JOHN STOW

 

        John Stow was a patriotic Londoner who lived throughout the whole reign of Elizabeth, and into the reign of James the First.

        He was born in 1525, in the year of the Battle of Pavia, where Francis the First of France was taken prisoner.

        He was four years old when Wolsey and Cardinal Campeggio presided over a Court at Blackfriars to consider the question of the divorce of Catherine of Aragon by Henry the Eighth.

        He was eleven years old when the first edition of a complete English Bible was produced by Miles Coverdale, and a copy of it was ordered to be placed in every church in England.

        He was twenty two years old when Henry the Eighth died.

        In the reign of Edward the Sixth, John Stow, who had been born in the parish of St. Michael, Cornhill, the son (and grandson) of a tailor, completed his apprenticeship to the family business in the year 1549.

        In the days of the divorce of Queen Catherine, Stow had been a boy in a simple City household, many a time fetching half penny worths of milk from the farm at the nunnery of the Franciscan sisters, who were called not Minorites, but Minoresses, whence, by abbreviation, Minories.

        Forth or fifty milch-kine were then fed on the meadows there, and a halfpenny was the price, in summer, of three pints, in winter, of two pints, of new milk hot from the cow.

        The boy’s way to fetch milk was only along Leadenhall Street to the City gate, known as Aldgate, between Bevis Marks and Crutched Friars.

        Just outside that gate, the house and farm of the Minories lay to the right of him.

        A story told by Stow of his young days enables us to determine very nearly where his father the tailor lived.

        It must have been in Threadneedle Street, old tailors’ quarters; foe he has an illustration of the high handed dealing of great men in the days of Henry the Eighth, that touched his father’s house.

        Thomas Cromwell – Wolsey’s Cromwell – when, after Wolsey’s fall he had risen high in the king’s favour, bought some old tenements in Throgmorton Street, which he pulled down, to build upon their site a large house for himself.

        When the new house was built, there was a fair space for a garden to the south of it, which met the ends of the gardens running northward from Threadneedle Street.

        But Thomas Cromwell, as his garden was not large enough to please him, without payment offered or leave asked, simply pulled down the palings that were his neighbours’ landmarks to the north, pushed his own garden limit twenty two feet southward into the gardens of his neighbours, and then built them out with a high brick wall.

        Stow says that his father had a house – probably a summer house – at the end of his garden, and the great man had it taken up and moved on rollers, off the ground he had annexed, into that half of his garden which was left to Mr. Stow.

        But Mr. Stow had to go on paying the rent of the whole for the half that was left him, “because no man durst go to argue the matter”.

        The surveyors of the work had no answer to expostulations but that “Sir Thomas commanded them to do so”

        The ground here in question was very close to, if not actually on, the site of the present Stock Exchange.

        This sort of procedure was afterwards more restricted to commons, enclosures, and the blocking up of rights of way; a practice against which Shakespeare battled at Stratford in his latter days.

        The gardens invaded by Sir Thomas Cromwell must, have course, have run back from houses in Threadneedle Street, and as the date must have been 1531 or 1532 when Cromwell is known to have put new buildings on the ground of two messuages taken on a ninety nine year lease from the Austin Friars, this was a home incident of the time when the author of the “Survey of London” was a child of six or seven.

        At four and twenty, when his apprenticeship was at an end, and John Stow had himself become a master tailor, he was not living in Threadneedle Street, but near the well within Aldgate; for he records incidentally that in 1549, when he was living there, the bailiff of Romford “was executed upon the pavement of my door, where I then kept house”.

        John Stow must have lived by his occupation as a tailor for the next fourteen or fifteen years.

        But he was born to take a patriotic interest in the annals of his native country and his native city, and at the beginning of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, when his age was thirty three, he had gathered books about him for aid to his diligent search into the history of the past.

        He was then beginning to compile for himself, and he published in 1561, at the age of thirty six, “A Summarie of Englysh Chronicles”.

        Of this volume in its first edition, there is but one copy extant, which belongs to the Grenville Collection in the British Museum.

        It is in 120 leaves, but without the title page. Its date is determined by the text on the last page but one, where the Chronicle stands at the second year of the reign of Elizabeth.

        There was a second edition of Stow’s Summary of English Chronicles in 1565, and other editions in 1566, 1570, 1573, 1575, 1579, 1584, 1587, 1590, 1598, and 1604; that is to say, there were eleven editions in the author’s lifetime, the last of them published in the year before his death, and brought down by himself to 1604, the date of issue.

        John Stow’s digest of the Chronicles was, therefore, in Elizabeth’s reign one of the accepted short guides to a knowledge of the History of England.

        Elizabethan school boys learnt their history by committing to memory the Latin verses in which Christopher Ocland set forth “Anglorum Prælia” from 1327 to 1558, followed by “Elizabetha; De Pacatissimo Angliæ statu imperante Elizabetha”.

        The friendly acceptance of his Summary, and his own strong bent towards research, led John Stow, about the time when he was preparing for its first reprint, and when his age was about forty, to give up his business, that he might devote himself exclusively to the research in which he found the true use and enjoyment of his life.

        In the edition of his “Summarie” produced in 1573, he wrote – “It is now eight years since I, seeing the confused order of our late English Chronicles, and the ignorant handling of ancient affairs, leaving mine own peculiar gains, consecrated myself to the search of our famous antiquities”.

        This indication nearest to the time of giving up his trade for the one all absorbing pursuit, may be taken as best marking the time of that bold change, by which, for the love of intellectual research, he risked the coming of what really at last came, old age with poverty.

        In later editions he so counted the time since his first devoting himself to historical studies, that according to the edition of 1587, it was in 1584 he consecrated (him)self to the search of our famous antiquities; according to the edition of 1598 it was in 1562 he consecrated (him)self to the search of our famous antiquities    and, in his last edition, that of 1604, the old man wrote _”It is now nigh forth five years since I, seeing the confused order of our late English Chronicles, and the ignorant handling of ancient affairs, as also by occasion being persuaded by the Earl of Leicester, …..consecrated myself to the search of our famous antiquities”

        He adds in a side note to this paragraph in 1604 “I gave him a book complied by his grandfather, Edward Dudley”.

        These forty five years “now nigh” would bring us to the end of 1559 or the beginning of 1560, and so evidently dated from the time when he first began to prepare the “Summarie of Englysh Chronicles”, with the fact now added that he was encouraged to do so by the Earl of Leicester.

        Writers in Elizabeth’s time – except the dramatists – depended for support rather on patronage than on the money earned.

        John Stow, when he withdrew from his trade to give the rest of his life wholly to research, had, no doubt, a little store of means, inherited and saved from his past earnings, that would enable him to work steadily on until that further support came which he had right, if not reason, to expect.

        But his research cost money, he accumulated books, he paid no servile suit for patronage, his life reached to the age of eighty, and he was left in his last years very poor.

        Meanwhile, in the midway of his life, at the age of forty, he put away needle and thread, and devoted himself to the preparation of a fuller record of the Annals of England.

        A man surrounded with old books, he loved the past and studied it incessantly, exposed himself to criticism of the crowd who, as Chaucer observed, “demen gladly to the badder end”.

        He was regarded as a suspicious character.

        Two or three years after he had begun to give his whole life to his work, he was reported to Queen Elizabeth’s Council as “a suspicious person with many dangerous and superstitious books in his possession”.

        Edmund Grindal was then Bishop of London, by himself and through his chaplain one of the official licensers of books; they were the days also of active search of “recusants”, who remained Roman Catholics outside the English Church as it had been by law established .

        Grindal ordered his chaplain and two others to make search in John Stow’s study, and report on what they found there.

        As John Strype tells us, the chaplain reported concerning Stow “that he had great collections of his own for the English Chronicles wherein he seemed to have bestowed much travail. They found a great sort [assemblage] of old books printed; some fabulous, as of Sir Degorie, Triamour etc, and a great parcel of old MS Chronicles, both in parchment and paper. And that besides he had miscellaneous tracts touching physic, surgery, and herbs; and also others, written in old English, in parchment. But another sort of books he had more modern; of which the said Searchers thought fit to take an Inventory, as likely most to touch him; and they were books lately set forth in the realm or beyond sea in defence of Papistry. Which books, as the Chaplain said, declared him a great fautor [favourer] of that religion”.

        It was not permitted by the law of that day to prove all things as a security for holding fast that which was good. A loyally religious Englishman was expected by the government to be of one side without knowing what was said upon the other.

        Stow’s catholicity, as student of the past, brought him into trouble also at other times. He had a younger brother who abused the trust placed in him when employed in the business, and once brought him into peril by false witness against him.

        While John Stow was at work upon his “Annals”, he was disputing with a rival chronicler on behalf of his “Summarie of the Chronicles”.

        The passage from Latin Monastic Chronicles to Histories in English began with a Londoner, Robert Fabyan, if we leave out of account such early work as the rhymed Chronicle of England, written at the end of the thirteenth century by Robert of Gloucester, for recitation to the people, or the rhyming Chronicles of John Harding, who fought at Agincourt, and Andrew of Wyntoun.

        Robert Fabyan was a prosperous London draper, member of the Drapers’ Company, and Alderman for the Ward of Farrington without. He resigned his Alderman’s gown in the year 1502 to avoid the expense of the Mayoralty, for, although well to do, his wife presented him with sixteen children, of whom six were living  when their father died in 1512. Fabyan was a zealous student of the past, well versed in French and Latin, and a modest student of good literature. He wrote a “Concordance of Histories”, afterwards called “New Chronicles of England and France”, opened with a Prologue in Chaucer’s Stanza which represented its author as one who prepared material, for the skilled artist or historian who should come after him to perfect what he had rudely shaped. The Prologue ended with an invocation to the Virgin for help; and the seven parts of the prose Chronicle, which brought the history from the mythical founder of Britain to the year 1504, ended with seven metrical epilogues, entitled the Seven Joys of the Blessed Virgin.

        Fabyan also translated into English rhyme such Latin verses as he cited. Robert Fabyan’s Chronicle was first printed in 1516, four years after its author’s death, and nine years before Stow was born.

        The next English chronicler was Edward Hall, a Shropshire man, who after education both at Cambridge and Oxford entered at Gray’s Inn, was called to the bar, became Common Serjeant and Under Sheriff of London, and was in 1540 one of the judges of the Sheriffs’ Court. He died in 1547, while still at work upon his history of “The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancastre and Yorke”. This work, known as Halls’ Chronicle, is of high value.

        Richard Grafton was a Londoner, who signed himself in 1550, in the reign of Edward the Sixth, Printer to the King’s Majesty.

        Edward Hall’s Chronicle was in his hands, and he published it in 1548, the year after the author’s death, with some completions of his own, which he undertook, he said, Hall dying and “being in his latter time not so painful and studious as he ought to have been”.

        The first edition, therefore, of Hall’s Chronicle appeared when John Stow’s age was three and twenty.

        There was a second issue of it in the same year, and a fourth was reached in 1550. But in 1555, during the persecutions under Philip and Mary, the book was prohibited by Act of Parliament.

        Richard Grafton produced at the end of February 1563, an “Abridgment of the Chronicles of England, gathered by Richard Grafton, Citizen of London’.

        Stow’s “Summarie of English Chronicles” had first appeared in 1561. Grafton’s was, therefore, a rival book, of which there was a second edition in 1564, followed in 1565 by a still further abridgement into “A Manuell of the Chronicles of Englande from the Creacion of the Worlds to this Yere of our Lorde 1565. Abridged and collected by Richard Grafton”.

        This was a little book of a hundred leaves in 24mo, beginning with a Calendar in which the evil and unfortunate days, and such as are not altogether so evil, are noted, and ending with a List of Fairs.

        It was followed by two folio volumes, in 1568 and 1569, of “A Chronicle at large, and meere History of the Affayres of Englands, and Kinges of the same”.

        There was a second edition of this within the year, and of the “Abridgement” (not the “Manual’) another edition then followed in 1572, which was dedicated , as the first had been, to Robert Dudley, who had been Earl of Leicester since the end of September 1564.

        Grafton sought to discredit Stow’s work. Stow declared that Grafton’s “Manual” was “new scoured or cleanly altered” from Grafton’s “Abridgement”, after the buying of Stow’s “Summary”.

        The controversy  included little elegancies, such as Grafton’s play on the name of Stow when he condemned the “memories of superstitions, foundations, fables, and lies foolishly Stowed together”, or such as Stow’s hope that his work would not be defaced and overthrown “through the thundering noise of empty tonnes and unfruitful graftes of Momus’ offspring”.

        Grafton’s “Chronicle at large” in the two folios of 1568 and 1569, was not followed until 1580 by the result of John Stow’s larger research in “Annales, or a General Chronicle of England from Brute unto this present Year of Christ, 1580”.

        This was a quarto of 1215 pages, followed by an account of our Universities upon eight pages more, and it was dedicated to the Earl of Leicester.

        There was a second edition of it in 1592, another in 1601, and another in 1605, continued to the 26^th of March, within ten days of its author’s death.

        There were also two editions after Stow’s death, “continued and augmented by Edmond Howes”, which were published in 1615 and 1631, the edition of 1631 being again continued to date.

        But Stow had left completed at his death a yet larger Chronicle, which is now lost, and to which eh refers in the edition of his “Annales” published in 1605 “Thus, good reader, I desire thee to take these and other my labours in good part, like as I have painfully (to my great cost and charges) out of old hidden histories and records of Antiquity brought the same to light, and for thy great commodity bestowed them upon thee; so shalt thou encourage me, if God permit me life” [he was then eighty years old], “to publish or leave to posterity a far larger volume, long since by me laboured, at the request and commandment of the Reverend Father, Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury; but he then deceasing, my work was prevented, by printing and reprinting (without warrant or well liking) of Raigne Wolfe’s Collection, and other late comers, by the name of Ralphael Holinshed his Chronicle”.

        Archbishop Parker died in 1575, and the first edition of Holinshed’s Chronicle appeared in 1577, the second in 1586 and 1587. Holinshed’s was one of the two histories that Shakespeare used; the other was Hall’s Chronicle.

        The death of Archbishop Parker had deprived Stow of his one strong supporter.

        Parker was a devoted student of antiquity, with especial reference to the subject of his own main work, a folio published in Latin in 1572, on the Antiquity of the Church of Britain.

        Archbishop Parker required all servants in his house, when they had nothing else to do, to bind books, print from MSS, or engrave on copper.

        He caused Anglo Saxon types to be cut, and cultivated study of the Anglo Saxon Homilies as evidence of doctrine in the Early Church. He paid costs of the printing of four old historians, Matthew Paris, Matthew of Westminster, Thomas Walsingham, and Asser’s Life of Alfred; and except Asser, all of them were published at the suggestion and with the aid of John Stow; Matthew of Westminster in 1567, Matthew Paris in 1571, and Thomas Walsingham in 1574, the year before the Archbishop’s death.

        It was not till the next reign that John Speed, another patriotic tailor, thirty years younger than John Stow, published his fifty four maps of England and Wales, and in 1611 his “History of Great Britain under the Conquests of the Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Normans”.

        So much for Stow’s place among the Annalists of Britain, at a time when the rising forces of the nation gave new interest to study of the past.

        Stow’s researches into the History of England were followed by a concentration of his energies upon the book now under the reader’s eyes, a study of the present and past state of London.

        Here he could work without a rival at his large collections.

        He was the one Londoner who, in the reign of Elizabeth, made thorough study of his native city, and resolved to set down all he knew of its past history and present state.

        His “Survey of London”, of which the first edition was published in 1598, and the second, with revisions, in 1603, was the first of its kind, and even grows in interest by course and change of time.

        While engaged upon his record of London itself, Stow was engaged also in cherishing the memory of the greatest of all Londoners, the poet Chaucer.

        “His works”, Stow tells us in this volume, “”were partly published in print by William Caxton, in the reign of Henry VI; increased by William Thynne, esquire, in the reign of Henry VIII; corrected and twice increased through mine own painful labours, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, to wit, in the year 1561, and again, beautified with notes by me collected out of divers records and monuments which I delivered to my loving friend, Thomas Speght; and he, having drawn the same into a good form and method, as explained the old and obscure words, etc, hath published them in anno 1597”.

        The edition of Chaucer by William Thynne, chief clerk of the kitchen to Henry the Eighth, was published in 1532, and was the first attempt at a complete Chaucer.

        It was reprinted in 1542 with addition of “The Plowman’s Tale”, which was not written by Chaucer.

        The next edition was that of 1561, and John Stow was its only editor. He added to the volume Lydgate’s “Story of Thebes”.

        Next came the edition in 1597 or 1598 BY Thomas Speght, to whom Stow gave his additional materials, including “Chaucer’s Dream” and the “Flower and the Leaf”, which were then first printed.

        Afterwards came in 1602, printed by Adam Islip, a new edition of Speght’s Chaucer, with further additions.

        There was no demand for a reprint of that until 1687, and no other edition of Chaucer’s Works until Urry’s in 1721.

        Thus the impulse given by John Stow, and communicated to his friend Speght, represented all that was done to bring Chaucer home to English readers from 1542 to 1721, that is to say, during a period of one hundred and seventy nine years. Much honour to John Stow!

        We are told of Stow, by the friend who edited his “Annales”, not long after his death, that he was tall, lean, with small clear eyes and a pleasant cheerful face, that he was ‘very sober, mild, and courteous to any who required his instructions; and retained the true use of his senses unto the day of his death, being of an excellent memory. He always presented never to have written anything either for malice, fear, or favour, nor to seek his own particular gain and vain glory; and that his only pains and care was to write truth”.

        He had written, indeed, this rhyming caution in 1565-

        “Of smooth and flattering speech remember to take heed;

        For Truth in plain words may be told; of craft a Lie hath need,”

        He travelled much on foot to cathedrals and other places in search of records. He lived peacefully, and “was very careless of scoffers, backbiters and detractors”.

        But Stow “annaled for ungrateful men”.

        In his old age, after he had spent all the powers of his mind and all his worldly goods in service of his country, he was at the age of seventy nine, rewarded by his Sovereign with – a licence to beg. The date of the licence, March 8^th, 1603, being before the 25^th of the month, when 1604 officially began, was, according to the present way of reckoning, March 8^th, 1604.

        Stow died of stone colic, and was buried on the 8^th of April 1605 in the parish church of St. Andrew’s Undershaft, where his widow set up as monument a terra cotta figure of him reading in his chair.

        Some men in those days got Patents of Nobility for serving a king in his meaner pleasures.

For his nobler service to his country John Stow was rewarded with the Patent of Beggary which closes this short record of a kindly, busy, earnest life, made happy by the work he loved.

“James by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, Frances, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith etc

To all our well beloved Subjects greeting.

‘Whereas our loving subject, John Stowe (a very aged and worthy member of our City of London), this five and forty years hath to his great charge, and with neglect of his ordinary means of maintenance (for the general good, as well as posteritie as of the present age) compiled and published diverse necessary bookes and Chronicles; and therefore, We, in recompense of these his painful labours, and for encouragement to the like, have in our royal inclination been pleased to graunt our Letters Patent under our Great Seale of England, dated the eighth of March, 1603, thereby authorizing him, the sayd John Stowe, and his deputies, to collect amongst our loving subjects theyr voluntary contribution and kinde gratuities, as by the sayd Letters Patents more at large may appeare. Now, seeing that our sayd Patents (being but one in themselves) cannot be shewed  forth  in diverse places and parishes at once (as the occasions of his speedy outing that in execution may require) we have therefore thought expedient in this unusual manner to recommend his cause unto you; having already, in our own person, and of our special grace, begun the largesse for the example of others. Given at our place at Westminster”.

        With what sum his Majesty headed the list, when he took this unusual way of starting a subscription for which the solicitation was to be left to the old man himself, history does not record. It was in the following year, 1605, that Francis Bacon laid at the feet of James the First his “Two Books of Advancement of Learning.” But towards the Advancement of Learning, may we not believe that this poor tailor did more than the King?

¹¹¹¹¹¹

        This volume of Stow’s “Survey of London” gives the text of the author’s second edition, read with the first. Much was added in the second edition, and whatever was added to the text in 1603 is here included. Here and there I have retained a little fact worth keeping that Stow had written in his first edition and omitted from his second.

        The first edition having been in 1598, the second in 1603, within the author’s lifetime; there was a third in 1618; a fourth , in one folio volume, in 1633, enlarged by Anthony Munday and Henry Dyson, with a map of London and Westminster by T. Porter; a fifth, in 1720, in two folio volumes, edited by John Strype, with a two sheet plan of the City of London, Westminster, and Southwark, a map of London in Elizabeth’s time, and 41 plates.

Strype’s volumes was re-edited in a sixth edition of the “Survey”, published with 132 plates in two folios in 1754 and 1755. These later editions overlaid the text with new matter.

In 1842 Mr. William J. Thomas produced an edition of the original text in royal 8vo, with valuable notes. This was re-published in 1876.

Stow’s frequent citations of Fitzstephen caused him to append to his Survey the Latin text of Fitzstephen’s account of London in the twelfth century. “The said author being rare, as to my knowledge, not extant out of mine own custody, I have,” he wrote, “in this place, thought good by impression to impart the same to my loving friends, the learned Antiquaries, as the author wrote it in the Latin tongue.” I give it here in English.

A SURVEY OF LONDON

Containing the Original, Antiquity, Increase, Modern Estate and Description of that City

As the Roman writers, to glorify the city of Rome, derive the original thereof from gods and demi-gods, by the Trojan progeny, so Geoffrey of Monmouth, the Welsh historian, deduceth the foundation of this famous city of London, for the greater glory thereof, and emulation of Rome, lineally descended from the demi-god Æneas, the son of Venus, daughter of Jupiter, about the year of the world 2855, and 1108 before the nativity of Christ, built this city near unto the river now called Thames, and named it Troynovant, or Trenovant.

But herein, as Livy, the most famous historiographer of the Romans, writeth, antiquity is pardonable, and hath an especial privilege, by interlacing divine matters with human, to make the first foundation of cities more honourable, more sacred, and, as it were, of greater majesty.

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

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

The chief government of the Britons, and ordering of the wars, was then by common advice committed to Cassibelan, whose seigniory was separated from the cities towards the sea-coast by the river called Thames, about fourscore miles from the sea. This Cassibelan, in times past, had made continual war upon the cities adjoining; but the Britons being moved with the Roman invasion, had resolved in that necessity to make him their sovereign, and general of the wars, which continued hot between the Romans and them.

But in the meanwhile, the Troynovants, which was then the strongest city well near of all those countries, and out of which city a young gentleman, called Mandulbrace, upon confidence of Cæsar’s help, came unto him into the mainland of Gallia, now called France, and thereby escaped death, which he should have suffered at Cassibelan’s hand, sent their ambassadors to Cæsar, promising to yield unto him, and to do what he should command them, instantly (urgently) desiring him to protect Mandulbrace from the furious tyranny of Cassibelan, and to send him into their city with authority to take the government thereof unto him.

Cæsar accepted the offer, and appointed them to give unto him forty hostages, and withal to find him grain for his army; and so sent he Mandulbrace unto them.

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

For the Britons call that a town, saith Cæsar, when they have fortified a cumbersome wood with a ditch and rampart, and thither they resort to abide the approach of their enemies. To this place therefore marched Cæsar with his legions.

He found it excellently fortified, both of nature and by man’s advice. Nevertheless, he resolved to assault it in two several places at once, whereupon the Britons, being not able to endure the force of the Romans, fled out at another part, and left the town unto him. A great number of cattle he found there, and many of the Britons he slew, and others he took in the chase.

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

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

Thus far out of Cæsar’s Commentaries concerning this history, which happened in the year before Christ’s Nativity 54. In all which process there is for this purpose to be noted, that Cæsar nameth the city of Trinobantes, which hath a resemblance with Troynova, or Trinobantum, having no greater difference in the orthography than changing b into v, and yet maketh an error whereof I will not argue.

Only this I will note, that divers learned men do not think “civitas Trinobantum” to be well and truly translated, “the city of the Trinobantes;” but it should rather be the state, commonality, or seigniory of the Trinobantes; for that Cæsar in his Commentaries useth the word civitas, only for a people living under one and the self-same prince and law; but certain it is that the cities of the Britons were in those days neither artificially built with houses, nor strongly walled with stone, but were only thick and cumbersome woods, plashed (with branches half-cut to be bent and platted among those lefty growing, and so form a denser fence), within and trenched about.

And the like in effect do other the Roman and Greek authors directly affirm, as Strabo, Pomponius Mela, and Dion, a senator of Rome, which flourished in the several reigns of the Roman emperors, Tiberius, Claudius, Domitian, and Severus; to wit, that before the arrival of the Romans, the Britons had no towns, but called that a town which had a thick entangled wood, defended, as I said, with a ditch and bank; the like whereof, the Irishmen, our next neighbours, do at this day call Fastness.

But after that these hither parts of Britain were reduced into the form of a province by the Romans, who sowed the seeds of civility over all Europe; this city, whatever it was before, began to be renowned, and of fame. For Tacitus, who first of all authors nameth it Londinum, saith, that in the 62^nd year after Christ, it was, albeit no colony of the Romans, yet most famous for the great multitude of merchants, provision, and intercourse. At which time, in that notable revolt of the Britons from Nero, in which 70,000 Romans and their confederates were slain, this city, with Verulam, near St. Albans, and Maldon, in Essex, then all famous, were ransacked and spoiled. For Suetonius Paulinus, then lieutenant for the Romans in this isle, abandoned it, as not then forfeited, and left it to the spoil.

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

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

In few years after, as Simeon of Durham, an ancient writer, reporteth, Helen, the mother of Constantine, the Great, was the first that inwalled this city, about the year of Christ, 306. But however those walls of stone might have been built by Helen, yet the Britons, I know, had no skill of building with stone, as it may appear by that which followeth, about the year of Christ 399, when Arcadius and Honorius, the sons of Theodosius Magnus, governed the empire, the one in the east, the other in the west. For Honorius having received Britain, the city of Rome was invaded and destroyed by the Goths, after which time the Romans left (left off, ceased), to rule in Britain, as being employed in defence of their territories nearer home; whereupon the Britons, not able to defend themselves against the invasion of their enemies, were many years together under the oppression of two most cruel nations, the Scots and the Picts, and at length were forced to send their ambassadors with letters and lamentable supplications to Rome, requiring aid and succour from thence, upon promise of their continual fealty so that the Romans would rescue them out of the hands of their enemies.

Hereupon the Romans sent unto them a legion of armed soldiers, which coming into this island, and encountering with the enemies, overthrew a great number of them, and drove the rest out of the frontiers of the country; and so setting the Britons at liberty, counseled them to make a wall, extending all along between the two seas, which might be of force to keep out their evil neighbours, and then returned home with great triumph.

The Britons, wanting masons, built that wall not of stone as they were advised, but made it of turf, and that so slender that it served little or nothing at all for their defence; and the enemy perceiving that the Roman legion was returned home, forthwith arrived out of their boats, invaded the borders, overcame the country, and, as it were, bore down all that was before them.

Whereupon ambassadors were eftsoon despatched to Rome, lamentably beseeching that they would not suffer their miserable country to be utterly destroyed.

Then again another legion was sent, which coming upon a sudden, made a great slaughter of the enemy, and chased him home even to his own country. These Romans, at their departure, told the Britons quite plainly, that it was not for their ease or leisure to take upon them any more such long and laborious journeys for their defence, and therefore bade them practise the use of armour and weapons, and learn to withstand their enemies, whom nothing else did make so strong as their faint heart and cowardice.

And for so much as they thought that it would be no small help and encouragement unto their tributary friends whom they were forced now to forsake, they built for them a wall of hard stone from the west sea to the east sea, right between those two cities which were then made to keep out the enemy, in the self-same place where Severus before had cast his trench, the Britons also putting to their helping hands as labourers.

This wall they built eight feet thick in breadth, and twelve feet in height, right, as it were by a line, from east to west, as the ruins thereof remaining in many places until this day do make to appear.

Which work, thus perfected, they give the people strait charge to look well to themselves, they teach them to handle their weapons, and they instruct them in warlike feats. And lest by the seaside southwards, where their ships lay at harbour, the enemy should come on land, they made up sundry bulwarks, each somewhat distant from the other, and so bid them farewell, as minding no more to return.

This happened in the days of the Emperor Theodosius, the younger, almost 500 years after the first arrival of the Romans here, about the year after Christ’s incarnation, 434.

The Britons after this, continuing a lingering and doubtful war with the Scots and Picts, made choice of Vortigern, to be their king and leader, which man, as saith Malmesbury, was neither valorous of courage, nor wise of counsel, but wholly given over to the unlawful lusts of his flesh.

The people, likewise, in short time, being grown to some quietness, gave themselves to gluttony and drunkenness, pride, contention, envy, and such other vices, casting from them the yoke of Christ.

In the mean season, a bitter plague fell among them, consuming in short time such a multitude, that the quick were not sufficient to bury the dead; and yet the remnant remained so hardened in sin, that neither death of their friends, nor fear of their own danger, could cure the mortality of their souls.

Whereupon a greater stroke of vengeance ensued upon the whole sinful nation. For being now again infested with their old neighbours the Scots and Picts, they consult with their king Vortigern, and send for the Saxons, who shortly after arrived here in Britain, where, saith Bede, they were received as friends; but as it proved, they minded to destroy the country as enemies. For after they had driven out the Scots and Picts, they also drove the Britons, some over the seas, some into the waste mountains of Wales and Cornwall, and divided the country into divers kingdoms amongst themselves.

These Saxons were likewise ignorant of building with stone until the year 680; for then it is affirmed that Benet, Abbot of Wearmouth, master to the Reverend Bede, first brought artificers of stone houses and glass windows into this island amongst the Saxons, arts before that time unto them unknown, and therefore used they but wooden buildings.

And to this accordeth Policronicon, who says: “that then had ye wooden churches, nay wooden chalices and golden priests, but since golden chalices and wooden priests.”

And to knit up this argument, King Edgar in his charter to the abbey of Malmesbury, dated the year of Christ, 974, hath words to this effect: “All the monasteries in my realm, to the outward sight, are nothing but worm-eaten and rotten timber and boards, and that worse is, within they are almost empty, and void of Divine service.”

Thus much be said for walling, not only in respect of this city, but generally also of the first within the realm. Now to return to our Trinobant (as Cæsar hath it), the same is since by Tacitus, Ptolemæus, and Antoninus, called Londinium, Longidinum; of Ammiamus, Lundinum and Augusta, who calleth it an ancient city; of our Britons, Lundayne; of the old Saxons, Lundenceaster, Lundenbrig, Londennir; of strangers, Londra and Londres; of the inhabitants, London; whereof you may read a more large and learned discourse, and how it took the name, in that work of my loving friend, Master Camden, now Clarenceux, which is called “Britannia.” [William Camden’s “Britannia, sive florentissimorum Rehnorum Anglæ, Scotiæ, Hiberniæ. et Insularum adjacentium ex intima Antiquitate Chorographica Descriptio” was first published in 1586. There were eight editions of it between 1586 and 1590. Camden was made Clarenceux King of Arms in 1597].

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

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

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

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

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

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

And now touching the maintenance and repairing the said wall, I read, that in the year 1215, the 16^th of King John, the barons, entering the city by Aldgate, first took assurance of the citizens, then brake into the Jews’ houses, searched their coffers to fill their own purses, and after with great diligence repaired the walls and gates of the city with stones taken from the Jews’ broken houses.

In the year 1257, Henry III, caused the walls of this city, which were sore decayed and destitute of towers, to be repaired in more seemly wise than before, at the common charges of the city.

Also in the year 1282, King Edward I, having granted to Robert Kilwarby, Archbishop of Canterbury, licence for the enlarging of the Blackfriars’ Church, to break and take down part of the wall of the city, from Ludgate to the river of Thames; he also granted to Henry Wales, mayor, and the citizens of London, the favour to take, toward the making the wall and enclosure of the city, certain customs or toll, as appeareth by his grant. This wall was then to be made from Ludgate west to Fleet Bridge along behind the houses, and along by the water of the Fleet unto the river of Thames.

Moreover, in the year 1310, Edward II commanded the citizens to make up the wall already begun, and the tower at the end of the same wall, within the water of Thames near unto the Blackfriars, etc.

In 1328, the 2^nd of Edward III, the walls of this city were repaired.

It was also granted by King Richard III, in the tenth year of his reign, that a toll should be taken of the wares sold by land or by water for ten years, towards the repairing of the walls, and cleansing of the ditch about London.

In the 17^th of Edward IV, Ralph Joceline, mayor, caused part of the wall about the city of London to be repaired; to wit, betwixt Aldgate and Aldersgate. He also caused Moorfield to be searched for clay, and brick thereof to be made and burnt; he likewise caused chalk to be brought out of Kent, and to be burnt into lime in the same Moorfield, for more furtherance of the work.

Then the Skinners, to begin in the east, made that part of the wall betwixt Aldgate and Bevis Marks, towards Bishopsgate, as may appear by their arms in three places fixed there; the mayor, with his company of the Drapers, made all that part betwixt Bishopsgate and Allhallows Church, and from Allhallows towards the postern called Moorgate.

A great part of the same wall was repaired by the executors of Sir John Crosby, late alderman, as may appear by his arms in two places there fixed; and other companies repaired the rest of the wall to the postern at Cripplegate.

The Goldsmiths repaired from Cripplegate towards Aldersgate, and there the work ceased.

The circuit of the wall of London on the land side, to wit, from the Tower of London in the east unto Aldgate, is 82 perches; from Aldgate to Bishopsgate, 86 perches; from Bishopsgate in the north to the postern of Cripplegate, 162 perches; from Cripplegate to Aldersgate, 75 perches; from Aldersgate to Newgate, 66 perches; from Newgate in the west to Ludgate, 42 perches; in all, 513 perches of assize.

From Ludgate to the Fleet Dike west, about 60 perches; from Fleet Bridge south to the river Thames, about 70 perches; and so the total of these perches amounteth to 643, every perch consisting of five yards and a half, which do yield 3536 yards and a half, containing 10,608 feet, which make up two English miles, and more by 608 feet.

Of Ancient and Present Rivers, Brooks, Bourns, Pools, Wells, and Conduits of Fresh Water, serving the City, as also of the Ditch compassing the Wall of the same for Defence thereof

Anciently, until the Conqueror’s time, and two hundred years after, the city of London was watered, besides the famous river of Thames on the south part, with the river of Wells, as it was then called, on the west; with the water called Walbrook, running through the midst of the city in the river of Thames, serving the heart thereof; and with a fourth water or bourn, which ran within the city through Langbourne Ward, watering that part in the east.

In the west suburbs was also another great water, called Oldbourne, which had its fall into the river of Wells; then were there three principal fountains, or wells, in the other suburbs; to wit, Holy Well, Clement’s Well, and Clerk’s Well.

Near unto this last-mentioned fountain were divers other wells, to wit, Skinners’ Well, Fags’ Well, Tode Well, Loder’s Well, and Radwell. All which said wells, having the fall of their overflowing in the aforesaid river, much increased the stream, and in that place gave it the name of Well.

In West Smithfield there was a pool, in records called Horsepool, and one other pool near unto the parish church of St. Giles without Cripplegate.

Besides all which, they had in every street and lane of the city divers fair wells and fresh springs; and after this manner was this city then served with sweet and fresh waters, which being since decayed, other means have been sought to supply the want, as shall be shown.

But first of the aforenamed rivers and other waters is to be said, as following:

        Thames, the most famous river of this island, beginneth a little above a village called Winchcombe, in Oxfordshire; and still increasing, passeth first by the University of Oxford, and so with a marvellous quiet course to London, and thence breaketh into the French Ocean by main tides, which twice in twenty-four hours’ space doth ebb and flow more than sixty miles in length, to the great commodity of travellers, by which all kind of merchandise be easily conveyed to London, the principal storehouse and staple of all commodities within this realm.

So that, omitting to speak of great ships and other vessels of burthen, there pertaineth to the cities of London, Westminster, and borough of Southwark, above the number, as is supposed, of 2000 wherries and other small boats, whereby 3000 poor men, at the least, be set on work and maintained.

        That the river of Wells, in the west part of the city, was of old so called of the wells, it may be proved thus:- William the Conqueror, in his charter to the College of St. Martin le Grand, in London, hath these words: “I do give and grant to the same church all the land and the moor without the postern which is called Cripplegate, on either part of the postern; that is to say, from the north corner of the wall, as the river of the Wells, there near running, departeth (divides) the same moor from the wall, unto the running water which entereth the city.”

This water hath long since been called the river of the Wells, which name of river continued; and it was so called in the reign of Edward I, as shall be shown, with also the decay of the said river. In a fair book of Parliament Records, now lately restored to the Tower, it appeareth that a parliament being holden at Carlisle in the year 1307, the 35^th of Edward I, “Henry Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, complained, that whereas in times past the course of water, running at London under Oldbourne Bridge and Fleet Bridge into the Thames, had been of such breadth and depth, that ten or twelve ships’ navies at once, with merchandise, were wont to come to the foresaid bridge of Fleet, and some of them to Oldbourne Bridge; now the same course, by filth of the tanners and such others, was sore decayed; also by raising of wharfs; but especially, by a diversion of the water made by them of the new Temple for their mills standing without Baynards Castle, in the first year of King John, and divers other impediments, so as the said ships could not enter as they were wont, and as they ought; wherefore he desired that the mayor of London, with the sheriffs and other discreet aldermen, might be appointed to view the course of the said water; and that by the oaths of good men, all the aforesaid hindrances might be removed, and it to be made as it was wont of old. Whereupon Roger le Brabason, the constable of the Tower, with the mayor and sheriffs, were assigned to take with them honest and discreet men, and to make diligent search and enquiry how the said river was in old time, and that they leave nothing that may hurt or stop it, but keep it in the same state that it was wont to be.”

So far the record.

Whereupon it followed that the said river was at that time cleansed, these mills removed, and other things done for the preservation of the course thereof, notwithstanding it was never brought to the old depth and breadth; whereupon the name of river ceased, and it was since called a brook, namely Turnmill or Tremill Brook, for that divers mills were erected upon it, as appeareth by a fair register-book, containing the foundation of the priory of Clerkenwell, and donation of the lands thereunto belonging, as also by divers other records.

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

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

The running water, so called by William the Conqueror in his said charter, which entereth the city, etc., (before there was any ditch) between Bishopsgate and the late made postern called Moorgate, entered the wall, and was truly of the wall called Wallbrook, not of Gualo, as some have far fetched.

It ran through the city with divers windings from the north towards the south into the river of Thames, and had over the same divers bridges along the streets and lanes through which it passed. I have read in a book entitled Customs of London, that the prior of the Holy Trinity within Aldgate ought to make over Wallbrook in the ward of Broadstreet, against the stone wall of the city, viz., the same bridge that is next the Church of All Saints, at the wall.

Also that the prior of the new hospital, St. Mary Spital without Bishopsgate, ought to make the middle part of one other bridge next to the said bridge towards the north; and that in the twenty-eighth year of Edward I, it was by inquisition found before the mayor of London, that the parish of St. Stephen upon Wallbrook ought of right to scour the course of the said brook, and therefore the sheriffs were commanded to distrain the said parishioners so to do, in the year 1300. The keepers of those bridges at that time were William Jordan and John de Bever.

This watercourse, having divers bridges, was afterwards vaulted over with bricks, and paved level with the streets and lanes wherethrough it passed; and since that, also houses have been built thereon, so that the course of Wallbrook is now hidden under ground, and thereby hardly known.

Langbourne Water, so called of the length thereof, was a great stream breaking out of the ground in Fenchurch Street, which ran down with a swift course, west, through that street athwart Grastreet, and down Lombard Street, to the west end of St. Mary Wolnoth’s Church, and then turning the course down Sharebourne Lane, so termed of sharing or dividing, it brake into divers rills or rillets to the river of Thames; of this bourn that ward took the name, and is till this day called Langbourne Ward. This bourne is also long since stopped up at the head, and the rest of the course filled up and paved over, so that no sign thereof remaineth more than the names aforesaid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first cistern of lead, castellated with stone, in the city of London, was called the great Conduit in West Cheap, which was begun to be built in the year 1285, Henry Wales being then mayor. The watercourse from Paddington to James Head hath 512 rods; from James Head on the hill to the Mewsgate, 102 rods; from the Mewsgate to the Cross in Cheap, 484 rods.

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

Bosses of water at Belinsgate, by Paul’s Wharf, and by St. Giles’ Church without Cripplegate, made about the year 1423.

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

Water was first procured to the Standard in West Cheap about the year 1285, which Standard was again new built by the executors of John Welles, as shall be shown in another place. King Henry VI in the year 1442 granted to John Hatherley, mayor, license to take up two hundred fodders [a fodder of lead was 19½ cwt.] of lead for the building of conduits, of a common garnery, and of a new cross in West Cheap, for the honour of the city.

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

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

Conduit in Grastreet, in the year 1491.

Conduit at Oldbourne Cross about 1498; again were made by William Lambe 1577.

Little Conduit by the Stocks Market, about 1500.

Conduit at Bishopsgate, about 1513.

Conduit at London wall, about 1528.

Conduit at Aldgate without, about 1535.

Conduit in Lothbury, and in Coleman Street, 1546.

Conduit of Thames water at Dowgate, 1568.

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

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

One other new forcier was made near to Broken Wharf, to convey Thames water into men’s houses of West Cheap, about Paul’s, Fleet Street etc., by an English gentleman named Bevis Bulmer, in the year 1594.

Thus much for waters serving this city; first by rivers, brooks, bourns, fountains, pools etc.; and since by conduits, partly made by good and charitable citizens, and otherwise by charges of the commonalty, as shall be shown in description of wards wherein they be placed. And now some benefactors to these conduits shall be remembered.

In the year 1236 certain merchant strangers of cities beyond the seas, to wit, Amiens, Corbie, and Nesle, for privileges which they enjoyed in this city, gave one hundred pounds towards the charges of conveying water from the town of Tybourne.

Robert Large, mayor, 1439, gave to the new water conduits then in hand forty marks, and towards the vaulting over of Walbrook, near to the parish church of St. Margaret, in Lothbury, two hundred marks.

Sir William Eastfield, mayor, 1438, conveyed water from Tybourne to Fleet Street, to Aldermanbury, and from Highbury to Cripplegate.

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

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

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

John Mathew, mayor, 1490, gave twenty pounds.

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

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

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

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

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

Edward Jackman, one of the sheriffs, 1564, gave toward the conduit one hundred pounds.

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

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

The Town Ditch Without the Wall of the City

The ditch, which partly now remaineth, and compassed the wall of the city, was begun to be made by the Londoners in the year 1211, and was finished in the year 1213, the 15^th of King John.

The ditch being then made of 200 feet broad, caused no small hindrance to the canons of the Holy Trinity, whose church stood near unto Aldgate; for that the said ditch passed through their ground from the Tower of London unto Bishopsgate.

This ditch, being originally made for the defence of the city, was also long together carefully cleansed and maintained, as need required; but now of late neglected and forced either to a very narrow, and the same a filthy channel, or altogether stopped up for gardens planted, and houses built thereon, even to the very wall. and in many places upon both ditch and wall houses be built; to what danger of the city, I leave to wiser consideration, and can but wish that reformation might be had.

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

Anno 1379, John Philpot, mayor of London, caused this ditch to be cleansed, and every householder to pay five pence, which was for a day’s work towards the charges thereof.

Richard III, in the 10^th year of his reign, granted a toll to be taken of wares sold by water or by land, for ten years, towards repairing of the wall and cleansing of the ditch.

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

Ralph Joceline, mayor, 1477, caused the whole ditch to be cast and cleansed, and so from time to time it was cleansed, and otherwise reformed.

Namely (especially) in 1519, the 10^th of Henry VIII, for cleansing and scouring the common ditch by Aldgate and the postern near the Tower ditch, the chief ditcher had by the day seven pence, the second ditcher six pence, the other ditchers five pence, and every vagabond (for so they were named) one penny the day, meat and drink, at charges of the city, £95, 3s. 4d.

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

It was again cleansed in the year 1549, Henry Amcotes being mayor, at the charges of the companies.

And again, 1569, the 11^th of Queen Elizabeth, for cleansing the same ditch between Aldgate and the postern, and making a new sewer, and wharf of timber, from the head of the postern into the town ditch, £814, 15s. 8d.

Before the which time the said ditch lay open, without wall or pale, having therein great store of very good fish, of divers sorts, as many men yet living, who have taken and tasted them, can well witness; but now no such matter: the charge of cleansing it spared, and great profit made by letting out the banks, with the spoil of the whole ditch.

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

Bridges of this City

The original foundation of London Bridge, by report of Bartholomew Linsted, alias Fowle, last prior of St. Mary Overies Church in Southwark, was this: A ferry being kept in place where now the bridge is built, at length the ferryman and his wife deceasing, left the same ferry to their only daughter, a maiden named Mary, which with the goods left by her parents, and also with the profits arising of the said ferry, built a house of Sisters, in place where now standeth the east part of St. Mary Overies Church, above the choir, where she was buried, unto which house she gave the oversight and profits of the ferry.

But afterwards the said House of Sisters being converted into a College of Priests, the priests built the bridge, of timber, as all the other the great bridges of this land were, and from time to time kept the same in good reparations, till at length, considering the great charges of repairing the same, there was, by aid of the citizens of London, and others, a bridge built with arches of stone, as shall be shown.

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

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

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

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

In the year 112, the 22^nd of Henry I, Thomas Arden gave the monks of Bermondsey the Church of St. George, in Southwark, and five shillings rent by the year, out of the land pertaining to London Bridge.

I also have seen a charter under seal to the effect following:-

“Henry king of England, to Ralfe Bishop of Chichester, and all the ministers of Sussex, sendeth greeting, know ye, etc. I command by my kingly authority, that the manor called Alcestone, which my father gave, with other lands to the abbey of Battle, be free and quiet from shires and hundreds, and all other customs of earthly servitude, as my father held the same, most freely and quietly, and namely, from the work of London Bridge, and the work of the castle of Pevensey; and this I command upon my forfeiture. Witness, William de Pontlearche, at Byrry.”

The which charter, with the seal very fair, remaineth in the custody of Joseph Holland, gentleman.

In the year 1136, the first of king Stephen, a fire began in the house of one, Aylewarde, near unto London Stone, which continued east to Aldgate, and west to St. Erkenwald’s Shrine, in Paul’s Church; the bridge of timber over the river of Thames was also burnt, etc., but afterwards again repaired.

For Fitzstephen writes, that in the reign of King Stephen and of Henry II, when pastimes were showed on the river of Thames, men stood in great number on the bridge, wharfs and houses, to beheld.

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

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

Now touching the foundation of the stone bridge, it followeth:- About the year 1176, the stone bridge over the river of Thames, at London, was begun to be founded by the aforesaid Peter of Cole Church, near the bridge of timber, but somewhat more towards the west, for I read, that Botolph Wharf was, in the conqueror’s time, at the head of London Bridge.

The king assisted this work; a cardinal then being legate here; and Richard, Archbishop of Canterbury, gave one thousand marks towards the foundation.

The course of the river, for the time, was turned another way about, by a trench cast for that purpose, beginning, as is supposed, east about Radriffe, and ending in the west about Patricksey, now termed Battersea. This work, to wit, the arches, chapel and stone bridge, over the river of Thames, at London, having been thirty-three years in building, was in the year 1209 finished by the worthy merchants of London, Serle Mercer, William Almaine, and Benedict Botewrite, principal masters of that work, for Peter of Cole Church deceased four years before, and was buried in the chapel on the bridge, in the year 1205.

King John gave certain void places in London to build upon, the profits thereof to remain towards the charges of building and repairing the same bridge. A mason, being master workman of the bridge, builded from the foundation the large chapel on that bridge of his own charges, which chapel was then endowed for two priests, four clerks, etc., besides chantries since founded for John Hatfield and other. After the finishing of this chapel, which was the first building upon those arches, sundry houses at times were erected, and many charitable men gave lands, tenements, or sums of money, towards maintenance thereof, all which was sometime noted and in a table fair written for posterity, remaining in the chapel, until the same chapel was turned into a dwelling house, and then removed to the Bridge House, the effect of which table I was willing to have published in this book, if I could have obtained the sight thereof.

But making the shorter work, I find by the account of William Mariner and Christopher Eliot, wardens of London Bridge from Michaelmas, in the 22^nd of Henry VII unto Michaelmas next ensuing, by the one whole year, that all the payments and allowances came to £815, 17s 2¼d, as there is shown by particulars; by which account then made, may be partly guessed the great charges and discharges of that bridge at this day, when things be stretched to so great a price. And now to actions on this bridge.

The first action to be noted was lamentable; for within four years after the finishing thereof, to wit, in the year 1212, on the 10^th of July, at night, the borough of Southwark, upon the south side of the river of Thames, as also the Church of our Lady of the Canons there, being on fire, and an exceeding great multitude of people passing the bridge, either to extinguish and quench it, or else to gaze at and behold it, suddenly the north part, by blowing of the south wind, was also set on fire, and the people which were ever now passing the bridge, perceiving the same, would have returned, but were stopped by fire; and it came to pass, that as they stayed or protracted time, the other end of the bridge also, namely, the south end, was fired, so that the people thronging themselves between the two fires, did nothing else but expect present death; then came there to aid them many ships and vessels, into the which the multitude so unadvisedly rushed, that the ships being drowned, they all perished. It was said, that through the fire and shipwreck, there were destroyed about three thousand persons, whose bodies were found in part, or half burnt, besides those that were wholly burnt to ashes, and could not be found.

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

In the year 1289, the bridge was so sore decayed for want of reparations, that men were afraid to pass thereon, and a subsidy was granted towards the amendment thereof, Sir John Britain  being custos of London.

1381 a great collection or gathering was made of all archbishops, bishops, and other ecclesiastical persons, for the reparations of London Bridge.

1381, Wat Tyler, and other rebels of Kent, by this bridge entered the city, as ye may read in my Summary and Annals.

In the year 1385, on St. George’s Day, was a great jousting on London Bridge, betwixt David Earl of Crawford of Scotland, and the Lord Wells of England; in the which the Lord Wells was at the third course borne out of the saddle; which history proveth, that at this time, the bridge being coped on either side, was not replenished with houses built thereupon, as it hath since been, and now is.

The next year, on the 13^th of November, the young Queen Isabel, commonly called the Little, for she was but eight years old, was conveyed from Kennington besides Lambhithe, through Southwark, to the Tower of London, and such a multitude of people went out to see her, that on London Bridge nine persons were crowded to death, of whom the prior of Tiptree, a place in Essex, was one, and a matron on Cornhill was another.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gates in the Wall of this City

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

In the reign of Henry II (saith Fitzstephen) there were seven double gates in the wall of this city, but he nameth them not. It may, therefore, be supposed, he meant for the first, the gate next the Tower of London, now commonly called the Postern, the next be Aldgate, the third Bishopsgate, the fourth Aldersgate, the fifth Newgate, the sixth Ludgate, the seventh Bridgegate.

Since the which time hath been builded the postern called Moorgate, a postern from Christ’s Hospital towards St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in Smithfield etc. Now of every of these gates and posterns in the wall, and also of certain water-gates on the river of Thames, severally, somewhat may and shall be noted, as I find authority, on reasonable conjecture to warrant me.

For the first, now called the postern by the Tower of London, it showeth by that part which yet remaineth, to have been a fair and strong arched gate, partly built of hard stone of Kent, and partly of stone brought from Cæn in Normandy, since the Conquest, and foundation of the high tower; and served for passengers on foot out of the east, from thence through the city to Ludgate in the west.

The ruin and overthrow of this gate and postern began in the year 1190, the 2^nd of Richard I, when William Longchamp, Bishop of Ely, Chancellor of England, caused a part of the city wall, to wit, from the said gate towards the river of Thames to the white tower, to be broken down, for the enlarging of the said tower, which he then compassed far wide about with a wall embattled, and is now the outer wall.

He also caused a broad and deep ditch to be made without the same wall, intending to have derived the river of Thames with her tides to have flowed about it, which would not be. But the south side of this gate, being then by undermining at the foundation loosened and greatly weakened; at length- to wit, after two hundred years and odd,- the same fell down in the year 1440, the 18^th of Henry VI, and was never since by the citizens re-edified.

Such was their negligence then, and hath bred some trouble to their successors, since they suffered a weak and wooden building to be there made, inhabited by persons of lewd life, oft times by inquest of Portsoken Ward presented, but not reformed; whereas of former times the said postern was accounted of as other gates of the city, and was appointed to men of good credit.

Amongst other, I have read, that in the 49^th of Edward III, John Cobbe was admitted custos of the said postern, and all the habitation thereof, for term of his life, by William Walworth, then mayor of London, etc.  More, that John Credy, Esq., in the 21^st of Richard II, was admitted custos of the said postern and appurtenances by Richard Whittington, mayor, the aldermen, and commonalty, etc.

The next gate in the east is called Aldgate. Of the antiquity or age thereof, this is one and the first of four principal gates, and also one of the seven double gates, mentioned by Fitzstephen. It hath had two pair of gates, though now but one; the hooks remaineth yet.

Also there hath been two portcullises, the one of them remaineth, the other wanteth, but the place of letting down is manifest.

For antiquity of the gate: it appeareth by a charter of King Edgar, to the knights of Knighten Guild, that in his days the said port was called Aldgate, as may read in the ward of Portsoken.  Also Matilda the queen, wife to Henry I, having founded the priory of the Holy Trinity within Aldgate gave unto the same church, to Norman the first prior and the canons that devoutly served God therein, the port of Aldgate and the soke (soke first English sóc, formed from the verb “seek,” , meant first the lord’s right of judicial search or inquiry into causes, levying fines etc. then the lands over which the right was exercised, and then given its name to a free tenure in chief, socage) or franchises thereunto belonging, with all customs as free as she held the same; in the which charter she nameth the house Christ’s Church, and reporteth Aldgate to be of his domain.

More, I read in the year 1215, that in the civil wars by King John and his barons, the Londoners assisted the barons’ faction , who then besieged Northampton, and after came to Bedford Castle, where they were well received by William Beauchamp, captain of the same; and having then also secret intelligence that they might enter the city of London of they would, they removed their camp to Ware. From thence in the night coming to London, then entered Aldgate, and placing guardians or keepers of the gates, they disposed of all things in the city at their pleasure.

They spoiled the friars’ houses, and searched their coffers; which being done, Robert Fitzwalter, Geffry Magnavile, Earl of Sussex, and the Earl of Glocester, chief leaders of the army, applied all diligence to repair the gates and walls of this city with the stones taken from the Jews’ broken houses, namely, Aldgate being then most ruinous (which had given them an easy entry) they repaired, or rather newly built, after the manner of the Normans, strongly arched with bulwarks of stone from Cæn in Normandy; and small brick, called Flanders tile, was brought from thence, such as hath been here used since the Conquest, and not before.

In the year 1471, the 11^th of Edward IV, Thomas, the bastard Falconbridge, having assembled a riotous company of shipmen and others in Essex and Kent, came to London with a great navy of ships, near to the Tower; whereupon the mayor and aldermen, by consent of a common council, fortified all along the Thames side, from Baynard’s Castle to the Tower, with armed men, guns, and other instruments of war, to resist the invasion of the mariners, whereby the Thames side was safely preserved and kept by the aldermen and other citizens that assembled thither in great numbers.

Whereupon the rebels, being denied passage through the city that way, set upon Aldgate, Bishopsgate, Cripplegate, Aldersgate, London Bridge, and along the river of Thames, shooting arrows and guns into the city, fired the suburbs, and burnt more than three-score houses.

And further, on Sunday the eleventh of May, five thousand of them assaulting Aldgate, won the bulwarks, and entered the city; but the portcullis being let down, such as had entered were slain, and Robert Basset, alderman of Aldgate Ward, with the recorder, commanded in the name of God to draw up the portcullis; which being done, they issued out, and with sharp shot, and fierce fight, put their enemies back so far as St. Botolph’s Church, by which time the Earl Rivers and lieutenant of the Tower, was come with a fresh company; which joining together, discomfited the rebels, and put them to flight, whom the said Robert Basset, with the other citizens, chased to Mile’s End, and from thence, some to Poplar, some to Stratford, slew many, and took many of them prisoners. In which space the Bastard, having assayed other places upon the water side and little prevailed, fled toward his ships. Thus much for Aldgate.

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

Next I read in a charter, dated the year 1235, that Walter Brune, citizen of London, and Rosia his wife, having founded the

priory or new hospital of our blessed Lady, since called St. Mary Spital without Bishopsgate, confirmed the same to the honour of God and our blessed Lady, for canons regular.

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

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

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

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

The next is the postern of Cripplegate, so called long before the Conquest. For I read in the history of Edmond, king of the East Angles, written by Abbo Floriacensis, and by Burchard, sometime secretary to Offa, king of Mercia, but since by John Lydgate, monk of Bury, that in the year 1010, the Danes spoiling the kingdom of East Angles, Alwyne, Bishop of Helmeham, caused the body of King Edmond the Martyr to be brought from Bedrisworth (now called Bury St. Edmondes), through the kingdom of the East Saxons, and so to London in at Cripplegate; a place, saith mine author, so called of cripples begging there; at which gate, it was said, the body entering, miracles were wrought, so some of the lame to go upright, praising God.

The body of King Edmond rested for the space of three years in the parish church of St. Gregorie, near unto the cathedral church of St. Paul. Moreover, the charter of William the Conqueror, confirming the foundation of the college in London, called St. Martin the Great, hath these words: “I do give and grant to the same church and canons, serving God therein, all the land and the moore without the postern, which is called Cripplegate, so either side the postern.”

More, I read, that Alfune built the parish church of St. Giles, nigh a gate of the city, called Porta Contractorum, or Cripplegate, about the year 1099.

This postern was sometime a prison, whereunto such citizens and others, as were arrested for debt or common trespasses, were committed, as they be now to the compters, which thing appeareth by a writ of Edward I in these words: “Rex Victoria. London salutem; ex graui querela B.captain. & detent. In prisona nostra de Criples gate pro x. l. quas coram Radulpho de Sandwico rune custod. Civitatis nostræLondon. & I. De Blackwell civis recognit. Debit.etc”

This gate was new built by the brewers of London in the year 1244, as saith Fabian’s manuscript. Edmond Shaw, goldsmith, mayor in the year 1483, at his decease appointed by his testament his executors, with the cost of four hundred marks, and the stuff of the old gate, called Cripplegate, to build the same gate of new, which was performed and done in the year 1491.

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

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

The next gate on the west, and by north, is termed Newgate, as latelier built than the rest, and is the fifth principal gate. This gate was first erected about the reign of Henry I. or of King Stephen, upon this occasion. The cathedral church of St. Paul, being burnt about the year 1086, in the reign of William the Conqueror, Mauritius, then bishop or London, repaired not the old church, as some have supposed, but began the foundation of a new work, such as men then judged would never have been performed; it was to them so wonderful for height, length, and breadth, as also in respect it was raised upon arches or vaults, a kind of workmanship brought in by the Normans, and never known to the artificers of this land before that time. After Mauritius, Richard Beamore did wonderfully advance the work of the said church, purchasing the large streets and lanes round about, wherein were wont to dwell many lay people, which grounds he began to compass about with a strong wall of stone and gates.

By means of this increase of the church territory, but more by inclosing of ground for so large a cemetery or churchyard, the high and large street stretching from Aldgate in the east until Ludgate in the west, was in this place so crossed and stopped up that the carriage through the city westward was forced to pass without the churchyard wall on the north side, through Paternoster Row; and then south, down Ave Mary Lane, and again west, through Bowyer Row to Ludgate; or else out of Cheap, or Watheling Street, to turn south, through the old Exchange; then west through Carter Lane, again north by Creed Lane, and then west to Ludgate; which passage, by reason of so often turning, was very cumbersome and dangerous both for horse and man; for remedy whereof a new gate was made, and so called, by which men and cattle, with all manner of carriages, might pass more directly (as afore) from Aldgate, through West Cheap by Paul’s, on the north side; through St. Nicholas Shambles and Newgate Market to Newgate, and from thence to any part westward over Oldbourne Bridge, or turning without the gate into Smithfield, and through Iseldon, to any part north and by west. This gate hath of long time been a gaol, or prison for felons and trespassers, as appeareth by records in the reign of King John, and of other kings; amongst the which I find one testifying, that in the year 1218, the 3^rd of King Henry III, the king writeth unto the sheriffs of London, commanding them to repair the gaol of Newgate for the safe keeping of his prisoners, promising that the charges laid out should be allowed unto them upon their account in the Exchequer.

Moreover, in the year 1241, the Jews of Norwich were hanged for circumcising a Christian child; their house called the Thor was pulled down and destroyed; Aaron, the son of Abraham, a Jew, at London, and the other Jews, were constrained to pay twenty thousand marks, at two terms in the year, or else to be kept perpetual prisoners in Newgate of London, and in other prisons.

In 1255, King Henry III lodging in the Tower of London, upon displeasure conceived towards the city of London, for the escape of John Offrem, a prisoner, being a clerk convict, out of Newgate, which had killed a prior that was of alliance to the king, as cousin to the queen; he sent for the mayor and sheriffs to come before him to answer the matter. The mayor laid the fault from him to the sheriffs, forasmuch as to them belonged the keeping of all prisoners within the city; and so the mayor returned home, but the sheriffs remained there prisoners by the space of a month and more.

And yet they excused themselves, in that the fault chiefly rested in the bishop's officers; for whereas the prisoner was under custody, they at his request had granted license to imprison the offender within the gaol of Newgate, but so as the bishop's officers were charged to see him safely kept, The king, notwithstanding all this, demanded of the city three thousand marks for a fine.

In the year 1326, Robert Baldock, the king's chancellor, was put in Newgate, the third of Edward III.

In the year 1337, Sir John Poultney gave four marks by the year to the relief of prisoners in Newgate.

In the year 1385, William Walworth gave somewhat to relieve the prisoners in Newgate, so have many others since.

In the year 11414, the gaolers of Newgate and Ludgate died, and prisoners in Newgate to the number of sixty-four.

In the year 1418, the parson of Wrotham, in Kent, was imprisoned in Newgate.

In the year 1422, the first of Henry VI., license was granted to John Coventry, Jenken Carpenter, and William Grove, executors to Richard Whittington, to re‑edify the gaol of Newgate, which they did with his goods,

Thomas Knowles, grocer, sometime mayor of London, by license of Reynold, prior of St. Bartholomew's, in Smithfield, and also of John Wakering, master of the hospital of St. Bartholomew, and his brethren, conveyed the waste of water at the cistern near to the common fountain and chapel of St. Nicholas (situate by the said hospital) to the gaols of Newgate and Ludgate, for the relief of the prisoners.

Tuesday next after Palm Sunday, 1431, all the prisoners of Ludgate were removed into Newgate by Walter Chartesey, and Robert Large, sheriffs of London; and on the 13^th of April, the same sheriffs (through the false suggestion of John Kingesell, gaoler of Newgate) sent from thence eighteen persons free men, and these were led to the compters, pinioned as if they had been felons; but on the sixteenth of June, Ludgate was again appointed for free men, prisoners for debt; and the same day the said free men entered by ordinance of the mayor, aldermen, and commons, and by them Henry Denne, tailor, was made keeper of Ludgate prison.

In the year 1457 a great fray was in the north country between Sir Thomas Percie, Lord Egremont, and the Earl of Salisbury’s sons; whereby many were maimed and slain; but, in the end, the Lord Egremont being taken, was by the king’s counsel found in great default, and therefore condemned in great sums of money, to be paid to the Earl of Salisbury, and in the meantime committed to Newgate.

Not long after, Sir Thomas Percie, Lord Egremont, and Sir Richard Percie, his brother, being in Newgate, broke out of prison by night, and went to the king; the other prisoners took the leads of the gate, and defended it for a long while against the sheriffs and all their officers, insomuch that that they were forced to call more aid of the citizens, whereby they lastly subdued them, and laid them in irons: and this may suffice for Newgate.

To the west is the next, and sixth principal gate, and is called Ludgate, as first built, saith Geoffrey Monmouth, by King Lud, a Briton, about the year before Christ’s nativity, 66. Of which building, and also of the name, as Ludsgate, or Fludsgate, hath been of late some question among the learned; wherefore I overpass it, as not to my purpose, only referring the reader to that I have before written out of Cæsar’s Commentaries, and other Roman writers, concerning a town or city amongst the Britons.

This gate I suppose to be one of the most ancient; and as Aldgate was built for the east, so was this Ludgate for the west.

I read, as I told you, that in the year 1215, the 17^th of King John, the barons of the realm, being in arms against the king, entered this city, and spoiled the Jew’s houses; which being done, Robert Fitzwater and Geffrey de Magnavilla, Earl of Essex, and the Earl of Gloucester, chief leaders of the army, applied all diligence to repair the gates and walls of this city, with the stones of the Jew’s broken houses, especially, as it seemeth, they then repaired, or rather new built Ludgate.

For in the year 1586, when the same gate was taken down to be newly built, there was found couched within the wall thereof a stone taken from one of the Jews’ houses, wherein was graven in Hebrew the words, Hæc est station Rabbi Mosis, filii insignis Rabbi Isaac; which is to this is the station or ward of Rabbi Moyses, the son of the honourable Rabbi Isaac, and had been fixed upon the front of one of the Jews' houses, as a note or sign that such a one dwelt there.

In the year 1260, this Ludgate was repaired and beautified with images of Lud, and other kings, as appeareth by letters patent, of license given to the citizens of London, to take up stone for, that purpose, dated the 25^th of Henry III. These images of kings, in the reign of Edward VI had their heads smitten off and were otherwise defaced by such as judged every image to be an idol; and in the reign of Queen Mary were repaired, as by setting new heads on their old bodies, &c. All which so remained until the year 1586, the 28^th of Queen Elizabeth, when the same gate being sore decayed, was clean taken down; the prisoners in the meantime remaining in the large south‑east quadrant to the same gate adjoining; and the same year the whole gate was newly and beautifully built, with the images of Lud and others, as afore, on the east side, and the picture of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth on the west side: all which was done at the common charges of the citizens, amounting to fifteen hundred pounds or more.

This gate was made a free prison in the year 1378, the 1^st of Richard II, Nicholas Brember being mayor.

The same was confirmed in the year 1382, John Northampton being mayor, by a common council in the Guildhall; by which it was ordained that all freemen of this city should, for debt, trespasses, accounts, and contempts, be imprisoned in Ludgate, and for treasons, felonies, and other criminal offences, committed to Newgate, &c.

In the year 1431, the 10^th of King Henry VI, John Wells being mayor, a court of Common Council established ordinances (as William Standon and Robert Chicheley, late mayors, before had done), touching the guard and government of Ludgate and other prisons

Also in the year 1463, the 3^rd of Edward IV, Mathew Philip being mayor, in a Common Council, at the request of the well-disposed, blessed, and devout woman, Dame Agnes Forster, widow, late wife to Stephen Forster, fishmonger, sometime mayor, for the comfort and relief of all the poor prisoners, certain articles were established. Imprimis, that the new works then late edified by the same Dame Agnes, for the enlarging of the prison of Ludgate, from henceforth should be had and taken as a part and parcel of the said prison of Ludgate; so that both the old and new work of Ludgate aforesaid be one prison, gaol keeping, and charge for evermore.

The said quadrant, strongly built of stone by the before-named Stephen Forster and Agnes his wife, containeth a large walking-place by ground of thirty-eight feet and a half in length; besides the thickness of the walls, which are at the least six foot, makes all together forty-four feet and a half, so that the thickness of the walls maketh it thirty-five feet and a half in length.

The like room it hath over it for lodgings, and over it again fair leads to walk upon, well embattled, all for fresh air and ease of prisoners, to the end thay should have lodging and water free without charge, as by certain verses graven in copper, and fixed on the said quadrant, I have read in form following:

Devout souls that pass this way,

For Stephen Forster, late mayor, heartily pray;

And Dame Agnes his spouse to God consecrate,

That of pity this house made for Londoners in Ludgate.

So that for lodging and water prisoners here nought pay,

As their keepers shall all answer at dreadful doomsday.

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

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

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

The Black‑friars Stairs, a free landing‑place.

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

Then Paul's Wharf, also a free landing‑place with stairs, &‑c.

Then Broken Wharf, and other such like.

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

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

This was sometime a large water‑gate, frequented of ships and other vessels, like as the Queen hithe, and was a part thereof, as doth appear by an inquisition made in the 28^th year of Henry III, wherein was found, that as well corn as fish, and all other things coming to the port of Downgate, were to be ordered after the customs of the Queen's hithe, for the king's use; as also that the corn arriving between the gate of the Guildhall of the merchants of Cologne (the Stilyard), which is east from Downgate, and the house then pertaining to the Archbishop of Canterbury, west from Baynard's Castle, was to be measured by the measure, and measurer of the Queen's soke, or Queen hithe.

I read also, in the 19^th of Edward III, that customs were then to be paid for ships and other vessels resting at Downgate, as if they rode at Queen hithe, and as they now do at Belingsgate. And thus much for Downgate may suffice.

The next was called Wolf’s gate, in the ropery in the parish of Allhallows the Less, of later time called Wolf’s Lane, but now out of use; for the lower part was built on by the Earl of Shrewsbury, and the other part was stopped up and built on by the chamberlain of London.

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

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

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

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

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

Then you have a water‑gate, on the west side of Wool Wharf, or Customer's Quay, which is commonly called the water‑gate, at the south end of Water Lane.

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

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

“Per noctem portæ clauduntur Londoniarum,

Mænia ne forte fraus frangat Francigenarum.”