BYGONE LONDON.
Of this book 500 copies have been printed, and this is
No.......12
[Illustration: STOW'S MONUMENT, IN THE CHURCH OF ST. ANDREW UNDERSHAFT,
LONDON.]
BYGONE LONDON.
BY
FREDERICK ROSS, F.R.H.S.,
AUTHOR OF
"LEGENDARY YORKSHIRE," "YORKSHIRE FAMILY
ROMANCE," ETC., ETC.
LONDON:
HUTCHINSON & CO., PATERNOSTER SQUARE.
1892.
[Illustration]
Preface.
Notwithstanding the multitude of books that have been written relating
to its history and antiquities, the History of London still remains
to be written, a work that cannot, from its ocean-like infinitude of
matter, be accomplished by a single hand, but will require the combined
action of a multiplicity of labourers.
By London is here meant, not the vast aggregation of buildings and
population spreading into four or five counties but that small fraction
lying north and south of the Thames, which is under the jurisdiction of
the Lord Mayor of London—that portion which was a considerable emporium
of trade under the Celtic Trinobantes; a military post and seat of
commerce under the Romans, with roads, of which one still retains its
name of Watling Street, in the centre of London, all radiating from
a central miliarium, which may still be seen, a venerable relic of
sixteen centuries of age, in the wall of St. Swithin's Church; which
was a capital city and place of great mercantile importance under
the Saxons and the Danes, and has in the subsequent thousand years,
gradually expanded its limits, and gathered population, wealth, and
commerce, until it has become the capital of the world, in magnitude
and wealth unprecedented, to which the capitals of other nations are
but as provincial cities: so vast and rich that Blucher might well
exclaim, when shewn its banks and docks, its warehouses and shops—"Ye
gods! what a place to sack."
Notwithstanding the many books in existence, descriptive of the various
phases of London, it appeared to the publishers there was still room
for a small, handy, and compact volume, of moderate price, which
should give a clear and comprehensive view of some of the more salient
features of the bygone history of the old city, which they presume to
hope may be found in this volume.
Contents.
PAGE
The Walls and Gates 1
Episodes in the Annals of Cheapside 34
Bishopsgate Street Within and Without 76
Aldersgate Street and St. Martin's-le-Grand 118
Old Broad Street 142
Chaucer and the Tabard 165
The Priory of the Holy Trinity, Aldgate 178
Convent of the Sisters Minoresses of the Order of St.
Clare, Aldgate 197
The Abbey of St. Mary of Graces, or East Minster 208
The Barons Fitzwalter of Baynard's Castle 219
Sir Nicholas Brember, Knight, Lord Mayor of London 239
An Olden Time Bishop of London: Robert de Braybrooke 249
A Brave Old London Bishop: Fulco Basset 262
An Old London Diarist 269
Index 291
BYGONE LONDON.
The Walls and Gates.
In prehistoric ages the valley of the Thames formed the bed of an
estuary or arm of the sea, whose waters flowed over the low lands of
Essex, and whose waves dashed against the sloping uplands of Middlesex
and Surrey, on whose summits now stand the Crystal and Alexandra
Palaces. In process of time, by the deposition of silt brought down
from the west, and of sand brought up by the flow of the tide, the
estuary was reduced to a river, afterwards still further reduced in
width by the embankments made by the Romans along the coast of Essex;
and the land intervening between the then and the former shores
became a succession of fens and morasses, some of which remained to
comparatively modern times, and have their localities indicated by such
names as Moorfields, Fenchurch, Marsh-gate, Lambeth, etc.
Amongst these morasses were oases of high and firm land; and beyond,
spreading up and over the slopes of the uplands, there grew a dense
forest, the home of wolves, boars, and other wild animals. Upon one of
these spots of dry land, at the time of the invasion of Cæsar, might
be seen a village of wattled or mud-built and thatched huts, inhabited
by the Celtic aborigines, with cattle and hogs feeding in the midst, a
few patches of cultivated land, and beyond, the forest. This was the
nucleus of the mighty London of the present, and is supposed to have
occupied a space of some quarter of a mile along the river shore, with
Dowgate for its centre, and stretching northward as far as Cheapside.
In all probability it would be surrounded by earthworks, ditches, and
stockades, for the purpose of defence, and would otherwise be protected
by the broad stream of the Thames, and by the Fleet river on the west,
and Walbrook on the east.
When the Romans completed the subjugation of the southern part of
Britain and began to make settlements, their practical sagacity at once
perceived the eligibility of this spot as a centre of commerce; and in
a short time it put on the appearance of a Roman city, and gradually
became adorned with residential houses after the Roman fashion—whose
tesselated pavements and other decorations are still often exhumed—with
marts of commerce, temples of the gods, basilicæ, baths, amphitheatres,
and other architectural appliances of an important city.
At what period the Romans substituted a wall of defence in place of
the old earthworks is uncertain, but previous to its construction they
appeared to have erected two forts on the north bank of the Thames—one
at the eastern extremity of the City, where the tower now stands; the
other at the western end, where the Fleet fell into the Thames. That it
was an open town, or very imperfectly defended, in the middle of the
first century, is evidenced by the facility with which Queen Boadicea,
_temp._ Nero, entered it with her army, slaughtered the inhabitants,
and most probably burnt it, as the charred remains of a great
conflagration have been frequently found in making deep excavations.
Henry of Huntingdon, and some other of the old chroniclers, tell us
that it was first walled by Constantine the Great, at the request of
his mother Helena, and that the materials he made use of were hewn
stone and British bricks, and that it was in compass about three
miles. Camden seems to credit this statement, from the fact that coins
of the Empress Helena have been found under the wall, but as these
might have been in circulation long after her death, it only goes to
prove that the wall was not built before her era. Constantine died in
the year 337, and we find some twenty-five years afterwards London was
entered and pillaged, and the inhabitants reduced to a state of great
misery, by a combined army of Picts, Scots, Saxons, and Franks, which
would scarcely have been possible if it had been walled, and defended
by the disciplined soldiers of the empire. The probability seems to be
that the walls were either built or commenced by Theodosius, the Roman
general, afterwards emperor, who in the reign of Valentinian, came
to Britain with an army, utterly routed the pirates and freebooters,
and entered London in triumph, where he remained for a considerable
period; and we are told by Ammianus Marcellinus that before he left
the island he restored to their ancient sound condition both the towns
and military strongholds throughout the country, and put everything
in such a state of defence that peace was maintained until the reign
of Honorius, when Britain was abandoned by the Romans. Hence we
may arrive at an approximate date for the building of the walls.
Constantine came to the throne in 306, and Valentinian died 375: and it
is almost certain that it took place some time within these 70 years,
the balance of evidence seeming to refer it farther to the period of
the sojourn of Theodosius in Britain, or about 368-70.
Fitzstephen is the earliest writer who mentions the wall. He lived
in the reign of Henry II., towards the end of the twelfth century,
and describes the wall as high and thick, with seven double gates and
many towers and turrets placed at proper distances. Originally there
were only four exits from the City—by way of Aldgate on the east,
Cripplegate on the north, Newgate on the west, and Dowgate on the
south; the latter was the entrance to the "Trajectus," or ferry across
the Thames, and derived its name from Dwr or Dour—water; or perhaps
from Dwyr Dover, as leading to the Dover-road. Near to this gate was
placed the _Miliarium_, a portion of which may still be seen in the
wall of St. Swithin's Church, whence distances were measured along the
roads, and from which radiated four roads—one by Dowgate and across
into Kent, and three others which passed respectively through Aldgate,
Cripplegate, and Ludgate. The wall commenced at the eastern fort, and
had a postern gate at its commencement which occupied the position of
the row of posts in Postern-row, north of the Tower, whence it ran
northward to Aldgate, the eastern exit (some portions of the old wall
are still remaining at the back of the houses in America Crescent);
from Aldgate it went in a north-western direction between Hounds-ditch
and Camomile Street to Bishopgate, whence it proceeded directly west to
Cripplegate. In the street called London-wall a fragment may be seen,
and the remains of a bastion may be found between St. Giles's Church
and the Barber Surgeons' Hall. From this point it turned southward for
a short distance down Noble Street, and again deflected to the west,
arriving at Aldersgate, after which it passed St. Botolph's Church and
Christ's Hospital, then turned southward at a sharp angle, coming to
Ludgate (which stood immediately to the west of St. Martin's Church),
and hence to the Thames. In 1276 that portion south of Ludgate was
taken down, and a new wall built from Ludgate to the Fleet river,
and hence south to the Thames, so as to enclose the new Blackfriars'
Monastery. It has been doubted whether the wall was continued along
the river bank, but Fitzstephen says:—"London once had its walls and
towers on the south, but that vast river, the Thames, which abounds
with fish, and enjoys the benefit of tides, and washes the City on this
side, hath in a long track of time totally subverted and carried them
away;" and adds, that in his day some relics might be seen. Salmon, in
his _Survey of England_, vol. i., disputes this, chiefly on the ground
that we have no historical account of any great inundation such as
would be necessary to effect such a result; and Maitland combats his
arguments at great length, contending that a period of 777 years was
quite sufficient to account for their decay and disappearance; and Lord
Lyttelton remarks that long previously it had not been necessary to
repair the south wall, the Tower and the bridge being amply sufficient
to prevent a hostile fleet approaching the City.
In the year 1707 considerable portions of the wall were laid bare in
digging for the foundations of some houses near Bishopsgate, which
Dr. Woodward carefully examined, and gave a description of the
materials and construction in "Remarks upon the Ancient and Present
State of London: Occasioned by some Roman urns, etc., discovered near
Bishopgate," originally published in the eighth volume of Leland's
_Itinerary_, and afterwards separately. He says: "It was compiled
alternately of layers of broad flat bricks and of ragstone. The bricks
lay in double ranges, and each brick being but one inch and three
tenths in thickness, the whole layer, with the mortar interposed,
exceeded not three inches. The layers of stone were not quite two feet
thick of our measure. To this height (eight feet) the workmanship was
after the Roman manner, and these were the remains of the ancient
wall. In this it was very observable that the mortar was, as usual
in the Roman work, so very firm and hard that the stone itself was
easily broke and gave way as that. It was thus far from the foundation
nine feet in thickness. The broad thin bricks above mentioned were
all of Roman make, and of the sort, as we learn from Pliny, that
were in common use among the Romans, being in length one foot and a
half of their standard, and in breadth one foot. The old wall having
been demolished, was afterwards repaired and carried up of the same
thickness to eight or nine feet in height; or, if higher, there was no
more of that work now standing. All this was apparently additional,
and of a make later than the part underneath it. The outside, towards
the suburbs, was faced with a coarse sort of stone, not compiled with
care, nor disposed into a regular method; but on the inside there
appeared more marks of workmanship and art. There was not one of the
broad thin Roman bricks mentioned above in all this part, nor was the
mortar near so hard as in that below; but from the description it may
be easily collected that this part, when first made and entire, with so
various and orderly a disposition of the materials—flint, stone, and
bricks—could not but carry a very elegant and handsome aspect. Upon
the additional work now described was raised a wall wholly of brick,
only that it terminated in battlements topped with copings of stone. It
was two feet four inches in thickness, and somewhat above eight feet
in height.... This wall was strengthened and embellished with stately
towers, which on the south, together with the wall, are long since
become a prey to the tide and weather; but the remains of those on the
land side, being fifteen in number, are still to be seen: one thereof,
about the middle of Houndsditch, is a Roman construction, composed of
stone with layers of bricks. It is situated almost opposite the end of
Gravel Lane, on the west of Houndsditch, and is still three stories
high, but sorely decayed and rent from top to bottom in divers parts."
The height of the Roman wall is supposed to have been about twenty-two
feet, and that of the towers about forty. Besides these towers there
were bastions and other defensive works usual in fortifications. In
Vineyard Street, on the south of Aldgate, the base of a tower about
eight feet high was made use of for a new superstructure early in the
last century, upon which had been fixed a stone with this inscription:—
"Glory be to God on high, who was graciously pleased in a wonderful
manner to preserve the lives of all the people in this house, twelve
in number, when the ould wall of this Bulwark fell down three stories
high, and so broad as two cartes might enter a breast, and yet without
any harm to their persones. The Lord sanctify this his great providence
unto them. Amen and Amen. It was Tuesday, the 23rd September, 1651."
There is reason for believing that the first western wall ran
southward, with a slight inclination to the west, from Cripplegate
to the Thames, passing eastward of St. Paul's, as urns and other
sepulchral remains have been found between this line and that
indicated above. The Romans never buried their dead within the walls,
consequently this locality must at some period have been extramural;
and it would appear that as these remains have been found beneath
pavements, as the City grew in population and required more space for
the habitations of the living, the old graveyards were built over. Some
forty years ago, in sinking a shaft in Paternoster Row, the excavators
met, at a depth of eighteen feet, a stone wall of such intense hardness
that it took the workmen three or four days to cut through it. This is
supposed to have been a portion of the primitive wall, and is described
by C. Roach Smith in the _Archæologist_, vol. xxvii., pp. 140-53.
After the departure of the Romans, the wall appears to have fallen to
decay, and the City was easily taken by the Saxon pirates, who also
neglected defences of this description to a great extent, trusting
more to their own valour than in bricks and mortar. It would no doubt
suffer greatly in the destruction of its towers and bastions in the
three great conflagrations which occurred in the years 764, 798, and
801, and consumed the greater part of the City. Such being the case,
it fell an easy prey to the Danes, who in 851 sailed up the Thames
with a fleet of 350 ships, speedily reduced it, and garrisoned it as a
basis whence to attack Wessex. Alfred the Great succeeded to the throne
of Wessex in 871, and from that period to 878 he fought no less than
fifty-six battles with the invaders. In 884 he laid siege to London,
drove out the Danes and compelled them to capitulate, after which he
repaired the walls and forts, and appointed his son-in-law, Ethelred,
governor. The repairs appear to have been of a substantial character,
as when Anlaf and Swegen, or Sweyn, the kings of Norway and Denmark,
attacked the City, with a fleet of 94 ships, in 994, the citizens
were enabled to defy all their endeavours to enter within the walls,
and compelled them to raise the siege with great loss, as happened
again in 1013, when the city was defended by Ethelred II. But after
some successes elsewhere, Sweyn returned, and again laid siege to the
City; and again the citizens might have closed their gates against
him, but Ethelred, their king, pusillanimously fled to Normandy, and
the citizens deemed it best to submit, whereupon the gates were thrown
open, the Danes admitted, and Sweyn proclaimed King of England.
Sweyn did not long enjoy this dignity; he died the following spring,
when the Londoners recalled Ethelred: and he also dying soon after.
Edmund Ironsides, his son, was proclaimed king, and crowned in London.
Canute, the son of Sweyn, however, claimed the crown won by the prowess
of his father, and came with a large fleet up the Thames, but could not
pass beyond the bridge, and finding he could make no impression on the
eastern walls and forts, he cut a canal across Southwark and Lambeth,
availing himself of certain watercourses, and conveyed his ships into
the Thames somewhere about Vauxhall, whence he sailed downward, and
attacked the western walls and towers; but the undaunted bravery of
the citizens and the strength of their defences compelled him to raise
the siege. Soon after, however, a treaty was entered into between
Edmund and Canute for the division of the kingdom: and London falling
to the share of the latter, he took up his winter quarters there. By
the death of Edmund a few months after, Canute became sole monarch of
England.
After the battle of Hastings, William the Conqueror marched upon
London, but was opposed by a body of the citizens in Southwark, whom he
repulsed; but recognising their valour and perceiving the strength of
the City's fortifications, he went to subdue the Western Counties, and
his success in that direction showed the Londoners that the wisest and
most politic course would be to submit; when the Norman duke entered
the City, and was presented with the keys and acknowledged as King of
England. He was no sooner in possession of the City than he caused
three castles to be erected, ostensibly for the protection of the City,
but really to overawe the inhabitants. These were the Tower at the
eastern, and Baynard and Montfichet Castles at the western, extremity
of the walls. The Tower became the residence of the Norman kings,
and Baynard Castle that of the chatelain and standard-bearer of the
City—offices held first by the Baynards, and afterwards by the Barons
Fitzwalter. Montfichet Castle was destroyed by fire in the reign of
William, and the Black Friars' Monastery built on the site—the best of
the stones being used in the re-edification of St. Paul's Cathedral,
which had been destroyed by fire.
Fitzstephen speaks of the walls being "both high and thick, with seven
double gates," which appear then to have been in good condition,
although the south wall had been "subverted and carried away by the
tide." But very soon after some portions seem to have fallen into a
ruinous condition; as Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris tell us that
the barons, when in arms against King John, in 1215, entered the City
by Ealdgate, and demolished the houses of the Jews, to obtain materials
wherewith to repair that gate and the adjoining walls. In 1257, also,
it is stated, Henry III. "caused the walls, which were greatly decayed,
and destitute of towers and turrets, to be repaired in a handsomer
manner than before, at the common charge of the City."
King Edward I. granted permission to Kilwarby, Archbishop of
Canterbury, to take down the wall, from Ludgate to the Thames, for
the purpose of enlarging the Church of the Black Friars, and in 1282
granted a murage charter to the Corporation for levying certain tolls
throughout the kingdom, for making a new wall from Ludgate—westward
to Fleet Bridge, along behind the houses and by the water of the Fleet
to the Thames, "from the aforesaid day to the end of three years
next following," from which none were exempt, saving the city of
Winchester, and a few other cities, which, by composition, were to pay
no Portage, Murage, or Pannage. After an enumeration of the articles
to be subjected to toll, amongst which are: "Riges, Cetewal, Kanel,
Frankincense, Cummin, Liquorish, Zuber, Cyromontani, Frails of Figs,"
etc., is added, "Whereas we have granted you for aid of the work of
the walls of our City and the closure of the same, divers customs of
vendible things, coming to the said City, to be taken for a certain
time, we command you that you cause to be finished the wall of the said
City now begun near the Friars-preachers, and a certain good and comely
tower at the head of the said wall within the water of the Thames,"
etc. Similar letters were issued by Edward II. in the first, second,
sixth, eighth, and twelfth years of his reign; but as it was found that
levying a toll on retail commodities caused an insufficient supply,
the patent ran in the latter year, that—"Victualia non adducuntur, in
detrimentum civitatis;" but that impositions should be levied in bulk
on all merchandise brought by land or water. Richard II., in a letter
to the Corporation, said in the preamble: "Know ye, that whereas the
walls and forts of the City be old and weak, and for want of repair are
fallen down in some places, as also the ditches of the said City are
exceeding filled with dirt, dunghills, and other filth, not only to the
evident danger of the said City and inhabitants thereof, but also to
the manifest disgrace and scandal of the whole City," etc.; and granted
to the Mayor and Corporation power to levy tolls for ten years for the
purpose of placing the wall in a state of thorough repair. In order to
enforce these murage tolls it was customary to have chains fixed across
the entrances to the City, and no country people with provisions for
sale were allowed to pass until they had paid the dues.
In the reign of Edward IV., Ralph Joscelyne, the mayor, repaired the
wall from Aldgate to Aldersgate, for which purpose he caused bricks
to be made in Moorfields, where also the lime brought from Kent was
burnt for that purpose. This was in the year 1477, and several of the
City companies—the Drapers (of which company the mayor was a member),
the Skinners, the Goldsmiths, and others—contributed to the work, and
placed their arms on the portions they executed. The executors of
Sir John Crosby also contributed freely out of the funds they held
in trust towards the same object. By an order of the Common Council
each parishioner also was directed to pay sixpence every Sunday at
his Parish Church until the work was completed. After this the walls
were neglected and suffered to fall in ruin. Camden, writing in 1607,
says that the north wall "having been repaired by one Joscelin, who
was mayor, it put on, as it were, a new face and freshness, but that
towards the east and west, though the barons repaired it in their
wars of the demolished houses of the Jews, is all ruinous and going
to decay. For the Londoners, like the Lacedæmonians of old, do slight
fenced cities, as fit for nothing but women to live in, and look upon
their own City to be safe, not by the assistance of stones, but by the
courage of its inhabitants." Nevertheless when the Civil Wars between
Charles I. and his Parliament had fairly commenced, the citizens
bethought them of their walls and forts as no contemptible means of
defence. London had declared most decisively for the Parliament; and
in 1643, the Common Council gave directions that the ditches should
be cleaned out of the accumulations of rubbish, all outside buildings
cleared away, the bulwarks put in repair and mounted with cannon,
and new works added to the weaker parts of the walls. The Parliament
confirmed this resolution, and extended a plan of fortification, so as
to include Southwark and Westminster. A chain of forts surrounding the
whole, and lines of communication, were ordered to be erected. All the
entrances to the City were closed excepting those at Charing Cross, St.
Giles-in-the-Fields, St. John's Street, Shoreditch, and Whitechapel;
and these were fortified with musket proof breastworks. To carry out
these extensive works a levy was made of eight-fifteenths on all the
wards of the City, which was cheerfully assented to by the citizens,
and the works were commenced without delay, and carried on with such
zeal and alacrity that the whole was completed in an incredibly
short space of time. In the year 1647, when the dispute was raging
between the Presbyterians and the Independents, the city was divided
in opinion: but when the army under Fairfax advanced from Hounslow
upon London, the Mayor and Corporation met and saluted the general
at Charing Cross; and by an ordnance of Parliament he was constituted
Constable of the Tower, the army thus becoming masters of the City. The
Parliament then demanded a loan of £50,000 from the City, which was not
complied with and in consequence an Act was passed for demolishing the
fortifications of London, Westminster, and Southwark.
Whether the Roman wall was protected by a ditch does not appear;
probably not, as the first mention we have of one being made is by
Dunthorn, who informs us that William, Bishop of Ely, Regent of England
when Richard I. was absent in Palestine, made a ditch round the Tower
as a defence against John, the King's brother, soon after which the
citizens dug a ditch round the walls generally, which they commenced
about 1190, but left it unfinished until 1213, as the register of
Barmondsey states, when it was recommenced, and completed in two
years. This ditch was 200 feet broad, but was afterwards neglected,
and gardens planted and houses built upon it. In 1354, Edward III.
caused it to be cleansed; and again in 1379, by direction of Lord
Mayor Philpot, as also by Lord Mayor Fawconer, in 1414, and Lord
Mayor Joceline, in 1477. In 1519, 10th Henry VIII., it was "cleansed
and scowered" between Aldgate and the Tower—the chief ditcher being
paid 7d. per day, the second ditcher 6d., other ditchers 5d., and
every "vagabond" (labourer) one penny and meat and drink at the charge
of the City. It was cleansed out again in 1549 at the expense of the
trade guilds, and twenty years after, _temp._ Elizabeth, at a cost of
£814 15s. 8d., at which time "it had therein great store of good fish
of divers sorts." After this the expense was defrayed by letting the
banks and "the whole spoil of the ditch," excepting in 1595, when the
Common Council granted two-fifteens for the purpose. In the following
century the ditch was filled up, excepting Fleet Ditch on the west,
which, after the Fire of 1666, was, by direction of the Mayor and Court
of Aldermen, ordered to be cleansed, enlarged, and made navigable
for barges up to Holborn-bridge. The sides were built of freestone,
and it was arranged that its banks should be lined with warehouses
and wharves, but this part of the project was not carried out in
its integrity. "This ditch was built and made by Sir Thomas Fitch,
bricklayer, who contracted with the City for a very considerable
sum, and enriched himself thereby." In 1723 the Corporation obtained
an Act of Parliament for filling up the channel from Fleet-bridge to
Holborn-bridge, which had become choked with mud and was no longer
navigable, and to build thereon a new market in place of Stocks Market,
near the Exchange, which it was proposed to dismarket and demolish, and
erect on the site a Mansion House for the Lord Mayor.
We have seen that in the old Roman walls there were four gates,
the exits of four roads radiating from the "milliarum," now called
London Stone. These gates were—Aldgate on the east, Aldersgate on the
north, Ludgate on the west, and Dowgate on the south. What were the
architectural features of these gates we know not, but undoubtedly they
were similar to the usual Roman gateways, with round-arched openings
and fortified upper chambers for the purpose of defence.
ALDGATE, or Ealdgate, so called by the Saxons on account of its
antiquity, was placed by King Eadger in the hands of the knights of the
Knighten Guild, who held the soke, now called Potsoken Ward Without, by
charter. Afterwards it became part of the demesne of Maud, queen of
Henry I., who bestowed it upon the prior and canons of her foundation,
the Priory of the Holy Trinity, along with the soke and franchise of
the ward. In 1215, the barons, in their war with King John, being
favoured by the Londoners, entered the City by Aldgate, which was in a
ruinous condition, and repaired, or rather rebuilt it, in the Norman
style, with an arched opening built from the ruins of the Jews' houses,
and bulwarks of Caen stone. In the 11th Edward IV., the Bastard of
Fauconbridge sailed up the Thames with his fleet, he being the admiral,
to attack London in the then hopeless interest of the Lancastrian
ex-king, when the Londoners hastily fortified the river front, and he
landed in Essex, marched to Aldgate, and forced an entrance; but the
portcullis having been lowered, separated his forces, and they were
defeated and driven back to Mile-end, many being slain and others
dispersed. Having fallen to decay, the gate was taken down in 1606, and
rebuilt, the finishing stone having been laid in 1609. It consisted of
two three-storied square flanking towers, with a deep recessed centre,
containing the archway and a room above, and a footway postern in one
of the towers. It was ornamented with two stone medallions, copies of
two Roman coins found on digging the foundations, a figure of King
James I., in gilt armour, over the arch, figures of two soldiers on the
battlements, and a representation of Fortune standing on a globe. The
rooms over the gate were appropriated to the Lord Mayor's carver as a
residence.
ALDERSGATE, like Aldgate, was denominated Eldergate by the Saxons
on account of its antiquity. It was at divers times enlarged, with
additional buildings, and was rebuilt in 1617 by direction of the
Corporation, William Parker, merchant tailor, contributing £1,000
towards that object. It was built with a recessed centre, and square
flanking towers four stories in height. Over the arch was an equestrian
figure of King James I., who entered London by this gate when he came
from Scotland to succeed Elizabeth on the throne of England, and on the
opposite or southern front were statues of the prophets Jeremiah and
Samuel, and another representation of King James, seated in a chair of
State, in his royal robes. The rooms over the postern were occupied by
the Common Crier of the City. This gate suffered great damage in the
Fire of 1666, but was restored at the charge of the City, during the
mayoralty of Sir Samuel Stirling.
LUDGATE, Geoffry of Monmouth informs us, was built by King Lud, _circa_
A.D. 66. It was repaired and partly reconstructed by the barons,
in 1215, out of the materials of the Jews' houses, and was again
rebuilt in 1586, when a stone was found in the old structure bearing
an inscription in Hebrew characters, "This is the station of Rabbi
Moses, the son of the honourable Rabbi Isaac." During some repairs in
1260, statues of Lud, and other ancient kings, were placed upon the
gate; "but," as Stow says, "these had their heads smitten off in the
reign of Edward the Sixth, by unadvised persons and such who judged
every image to be an idol. In the reign of Queen Mary, they were again
repaired, and had new heads set to their old bodies." In 1586, being
much decayed, it was entirely rebuilt by the Corporation, at a cost
of £1,500, with statues of Lud and other kings on the east, and of
Queen Elizabeth on the west. From the year 1378, this gate was used
as a prison for freemen of the City guilty of the crimes of "debt,
trespasser, accompts and contempts." It was consumed in the Fire of
1666, but substantially rebuilt, like an ordinary house, with central
archway and side portions, and ornamented with statues of Queen
Elizabeth, King Lud, etc.
The fourth ancient gate was the exit to the ferry across the Thames,
called DOWGATE, Downgate, or Dourgate, the great road to the
Kentish sea-coast, running from the opposite bank. It seems to have
disappeared, along with the ferry, when the bridge was built and the
gateway transferred to that locality.
By the time of Henry II. the exigencies of commerce, and, as Maitland
says, "the accommodation of the citizens in repairing to their gardens
and fields," necessitated more exits through the walls; and thus
we find, as Fitzstephen informs us, there were then seven double
gates. These Maitland conjectures to have been Aldgate, Aldersgate,
Cripplegate, Ludgate, Newgate, and the Tower Postern, but it seems more
probable that instead of the last-mentioned, the seventh was Bridgegate
which took the place of Dowgate.
BISHOPGATE was built by some bishop of London; Strype supposes
Erkenwald, _circa_ 675, but Maitland thinks it was William the Norman
in the reign of the Conqueror. There were effigies of two bishops
on the gate, conjectured to have been Erkenwald and William, and the
presumption is that the former was the original builder, and the latter
the rebuilder; as, if Erkenwald were the founder, the old gate would be
400 years old in the time of William. In the reign of Henry III. it was
placed under the charge of the Hanseatic Merchants of the Guildhalle
Teutonicorum, who undertook to keep it in repair in consideration of
certain privileges and immunities, but they neglected their duty, for
which they were called to account in the reign of Edward I., upon which
they paid 210 marks sterling to the Corporation for present repairs,
and entered into a covenant to be less remiss in the future, and in
the reign of Edward IV. they rebuilt it. In 1561 they had again made
arrangements to rebuild it, but before the reconstruction was commenced
they were deprived of their liberties, and the old gate remained
until 1731, when it was taken down. It was a building of castellated
character, with a pointed archway in the centre, and posterns in the
two side towers, with statues over the central arch, and, high up in
the towers, in niches.
CRIPPLEGATE dates from the Saxon era, and obtained its name from the
circumstance that cripples there congregated to supplicate for alms.
Maitland considers that it, and not Aldersgate, was one of the four
original Roman gates. It is related that, in the year 1010, during
an incursion of the Danes into East Anglia, the monks of Bury fled
to London, carrying with them the sacred relics of St. Edmund, and
entering by this gate, all the cripples crouching about it were
miraculously healed. It was sometime a City prison for debtors and
persons guilty of trespass, and was the residence of the water-bailiff
of the City. In 1244, it was rebuilt by the Brewers' Company, and again
in 1491, Edmund Shaa, goldsmith, and mayor in 1483, having left 400
marks for that purpose. It was repaired and beautified, and the foot
postern new made, at the charge of the City of London, in 1663, during
the mayoralty of Sir John Robinson, knight and baronet, and alderman
of the ward. In its last aspect it was a castellated structure with
battlements, two octangular turrets, a recessed centre with Tudor
archway, and a side postern through one of the towers.
NEWGATE.—In the reign of William I., the church of St. Paul's was
burnt, when Mauritius, Bishop of London, commenced re-edification.
In doing this he considerably enlarged the plan, and encroached so
much upon the main street which ran through Cheapside, from Aldgate to
Ludgate, that vehicles were compelled to take circuitous routes through
narrow streets with dangerous angles, north or south of the cathedral,
to reach Ludgate. The inconvenience became so great, that in the reign
of Henry I, or Stephen, a new exit was made through the wall facing
Holborn, to which there was better access from Cheapside, and was
called Newgate, in contradistinction to the old gates. Howell, in his
_Londinopolis_, says that it is a mistake to suppose that it was built
so recently as the reign of Henry I., that it was of much older date,
and was formerly called Chamberlaingate; and Maitland inclines to the
opinion that it, and not Ludgate, was one of the four Roman gates, from
the circumstance that there are vestiges of a Roman road leading in
this direction. For 500 years the gate was the common prison for felons
of London and Middlesex. In the year 1255, one John Offrem, a prisoner,
who had killed a prior, made his escape, and Henry III. was so
displeased that he committed the Sheriffs to the Tower, and inflicted
a fine upon the City of 3,000 marks. In 1422, the executors of Sir
Richard Whittington, out of funds bequeathed for that purpose, "builded
the Gate of London called Newgate," which Grafton says "before was a
most ugly and loathsome prison." The east side was repaired in 1630,
and the gate was entirely destroyed in the Great Fire of London; after
which it was rebuilt "with greater magnificence than any of the gates
of the City." The new building was a lofty structure, with battlemented
roof, a recessed centre, with pointed archway, and two five-storied
sexangular towers. It was ornamented on the west side with Tuscan
pilasters, with niches holding statues in the inter-columniations, one
of which was a figure of Liberty, with a cat crouching at her feet,
emblematical of the career of Whittington; and on the east were three
niches with figures of Justice, Truth, and Mercy.
MOORGATE was built in the year 1415, by Thomas Falconer, Lord Mayor. At
that time the land outside the wall in this part was a marsh, or moor,
whence the name. It was made for the easier access of the citizens to
their gardens and the fields beyond the marsh; and a causeway, with
dykes and bridges, was constructed across the moor, which was improved
by Roger Acheley, Lord Mayor in 1511. Afterwards, in the year 1606, in
the mayoralty of Sir Leonard Halliday, "the moor, before an unhealthful
place, was turned into pleasant walks set with trees, compassed with
brick walls, and made convenient by sewers under ground for the
conveyence of the water, which cost the City £5,000 or thereabouts."
It was afterwards, during the mayoralty of John Baker, 1733, "new
gravell'd and rail'd in a very strong and handsome manner." The old
gate, having fallen to decay, was pulled down in 1672, and a new one of
stone erected, with a central archway, and posterns with two stories
above in the Italian style.
BRIDGEGATE, which supplanted Dowgate, was constructed along with the
bridge, in the ninth or tenth century, and was situated at the southern
end. In 1436 it fell, along with the tower above it, and the two
southernmost arches of the bridge; and in 1471 the new gate was burnt
by the Bastard Fauconbridge. It was repaired at divers times, and was
considerably damaged by fire in 1726, but was reinstated within two
years. As it last appeared it had a central archway, above which was
one story ornamented with the City arms, and had two circular side
towers, with posterns for foot passengers. This gate is historically
memorable from the number of heads of traitors and victims of royal
jealousy which have been placed upon it _in terrorem_. Besides these
there were several posterns between the main gates, and many water
gates, such as Billingsgate, Wolfsgate, Botolphsgate, etc., which,
however, were only used for commercial purposes, as wharfs for the
purpose of landing goods from ships and barges.
In the great Fire of London, Ludgate, Newgate, and Aldersgate were
destroyed, and rebuilt. In 1760-1, eight gates being no longer
necessary, and proving to be obstructions to the traffic, were sold
for what the materials would fetch, and pulled down; Newgate was
destroyed by the Lord George Gordon rioters in 1780. Temple Bar which
was built by Sir Christopher Wren, 1670-2, has been removed to make way
for the improvements about the new Law Courts; it had some historical
associations connected with it, having succeeded the old gate on London
Bridge for the ghastly display of traitors' heads. It has been carted
away, very injudiciously, to be placed in some private grounds, whilst
there was one most suitable and alone proper place for it, where it
would have retained its characteristic name, stood in a conspicuous
position, and have become to a certain extent an ornament, and
certainly an interesting memorial of the past history of London—that
spot being on the Thames embankment, as the river-side entrance to the
Temple Gardens.
Episodes in the Annals of Cheapside.
There are many famous streets in the capitals of the world—the Rue de
Rivoli, Paris; the Nevski Prospekt, St. Petersburg; the High Street,
Edinburgh; the Broadway, New York; the Joseph Platz, Vienna; the High
Street, Oxford; and the Via Sacra of Old Rome, with many others. All
these are renowned for various characteristics of picturesque beauty,
architectural grandeur, or as the scenes of important events in bygone
times. In an æsthetic point of view, Cheapside is inferior to many of
these, although architecturally it is now rapidly improving, and in
a few years will be able to show ranges of buildings equal to those
of any street in the world; but of all the streets mentioned above,
excepting, perhaps, those of Edinburgh and Rome, there is not one that
can compare with it for its historical associations, and for the grand
series of events of national and world-wide importance which it has
witnessed during the thousand years of its existence. We purpose to
bring before the reader a few of the more striking and picturesque of
these events, which have occurred at different periods of its history,
which will have a certain amount of value as serving to illustrate
the modes of living, the customs and amusements, the fluctuations
of opinion in politics and religion, the relations between king and
people, and the ancient municipal glories of the citizens of London in
bygone centuries.
Wondrously different was the Westchepen of the eleventh century when
the Norman Conqueror granted his brief and pithy charter to the
citizens of London, from that of the nineteenth, with its stately
edifices, its asphalted pavement, and its rush and roar of never
ceasing traffic. It was then somewhat like an ill-tended country road,
in the summer rough and uneven and full of deep holes, and in winter
a quagmire of mud and filth knee deep, with better beaten causeways
at the sides for pedestrian traffic. It is recorded by Stow that in
1091, a terrible hurricane passed over London, when 600 houses were
blown down, and the roof of the Church of St. Mary-le-Bow, erected
a few years previously, was lifted off, carried some distance, and
dashed into the street with such violence that four of the rafters,
twenty-five feet in length, were driven into the earth, "the ground
being of a moorish nature," leaving only four feet exposed, "which
were fain to be cut even with the ground, because they could not be
plucked out." The houses stood apart from each other like cottages
in a village, and were thatched with straw, which was the cause of
many fires, one occurring two years after the great storm, in which
nearly the whole of the remaining houses were consumed; and so did the
citizens continue to rebuild their habitations after each successive
fire, until 1245, when it was ordained that for the future they
should be covered with tiles or slates, instead of straw, in the
chief streets, "especially those close together, which were but few
in number, for in Cheapside was a void place called Crown Field, from
the Crown Inn which stood at the end of it." This field was at the
end of Soper's Lane, by Bucklersbury, and upon it were erected stages
for spectators of pageants. It was sold, 2 Ed. IV., to Sir Richard
Cholmley, but does not appear to have been utilized immediately for
building purposes, as we hear it spoken of in the time of Henry VII.
The curfew bell was tolled from the tower of St. Mary, and on the top
lanterns were suspended and lighted at night, "whereby travellers to
the City might have the better sight thereof, and not miss their ways."
For the supply of water there was a great standard or conduit at the
east end, where the Poultry commences, and a smaller one opposite
Old Change, by Paul's Gate, and opposite Wood Street stood one of
the Eleanor Crosses, erected in 1290, which having become decayed by
time, was re-edified by John Hatherley, Lord Mayor, who added to it a
fountain. These conduits were the frequent scenes of punishments for
misdeeds and executions. Wat Tyler beheaded Sheriff Lyon at the western
standard, and there Jack Cade chopped off the head of Lord Say; there
also Stapleton, Bishop of Exeter, and treasurer to Edward II., was
beheaded in 1326 "by the burgesses of London." In the same localities
also was the pillory erected, where Prynne, Burton, and Bastwick, had
their ears lopped off, and there Defoe and a multitude of other less
known defenders of public rights and freedom of conscience have been
exposed, sometimes to the derision, at others to the sympathy, of the
mob.
In the Plantagenet and Tudor eras Cheapside had assumed a different
and more street-like aspect. Continuous lines of houses, with gables
forming a vandyke sky line, with crossed timberings and latticed
windows, ran down each side, with the steeple of St. Mary-le-Bow, which
had fallen in 1271, and "slain many people, men, women, and children,"
and been restored gradually until the finishing stone was placed in
1469, standing proudly in the centre of the southern line. At the
eastern end, between Laurence Lane and a house, called the "cage," was
West Chepe Market, the goods being exposed for sale on stalls, which
were let at 13s. 4d. the standing, causing much bickering between
the street-sellers and the shopkeepers, in front of whose doors they
stood, and whose goods were often seized and burnt at the standards
for deficiencies in weight, or for inferiority in quality. The Eleanor
Cross, which had been rebuilt in 1441, and the eastern and the western
conduits still gave forth their supplies of water. The appearance of
the cross is indicated in an old print of the procession of Edward
VI. to his coronation in 1547; and again, with one of the conduits,
in La Serre's view of Cheapside, with the procession of Catharine de
Medicis, _temp._ Charles I. The shops were open in front like modern
butchers' shops, and the goods exposed for sale on bunks. Lydgate, in
his "Lackpenny" ballad, thus speaks of them:—
"Then to the Chepe I gan me drawn,
Where much people I saw for to stand,
One offered me velvet, silk, and lawn,
Another he taketh me by the hand,
'Here is Paris thread, the finest in the land;'
I never was used to such things, indeed,
And, wanting money, I could not speed."
The 'prentices of Cheapside were a conspicuous feature of the street at
this period. During the day they paraded up and down in front of their
masters' shop, crying "What d'ye lack; what d'ye lack?" followed by an
enumeration and laudation of the articles within, and the wonderful
bargains to be picked up; and in the evening listening eagerly for the
sound of the curfew bell as the signal for shutting up shop. Stow tells
us that in his time the bell-ringer was sometimes late, and that the
'prentices, precursors of the "Early Closing Movement" of our own time,
addressed him as follows:—
"Clerk of the Bow-bell, with the yellow locks,
For thy late ringing thy head shall have knocks."
The bell-ringer, knowing that they would be as good as their word, and
deeming "discretion to be the better part of valour," replies:—