[Footnote 2: Mr. Cunningham, speaking of Houndsditch, merely
quotes the words of Stow. It would appear that Stow's reason for
the name is entirely conjectural; and indeed the same reason
would justify the same name being applied to all the "ditches"
in London in the year 1500, and indeed much later. This passage
of Arnold throws a new light upon the _name_, at least, of that
rivulet; for stagnant its waters could not be, from its
inclination to the horizon. It, however, raises another question
respecting the mode of keeping and feeding hounds in those days;
and likewise, as suggested in the text, the further question, as
to the purpose for which these hounds were thus kept as a part
of the civic establishment.]
[Footnote 3: This view will no doubt be contested on the
authority of Stow, who describes the tonne as a "prison for
night-walkers," so called from the form in which it was built.
(Cunningham, p. 141., 2nd ed.) Yet, as Mr. Cunningham elsewhere
states (p. xxxix.), "the Tun upon Corn-hill [was] converted into
a conduit" in 1401, it would hardly be called a "prison" a
century later. The probability is, that the especial building
called the tonne never was a prison at all; but that the prison,
from standing near or adjoining the tonne, took its name, the
tonne prison, in conformity with universal usage. It is equally
probable that the tonne was originally built for the purpose to
which it was ultimately applied; and that some delay arose in
its use from the difficulty experienced in the hydraulic part of
the undertaking, which was only overcome in 1401. The
universality of the punishment of "ducking" amongst our
ancestors is at least a circumstance in favour of the view taken
in the text.]
* * * * *