edition of the ‘Liber Niger Scaccarii,’ London, 1771, 8vo. volume i. page *471; and the original record may be seen in the Tower of London, written in so small, delicate, and abbreviated a character, that it hardly makes two lines on the narrow parchment roll. And now that we are speaking of the repairs of London Bridge, I should observe, that they are closely connected with the history of the Bridge-House and Yard in Tooley Street, Southwark; since Stow tells you in his ‘Survey,’ volume ii. page 24, that they were so called and appointed, as being ‘a storehouse for stone, timber, or whatsoever pertaineth to the buildings or repairing of London Bridge.’ He adds too, that this House ‘seemeth to have taken beginning with the first foundation of the Bridge either of stone or timber;’ and that it is ‘a large plot of ground on the bank of the River Thames, containing divers large buildings for the stowage’ of materials for the repairs of London Bridge. Of events which particularly concern this place, I shall, however, speak more fully in their proper order of time.

“In the year 1235, you will recollect that Isabel, third daughter of King John, by his third Queen, Isabella of Angoulême, was sent with great splendour into Germany, to marry the Emperor Frederick II. She was attended by William Brewer, Bishop of Exeter, and a Privy Councillor to King Henry III., and also by the Archbishop of Cologne, the Imperial proxy, who had pronounced her Empress. Upon this occasion, according to the customs of the ancient Norman Law and the Feudal System, the King received an aid to furnish her dowry, of two marks out of every Knight’s Fee;—that is to say, as it is usually accepted, £1. 6s. 8d. from every person who possessed an estate of £20. per annum, which was granted by the Common Council of the kingdom. This rather uncommon aid, you find certified in Thomas Madox’s ‘History and Antiquities of the Exchequer of the Kings of England,’ London, 1711, folio, page 412; and in the voluminous collections of that eminent Antiquary, now preserved with Sir Hans Sloane’s Manuscripts in the British Museum, No. 4563, page 181 b, is the following very curious document, which connects this circumstance with the history of London Bridge. ‘To be remembered concerning the payments of Purprestures’—fines for enclosing and damaging of Land—‘and of Escheats’—accidental returns of estates to their principal owners,—‘It is commanded to the Sheriffs, that they get all the arrears of all the above rents, and the issues of all Purprestures and Escheats; excepting the rents of London Bridge, and the remainder of the amerciaments belonging to the Circuit of W. of York,’—most probably Walter Grey, then Archbishop of York, and Lord Chancellor,—‘as well in the County of Middlesex as at the Tower, and all the deficiencies (of the aid) for marrying the King’s sister, and for the passing over this sea into Gascony.’ In the Exchequer Rolls of the 32nd of Henry III., A. D. 1247, 12 a.

“Towards the latter end of the year 1248, King Henry vainly endeavoured to collect from his Barons, a sum sufficient to enable him to recover certain provinces in France; upon which, he offered a portion of his plate and jewels for sale to the Citizens of London, by whom they were bought. The King, displeased at finding they readily procured money for such a purpose, and yet pleaded poverty whenever he solicited a supply, resolved upon retaliation; and, to that end, kept his Christmas in the City, forced the inhabitants to present him with divers costly New Year’s gifts, and established a Market at Westminster, to last for fifteen days, beginning on the 13th of October, during which time all other fairs were suspended, and, in London itself, all commerce was prohibited. I think too, that we may trace the effects of Henry’s anger yet farther; for, in the Patent Roll of the 34th year of his reign, 1249, Membrane the 5th, is the following writ.

“‘Of taking the City of London into the hands of our Lord the King. The King, &c. to his faithful W. de Haverhull, his Treasurer; Peter Blund, Constable of the Tower of London; and Ernald Gerandin, his Chamberlain: Greeting. We command that without delay, you take into your hands our City of London, with the County of Middlesex, and London Bridge in like manner: so that the issues of the same be answered for to us at our Exchequer at our pleasure. And all the aforesaid shall be in safe custody, until the receipt of another mandate from us. In testimony of which thing, etcætera, Witness the King at Merton, on the 20th day of May.’ The original of this is of course in the Tower.

“In the same National depository of invaluable records, Mr. Geoffrey, there is, in the Patent Rolls of the 37th of Henry III.—1252,—Membrane the 4th, an entry entitled ‘A Protection for the Brethren of London Bridge, concerning the charitable gifts collected for the reparation of the said Bridge.’ This, like the foregoing instrument, has not, as I can remember, ever been printed; and, translated into English, it is as follows. ‘The King to the Archbishops, &c. Greeting. Know ye that we engage for the protection and defence of our Brethren of London Bridge, and their men, lands, goods, rents, and all their possessions. And therefore we command, that they, the Brethren, and their men, lands, goods, rents, and all possessions, in their hands, ye should hold protected and defended. Nor shall any bring upon them, or permit to be brought upon them, any injury, molestation, damage, or grievance. And if it be that any thing hath been forfeited by them, amendment shall be made without delay. And we also desire of you, that when the aforesaid Brethren, or their Messengers, shall come to you for your alms for their support, or for that of the aforesaid Bridge, ye shall courteously receive them, and cause them to be so received in all your Churches, Towns, and Courts; and that ye will bestow upon them of your goods according to your charity and the sight of our precept, the alms which they desire. So that in reward thereof ye may be worthy of all the blessings of mercy, and our special thanks shall be due unto you. In testimony of which thing, &c. Witness the King at Portsmouth, the fifteenth day of July.’

“Really,” said I to Mr. Postern, as he concluded the last Charter, “your memory, Mr. Barnaby, is little less than miraculous! Why, it must be like a chain cable, to hold together the contents of all these musty Patent Rolls, with their endless repetitions. I myself am called by my intimates, ‘Memory Barbican,’ and I can recollect events and stories indifferently well; but you! you remind me of the Wandering Jew, who has lived eighteen hundred years, and never forgot any thing in his life!”

“Ah! my good Sir,” answered the Historian of London Bridge, “if my memory were equal to your praise of it, it were, indeed, worth boasting of; but in my broken narrative I can shew you but here and there an isolated fact, whilst to the greater part of the story, we are obliged to say with Master Shallow, ‘Barren! Barren! Beggars all! Beggars all!’”

“Take a draught out of the fragment of Master Shallow’s fat friend here,” returned I, pointing to the Sack Tankard, “and set out afresh, my old kinsman; but pray let us have the spur on the other leg now, and give us a little History to lighten our Law; with which request,—Here’s my service to you!” Mr. Postern bowed as I drank, and after having followed my example, thus continued.

“You must doubtless remember, my good Sir, that during those unhappy Baronial wars which lasted nearly the whole of the extended reign of Henry III. it was supposed that Queen Eleanor of Provence opposed the Sovereign’s agreeing to the Barons’ demands; and that in revenge for this, how very uncivilly the Citizens treated her at London Bridge. Matthew of Westminster tells the story under the year 1263, in his ‘Flores Historiarum.’ London, 1570, folio, Part ii. page 315; and he, as you will recollect, was a Benedictine Monk of Westminster, who flourished, as Bishop Nicholson supposes in his ‘Historical Libraries,’ page 66, about the year 1307, when his history ends. The event to which I allude was, that as the Queen was going by water to Windsor, just as her barge was preparing to shoot the Bridge, the populace intercepted her progress, attacked her with vehement exclamations and reproaches, and endeavoured to sink her vessel, and deprive her of life by casting heavy stones and mud into her boat. Upon this, she was compelled to return to the Tower, where the King had garrisoned himself, as the City had declared for the Barons, whence she was removed to the Bishop of London’s Palace, at St. Paul’s. It was in the latter end of the same year, that Simon de Montfort, the sturdy Earl of Leicester, and the Baronial leader, marched his forces through the County of Surrey towards London, in the hope that his friends, Thomas Fitz-Richard, then Lord Mayor, Thomas de Pynlesdon, Matthew Bukerel, and Michael Tony, with whom was connected an immense multitude of the common rabble, would open the Bridge Gates to him. When the King, however, became acquainted with the Earl’s design, he left the Tower, and encamped with his troops about Southwark, to oppose his passage. As the Earl of Leicester relied more upon the assistance of the Citizens, than on the valour of his own soldiers, he vigorously attacked the King’s troops, expecting that the Londoners would favour his entrance. Henry, however, had still several adherents in the City; and, indeed, Thomas Wikes, in his ‘Chronicon,’ page 58, as it is printed in volume ii. of Gale’s ‘Scriptores,’ already cited, tells us that the Baronial party in London was composed of the meanest and most worthless, whom the wisest and eldest endeavoured to controul. During the fight, therefore, some of the Royalists, and especially one John Gisors, a Norman, perceiving that the City was in motion to assist De Montfort, locked up the Bridge Gates, and threw the keys into the Thames. So prompt an action had nearly proved fatal to the Earl of Leicester, who had approached the Bridge with only a few soldiers, lest his designs should be discovered; but at length the Gates were broken open, the Citizens rushed out in multitudes to his rescue; King Henry was obliged to retreat, and De Montfort entered the City. By this event we are informed that there certainly did exist a Bridge Gate in the year 1264; and the historians by whom the fact is related, are Matthew of Westminster, whose ‘Flowers of Histories’ I have already quoted, of which book, see page 317; and the ‘Chronicon’ of Thomas Wikes, a Canon Regular of Osney, near Oxford, which concludes with the year 1304.

“It would seem almost certain that, at this period, the keeping of London Bridge, with all its emoluments, was in the possession of the Brethren of St. Thomas of the Bridge; and the idea is somewhat supported by the Protection to which I referred you but a short time since. There is, however, in the Patent Rolls preserved in the Tower of London, of the 50th of Henry III.—1265,—Membrane the 43rd, the following instrument.

“‘For the Hospital of St. Catherine, concerning the Custody of London Bridge, with all the rents thereof for the space of five years.

‘The King to the Brethren and Chaplains ministring in the Chapel of St. Thomas upon London Bridge, the other inhabitants upon the same Bridge; and to all others to whom these letters shall come, Greeting: Know ye, that we commit unto the Master and Brethren of the Hospital of Saint Catherine near to our Tower of London, the Custody of the aforesaid Bridge with all its appurtenances, as well the rents and tenements thereof, as of others which belong to the aforesaid Bridge, within and without the City: to have and to hold by the said Master and Brethren for the space of five years. Yet so that out of the aforesaid rents, tenements, and other goods of the aforesaid Bridge, the repair and support of the Bridge is to be looked for, and to be done, from henceforth from that place as it shall be able, and as it hath been accustomed. And therefore we command you, that to the said Master and Brethren, as well as to the keepers of the aforesaid Bridge, all things belonging to that custody be applied, permitted, and paid, until the term aforesaid. Witness the King at Westminster, on the sixteenth day of November.’ The Latin of this writ you find printed in Hearne’s ‘Liber Niger,’ which I have before quoted, volume i. page *471; and it affords us certain proof of the early existence of dwellings on London Bridge.

“I will but remark in passing onwards, that Madox, in his ‘History of the Exchequer,’ already cited, page 534, quotes a Roll to shew that in the 52nd year of King Henry III.—1267,—Walter Harvey, and William de Durham, Bailiffs of the City of London, accounted to the Crown for the sum of £7. 0s. 2½d. being the amount of the Custom of Fish brought to London Bridge Street, and other Customs also taken there. The term for which the Hospital of St. Catherine was to enjoy the custody of London Bridge, wanted, however, more than a whole twelvemonth of its completion, when a new Patent was issued by Henry III. in 1269, the 54th year of his reign, granting it to his Queen Eleanor of Provence. It is entitled, ‘The King gives to Eleanor, Queen of England, the custody of London Bridge, with the liberties;’ and you will find it the third article on the 4th Membrane, in the Patent Roll for the above year: the Latin is printed by Hearne in the place which I last cited, page *472, and the writ in English is as follows:”

“‘The King to all etcætera, Greeting. Seeing that some time since we would have granted to our most dear Consort Eleanor, Queen of England, the Custody of our Bridge at London, with the liberties and all other things belonging to that Bridge, to have for a certain term: We, therefore, do grant to the same Queen, out of our abundant grace and will, the custody of the Bridge aforesaid, with the liberties and all other things belonging to that Bridge, to be considered from the Feast of All Saints,’—1st of November—‘about to arrive; and from the same Feast of All Saints, until the full end of the six years next approaching, and following. In testimony of which thing, etcætera, Witness the King, at Woodstock, on the 10th day of September.’”

“And pray, Mr. Barnaby Postern,” said I, in a drowsy kind of voice, for I was almost tired at sitting so long silent, “did the Queen enjoy the whole of her term, or was the custody of London Bridge again otherwise disposed of?”

“You bring me, worthy Mr. Geoffrey,” answered he, “by your very seasonable question, to speak of a matter in which the Citizens of London obtained a great triumph on behalf of their Bridge. It is somewhat singular, that Stow, at page 60 of his ‘Survey,’ volume i. has very hastily, and, in my poor mind, very imperfectly, related this matter; whilst Maitland, on page 48 of his ‘History,’ volume i. has told it still less circumstantially. I shall therefore, my good friend, take the freedom to put the proceedings between the Queen and the Citizens in somewhat more particular a form, illustrating them by the very records from whence we derive our information; for to these let me say, that neither of the authors whom I have mentioned give you any reference. Previously to commencing, however, I must entreat you to bear with me, Mr. Barbican, if my proofs cited from the ancient Rolls of the Kingdom be dull and formal; and to remember that they are often the only fragmenta we possess of past events. Tracing of local history is like endeavouring to follow the course of a dried-up river: a rude channel here and there presents itself; some mouldering ruin, once the abutment of an ancient Bridge, or——”

“Mr. Postern,” said I, taking up the Tankard, and interrupting him, “once more, here’s your health, and I wish you safe out of your wilderness: keep to one thing at a time, man, leave your dried-up river, and ‘turn again Barnaby,’ to the dispute between Queen Eleanor of Provence, and the Citizens of London, concerning yonder Bridge.”

“In good time,” continued my visitor, “you have brought me back again. And now, I would first request you to remember, that King Henry III. died at London, on the 16th of November, 1272; Prince Edward his son then being in the Crusade in Palestine; whence, however, he returned to England in July, or August, 1274. Now, almost the whole of the reign of Henry III. had been disturbed by the truculent Barons contending with him for the final settlement of Magna Charta; and these Civil Wars had very naturally produced numerous abuses with respect to the Estates of England, such as the Nobility assuming almost regal rights, imposing heavy tolls, and the officers of the Crown using divers exactions under colour of the law. Such was the state of English affairs at the return of King Edward I., and it was one of the first acts of his reign—as the ‘Annals of Waverley’ tell us on page 235,—to enquire into the state of the revenues, privileges, and lands of the Crown; as well as to examine into the conduct of the sheriffs and officers, who had at once defrauded the Sovereign and oppressed his subjects. For this purpose, as the next circuit of the Justices Itinerant was not expected for six years then to come,—as they generally travelled it but once in seven,—the King issued his Letters Patent under the Great Seal, dated from the Tower of London, on the 11th of October, 1274, appointing Commissioners for each County in England, to make this important inquisition. They were instructed to summon Juries to enquire on oath the answers to thirty-five Articles, examining into the King’s rights, royalties, and prerogatives, and into the extent of all frauds and abuses; the most full and ample instructions being given them for their conduct. The returns and answers to these enquiries constitute that interesting body of Records denominated the ‘Hundred Rolls,’ which are preserved in the Wakefield Tower, in the Tower of London: though, before we make any references to these, let me remark, that you will find their history, nature, and extent, fully described in the ‘Reports from the Select Committee, appointed to enquire into the State of the Public Records,’ 1801, folio, pages 54, 57-62; and ‘Rotuli Hundredorum Tempore Henrici III. et Edwardi I. in Turri Londinensi, et in Curiâ receptæ Scaccarii Westmonasteriensi, asservati.’ London, 1812-18, 2 volumes, folio. The original Patent Commissions, and Articles of Enquiry, are also still preserved in the Patent Rolls in the Tower, of the 2nd of Edward I., Membrane the 5th: by which we are informed, that Bartholomew de Bryaunton, and James de Saint Victoire, were appointed Inquisitors for the Counties of Kent, Surrey, Sussex, and Middlesex, and for the City of London: and that their enquiries for the latter place commenced in the 3rd year of King Edward I., 1274-75. On the first Membrane of the Roll for London it is stated, that twelve Jurors of Basinghall, or as it is often called Bassishaw Ward, gave the following evidence concerning London Bridge, for the original Latin of which see the ‘Rotuli Hundredorum,’ which I have already quoted, volume i. page 403, column 1.

“‘When they enquired concerning the Rents of the Citizens and Burgesses, &c.—They said that the custody of London Bridge, which is wont to belong only to the City, is alienated by the Lady Queen, Mother of Edward our King; and the Keepers of the said Bridge appointed by the same Lady Queen, expend but little in the amending and sustaining of the said Bridge. Whence danger may easily arise, very much to the damage of the King and of the City.’ This is the second Inquisition quoted by Stow, on page 60. On the third Membrane of this same Roll, containing the inquisition made in the Ward of William de Hadestok, or Tower Ward, the Jurors said that ‘the Lady Queen Eleanor, Mother of our Lord the King, is now possessed of the Bridge of London, who keeps it badly, and that it was belonging to the City of London:’ and also that the custody had been alienated ‘from the Battle of Evesham,’ August the 4th, 1265, as I have already shewn you, until the time of the inquisition. See page 405, column 1, of the ‘Hundred Rolls’ before cited.

“The Jurors of the Ward of Fori, or Fore-street, page 406, column 2 of the same book, and Membrane 4 of the original Roll, ‘said that London Bridge had been for a long time in the hands of the City and Citizens of London, and that such had been always accustomed by general consent, to be made keepers of the common Bridge of our Lord the King, and of his City, and of all passers over it; and now,’ they continued, ‘the aforesaid Bridge is in the hands of the Lady the Queen, and they know not by what warrant. They said also, that the same Bridge is greatly and perilously decayed through defect of keeping, which is to the great peril of our Lord the King and his City, and all passing over it.’ The evidence of the Jurors of the Ward of Walter le Poter, was to the same effect: and you will find it on Membrane 5 of the Roll, and on page 408, column 2, of the printed copy. A similar reply was also returned from the Ward of Peter Aunger, see Membrane 6, and page 410, column 1: from Coleman Street Ward, Membrane 7, page 412, column 1: and from the Ward of John de Blakethorne, Membrane 9, page 414, column 2; where, however, it is added, that ‘the Bridge of London, which was formerly in the custody of the whole Commonalty to be repaired and re-edified, is now under that of Brother Stephen de Foleborn for the Queen Mother.’

“The verdict of the twelve Jurors of the Ward of John Horn, also testifies the Queen’s possession of London Bridge, see Membrane 11, and page 416, column 2: but from Queenhithe Ward, or that of Simon de Hadestok, Membrane 13, and page 419, column 1, we learn that the Jurors ‘said that the Lord King Henry took the Bridge of London into his own hands, presently after the Battle of Evesham, and delivered it into the hands of the Lady the Queen, Mother of the Lord the King, who hath it now; and that to the great detriment of the Bridge, and the prejudice of all the people; it is also now nearly in a falling state, through defect of support.’ On Membrane 14, and page 420, column 1, the Jurors of the Ward of John de Northampton,—which is, by the way, the first Inquisition, so vaguely referred to by Stow, at page 60 of his ‘Survey,’—depose to the same effect; as do those of the Ward of Thomas de Basing, Membrane 15, and page 421, column 1; the latter adding only, that when the Bridge was held by the City, it was delivered to two honest Citizens to keep, saving the rents of their custody. The only information we gain from the Jurors of the Ward of Dowgate, Membrane 16, and page 422, column 2, is, that Brother Stephen, Bishop of Waterford, was custodier for Queen Eleanor, whilst their evidence on the Bridge dilapidations is quite as full as that of the other Wards.

“Such were the chief answers to the inquisitions concerning London Bridge, in the reign of King Edward I.; I say the chief, for there are yet several others, which, for the most part, are but abridged repetitions of those already cited. Indeed, they are recorded upon a different Roll, which is kept in the Chapter House, at West-Minster; and you may see their contents in the printed copies of the ‘Hundred Rolls’ to which I have so often referred you, volume i. pages 425-432.”

“Well, Master Postern,” said I, when my narrator came to this breathing place, “and how did King Edward and his Commissioners act upon this evidence against Queen Eleanor of Provence? Were they not of the mind of Dogberry as it regarded the answers of the Citizens; ‘’Fore God! they are both in a tale,’ seeing that nearly all of them swore alike?”

“I cannot, now,” answered Mr. Postern, “call to mind any historical proof that the custody of London Bridge was immediately restored to the Mayor and Citizens, though Maitland states, at page 48 of his ‘History,’ but without quoting any authority, that the Citizens did not cease to prosecute their suit by Quo Warranto, until they regained their ancient rights and privileges. Now the fact is, it is by no means certain that there was any such suit ever commenced as it concerned the Bridge; for the inquisition was first commanded by the King, and the Citizens had only to answer concerning the ancient possession and present state of their property, part of which they stated had been alienated by the King to the Queen Mother, adding also, ‘et nesciunt quo Warranto,’ they knew not by what warrant, or right. This, probably, was the phrase which led Maitland astray; added to which, he cites at page 104 the Quo Warranto Bag of the 3rd year of Edward I. No. 4, in the Exchequer, containing the complaints of the Citizens concerning levies unjustly made.

“It was, however, not the City of London only that presented and complained of alterations in the Bridge customs; for in Messrs. Manning and Bray’s ‘History and Antiquities of Surrey,’ London, 1804-14, folio, volume iii. page 548, there is the following entry. ‘At an Assize at Guildford, in Surrey, in the Octave of St. Michael,’—that is to say within the eight days succeeding the 29th of September,—‘in the 7th of Edward I. 1278—79, before John de Reygate and other Justices Itinerant. There came twelve for the Burgesses of Southwark. They present that a certain part of London Bridge, about the great gate of the Bridge, with the houses and buildings standing on that part, used to belong to the Burgh of the King, of Southwark, where the King used to have of rents of Assize,’—namely, fixed rents which could never be increased,—‘yearly 11s. 4d.; and of the customs of things there sold, 16s. and one halfpenny, till fourteen years ago, in the time of King Henry III., when the Mayor and City of London appropriated it to the City:—the King to be consulted. Also they present that the Keeper of London Bridge holds a messuage which formerly belonged to Reginald de Colemille, who then held the same in Chief,’ immediately from the King, ‘by the rent of one penny farthing: and that Milo le Mareschall holds in Chief of the King two messuages which were formerly the property of Godefride de Marberer, and Henry le Mareschall, and pays yearly two pence halfpenny.’ The ‘Assize Pleadings,’ or Rolls, containing these particulars, were written in consequence of inquisitions into the damages and alienations of the King’s property, during the reign of King Henry III., as I have already remarked with regard to the Hundred Rolls: the original pleadings are preserved in the Tower of London, and in the Court of the Receipt of the Exchequer, in the Chapter House at Westminster. Such were the ancient rents of the houses on London Bridge; to which I may add, that a Fruiterer’s Shop, two yards and a half and one thumb in length, and three yards and two thumbs in depth, was let on a lease from the Bridge-master, at a rental of twelve pence.

“We well know, Mr. Barbican, that in the olden time, Bridges were applied to many purposes which now seem altogether foreign to such edifices. The celebrated Du Cange, you will recollect, in his ‘Glossarium ad Scriptores Mediæ et Infimæ Latinitatis,’ Paris, 1733-36, folio, volume ii. page 67, tells us, that Philip the Fair, King of France, ordained in 1304, that the public Exchange, or Bankers’ Money Table for Paris, should be held upon the Great Bridge there, between the Church of St. Leufred and the Great Arch, as it was anciently accustomed to be. You may remember, also, that Bridges were once considered as Funeral Monuments, for Olaus Wormius, in his ‘Monumentum Danicorum,’ Hafnia, 1643, folio, page 523, when speaking of the Island of Foesoe, observes, that there was erected a Bridge at the costs of two or three persons, as well to preserve their own names to posterity, as to commemorate that of Jotheimnt who converted them to Christianity. He adds also, that the word Bru, which is unquestionably the most ancient etymon of the term Bridge, signifies that coronal of stone with which the large burial-places, or tumuli, in fields, were encircled. With what great propriety then, did the blessed Peter of Colechurch confide his fame to, and rest his most excellent bones, in London Bridge!

“Such, then, being the purposes to which Bridges were once appropriated, we are not to wonder that a Market formerly existed upon that of London; although the circumstance is marked only by the order for its removal, which we find mentioned by Maitland in his ‘History,’ volume i. page 104, in the following terms. ‘In the fifth year of this King’s reign,’ that is to say Edward I. 1276,—‘it was ordained, that there should not be kept a Market on London Bridge, nor in any other place, except those appointed for that purpose: also that no person should go out of the City to Southwark to buy cattle, or any wares which might be bought in the City, under the penalty of the forfeiture of the thing bought. This is the first Ordinance of the Common Council we find on record, concerning the regulation and appointment of Markets in this City.’ The margin of Maitland’s work states that he derived this information from the book entitled ‘Liber Albus,’ preserved in the Record Chamber of the City of London, folio, 130 a. Now this same White Book, which I imagine to have been so called from its having once had a cover of cream-coloured calf, was a most curious and elaborate work, compiled, as it is supposed by Strype, by one J. Carpenter, who was Town Clerk in the reign of Henry V., and a great benefactor to the City. It is dated November 5th, 1419, in the Mayoralty of Master Richard Whyttington, and the 7th year of the Reign of Henry V. and ‘it contains laudable customs not written, wont to be observed in the City, and other notable things worthy of remembrance here and there scatteringly, not in any order written.’ Some of these memoranda, as the Latin Prologue to the volume sets forth, are short indexes to the contents of other City Books, Rolls, and Charters, which are cited by their names, or marks; and in the 4th Book, folio 70 a, there is a reference to another record marked A, page cxxx., concerning the market on London Bridge, which was probably the occasion of Maitland’s marginal note, as the ‘Liber Albus Transcriptum,’ itself, has not in any part of it a page numbered 130. The volume then, in which this very ancient order of the Common Council is really contained, is a small folio of a moderate thickness, cased in boards, covered with white leather, having a coating of rough calf over it. The outside is garnished with bosses and clasps, now black with age; and in the centre, a metal border holds down a piece of parchment, on which is written in Latin the title of the volume, in a clear black letter, guarded by a plate of horn: informing us that it was begun in the 4th year of the reign of Edward I. 1275, and finished in his 22nd year, 1293. The leaves are of parchment, with the contents written in a small Court-hand in Latin; and on folio 130 a, is this entry. ‘Also that no Market place shall be kept upon London Bridge, nor in any other place excepting the appointed stations.’ On the preceding folio, namely 129 b, there is also this farther order concerning the Bridge: ‘Item, that no regraters,’—that is to say those who both bought and sold in the same market or fair,—‘shall come from below London Bridge, for the buying and preparing of bread in the City; because the Bakers of Southwark are not permitted by the statutes of our City, to come from without the City.’ Before I quit these venerable records of London, I must observe to you that they contain an almost infinite number of very curious memoranda concerning London Bridge, which would occupy no trivial time, either to collect or relate; since in the same ‘Liber Albus’ are numerous references to such particulars, see ‘for a taste now,’ as Touchstone saith, the articles entitled ‘Of the Customs of the Bridge, Part I. folio xii. a;’—‘of the Fees’—of Fish,—‘of the Bridge Bailiff, folio xii. b;’—‘concerning the keeping, rent, and course, of the water under the wall,’—Wall-brook;—‘of the cleansing of Fleet-ditch, and of the Bridge of London, and the roads about London,’ book iv. page 16 a; ‘That the Quays and house of St. Botolph be built and repaired by the keepers of the Bridge, volume E. folio cxxv.;’ and ‘Writ for the keepers of the Bridge against the Parson of Wolchurchaw, concerning the stalls on the same. Volume G. folio clviii.’ Such are a few of the very many historical notices relating to London Bridge, preserved in the Civic Records; ‘Books,’ says Strype, in the interesting Preface to his first edition of Stow’s Survey, London, 1720, never afterwards reprinted,—‘Books, that contain such a treasure, as, notwithstanding what Mr. Stow, as well as others, have extracted thence, and published, many other things in vast variety still remain there unprinted,’ and, we may almost add, unknown. Alas! my good Sir, can we wonder at the paucity of historical narrative, when we reflect how often its very sources are undiscovered? Too many of our topographers, ‘content to dwell in decencies for ever!’ flatter each other, and copy each other’s errors; but how seldom do we see one, who, diving deeply into the broad stream of Antiquarian lore, brings up——”

“Mr. Postern,” said I, with some warmth, “this is actually intolerable; there is really nothing but what serves you for a Jack o’lanthorn to go astray by. Whether it be a book, or a bit of musty morality, which has nothing at all to do with the matter, away go you over hedges and ditches, and through a thousand thickets and sloughs, rather than keep the straight road; and dragging me along with you, over the boots in mire. I think, on the whole, indeed, that my estate is gracious that you have not all the Bridge Records at command, for then should I be overwhelmed, and you be ten times more wearisome. Come back then, my good Sir; do pray come back again, and finish the reign of Edward I., as it was connected with the history of London Bridge.”

“I own,” answered Mr. Postern, in his usual undisturbed manner, “that your patience is somewhat tried by these details; but ever remember, Mr. Barbican, I pray you, that our ancient Charters, with all their barbarisms and tautology, our old Latin Chronicles, with all their monkish fables and rudeness, our brief Patent Rolls, with all their dryness and seeming want of interest,—ever remember that these are the sure foundations on which all History is built. Simple truth was, in general, the only aim of the first Chroniclers, to which later ages have added grace of style, vividness of description, and interest of narrative, to adorn their antique fidelity and plainness.

“But to proceed.—We are not made acquainted, Sir, with any particulars of the repairs which followed these inquisitions concerning London Bridge; but in the 9th year of King Edward I.—1280,—there was the following Patent issued for its support: the original of which is preserved with the other Patent Rolls in the Wakefield Tower, in the Tower of London, 9th Edward I. Membrane 25-27; a copy of the Latin is printed in Hearne’s ‘Liber Niger,’ which I have already quoted, volume i. page *472; and English translations are to be found in Stow’s ‘Survey,’ volume i. page 59; and Maitland’s ‘History,’ volume i. page 47. The words of the Patent were these.

“‘Concerning the Relief and Reparation of the Bridge of London.

‘The King to all his Bailiffs, and his faithful subjects, to whom, &c.—these presents shall come,—Greeting. It hath been lately represented unto us, and it grieves us to see, that the Bridge of London is in so ruinous a condition; to the repair of which unless some speedy remedy be put, not only the sudden fall of the Bridge, but also the destruction of innumerable people dwelling upon it, may suddenly be feared.’—I pray you to take notice of this expression, my good Sir, because it is an undeniable proof of the very early occupation of the platform of London Bridge by residences.—‘And that the work,’ continues the Patent, ‘which may now be helped by some before it fall, may, for want of a supply, come to the expense of a damage not to be repaired; Wherefore we, who are bound to take care of, and, by all gentle means, to provide for both the public and private good, and with affection specially to embrace those whom we perceive to be in want of our assistance, and to receive them under our Royal protection; We command and require you, that when the keepers of the said costly work of the Bridge aforesaid, or their messengers, who are under our especial protection and license, shall come to you to collect everywhere throughout our realm aids for the said work from pious devotion, you do admit them friendly through the contemplation of God, in respect of Charity, and for evidence of devotion in this behalf: not bringing on them, nor permitting to be brought upon them, injuries, molestations, damage, impediment, or grievance: and if any damage be done them, that ye make them amends without delay. And when ye shall be required by the aforesaid keepers, or their messengers, to help in the reparation of the aforesaid Bridge, ye will cheerfully contribute somewhat of your goods thereto, according to your abilities. And let each of you endeavour to outrun the other in such memorable works of Charity, for which ye must have merit with God, and shall gain thanks of us. In testimony of which thing, Witness the King, at Walsingham, on the eighth day of January.

“‘And it is also commanded to the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Rectors, and to all other Ministers of the Holy Mother Church, to whom these presents shall come, that when they, the keepers of the costly work of the Bridge aforesaid, or their messengers, who are under our especial protection and license, shall come to you to gather supplies for the said work, everywhere throughout your Dioceses, Rectories, or other jurisdictions whatsoever, from the pious and devout, you do admit them from the contemplation of God, the regard of Charity, and for evidence of devotion in this matter. Admitting them to excite the people by their pious persuasions, and charitably to invoke the assistance of their alms for the repair of the Bridge aforesaid. Not bringing upon them,’—and so forth to the end, as before.

“And, because, says Stow, when he has finished this instrument, ‘because these voluntary alms and charitable benevolences were not like to bring in the whole charge of the business, therefore the next year, viz. the 10th of Edward I., Anno 1281, the same King issued out other Letters Patents for taking Customs of all commodities for the same in London, and that for a certain term of years.’ These grants are also in the Tower, and the first occurs in the Patent Roll of the 10th of Edward I. Membrane the 18th; for you must remember that the earliest articles are the highest in number on the Roll, which counts from bottom to top, though the printed Calendar, or Index, reverses this order. The Latin text of King Edward’s Patent is in Hearne, as before, page *474, and the translation of it is as follows.

“‘Concerning the Reparation of London Bridge.

‘The King to his Mayor of London, Greeting: Because of the sudden ruin of the Bridge of London, we command you to associate with you two or three of the more discreet and worthier Citizens of the City aforesaid, to take, until our Parliament after Easter next approaching, in supply of the reparation of the Bridge aforesaid, the Customs hereafter written; namely, of every man crossing the water of Thames, or going over the aforesaid Bridge of London upon either side, one Farthing; both unto Southwark, and from Southwark unto London, by reason of the deficiency of repair of the Bridge aforesaid: Of every Horseman so crossing the same, one penny; and for every pack carried on a horse, so crossing over the same, one halfpenny. But we command, in the mean time, that not any thing be taken on the same on this occasion, excepting for the supply of the repairs of the Bridge aforesaid. In testimony of which, &c. Witness the King, at Cirencester, the Fourth day of February.’

“Before the appearance of the new Patent confirming the foregoing, there was, however, issued that grant to which I have already shewn you that Maitland has a reference; and which is to be found recorded on the Roll of the same year as the preceding, Membrane the 11th. Stow also refers to it; and Hearne, on page *475, prints it in the original Latin; in English it ran thus.

“‘That the Mayor and Commonalty of London have power to rent three waste portions of land in divers places in London for the support of London Bridge.—The King to all to whom these presents shall come. Whereas by the testimony of our beloved and faithful Ralph de Hengham, and William de Brumpton, and of others worthy of credit, we have been informed, that it is not to our damage, nor to the hurt of our City of London, if we grant unto our beloved Henry le Waleys, the Mayor, and the Commonalty of the same City, that those vacant places adjoining the wall of the Church of Wolchurch, on the Northern side of the Parish of Wolchurch; and that the other waste places adjoining the wall of the Churchyard of the Church of St. Paul, on the Eastern side, between the Gate of St. Augustine, and the Street of West-Cheap: of which places one half lieth in the Parish of St. Augustine, and the other half in the Parish of St. Michael, at the Corn-Market; and that the other empty places adjoining the wall of the aforesaid Burial-place of the Church of St. Paul, on the Northern side, between the great gate of the said Burial-place, over against the aforesaid Church of St. Michael; also the other gate in the same wall towards the West, over against the narrow way of Ivy lane, that they may build thereon, and rent them for the support of the Bridge at London. We grant for us, and for our heirs, to the aforesaid Henry, and the Commonalty, that the places aforesaid may be built upon and rented for the benefit of them, and of the same City, as they shall see greater cause to expedite them: and they, the said buildings and rents, are to be held of them and of their heirs for ever, for the support of the aforesaid Bridge, without occasion or impediment, of us and of our heirs, our Justices and our Bailiffs whomsoever. In testimony of which thing, Witness the King, at Hartlebury, the 24th day of May.’

“And now I am to remind you, Mr. Barbican, that the Parish Church of St. Mary Woolchurch stood, until after the Fire of London, on that spot of ground once occupied by the Stock’s Market, and now by the Mansion-House; and a part of those waste places, which adjoined to St. Paul’s Church Yard, was situate on the Eastern side of that street which we at present term Old ’Change, because of the Royal Exchange for the receipt of coined bullion, which was once kept there. The Street of West-Cheap, mentioned in the foregoing grant, was our modern Cheapside; and St. Austin’s Gate stood on the Northern side of Watling-street, forming the South-East end of Old ’Change. Stow tells us, in volume i. of his ‘Survey,’ page 637, that in consequence of the preceding license of Edward I. Henry Walleis built one row of houses on the Eastern side of Old ’Change, the profits of which belonged to London Bridge. The other portion of those vacant pieces of ground lay in the Parish of St. Michael ad Bladum, as the Latin original hath it, which is to say St. Michael at the Corn, or, corruptly speaking, St. Michael Quern, because there was formerly a Corn-Market on the site of it; and its famous Church, which was never rebuilt after the fire, stood, as Stow tells you, page 684, where Newgate Street and Pater Noster Row, ‘like two rivulets joining into one, fall into Cheapside.’ These vacant spaces, therefore, that were given to London Bridge were in Pater Noster Row; the houses in which, says Stow, page 664, ‘from the first North gate of St. Paul’s Church Yard, unto the next gate, were first built without the wall of the Church Yard, by Henry Walleis, Mayor, in the Year 1282. The rents of those houses go to the maintenance of London Bridge.’ This estate, as the deed informs us, lay over against, or to the South of, the Venella, that is to say the narrow Street or Way, which, even in 1281, was called Ivy Lane.

“This year was, indeed, prolific in Royal Grants, for the benefit of London Bridge; for, in support of that gift of Customs to be taken upon it, which I have already recited, King Edward also issued the following instrument which stands on the Patent Rolls of the 10th of his reign, Membrane the 9th: You will find a copy of the Latin in Hearne, page *476; and translations of it are in Stow, volume i. page 59, and in Maitland, volume i. page 47.

“‘Concerning the Customs taken for the Repair of London Bridge.

‘The King to his Mayor of London. When lately, by reason of the sudden ruin of London Bridge, we commanded you, that associating with you two or three of the more discreet and loyal Citizens of the aforesaid City, ye should take, until our Parliament after Easter next past, in supply of the reparation of the Bridge aforesaid, a certain Custom, as in those Letters Patents which we have caused to be made from that time to you, is more fully contained. We, being willing that the taking of the said Customs be continued longer, command you, that from the Feast of St. Margaret the Virgin, next coming,’—namely, the 20th of July,—‘unto the end of the Three Years next following completed, ye take the underwritten Custom of the aforesaid Bridge. That is to say, of every man on foot, bringing merchandise or other saleable goods, and crossing the Bridge aforesaid, and betaking himself to other parts, one Farthing: of every Horseman, crossing that Bridge, and betaking himself to other parts with merchandise or other saleable things, as aforesaid, one Penny: of every Pack carried on a horse, and passing over that Bridge, one Halfpenny. Nor will we, in the mean time, that any thing be there taken on this occasion, but for the supply of the reparation of the said Bridge. But the aforesaid term of Three Years being completed, let the above-mentioned Custom cease and become void. In testimony of which thing, &c. for the aforesaid term of Three Years, this may last. Witness the King, at Chester, the Sixth day of July.’

“It is, however, worthy of remark, Mr. Geoffrey, before I pass downwards to another Year, that both Stow, at page 60, and Maitland, page 47, speak of this as the first Grant of Customs to London Bridge, and allude to that which I before rehearsed, as the second; when the months in which they were issued, are no less distant than February and July, independent of the direct reference which this latter deed has to the commencement and terms of the former. The mistake has probably arisen from the peculiarity of numbering the skins on the Patent Roll, counting from the lowest end of it, which I have already mentioned to you, since the first instrument is on the eighteenth Membrane, and the latter on the ninth.

“My next notice of London Bridge is of a nature far less happy than are these Patents for its support, for the Christmas of 1281 proved a most fatal season to it; since Stow, in his ‘Annals,’ edited by Edmund Howes, London, 1631, folio, page 201, tells us, though without mentioning his authority, that ‘from this Christmas till the Purification of Our Lady, there was such a frost and snow, as no man living could remember the like; where-through, five arches of London Bridge, and all Rochester Bridge, were borne downe, and carried away with the streame; and the like hapned to many bridges in England. And not long after, men passed over the Thames betweene Westminster and Lambeth, and likewise over the River of Medway betweene Stroude and Rochester, dry-shod. Fishes in ponds, and birds in woods, died for want of food.’ It would appear as if this devastation had not been very quickly repaired, for, when added to the former ruinous state of the Bridge, the complete demolition of more than a fourth part of it, made it not only a very lamentable, but almost hopeless undertaking. Then, too, the very recent repetitions of grants for its repair and support, rendered the same course nearly impracticable, though old Stow tells us, in his ‘Survey,’ volume i. page 61, that ‘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. Sir John Britain being Custos of London, Anno 1289, a great collection, or gathering, was made of all Archbishops, Bishops, and other ecclesiastical persons, for the reparations of London Bridge.’ Of the writs for such collections I have, perhaps, already given you sufficient specimens.

“Several years now passed, unmarked in our Bridge Annals but by the renewal of those various tolls, of which, but a short time since, I related to you the particulars; which circumstances not only too fatally prove into how lamentable a state of decay our venerated edifice had then fallen; but what is infinitely worse, those repeated Royal grants and tolls as plainly indicate the dearth of that public spirit, which had erst lived in the glorious Peter of Colechurch. I will but observe then, that Stow, at page 60 of his ‘Survey,’ and Maitland, who probably merely copied him, at page 47 of his ‘History,’ both record the fact, that in the 27th and 30th Years of King Edward I., namely in 1298 and 1301, the same tolls and customs were continued for the repair of London Bridge. You will find the former of these grants entered on the Patent Roll for the proper year, in the Tower, under the title of ‘Pontage for London,’ Membrane 29; but as the instrument is of some considerable length, I shall prefer giving you a similar shorter one hereafter, being the last Pontage Patent issued by that King.

“And now, Mr. Barbican, we come to speak of a new matter connected with London Bridge, and a singularly curious one it is, inasmuch as it shews the great antiquity and power of the Bridge Master; but for the better illustration of it, have patience with me, I pray you, for a few moments, whilst I recall to your memory a point of legal history to which it is collaterally related. In the times of our Saxon ancestors, you may recollect one superior Court of Judicature, called the Wittenagemote, or General Council of Wise Men, was sufficient for the whole Kingdom. When William I., however, came to be Sovereign, he contrived to separate from it the Ecclesiastical and Judicial authority, by establishing a new and permanent Court in his own Palace, called in history by the various names of Curia Regis, the King’s Court, and Aula Regia, or Aula Regis, the King’s Hall. This was divided into several different departments, the principal of which were composed of the King’s great Officers of State, who were resident in his Palace. Thus, the Lord Marshal generally presided in affairs relating to honour and arms, and the military and national laws; the Lord Chancellor kept the King’s Seal, and had cognizance of all instruments to which it was attached; the Lord Treasurer was the chief authority in all matters concerning the Revenue; and certain persons well acquainted with the Laws, called the King’s Justices, assisted by the Greater Barons of Parliament, formed a Court of Appeal in difficult cases, over which presided the Chief Justiciary of all England. For a considerable time this universal Court was bound to follow the King’s household in all its progresses and expeditions, to the great delay of equity, and the extreme trouble of the people; so that in the articles of petition, which preceded the ‘Magna Charta’ of King John, Section 8, it was solicited that Common Pleas, or causes, should no longer follow the King’s Court, but be held in some certain and permanent place. This article was one to which John consented more readily than to any other in his Great Charter, as the power of the Chief Justiciary being already very considerable, he readily confirmed it by Chapter xvii. of his grant. This officer’s place, however, was even then but little altered, as he remained in Westminster Hall, where the Curia Regis had originally sat; and in the same building a Court of Common Pleas was established, for the determination of all causes concerning land, and injuries between subject and subject. The other departments of the Aula Regia, naturally beginning to decline, soon after this separation, King Edward I. then new modelled the whole judicial polity of England, by dividing it into other Courts.

“Now, Sir, my intention in bringing to your memory these historical memoranda, is, to remind you that abstracts of written proceedings of these Courts, sometimes called the Placita Rolls, or Rolls of Pleas, are yet preserved, recorded in Law Latin in a current Court-Hand full of contractions, some being in the Tower of London, and others in the Chapter House at Westminster. These Rolls contain pleadings as well made in the ancient Curia Regis, as in the Courts subsequently erected; though, those of the reigns of the First and Second Edwards are chiefly of pleas in the King’s Bench, which is the last fragment of the King’s Hall, because it may be removed with the Sovereign’s person, wherever he goes; and, although he be not actually present, yet he is still supposed to be so, since the style of the court is yet ‘coram ipso Rege,’ before the King himself. Now, a collection of abstracts from the Placita Rolls of the various Courts, having been made, and the contents being thus of a very miscellaneous character as to their original time and place, it has been printed by order of the Commissioners of Records under the title of ‘Placitorum Abbreviatio,’ or Abstracts of the Pleadings preserved in the Chapter House at Westminster, London, 1811, folio.

“In this volume then, on page 316, column 2, we find it stated, that during Easter Term, in the sixth of the reign of King Edward II.,—that is to say 1312,—there were pleadings before the King, at Westminster, concerning the property of the Master of London Bridge, in certain Mills on the River Lee in Essex; but as these pleadings refer to an Inquisition originally made in the time of Edward I., the present will be the most proper period to describe and translate them. Stow mentions the circumstance, when speaking of the office of Bridge-Master, in his ‘Survey,’ volume ii. page 25, in the following terms. ‘The Keeper of the Bridge House had, in ancient times, an interest in certain Mills upon the River Lee, near Stratford; and the Master of St. Thomas of Acres,’—now Mercers’ Chapel, in Cheapside,—‘had a title to other mills there. For, as it appears by an old Inquisition, taken in the time of King Edward the First, there was a Calcetum—i. e. a chalk causeway—on the North, near Stratford, which was made by Queen Maud, through which there were three trenches made for three courses of water to run, for the use of several mills, partly belonging to the Master of St. Thomas, and partly to the Bridge Master: over which were three wooden bridges made by the said Masters. This is manifest by an extract out of an ancient Inquisition taken at Stratford at Bow, before Roger Brabanzon and others, in Anno xxxii^o.’—we shall presently find that this ought to have been xxxi^o.—‘Regis Edwardi filii Regis Henrici, &c.—the purport of which is, that there were three mills made upon this chalk causeway Northward; one a Fuller’s Mill, and the site of another mill belonging to the Master of St. Thomas of Acre: and two other Mills, called Sayen’s Mill, and Spileman’s Mill; the one a Water Mill, and the other a Fuller’s Mill, both held by the Keeper of London Bridge. From which mills came three courses of water in three trenches, made cross the chalk causeway by the said Master and Keeper. Beyond which trenches were made three wooden bridges in that said causeway by the said Master and Keeper, which greatly wanted repair.’ Now, Sir, I have already shewn you that in Easter Term, in 1312, these pleadings of 1302-3 were renewed against the Bridge Keeper, and the Master of St. Thomas of Acres, by John de Norton, the King’s Attorney General, who charged them to repair the Bridges, according to the said presentment. The pleadings of 1312 are recorded on Roll 95; and as the form in which they are written is full of curious historical matter, I shall give you a translation of the instrument at length.

“‘Middlesex and Essex. Our Lord Edward, the King’s Father, in the 31st year of his reign,’—namely, 1302, in which you see, this record, on authority we cannot doubt, differs from Stow,—‘commanded Roger de Brabanzon, William de Beresford, Roger de Hegham, and Stephen de Gravesend, that they should enquire who ought to repair the Bridges and Chalk Causeway in the King’s Street between Stratford atte Bowe, and Hamme Stratford; and concerning the deficiencies of support, and repairs of the same, which, from that Inquisition taken by a jury, namely, by twelve for the County of Essex, and by twelve others for the County of Middlesex,’ standeth thus:—‘They said that the Ferry over the water of Luye, or Lee, at Stratford atte Bowe, was anciently accustomed to be in that place called Oldeforde, which is one league distant from the place of both Bridges and the Causeway, that now are near together; at which Ferry, many crossing over from various places have been plunged in the water and in danger. And when, afterwards, such great danger came to be made known to the Lady Matilda, then Queen of England, Consort of our Lord Henry the First, King of England, she, moved by her piety, commanded it to be examined how both the Bridges and the Causeway could be made better, and more convenient, for the utility and easement of the country, and the passengers over them. The which was done by the said Queen, who also caused two Bridges to be built; namely, the Bridge over the water of Lee at the upper end of the town of Stratford atte Bowe,’—which you remember Stow says, in his ‘Survey,’ volume i. page 58, in the margin, and elsewhere, was ‘the first arched Bridge in England, and gave name to the Town, for that it was shaped like a Bow:’—‘and another Bridge over another trench of the same water towards Essex, which is called Channelesbrigge. And also one Chalk Causeway between the said Bridges, so that all passengers going over it, may well and securely cross the same. And, forasmuch as the said Queen desired, that the reparation and support of the aforesaid Bridges and Chalk Causeway should from that time be imposed, so, out of her charity, she bought those lands, rents, meadows, and one water-mill, which is called Wiggemulne, and assigned and commanded them to be for the repair and support of the Bridges, and the Chalk Causeway aforesaid. And because she believed that their repair and support would be better done by religious men, if they were thenceforward laid upon them, than by secular persons, lest that such secular persons themselves, or their heirs, should, in the course of years, be wanting, to preserve them: nor was there then any Religious House near to the aforesaid Bridges and Chalk Causeway, but the Abbey of Berkinggs, the Abbey of Stratford not yet being founded; so that the aforesaid lands, rents, meadows, and mill, with their appurtenances, were then given to the Abbess of Berkinggs and her house: so that she and her successors, &c. should for ever sustain and repair the said Bridges. But afterwards, Gilbert de Mauntfichet founded the Abbey of Stratford, &c.’—that is to say about 1135,—‘And a certain Abbot of the same house bought the lands, &c. from the aforesaid Abbess, because they were near his Abbey, and lying, in situation, commodiously for his house, that is to say, however, undertaking, for himself and his successors, &c. the repair of the Bridges, and Chalk Causeway aforesaid, for the Abbess herself, &c. and farther giving to the same four marks of silver,’—£2. 3s. 4d.—‘by the Year, &c. And so they were found, by the same Inquisition,’—cited at the beginning of this instrument,—‘to be decayed, and who ought to repair the said Bridges and Chalk Causeway? Upon which Inquisition, our Lord the King caused his writ to issue, &c.; and upon this precept it is shewn that the Abbot aforesaid, the Master of the House of the Blessed Thomas of Acre, and the Keeper of London Bridge, made their appearance to answer why the Bridges were not repaired, &c. When the Jurors came, therefore, between the King and the Abbots, they said that the said Abbot was not held to repair, excepting the Bridge called Channelesbrigge, and that none of his predecessors have, at any time, repaired the said Bridges and Chalk Causeway, and that not any of the lands or tenements held by him have been accustomed to make reparations, or support them:—therefore the Abbot was dismissed without a day. But another of the Jurors has found that it is the said Abbess who ought to repair the Bridges. And at length,’—that is to say in 1315,—‘an agreement was made between the said Abbot and Abbess, in the presence of the Earl of Hereford and Essex, and Chancellor of England; also Chief Justice, Chief Baron, and Escheater of our Lord the King on this side Trent, and it was enrolled that the said Abbot obliges himself, and his successors, to repair for ever: for which the said Abbess gives to the said Abbot two hundred pounds, yet saving to her the annual four marks.’ See the Pleadings before the King at Westminster, in Easter Term, 6 Edward II., Roll 95.

“After this very long, though curious document, I have nothing farther to observe on the connection of the Bridge Master of London, and his Mill and Bridge on the River Lee, than that, although he at first traversed, as the Lawyers say, or denied his right to repair them, yet, in 1315, the original claim was confirmed against his denial, as is asserted by Stow, in his ‘Survey,’ volume ii. page 25.”

“Methinks, Mr. Barnaby Postern,” said I, “that before you entirely quit the connection of the Lee River and London Bridge, it would not be irrelevant to speak somewhat of that Cantiuncula, that little song, or, as I may properly call it, that Lallus, for it is truly a nurse’s song, in which they are both united.”

“You say well, Sir,” answered my visitor; “and seeing that I have already spoken somewhat at length, ‘shall I,’ as Izaak Walton says, ‘have nothing from you, that seem to have both a good memory, and a cheerful spirit?’ Come, then, my honoured kinsman, do you relate what hath been written and collected concerning that same Cantiuncula; nor deem that any fragmenta, touching the history of London Bridge, can be uninteresting; wherefore, doubt not but your narrative will be to me like that which Adam made to Raphael:—

‘Nor are thy lips ungraceful, Sire of men,
Nor tongue ineloquent.—
But thy relation now; for I attend,
Pleased with thy words no less than thou with mine.’”

“After the deep reading and extensive knowledge,” returned I, “which you, Mr. Postern, have displayed in your discourse, it is unfortunate for me to have to speak upon a subject, where I am no less perplexed by the paucity of materials, than by my own ignorance of many which may be in existence. For you must know, my fellow-antiquary, that searching out the origin and history of a ballad, is like endeavouring to ascertain the source and flight of December’s snow; since it often comes we know not whence, is looked upon and noticed for awhile, is corrupted, or melts away, we know not how, and thus dies unrecorded, excepting in the oral tradition or memory of some village crones, who yet discourse of it. However, Sir, to proceed methodically, I will first give you the words of this very popular song; then the customs and history connected with it; and, lastly, the musical notation to which it is most commonly sung.

“One of the most elegant copies of this ballad you will find in the late Joseph Ritson’s rare and curious volume, entitled, ‘Gammer Gurton’s Garland: or the Nursery Parnassus. A choice collection of pretty Songs, and Verses, for the amusement of all little good children who can neither read nor run.’ London, 1810. 8vo. Part i., page 4; where it is called ‘The celebrated song of London Bridge is broken down;’ and is as follows:

‘London Bridge is broken down,
Dance o’er my Lady Lee;
London Bridge is broken down,
With a gay lady.

How shall we build it up again,
Dance o’er my Lady Lee;
How shall we build it up again?
With a gay lady.

Silver and gold will be stolen away,
Dance o’er my Lady Lee;
Silver and gold will be stolen away,
With a gay lady.

Build it up with iron and steel,
Dance o’er my Lady Lee;
Build it up with iron and steel,
With a gay lady.

Iron and steel will bend and bow,
Dance o’er my Lady Lee;
Iron and steel will bend and bow,
With a gay lady.

Build it up with wood and clay,
Dance o’er my Lady Lee;
Build it up with wood and clay,
With a gay lady.

Wood and clay will wash away,
Dance o’er my Lady Lee;
Wood and clay will wash away,
With a gay lady.

Build it up with stone so strong,
Dance o’er my Lady Lee;
Huzza! ’twill last for ages long,
With a gay lady.’

“In that treasury of singular fragments, the ‘Gentleman’s Magazine,’ for September, 1823, volume xciii., page 232, there is another copy of this ballad, with some variations, inserted in a Letter, signed M. Green, in which there are the following stanzas, wanting in Ritson’s, and coming in immediately after the third verse, ‘Silver and gold will be stolen away;’ though it must be observed, that the propositions for building the Bridge with iron and steel, and wood and stone, have, in this copy also, already been made and objected to.

‘Then we must set a man to watch,
Dance o’er my Lady Lea;
Then we must set a man to watch,
With a gay La-dee.

Suppose the man should fall asleep,
Dance o’er my Lady Lea;
Suppose the man should fall asleep,
With a gay La-dee.

Then we must put a pipe in his mouth,
Dance o’er my Lady Lea;
Then we must put a pipe in his mouth,
With a gay La-dee.

Suppose the pipe should fall and break,
Dance o’er my Lady Lea;
Suppose the pipe should fall and break,
With a gay La-dee.

Then we must set a dog to watch,
Dance o’er my Lady Lea;
Then we must set a dog to watch,
With a gay La-dee.

Suppose the dog should run away,
Dance o’er my Lady Lea;
Suppose the dog should run away,
With a gay La-dee.

Then we must chain him to a post,
Dance o’er my Lady Lea;
Then we must chain him to a post,
With a gay La-dee.’

“I pray you, do not fail to observe in these verses, how singularly and happily the burthen of the song often falls in with the subject of the new line: though I am half inclined to think, that the whole ballad has been formed by many fresh additions, in a long series of years, and is, perhaps, almost interminable when received in all its different versions. Mr. Green, in his letter which I last quoted, remarks that, the stanzas I have repeated to you are ‘the introductory lines of an old ballad, which, more than seventy years previous, he had heard plaintively warbled by a lady, who was born in the reign of Charles the Second, and who lived till nearly that of George the Second.’ Another Correspondent to the same Magazine, whose contribution, signed D, is inserted in the same volume, December, page 507, observes, that the ballad concerning London Bridge formed, in his remembrance, part of a Christmas Carol, and commenced thus:

‘Dame, get up and bake your pies,
On Christmas day in the morning:’

‘The requisition,’ he continues, ‘goes on to the Dame to prepare for the feast, and her answer is

‘London Bridge is broken down,
On Christmas day in the morning.’

‘The inference always was, that until the Bridge was rebuilt, some stop would be put to the Dame’s Christmas operations; but why the falling of a part of London Bridge should form part of a Christmas Carol at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, I am at a loss to know.’ This connection has, doubtless, long since been gathered into the ‘wallet which Time carries at his back, wherein he puts alms for oblivion;’ though we may remark, that the history and features of the old Bridge of that famous town had a very close resemblance to that of London; as you may find upon reading the Rev. John Brand’s ‘History and Antiquities of the Town and County of the Town of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.’ London, 1789. 4to. volume i., pages 31-53. The chief points of resemblance between these two Bridges, were, that both were founded in the hidden years of remote antiquity; that in each instance wooden Bridges preceded the stone ones; that to each was attached a Chapel dedicated to St. Thomas; that continual dilapidations and Patents for repair characterised each; that both formed a street of houses, having towers, gates, and drawbridges; and, finally, that in 1771, a violent flood reduced the Bridge of Tyne to the same hapless state as erst marked that of London, when ruinated by the terrible fire of 1757. Such, Mr. Postern, are the words, and such are the very few historical notices that I am able to give you, of a song, of which there is, perhaps, not a single dweller in the Bills of Mortality, who has not heard somewhat; and yet not one of whom can tell you more concerning it, than that they have heard it sung ‘many years ago,’ as the gossiping phrase is. If one might hazard a conjecture concerning it, I should refer its composition to some very ancient date, when London Bridge lying in ruins, the office of Bridge Master was vacant; and his power over the River Lee—for it is doubtless that River which is celebrated in the chorus to this song,—was for a while at an end. But this, although the words and melody of the verses be extremely simple, is all uncertain; and thus, my good Sir, do general traditions float down the stream of Time, without any fixed date; for none regard them as of value enough to record, whilst they are yet known in all their primitive truth. Oh! how many an interesting portion of History has been thus lost! How many a——”

“I am glad,” interrupted my visitor at this part of my apostrophe, “to find that I am not the only Antiquary who is apt to be led away from narrative to rhetoric; and who is sometimes induced to declaim when he set out to describe. But you were speaking of the melody to this song, Mr. Barbican; now I would fain hear it, if it live in your memory.”

“Give me a draught of sack,” said I, taking up the tankard, “and you shall hear it, as well as my feeble voice, now ‘turning again to childish treble,’ Mr. Postern, hath the skill to chaunt it. But look for nothing fine, Mr. Barnaby: here are none of Von Weber’s notes; and, indeed, I know of nothing which so well characterises it, as that fine description of a popular ballad in Twelfth Night:—

‘Mark it, Cesario, it is old and plain;
The Spinsters, and the Knitters in the sun,
And the free maids that weave their thread with bones,
Do use to chaunt it——’”

“Come, my good Sir,” replied Mr. Postern, “no more words on’t, but sing, I pray you.”

“Then listen,” answered I, clearing my throat to reach the treble C, with which the melody commences; “but you must sing a part of it, as it stands in this paper, Master Barnaby, for it begins with the chorus; and so here follows the ancient Music to the Song and Dance of London Bridge is broken down.”

[[Listen to MIDI]]

Chorus.

Lon-don Bridge is bro-ken down:
Dance o’er my La-dy Lea!
Lon-don Bridge is bro-ken down,
With a gay La-dee.

Solo.

How shall we build it up a-gain?
Dance o’er my La-dy Lea!
How shall we build it up a-gain?
With a gay La-dee.

“A choice piece of simple melody, indeed,” said Mr. Postern, as I finished the last strain of the solo, “and, certainly, from its extreme plainness, not unlikely to be of some considerable antiquity; but you called it also a dance, Mr. Barbican; pray was it ever adapted to the feet, as well as to the tongue?”

“You shall hear, Sir,” returned I, “for I learn from a Manuscript communication, from a Mr. J. Evans, of Bristol, which has been most kindly placed in my hands by the venerable proprietor of the ‘Gentleman’s Magazine,’ and which enclosed the notes of the tune we have now concluded; that ‘about forty years ago, one moonlight night, in a street in Bristol, his attention was attracted by a dance and chorus of boys and girls, to which the words of this ballad gave measure. The breaking down of the Bridge was announced as the dancers moved round in a circle, hand in hand; and the question, ‘How shall we build it up again?’ was chaunted by the leader, whilst the rest stood still.’ The same correspondent also farther observes, that it is possible some musical critics may trace in these notes sundry fragments that have sailed down the stream of Time, beginning with ‘Nancy Dawson,’ and ‘A frog he would a wooing go;’ though the Lament of London Bridge is certainly far, very far, anterior to the latter. I cannot, however, imagine, that the air of our ballad has more than a very distant consanguinity with either; for the melody of Nancy Dawson is generally supposed not to be more than sixty years old, about which time its heroine flourished; and the metre of that worthless song is perfectly different, each verse having eight lines instead of four. Now, when Isaac Bickerstaff produced his Opera of ‘Love in a Village,’ he composed his 14th air, in the last Scene of the first Act, to that very tune; for there the Housemaid commences the Finale, and thus it runs:

‘I pray ye, gentles, list to me,
I’m young, and strong, and clean, you see,
I’ll not turn tail to any she,
For work, that’s in the county:
Of all your house the charge I’ll take,
I wash, I scrub, I brew, I bake,
And more can do than here I’ll speak,
Depending on your bounty.’

“Thus, you observe, my good Sir, that the verse has no resemblance at all; and the only similitude of the music lies in a very few notes in the second and third bars of the first and fourth lines. The Adventures of the Frog who went a courting is certainly much more like the ballad of London Bridge; but, in addition to its variations in the latter part, it is quite a modern composition, and, therefore, cannot illustrate the antiquity of that other song, of which it is itself merely a musical parody.”

“My hearty thanks are due to you, Mr. Geoffrey Barbican,” began Mr. Postern, as I concluded; “I have to thank you very heartily for the agreeable manner in which you have contrived to carry on the history of London Bridge, whilst I have breathed from continuing my duller detail: and now, let me observe, that having brought you down to the 31st year of the reign of Edward I., 1302, I shall give you a translation of what was, perhaps, his last and fullest Charter to London Bridge, in the form of a Patent of Pontage, or Bridge Tax, granted in 1305, the 34th year of his sovereignty; which is curious, inasmuch as it enumerates so many of the articles of commerce in that day. The original is, of course, in the Tower, in the Patent Rolls for that year, membrane 25, entitled ‘Pontage for London;’ and the Latin you may see in Hearne’s ‘Liber Niger,’ already cited, volume i., page *478: the English, no very easy matter to discover, is as follows.

“‘The King to his beloved the Mayor and Sheriffs, and to his other Citizens of London,—Greeting. Know ye, that in aid of repairing and sustaining the Bridge of London, we grant that from the day of making these presents, until the complete end of the three years next following, the underwritten customs shall, for that purpose, be taken of saleable goods over the Bridge aforesaid, and of those which cross under the same, that is to say:—of every poise, or weight of cheese,’—namely, 256 pounds,—‘fat of tallow, and butter for sale, one penny. Of every poise of lead, for sale, one farthing. Of every hundred of wax for sale, two pence. Of every hundred of almonds and rice for sale, one penny. Of every hundred of barley corn for sale, one penny. Of every hundred of pepper and ginger, cotewell and cinnamon, Brazil-wood, frankincense, quicksilver, vermillion and verdigrease for sale, two pence. Of every hundred of cinior, alum, sugar, liquorice, syro-montanian aniseed, pion, and orpiment for sale, one penny. Of every hundred of sulphur, orchel, ink, resin, copperas, and calamine stone for sale, one farthing. Of every great frail of figs and raisins for sale, one halfpenny; and of every smaller frail, one farthing. Of every pound of dates, musk nuts, mace, the drug cubebs, saffron, and cotton for sale, one farthing. Of every store butt of ginger for sale, one penny. Of every hundred weight of copper, brass, and tin, for sale, one halfpenny. Of every hundred weight of glass for sale, one farthing. Of every thousand of the best Gris, or grey squirrel skins dressed,’—the famous Vaire fur you remember,—‘for sale, twelve pence. Of every thousand of red skins dressed, for sale, six pence. Of every thousand bark-skins for sale, four pence. Of every hundred of rabbits for sale, one halfpenny. For every timbria’—an ancient Norman law phrase, signifying a certain number of precious skins,—‘of wolves’ skins for sale, one halfpenny. For every timbria of coats for sale, one halfpenny. For every twelfth gennet-skin for sale, one halfpenny. For every hundredth sheep-skin of wool for sale, one penny. Of every hundredth lamb-skin and goat-skin for sale, one halfpenny. Of every twelfth alicum,’—a kind of vest with sleeves,—‘for sale, one penny. Of every twelfth Basane,’—this old Norman word, you know, meant either a purse, or shoe, or any thing made of tanned leather,—‘for sale, one halfpenny. Of every quarter of woad,’—the famous blue dye,—‘for sale, one halfpenny. Of every dole,’—a Saxon word signifying a part or portion,—‘of honey for sale, six pence. Of every dole of wine, six pence. Of every dole of corn, crossing over the Bridge, the same going into countries beyond the sea, one penny. Of every bowl of salt for sale, one penny. Of every mill-stone for grinding, for sale, two-pence. Of every twelfth hand-mill for sale, one penny. Of every smith’s mill for sale,’—perhaps a forge or a grindstone,—‘one farthing. Of every dole of ashes and of fish for sale, one halfpenny. Of every hundredth board of oak, coming from parts beyond the seas for sale, one halfpenny. Of every hundred of fir boards, coming from parts beyond the seas for sale, two pence. Of every twenty sheafs of wooden staves and arrow heads, for sale, one halfpenny. Of a quarter of a hundred of pountandemir for sale, one penny. For all horses laden with serge, stuff, grey cloth and dyed cloth for sale, one penny. Of every hundred ells of linen cloth, coming from parts beyond the seas, for sale, one penny. Of every twelfth poplorum,’—mantle or carpet,—‘for sale, one halfpenny. Of every silk or gold cloth, for sale, one halfpenny. Of all satins and cloths worked with gold, two pence. Of every twelfth piece of fustian for sale, one penny. Of every piece of sendal,’—thin Cyprus silk,—‘embroidered, for sale, one farthing; and of every other two sendals for sale, one farthing. Of every pound of woven cloth coming from parts beyond the seas, six pence. Of every hundred pounds weight of Bateria,’—beaten work of metal,—‘namely, of basins, platters, drinking pots, and cups, for sale, one penny. Of all Flanders cloth bound, and embroidered, for sale, two pence. Of every Estanford,’—a species of cloth made at Stanfort,—‘for sale, from the same parts, one penny. Of every twelfth pair of nether-stocks, for sale, coming from the same parts, one halfpenny. Of every hood for sale, one penny. Of every piece of Borrell,’—coarse cloth,—‘coming from Normandy, or elsewhere, one halfpenny. Of every twelfth Monk’s cloth, black or white, one penny. Of every trussell cloth,’—perhaps a horse-cloth—‘for sale, the same coming from parts beyond the seas, eighteen pence. Of all English dyed cloth and russet for sale, excepting scarlet, crossing the Bridge for the selling of the same, two pence. Of all scarlets for sale, six pence. Of all thin, or summer cloth, for sale, coming from Stamford or Northampton, or from other places in England, crossing the same, one penny. Of every twelfth chalonum,’—which is to say, a carpet or hangings,—‘set for sale, one penny. Of every pound of other merchandise for sale, crossing the same, and not expressed above, four pence. Of every ship-load of sea-coal for sale, six pence. Of every ship-load of turf for sale, two pence. Of every scitata of underwood for sale, two pence. Of every small boat-load of underwood for sale, one penny. Of every scitata of hay for sale, two pence. Of every quarter of corn for sale crossing the same, one farthing. For two quarters of white corn, barley, mixed corn, pease, and beans, for sale, one farthing. For a quarter of a seme,’—a horse load, or eight bushels—‘of oats for sale, one penny. For two quarters of groats, and brewers’ grains for sale, one farthing. For every horse for sale, of the price of forty shillings and more, one penny. For every horse for sale, of a price less than forty shillings, one halfpenny. For every ox and cow for sale, one halfpenny. For six swine for sale, one halfpenny. For ten sheep for sale, one halfpenny. For five bacon hogs for sale, one halfpenny; and for ten pervis for sale, one halfpenny. Of every small boat which works in London for hire, and crosses by the same, one penny. Of every cart freighted with fish for sale, crossing the same, one penny. For the hull of every great ship freighted with goods for sale, excepting these present, crossing by the same, two pence. For the hull of every smaller ship freighted with the same goods, excepting these present, one penny. For every little boat loaden, one halfpenny. For every twelfth salted salmon for sale, one penny. For twenty-five milnell for sale, one halfpenny. For one hundred salted haddocks for sale, one halfpenny. For one hundred salted mackerel for sale, one farthing. For every thousand of salted herrings for sale, one farthing. For every twelfth salted lamprey for sale, one penny. Of every thousand salted eels for sale, one halfpenny. Of every hundred pounds of large fish for sale, one penny. Of every hundred pieces of sturgeon for sale, two pence. For every hundred of stockfish, one farthing. For every horse-load of onions for sale, one farthing. For every horse-load of garlick for sale, one farthing. And of every kind of merchandise not here mentioned, of the price of twenty shillings, one penny. And, therefore, we command you, that the said customs be taken, until the aforesaid term of three years be completed; but at that term, the aforesaid customs shall cease, and be altogether taken away. In which, &c. for their lasting the term aforesaid, Witness the King, at Winchester, the seventh day of May. By writ of Privy Seal.’

“Such, Mr. Geoffrey Barbican, is a tolerably exact translation of this long and very curious Patent of Pontage for London Bridge; but a perfect rendering of it into English is a matter attended with more than usual difficulty; since it is composed of so many barbarous Anglo-Norman nouns, with Latin terminations attached to them; of quaint legal phrases, of which Fortescue and Rastall must be the interpreters; and of numerous articles of which both the names and the nature are to us almost utterly unintelligible. However, Sir, I here give it you to the best of my poor skill; and in doing so, let me add to it the apologetical words of your namesake and fellow citizen, the amiable old Chaucer;—‘Now pray I to them all that hearken this treatise, or rede, that if there be any thing that liketh them, that thereof they thank Him, of whom proceedeth all wit and goodness. And if there be any thing that displease them, I pray them also that they arrette it to the default of mine unknonnyng, and not to my will, that would fain have said better if I had knowing.’”

“Doubtless, Mr. Postern,” answered I, “my civilities are at the least due to you, for the labour you bestow upon me; but yet I must be so plain as to tell you, that your Pontage Patent reminded me mightily of a Table of Tolls at a Turnpike-Gate, whereon we read ‘For every horse, mare, gelding, or mule, laden or unladen, not drawing, two pence,’ So again, and again, I say, let me have stories, man! I want stories! ‘for,’ as Oliver Goldsmith said of old to the Ghost of Dame Quickly, ‘if you have nothing but tedious remarks to communicate, seek some other hearer, I am determined to hearken only to stories.’”

“Be of a sweet temper, however you may be disappointed, Mr. Geoffrey,” replied the old Gentleman; “if I possessed the wit either of honest Oliver, or the Ghost of Mistress Quickly, you should, indeed, be entertained; but, seeing that we lack humour, we must make it up in the real, though somewhat dull, formula of past days. This time, I have, however, a romantic scene for you in petto, and even now we have arrived at a point of the history of London Bridge, which, when skilfully managed, with a little fiction, has drawn tears from many an eye, and awakened an interest in many a heart: I mean the capture and death of the brave and unfortunate Sir William Wallace.

‘Joy, joy in London now!
He goes, the rebel Wallace goes to death;
At length the traitor meets a traitor’s doom.
Joy, joy in London now!’

“It was after the return of the fourth expedition of King Edward I. into Scotland, about the beginning of August, 1305, that London Bridge was defaced, by the placing upon it the trophies of his vengeance. Matthew of Westminster, in his ‘Flowers of Histories,’ which I have already cited to you, tells the sorrowful story of Sir William Wallace’s execution, in his Second Book, page 451; beginning at ‘Hic vir Belial,’—for he treats the Scottish hero with but little reverence,—and in plain English thus runs the narrative. ‘This man of Belial, after innumerable crimes, was at last taken by the King’s officers, and, by his command, was brought up to be judged by himself, attended by the Nobles of the kingdom of England, on the Vigil of St. Bartholomew’s day,’—the 23rd of August,—‘where he was condemned to a most cruel, yet most worthy death. Firstly, he was drawn at the tail of a horse through the fields of London, to a very lofty gibbet, erected for him, upon which he was hung with a halter; afterwards, he was taken down half dead, embowelled, and his intestines burned by fire; lastly, his head was cut off, and set upon a pole on London Bridge, whilst the trunk was cut into four quarters. His body, thus divided, was sent into four parts of Scotland. Behold! such was the unpitied end of this man, whom want of pity brought to such a death!’

“The head of the gallant but ill-fated Wallace was not, however, the only ghastly spectacle upon London Bridge; for the Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts, under the Number 2253, has the following notice at article 25:—‘A long Ballad against the Scots, many of whom are here mentioned by name, as also many of the English, besides the King and Prince. But, particularly of William Walleys, taken at the Battle of Dunbar, A. D. 1305, and of Simon Frisell,—or Fraser,—taken at the Battle of Kyrkenclyf, A. D. 1306, both of whom were punished as traitors to our King Edward I. and their heads set among others of their countrymen upon London Bridge.’ The passage which immediately concerns our purpose, you will find at folio 61 a, and, in its own rude dialect, thus it runs:—

“‘With feters and with gyues ichot he wos to drowe,
Ffrom the tour of Londone that monie myght knowe,
Jn a curtel of burel aselkethe wyse
Thurh Cheepe;
And a gerland on hys heued of the newe guyse:
Monimon of Engelond—for to se Symond
Thideward con lepe.
Tho he com to galewes, furst he wos an honge,
Al qc. beheued, thah him thohte longe;
Seththe he was yopened, is boweles ybrend,
The heued to londone brugge wos send
To shonde;
So ich ever mote the—sum while wende he
Ther lutel to stonde.
He rideth thourth the site as J tell may,
With gomen and with solas that wos here play,
To londone brugge hee nome the way;
Moni was the wyues chil’ that ther on loketh a day,
And seide alas!
That he was ibore—and so villiche forlore
So feir mon as he wos!
Now stont the heued above the tubrugge,
Fast bi Waleis soth for to sugge.’