much information rewarded their excursion. It would be difficult to track in such pilgrimage the exact circuit of London's ancient wall, so much has it been built in upon, even where it has not been destroyed; but still, a careful survey of its few remains, an extended inquiry into the period at which it was built, ought to be as interesting to archæological societies, and to the lover of antiquarian research, as measurements of the Great Pyramid, or plans and elevations of the Alhambra. We were rather amused to find Mr. Cunningham, in a short chronological table of London matters, assigning the date of A.D. 306 for the erection of these walls. We wish he had given us chapter and verse for this notable discovery, and also at whose command or cost they were undertaken. Roman work they were, no doubt; and probably not built until at a rather advanced period of Roman domination. Stephanides, the contemporary and friend of Becket, to whom we owe that most valuable and graphic description of London almost seven centuries ago, mentions that the walls originally extended along the river side of the city, but that even in his time they were in ruin. Some late excavations in Thames-street confirm this assertion.

This wall was first noticed at the foot of Lambeth Hill, forming an angle with Thames-street, and extending, with occasional breaks, to Queenhithe. It was from eight to ten feet thick, and about eight deep, reckoning the top at nine feet from the present street level, and composed of ragstone and flint, with alternate layers of red and yellow, plain and curved edged tiles, from which it could not be separated. For the foundation, strong oaken piles were used, upon which was laid a stratum of chalk and stones, and then a course of hewn sand-stones from three to four feet long, by two and a half in width.-C. Roach Smith, quoted by Cunningham.

Now, the existence of a wall, strong and deep as this, seems to us to corroborate the opinion that the bed of the Thames presented then a very different appearance to what it does now. Indeed, we are greatly inclined to believe that the Thames was not at this period a broad, flowing river, but, as Ptolemy, who first mentions its name, describes it, an arm of the sea, an estuary (Tamesse Estuarium is the phrase he employs). We have evidence, we think, even in the present day, to show that centuries ago the Thames, just below bridge,' must have spread out into a wide lake-like expanse, well entitling the British city rising just beyond, to its name of the city of the waters;' for the most cursory glance at a map of London will show us that form, if the prominences of the Isle of Dogs and Rotherhithe-both merely late alluvial deposits-were removed. And, as a recent inquirer has remarked, the very name, too, of that

part of the river, handed down to us from Saxon times, 'the Pool,' corroborates this view, for pool, in the Saxon language, is lake.

Among the works attributed to those brave old Romans,' as Leland calls them, and to whom, from the eleventh to the sixteenth century, our historical writers attributed whatever was strong or abiding, 'the Tower of Julius' may be placed. Now, for our own parts, we very much doubt if a single stone of that grim fortress, so teeming with historic recollections, was laid ere Gundulph, that belligerent churchman, that consummate architect, whose works, unlike those of a more advanced civilization, seem as though cut out from the rock, and, like the rock, • to last for ever,' reared the Norman keep, that even now, like the monarch who commanded its erection, stands in cold, stern majesty, overlooking the city it was intended to awe. Not a single fragment of Roman work is to be found in the Tower; while, as to the tradition that assigned Julius Cæsar as its founder, the history of the subjugation of England is wholly against it. It is not likely that Julius Cæsar ever was at London; and our best antiquaries have placed the probable erection of Roman London at a period subsequent to his death. The Romans, too, had no necessity for a strong fortress so much to the eastward; the wall was a sufficient protection from the incursions of the barbarous natives. But while we deny the. Romans all claim to the Tower, another London antiquity may, we think, be assigned to them-the original London Bridge. It is curious, that as early as Saxon times, we read of a bridge at London: now the Saxons were never distinguished as architects, and bridge-building, beyond all other, requires skill and science. No mention, either, is made in the Saxon Chronicle or elsewhere, of building this bridge; but in one case we read in the Saxon Chronicle that the Danes actually dug a deep 'ditch on the south side, and dragged their ships to the west 'side of the bridge;' while, a few years later, we find King Olaf 'breaking it down,' by driving his large vessels against it; and then his armed troops, protected by a covering of timber bound together by hazel bands, laid their cables round the piles that 'supported it, and then rowed off with all the ships as hard as 'they could down the stream.' The latter quotation is from that most interesting work which Mr. Laing, a few years ago, presented to the English reader- The Chronicle of the Kings of Norway.' The whole passage is too long for quotation, but it expressly describes the bridge as of the width merely to allow two wagons to pass each other, and as being simply guarded on either side by a wooden parapet, nearly breast-high.' Now

6

this seems to prove that the bridge was a long, raised platform, for the convenience of passengers from London to Southwark— a suburb evidently well peopled even in Roman times, as is shown by the numerous Roman remains which every excavation brings to light. That it was a strongly constructed work is evident from the force required to pull it down; and yet, that it would have been inadequate to stem the tide in the present day, is equally evident, from the circumstance that the wooden piles on which the superstructure was raised were sufficiently above the water to admit of the cables being passed round them. We think, therefore, that there was little, if any, tide above bridge then, and that the earliest structure was merely for passengers, without regard to the 'water-way.'

What a blank, after all, is the history of Roman domination in Britain! and an almost equal blank, in respect to London, do the early Saxon records_present. How, when, was London abandoned by her Roman governors? Did the Romanized Britons fight sternly and steadfastly for the city of their birth-for the sepulchres of their fathers; or sink almost without a struggle before their more energetic foemen? Who can tell? The first notice we find of London under this new rule is in Bede, who speaks of it as a well-frequented city, but scarcely recognising it as a metropolis. It was so, however, although of one of the smallest Saxon kingdoms-Essex; and that it retained much of its ancient high station is, we think, probable, from the circumstance of Pope Gregory directing that the only difference between the Bishops of York and London should be, that he is to be highest who is first ordained.' London, indeed, from its situation, was in the very high road to the interior of the land, for Dover (le clef d'Angleterre, as it is termed as early as the eleventh century), Rochester, and London were the daily stages of each continental visitant, even from Roman times; and thus to London every traveller, whether on his mission of trade or instruction, came. From the imperfect records of Bede, imperfect, not from any lack of diligence in the venerable writer, but from the difficulty at this early period of the monk of Weremouth obtaining correct information of what had taken place in London,-we find that a King Sebert, converted to Christianity, founded St. Paul's upon the site of a temple of Diana. Later and more apocryphal writers assign to the same king the honour of founding Westminster Abbey. The legend that details this would be unworthy notice, save for the incidental proof it affords that the boundaries of the Thames of the sixth century differed widely from those in the nineteenth. Westminster is here

represented as an island-an island overrun with thorns and briars; and the great Apostle, who, it might be thought, could have placed himself at once on the spot, is ferried over from the main land thither by the toiling fisherman.

The story of Westminster Abbey is, we have little doubt, a fabrication of the time of Edward the Confessor; but soon after, about the middle of the seventh century, the Abbey at Chertsey for male Benedictines, and the more celebrated Abbey of Barking, for female, were undoubtedly founded. Erconwald, whose effigies, in after times, both graced and gave their name to Bishopsgate, appears to have been a very worthy man-the friend of the great scholars of his day, among whom Theodor of Tarsus stands pre-eminent; and it is a curious fact—one of the apparent anomalies that so often meet us in the history of these early times-that while the mass of the people were undoubtedly rude and barbarous-while little can be ascertained respecting London, as yet unknown as the seat of commerce or of regal sway, we possess records of the first female convent established in her vicinity, which bring vividly before us the state of learning and religion almost twelve hundred years ago. Yes, almost twelve hundred years ago, the Abbess Hildelitha and her sisterhood, flowers of the church, choice 'pearls of our Lord, gems of paradise, and participants of the 'heavenly inheritance,' as Aldhelm rather quaintly terms them, received from him, written expressly for their instruction and delectation, his celebrated Latin poem, De Laudibus Virginitatis.' Truly, with all our boasted march of intellect, even with our 'Queen's College,' where shall we now find a company of fair maidens able to read and to appreciate the really creditable hexameters of the worthy Bishop of Sherborne? We turned over this poem some few years ago with much interest; not for its prosing tales of the chief virgin-martyrs, since for them we would refer our readers to Mrs. Jameson's delightful volumes, but for its illustrations, incidentally occurring, of the arts and manufactures, particularly those referring to female dress at this early day. Indeed, however rude the mechanical arts may have been at this period, those that had for their object the decoration of the person were sufficiently advanced. We read of the lady with necklaces, bracelets, rings, and broaches; her twisted hairs delicately curled with irons,' her cheeks and eyebrows' painted,' and her dress of wool and silk richly embroidered; in short, so tantalizing a description of female vanities is given, that we greatly doubted, when the worthy Aldhelm proceeded to set forth the superior charms of coarse garments and uncombed hair, whether he found a willing

audience. Would that the description had extended to the dwelling-for doubtless it was the London dame who was thus described, perhaps still, in great measure, retaining the Roman dress, and then we might have had a glimpse, even though slight and faint, of Saxon London.

It is a strong proof how deeply attached our Saxon forefathers were to the wild freedom of the woods, to find that the first convent for women-unprotected women-was built, not within the guardian walls of the city, but three miles beyond. Indeed, as Mr. Kemble has shown in his admirable work, 'The Saxons in England,' it was only by constraint, and by very slow degrees, that the Saxon took up an abiding residence in the walled town. And even within the town he endeavoured as much as possible to conform his habits to those of that freer life when he held unlimited possession of his ethel, and joint possession of the mark,' and he still surrounded his house in the city with trees and gardens-'the toft and croft,'-and delighted to claim, as an inalienable privilege, his share of the common, or borough land. And thus, even in the time of our Plantagenets, in some of those documents which, in the midst of driest details, bring old London so vividly before us, we find trees, and gardens, and pleasant green places making glad the very heart of the ancient city. Not only does the alderman's mansion and the abbot's inn' possess its fair garden and 'pleasaunce,' and sometimes its orchard, but even the convent has its 'paradise' of green turf, and its few trees; and the grim Tower itself, its inner green and scanty plot of garden.

6

During the reign of King Offa, London, now the capital of Mercia, arose into importance and comparative wealth; but this probably attracted the enterprise of the wandering Vikingr, and during the ninth century, London is scarcely mentioned in history, except to record its misfortunes. A.D. 839, there was a great slaughter at London, Canterbury, and Rochester; A.D. 842, there was war against the Norman pagans at Lon'don; A.D. 851, London was stormed, and the king of the "Mercians put to flight by the Danes.' Such are the notices in the venerable Saxon Chronicle. On the accession of Alfred, London was still in the possession of the Danes; but after his treaty with Guthrum, he assigned the river Lea as the boundary of their colony, and thus London passed again under Saxon sway. Alfred, as King of Wessex, however, viewed Winchester as the regal city; and it was not until the reign of his son that London became a place of residence of the king. But it is to Athelstan, his illustrious grandson, that London owed her early maritime and commercial greatness. He de