Page images
PDF
EPUB

The

heavy rains often fall, especially in the last half of the month. The thermometer sometimes rises to above 80° of Fahrenheit's scale, very rarely to 84°; but the most common summer-heat is from 65° to 75°: in winter it sometimes falls to 15°; but the most common winter heat, when it freezes, is between 20° and 30°: it has been known to fall below the point marked 0, but very rarely; the most frequent when it does not freeze, is between 40 and 50°." excessive heat of the middle of July, 1808, has been already noticed on the thirteenth of that month the thermometer, in the open air, in the shade, and with a northern aspect, near St. James's Park, rose to 94°; and in various parts of London, in the shade also, it varied from that degree, upwards, to 103°. On the same day, in particular local situations in the sun, the quicksilver rose to the extraordinary heights of from 120 to 140 degrees! The contrast between this day and that of the 24th of January 1795, is most striking: on the latter, the thermometer fell to six degrees. below Zero!

GENERAL PARTICULARS OF THE GROWTH AND PROGRESSIVE IMPROVEMENTS OF LONDON, FROM THE TIME OF THE BRITONS TO THE PRESENT PERIOD; TOGETHER WITH VARIOUS INCIDENTAL NOTICES OF TRADE, COMMERCE, LOCAL REGULATIONS, RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS, AND HISTORICAL EVENTS.

THE exact period of the foundation of London is involved in all the obscurity attendant on our earlier history, and nothing further can be affirmed with truth than, that it was a town or fortified place of the Britons previous to the Roman Invasion. The advantage of the situation, both for defence and traffic, was doubtless the leading cause of its remote settlement: yet little could the first inhabitants imagine, when they reared their rude habitations ou the

C

Fordyce, as quoted in Mid. Agri. of Midd. p. 8.

↑ See preceding Volume, p. 55, 56.

the banks of its expansive lake, that the infant village would eventually become the Metropolis of Britain, and the most considerable City upon the globe.

O'er the deep trench an earthy mound arose,
To guard the sylvan town from beasts and focs;
But plain and simple, in the shadowy wood,
The shapeless rude-constructed hamlet stood.

ABORIGINAL BRITONS.

The eminence on which St. Paul's Cathedral now stands, and which is still higher than most of the adjacent grounds (though they have in some places acquired about twenty feet of adventitious height,) with its declivity towards the Thames and the Fleet Rivers, was in all likelihood the original nucleus of ancient London. Cæsar, in his Commentaries, uses the words Civitas Trinebantum; and though several antiquaries have argued, that these words, in the sense which the Roman chieftain has used them, signify the state,' or 'dominion,' rather than the City of the Trinobantes,' as they have been translated by others; yet, from the whole context of Cæsar's account, it may be questioned, whether London was not really the place designated by the appellation Civitas Trinobantum. Ammianus Marcellinus expressly calls it Augusta, and Augusta Trinobantum; and in another passage he mentions it as an ancient town, once called Lundinium. These names, with the exception of Augusta, are evidently derivations from the British language; and combined with the course of the Watling Street, another name derived from the British, through the very centre of ancient London to its trajectus at Dur-gate, a fourth appellation of British origin, lead the mind to the fair deduction, that this extended Capital had the Britons for its founders. Still more, it may be very rationally inferred, that it was not only established, but also brought into considerable impor

See preceding Volume, p. 73–80.

+ Ann. of Comm. Vol. I. p. 153. Edit. 1805.

Amm. Mar. Lib. XXVII, and XXVIII.

tance

*

tance by the Britons; for Tacitus, speaking of the insurrection of Boadicea, in the reign of Nero, A. D. 61, describes it as highly celebrated for its concourse of merchants, and famous for its great stores of provisions, &c. though not a colony. Dr. Stukeley, in the first volume of his Itinerarium Curiosum, conjectures that the ground-plot of ancient London was comprehended within an oblong square, of the proportion of two to three, which extended in breadth from Maiden Lane, Lad Lane, and Cateaton Street, to the Thames, and in length from Ludgate to the present Walbrook.

During the Roman domination in Britain, the population, trade, and buildings of London, must have been considerably increased: it was advanced from a Præfecture into the rank of a Colony; it became the seat of the Vicarius Britanniarum, and of the Commissioners of the Treasury under the Roman Emperors; and it was surrounded with walls and fortified. Whether the Roman wall on the north side extended so far as the present London Wall, has been sometimes questioned, through an inaccurate measurement of its course given by Stow; † yet Stow himself, in the same chapter, furnishes sufficient evidence of the affirmative. The account of Roman London, and of the abundance of Roman antiquities discovered in and near it, given in the preceding Volume, renders it unnecessary to enlarge here; unless, perhaps, to remark, that Stukeley, inspecting its neighbourhood with the eye of an acute, though sometimes visionary observer, has placed a Roman Camp, attributed by him to Cæsar, on the way to Pancras, between the Brill (a Public-house so called) and the high road towards the Church.

Very little is known of the state of London during the Saxon period, excepting that it progressively, but gradually, increased, both in extent and affluence; and that, to use the language of Venerable

C 2

* Ann. Lib. XIV. c. 33. His words are, Londinium perrexit, cognomento quidem coloniæ non insigne, sed copia negotiatorum et commeatuum maxime celebre. For further evidence of the priority of London to the Roman Conquest of Britain, see preceding Volume, p. 80-82, and p. 609.

[blocks in formation]

Venerable Bede, it became the Emporium of many nations." St. Paul's Cathedral and Westminster Abbey were founded early in the seventh century; but not any descriptions of those edifices, as then built, have descended to our times. Westminster, says Stow, was then called 'Thorney,' because" it was a place overgrowne with thornes, and environed with waters." Whether there was a Bridge over the Thames at this period is uncertain, though very probable; but that there was one in 994 is evident, from an incidental notice in William of Malmsbury, who, speaking of the repulse of the Danes under Sweyn and Olaf, before London in that year, says, that part of them were drowned in the river, because in their hasty rage they took no heed of the Bridge.' A few years prior to this event, viz. in 982, great part of the City was burnt: Stow, in mentioning this fact, on the authority of T. Rudborne, states, that "the Citie at this time had most buildings from Ludgate toward Westminster, and little or none where the hart of the Citie is now, except in divers places was housing that stoode without order; so that many citties, as Canterbury, Yorke, and other in England passed London in building." In these particulars, the accuracy of Rudborne may justly be doubted; for the various assaults which the Londoners sustained from the Danes, and the continual danger they were in through new invasions of those marauders, render it incredible that they should have so exposed themselves and their property to destruction. Besides, long previous to this era, the superior importance of London to that of any other City, seems clearly indicated in King Athelstan's law respecting coinage, by which eight minters were allowed to Loudon, whilst seven only were appointed for Canterbury, and six for Winchester. †

On the submission of the Londoners to the Norman William, that ferocious chieftain hastily constructed a fortress near the banks of the Thames, on the west side of the City; and about ten years afterwards, still more effectually to secure the obedience of

Howe's Stow's Ann. p. 65.
+ Howe's Stow, p. 86.
See also preceding Volume, p. 106.

of his new subjects, he commissioned the celebrated Gundulph, Bishop of Rochester, to erect the building now called the White Tower, within the Tower of London. In his reign also, the rebuilding and great enlargement of St. Paul's Cathedral was commenced; and the strong Castles of Baynard and Montfichet, both of them standing near the Thames, within the City walls, were also erected by two of William's hardy soldiers of the same names. During this, and several succeeding reigns likewise, the buildings of London were greatly increased by the foundation of numerous Religious Houses, andAbbatial, and Episcopal Residences, &c. The Royal Palace at Westminster, which had been founded by Edward the Confessor, was also considerably enlarged, and the great Hall there was first built by William Rufus.

*

The accession of Henry the First proved eminently beneficial to London, as that Monarch, to strengthen his defective title, sought to conciliate the Citizens, and, with that intent, he granted them a new and extensive Charter, by which many of their ancient and most important privileges were ascertained and established, and various new ones conferred. In consequence of this Charter, various guilds and associations of trade and professions were formed; and municipal usages, hitherto of no higher authority than common practice, assumed the dignified character of 'legal authority, and were reduced to writing. In this reign, Rahere, who bore the office of King's Minstrel, founded the Priory and Hospi tal of St. Bartholomew, on the east side of Smithfield, on the moorish ground, without the wall, which now formed a common laystall for the City. The Priory of St. John of Jerusalem for Knights Templars, and a Benedictine Nunnery, were also founded at Clerkenwell, by Jordan Briset; and Maud, Henry's Queen, C 3 built,

*It is a singular circunstance, and much to be regretted, that not any account of London should have been inserted in the Domesday Book. The only satisfactory manner of accounting for this omission is, by sup posing that the Capital was then advanced to such high importance, that a distinct Survey was taken, and that this record was afterwards either lost or destroyed.

« PreviousContinue »