SSI >,.'' k< r The Late Queen Victoria LONDON HISTORIC AND SOCIAL BY CLAUDE DE LA ROCHE FRANCIS ILLUSTRATED IN TWO VOLUMES VOL. I PHILADELPHIA HENRY T. COATES & CO. 1902 COPYRIGHT, HENRY T. COATES & CO. 1901. SRLF URL 5145009 CONTENTS VOLUME I CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTORY, 1 II. ROMAN LONDON, 16 III. SAXON LONDON, 42 IV. NORMAN LONDON, 87 V. LONDON UNDER THE PLANTAGENETS, . . . 128 VI. LONDON UNDER LANCASTER AND YORK, . .211 VII. LONDON UNDER THE TUDORS, 259 VIII. LONDON UNDER THE TUDORS (CONTINUED), . . 302 IX. LONDON UNDER THE STUARTS, .... 347 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS VOLUME I Photogravures made by GILBO & Co. PAGE THE LATE QUEEN VICTORIA, .... Frontispiece. A "BEEF EATER," TOWER OF LONDON, .... 38 THE CROWN JEWELS, TOWER OF LONDON, ... 48 POST-OFFICE, 66 WESTMINSTER ABBEY, 82 TOWER OF LONDON, 92 THE ARMORY, TOWER OF LONDON, 98 TRAITOR'S GATE, TOWER OF LONDON, .... 102 INNER TEMPLE AND GARDEN, 120 CORONATION CHAIR, WESTMINSTER ABBEY, . . . 130 SCREEN IN HENRY VII.'s CHAPEL, WESTMINSTER ABBEY, 152 ELEANOR'S CROSS, CHARING CROSS, 170 ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL, 182 MIDDLE TEMPLE, HALL, 196 GUILD HALL, 216 v vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. PAGE LONDON BRIDGE 234 BLOODY TOWER, TOWER OF LONDON, .... 252 NAVE, WESTMINSTER ABBEY, 272 ST. JAMES PALACE, 286 SOMERSET HOUSE, 304 TEMPLE BAR, REMOVED IN 1878, 322 HAMPTON COURT PALACE, 352 WINDSOR CASTLE, FROM THE THAMES, .... 380 MARBLE ARCH, HYDE PARK, 392 PREFACE. IT is difficult to write without a certain emotion of the world's greatest metropolis. London has a history so varied, a past so majestic, a present so important, and a future so problematic that even in a partial and incomplete appreciation of so vast a subject all the emotions and well nigh all the resources of descrip- tion and rhetoric could well be called into requisition. To trace, even in a most superficial manner, the his- tory of this wonderful city from the remote antiquity in which its origin is buried, from those days to which are attributable the legends of Brutus, its hypothetical founder, of Beliu and King Lud, down through the ages which have since expired, the Roman Occupation, the Saxon and Danish Monarchies, the Norman Period, the rule of the Plantagenets, the Tudors and the Stu- arts, and that of the House of Brunswick ; to give even the barest outline of its growth civic and archi- tectural, an outline sufficient to create a picture of the manners and customs of each successive age, and at the same time convey an understanding of the politi- cal, the social and the intellectual life of the successive viii PREFACE. periods, is in itself perhaps no unambitious task, and one but very imperfectly fulfilled in the following pages. The superficial observer, the traveller passing through England's capital and according to it but the attention granted by the ordinary tourist, would assure you that he knew his London and had seen its sights in at most a fortnight or but somewhat longer period ; but he who knows London as the student of its monuments, and more especially of its history, its traditions and its local lore, alone can know it would tell you that a year of conscientious work was scarce sufficient to know London as it should be known. The surface view is, at times, not prepossessing. To those accustomed to the straight and splendid thoroughfares of modern capitals, the lack of sym- metry in plan and, even more so, the lack of " vista," so inevitable where streets curve, and no effort has been made to unite outlying districts by means of broad, straight avenues, are the first observable results of that method whereby London has been permitted to grow, as it were, unaided by a master plan, village after village being incorporated in the all-encroaching city, just as it was before absorption, and alterations only attempted when property has already become too valuable for improvement on extended scale. This, the result of the policy of deliberateness, so conspicu- ous in the political life of the nation, as well as in its civic development, though it may have proved disas- PREFACE. ix trous to metropolitan unity, has had the ineffaceable advantage of leaving to each locality, to every incorpor- ated village, its character, special and peculiar ; which makes London de facto what it is in municipal the- ory, an aggregation of small towns rather than one giant city. Nor is the climate and its permeating humidity blameless in the sombre aspect which has been given to things external. Penetrate, however, beneath the surface, discover the by-ways of London life, its hidden churches, its relics of the monastic age, its bits of mediaeval architecture, its obscure squares and parkings, its street marts and those num- erous hives of its lower industrial life, and arrive at a true understanding of its institutions, civic, social, commercial, and of the many interests of its tremen- dous and teeming populations, differing so widely in its several quarters, through racial and linguistic and ever-varying domestic problems, and London looms up before you with a majesty, a dignity, a splendor and an all-absorbing interest quite unknown to the West End sybarite or the passing traveller. The kind courtesy of my publishers has enabled me through an additional grant of time to more effectu- ally accomplish my task than otherwise I could have done. In the hope of rendering these studies more complete I have consulted most of the authorities by whom my subject has been already treated. Personal observation and special investigation of my own has done the rest. To the Rev. W. J. Loftie, B.A., F.S.A., x PREFACE. the most conscientious exponent of London's his- toric life, I wish here to express my thanks for the valuable advantage derived from a close study of his work. These few remarks will be all, I trust, that are necessary to introduce the following pages to the esteem and consideration of an indulgent public. C. DE LA ROCHE FRANCIS. Thursday, July 25, 1901. London, England. LONDON. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY. The Story of Troy-Novant JSneas the Ancestor of the Early Brit- ish Kings His Arrival in Latium His Marriage to Lavinia Discovery of Alba Longa by Ascanius The Birth of Brutus His Flight to Hellas His Arrival in Albion The Settlement of Britain The Founding of New Troy The Trojan Dynasty in Britain Bledhud King Lear and his Three Daughters Dunwallo Molmutius Founds the Molruutian Dynasty Belin, the Builder of Belin's Gate (Billingsgate) King Lud, the Builder of Lud Gate (Ludgate) Troy-Novant Becomes Kae'r Lud The First Invasion of the Romans Tenuantius Effects a Peace with Caesar He Founds the Tenuantine Dynasty Kym- berline The Legends of Lucius and the Early British Church The Early British Tribes London the Capital of the Trino- bantes^London as the Romans Found It The Thames The Ford at Thorny Isle The First London Bridge Religion, Government and Customs of the British or Pre-Roman Period. LIKE all famous cities, London had its legendary as well as its authentic history. The same desire for illustrious and far-distant ancestry which led the Greeks to seek descent from primeval gods caused the early Britons or perhaps was it the later chroniclers ? to seek in mythic legends a noteworthy and distin- VOL. I. 1 2 LONDON. guished origin, and it appears from these authorities that London, or as it is said to have first been called, Troy-Novant or New Troy, was founded by Brutus, grandson of the far-famed JEneas, Prince of Troy, and that Britain was settled by his followers. The tale is found in Geoffrey of Monmouth, who, in turn, claims to have taken it from an ancient manuscript " in the early British tongue," discovered by one Gualtier Mappes, Archdeacon of Oxford, who brought it to Geoffrey of Monmouth for him to translate and edit. Herein we read that on the fall of Troy, JEneas, a prince of the royal Trojan house, fled from the cap- tured city and set sail towards the west, and, after adventures as various as they were extraordinary, landed in Latium on the Italian main ; how he there married Lavinia, daughter of the king of that country, and how he became by her the progenitor of the early Alba Longan kings. Of this journey much has been said by Diodorus in his history, which we find here repeated, with some added details, and Virgil in his great epic also en- larges on the voyage of JEneas, on his visit to Car- thage and Syracuse, and his final settlement in Latium ; and he, who was the author of Mappes' reputed manuscript, had doubtless knowledge of this source of poetic history. Be that as it may, he concurs with Livy in stating that by Lavinia JEneas became the father of a son, Ascanius by name, who, according to this authority, being too young on the death of his INTRODUCTORY. 3 father to assume the reins of government, started on a tour of foreign travel, like many a modern heir ap- parent, leaving his mother regent of the kingdom. Coming upon Alba Longa, he was so charmed, we are informed, by that country, that he refused to return to Latium, and settled there, where he was succeeded, as king, by his son, Sylvus Pandrasus, who had married a niece of Lavinia. Of this marriage was born a boy, Brutus by name, who, fulfilling the prophecy which had been made of him, killed his father on attaining his fifteenth year, and seeking refuge first in Hellas, made his way, after wondrous adventures and great escapes, to Albion, as Britain, a barren and unexplored island, was then called, where he and his followers estab- lished a colony and kingdom, calling the island Britain, after his own name, from which also his followers came to be called Britains, later corrupted to Britons. He it was, we are told, who, in the same year, established his headquarters on the banks of that stream which is now known as the Thames, calling the settlement Troy-Novant, or Trinovautum that is, New Troy, from whence, it is also related, was derived the name of the Trinobantes, by which the inhabitants of this portion of the isle of Albion were known when Gesar first landed on British soil. The settlement is said to have retained its original name until centuries later, when Lud, the brother of Cassi- bellaun, "having waged successful war against the Romans, obtained the government of the kingdom " ; 4 LONDON. and, to quote again from the chronicle, "He sur- rounded it with stately towers of admirable workman- ship, and ordered it to be called after his own name, Kae'r Lud that is, the town of Lud," which, by cor- ruption, has become the London of to-day. That the chain between the person of Brutus and the events just related, and the British chiefs found in the possession of authority on the entrance of the Romans, should not be broken, the chroniclers give us complete lists of kings, extending from the time of Brutus to that of the Roman invasion, and divide this royal line into three distinct dynasties and periods; thus we have the early British line, descended from the semi-mythic Trojans, the Molmutian and the Tenuantine dynasties, not to speak of the several lines of later Welsh kings. It were apart from the purpose of this work to enter in detail into the legendary history of these mythic monarchs, nor yet would it seem appropriate to follow the example of the modern historians, who, in their desire to place the history of the city on an absolutely veracious basis, entirely ignore the early kings and commence their histories with the Roman occupation. It would, indeed, seem as if the more famous of these prehistoric chieftains for chieftains, if they ever had any actual existence, they really were should, by the conscientious chronicler, be ac- corded at least a passing mention in the annals of the city, for so many buildings, sites and places are held INTRODUCTORY. 5 to be associated with their names that student or traveller must feel himself at sea without a general notion of this legend lore. Thus Bath, that far-famed watering-place and health resort, is said to have been founded by Bladud, otherwise spelled Bledhud, the tenth in the line of the early Trojan kings of Britain, while the story of his immediate successor in the royal line, King Lear and his three daughters, stands pre-eminent among the historic legends of the times, and has found an im- perishable place in Shakespeare's immortal tragedy. With Gorbogudo, the nineteenth in line, the Trojan succession came to a close, and Dunwallo Molmutius, son of Cloten, Duke of Cornwall, seizing the reins of government, proclaimed himself monarch of the realm, and founded the so-called " Molmutian dy- nasty," which gave to Britain no less than forty-eight kings, of which the second, the immediate successor of Dunwallo himself, was the far-famed Belin, to whom the building of Belin's Gate (Billingsgate) has been attributed ; while Lud, to whom legend has ascribed the building of the city walls and the open- ing of Ludgate, was the forty-seventh, and Cassibel- laun, during whose reign Caesar's invasion took place, is said to have been the forty-eighth. Indeed it is, as we have seen, to Lud that the change of name from Trinovantum to Kaer Lud, or London, has been ascribed by the chroniclers, and thus has Lud been held by many to be the true founder of the city. 6 LONDON. By the invasion of the Romans, the influence of Cassibellaun was seriously affected, and thus it is we learn that " Caesar, being repulsed by Androgius, and having started for Home to wage war against Pompey, Tenuantius, Duke of Cornwall, who, with Androgius, had been so greatly instrumental in effecting a peace between Caesar and Cassibellaun, sprang into leader- ship, and, assuming the government, founded the third, or ' Tenuantine dynasty.' " His immediate suc- cessor was Kymberline, during whose reign the chroniclers assert that Christ, the Saviour of the world, was born in Bethlehem, and his story, like that of Lear, is immortalized by the Bard of Avon. The Tenuantine dynasty, we are further told, gave to Britain seven kings, of which the last, a certain Lucius, is said to have embraced Christianity, and to have died childless in A.D. 156. To him is ascribed the founding of St. Peter upon Cornhill a romantic legend which we will examine into further and in its proper place. The story of his martyrdom at Chur (Coire), Switzerland, whither he had gone for purposes of religious controversy, is well known, and "his monument" there is still shown to the visitor. So much for the legendary history of British London previous to the first Roman invasion under Caesar. Whether or not any of this long line of legendary kings had any actual existence, they yet belong to the picture scheme of early British legend, and as such cannot be ignored. There may have been among the INTRODUCTORY. 7 early British chiefs a Bladud (Bledhud), a Lear, a Lud, and others of this legendary line, but the Lon- don of ante-Roman days could not have been what the pride of the chroniclers portray ; for no monu- mental city stood then where London stands to-day. The London of the Britons could have been only what Caesar, Tacitus and Strabo have described to us a British town as being a mere collection of huts set down on a dry spot in the midst of a marsh, or in a cleared space in a wood, surrounded, in addition to these natural protections, by the artificial defences of a mound or ditch. Before we can, therefore, obtain a correct appreciation of w r hat British London must have been, we should look into the origin of the in- habitants, consider their manners, understand their religion, their government and their mode of life; then and only then can the picture be complete. Passing over those prehistoric races of which Europe was once the home, and of which the Basques in South- ern France are probably the present representatives, that branch of the Indo-European race, called by cer- tain ethnologists Mediterranean, may perhaps be best divided into two great divisions, the Ionian and the Kimmerians. The first of these include the Achaeian and the Ombro Latins, who settled the Greek and Roman world, and the second the Kelts, the Teutons and the Slavs, by whom the rest of Europe came eventually to be settled. Of these, the Kelts were the first to cross the boundaries of Asia, and to estab- 8 LONDON. lish themselves in Europe. The tide of population continuing, however, to roll westward, they were pushed forward by the advancing Teutons, who in turn yielded to the pressure of the advancing Slavs. At the dawn of European history we find the Kelts, however, in possession of a large part of Spain and the British Isles. In Britain the population, we are told, consisted at the time of the first Roman invasion under Caesar of about forty Keltic tribes, of which some, while they retained their original appellations, had been deprived of their independence. The long track of land south of the Thames was unequally divided among some ten nations, of which the principal were the Cantii, or men of Kent; the Belgae, who inhabited the present coun- ties of Hampshire and Wilts, and the Damnonii, who had extended themselves gradually from the river Ex to that western promontory now called Corn- wall. Across that arm of sea which we know as the British Channel, the most potent tribe was that of the Silures, who had carried their arms from the banks of the Wye to the Dee and the ocean, and enforced their authority on the Ordovices and the Dimetse, who in- habited the northern mountains and west district of Wales. On the eastern side, the island was divided between the Iceni, whose territory extended from Stour northward, including what is now Suffolk and Norfolk, to the banks of the Humber ; the Brigantes, who were bounded on the south by the Humber and INTRODUCTORY. 9 on the north by the Tyne, and who had subdued the Volantii and the Sistuntii of the western coast. Fur- ther north still were the Macetoe, and beyond these again the Caledonii, who, scantily clad, wandered with savage ferocity amid the lakes and the mountains of the northern fastnesses. The left bank of the upper Thames was under the rule of the Dobuni and the Cassii, united tribes; while the territory between the lower left bank of the Thames and the Stour was held by the Trinobantes, whose capital, as their name indicates, was Troy- Novant, or Trinovantum, afterwards Kaer Lud, or London. While the greater proportion of the inhabitants, more particularly among the rude tribes of the inte- rior, sowed no corn, and were clad only in skins, the southern Britons practiced agriculture, and wore cloth of their own manufacture. Their dress consisted of a sort of square mantle, which partly covered a vest, trousers and plaited tunic of braided cloth ; the waist was encircled by a belt; a ring adorned the second finger of each hand, and a chain of iron or brass was suspended from the neck. Their huts resembled those of their Gallic neighbors. A foundation of stone sup- ported a kind of circular structure of timber and reeds, over which was thrown a conical roof, pierced in the centre, for the twofold purpose of admitting the light and emitting the smoke. As we have already said, in husbandry they possessed considerable skill, 10 LONDON. and had discovered the use of the marl as manure. They raised more corn than was necessary for their own consumption, and to preserve it until the follow- ing harvest they stored it in the cavities of the rocks. Their principal commerce seems to have been with the Phoenicians, some of the more adventurous of whom braved the dangers of the open ocean, and, sailing from Spain and Carthage, brought their wares to the far distant shores of Britain, which they traded for tin ; and thus did the islands come in those coun- tries to be known as the Tin Islands, or Cassiterides. The religion of the early Britons was that of the Druids, and had been brought from Gaul, in all prob- ability, by the earliest settlers. They thus worshipped gods similar in attributes to those of Gneco-Roman mythology, though differing from them in name. Of the rites and ceremonies of the Druidic worship, some knowledge has descended to us. Their temples, usu- ally groves of lofty oak trees, were the more immense from their lack of architectural confinement. At noon and at midnight, held to be the most propitious hours, sacrifices were celebrated with due solemnity. The trunk of one of the giants of the forest formed the altar on which the victim was bound, and its leaves the chaplets worn at the sacrifice. The fruits of the earth, the spoil of battle, the beasts of the field and forest, and sometimes, in times of dire distress and danger, the captive and the malefactor shared alike INTRODUCTORY. H the honor of being offered up in pious and prayerful adoration. These rude people were held in control by a system of government partly patriarchal, partly sacerdotal. To the veneration which the British Druids inspired was added the respect which knowledge always in- spires in the ignorant; and while the chiefs occupied the position of petty tribal kings, governing in all matters appertaining to warfare, the Druids, as the sacerdotal class, formed a kind of judiciary adminis- tered justice and inflicted punishments the execution of which remained to the military force at the disposal of the kings. Gradually it came to be that commerce, and the legal interests arising therefrom, drew men together, and thus a group of huts became a settle- ment, and a group of settlements a town. These towns, such as they were, were usually in sheltered positions, strategically desirable by reason of the natu- ral protection afforded by an adjoining river and an adjacent forest, and rendered additionally safe by such rude artificial devices as mounds of earth and shallow ditches. Within such enclosures Strabo tells us that the inhabitants were accustomed to stall as many cattle as sufficed for a few months' consumption, and Caesar relates that when the town or fastness of Cassivellau- nus fell into his hands, he found in it a great number of cattle, which he intimates had been brought thither by the people when they came from all parts of the country to take refuge in that stronghold. It is prob- 12 LONDON. able, however, that most of the cattle, in which we are informed the island abounded, still remained wild and unappropriated, wandering through the woods and pastures, and dividing the honors of the soil with the wild and savage population. As regards London, we have positive knowledge, based on reliable authority, that, at a date many cen- turies later, over the area where London now extends a vast forest still covered the country, and extended some miles on either side of the river, and that a fen or lake of great extent whence that part of the me- tropolis called Finsbury derives its name lay on the northeast, close to the settlement. When it was a British town it probably occupied only the face and summit of the first natural elevation, ascending from the river and stretching between what is now the Tower, on the one hand, to Dowgate, near what is now Southwark Bridge, on the other, and going back no further than the line of the present Cornhill and Leadenhall Street. The Walbrook and the Sher Bourne on the west, and the Lang Bourne on the north though they had not acquired their later ce- lebrity and were known neither by these, nor, in all probability, by any other names and to the east the wide-spread marsh which long after continued to cover the low grounds, now occupied by the suburb of Wapping, furnished such natural boundaries as were usually sought by the founders of these early settle- ments. INTRODUCTORY. 13 There was, in all probability, a small settlement on the south bank of the river, access to which from the north bank was had by a ford near Westminster, by boat, and later by a primitive bridge, which was the remote predecessor of the London Bridge of to-day. That the river was first forded at Westminster may be deduced by one glance at the map, and a careful study of the topography of the adjoining country. Many of the ancient roads, afterwards deflected and diverted by the Romans during their occupancy, ac- cording to a well-determined scheme, converged at a single point on the northern bank of the Thames. Some, indeed, after traversing the country for hun- dreds of miles in a perfectly straight line, turned aside in order to reach this point. The reason for this was, unquestionably, the desire to find the most advan- tageous place to eifect a crossing of the river. The most desirable would, however, perforce depend upon the method of crossing to be employed. If the river were to be crossed by a bridge, naturally the deepest, because it was the narrowest place, would be the one selected; if by a ford, the widest, because it was the shallowest, would be preferred. While it is impos- sible to state at what time London Bridge was erected, as its building defies and antedates the memory of man, yet the presumption is that in the earliest times there was no bridge, and that the river was therefore crossed by a ford at the shallowest, and consequently the widest place. 14 LONDON. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that in the earliest times of which knowledge has descended to us, the very ancient ways above referred to seem to have converged and joined each other at the site of the present Kilburn or St. John's Wood, followed what is now Edgware Road, and went on in a straight line, now slightly diverted by Park Lane, towards Westminster, where the road ran along a low ridge, now Tothill Fields, and so reached the Thames. This ancient way was that which led from Chester towards Dover, and came in Saxon times to be called the Watling Street. It was said to follow the course of the Milky Way, and the name was applied to both. On the Surrey bank, where St. Thomas' Hospital now stands, was a similar road, now Stangate or Stone Street " the paved way " which road sought at once the Surrey hills and so crossed to the southern coast. It is therefore more than probable that the Watling Street crossed the Thames by a ford at the place described. Later, however, it being desired to erect a bridge, the narrowest place a spot near St. Olave's Church was selected, and, with the building of London Bridge, the Watling Street was deflected from its original course, with the result that the old road traversed the Roman city from Newgate, at its northwestern extremity, to Bridgegate, near its southeastern end. Authority for this statement is found in a copy of an old Saxon charter of King Edgar, in which we read INTRODUCTORY. 15 of a broad military road between St. Andrew's, Hoi- born and Tyburn. This road it was which con- nected the Watling Street, which came down Edg- w r are Road, with the Watlmg Street which crossed the ancient city. To the building of London Bridge the city owes not only its earliest prosperity, but also possibly its very existence, though the exact period at which it was built has, as we have said, not been ascertained. It is probable that the structure consisted at first of a series of small craft, firmly fastened together, over which a planking of some sort was laid; but that this floating construction, being found both precarious and unsafe, for it was substituted a more permanent structure, built of huge trees, laid low and bound to- gether at the extremities, and over which a planking was also placed. This bridge was probably that which the Romans found, and which they rebuilt, as we shall see. Such, then, was the condition and the size of Lon- don when Caesar, prompted by a desire, as he puts it, to understand the political institutions of the island, know the number of its inhabitants and study their manner of warfare, and to obtain other useful infor- mation which might lead ultimately to the conquest of the island and the subjugation of its people, first entered Britain in 55 B.C., and by his invasion brought the " barbarians " and their island home into the pale of the civilized world. 16 LONDON. CHAPTER II. ROMAN LONDON. Julius Csesar invades Britain Cassibellaun Surrenders Kymber- line Second Roman Invasion of Britain under Aulus Plautius Submission at Camalodunutn Defeat of Boadicea Vespasian reduces the Brigantii Julius Agricola, Prefect of Britain De- scent of the Caledonians Hadrian arrives in Britain Septimus Severus defeats Clodius Albinus Constantius arrives in Britain Death of Carausius Constantius enters London The Mythic Coel and his daughter Helena London a Military Colony A second London Bridge Population of Roman London The Roman Citadel, or Prsetorium The Basilica The Great Roads The Suburbs, Villas and Gardens The Building of London Walls The Introduction of Christianity into Roman Britain The Legend of Lucius and the Founding of St. Peter upon Cornhill His Death at Chur. As we have seen, the first Roman invasion of Britain was conducted by Julius Caesar in person in the year 55 B.C. It is, in fact, to the pen of this Roman general that we are indebted for our first knowledge of the island. We have seen in the pre- ceding chapter in what condition he found the coun- try and its inhabitants. Notwithstanding the supe- rior training and military equipment of the Roman legions, to say that he met with success would, how- ever, be to indulge in flattery as gross as that which ROMAN LONDON. 17 was usually the basic property of Roman triumphs. Though the ambush prepared by the British chief- tains and their subsequent attack on the Roman camp failed, yet in view of the possible interruption of his communication with Gaul during the winter months, which would have left him without supplies or provisions on a foreign shore, Csesar was quite willing to accept the illusory promise of submission from a few native chiefs, and he returned to Gaul after a stay in Britain of about three weeks. It is very apparent that he had little reason to boast of the success of his expedition. He therefore affects in his " Commentaries " to consider it merely in the light of a voyage of discovery. In Rome the mere invasion was, however, regarded as the forerunner of great victories, and a thanksgiving of twenty days was ordered, in consequence, by the Roman Senate. The following winter was spent in great and active preparations, and in the spring of 54 B.C. a Roman army, consisting of five legions and two thousand cavalry, sailed from the coast of Gaul in a fleet cf more than eight hundred ships. Before so formidable an armament, the Britons retired precipitately to the woods ; the invaders landed without opposition, and Ciesar immediately set out in pursuit of the natives. While recalled the next day to the coast by the news of a disaster to the fleet, caused by a storm which had arisen and wrecked a number of the Roman ships, the VOL. I.-2 18 LONDON. damage was soon overcome, the remaining ships dragged up beyond the reach of the tide, and the expedition into the interior was resumed with energy. Each day was marked by some encounter, in which the natives not infrequently obtained the advantage. It was their policy to shun any general encounter in the open and to depend on ambush and strategy always the resort of the weaker power. When con- fronted, however, they showed no lack of courage. Their principal warriors fought in chariots, and the consummate skill with which they guided these cum- bersome machines on the brink of precipice, hillside and level plain alike extorted the applause of the Romans themselves. No danger appalled them. Driving fearlessly along the Roman line, they took and profited by every opportunity to break the Roman ranks, but, when despairing of success, retired with rapidity. It required all the art at Caesar's command to inflict any permanent injury on so active a foe; but the occasion finally came about, and in consequence, the British forces being defeated, most of the con- federate chieftains fled into the interior, leaving on Cassibellaun, king of the Cassii and chief of the allies, the whole burden of the war. Repeated success at arms over neighboring tribes had caused Cassibellaun, who is said to have been the younger brother of the mythical Lud, to acquire high renown and ascendency over the whole country. The Cassii, with the Dobuni, were themselves established EOMAN LONDON. 19 on the left or northern bank of the upper Thames, and the influence of Cassibellaun, their chief, had come to be distinctly recognized by the Trinobantes, who occupied the left bank of the lower Thames and whose chief seat, as we have seen, was London. The tribes on the right or southern bank of the Thames had also invited him to place himself at their head, and thus it came to be that he held a position closely resembling that held some centuries later by Egberht of Wessex, who, having subjugated the kings of the Heptarchy, annexed their territory and made himself master of all England. The fact that it was the Trinobantes, and not the Cassii themselves, of whom London was the chief seat, and that Cassibellaun was king of the Cassii and not of the first-named tribe, would seem of itself to dispose of the mythical story of Lud, from whom Cassibellaun has been said to have inherited his kingship. Be this as it may, Cassibellaun had attained a de- gree of authority over all the tribes of the district, which practically made him king of the whole country, and he had established his headquarters, it would seem, in London as presenting the best strategi- cal advantages. When the Romans advanced, he re- treated, ordering a spiked palisade to be erected at the only ford of the river ; but the Romans were not to be retarded in their march northward by any arti- ficial obstacles, and both cavalry and infantry man- aged to get across. The king of the Cassii, neverthe- 20 LONDON. less, was not to be discouraged. He ordered the habitations to be burned, the cattle driven away and the territory laid waste. This caused great anger among the Trinobantes, who, with other neighboring tribes, now sought the protection of Caesar, and led him to the final retreat of Cassibellaun, situated on the spot where afterwards Verulam was built and near to the site of the present town of St. Albans. The de- fences, excellent though they were, were soon forced by the Romans, and Cassibellaun was at length obliged to sue for peace. The result was an agreement whereby Rome was to receive an annual tribute from Britain and by which the commercial relations of the two nations were fixed. Yet Rome remained master of not even a foot of British soil. From that period to the reign of Claudius, during a lapse of ninety-seven years, the British retained their original independence. Civil discord concentrated the attention of the Roman world upon itself. Britain was therefore left in peace. In this interval, we are told that two kings rose in turn to the position of chief of the allies, and were practically the sole sovereigns of the realm Tenuantius and Kymberline, of whom mention has been made in the preceding chapter. During this time Britain was only nominally a tribu- tary state. Augustus three times announced his in- tention of annexing Britain to the empire, but a sub- missive embassy from the native chiefs appeased and satisfied the imperial pride and postponed the fulfill- ROMAN LONDON. 21 ment of the plan. Instead of exacting the tribute imposed by Csesar, he contented himself with imposing duties on the trade between Gaul and Britain. Ti- berius, pretending that the empire was already too extensive, excused himself thus for his inaction in the matter ; and while his nephew, Caligula, indulged at Boulogne, then Gesoriacum, in a triumph over his imaginary conquest of the ocean, yet nothing was achieved towards the actual conquest of the island and subjugation of the British until Claudius donned the imperial purple. Instigated by Beric, a British chieftain, whom inter- necine feuds had driven from his country, Claudius commanded Aulus Plautius to transport four legions, with their auxiliaries, to Britain. It was with no small difficulty that the troops could be persuaded to embark on the expedition ; but as they crossed the channel a meteor, moving in the direction of the fleet, was seen, and held to be an augury of success. The two sons of Kymberline, whom Roman his- torians call Caractacus and Togidumnus, but whom British chroniclers denominate Guiderus and Arvira- gus, led the British forces, and, adopting the policy of Cassibellaun, endeavored to harass rather than openly repel the adversaries. The German auxili- aries, better fitted for such warfare than the Roman legionary soldiers, followed the Britons, however, across rivers and morasses, and, though the latter made a brave resistance, drove them across the Thames 22 LONDON. to the northern bank. The emperor himself, now tak- ing command, penetrated as far as Camalodunum, now called Colchester, and received the submission of the natives. Claudius, before his departure from the islands, placed the Roman forces under Planting and Vespa- sian, an officer whose merits afterwards won for him the imperial dignity. Plautius was given the left bank of the Thames, in which division London was situated, while to Vespasian was assigned the right bank of the river. In order to repress the inroads of the northern tribes, he caused two chains of forts to be erected, one in the north, along the river Avon, the other in the south, along the banks of the Severn. Thus the subdued territory was gradually moulded into a Roman province, and when the Iceni attempted to throw off the Roman yoke their rebellion was severely punished. Ostorius Scapula was the successor of Plautius, and was in turn succeeded as Roman legate by Anlus Didius, who was followed by Veranius, an officer whose early death made way for Suetonius Paulinus, and it was during the latter's absence in Anglesey, whither he marched to give a final blow to Druid ic power, that Catus, the Roman procurator, seized on the patrimony of Prasutagus, king of the Iceni, while Boadicea, the widow of the late king, was scourged as a slave and the chastity of her daughter violated by Roman officers. EOMAN LONDON. 23 Boadicea naturally took the first opportunity for revenge, and soon a formidable rebellion against Ro- man authority was in progress in the course of which Camalodunurn (Colchester) and later London, which had grown under Roman rule to be a populous and open mart, and also the town of Verulam, experienced sieges and suffered serious damage from battle and plunder. Suetonius, who had retired before the ad- vancing fury, was finally obliged to turn and face the enemy. The final battle was terrible in all its details. The Britons were collected in masses around their various chieftains, their wives and children occupied a long line of carts and carriages in the rear, and the air resounded with their shrieks and imprecations. The Romans, who stood motionless and silent, per- mitted the Britons to approach, and then, rushing for- ward in the form of a wedge, overturned and scat- tered everything within reach. The losses on both sides are variously estimated at between seventy and eighty thousand, and Tacitus is certainly justified in comparing this with the greatest former victories of the Romans. Completely conquered, the surviving Britons took flight, and Boadicea, who had led them to battle, determined not to outlive so terrible a catastrophe, and ended her misfortunes by a violent and voluntary death. If the splendor of the victory preserved the pres- tige of the Roman arms, it did not end the war, and Rome, fearing that the determined obstinacy of the 24 LONDON. Britons was due to the too great severity of Suetonius Paulinus, he was recalled, and under his three suc- cessors, Turpilianus, Trebellius and Bolanus, the Brit- ons, within the pale of the Roman forts, were gradu- ally subdued and made to submit to the Roman yoke. No effort was made, however, to reduce that portion of Britain which lay beyond the Roman forts. When Vespasian assumed the imperial purple, he com- manded Petilius Cerealis to reduce the Brigantii. This was done, and Julius Frontinus, who succeeded Petilius as governor of the province of Britain, added the territory of the Silurii to the confines of the empire. The great merits of these generals were ob- scured, nevertheless, by the greater fame of the suc- cessor of Frontinus that is, Julius Agricola. When that commander arrived the army, which had been dismissed and was in its winter quarters, was immediately summoned by him into the field, and led against the unsubmissive Ordovicii, whom he completely subjugated. In his next two campaigns he extended the limits of the empire to the banks of the Tay. Tribe after tribe was forced to submit, and a line of forts from the frith of Forth to that of the Clyde, constructed in the fourth year of his command, protected the province of Britain from the inroads of the northern barbarians. Later, however, having re- ceived the submission of the tribes in the neighbor- hood of the Forth, Agricola pushed his conquests along the eastern shore. His final expedition was ROMAN LONDON. 25 against the Caledonians, in the eighth year of his command ; but while a victory for Roman arms was the outcome, the results, as far as retention of territory was concerned, were not permanent. The Roman power seemed now firmly established throughout the island. The tribes who had sub- mitted made no attempt to recover their independence, and the Caledonians, temporarily humbled by their last defeat, were content to roam about unmolesting and unmolested in their native forests. Agricola, if he obtained fame as a subjugator of rebellious people, deserves even greater credit for the impetus which he gave to the development of the country in the arts of peace. The successors of Agricola followed in this his example, and devoted themselves to promoting public tranquillity, protecting commerce and enforc- ing the laws; but, though they possessed a certain spark of his genius as regards the organization and encouragement of the peaceful arts, they fell far short of his military talent. Hardly, therefore, had he taken his departure, than the Caledonians, whom he had merely temporarily checked in their career, commenced again to attack the majesty of Rome. Crossing the line of forts between the two friths, they succeeded by their example in rekindling the flame of rebellion, and in arousing again the independent spirit of the subdued tribes. By the time that Had- rian ascended the throne, the condition of affairs had become so serious that he considered it necessary to 26 LONDON. appear himself in Britain. Whatever tranquillity he may have succeeded in establishing was again dis- turbed during the reign of his successor Antoninus, who appointed Lollius Urbicus prefect of Britain. Hostilities between the Caledonians and the Romans became now a matter of constant occurrence, and during the reign of Marcus Aurelius assumed truly imposing and threatening proportions. Ulpius Marcellus, having been made prefect of Britain, succeeded, however, in once more restoring peace. The command was next conferred on Clodius Albinus, and was retained by him through the re- mainder of the reign of Commodus, and also through the reigns of Pertinax and Julian, while he received from Septimus Severus, who succeeded the latter of these, the rank of Csesar, with the result that the two were finally brought into a conflict for authority. The battle was fought in Gaul, and the victory re- maining with Severus, he caused Albinus to be be- headed, and to prevent in the future such great in- crease in power in the prefects of Britain, he divided the island into two commands, bestowing one on Heraclianus and the other on Virus Lupus. His presence having become necessary in Britain, Septimus Severus, notwithstanding his advanced years, undertook the long journey, accompanied by his two sons, Caracalla and Geta, and himself led the expedition from York against the Caledonians. After his death at York a silence occurs in the his- KOMAN LONDON. 27 toiy of Britain for some seventy years. We may assume therefore that these years were peaceful, or at least uneventful. Internecine warfare and civil strife had done so much by that time to disintegrate the forces of the empire, and to injure Roman prestige abroad, that the Britons, encouraged by the possibility of success, began again their attempt to regain their independence. To chastise and restrain their in- subordination, the command of a great fleet, with the title of Count of the Saxon Shore, was accorded to Carausius by Diocletian, and Maximinianus. The way in which he fulfilled his trust is well known. Having induced both the army and the fleet to espouse his cause, and having made a truce with the barbarians, he assumed the imperial dignity himself and set defiance to Rome. It is of course scarcely to be supposed that the two emperors would acquiesce in such a usurpation. They entrusted to Constantius, accordingly, the task of wresting Britain from the hands of Carausius, and as he made his residence at Boulogne, it was here that Constantius commenced his attack. Retiring to Britain, Carausius made a bold defence of what he claimed as his rights, but while still unconquered by the legion of Constantius, he fell a victim to domestic treachery, being murdered at York, in the eighth year of his reign, by Allectus, a general who, having abused his confidence, feared his resentment. Allec- tus now assumed the crown himself, and made his 28 LONDON. capital at Clausentum, near the present site of South- ampton. Constantius, in the meantime, was collect- ing a powerful fleet, which he divided into two squadrons, keeping one at Boulogne under his own command, while he placed the other at the mouth of the Seine, under Asclepiodotus, who had been pre- fect of Britain. This second squadron it was which put forth first, and effected a landing on the south- ern coast, near the Isle of Wight. Constantius, with the first squadron, made for the coast of Kent, and on landing learned of the defeat and death of Allec- tus, who had been overcome by the superior forces of Asclepiodotus. Nor was this the only piece of good fortune which befell Constantius, for a portion of his squadron, having become separated from his command, entered the Thames, and advanced without opposition as far as London. The city, which was on the point of being plundered by a band of auxili- aries, once in the pay of Allectus, was saved from this impending fate by the arrival of the Romans, and Constantius himself was on his entry hailed as liberator and deliverer, and proclaimed emperor; but he did not long survive this new honor, for he was shortly after taken ill at York, which city he had selected as his residence because of its better strategical qualities, and died this being in A.D. 306. According to the chroniclers, he had married a cer- tain Helena, a daughter of the British chief or king, EOMAN LONDON. 29 Coelgodebog; while Gibbon and other historians of note make her out to have been a native of Bithynia, and of humble origin. Whatever may be the truth concerning her parentage, all must deplore her fate, as Constantius, on attaining the rank of Caesar, repudiated her for Theodora, daughter-in-law of Maximianus. Helena had, however, already borne him a son in the person of the famous Constantine, a prince who, by his efforts and his victories, united again the entire empire under his sole rule, and by so doing, and re- establishing the prestige of the imperial authority, restored peace to the empire and the provinces, a con- dition of affairs which lasted during his reign and that of his sons, and from which Britain was not the last to benefit. Let us now turn our attention to the position which London occupied at this time, and to do this we must first glance briefly over the whole system of the Roman occupation, in regard to the respective status of its military posts and civil settlements. Through- out the country were scattered a large number of civil settlements and military posts, the names of which are preserved to us in the itineraries of Richard and An- toninus. Some were of British, some of Roman origin, and they were divided into four classes, gradually descending in the scale of privilege and importance. The first rank may, perhaps, be said to have been held by the municipal cities, the inhabitants of which enjoyed the rank of Roman citizens, possessed the 30 LONDON. right of choosing their own decurions, or magistrates, and enacting their own laws, and were exempt from the operations of imperial statutes. Privileges so ex- ceptional were granted with great reserve, and at first Britain could boast of only two so-called municipal cities, Verulam and York. The "Jus Latii" or Latin right, as it was called, conferring, as it did, privileges more partial in their nature, was conferred with greater frequency, and was enjoyed by ten British towns, namely: Inverness, Perth, Dunbarton, Carlisle, Cat- terick, Blackrode, Cirencester, Salisbury, Caister in Lincolnshire, and Slack in Long wood. These also selected their own magistrates, who resigned at the expiration of the year, and claimed upon retirement that privilege which was the height of all provincial ambition, the freedom of Rome. Thirdly, but not necessarily of less dignity, were the so-called colonies, each of which was, as it were, a miniature representation of its parent city, adopting, as it did, the same customs, and being governed by the same laws. In Britain there were nine of these establishments, two of a civil and seven of a military / character. These were namely: Richborough, Lon- don, Colchester, Bath, Gloucester, Caerleon, Chester, Lincoln and Chesterfield. It had long been the policy of Rome to reward her veterans with gifts of land, portioned out of that of the conquered nation, and, in return, it exacted from the beneficiary strict allegiance and specific services. Thus we find a great similitude ROMAN LONDON. 31 to the feudal tenure of the Middle Ages in the consti- tution of the Roman colonial establishments. While military service was not exacted of the veteran him- self, he was expected to enlist his sons in the army as soon as they attained to years of manhood; and if they refused to be enlisted, disgrace and imprison- ment, sometimes even death, was the resulting punish- ment. There were, besides the three classes already enu- merated, a fourth class of towns which were stipend- iary that is, compelled, as is indicated by the term, to pay tribute and which were governed by Roman officers appointed by the praetor. With the gradual abolition of class distinctions be- tween the towns, which, commencing under Caracalla, continued till all distinctions were practically obliter- ated, and the freedom of Rome extended to the whole body of the citizens, those towns of greater commercial importance rose speedily to positions of dominant wealth and power, and London itself came to occupy a place of high importance. It had, in fact, by this time become a large and prosperous mart. To the settlement of primitive British huts had succeeded a stone-built Roman city, surrounded by an endless per- spective of villas and gardens. It was a point of de- parture for all commercial expeditions, and held important relations with all the towns of the interior, whether to the north or south. The needs of such a city demanded far greater transfluvial communication 32 LONDON. than was afforded by the primitive bridge, the con- struction of which had been accomplished by the early Britons; hence a new and more important bridge over the Thames was erected. This bridge seems to have consisted of great beams, founded on piles, over which a firm and substantial flooring was laid. This floor- ing was, however, in all probability not perfectly joined, and the discovery of a continuous series of coins, ranging from the early republican period to that of Honorius, found in the river when the old founda- tions which had served for the mediaeval bridge were taken up, to make way for the foundations of the present structure (which coins, it is supposed, were used, or rather intended, for toll-paying, and must have accidentally slipped through the gaping boards into the stream beneath, or been deliberately thrown in as propitiatory offerings to the gods of the river), gives rise to the theory that the Roman bridge was in existence before the republican coins went out of use. It is to Tacitus that we owe the first distinct men- tion of London by name. He tells us that Augusta, as London was called during the Roman occupation, was inhabited by merchants, but was nevertheless undefended by ramparts, \vhich goes to show that, although it was a town of commercial importance, it held evidently an inconsiderable place in military significance. From its abandonment by Suetonius, at the time of the rising of the Iceni under Boadicea, it may be inferred that, while filled with Roman mer- ROMAN LONDON. 33 chants, it was not exactly a Roman colony, and was therefore not worth the risk of defending it against the enemy. And the risk must, indeed, have been great, since Tacitus remarks that all those who, on account of unwarlike sex or old age, remained in London were brutally slain. Indeed, as late as the days of Constantius, we find that emperor selecting York as his imperial residence because of its greater military protection. As to the size of London it is difficult to make a proper estimate. Verulam, Camalodunum and Lon- don, taken together, contained, we are told, a popula- tion of about seventy thousand souls at the time of the massacre, from which, doubtless, many escaped; and it has been sometimes assumed that London alone probably contained some thirty thousand souls. After the mention made by Tacitus, no mention of London occurs from the pen of any Roman author for some two centuries. It is necessary to turn therefore to the result of excavations and other similar investigations to throw some light upon the subject. While at first it would seem as though the Romans had not sufficiently appreciated the opportunities which London presented strategically, as well as com- mercially, and had only a small fortified town here, consisting of a fort or citadel, commanding the bridge and connected probably with another fort at South- wark, of two ports or docks, one at Billingsgate and another at Dowgate, and of a ring of suburbs, yet it VOL. I. 3 34 LONDON. was not long before they came to recognize these ad- vantages, and, after the rising and subjugation of the Iceni, it soon became both a populous and wealthy town. Of the Roman buildings it is possible to form only an approximate idea. They were doubtless like all Roman buildings of the period. There are Roman forts and castles still standing in various countries, from a knowledge of which we can without much difficulty reconstruct those remains of Roman build- ings, both municipal and private, which have been from time to time unearthed in the reconstruction of different parts of the city. London was then, as it has remained to the present day, a city of suburbs. The Roman garrison, which through the first two centuries of Roman occupation could not have been large, was confined to the citadel, around and outside of which were grouped suburban villas and private residences. The citadel itself must, however, have been a vast construction. It has long been believed, and recent investigation has proved, that it occupied a site which can best be defined as extending from Walbrook Street to Mincing Lane, and having its northern boundary where Lombard Street now is, and its water front on what is now the line of Upper and Lower Thames Street. To the west, the fortress rose to towering heights from the banks of the Walbrook itself, while to the north and east it was defended by ditches filled with water. The walls of the praetorium, ROMAN LONDON. 35 as a Roman citadel was called, must have been enor- mously massive, but have, nevertheless, almost entirely disappeared the construction of the Cannon Street terminus having destroyed the great southwestern bas- tion, and a vast portion of the eastern wall, which was recently exposed to view in Mincing Lane, hav- ing also disappeared under modern constructions. Within the fortress, near the western wall, and therefore near where the Cannon Street terminus now stands, was a large hall or basilica-like structure, with tesselated pavement, and which contained within its walls the residences of the governor and the Courts of Justice. With the exception of this and a Roman bath, near where the church of St. Magnus now stands, there is no existing trace of any large building within the walls of the citadel no amphitheatre, no great temple from w r hich we may assume that, up to the middle of the third century, the military force in London was not large, and was confined absolutely within the fortifications and apart from the mercantile and native population of the suburbs. Two great streets, known in Saxon times as the Watling Street and the Eormen or Ermyn Way, traversed the city and the citadel (the former coming from the northwest and the latter directly from the north), and meeting at the market-place, which came to be called East Cheap and still retains the name, led to the bridge. Here, where to-day crowded omni- buses, drays and private carriages roll on their vari- 36 LONDON. ous and multifarious errands, the dark-skinned slaves were sold to British merchants in exchange for chil- dren of the north, who, by their fair skins and blue eyes, had attracted the attention of Roman officials. Outside the fortress, on the west, as has been pre- viously stated, was the Walbrook (Wallbrook). The course of this stream turned at the northwestern bastion, and lay then in a northeasterly direction. Close to this turn was evidently some kind of bridge, over which, through what was probably a stately gate, the Watling Street crossed to the other side, known as Dowgate side, where the finding of the re- mains of rude buildings has given rise to the theory that on the heights on that side there existed, in very early times, a fishing village. The banks of the Wal- brook were studded with villas and suburban resi- dences, which stretched far in the direction of Thread- needle Street, Cornhill and Bishopsgate. It is about here that the finest remains have been discovered, some covered with thick layers of black ashes, indi- cating the fragile character of wooden houses and the frequency of destructive fires. Here, in their gar- dens, the society of the day talked and gossiped while partaking of the delicacies of the period ; and where Threadneedle Street now witnesses the business bustle of the world's greatest metropolis, then languishing lovers rowed on the moonlit, rippling waters of the Walbrook or gathered flowers on its grassy banks. Such was the London of the Romans for at least KOMAN LONDON. 37 two-thirds of the Roman occupation, for it was not until after Carausius had paid for his treachery with his life, Allectus had paid for his assumptions by his defeat, and Asclepiodotus had won for Constantius a decisive victory over the latter, that London became in truth a fortified city, and that walls were built which completely encircled the suburbs and the town. Thus it came to be that that network of villas, or- chards and cemeteries, which had surrounded the Ro- man citadel, became itself surrounded by the Roman wall. That this had not taken place when Constantius landed is shown by the fact that, notwithstanding the hearty welcome which he received from the people, he preferred to make York, a fortified town, his head- quarters. Though the building of the walls, which still, in a certain sense, define the city boundaries, is, in the his- tory of the city, an event second to none save the building of the bridge, yet no account of it has de- scended to us, nor have the most recent researches thrown light on this most important subject. All that is definitely known is, that in 350 A.D. London had no walls and that in 369 A.D. the walls existed. The walls, which resembled those of other Roman cities, were built with alternate layers of stone and brick. It extended along the river front from Black- friars to the Tower, and in its other boundaries it fol- lowed the Fleet from the Thames to Ludgate Hill, there deflecting eastward, and a little further taking 38 LONDON. again a northerly direction, to where Newgate allowed the Watling Street to emerge from the city, which great highway crossed the Fleet at Holborn Viaduct. From there it turned again, taking a northeasterly direction between where St. Bartholomew's Hospital and Christ Hospital now stand, forming an angle where Aldersgate was subsequently made, and turning north again for a short distance, and then east to Bishopsgate the second great land gate of the city, which gave egress to the Ermyn Way. Then, slant- ing in a southeasterly direction and passing that place where Aldgate was opened at a later time, it reached the Thames at the exact spot where the White Tower stands to-day. On the river front the wall was broken in three places : at Dowgate, where w r as the mouth of the Walbrook and where the southwestern bastion of the Roman citadel still stood ; at Bridgegate, at the foot of London Bridge, and again a little to the eastward of the last mentioned and to the westward of the Tower, at Billingsgate, where that famous market now stands, and where, according to tradition, one may ex- pect to hear that delicate vernacular of the fishwife which bears its name. The road from the bridge divided at East Cheap, the Watling Street pursuing a northwesterly course to Newgate, while the Ermyn Way pursued an absolutely northerly course, in a line parallel with the present Gracechurch Street, by Cornhill which name probably denotes the rural con- A "Beef Eater/' Tower of London ROMAN LONDON. 39 dition in which the Saxons found it and out of Bishopsgate to Lincoln and York. Though London had become a city of not only commercial but also strategical importance, it was nevertheless smaller than either Verulam or York, and does not seem to have possessed any buildings of public interest save the so-called basilica, already re- ferred to, which part of the citadel or praetorium has been described. As we have said, there was neither amphitheatre nor temple really worthy of the name. There was for many centuries a tradition that a temple dedicated to Diana had once stood on the site of St. Paul's, for the remains of which Sir Christo- pher Wren made search when building the founda- tions of that tremendous edifice. He might certainly have spared himself the trouble, for when the site of St. Paul's was first brought within the city limits by the building of the wall, the dynasty of Constantine, a Christian emperor, occupied the throne of the Caesars, and it is hardly probable, even though pagan- ism was not yet extinct, that a new edifice devoted to pagan worship should have been erected ; nor is it consistent with our knowledge of Roman methods and manners to admit the possibility of the existence of such a temple, in so unprotected a position, outside the city walls. The fragments of stone pavement brought to light by mediaeval excavations, and which at the time of their disinterment were supposed to be the remains of such a temple, are now, by the light of recent 40 LONDON. excavations, considered more probably to be the re- mains of a tesselated terrace pavement once belonging to the suburban villas which in the Roman days lined the banks of the Walbrook. London, or Augusta, as the Roman city was called, was, at the time of the building of the walls, to all intents and purposes, a Christian city, though if there is lacking evidence of the existence of any pagan temple within its walls, yet is there none of the pres- ence, up to the time of Constantine, of any place of Christian worship or burial within this area. In view of the exceedingly scant material which we have from which to draw our conclusions, it is in fact very difficult at this distant day to say at what time and by whom Christianity was first preached in Britain, and when it first came to be generally adopted. The story that St. Peter or St. Paul personally ap- peared in Britain, and preached there the gospel of salvation, cannot be said to rest on any acceptable his- torical evidence, and if Christianity did exist at all in the early Roman days, it was known and accepted but by a very few, and first appeared in an open and recognized form under Constantine, the son of Con- stantius, and the first Christian emperor. It is related by some that Pomponia Grsecina, the wife of the pro- consul Aulus Plautius the first, who, it will be re- membered, made a permanent conquest of Britain, and Claudia, the British wife of the Senator Pudens, were Christians, and were potent factors in the early EOMAN LONDON. 41 Christianizing of Britain. It is also possible that the authority conferred by Claudius on Cogidimus, having continued in his family, Lucius who was one of his near descendants, and who was in truth not king, but merely one of the petty chieftains of Britain, and as such probably a refugee in the highlands of the interior was also a supporter of the gospels, and sent Fagan and Dervan to Rome as ambassadors to Pope Eleutherius, to receive ordination from him, and that on their return by their preaching they were instrumental in sowing the seeds of Christian worship on British soil ; yet the legend of King Lucius, his founding of St. Peter upon Cornhill, and his subse- quent journey to Chur in the cause of theological controversy, must, like the fables of Lear and of Lud, be relegated to historical oblivion. 42 LONDON. CHAPTER III. SAXON LONDON. Decline of Roman Power in Britain Arrival of Hengist and Horsa The Heptarchy Saxon Influence on London Names The Watling Street The Ermyn Way Arrival of St. Augustin of Canterbury Conversion of JJthelberht Building of St. Paul's Mellitus first Bishop of London All Hallows (Barking) Erkenwald Bishopsgate New Gate Lud Gate Alders Gate Cripple Gate Moor Gate Aid Gate St. Peter's (Thorny Isle) St. Gregory by St. Paul's St. Faith's St. Peter upon Cornhill St. Martins-le-Grand St. Andrew's Undershaft St. jEthelburgha St. Osyth St. Botolph (London Bridge) St. Botolph (Bishopsgate) St. Botolph (Aldersgate) St. Michael upon Cornhill St. Dunstan in the East St. Magnus the Mar- tyr St. Stephen (Wai brook) St. Swithin (London Stone) St. Mary ( Aldermary) St. Mary Magdalene St. Mary (Somerset) St. Peter (West Cheap) St. Mary (Bothaw) St. Peter (Paul's Wharf ) Holy Trinity the Less Egberht Alfred the Great The Danish Occupation St. Olave (Hart Street) St. Olave (Jewry) St. Olave (Silver Street) St. Edmund the King and Martyr The Saxon Restoration jEthelred Edward the Con- fessor Westminster Abbey The City Life West Cheap East Cheap The Dawn of the Trade Guilds Customs and Manners of the Saxon Period. THE Roman power in Britain was now, however, nearing the final end. Under Julian, the Picts and the Scots, who had hitherto been classed by the Roman writers as Caledonians, emerged from the SAXON LONDON. 43 barbaric obscurity to which the unsubjugated tribes had been relegated, and distinguished themselves by frequent inroads into Roman territory. So formid- able were their expeditions that Lupicinus, who was sent by Julian to subjugate them, did not dare to meet them in the open, a confession of weakness which greatly encouraged their audacity. During the reign of Valentinian I. things went from bad to worse, and became even more alarming, and depredations continued. The empire was now divided; Valens occupied the throne of the Eastern empire, and Valentinian that of the Western empire. Theodosius the Elder, on being sent to Britain by the latter to restore order, succeeded in part in his undertaking. Gratian succeeded his father Valentin- ian L, and was in turn succeeded by Valentinian II. Meanwhile the rise of Maximus in Britain had brought about other complications. The murder of Gratian gave him possession of Gaul, and the hurried flight of Valentinian transferred the greater part of Italy to his control. Theodosius the Younger, son of the " deliverer of Britain," to whom Gratian had ac- corded imperial honors and the throne of the Eastern empire, appearing now on the scene, gave the first shock to the power of Maximus, and the latter, being shortly after stripped of his imperial ornaments, was beheaded by his victor, leaving the Roman empire once more united under the now undivided rule of Theodosius. 44 LONDON. During all this confusion Roman authority in Britain was an authority in name only. The Picts and the Scots, those formidable rivals of Roman rule, were not unmindful of their opportunities. Their constant depredations compelled the Britons to peti- tion for succor from the imperial court, and Stilicho was dispatched to their assistance with a strong body of troops, and succeeded for the time being in repel- ling the invaders, and in confining them to the unan- nexed territories. But the mighty edifice of Roman power was now tottering to its fall. Hordes of bar- barians broke through the barriers of the Empire in every direction, issuing from the unknown regions of the north and east, and devastating the most pros- perous provinces. The Goths and the Vandals, under the terrible Alaric, had, from the Julian Alps, pressed down on the fertile plains of the Italian peninsula. It was found imperative therefore to recall the troops from the extremities of the empire to defend the seat of power, and among those to be recalled the British troops were not the least important. Britain, now unprotected and left to its own devices, w r as the scene of terrible civil strife, and was victimized by terrific inroads by the Picts and Scots. Unable to assist them, the unfortunate Honorius, from his palace at Ravenna, authorized them to defend themselves as best they could an order which has been construed by some as having released them from their allegiance. SAXON LONDON. 45 Innumerable petty British chieftains now arose in every direction, and ferocious war was waged amongst them. Some appealed for protection to .ZEtius, the Roman general in Gaul ; others sought the leadership of the famous Yortigern, the most powerful of the British chiefs, and following the example of the Roman emperors, who had often had recourse to the hiring of menials in their fights against the British, Vortigern and his allies made overtures to two Saxon chiefs, the brothers Hengist and Horsa, to aid them in their battles and share with them the spoils. These worthies landed at Ebbsfleet in the year A.D. 449, and were quartered in the Isle of Thanet. How, from having been in the beginning merely the paid auxiliaries of the chief of the British forces and his allies, the Saxons, after having aided in driv- ing the Picts and the Scots back to their old boun- daries, turned on the British themselves, and, having defeated Vortigern, and subsequently the other chiefs, possessed themselves of the greater part of Britain, are matters of common knowledge. Thus came about the establishment of the kingdom of Kent by Hen- gist in A.D. 455. The success of Hengist stimulated the ambition of other Saxon chiefs, and his example was soon followed. The landing of zElla at Cymen- sore, near Withering, in the Isle of Selsey, and the founding by him of the kingdom of Sussex in A.D. 489 ; the arrival of Cerdic and the founding by him of the kingdom of Wessex in 519; the founding of 46 LONDON. the kingdom of Essex by Erkenwin in 527, and that of East Anglia by Uffa in 540; the fortifying of Bebanburgh Castle by Ida in 547, and the establish- ment by him of the kingdom of Bernicia in the same year, with its attendant developments namely, the founding of the kingdom of Deira by ./Ella in 560, and that of Mercia by Creoda in 586 these are events which belong to the history of England and the Eng- lish people, but which have but indirect bearing on the development and history of England's great me- tropolis. It is necessary, however, to understand the division into which Britain had fallen at the time of which we write, when the fame of the world's greatest city was dawning in the beginnings of Saxon London. Eight kingdoms had been carved by the barbarians out of the Roman province of Britain ; Kent and Sussex comprised only the territory included by the modern counties of these names; East Anglia comprehended Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridge and the Isle of Ely; Bernicia and Deira, when they attained their fullest development, extended from the Forth on the north to the Humber on the south, and from the eastern to the western coast ; Wessex was bounded by the Thames and the Severn on the north, and stretched from the borders of Kent and Sussex to Land's End in Corn- wall ; Mercia comprised the interior of the island as far as Wales, and Essex, to us the most important, included the south of Hertfordshire, the modern SAXON LONDON. 47 county of Essex and Middlesex, in which London itself was situated. If we alluded in the last chapter to the extreme meagreness of the data which we have at our disposal, from which to work up an account of Roman London, we can but deplore in even stronger terms the greater meagreness which exists in the data which has de- scended to us as our heritage of Saxon London. The Roman legions were withdrawn from London in A.D. 410. We find the East Saxons in London in A.D. 609. Between these dates we have no knowledge of the city. Eventful though these intervening years undoubtedly were in the history of Britain, we have no record of them, and but one mention of the city, which refers merely to the refuge taken within London's protecting walls by the fugitives from Kent, after the famous battle of Crayford, in A.D. 457. With this event the Augusta of the Romans makes her last appearance. When we next hear of her she has become the Lon- don of the Anglo-Saxon period. During all this time, however, events of tremendous magnitude were occurring throughout the land. The Angles and the Saxons were pouring over the country, and half-Romanized cities were yielding everywhere to the invaders, and, where they submitted peaceably, were being slowly and deliberately Anglo-Saxon i/ed, while those that resisted were promptly reduced to terms by fire and . massacre. What Britain suffered when Roman arms were making themselves felt in the 48 LONDON. land can have been nothing compared to the suffering inflicted upon Roman Britain during the Anglo-Saxon conquest. The Roman conquest was that of civiliza- tion pagan, to be sure, yet the best that the day af- forded over ignorance and barbarism; the Anglo- Saxon conquest that of barbarism and violence over a legal and orderly government. Nevertheless, it is to this very conquest that England owes its national character and present greatness. That such a con- quest and transformation should have been so com- pletely accomplished is in itself a marvel, but that the conquest of Essex and Middlesex, and especially of a great walled city, as London had then become, should have taken place without leaving the slightest histori- cal record of the achievement is perhaps even more extraordinary. " No territory," exclaims one of the greatest of historians, " ever passed so obscurely into the possession of an enemy as the north bank of the Thames." London, when she next appears to us, does so in the full-fledged capacity of the capital of a Saxon king- dom. The invaders of Roman Britain are divided by the chroniclers into Old Saxon, Angles and Jutes ; but white we are told that from the Old Saxons came the men of Sussex and Wessex, yet of the actual con- querors of Essex and of London we hear nothing. Of their progress we have no record, and in A.D. 604 we find them in full and complete possession of the city. The Britons left in London must have indeed The Crown Jewels, Tower of London SAXON LONDON. 49 been few. r With a single exception of Dow-Gate, the first syllable of which is probably Celtic, none of the local names survive. The great streets, whatever may have been their previous appellations, came to be known as the Watling Street and the Ermyn Way. The market-places were called East Cheap and West Cheap, while the ports were known as Ludgate and Billingsgate. Nor did the streets of Saxon London follow in exact direction those of the Roman city. There seems to be little doubt that the northern road, later known as the Ermyn Way, emerged from the Roman city at a point considerably east of the Saxon and mediaeval Bishopsgate; nor did the west road, later known as the Watling Street, enter the city at the exact point at which New Gate was later con- structed. The history of London at this period is in reality the history of the fight between Christianity and the new paganism, for whatever had existed in the way of Christian worship during the Roman occupation had long since been obliterated by the then governing people, and England, which had been called upon for a century or more to worship under the priests of a new and a northern mythology, now turned once more to the Christian Church that sole guide to all true civilization. How, it will be asked, did such a change * * Q come about ? The reply is easy. In the midst of internecine strife and constant civil wars there ruled a king in Kent, JEthelberht by name, who for his VOL. I. 4 50 LONDON. sagacity and wisdom deserves the same place among statesmen that his piety has given him among saints. Instead of seeking distinction in the widening of his overlordship, he sought the welfare of his people by his continued and ceaseless efforts to renew the inter- course, commercial and otherwise, which had pre- viously existed between Britain and the continent of Europe. To further his plans, he determined upon an alliance by marriage with the Princess Bercta, daughter of Charibert, king of the Franks. This union, which proved itself by its consequences one of the most potent in shaping the course of history, had far more important results than even JEthelberht could possibly have foreseen ; for, besides cementing the com- mercial relations of the two countries, it brought Eng- land and the English people once more within the circle of the Christian Church. Bercta, like her Frankish kinsfolk, was a Christian, and a Christian bishop travelled in her train from Paris to Canterbury, which was then the royal city of the Kentish kingdom, where the ruined church of St. Martin was given them for their worship. Nor is this all ; for the illustrious pontiff who then occupied the Chair of Peter, and who has been justly desig- nated Gregory the Great, saw in this marriage the hand of God held out in mercy to an unenlightened people. It was an opportunity, he felt, not to be sacrificed. Sending at once, therefore, for Augustin, a Roman abbot of that day, he instructed him to go to SAXON LONDON. 51 England with a band of monks, and there to preach the gospel of the living God. Many years before, Gregory, then a young deacon, had noticed, it is related, the white bodies and fair faces and golden hair of some youths, who stood bound in a Roman market-place to be sold as slaves. Asking from whence they came, " From Anglia " was the reply. " Not Angles, but angels," replied Greg- ory. " And from what country come they ?" " From Deira," said the merchants. " De ira !" exclaimed Gregory ; " aye, plucked from God's ire and called to Christ's mercy." And when to his question as to the name of their king they told him that it was ^Ella, Gregory seized upon the word as a good omen, and cried out : " Alleluia shall be sung there !" And he kept his word. Augustin was, as we have seen, promptly dispatched to Kent, and, with his mission- aries, landed at Ebbsfleet, on the very spot where Hengist, with his warriors, had landed more than a century before. ^Ethelberht received them sitting en- throned in the open air on the chalk down above Min- ster, from which, miles away, the eye catches glimpses of the towers of Canterbury, to which place the missionaries then proceeded. Having entered the city in solemn procession, Can- terbury, the first royal city of Saxon England, became also the centre of Christian influence. Latin became again one of the tongues of Britain the language of its worship, and its literature and philosophic thought. 52 LONDON. Nor were the influences of Christianity long in making themselves felt throughout the land, although it is much to be feared that the people of London did not take kindly to this change of gods, as the readoption of the Roman religion was not unassociated in their minds with the idea of Roman servitude. Christianity had, never- theless, come to stay, and Bede, whose authority is cer- tainly equal in trustworthiness to that of the early chroniclers, tells us that JEthelberht, being himself converted, not only ordered them to relinquish the worship of their own divinities, but established Mel- litus as Bishop of London, causing to be built for him the church of St. Paul, on the very spot where, it has been maintained, a temple dedicated to Diana in the early Roman, and a Christian place of worship in the latter Roman days, existed. The year of this mo- mentous event is A. D. 610, and this is the first authen- tic mention of the church which was the precursor of the present St. Paul's Cathedral. The right of JEthelberht to interfere thus in the affairs of his neighbors for London was, properly speaking, in the kingdom of Essex, the Thames being the natural boundary which divided that kingdom from the king- dom of Kent has indeed been a matter of surprise, but it is perhaps explicable by the conversion of Se- berht, king of Essex. To this king, indeed, is attrib- uted the erection of the church or chapel of St. Peter in A.D. 616 on the low ground of the left bank of the Thames, then overgrown with thorns and surrounded SAXON LONDON. 53 with water, and therefore called Thorny Isle, and on which spot Westminster Abbey now stands. It does not seem, however, that the London mission flour- ished ; for, on the death of Seberht and the removal of Mellitus to the See of Canterbury, in which See he succeeded Lawrence, Archbishop of Canterbury, the people of London, if not their rulers, seem to have relapsed into paganism. It is difficult, indeed, to say who their rulers were at this time. It was a period of desperate struggles and fights. The possession of London seems to have been a matter not only of rivalry, but of uncertainty ; for it does not appear that the men of Wessex suc- ceeded in possessing themselves of the city, even after their victory over the East Saxons. In fact, when we next hear of London, some fifty years later, it is subject to Northumbria ; for, while Sigeberht, king of Essex, who had been converted to Christianity, invited Cedd, brother of St. Chadd, to preach to the heathen of Essex, he had his quarters, several miles down the river, at Tilbury. Cedd was consecrated Bishop of London in 654 at Lindisfarne. When, after ten years, his episcopate closed, London was no longer in the power of Northumbria, but had passed into that of Mercia; and Bede tells us that Wina, a West Saxon bishop, being expelled from Winchester, took refuge in Mercia, and purchased from Wulfhere, king of that country, the bishopric of London. Shortly after this, we find that Sighere, king of Essex, and all his 54 LONDON. followers, seceded from the church of Wina, and re- turned once more to their old form of worship; and though we have good reason to believe that, London being then under the rule of Mercia, the inhabitants of that city were not among the seceders, yet they must have, in a measure at least, been influenced by such an important proceeding. It was under these conflicting and unfavorable cir- cumstances, therefore, that London was Christianized. If Sighere was unfaithful to the cause, his cousin and colleague, Sebbi, was piously inclined, and his name is interesting to the student of London history, be- cause of a charter relating to a grant of some land by a member of the then reigning family, a certain ^Ethelred, to Barking Abbey. This famous Benedic- tine Nunnery was situated at the east end of a road, now Great Tower Street, near the spot on which, during the Norman period, the Tower itself was erected; and dependent on the abbey was the church of All Hallows, one of the most ancient foundations in London, now known as All Hallows, Barking, in Tower Ward. The document above referred to is the earliest Saxon document of its kind, and is now pre- served among the manuscripts of the British Museum. The distinctive title of "Barking" was added by the abbess of the Abbey of Barking, in Essex, to whom the vicarage of All Hallows belonged. Richard I. added a chapel, and Edward I. caused the statue of Our Lady of Barking to be erected. The chapel was SAXON LONDON. 55 rebuilt by Eichard III., and also a college, which was suppressed and pulled down in the second year of Edward VI. The church had a narrow escape in the great fire, the dial and porch being burned. Its neighborhood to the Tower is, perhaps, the explanation of the inter- ment therein of many of those who suffered execution on Tower Hill. Thus the headless body of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, Bishop Fisher and Arch- bishop Laud were buried here, though since removed. There is a fine Flemish brass to Andrew Evyngar ; but a more interesting one is that to William Thynne, clerk of the kitchen to Henry VIII. and editor of Chaucer's works. The cover of the font is of carved wood, by Grinling Gibbons. But the church is par- ticularly interesting as that in which, on October 23, 1644, William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, was baptized, and from the fact that it was also the scene, on July 26, 1797, of the marriage of John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States, to Louisa Catherine Johnson. Under Erkenwald, the fourth to wear the mitre of the See of London, the scandal connected with the simoniacal election of Wina was soon forgotten, and the church may be said to have finally taken root during his episcopate. He exerted his influence and energies not only in the spread of Christian doctrine, but in endeavors to regain for London the place which it once held as a city of importance. For this pur- 56 LONDON. pose he caused the wall, which had fallen into a ruinous condition, to be repaired, and built the gate which has since borne the name of Bishopsgate. This gate is that which gave egress from the city to the Ermyn Way, the great northern road ; and while a gate had existed near this place in Roman days, the Saxon gate was placed considerably to the west of the Roman gate. There were, however, several other modes of egress to the city: that nearest the Thames, and which has been held to be the most ancient of the city gates tradition ascribing its erec- tion to the mythical Lud, in consequence of which it had been accorded the name of Ludgate and three other gates, Newgate, Aldersgate, Cripplegate, and Moorgate, the latter a species of postern. That Lud- gate is not the most ancient of the city gates is evi- dent from the fact that it must have led only into a countiy lane skirting the Fleet, for the road between the city and Westminster lay in Saxon times, and up to a very much later period, through Holborn, and not along the river. It is probable, therefore, that Newgate held that honor, for it gave egress, even in Roman days, to the great road afterwards named the Watling Street, and which road was the principal way followed by travellers and merchants from the north and western country in entering the city, and by those who, seeking to cross the Thames by London Bridge, were compelled to cross the city in order to do so. The name of Newgate is, in all likelihood, explained SAXON LONDON. 57 by the fact that, the old Roman gate having fallen into disrepair, a new gate was erected on the same site in Saxon times. Aldersgate, so called because of its antiquity, it having been one of the first four gates of the city, was, next to Bishopsgate, the most important northerly exit from the city, and its erection greatly eased the traffic which had to crowd through Newgate, for the Watling Street bifurcated at the principal open place of the city where met the Folkmote and its most northerly division, passing by the church of St. Martin, later called St. Martins-le-Grand, sought egress by way of Aldersgate. Another northerly exit was Cripplegate, not far distant, and which was situated at the end of Wood Street. This gate, origin- ally a postern, led to the Barbican, then a fortified watch tower, in advance of the city walls. It owed its name, not, as has been supposed, from the fact that cripples gathered there to seek alms, but from the Anglo-Saxon word "crepel" or "crypele," meaning a den or passage underground ; for the road between the postern and the burghkenning ran between two low walls, most likely of earth, which formed what in fortification would be described as a covered way. About one thousand feet to the east of Cripplegate was another postern, which came, in Plantagenet times, when a gate was erected there, to be known as Moorgate, from the fact that it led to the Moorfields, without the walls, to the north of the city. Aldgate, 58 LONDON. a gate in the city wall toward the east, and between Bishopsgate and the Thames, was though according to many authorities called Aldgate from its antiquity in reality of later origin, there being no evidence of its existence in Saxon times. Four other gates, Bridgegate, which gave egress to travellers going south over London Bridge, Dowgate, Ebbgate and Billingsgate, pierced the city walls on the river side. All these gates, save perhaps the three last men- tioned, came in time to be monumental structures, though their beauty and symmetry mast have been greatly impaired from the fact that over each gate were chambers and buildings used either as public prisons or private dwellings. Thus Newgate is men- tioned as early as 1188 as a prison for felons and debtors, while the lodgings over Aldgate in 1374 were leased to Geoffrey Chaucer for the term of his natural life. Newgate, which had fallen into disrepair, was rebuilt under Henry I., but does not seem to have been enlarged, and so noisome and crowded were its upper tenements that during the epidemic of plague, in 1414, the gatekeeper and sixty-four of the prisoners died of the scourge. Finally it was decided to rebuild it, and to remove the prison to an adjoin- ing structure. This was effected through the efforts and largely through the munificence of Richard Whytyngton, though the Newgate was still un- finished when he died in 1425. The Newgate, which SAXON LONDON. 59 was quite a monumental affair, was adorned on the outer or western side by four statues Liberty, who, in honor of the departed Whytyngton, was depicted as having his famous cat lying at her feet; Peace, Plenty and Concord ; while, in the inner or eastern side, it was ornamented by three statues Justice, Mercy and Truth. The structure was destroyed by the great fire in 1666, but rebuilt in 1672. From the fact, presumably, that Bishopsgate was built under the auspices and largely from funds pro- vided by Erkenwald, it was held that the repair of the gate devolved naturally upon his successors in the See of London. This burden, however, was one of which they soon rid themselves, and the real bur- den and expense fell upon the shoulders of the Hanse merchants, who caused it to be finally reconstructed in 1417. It was taken down in 1731, and a larger but less ornamental structure erected in its stead the fol- lowing year. Ludgate, of which the true derivation seems to have been from "Lode" a sewer empty- ing into a bigger stream, probably the Fleet, which emptied into the Thames, does not seem to have been quite so elaborate an affair, though, when it was re- built at the time of Queen Elizabeth, statues of the mythical Lud and his two sons were placed on its eastern side, while its western side was adorned by a statue of Queen Elizabeth herself. When the gate was finally taken down, these were sold by the city to Sir Francis Gosling, who destined them for the east GO LONDON. end of the church of St. Dunstan in the West. This absurdity, however, was not achieved, and the statues of Lud and his progeny eventually found their way to the ash-heap, though that of Queen Elizabeth fared a better fate, and a special niche was made for it on the outside of St. Dunstan's Church. Aldersgate was several times rebuilt, finally in 1617 from a design by Gerard Christmas. Through it, James I., who had waited for well nigh a year the abatement of the plague at the Charterhouse, outside the walls, entered the city when he came to take pos- session of his new dominion. It suffered greatly dur- ing the great fire, but was rebuilt, and here the heads of several of the regicides were exposed for public derision and abhorrence. Of Cripplegate and Moorgate there is little to be said. The latter though not mentioned in the list of gates until 1356, seems to have existed in Saxon times, and to have been an enlarged postern near the place where the waters of the Walbrook left the city was rebuilt in 1472, and is subsequently described as one of the " most magnificent " gates of the city. The old Aldgate through which the first Queen Mary entered the city on ascending the throne, and where her sister Elizabeth greeted her, accompanied by two thousand horse, and where the two exchanged perfidious embraces was taken down in 1606, and a fine new one erected in its stead. The new gate was on the outer side adorned by a statue of James I., SAXON LONDON. 61 standing on the royal supporters, while two Roman soldiers were represented, one on either side of the gate, as being armed and ready to defend its entrance, and on the inner side by statues of Fortune, Peace and Charity. The system of leasing the tenements above the gates for private dwellings, even though it was stipulated that the lessees should keep them in repair under penalty of ejectment from the premises, and that the mayor and city authorities reserved to themselves the right to enter the premises in the time of war, disturbance and public defence, resulted, nevertheless, in great evils, and the nuisance was finally stopped by an act of the city in 1386, decree- ing that "no grant shall from henceforth in any way be made unto any person of the gates or of the dwell- ing houses above the gates," etc. The newer gates, erected in place of the older ones, became therefore merely monumentally defensive structures, and finally an Act of Parliament, passed in 1760, empowered the city authorities to remove the gates and effect other improvements; and under its provisions these relics of past methods of fortification were torn down, and their materials sold and carted away. It is, perhaps, a sad commentary on past greatness that the materials of Aldersgate, esteemed one of the finest of the city gates, brought only 91, and that many of the statues which adorned them fared the fate of Lud and his two sons. Not only did secular improvement gain a new start 62 LONDON. under the very wide influence of Erkenwald, but, as was only natural, Christian churches now began to rear themselves openly on the ruins or sites of pagan temples. Already, as we have seen, in the year 610 tradition has it that JEthelberht caused a new St. Paul's to be erected on the spot where a Christian temple had existed in the later Roman days; and Seberht in 614, by his high patronage, and doubtless also by his financial assistance, was largely instru- mental in the erection of a church edifice which came to be known by the name of St. Peter's, and which was situated outside the city, near the place where the old ford of the Thames existed, and on the spot where Westminster Abbey now stands. Under the episco- pal administration of Erkenwald, the erection of Christian churches continued steadily, and by the close of the seventh century London was already adequately supplied with Christian temples. Close to St. Paul's, as though seeking protection from another church, two others nestled that is, St. Gregory-under-St.-Paul's and St. Faith-under-St.- Paul's. The first of these two was actually attached to the south wall of St. Paul's itself. It was the parish church of the neighborhood, but when de- stroyed in the great fire was not rebuilt, the parish work being removed to St. Mary Magdalen's, Knight- rider Street. It was of St. Gregory that the learned Dr. John Hewitt (executed for treason on Tower Hill in 1658, because he had been sending money to the SAXON LONDON. 63 king) was rector; and here also that Jeremy Taylor delivered some of his most famous sermons, and that Evelyn heard him in 1654. The church of St. Faith, while not actually murally joined to St. Paul's, yet was near enough to the larger edifice to be in very close proximity of the latter's northeasterly corner. In fact, when the cathedral was enlarged in that di- rection, which was done in 1255, it was found neces- sary to remove it to make way for the extension. It was then that a chapel of St. Faith was arranged in the crypt of the larger church, though this again was changed under Henry VIII., when a chapel in the body of the church proper, to which was given the name of Jesus Chapel, was substituted for the chapel in the crypt, Attached to the old St. Faith of Saxon origin had, in fact, been a Jesus chapel, which had a bell-tower containing four great bells. They existed until the reign of the above-mentioned monarch, when Sir Miles Partridge won them from the king over a game of dice, and had them taken down and sold for old copper. Next to St. Paul's, the most important church of Saxon times was probably St. Peter's-upon-Cornhill, at the corner of what is now Gracechurch Street, that southerly extremity of Bishopsgate Within, but which was in Saxon times called the Ermyn Way. Con- cerning this church, we have already seen that the legend of its foundation by the apocryphal Lucius, " King of the Britons," rests upon no reliable or even 64 LONDON. credible evidence. At the time when the said Lucius is supposed to have "reigned" over the Britons, London and the greater portion of Britain was in the possession and under the control of the Roman power a power then pagan and not Christianized and Lucius, if he lived at all, was at most a tributary chief of a small band of Britons, in refuge in the mountain fastnesses of Wales, or the North Country. It could have been only long after at least a century and a half later that, owing to the conversion of Constantine, London, then Augusta, became a Chris- tian city, and that Christian churches were openly erected. That St. Peter's-upon-Cornhill was erected about this time, and was thus a place of Christian worship in the later Roman days, is possible, though there is no evidence to prove it ; and it is far more likely that, like St. JEthelburgha and St. Osyth, it owes its foundation to the great spirit of Erkemvald, that zealous successor of St. Augustin of Canterbury. Even though it had existed in later Roman days, it must have been destroyed during the tumultuous confusion of the Saxon invasion and conquest, or fallen into ruin during the two centuries of the new paganism which swept over the land on the coming of the northern barbarians, and owed its reconstruction and re-establishment to the new life which, under his episcopal administration, animated Christian London. The old church suffered annihilation by the great fire, and the present edifice was erected under that great SAXON LONDON. 65 master architect to whom London owes so many of its monuments, Sir Christopher Wren. Another important church of the Saxon period seems to have been the church of St. Martin-le-Grand. This ancient collegiate church and sanctuary stood on the site of the present General Post Office, in the open space which was formed by the bifurcation of the Watling Street, at which juncture, adjoining the open space where the Folkmote met, it divided in the direc- tion of Newgate and Aldersgate. St. Martin-le- Grand was, in fact, one of the oldest collegiate institu- tions of the realm, and was connected by tradition with Seberht, Bercta and Mellitus. Another tradition attributed its foundation to Wihtred, king of Kent in the eighth century. Like many others, it suffered greatly during the great Danish wars, and was com- pletely rebuilt in the days of Edward the Confessor. The church was greatly enlarged and embellished through the munificence of Ingelric, Earl of Essex, and his brother Girard, in 1056, and confirmed by a charter of William the Conqueror in 1068, which charter exempted it from all civil and even ecclesias- tical jurisdiction, so that, while within the walls of the city of London, it became a liberty by itself. The mayor and the corporation often endeavored, in later years, but always in vain, to interfere witji the privi- leges of the precinct. It became naturally the refuge of every malefactor who sought protection from just- ice, and criminals, on their way from the prison over VOL. I. 5 66 LONDON. Newgate to their execution at Tower Hill, passed the southern gate of St. Martin's, and often sought, and sometimes successfully, to escape from their gaolers into the adjoining sanctuary. As late as the reign of Henry VI., a soldier, on his way from Newgate to the Guildhall, was seized by five of his comrades, who came suddenly out of the Panyer Alley, in Newgate Street, and forced him from the officer of the compter into the adjacent sanctuary of St. Martin's. Again, later still, if we may credit Sir Thomas More, one of the murderers of the young " Princes of the Tower " here rotted away, starving and forgotten, yet safe from the officers of the law while he remained within its protecting shelter. It was from the tower of St. Martin's that tolled the bell of the curfew hour, when all the gates of the city were to be shut, " not to be opened afterwards that night, unless by special pre- cept" of the city authorities, whether bishop, por- treeve, or, in later years, the mayor and aldermen ; and also shut as well were to be " all the taverns for wine or for ale," and no one was to " go about the streets or ways." The ringing of the curfew at St. Martin's was the signal for the ringing of the bells of every parish church, so that they began and ended together. At the first stroke of the curfew at St. Martin's the great gates were closed and the wickets opened, and at the last stroke the wickets were themselves closed. Any person found wandering about the streets after curfew had rung, " with sword and buckler, or with Post Office SAXON LONDON. 67 any other arm, doing mischief whereof evil suspicion may arise, or in any other manner, unless it be some great lord or other substantial person of good reputa- tion, or a person of their household who from them shall have a warranty, and who is going from one to another with a light to guide him," was promptly taken into custody, and put into the Tun Prison in Cornhill, " which for such misdoers is assigned." In the repetition of the ordinance in the 37th of Edward III. (1363) the bell " at the church of our Lady at Bow " was substituted for that of St. Mar- tin's, and Newgate Prison for that of the Tun in Cornhill. At the dissolution of the religious houses in 1537, the college was levelled to the ground, and the church itself, destroyed in the great fire of 1666, was not rebuilt. The precincts themselves, however, retained the privilege of sanctuary until the Act 21, James I., c. 28 (1623), declared that all such privilege of sanctuary should thereafter be void. Notwith- standing this, the place still afforded shelter to debtors until 1697, when, by the Act 8 and 9, William III., " all such sanctuaries or pretended sanctuaries " were finally suppressed. When the excavations were being made in 1818 for the foundations of the General Post Office, an early crypt, and vaults of a still earlier foundation, were laid bare ; but the new masonry soon again concealed the old structure, and thus was the last vestige of St. Marti n-le-Grand finally destroyed. While not perhaps so important in point of interest 68 LONDON. as either of the two just described, the church of St. Andrew was nevertheless of considerable importance, even as early as the Saxon period. It stood on the site which is now the northeasterly corner of Leaden- hall Street and St. Mary Axe, and came eventually to be specially designated as St. Andrew's Undershaft, because, "of old time every year on May Day it was used that an high or long shaft or Maypole was set up there before the south door of said church." Thus was the church designated, to distinguish it from others in the city dedicated to the same saint. The last year that the shaft overlooking the old church was erected was on "Evil Mayday," 1517, when a serious fray occurred between the apprentices and the foreigners settled in the parish, which so greatly marred the festivities of the occasion that it was held sufficient reason for suppressing the custom. The old church having become unsuited for the needs of later days, a new structure was erected on the same site in 1520-1532 one of the latest of the perpendicular period of Gothic architecture, and one of the first in London adapted to the form of the new worship. Among the other churches of the Saxon period, St. .ZEthelburgha and St. Osyth stand out the most con- spicuously. Both were named, if we may accept tra- dition of the times, after the daughters of kings princesses who had earnestly engaged in the conver- sion of the benighted Saxons. ^Ethelburgha was the daughter of no less a person than jEthelberht of SAXON LONDON. 69 Kent, whose wife Bercta, of France, had brought back Christianity to the shores of Britain. She was also a niece of Ricula, wife of Seberht of Essex, the first Christian king of that country. Having wit- nessed the terrible consequences brought about by the weakness of Mellitus, the scandalous behavior of Wina and the perversity of her cousins, the sons of Seberht, she lived to see the faith of her heart once more established, and earned her saintship as well by her zealous efforts in its behalf as by the perfection of her life. The church which bears her name es- caped the great fire, and is undoubtedly one of the oldest now remaining in London. It was built near the gate of Bishop Erkenwald, and is now reached by an alley from Bishopsgate Street Within. The other that is, the church of St. Osyth was situated to the south of the market-place known as West Cheap, on the west bank of the Walbrook. St. Osyth, it would appear, was the mother of Offa, a royal youth of great beauty and loveliness, if we may believe Bede, who deserted wife, lands, kindred and country, to go to Rome with Coinred, king of Mercia, where both took monastic vows. That he actually reigned as king is a fact not mentioned by Bede ; nor is this to be wondered at, since we find him not un- frequently referred to as king of Mercia, whereas Es- sex was in reality his kingdom. Dying childless, he was succeeded- by his cousin Selred, who was killed in 746. The church of St. Osyth, having fallen into 70 LONDON. disrepair, was restored by Benedict Shorne, a wealthy fishmonger of the reign of Edward II., and became known by his name, the street only retaining its orig- inal appellation. By one of the singular corruptions so common in England, St. Benedict Shorne became St. Bennet Sherehog, by which name the church was known until it was destroyed by the great fire, never to be rebuilt. To the same period belongs also another great name, that of St. Botolph, who is commemorated in four churches. St. Botolph was the particular patron saint of East Anglia, and to his special protection all wayfarers going north over the bridge commended themselves. The most ancient of the churches erected in his honor stood at the foot of the hill leading to the bridge, while another was immediately without Bishopsgate, on the very first step, as it were, of the Ermyn Way. Later, when Aldersgate was, as we have seen, opened to relieve the traffic through what until then had been the only northern outlet of the city, another St. Botolph was erected, in order that the traveller selecting the new road should not be deprived of the blessings attendant on a visit to the shrine of the wayfarers' patron saint ; and again, when Aldgate was opened in the eleventh century, a fourth St. Bo- tolph's Church was erected, for the same reason, near this new outlet of the city. Of these four churches, the first and oldest, which stood on the west at the foot of the hill in approaching London Bridge, and SAXON LONDON. 71 was known as St. Botolph's Billingsgate, and which possessed perhaps the greatest historic interest, was destroyed in the great fire and never rebuilt ; the second, " without Bishopsgate," also destroyed in the great fire, was rebuilt hi the first half of the last cen- tury, the first stone being laid in 1725 and the work completed in 1728 under the direction of Giles Dance, the father of George Dance, the architect ; the third, "without Aldersgate," while not wholly de- stroyed in the great fire, suffered considerably, and had to be taken down eventually, the present edifice having been erected in 1754-'57 ; while the fourth mentioned that is, St. Botolph " without Aldgate " while it escaped the great fire, became so dilapidated that it had to be taken down, the present structure having been erected in 1741-'44 under the younger Dance. Of these other churches of which the establishment date of Saxon times, the most noteworthy are St. Michael's upon Coruhill, situated, as its name indi- cated, upon Cornhill, and which stood in an open space a little to the west of St. Peter's Church, already mentioned; St. Dunstan, which came to be called St. Dunstan in the East (to distinguish it from a later St. Dunstan subsequently erected in the West, in Fleet Street), and which stood on the slope of St. Dunstan's Hill, between Tower Street and Lower Thames Street, now the corner of St. Dunstan's Hill and St. Idol's Lane ; St. Magnus the Martyr, which 72 LONDON. stood on the east at the foot of the hill in approach- ing London Bridge, opposite the old Saxon church of St. Botolph ; St. Stephen, which stood on the left bank of the Wai brook, a little to the southeast of the poultry market, in what is now Walbrook Street, back of the Mansion House; St. Swithin, which was situated on the northern side of the way, at the con- junction of the Watling Street and of the old road which was parallel to the river, and which followed the line now identified with the lower portion of Queen Victoria Street and the present Canon Street; St. Mary (Aldermary), which stood a little to the south of the Watling Street, between St. Faith's and St. Swithin, now within the triangle formed by what remains of the Watling Street, Bow Lane and Queen Victoria Street; St. Mary Magdalen, on the north side of the already mentioned river road, now the corner of Knightrider Street and the Old Change ; and St. Mary Somerset, on the south side of the said road, now on the north side of Upper Thames Street. All these suffered annihilation during the great fire, but were reconstructed on the same sites under the direction and from the plans of Sir Christopher Wren. There were also the churches of St. Peter at the Cross, which stood on the site which is now the northwest corner of Cheapside and Wood Street, St. Mary Bothaw, which was situated on the south side of the way, at the conjunction of the Watling Street and the river road, diagonally opposite St. Swithm's, SAXON LONDON. 73 another and third St. Peter's, and Holy Trinity the Less, both of which were situated in the meadows be- tween the river road and the river, and near to St. Mary Somerset. All of these suffered destruction also in the great fire and were not rebuilt. The kings of Mercia having once possessed them- selves of London, did not easily relinquish their precious acquisition, and in a charter of JEthelbald of Mercia, whose reign extended from 718 to 757, and which said charter bears the date A.D. 734, there is special mention made of London in connection with privileges concerning port and shipping, this being, indeed, the first mention of London in any contempo- rary document now extant. Said charter is preserved in the British Museum, and states that the king, while the collecting of all the port taxes is one of his royal prerogatives, grants to the Bishop of Rochester the right of free entry to the port for one ship, either his property or that of another. Offa of Mercia, one of ^Ethelbald's immediate successors, makes no men- tion of London in any of his charters, but Coenulf, his successor, speaks of a Witan, or National Council, held in London in 811, and, in alluding to London, he calls it " the illustrious place and royal city." The importance of London, considered strategically or commercially, being now duly appreciated and recognized by the rival sovereigns of the so-called Heptarchy, its possession seems to have been one of the principal aims and ambitions of their respective 74 LONDON. existences. When the supremacy of Mercia declined and that of Wessex arose, London became the prop- erty of the conqueror. Egberht received in 823 the submission of Essex. In 827 we learn that he was present in London, and in 833 he held a Witan there, at which he presided in state. This Witan was held to consider a matter of the highest importance. The hour of retribution had arrived. What the Saxons' forefathers had inflicted on the Britons was in turn to be inflicted by the Danes on them ; but the Saxons were made of sterner stuff than the Britons, and real- izing the verity of the maxim which ascribes to unity of thought and purpose the greater strength, they buried their petty jealousies, and, making England into a single kingdom as it were, thereby temporarily, at least, overcame their enemies. London was of course the principal point of attack. Its walls un- fortunately wholly failed in their protection, and the Danes, after a successful siege, broke into the city. When repulsed, they broke in again, and so much did they come to consider it their property and headquar- ters, that when in 872 Alfred the Great was com- pelled to make a truce with them, they actually re- tired to London, as if it were legitimately their own city. With his military experience and political sagacity Alfred saw clearly that London was an absolute necessity. For the king of England to be deprived of his rightful capital, and thus reduced to be a SAXON LONDON. 75 wanderer in his dominions, was for him to be indeed in a pitiable plight. It was long, however, before he accomplished his end. His plans were matured in 884. The story of the conflict is to all intents and purposes the story of his life. To capture London was his easiest task; to keep it a task of far greater difficulty. Finding what remained of the Koman defences practically useless, and the repairs made by the Saxons and the Danes equally ineffectual, and appreciating the value of fortifications against bar- barians, his first object, after establishing his power, was the restoration of the ancient walls. To him may be attributed the building of at least two, if not three, of the newer gates which we have already had occasion to mention that is, Aldersgate, Cripplegate and Moorgate. Whatever may have been the extent of Alfred's work of reparation, we have but few details on the subject. Suffice it, however, that it proved all that was necessary; for London, now fortified, held out against the Danes, when all of Middlesex, Essex, Kent, Sussex and even Hampshire were in possession of the enemy. Meanwhile London had also increased greatly in wealth. From the holding of a Witan there in 833 by Egberht, London had become the royal city, and a palace, of which the first buildings were erected during Egberht's reign and by his orders, and which was greatly enlarged and beautified by JEthelstan, became the usual habitation of the English 76 LONDON. kings. Indeed, so great were the alterations* and additions made to Egberht's palace by JEthelstan that the palace has come to be generally referred to as the palace of JEthelstan. The greater security which London afforded naturally attracted merchants and other men of business, and London's greater commercial importance is proved by the fact that when this last mentioned king in 931 established his mints, he assigned eight coiners to London and only seven to Canterbury, which had previously out- rivalled London in commercial activity. Already in -ZEthelstan's reign we find a "Frithguild" in exist- ence. Though in reality nothing more than a friendly association, organized for purposes of social reunion, yet its importance will be appreciated when later we see how great was the influence of the guilds upon the development of the city. Under Egberht, surnamed the Peaceable, not only commerce, but also the ecclesiastical establishments, gained greatly, and the church of St. Peter at West- minster, which had, as we have seen, owed its founda- tion to Seberht, was, with its adjacent monastery, notably enlarged. His reign is, however, on the other hand, associated with one of those great calamities which at irregular intervals visited Ixmdon as a ter- rible scourge, and so materially affected its develop- ment and prosperity; for in the year 961 occurred one of the great London fires, in which the cathedral church of St. Paul, which owed its erection to that SAXON LONDON. 77 great saint, -ZEthelberht, king of Kent, suffered de- struction. ^thelred found within the walls of London the protection which his misfortunes and political necessi- ties demanded. Here he felt, at least, in partial security from the Danes, and it was during this reign, and from London, that started the famous expedition of 992, whereby the river was again opened to com- merce, and on the return of which expedition an attack from the Danes was so successfully repulsed. This security was not, however, to be long lived. Sweyn burned with a desire to possess himself of the city. He felt that without London he could never make good his title to being king of England. The capital city was the keystone of the throne. Twice he essayed to subdue the city by a siege ; and while, on the first occasion, ^Ethelred, feeling the weakness of his arms and the powerlessness of his position, en- deavored to buy him off, and succeeded in so doing, the second time, Sweyn, having taken Canterbury, was emboldened thereby and refused to withdraw. .ZEthelred, fearing that the end had come to all resist- ance, fled, and the citizens, feeling themselves without a leader, threw open the gates and admitted the Danes. But Sweyn did not long survive his triumph ; for, the climate of London evidently not agreeing with him, he died, after only one winter spent in his capital, at Gainsborough, in 1013. This was, of course, the signal for the return of -ZEthelred, who, 78 LONDON. re-entering his capital, ended his days within its pro- tecting walls two years later, in April, 1016. He was buried, we are told, in the then existing church of St. Paul. If so, his grave must have been among the ruins of the old St. Paul, the church of Cedd and Sebbi, if not of Mellitus and Seberht ; for it had, as we have seen, been destroyed by fire some years be- fore that is, in 951 and it is scarcely probable or possible that the new church was as yet completed. On the death of JEthelred, the Witan which called his son Edmund, surnamed "Ironside," to the throne, was held in London. His coronation followed, and with his installation the contest between the Saxon and Danish royal families commenced again. Canute, Sweyn's son, disputed Edmund's title to the crown. In the troubles that followed, Edmund's bravery is beyond dispute; but his caution may, indeed, be ques- tioned, for by leaving the protection of London's walls in the protection of which such reliance had been placed by Alfred the Great and the late king jJEthelred, his own father he jeopardized and finally lost his cause. Canute triumphed, and Edmund was foully murdered at Oxford, on November 30, 1016, in the autumn of the year in which he had succeeded to the throne. The events of the Danish occupation, and those that followed it to the time of the Norman conquest, belong properly to the history of England, and, while they had undoubtedly some bearing on the growth SAXON LONDON. 79 and development of London, they can scarcely be considered as sufficiently considerable or important to deserve any lengthy recapitulation in the treatment of this present theme. There are, however, numerous traces of the Danish occupation in London, some of which call for our attention. As Thor and Odin had been brought over by the Saxon invaders, so does the name of Olave follow in the wake of the Danish conquest. We find this name disguised in modern times under the name of Tooley Street, situated at the southern extremity of London Bridge ; and sev- eral churches were also dedicated to the saint, one of which still stands at the southwestern corner of Hart Street and Seething Lane, at the top of Crutched Friars. The old church was at some period replaced by the present structure, though at what exact time does not seem to appear. The present edifice survived the great fire, and has become better known, less for its connection with the Danish period than for its connection with Samuel Pepys, who worshipped there, and by whom it is mentioned frequently in his diary. It has been frequently restored. There were two other St. Olaves one called St. Olave (Jewry), the other St. Olave (Silver Street). ^ Another church, the foundation of which is of the post Danish-Saxon period, is that of St. Edmund the King, which stood on one of the lanes leading from the poultry market to the Ermyn Way, which lane now bears the name of Lombard Street. The church 80 LONDON. was dedicated to a certain Edmund, known to mar- tyrology as "King of the East Angles" and who is said to have been killed by the Danes in the year 870. As to the origin of St. Clement Danes, it is perhaps more difficult to decide the exact time of its foundation. It may or may not be of the era of Canute. The objection advanced to its having been founded at that time is that hi those days its situation was quite unprotected, being beyond the walls, and it has been held to be unlikely that a Danish settle- ment would have been so placed, between London and Westminster ; while it is held by others that this objection is not acceptable, since access to the settle- ment could and must have been from the north, the road between London and Westminster running through Holborn. As regards St Bride's, it is es- teemed certain that it cannot be of the time of Canute, since the ground on which it stands was then under water.- Both St. Clement Danes and St. Bride's, and also St. Dunstan's in the West, were at first, how- ever, only chapels of ease or district churches of Westminster. It would seem to have been under the reign of Canute that London obtained its first corporative ex- istence ; for at his death, the chronicle tells us that the magnates of the realm assembled in solemn parlia- ment, and among the representatives enumerated are the "lithsmen" of London. These were the traders or merchants of the city, who were not only the own- SAXON LONDON. 81 ers, but who during Canute's long reign became the actual administrators of the city's wealth. The \Vitan which followed the death of Canute chose his eldest born, Harold, as his successor; and three years later, on his death, another Witan summoned Emma, widow of both ^Ethelred and Canute, and her son, Harde- canute, from Bruges, and accorded the crown to the latter. This estimable prince distinguished himself principally by causing the body of his half-brother and predecessor to be dug up and cast into the Thames. It is related that it w r as found, however, by some fishermen, and given decent burial in St. Clement Danes, which is held to account for the name of that church. At the death of Hardecanute, Edward, surnamed the Confessor, and who was the son of .^Ethelred and Emma, and therefore the half- brother of Hardecanute, was called to the throne. His history is connected more with Westminster than with London, and it is to him that Westminster, previously known as St. Peter's in the West, owes its transformation from merely a monastic church into a full-fledged abbey and royal residence. In order that we may have a correct appreciation of what Westminster was in the days of him of whom we write, it will be necessary to return to its very be- ginnings, when it was nought but a sort of mud flat, surrounded on every side by perfectly open country. As late as the sixth century, the greater part of what is now Westminster was a sort of tidal estuary, which VOL. I. 6 82 LONDON. twice a day was covered by the brackish waters of the Thames. Here, in the midst of a marsh, arose a species of hillock, the " Tothill," of which memory is preserved to us in Tothill Street ; and upon the slight eminence, as we have seen in a previous chapter, the ancient Roman road, which diverged at the foot of the Edgware Road, ran to the water's edge, where the Thames was forded. Here, probably as far back as the Roman days, stood a building, a sort of post-house, at which the weary wayfarer could be temporarily accommodated. It was to take the place of the inn, if such it may be called, that the first house of monks of the Order of St. -Benedict was founded. In connection with this religious house, it is related, as we have seen, that a church was built, by the generosity of Seberht, king of Essex, in 610, which church he dedicated to St. Peter. While this date is assigned by some, however, as that of the foundation of the monastery, other au- thorities hold it more probable that the real foundation occurred in 730-740. Offa, king of Mercia, in refer- ring to the church and monastery in a grant of Lon- don, bearing the date of 785, speaks of it, in the first instance, merely as St. Peter's. A second time he re- fers to it, however, as " Thorney," focus terribilis (terrible place), which appellation it has been claimed had reference to the thorns which abounded in that locality, though it is more likely that it came by that name because the traveller who waited to cross the Westminster Abbey SAXON LONDON. 83 Thames here had to wade as best he could to the first stepping-stone, so to speak, in the shallow stream being the Thorney. Oifa refers to the place a third time as Westminster, which name it acquired evidently be- cause of the position it occupied in reference to the city. By the time of Edward the Confessor the place had, however, assumed quite a different appearance. The abbey, which had stood quite close to the water's edge, had come to be gradually separated therefrom by a belt of land, foreshore at first, but later entirely re- claimed, and which is at present the site of the Houses of Parliament. The plans of the king for the en- largement and beautifying of the church and its adja- cent buildings were extensive, and the new abbey church was only completed in time to permit of its consecration on Innocents' Day, December 28, 1065 that is, just a week before the king died. The church was built in the Norman style, as though anticipatory of the future conquerors of the country, and was held to be a structure of great grandeur and beauty, and its size, occupying as it did almost the whole area of the present building, was for those days in itself a thing unusual. Built of stone, the exterior was richly sculptured, and the windows were filled with stained glass. The roof was covered with lead, and in the centre a tower arose, which was crowned, as it were, by a cupola of wood. While the east end was rounded by an apse, the western end was adorned by two smaller towers, which contained a chime of five bells. 84 LONDON. Of this edifice nothing, however, remains but some fragments of substructure, as the church was almost entirely rebuilt by Henry III., and continually altered in subsequent reigns. The cloisters, chapterhouse, re- fectory, dormitory and infirmary, which had been commenced under Edward the Confessor, if not com- pleted under him, were all brought to completion in the next generation according to the original plan. During his reign the beginnings of later municipal institutions had their inception. Edward directs one of his writs to William, the bishop, and Swetman, the portreeve, and another to Leofstan and ^Elsi, por- treeves ; and again, a little later, we find Esgar, the staller, and Ulph the chief officers of the city. The chief mart of the city was the open, oblong space to the east of the large central square where the Folk- mote met, and which was just before St. Paul's. This long, open space contained the booths of the vendors of all the commodities which were required for existence by the customs and civilization of the time. From this it derived its name, " Cyp-pan," the Anglo-Saxon "to buy to bargain," which was en- tirely expressive of the nature of the place. This was the present Cheapside. It came eventually to be distinguished as West Cheap, because of the more east- erly mart nearer the Tower, which was denominated East Cheap. The neighboring farmers brought the produce of the fields into the city in huge carts, from which the contents were sold to the various vendors, SAXON LONDON. 85 who dispensed them again for a consideration from behind their stalls. Sometimes, though, the carts themselves were drawn up in proper order, and the contents were disposed of by the occupants, who not infrequently consisted of the farmer's whole family, who, having accompanied him to the city, thus spent the day. The booths of the vendors of different wares were assigned specific places; thus the Wax Chandlers stood on the south side of the Watling Street, the nearest to Newgate and before the Folk- mote place was reached in entering the city from that point, while the Tallow Chandlers were situated to the southeast of St. Paul's, on the opposite side of the place. In Cheapside proper, on the north side, the booths were arranged in the following order : The Goldsmiths came first. The place assigned to them was at the corner of St. Martin-le-Graud and the Cheap. Next to them came the Turners of Wood, who sold the wooden bowls, cups and spoons which formed the sole utensils of the table or the kitchen in those primitive days. Their place of business extended as far as the present Wood Street, on the other side of which were the Wood Merchants, properly speaking that is, those who sold wood for fuel. They spread them- selves out as far as the present Milk Street, on the other side of which came the Milk Dealers and the Sellers of Honey. Next to them, and on the other side of what is now Ironmongers Lane, came the Ironmongers themselves, who had as their immediate 86 LONDON. neighbors the Fruiterers, who extended their trade as far as the Old Jewry, beyond which came the dealers whose occupation is so apt to be brought to mind by the last-mentioned name that is, the Clothiers, whether of new or of second-hand garments. Be- yond these again came the Poultry Market, from which the present Poultry takes its name. On the south side of the Cheap, going from west to east, came first the Bakers, from whom Bread Street takes its name, and beyond them the Mercers, and finally Gro- cers, the Pepperers and the Spicers. Later on, when the vendors of the various commodities had organized themselves into guilds and companies, and obtained royal charters in their corporate name, each erected a hall of meeting, and to-day some of the halls of the present city companies are on the site originally as- signed to their wares in Saxon times, though in the cases of the Mercers and the Grocers, they have crossed the Cheap to the north side. Here in the Cheap the busiest side of the city's life was to be seen. Here the housewives came to purchase their daily stock of provisions for the family supper; here the men met to discuss the topics of the hour and the latest news from afar; here the Anglo-Saxon, the Dane, the remaining Briton and the Roman merchant passed each other, stopped to talk for a few moments and transacted their businesses ; and here, all or at least the greater part of what we now term the life of the street was to be found. NOKMAN LONDON. 87 CHAPTER IV. NORMAN LONDON. The Conquest William of Normandy enters London His Charter The Building of the Tower Its History and Associations The Chapel of St. John The Doomsday Book Establishment of the First Jewry Foundation of the Abbey of Bermondsey William II. Erection of the Palace of Westminster Law Courts at Westminster Hall St. Stephen's Chapel Henry I. His Charter concerning Middlesex Foundation of the Priory of Holy Trinity at Aldgate Foundation of the Priory of St. Mary Overies Foundation of the Priory of St. Bartholomew the Great Convent of St. Mary at Clerkenwell Convent of St. John the Baptist at Hallrwell Foundation of the Hospital of St. Giles in the Field The Rise of the Orders of Chivalry The Knights of St. John at Clerkenwell The Knights Templar at Holborn Stephen of Blois Destruction of London Bridge The Church of St. Mary (Aldermanbury) Great St. Helen's The Hospital of St. Alphage The Hospital of St. Katherine by the Tower Foundation of Modern Society Birth of Romantic Literature. IF the Saxons, when they entered upon their con- quests, came into a country demoralized by other in- cursions than their own, such was not the good for- tune of William the Conqueror and his Norman fol- lowers. It is true that Edward, the last of the Saxon kings, had just died, and that the rightful heir and 88 LONDON. claimant of the throne, Edgar JEtheling, grandson of Edmund Ironside, had been passed over, and Harold, son of Earl Godwin, elected by the Witan to fill his place. Yet both Harold and his father had so long occupied positions of influence and importance at the late king's court, that the transition of Harold from the steps of the throne to actual occupancy of the chair of state was scarcely perceptible, and Edgar JEtheling had been so generally admitted to be unfit for the royal duties, that, in those days the principle of legitimacy having not yet taken firm root in the nation, and the elective principle being viewed as quite natural, all seemed to augur a long and peaceful rule for the new dynasty, had it not been for the ambition of the Duke of Normandy, and his power to put his plans into execution. To detail the circumstances which led to his in- vasion, to describe that great event the battle of Senlac and to narrate the occurrences which fol- lowed, would be to usurp the duties of the dynas- tic historian, duties not legitimately ours, if the scope of this work be considered. We must therefore pass over these thrilling and imposing pictures to that time when William was, by a series of circum- stances, brought into immediate contact with London itself. William returned to Hastings from Senlac. He had fondly thought that with that battle the cam- paign was over, but such he soon found was not the NORMAN LONDON. 89 case. The death of Harold had been followed by unexpected complications. On the news of his death reaching London, a Witan had immediately been held, and Edgar ^Etheling had, notwithstanding his supposed disability, been unanimously elected to the kingly office, and London put in a state of defence by the citizens. Unfortunately for his adherents, Edgar was young, and not particularly brilliant in his attainments or keen in his military judgment. The first place in his council devolved, therefore, on Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury, and the military operations were committed to the two most powerful Earls, Edwin and Morcar. William, in the mean- while, having marched against London, their first ef- forts were unsuccessful ; a large body of troops sent out of the city in its defence was completely routed by a small force of five hundred Norman horse. The Duke of Normandy, however, contented himself with burning the suburbs. He was either afraid to storm the walls, or determined upon a different policy. Leaving London, he divided his army, spreading it over the counties of Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire and Berkshire, and burned and destroyed all that could not conveniently be carried away. Meanwhile, mistrust and division reigned among the councillors of the unfortunate Edgar, and the citizens attributed every new misfortune to the treach- ery or incapacity of his advisers. Rivalries and jealousies arose between Edwin and Morcar, and the 90 LONDON. two earls finally left the city. Their departure de- prived the military operations of all guidance or authority. Consternation was followed by panic, and Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury, and first adviser of the king, was the first to throw himself on the mercy of the Conqueror. Meeting William as he crossed the Thames at Wallingford, he took the oath of fealty to him as his sovereign, and swore to sup- port him in his pretensions. This defection was fol- lowed by that of others, and finally Edgar himself, at the head of an embassy, which was composed of Edwin and Morcar, on the part of the nobility; the Archbishop of York and the Bishops of Worcester and Hereford, on the part of the clergy ; and a depu- tation representing the principal citizens of London, proceeded to Birkhamstead, where they were received in audience by William himself, and swore allegiance to the Conqueror, at the same time tendering him the crown. This embassy to Birkhamstead was the last act in the story of the Saxon domination a period of struggle, gradual growth, slow development of constitutional principles, and steadily-increasing com- mercial prosperity. Though William's advent had been heralded, as it were, by blood and fire, rape and plunder, and even his coronation at Westminster made the occasion of a skirmish between his retainers and the citizens of the city, yet William sought to inaugurate his reign by just and peaceful measures, and London was not last NOKMAN LONDON. 91 to obtain the benefits of his policy. From the day of his entry, the city seemed to acquire a new life. A charter was granted to London by the Conqueror by which he secured to the city all her liberties and other privileges. The charter was granted to Wil- liam, bishop, and Gosfrith, portreeve, and is worded in a peculiar manner. Besides these two great officers, he greets "all the burghers in London, French or English." To them he wishes all peace and good- will. The original of this charter or perhaps it is a very ancient copy is still preserved in the archives of Guildhall. Its full text is as follows: "William, king, greets William, bishop, and Gosfrith, portreeve, and all the burghers within London, French or Eng- lish, friendly : and I do you to wit, that I will that ye be all law worthy, there were in king Edward's day. And I will that every child be his father's heir, after his father's day, and I will not endure that any man offer any wrong to you. God keep you." The object of the charter is threefold, and the privileges granted thereby are inestimable, as may be seen. It, first of all, assures the citizens that they have naught to fear from the new dynasty, since he gives them friendly greeting; secondly, it grants that all the citizens should be " law worthy," by which is meant that they should enjoy the privileges of freed- men in the courts of justice that is, the right of trial by jury or compurgators, a right which they had ac- quired under Edward the Confessor and be worthy 92 LONDON. of giving evidence in court, and entitled to the privi- lege of bringing in their friends and neighbors to do the same ; thirdly, it grants the right of inheritance a privilege contrary to the feudal constitution of the Normans, and, in fact, to the very spirit of feudalism. Though ostensibly granting privileges, William se- cretly determined that, while the citizens might remain as strongly fortified as they could wish against foes from without, he would not permit them to maintain any defences against himself. To accomplish this end, he decided upon the erection of a great fortress, that he might control the whole of London, and he se- lected for that purpose that place where he could break the wall without weakening the defences of the city. Now it happened that just without the ditch, a little to the southeast, and beyond Billingsgate, a piece of foreshore existed. At this point of the wall was a large bastion, either of Roman origin or built in Saxon times from materials taken from older fortifica- tions. It was here that William determined to break the wall, and replace the old bastion with his new- planned fortress. This so-called new tower, in reality a vast fortress, was planned to cover no less than twenty-six acres, of which twelve would be within the city limits and fourteen without; thus rather less than half would lie within the former city boundaries. When completed, William calculated that this formi- dable castle for castle it practically was would not only overawe the citizens, and place it completely be- Tower of London NOKMAN LONDON. 93 yond their power, or even their thoughts, to revolt at his authority, but would also completely control the traffic of the river. Thus it would more than com- pensate in strength for the small portion of the wall removed and destroyed to make a way for its con- struction. The building of the White Tower, which forms, as it were, the centre of the whole structure, was not commenced until some eleven years after the battle of Senlac, and the work of its erection was entrusted to Gundulf, a monk of the Abbey of Bee, in Normandy, who had just been consecrated Bishop of Rochester. Gundulf arrived in London in 1078, and sought quarters at the house of a friend, a certain ^Edmer Anhsende. He applied himself at once to the work before him ; but he began the construction of this vast pile of masonry on such a gigantic scale that, though he attained the advanced age of eighty-four years, and thus lived thirty years after the starting of the work, he did not see its completion. The present external appearance of the Tower is doubtless very unlike what it originally was, and probably no fortress of its age has undergone greater transformations. The White Tower, however, is still in great part as Gundulf left it, though in 1663 the windows were altered to admit of more light ; and Sir Christopher Wren, probably in the belief that the Tower had, in the first instance, been erected by Ju- lius Caesar, introduced classical keystones. It consists 94 LONDON. literally of four walls, terminating in turrets at the corners. It measures one hundred and seven feet from north to south, and ninety-six feet from east to west, and is ninety-two feet from the ground to the crest of its battlements. The walls are from thirteen to sixteen feet in thickness. This ancient keep is di- vided into three stories of timber flooring, on the second of which is the chapel of St. John, which is one of the finest specimens of Norman architecture in England. It is fifty-five feet in length, thirty-one feet in width and thirty-two feet to the crown of the vault. The nave between the pillars is fourteen feet six inches in width, while the aisles are about half the width and thirteen feet six inches in height. A tri- forium, extending over the aisles and semicircular east end, was used by the consorts of Norman and suc- ceeding kings, and their ladies, when attending the cel- ebration of Mass, so that they might worship in private, unseen by the congregation below. This triforium is eleven feet and nine inches in height. It was com- pletely dismantled in 1558. It was in St. John's Chapel that, at the creation of the Order of the Bath, by Henry IV. at the time of his coronation, the forty-six noblemen and gentlemen who were the first to be installed as knights, performed the ceremony of the vigil and watched their armor from sunset to sun- rise. Here also did Blackeubury, while kneeling at prayer, receive Richard ITI.'s proposal to murder the unfortunate young King Edward V. and his NORMAN LONDON. 95 brother, the Duke of York a proposal wnich Black- enbury found strength to reject. And here also did the mortal remains of that illustrious Princess Eliz- abeth of York, consort of Henry VII., lay in state, previous to her magnificent funeral at Westminster. The Council Chamber in the second story, which communicates directly with the triforium of the chapel, has also been the scene of a number of important his- toric events. Here it was that Richard II. was com- pelled to abdicate his crown in favor of Henry of Lancaster; and here also Hastings was denounced, arrested and hurried to the block by Richard III., the gallery, cut out of the solid wall, and which runs com- pletely round the Council Chamber, sen-ing for the concealment of the soldiery whom the king caused to be stationed there to carry out his intentions. Beneath the chapel is a vaulted chamber, now known as Queen Elizabeth's Armory, and which, in reality, forms the crypt of St. John's Chapel. On the north side is a cell about ten feet in length and eight feet in width. These rooms were those in which Sir Walter Raleigh was imprisoned, and in which he wrote his " History of the World." And the stone stairway leading up to St. John's Chapel has an his- torical association no less valued, for at the foot of these stair's were found, in July, 1674, the skeletons of the two little murdered princes, sons of Edward IV. These were removed in 1678 by the order of Charles II., and placed in Westminster Abbey, the 96 LONDON. sarcophagus containing these royal relics being against the east wall of the north side of Henry VII.'s chapel. Still further down beneath the crypts are the vaults, in reality dungeons of the most dismal kind. Their names were indeed sufficiently suggestive of discom- fort, for while one went by the name of "Cold Harbor," another bore the equally unpleasant appella- tion of "Little Ease." In this latter Guy Fawkes was for some little time confined. It was, in fact, but a mere hole in the wall, closed by a heavy door, and so small that the prisoner could neither lie down nor yet sit upright, so that he was compelled to remain in a cramped and bent^-up condition. In still another dungeon Prince James of Scotland was confined in 1405. In still another was kept the rack, and here suspects and traitors could be pleasantly tortured, and confessions extracted, while their shrieks and screams were entirely unavailing and unheard.' The chapel and its appendages are, strange to say, the only walled chambers in the building, for all the other partitions are of wood ; and it is equally remarkable that this, the keep of the royal castle, iatended origi- nally for at least a temporary residence of the sover- eign, and a refuge in time of trouble, should have been built so as to possess only one fireplace, and none of the conveniences to be found in far less' important Norman residences of very slightly later date. Con- sidering the immense altitude of the rooms, which are twenty-one feet high, and the great difficulty of heat- NORMAN LONDON. 97 ing such apartments, even with modern appliances, and the presence of innumerable pillars and other sup- ports for the roof, it can scarcely have been an agree- able abode for the sovereign and his family. In fact, so meagre were the arrangements for any kind of do- mestic comfort, that it was necessary to screen off par- titions to secure any privacy for the ladies. It was never therefore a pleasant, or even, possible, residence for the court, which came instead to be permanently established at Westminster. Up to the tune of Charles II. it was customary, however, for the British sovereign to spend the days immediately preceding the coronation in the Tower, w r hich thus remained for several centuries at least a temporary and extraordi- nary residence of the sovereign, and certain apart- ments continued to be specially reserved for this pur- pose. Here he or she, as the case might be, was supposed to enter into a spiritual retreat, and prepare for the sacrament of the anointment. But with Charles II. the custom, which had been revived for his coronation, became obsolete, and the White Tower, originally the keep of the royal castle, became, in turn, prison, storehouse for the reception of archives and records of State, until these were removed in 1857 to the new Record Office, and was finally as- signed to its present use that of a museum of armory. When in use as a storehouse for archives, the White Tower became the temporary residence of many a learned and distinguished antiquary. Lambert, Sel- VOL. I. 7 98 LONDON. den and the Republican Prynne are among those who lived and labored within its walls, while the northeast turret was used by Flamstead for astronomical obser- vations until the erection of the Greenwich Observa- tory. To-day the upper stories of the White Tower are occupied exclusively by the museum of armory already mentioned, which contains one of the finest collections of armor extant, affording a faithful and chronological picture of English war array from the time of Edward I. to that of James II. To the original structure, as planned by William of Normandy, and erected under the direction of the monk Gundulf, immense additions, consisting of oufc- lying buildings, were made in subsequent reigns, until it came to be that the White Tower was completely surrounded by buildings, constructed at different times, these being again encircled by a great outer wall, and the whole pentagonal structure, covering an area of some eighteen acres, being in turn surrounded by a moat, at present dry and used for a parade or drill ground. The surrounding buildings of the so- called Inner Ward, and which were once used as State prisons, are now barracks ; but the twelve towers, so famous because of the illustrious prisoners therein confined, still retain their historical associa- tions. Their names, in fact, are in many instances closely connected with the misfortunes of their occu- pants. Thus Bloody Tower begets its name from the fact that Edward V. and his brother, the Duke of Armory, Tower of London NORMAN LONDON. 99 York, commonly known in poetic parlance as "the little princes of the Tower," were imprisoned there, and there assassinated by the order of" Richard III. ; while in Bell Tower the Princess Elizabeth was con- fined by her sister, Queen Mary. It also witnessed the imprisonment of Lady Arabella Stewart, who was confined here for some years. Beauchamp Tower, which was probably built in the thirteenth century, received its name from Thomas de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, who was confined here in 1397, previous to his banishment to the Isle of Man. Among other illustrious prisoners detained here may be mentioned Ann Boleyn, in 1554; John Dudley, Earl of War- wick, condemned to death for the part which he took in the conspiracy to place Lady Jane Grey on the throne, and who, though reprieved, died shortly after in his prison room ; Lord Guildford Dudley, husband of Lady Jane Grey, in 1554 ; the unfortunate princess herself, who, during the agony of her prison hours, sought to pass the time by carving her name, " Jane," on the wall of her cell in 1554 ; Edmund and Arthur Poole, the great-grandsons of George, Duke of Clarence, and brother of Edward IV., who were imprisoned here from 1562 till their death ; Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel, who was beheaded in 1573 for aspiring to the hand of Mary, Queen of Scots ; and Dr. John Store, Chancellor of Oxford University under Queen Mary, and especially known for his firm loyalty to Rome during the great struggles of that terrible 100 LONDON. reign. He was executed at Tyburn for high treason in 1571. Devereux Tower, which stands at the northwest angle of the inner Ballium wall, derives its name from Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, who was its most illustrious occupant. In Flint Tower the dungeons are of so terrible a character that it re- ceived, and has retained in common parlance the designation of " Little Hell." Bowyer Tower, which derives its name from the fact that it was formerly the residence of the king's bowyer, or " Master of the King's Bows," was the scene of the death of the Duke of Clarence, who, if popular belief is to be credited, on being given a choice of methods to be employed in his execution, elected drowning in a butt of malmsey, and was accordingly thus executed. Brick Tower was for some time the prison of Lady Jane Grey, though the principal part of her con- finement was spent in Beauchamp Tower. Mar- tin or Jewel Tower was formerly used as a place of safe-keeping for the regalia of England, which is now, however, kept in Wakefield Tower. Con- stable and Broad Arrow Towers served the same purpose at one time of their history, while Salt Tower, which is one of the most ancient, and pro- bably of Norman origin, contains a curious sphere, on the walls of which are engraved the zodiacal signs, and which is the work of the famous astrolo- ger and magician, Hugh Draper of Bristol, who, com- NOKMAN LONDON. 101 mitted on the charge of sorcery, was here imprisoned in 1561. Wakefield Tower, which derives its name from the imprisonment of the " Yorkists/' is that in which are now kept the crown jewels. These are under the care of the Master of the Jewel House, an officer who is charged with the duty of custodian of the regalia. This officer has, as one of his prerogatives, the appointment of the king's goldsmith, and is esteemed the first knight bachelor of England, and accorded that precedence. The office was held by Thomas Cromwell, afterwards Earl of Essex. The perquisites were at one time very large, but came to be so greatly diminished after the restoration that Sir Gilbert Talbot, who then held the office, was per- mitted by the king to tax strangers for a small mone- tary consideration. The office is now in abeyance, and the custody of the jewels, as well as of the Tower itself, belongs to the Queen's Yeomen of the Guard, a corps comjx)sed of aged war veterans, who by their quaint dress add greatly to the historic interest of the scene. They are commonly spoken of as " beef-eaters " which, it is almost needless to remark, is but a cor- ruption of "biiffetiers" for when the Tower was a royal residence, their duties included attendance on the royal table. Around the Inner Ward, as it is called, and as it were encircling it, is an outer wall, also strengthened by towers, the most ini}x>rtant of which, and first in jxjiut of interest, is St. Thomas' 102 LONDON. Tower, under which is the archway known as Traitor's Gate, a double gateway opening on to the Thames, and formerly used for the reception of pris- oners of rank. Entrance to the Tower is now had by means of a bridge across the moat, which bridge is flanked by two towers, which bear the name of Middle Tower and By ward Tower. Among those eminent persons who have at one time or other been confined in the Tower, and whose names have not already been mentioned, are Wallace, Roger Mortimer, 1324 ; John, king of France ; Charles, Duke of Orleans, father of Louis XII., and who was one of the State prisoners taken at the battle of Agincourt ; Katherine Howard, fourth wife of Henry VIII., who, like one of her predecessors in that monarch's affections, was executed within the Tower; Lady Rochford, who was executed at the same time ; Sir Thomas More, Archbishop Cranmer, Protector Somerset, 1551-'52; Sir Thomas Wyatt, beheaded on Tower Hill, April 11, 1554; William Seymour, husband of Arabella Stewart, and after- wards Duke of Somerset; Sir Thomas Overbury, who, committed to the Tower on April 21, 1013, was found dead in his cell on the September 14 following, hav- ing been poisoned at the instigation of the Countess of Somerset; Sir John Eliot, who wrote here his "Monarchy of Man," and who died in the Tower, November 27, 1632; the Earl of Strafford, 1641; Archbishop Laud, 1640-'43 ; Lucy Barlow, the Traitor's Gate, Tower of London NORMAN LONDON. 103 mother of the Duke of Monmouth ; Sir William Dave- nant; George Villiers, second Duke of Buckingham; Sir Harry Vane the Younger, Sir William Coventry, the Earl of Shaftesbury, the Earl of Salisbury, 1670; William, Lord Russell, 1683; Algernon Sidney, 1683; the Lord Chancellor Jeffreys, 1688; the great Duke of Marlborough, 1692; Sir Robert Walpole, 1712; Harley, Earl of Oxford, 1715; William Shippen, Bishop Atterbury, 1722; Dr. Freind, who here wrote his " History of Medicine ; " the Earl of Derwent- water and Lord Kenmure, who were both executed on Tower Hill ; the Earl of Nithsdale, who escaped from the Tower on February 28, 1715, dressed as a woman, in a cloak and hood provided by his wife, and which were for that reason for some time after called nithsdales; Lord Kilmarnock, Lord Balme- rino, Lord Lovat, who perished at the block, on April 9, 1747, which block is still preserved in the armory; John Wilkes, 1752; Lord George Gordon, 1780; Sir Francis Burdett, 1810, and lastly the notorious Arthur Thistlewood, famous for his connection in the Cato Street conspiracy. Of the persons born in the Tower, the most noted are probably Carew Raleigh, son of Sir Walter Raleigh, Mrs. Hutchinson, the biographer of her husband, and the Countess of Bed- ford, daughter of the infamous Countess of Somerset, and mother of William, Lord Russell. In building the Tower, William the Conqueror had, as wo have seen, as his object the erection of a citadel 104 LONDON. which would serve not only as a residence in time of danger, but as a fortress, from which a determined and organized resistance could be made in case of a rising against himself. Not satisfied with this move, however, he resolved to have, as it were, an accurate census of all the landowners in the kingdom, and of their possessions and privileges, that he might the bet- ter understand the situation and know best how to control them. To this end, he caused to be compiled the now famous Doomsday Book. The reason for which London and its inhabitants are exempted from it is not very clear. It has been urged, as an expla- nation, that London was not a demesne, and was not held by any overlord whatsoever; but this is hardly satisfactory, and it seems difficult to reconcile the al- lowing of such a claim of independence with what we know of the character of the Conqueror. Whatever may be said, however, of William of Normandy, that his ambitions were destructive to his sense of justice, that his revengeful anger blinded him to all sense of charity, and that his avarice placed upon the people a heavier burden than they already bore, yet he was righteous in his administration, stern and inflexible in his will and undaunted in his courage, and to him London owed a renewed prosperity. But he was as judicious an organizer as he was am- bitious as a builder, and one of the principal munic- ipal achievements of his reign was perhaps the estab- lishment of a special quarter for the Jews. Many of NORMAN LONDON. 105 these unfortunates had followed in his wake from Rouen, and finding that the city was in a state of con- stant turmoil from the frays between them and the citizens, which were of almost daily occurrence, he decided that to separate them as much as was possible was essential to the peace and good government of the city. Accordingly a certain space was allotted to them as a place of residence, and in which to conduct their business. Their limitations were practically those of one street, then a lane, running from the north side of the Poultry to what is now Gresham Street, and a short distance down those lanes which led immediately out of it on either hand. From the fact that the Jews subsequently sought more congenial and obscure quarters, in the neighborhood of the Tower, the street of which we have spoken came as early as 1270 to be called the Old Jewry, to distin- guish it from the New Jewry, their then actual habi- tation. The most distinguishing feature of William of Nor- mandy's reign, at least as regards its influence on the character of the city's development, was the establish- ment under his auspices of several of those great monastic institutions which were subsequently so numerous, and which rose to such wealth and power as to become, according to opinion, the glory and pride of the royal city of England, or the overshadow which threatened the city's liberties and intellectual and economic progression. Already, in the last year of 106 LONDON. the Saxon rule, the College of St. Martin-le-Grand had, as we have seen, in 1056, been established, and the Conqueror confirmed its rights in the second year of his reign, and gave the dean and secular clergy con- nected therewith more laud, and added to their privi- leges. In 1082 a number of monks of the great Monastic Order of St. Benedict, quite distinct from those already at Westminster, came over to England if not by William's express invitation, at least with his permission and under his august patronage and, establishing themselves at Bermondsey (Bearmund-ey or Island), there founded a house of their illustrious order. This house, which was an offshoot, as it were, of the famous Abbey of Cluny, was dependent for its government and its support on the mother house in France. The foundation was greatly facilitated by the beneficent assistance and protection of one Aylwin Child, a citizen of London, to whom, in fact, entire credit is often given for the establishment itself. This famous abbey, for abbey it soon became, was, as has been said, in Bermondsey a river parish on the Surrey side in the hundred of Brixton. It shortly acquired special renown in connection with the famous cross which was the site of many pilgrimages from the city itself and the neighboring towns. The cross seems to have been situated on the spot which is now the conjunction of Bermondsey and Tooley Streets, adjoining the present London Bridge terminus of the NORMAN LONDON. 107 London, Chatham and Dover Railway. In 1094 William II., surnamed Rufus, son of the Conqueror, gave the manor of Bermondsey to the abbey, which retained possession of the same until the dissolution of the religious houses under Henry VIII. To the foundation of the abbey of Bermondsey other monastic foundations soon followed, and, with these, a great change was made in the character of the city and its neighborhood, and London, which had in Saxon times presented only a rather mean aggregation of unimportant houses, with some scattered church edifices of more or less architectural merit, came now to be a city possessing features of considerable archi- tectural proportions and distinction. What the city gained in one way it lost, however, in another. With the removal of Edward the Confessor and his court to Westminster, the position of London as the royal city of England had begun to change. After the advent of William of Normandy it came to be completely altered; for while the building of the Tower would impress one with the idea that he intended that to be and to remain the principal residence of the sovereign, yet actually the kings and queens made only a very occasional stay in the city, and it ceased to be in any sense the royal residence. The palace of TEthelstan and of the later Anglo-Saxon kings existed, it is true, up to the first of the great fires, but it was untenanted, and though William and his successors, when they had any very special business in the city, resided at 108 LONDON. the Tower, yet Westminster was in fact the royal seat and their principal habitation. The Conqueror died on the 9th of September, 1087, and was succeeded by his son William, surnamed Ru- fus, on account of his red hair. He continued the great works of his father at the Tower and throughout the city, and entered even upon greater works at Westminster. Appreciating the great inconveniences experienced by the court and its retainers while so- journing in the Tower, and how absolutely inadequate would be its accommodations even when completed, he decided upon the erection at Westminster of a palace which would be suitable as a royal residence, and com- bine the conditions necessary in those turbulent times of a stronghold, with all the comforts then obtainable of a regal habitation. It was to meet these require- ments that the new palace of Westminster was com- menced by him adjoining that which owed its erection to Edward the Confessor. Of this famous palace, the principal seat of the kings of England from the time of the Conquest to that of Henry VIII., only Westminster Hall and the crypts of St. Stephen's Chapel remain. Westminster Hall was built by William Rufus, and is supposed to have had a nave and aisles divided by timber ports. The hall, which became the principal banqueting- room of the palace, was enlarged and heightened under Richard II., who caused the walls to be carried up two feet higher, the windows altered, a new roof con- NORMAN LONDON. 109 structed and a stately porch added. These improve- ments were entrusted by Richard II. to Henry de Teveley, one of the most famous master masons of the time. The stone moulding, or string course, which runs around the hall is preserved to this day, and ex- hibits the white hart couchant that favorite device of Richard II. The roof is still the same which was set up by Henry de Teveley, and, with its oak ham- mer beams, carved with angels, held to be one of the finest of its kind in England. In describing it, it has been spoken of as "cobwebless beams," in refer- ence to a popular tradition that spiders cannot live in Irish oak. This noble hall, which is two hundred and ninety feet in length by sixty-eight in breadth, and which is said to be one of the largest apartments in the world unsupported by pillars, besides being the banquet ing-hall of the palace, was that wherein the Grand Councils of the king and the early Par- liaments were held. Here the Law Courts were formerly opened, the Court of the Exchequer at the entrance end, and the King's Bench and Courts of Chancery at the end opposite ; and here, in more spacious chambers erected by Sir John Soaue, a little to the west of Westminster Hall, they continued to be held until they were finally removed to the new Law Courts in 1882. These courts were : The High Court of Chancery, presided over by the Lord Chancel- lor ; the Court of the King or Queen's Bench, in which the Lord Chief Justice sat; the Court of the Common 110 LONDON. Pleas, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice, and the Court of the Exchequer, presided over by the Lord Chief Baron. Besides the Law Courts, however, Westminster Hall seems also to have harbored the stalls of any number of booksellers, law stationers, sempstresses, and dealers in all manner of toys and small wares, the rents and profits of which stalls belonged by an ancient right to that officer who is known as the Warden of the Fleet. It is difficult, indeed, for the modern mind to picture the curious confusion which must have prevailed in an agglomeration so varied and peculiar, and in such a singular mixture of solem- nity and quaint frivolity. The scene would doubt- less have been distressing to every one trained to habits of method and symmetry. Yet here some of the great scenes of history were enacted. Here, on a scaffolding erected for the purpose, Ann Boleyn sat, a witness to her trial, where Sir William Wallace and Sir Thomas More had stood before the bar; and here, again, the great Protector Somerset listened to his doom. Here the notorious Earl and Countess of Somerset, in the days of James I., stood trial for the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury. Here sat the so- called High Court of Justice while that lamentable and disgraceful farce, the trial of Charles I., was en- acted; and here sat the king and martyr, with the Naseby banners above his head. Here the astrologer Lily, who was present on that great occasion, saw the NORMAN LONDON. HI silver top fall from the king's staff; and those near her heard Lady Fairfax exclaim, when her husband's name was called, " He has more wit than to be here !" Here the king's most relentless adversary, the usurper Cromwell, had himself proclaimed as Lord Protector ; and here, only four years later, was his head brought, to be set up on a pole at the top of the hall, fronting the palace yard, flanked by the skulls of other traitors. Here, in the reign of James II., the seven bishops were acquitted; and here the great preacher, Dr. Sacheverel, was tried and found guilty by a majority of seventeen. Here the rebel lords, Kilmarnock, Lovat and Balmerino, were heard and condemned in 1745. Here Lord Byron, Lord Ferrers and the in- famous Duchess of Kingston were tried, the first for killing Mr. Chaworth, the second for the murder of his steward, and the third for bigamy. Here Warren Hastings was tried, and Burke and Sheridan grew eloquent in his prosecution and defence; and here, again, Lord Mellville was tried, in 1806. This was the last public trial in Westminster Hall. This famous hall, which served successively as banqueting-room and court of justice, was the scene of the coronation banquet of English sovereigns down to the accession of George IV., whose coronation banquet was the last served, with all the mediaeval ceremonial, in this an- cient and historic chamber. St. Stephen's Chapel was added to the palace under Stephen I., for a dean and canons. The chapel was 112 LONDON. rebuilt in the reign of Edward II., between 1320 and 1322, and was regarded until its destruction as a very excellent example of decorated architecture. It served as the Hall of Assembly of the Commons, while the Lords assembled in what was the old Court of Re- quests. The crypt and the chapel of Westminster Hall are to-day the only remains of the old palace, which was almost totally destroyed by fire in 1512; and Henry VIII., after Wolsey's disgrace, moved to the tatter's palace at Whitehall, which thenceforth be- came the royal residence, until the court removed to St. James'. Portions of the old palace, however, re- mained until the burning of the Houses of Parlia- ment, in 1834, in which the famous Painted Chamber, the Star Chamber, St. Stephen's Chapel and the clois- ters, the cellar of Guy Fawkes celebrity, the re- nowned Armada Hangings, and other remaining ves- tiges of the original building, were destroyed. Other apartments of the old palace were designated as the Antioch Chamber, the Caged Chamber, the Chamber of the Holy Ghost, the Great Exchequer Chamber, and other names equally fanciful or descriptive. The reign of William II. had commenced under unpleasant auspices. The second of the great London fires had caused much loss and consternation in the city, and the Cathedral Church of St. Paul had for the second time suffered destruction under flames. Burned in 961, under Edgar, surnamed the Peaceable, it had been rebuilt almost within a year; nor was NORMAN LONDON. 113 William II. less forward in his zeal for its prompt re- construction. Indeed, he did much for the ecclesias- tical edifice, not only in the city, but at Westminster. The burden of these works was shared by the city and county alike, and so great were they that the chronicle has it that on the arrival in London of Henry I., after William's death, he was made to swear, before they would crown him, that he would withdraw all further taxes for construction. Just how far the city was concerned in the election of Henry, which occurred at Winchester, it is difficult to say, but that he owed it some debt of gratitude is evident by the privileges and liberties which he granted and conferred upon the citizens. William II. was killed on Thursday, August 2, 1100. He was buried next day in the Cathedral of Winchester. On Saturday Henry entered London, and his coronation took place on Sunday, the day following. Henry's charter was, perhaps, even more important in the history of the city's liberties than that of his father, William of Normandy ; for, not only did he absolve the citizens from the payment of any of the various forms of feudal service and fines, but he granted to the city the revenues of Middlesex, turned the entire county over to them to farm as they saw fit, preserving the payment of the merely nominal rent of three hundred pounds per annum, and permitted them the appointment of a sheriff to receive demesne dues. They had already acquired the right of elect- VOL. I. -8 1 14 LONDON. ing their own portreeve and sheriff. This was au additional privilege. They were also given leave to appoint their own justiciar, that they might be re- lieved of ever having to appeal to any court outside the city. This officer has been held to have had the authority which in 1189 devolved upon the mayor; but it is more likely that the office of portreeve more closely resembled the subsequent mayoralty, and, in- deed, the sheriffs of London and Middlesex were his deputies, as they afterwards became those of the mayor. Besides the privileges already mentioned, they were accorded the royal privilege of hunting in the forests of Middlesex and the Chiltern Hills. But Henry did not confine his generosity to the city or its citizens, for he gave a charter to the Augus- tinian Priory of the Holy Trinity at Aldgate, which had been founded by Matilda, his wife, transferring to it thereby the privileges of the old Knighten Guild, which has been already mentioned as having come into existence under ^Ethelstan ; and the prior of the fraternity attached to the church was at the same time an alderman and the presiding officer of the guild. But Holy Trinity was not the only religious house to profit by Henry's generosity, for the Augustinian Priory of St. Mary Overies, in Southwark, was largely helped to its prosperity by the king's patron- age. This priory belonged to the Order of the Regu- lar Canons of St. Augustiu, and had been established in 1106, through the efforts and munificence of two NORMAN LONDON. H5 Norman knights, William Pont de 1'Arche and Wil- liam Dawncey; while the priory church, which was dedicated to the Holy Saviour, was built in the same year by the efforts of Giffard, Bishop of Winchester. The adjoining chapel was erected in 1238 by Peter de Rupibus, then Bishop of Winchester. At the begin- ning of the fifteenth century, another Bishop of Win- chester, Cardinal Beaufort, son of John of Gaunt, spent large sums of money on improvements and re- pairs; and it was in this church that, on February 2, 1424 '25, the marriage of James I. of Scotland and Joanna Beaufort was celebrated with much pomp and ceremony, while the marriage feast was held in the neighboring palace of the Bishop of Winchester. But a few years later that is, in 1469 under Henry de Burton, prior, the stone roof of the nave fell in, and was replaced by a wooden one, which lasted until the last century. By far the most important, however, of the great monastic establishments which had their origin in the reign of Henry I. was that of St. Bartholomew the Great. This famous priory, which stood somewhat to the northwest of the city, near Aldersgate, near Smith- field, was founded by a certain Rahere, a gentleman of gentle lineage, who had been converted to a re- ligious life while on a pilgrimage at Rome, and there joined the Order of the Regular Canons of St. Angus- tin. On his return to England, he founded a com- munity of that order ; and, connected with the priory, 116 LONDON. was established at the same time that hospital which obtained subsequently such historic renown. The hospital had an independent constitution and separate estate, but for purposes of control and government was under the priory. It had a master, eight breth- ren and four sisters, and its community was also under the rule of St. Augustin. It was from its foundation a hospital for the sick, not a mere alms- house, as is sometimes supposed, and this is distinctly asserted in a grant of privileges made to it by Ed- ward III. The relations of the priory to the hospital were revised by several bishops of London that is, by Richard de Ely, who held the episcopal authority in 1197; by Eustace de Falconberg in 1224; and again by Simon de Sudbury in 1373 the two foun- dations being finally separated in 1537, at the disso- lution of the priory. The priory church was also founded by the same Rahere and at the same time, and completed in 1123. Though not the oldest foundation, since the Saxon foundations antedate it by several centuries, yet, as most of these suffered either destruction or severe damage in succeeding fires, and were either torn down or rebuilt, the Church of St. Bartholomew the Great is probably the oldest church edifice in London. It is so closely surrounded by houses that visitors often seek it in vain when only a few yards from it. A dilapidated, but still beautiful gateway, of early Eng- lish style, leads from near the end of Duke Street NOKMAN LONDON. 117 into the church. This gateway is overhung by a com- paratively modern red-brick house, and though the pillars of the archway have disappeared, part of their circular capitals remain, and the so-called tooth mouldings which adorn the arch itself are in them- selves indicative of its age, and show that this vener- able entrance is coeval with the barons' war. The interior, while solemn in its simplicity, is nevertheless impressive. Of the four styles of architecture which are to be found in England, none, in fact, is more impressive than the Norman. The round arches and huge circular piers of the period are productive of strong architectural effects, and seem indicative, even more so than the Gothic, perhaps, of an awe born of a powerful and undying faith. The church contains many tombs and monuments, the principal of which is, of course, that of the founder itself, Rahere, the first prior. It stands in the easternmost bay, before the apse on the north side. The effigy represents Rahere, with the clean-shaven crown and the black robe of a Regular Canon of St. Augustin. His well- defined features show him to have been a man of dis- tinguished intelligence and personality. His hands are in the attitude of prayer, and an angel at his feet holds a shield, bearing two lions, passant gardant, and two crowns. As is natural, so ancient an edifice has undergone a variety of vicissitudes, and many changes were at- tempted and some few effected in its long history. It 118 LONDON. was the last prior, a certain Bolton, who endeavored to change the character of the edifice, transforming the Norman into the perpendicular, as William do Wyckham did for the Winchester Cathedral. To this end, he caused to be constructed a new nave in the perpendicular style of architecture, and spoiled the apse, cut the corbels of the western tower arch into perpendicular mouldings, destroying the bolder and more appropriate Norman corbel table which matched that still preserved to us in the eastern arch. Strange to say, it is his alterations which, in the course of ages, have met with annihilation, so that all that has been destroyed was more modern that what remains, and we see the church much as it was at the time of the founder's death in 1143. The tower was built, however, as late as 1628, and the whole edifice, which had fallen into a grievous state of disrepair, was re- stored, under the directions of Mr. T. Hayter Lewis and Mr. William Slater, in 1863-'66. The old work was, as far as possible, left untouched. Again, in 1885, another most important restoration, that of the apse, was commenced from a design of Mr. Ashon Webb. Adjoining the church is the old graveyard. The bases of some early English pillars on the right of the pathway indicate the existence at one time of a continu- ous building from the Smithfield gate to the church it- self. There was a graveyard here in the days of the Romans, though the principal place of Roman sepul- NORMAN LONDON. 119 ture was where, between Bishopsgate and Bethnal Green, the Hospital of St. Mary Spital was afterwards founded, yet no inconsiderable number must have found a final resting-place at Smithfield, as the cinerary urns and large stone sarcophagi of the later Roman period discovered during excavations indicate. The latest of these discoveries was made in 1877, when two Roman sarcophagi of Oxford- shire oolite were brought to light where the library of St. Bartholomew now stands. Not only did the monastic foundations of men largely increase under the beneficent reign of Henry I., but nunneries, the corresponding establishments for women, sprang up in every direction, of which the two most important were the Benedictine Nunnery of St. Mary at Clerkenwell and the Benedictine Nunnery of St. John the Baptist at Halliwell, near Shoreditch. Nor was the religious zeal of the women of the period lessened when the king's consort, Matilda of Scotland, interested herself personally in all manner of chari- table works and religious foundations. We have already seen that the Priory of the Holy Trinity at Aldgate owed its foundation to her beneficence, and it was presumably to her influence that it obtained the valuable privileges which Henry I. conferred upon it in a special charter. She did not confine herself, how- ever, to one act of this kind, for to her also does the hospital for lepers at St. Giles in the Fields owe its foundation. 120 LONDON. During this same reign, so auspicious for foundations of every kind, those military monks, the Knights of St. John and the Knights Templar, sought a home in England, and established themselves in London. The first of these great orders of chivalry had originated in Jerusalem in 1048, and owed its origin to the hos- pice of St. John of Jerusalem, which was founded in that year by some merchants of Amalfi for the recep- tion of pilgrims from Europe who visited the Holy Sepulchre, and to the religious congregation of lay brothers connected with the said hospice and known as the Brothers Hospitallers of St. John the Baptist in Jerusalem. The Turks having succeeded, however, the Saracens in Palestine, the hospice was plundered, the brethren imprisoned, and on the conquest of Jeru- salem by Godfrey de Bouillon, in 1099, their first superior, Gerard, had been found in prison. Released from confinement, he had resumed his duties, and the order over which he had presided had been joined by some of the Crusaders, who desired to devote them- selves to the care of poor and suffering pilgrims. By Gerard's advice, the brethren took the vow of poverty, chastity and obedience; and Pascal II., then Pope, gave his official sanction to the establishment of the order in A.D. 1113. Gerard was succeeded, in 1120, by a certain Ruggiero, who was in turn succeeded, on his death in 1131, by the famous Raymond du Puy, who drew up a body of statutes for the order based on the rules of St. Basil and St. Benedict, partaking Inner Temple and Garden NOKMAN LONDON. 121 somewhat of the severity of the one and of the greater mildness of the other. To the former obligations he added those of fighting against the infidels and pro- tecting the Holy Sepulchre ; and thus the order ceased to be purely religious and charitable, and came to be at once monastic and military. The example of the Knights of St. John soon led to emulation, and thus there arose in Jerusalem other orders also monas- tic and military, with very similar and only slightly divergent aims and duties. Amongst these, the most conspicuous, for a time at least, was undoubtedly that of the Knights Templar, or Soldiers of the Temple. These, then, were the military monks as they had appropriately been called, who, during the reign of Henry I., sought admission into England and founded houses in the neighborhood of London. The Priory of St. John of Jerusalem had already been established as a purely religious and charitable foundation in 1100 by one Jordan Briset and his wife Muriel, at Clerkenwell, to the northwest of the city, a little way out of Aldersgate, and when the order be- came one of chivalry, the Knights of St. John took possession of the place. The Priory of St. John now l)eeame greatly enlarged and beautified, and on the suppression of the Knights Templar in 1324 was en- dowed with the revenues of that illustrious body. These latter had established themselves at Holboru in 1118, also to the northwest of the city, beyond New- gate, where they remained until they finally removed 122 LONDON. to the splendid, and as they thought permanent, home which they had erected for themselves, near the Fleet, and which from them came to be known as the Temple. That Henry I. was both just and beneficent we have had already ample proof ; it is left but to add that his justice and charity were only equalled by his love of the beautiful and his taste in art and letters. That this was due greatly to the influence of each of his consorts in turn is very probable, for we learn that both were women of cultured minds, and that while the poets hastened to the court of Matilda of West- minster, to enjoy there her hospitality, read her their verses and seek her patronage, in later years the influ- ence of Alice of Lou vain was none the less marked on the art and manners of the times. Under Stephen of Blois, who may be said to have usurped the throne and who held it for some nineteen years, the whole structure of society was again shaken to its foundation. Turbulence and anarchy succeeded to order and discipline, and the court itself fell into a condition analogous to that of the rest of the country. The citizens of London had every reason to regret the alacrity with which they had hailed him as king on the death of Henry, in detriment to the claims and title of Matilda, his daughter, and her infant son, Henry Plantagenet. London, however, kept her promise to the king of her choice, but Stephen failed to keep his to her. The annals of his reign are a NORMAN LONDON. 123 terrible record of wars and robberies, and, as though to prove the old maxim, "misfortunes never come alone," the elements seemed also in league against the city, for in 1136, the year after Stephen had assumed the reins of government, the third of London's great fires devastated a large part of the city. The fire started near London Stone, adjoining the church of St. Swithin, in the very heart of the city. It spread westward along the Watling Street as far as St. Paul's, where it destroyed the shrine of St. Erkenwald ; then, turning eastward, it spread itself in the direction of London Bridge, which it completely consumed, so that that great relic of Roman and Saxon London was entirely destroyed. A few years later Stephen, after a reign filled with vicissitudes and military disasters, died. With him the Norman line came to an end, and Henry Plantagenet ascended the throne. In reviewing the Norman period, and its influence on London, the most striking thing, perhaps, is the immense growth and influence of the ecclesiastical establishment, especially in reference to the foundation of monastic and other religious houses, and the valu- able privileges and endowments obtained by them privileges and endowments which came to be even more important under the succeeding dynasty. The principal churches of Norman foundation, not con- nected with any of the monastic and other religious establishments already alluded to, were those of St. Mary the Virgin (Aldermanbury), and St. Helen's, 124 LONDON. usually called Great St. Helen's. The first of these was erected about 1116, a little to the north of the city, on what is now the north side of Love Lane, Cripplegate. It suffered destruction in the great fire of 1666, and was, with so many others, rebuilt under Sir Christopher Wren. The second was, if popular tradition be credited, founded in 1145. It was and is now situated on what has come to be known as Great St. Helen's Place, on the east side of Bishops- gate Street Within. The church was at first simply a parish church, but, in 1212, when, by the munificence of a certain William, son of William the Goldsmith, the Priory of the Nuns of St. Helen was established in the immediate neighborhood, a new church was erected, which was connected with the priory and dependent thereon, and which served the double pur- pose of oratory for the priory and the parish church. Another Norman foundation w r as that of St. Giles, just outside the walls, near Cripplegate, erected as early as 1090, during the reign of William II. by a certain Alfune, afterwards first hospitaller of St. Bartholomew's Hospital. The church, however, hav- ing fallen into great disrepair, was rebuilt late in the fourteenth century. This second edifice was much injured by the fire of 1545, and the church had there- fore to be a third time reconstructed. Other founda- tions, though these were connected with hospitals, were St. Alphage, by London Wall, and St. Katherine, by the Tower. The former of these was connected with NORMAN LONDON. 125 the priory and hospital of St. Mary the Virgin, founded by one William Elsyng, " for the sustentation of one hundred blind men." Spital (to whom we owe the term of Spitalfields) was the first prior. The original St. Alphage, which was situated near Alders- gate, was in existence as early as 1068. In the reign of Henry VIII. it had come to be in a ruinous con- dition, and the parishioners petitioned to be allowed to rebuild it. This was not granted, but the king let them have the chapel of St. Mary Elsyng for the sum of one hundred pounds a year. The old church was then pulled down, and some of the materials sold, while the remainder were used to repair the chapel. The foundation of St. Katherine by the Tower took place in 1148. This free chapel was connected with a royal hospital and college, all three of which had been founded by Matilda of Boulogne, consort of Stephen I. It was greatly enlarged in 1273, by Eleanor of Castile, consort of Edward I., and again by Philippa of Hainault, consort of Edward III. The hospital and college, which had been placed per- petually under the patronage of the royal consorts of England, suffered the fate of the other religious houses under Henry VIII., but was in a measure re-established by Elizabeth. The church or chapel, of decorated Gothic, stood on the east side of what was then called St. Katherine's Court, close to the Thames, a little below the Irongatc of the Tower, 126 LONDON. and therefore without the city walls. It was a fine building, about sixty-nine feet in length and sixty feet in width, with a choir sixty-three feet in length and twenty-three feet wide, divided by a handsome Gothic screen. The construction of St. Katherine's docks compelled its removal, and services were held in the church for the last time on October 30, 1823. That society during the Norman period was in a very crude state, and remained so under the Planta- genets, there is every evidence to prove ; yet, as we have already seen, both of the consorts of Henry I. were women of culture and refinement, who attracted to their court many men of wit and learning, and while the Saxon period may truthfully be said to have produced only two great names in literary an- nals the venerable Bede and the famous Csedmon to the Norman period we owe quite a number of illus- trious names. It was during the reign of Henry I. that Geoffrey of Monmouth produced his wonderful " Historye " of Britain, to which we owe an account, interesting though not veracious, of pre-Roman Britain, and which was embellished also by marvellous tales concerning Arthur and the equally celebrated Knights of the Round Table. It was almost simultaneously with this that the so-called Chronicle of Turpin made its first appearance, and also the Alexandrian ro- mances by the pretended Dares Phrygius and Dictys Cretensis, which were introduced into England by re- turning Crusaders. Thus the reign of Henry I. and NORMAN LONDON. 127 that of his successor saw the birth, as it were, of ro- mantic literature, which for centuries aroused enthu- siasm throughout Europe ; and not only were poets and historians welcomed at court, but under Matilda of Scotland, Alice of Louvain, and the illustrious con- sort of Stephen I., Matilda of Boulogne, the very foundations were laid of that elegant structure called modern society. 128 LONDON. CHAPTER V. LONDON UNDER THE PLANTAGENETS. Accession of Henry II. The New Dynasty Thomas & Becket Completion of London Bridge The Building of the Temple The Church of St. John Richard I. and the Crusades Lep- rosy in London The Founding of St. James' Hospital King John The Great Charter The Craft-Guilds The Weavers' Company Guild Hall The First Mayor of London Serlo le Mercer Accession of Henry Building of the Savoy Devel- opment of the Ecclesiastical Establishments Westminster Abbey The Dominicans in London Blackfriars in Castle Baynard Arrival of the Franciscans Greyfriars at Newgate The Carthusians in Chancery Lane Arrival of the Car- melites Whitefriars The Old and the New Jewries Eag Fair Simon de Montford The Rise of the Companies They Obtain Charters from Walter Harvey, Mayor Eleanor of Cas- tile Charing Cross Marriage of Edward I. and Margaret of France Civic Pageants Tilts and Tournaments The King Grants Charters to the Companies Their Rules and Regula- tionsThe Charter of Maces The Lord Mayor of London The Wards The Wards Without The Companies Erect their own Halls The Power of the Church The Bishop of London The New St. Paul's The Parishes The Parishes Without The Churches Extant Plantagenet Churches Great St. Helen's St. Giles (Cripplegate) Arrival of the Cistercians- East Minster Foundation of the Charter House Dissolution of the Knights Templar The Inns of Court The Inner, Middle and Outer Temple Lincoln's Inn Gray's Inn Their Rules and Regulations City Improvements Street Architec- ture in Plantagenet Times Condition of the Cheap The LONDON UNDER THE PLANTAGENETS. 129 Development of Social Life The Archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth Palace The Archbishop of York at Whitehall Rochester House Durham House Ely House Civic Enter- taining Amusements of the Citizens The Beginnings of the Tavern as an Institution The Albion Tavern at Aldersgate The Horn Tavern at the Fleet The Cock Tavern West- minster The White Hart, Southwark The Tabard and the Canterbury Pilgrims Letters in the Plantagenet Days. WHEN Henry Plantagenet ascended the throne, under the name of Henry II., he came into those rights of which, it was claimed by his adherents, he had long been unjustly deprived; for, when dying, Henry I., in 1135, leaving no male issue, had be- queathed the crown to his daughter Matilda, widow of Henry IV., Emperor of Germany, whom he had caused to marry in second nuptials Geoffrey Plau- tagenet, Earl of Anjou, and thus Henry became the rightful claimant to the throne, he being her son by her second husband. The seizure of the crown by the late king's nephew, Stephen, son of his sister Adela, wife of Stephen, Earl of Blois, was though supported by some of the barons, who disliked the idea of a woman, in the person of Matilda, ascending the throne held to be illegal, as contrary both to Anglo- Saxon and Norman custom and tradition. Whatever may have been the abstract merits of the case, it cer- tainly ended in a desperate struggle, which was only terminated by the truce of Wallingford in 1153. During all this time London had been frequently the scene of the strife, and the consequences upon the VOL. I. 9 130 LONDON. city had been of a very demoralizing nature. Law and order, justice and authority, were constantly set at naught by the ever-varying stages of the game. The Londoners were literally torn from one side to the other in the struggle. Matilda, when at one time she became mistress of the situation, sought to punish them for their former allegiance to Stephen by depriving them of all their liberties. She rescinded the grants that her father and grandfather had made to the city, and even went so far as to give Middlesex to the Earl of Essex to farm, granting him the Tower of London as his castle, appointing him at the same time to the sheriffship of London, as well as of Mid- dlesex, and to the office of justieiar; so that no person could hold any pleas in either city or county without his sanction. By this monstrous act she did what the Londoners had always feared would occur that is, she destroyed at one blow all their privileges, reducing them to the position of a "demesne" with an over- lord entitled to plunder and oppress at will. As may be supposed, the citizens were immediately aroused, and a deputation was sent to "Winchester, where the estates of the realm had been assembled to recognize Matilda as Queen of England. Here they clamored loudly for the release of Stephen, then in prison ; for even the evils of his reign were as naught to the then existing state of things. Notwithstanding the repre- sentations made to her at St. Albans by a special deputation sent to her by her adherents within the Coronation Chair, Westminster Abbey LONDON UNDER THE PLANTAGENETS. 131 city, she determined upon proceeding to the capital ; and there, while she succeeded in compelling a respect- ful reception, the citizens hoping for a repeal of the offensive enactments, she behaved in such a manner, and so disdained their petitions, as to antagonize even her best friends, and was finally compelled to retire. With the accession of Henry II., London's day of triumph came. Henry, however, proved himself quite equal to the idea entertained of his abilities, and his first acts augured a return of that justice and tran- quillity of which the city, and, in fact, the entire king- dom, had for so very long been deprived. He at once dismissed the mercenaries, who had been brought to- gether to protect their interests by his predecessors, and revoked all unjust measures made by Stephen, and those which had been attempted by his mother, or, as her partisans claim, forced upon her by the stress of circumstances. He reformed the coin, and was both stern and just in his suppression of robbery and violence; and again granted to London and its citizens those liberties and privileges of which they had been deprived during the preceding reign. Never, in fact, did reign open more auspiciously. With his accession, a new life, as well as a new dynasty, had its beginning. It was claimed for London by a contem- porary writer that it possessed at this time "the most wholesome of climates, the most fortunate situation, the strongest of fortresses, the most chaste of matrons, the most honorable, just and pious of citizens, and 132 LONDON. among them the greatest number of then living illus- trious names." In fact, even with allowance for the buoyancy of this exordium, everything seemed to prognosticate, as it were, the great movements of the thirteenth century, and the very buoyancy thus alluded to would have seemed to have indicated a certain newness and fresh- ness of surrounding. And indeed the city, though still encircled by its ancient walls, was, in truth, in a large measure new, for the destruction caused by the fire of 1136 had compelled vast works of reconstruc- tion. The Londoners, feeling more sure of their po- sition and secure in their rights and privileges, gave themselves up to peaceful occupations of commerce and the arts of trade. They had weathered the storm, and come out victorious from under the heel of op- pression. Everysvhere and in everything there seemed to sound the bugle-note of a new life. Bishop Fitz- meal was arduously at work at a codification of the laws ; Ralph de Diss was engaged in his deanery on his epitome of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and the curate of Colechurch, a certain Peter, who had in 1176 been commissioned by Henry to undertake the task, was completing his plans for the new bridge which was to immortalize him. London Bridge had, through floods and fires, suffered so severely that it was held to be decidedly unsafe. The king, therefore, determined that, instead of constantly re- curring repairs, a completely new bridge should be LONDON UNDER THE PLANTAGENETS. 133 erected. Thus did the last vestige of the old Roman and Saxon bridge, which had served such useful pur- pose, disappear, and a stone structure span the river instead. Here must we pause to give a passing tribute to a remarkable man. Simultaneously almost with the accession of Henry II., there arose in England a man, who while he cannot perhaps be said to belong properly speaking to the history of England's greatest city, yet from the high position hi both Church and State which he attained, and the great influence which he exercised over the king and the greatest minds of his time, deserves special mention. This man was Thomas & Becket, Archbishop, Chancellor and mar- tyr. The son of a London merchant, he showed at an early age a rare taste and aptitude for literary and philosophical pursuits. Having interested Theobald, then Archbishop of Canterbury, he was sent to study at Oxford and at Bologna. On his return from Italy, he entered the church, and rose rapidly to honors and distinction. In 1158, four years after his accession, he was made Chancellor by Henry II., and the fol- lowing year accompanied the king on his journey to France, with a large and splendid retinue. Three years later, in 1162, he became Archbishop of Canter- bury. His resignation from the office of Chancellor, which occurred shortly afterwards, his controversy with the king concerning the limits of ecclesiastical and civil authority, his refusal to sign the " Constitu- 134 LONDON. tions of Clarendon," his suspension from his high office, his flight to France, his subsequent reconcilia- tion with Henry II., and finally his assassination at Canterbury, are all well-known pages in his history. In 1173 his canonization followed, and some fifty years later his remains were translated to a splendid shrine, which came to be loaded with rich offerings and to attract many pilgrims. The new London Bridge in the meantime had been nearing its completion, and was finally declared fin- ished in 1209. A chapel had already (in 1190) been erected in memory of St. Thomas a Becket on the spot where the house in which he was born had stood in Cheapside, and in conjunction with which a hospital had been founded, under the name of St. Thomas of Aeon, by the deceased's sister, Agnes a Becket. The name of Aeon had been appended because of the pop- ular belief that Aeon, or Acre, in Syria, had been captured by the Crusaders through his miraculous interposition. It was now thought suitable that a chapel to his memory should adorn the new bridge, and one was accordingly erected thereon. A row of houses sprang up on either side, so that the bridge was thus made to resemble a continuous street. At both extremities fortified gates gave access to the thor- oughfare, and on the pinnacles of these it became customary to expose the heads of traitors. Nor were the houses, so romantically situated over the water's edge, without histories equally romantic. In one of LONDON UNDER THE PLANTAGENETS. 135 these there lived, in the days of Queen Elizabeth, Sir John Hewitt, then Lord Mayor; and, according to a much-believed tradition, his daughter one day, in leaning out of the window, fell into the river, from which she was rescued by a gallant youth, one Edward Osborne, apprentice to her father, who subsequently won and wed her whom he had rescued, and became the founder of the ducal house of Leeds. The year 1170 saw the beginning of a construc- tion perhaps equally celebrated as London Bridge that vast pile of buildings which has in its aggregate come to be designated as the Temple. The Knights Templar had, as we hav seen, established themselves in Holborn, beyond Newgate, during a preceding reign. They soon, however, found their temporary quarters both unpleasant and overcrowded, and they deter- mined, therefore, to have a place of abode and wor- ship suitable to their exalted station and distinguished aims. Thus commenced the erection of the Temple. The site selected was the river edge, between the city and Westminster, and a little to the west of the Fleet. Completed in 1184, the Knights Templar removed thither, and four years later we find them thoroughly at home and established in their new quarters. This great pile of buildings was divided into a so-called Inner, Middle and Outer Temple, in connection, it has been held, with their relative position in reference to the city the Inner Temple being that which lay furthest to the east, and therefore the nearest to the 136 LONDON. protection afforded by the city walls, while the Outer Temple was that which was nearest to Westminster, and therefore the furthest from the city. The most im- portant buildings of the large aggregation of cloisters, chambers, armories, public halls and oratories was, as it remains to-day, the church of the Temple, which was the principal place of worship of the knights and their attendants, and is situated within the Inner Temple. It consists of two parts the Round Church and the Choir. The former, distinctly Norman in character, dates from 1185, as is testified to by an inscription in Saxon characters, formerly on the stonework over the little door next to the cloisters. It was dedicated to Herac- lius, Patriarch of Jerusalem. The Choir, on the other hand, which is pure Early English, was not completed until 1240. On the suppression of the Order of the Templars under Edward II., in 1313, and when the Temple itself passed into the hands of the Benchers of the two societies of the Inner and Middle Temple, the church became the place of worship of these latter and of the students of the Common Law, and has so remained. The old edifice, one of the most interesting and noteworthy in London, sustained some damage by fire and other accidents at different times. It was, in part, rebuilt in the latter part of the seventeenth cen- tury, and the whole structure put into thorough repair in 1839-'42, in perfect twelfth and thirteenth century taste. The monuments were not all permitted to re- LONDON UNDEK THE PLANTAGENETS. 137 main where they were originally erected, but in some instances were replaced to conform with architectural canons. Many have been removed to the triforium. The principal ones are of William, Earl of Pembroke, Earl Marshal and Lord Protector during the minority of Henry III. (died 1119), and a group of monu- mental effigies of Knights Templar, the names of which are uncertain. There are also monuments to the learned Selclen and Plowden, the jurists, Richard Martin, to whom Jonson dedicates his Poetaster, James Howell, the letter-writer, and Edmund Gibbon. Lord Chancellor Thurlow is buried under the south aisle, while Oliver Goldsmith lies in the burial ground, east of the choir, without the church itself. With the accession of Richard I., surnamed the Lion Heart (Cceur de Lion), who succeeded to his father without opposition, the chief magistrate of London assumed a new title, that of mayor. Henry Fitz-Aylwyu, or Fitz-Eylwyn, who was the first to enjoy this title, was a man remarkable for his recti- tude and justice. Pie has wrongly been held respon- sible, however, for the riots which occurred at Rich- ard's coronation, and the massacre of the Jews, which followed ; but as the coronation of the king occurred on September 3, 1189, the massacre taking place the day following, and as the new sheriffs, Henry of Cornhill and Richard Fitz Reyner, only took their oaths on Michaelmas Day, September 29, everything would go towards proving that the new mayor, 138 LONDON. unless, as is possible, he first acted in behalf of his fellow-citizens as butler at the coronation banquet, only came into office on the November 9 following. Richard is usually known to fame as the hero of the Third Crusade, the champion of the oppressed in Palestine ; but whatever he may have accomplished in the way of permanently benefitting Christians in the East and it is doubtful if he was particularly successful in this direction for his own country he did but little ; and whatever may have been his martial qualities, we find but small record of his generosity or justice in his dealing with London and its citizens. The new life which had just sprung up was almost crushed by his exactions, and all breathed more freely when he had departed on his travels, leaving the ad- ministration of his kingdom to his Chancellor, Long- champs, Bishop of Ely, who immediately took up his residence in the Tower. The conduct of this prelate was not, however, such as to appease the anxiety of the citizens. He immediately commenced great works of defence, encroaching on the city boundaries there- by, and causing great alarm and offence to the citizens by so doing. But he still further enraged the public when he caused the Bishop of Durham, whom the king had designated as his co-regent, to be seized and imprisoned, and insulted Geoffrey, Archbishop of York. These acts brought the indignation of the nation to a climax, and John, the king's youngest brother, seeing therein a means of furthering his own LONDON UNDER THE PLANT AGE NETS. 139 ambitions, lost no time in summoning a court about him, at the chapter house of St. Paul's, to consider the deposition of the regent. A letter from Richard, then at Messina, and which defined and limited the powers of the regent, was read aloud, and a deputation sent to the Tower to apprise Longchamps of the decision whereby he was removed. He immediately came to terms, and was permitted, in return, to cross the river to Bermondsey, from which place he escaped to the continent. The adventures of Richard, his deeds of valor, the success of his arms against Saladin, his subsequent misfortunes, and his detention at the hands of Henry IV., Emperor of Germany, on the return journey, be- long rather to the general history of his reign than to the chronicle of London events. Notwithstanding his long absence, he was warmly welcomed, however, on his return, and granted to the citizens a renewal of the charter of Henry II., a favor for which they doubtless paid heavily. The city was also burdened to pay a share of the king's ransom, and to defray the expenses of a second coronation, which took place on his return. A second time the citizens assembled to the ringing of the burghmote bell in the church- yard of St. Paul's, but the meeting did not avail, and a riot ensuing, a number of the citizens were slain. Their leader, a certain William Longbeard, whose real name was Fitz-Osbert, was apprehended and paid with his life the penalty of his leadership. In 1198 140 LONDON. Richard granted a second charter, this one relating to the Thames Conservancy. A year later he died in Normandy of a wound received at the siege of the castle of Chaluz. Arthur, Duke of Brittany, the son and heir of his next brother Geoffrey, being a minor, the crown of England was assumed by Rich- ard's youngest brother, John. The reign of Richard, important though it may be to the historian of the Crusades, is but of slight im- portance in respect to its influence on the capital of England. The increased traffic with the East, brought about by the Crusades, and the return of the first knights from their chivalric venture, had, however, been largely instrumental in the importation and introduction into England of a variety of Oriental scourges, of which, perhaps, not the least alarming was that dread disease, the leprosy. In fact, so largely had the number of victims of this awful pes- tilence increased in London that it was held advisable, and indeed found necessary, as early as the first year of Richard's reign, to establish a hospital in which these unfortunates could find a shelter, and, while isolated from the rest of the community, receive proper care, treatment and attention. Thus, in the year 1190, was the Hospital of St. James for Lepers founded, in what was then a more or less isolated locality, to the west of the city and to the north of Westminster. This foundation was some centuries later transformed into a royal residence by Henry LONDON UNDER THE PLANTAGENETS. 141 VIII., and became the present St. James' Palace, in which his daughter Mary held her court and finally expired, and one portion of which, denominated York House, the present Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York made until recently their London residence. Under John the struggle for liberty continued both in London and throughout the kingdom. Hardly was he seated on the throne, than " twenty of the more discreet men " were sworn together by the mayor to take counsel on behalf of the city. That this measure was productive of some results is evidenced by the granting of no less than five charters in years imme- diately following, and though of these some were unimportant and obtained only on heavy payments, yet by them certain privileges and advantages were derived. But the struggle was not altogether between the king and citizens. A great rivalry existed be- tween the wealthier burgesses and the ordinary crafts- men, and the prudhommes were at every election arrayed against the latter. The wards were in the hands of the landowners, and the aldermen themselves were very much in the position of lords of manors. Their office, originally elective and for a specified term, had become indeterminate in its length of dura- tion, and, to all intents and purposes, practically hereditary. These so-called "barons of the city" formed, in truth, an oligarchy, and practically con- trolled the whole machinery of civic government, the merchant guild, the revenues of the city and the ]42 LONDON. trade regulations. It was to fight this tyranny, this species of trust, that the craft guilds were at first organized. The craftsmen saw that, unless all of the same craft were joined together, their efforts at stem- ming the tide of oppression were worse than useless. That guildship was of very great antiquity in London, and indeed in all the cities of England, we have historic evidence. We have already seen that a "fritiigild" had come into existence as early as the days of JEthelstan, and the foundation of the Knighten-Guild, or Young Men's Guild of London, is attributed to Edgar. This guild, which obtained a charter from Edward the Confessor, was subse- quently honored also by recognition by Henry I. At first the guilds were merely for the purposes of mutual help and encouragement among the members of the same craft. They were, in fact, originally founded to enable their members to comply most conveniently with the exactions of the frankpledge, which required of every freedman of fourteen years of age to find sureties for his good behavior. The price of life and limb was paid by the family or house of the wrong- doer to the family or house of the man wronged the first effort, it may be said, of the then dawning civil- ization to make clear to all that a wrong to one man was a wrong to the community. As the fine or "bloodwitte" was heavy, ten families combined to- gether and formed themselves into a guild, all being equally responsible for an offence committed by any LONDON UN DEE THE PLANTAGENETS. 143 member of the guild, though they had in return the privilege of acting as compurgators, who investigated the case, and by their attestations under oath in regard to the merits of the case were not infrequently of much influence in deciding the guilt or innocence of the accused. The members of each guild met once a month at dinner, partly for social purposes and to discuss business, partly to keep a watchful eye on one another; and by a natural process of evolution these "JrUhgHda" very soon developed into trade guilds, the members of which bound themselves not only to encourage trade mutually in times of prosperity, but also to assist the members in times of distress, to help them over embarrassments incurred by illness, to bury the indigent members, and to pay for masses for the repose of the souls of deceased brethren. These guilds were of three kinds religious, or purely social, mercantile, and lastly those of handi- craftsmen. The latter had been founded really in self-defence, for the traders having grown powerful and somewhat tyrannical, the craftsmen were, as we have seen, actually driven, in their desperate efforts to obtain justice and their share of the city's govern- ment, to form craft guilds, as representing the com- monalty, as opposed to the mercantile guilds, which represented the city aristocracy, or so-called "city barons." It was the same struggle, under different name, as that which is to-day still going on between trusts and labor unions. The guilds of handicrafts- 144 LONDON. men had come to be eighteen in number. Their senior officer often bore the title of alderman, but this title had no connection with that of the municipal officer of that name. United though they might be in all things that bore on their fight against the mercantile guilds and the city magnates, they were not, however, always united among themselves. Thus the Goldsmiths would fall out with the Tailors, and the Tanners with the Cloth Merchants. The Weav- ers, on the other hand, because of their greater an- tiquity an antiquity disputed only by the Saddlers a guild of unquestioned Saxon origin, superior wealth and more perfect organization, excited the envy of the other guilds, and so the internecine war was con- tinued. These latter (the Weavers) had succeeded in obtaining formal recognition from the crown, and as early as 1130 they had received a charter from Henry I., while a second or confirmatory charter was accorded them by Henry II. This interesting docu- ment, which bears the date of 1154, is rendered even more so, perhaps, by the fact that it bears the seal of Thomas a Becket. Later they obtained from Edward I. a charter so generous in its liberties that they assumed the right of almost independent self- government a right which the municipal authorities could not possibly recognize, and a verdict against them and their pretensions was obtained in the fol- lowing reign. It is probably in consequence of this that the Weavers' Guild came to be divided into that LONDON UNDER THE PLANTAGENETS. 145 of the Woollen Drapers, the Tailors, the Linen Ar- morers and others of the trade. Of such separate existence there is, however, no evidence before 1299, when the record of the Tailors' Company, which be- came that of the Merchant Tailors, commences. The other guilds wishing now, in conformity to the example of the Weavers, to secure legally the privi- leges which they had acquired by prescription, and also to possess a legally recognized corporate exist- ence, sought, by application to the crown, to ob- tain charters of incorporation, with the accompanying corporate rights. It cannot be said that they met with any very decided or immediate success. The royal executive was extremely reluctant to place any such instrument of power in the hands of any of the guilds; and no other charter was actually granted until the Goldsmiths, Skinners and Merchant Tailors obtained theirs in 1327 from Edward III. Indeed, their efforts to secure legal recognition had a result quite the contrary to that which they anticipated and hoped for. The influence of the mercantile party, or "city barons," did much to thwart their efforts, and instead of a legal recognition of corporate rights, they not only did not secure charters, but were actually heavily fined for not possessing them. This fine was imposed on all unchartercd guilds as a species of annual tax, and marked a decided victory for the mercantile party and " city barons " ; but while it has popularly been supposed that this measure had as its VOL. I. 10 14G LONDON. result practically the dissolution of the handicrafts- men's guilds, such was not the case, and, in the same record which mentions the penalty above referred to, we find their names a little later. They came, how- ever, possibly in consequence, to be all included in one general association or Town Guild, which had its place of meeting in a hall denominated Guildhall, which stood in Aldermanbury, near Cripplegate, very near the site of the present edifice. The very tyrants who thus oppressed the craftsmen class in the city were among those who extorted the "Magna Charta" from John on June 15, 1215. Geoffrey Fitz-Piers was, in fact, a descendant of that first Geoffrey, the portreeve to whom William of Nor- mandy addresses himself in his first charter. He only survived Henry Fitz-Alwyn, the first mayor, one year, but Archbishop Langton took his place at the head of the barons, and, on May 12, 1213, threw open the gates to their forces, led by Robert Fitz- Water, who was the standard-bearer of the city. The great charter having, however, secured to the citizens some of their privileges and liberties, among which was that of electing their own mayor, the Com- mons, or popular party, determined that they also should enjoy some of the fruits of the struggle in which they had taken so important a part, and that the mayoralty and all the official places should in the future not be held by city barons. The election of Serlo le Mercer to the civic chair, the very year LONDON UNDER THE PLANTAGENETS. 147 of the signing of the " Magna Charta," is significant, inasmuch as he was the first member of a craft to secure the mayoralty. That he had no aristocratic surname is shown by the fact that he was known by his occupation. In the removal of Jacob Alderman from the mayoralty in 1216, and the substitution of Solomon de Basinges, we find a temporary triumph of the aristocratic party and a set back for the Com- mons; but Serlo le Mercer was again elected in 1217, and held the mayoralty for five consecutive years. He was succeeded, in 1227, by Roger le Due, a man of old family and of what, if it is admissible to use here the Roman term, may be called the " patrician " party. All went peaceably the first year, but in the second of his administration a contest arose in regard to his two deputies, the sheriffs, Henry de Cockam and Stephen Bukerel, who were also of old and dis- tinguished families, and had held office under Roger le Due for two consecutive terms; and so strongly did the popular party make themselves felt that all the aldermen and principal citizens joined in an oath that in the future the same man should never serve as sheriff for two consecutive terms. Roger le Due o was succeeded in the civic chair by Andrew Bukerel in 1231, and the latter held office until 1238, when Richard Reinger was once more elected. Meanwhile, however, Henry III., John's eldest son, had succeeded to the throne on the death of his father in 1216. As this prince ascended the throne 148 LONDON. at the age of nine, it was some years before he was sufficiently mature to warrant an opinion of his character. As he grew to man's estate, and the real authority of the regal office devolved upon him, it was found that he was scarcely fitted by nature to hold in check and control his unruly barons. He was gentle, humane and merciful, but did not possess those qualities of force and convincing command which were essential to the successful ruler in those turbulent times. That he was in great need of money there seems to be no doubt. His military reverses, and the unsuccessful termination of several of his enterprises, had caused him serious financial embarrass- ment. Moreover, he had accepted from the Pope the crown of Sicily for his son Edmund, but had not the wherewithal to push his claims. His exactions from city and citizens became thus a severe burden. His consort, Eleanor of Provence, it was maintained had introduced a foreign influence at court. It was, in fact, for her uncle Peter, Count of Savoy, that Henry III., in 1245, caused to be constructed Savoy Palace, on the northern bank of the Thames, between the city and Westminster, which palace became his Eng- lish residence. He finally bestowed it, however, on the fraternity of Montjoy (" Fratres de Monte Jovis "), by whom it was converted into a priory of their order, atid thus came to be known as the Priory of Cornuto by Havering, at the Bower in Essex. It was bought of the friars by Eleanor herself, as a resi- LONDON UNDER THE PLANTAGENETS. 149 dence for Edmund, Earl of Lancaster. In 1293 a license to castellate was obtained. The whole place was altered and reconstructed by Henry, fourth Earl and first Duke of Lancaster ; and here John, King of France, was detained after the battle of Poictiers. The palace was sacked and burned by Wat Tyler and his followers in 1391, and seems to have lain quite neglected until 1505, when Henry VII. endowed it as a hospital for the relief of one hundred poor people, and dedicated the new foundation to St. John the Baptist. The hospital was suppressed in 1553, under Edward VI., but re-endowed by Mary, and con- tinued to be maintained as a hospital until the first year of the reign of Queen Anne, when it was finally dissolved. In 1666 it was here that the sick and wounded of the great Dutch War were lodged and cared for. The last vestige of the palace and hospital buildings was destroyed in making the approaches to Waterloo Bridge, and nothing to-day remains but the chapel, which, though dedicated to St. Mary le Savoy, yet as part inheritance of the Duchy of Lancaster, and therefore crown property, is more usually called the Chapel Royal of the Savoy. The building was of the perpendicular style, and stood north and south. It was largely restored in 1505-1508, and almost rebuilt in 1721 ; again repaired in 1820, and again in 1843 and 1860. Largely damaged by fire in July, 1864, it was restored by Queen Victoria at her own expense ; 150 LONDON. and the work of reconstruction was achieved under the supervision of Mr. Sidney Sniirke, R.A., the church being finally reopened for public worship by Dean Stanley on November 26, 1865. It has perhaps a special interest as the place where, on the Restoration, the