which I have thus described to you, that the custom of erecting
Religious Houses on Bridges, is certainly of great antiquity. A notable
instance of this kind was on the Bridge at Droitwich, where the road
passed through the Chapel and separated the congregation from the
reading-desk and pulpit. Another famous Bridge Chapel is also to be
found erected over the River Calder, at Wakefield, in the West Riding
of Yorkshire; of which, a folding view, by W. Lodge, is inserted in
the ‘_Ducatus Leodiensis_’ of Ralph Thoresby, London, 1715, folio,
sometimes placed at page 164. This beautiful fane, you know, was built
by King Edward IV. in memory of his father, Richard, Duke of York,
who was killed in the battle fought near Wakefield, on December the
31st, 1460. The Bridge Chapel, however, though extremely rich in its
architecture, was not so singular as our’s at London, since it was
not built _in_ the pier, and descending even to the water’s edge,
but _upon_ the pier, and the platform of the Bridge itself. Somewhat
like our shrine of St. Thomas, however, as it belonged to the poor
of the town, it was, about 1779, converted into a dwelling-house,
and let at a small annual rent to a retail dealer in old clothes! as
that industrious Antiquary, Richard Gough, tells us, in his ‘_British
Topography_,’ London, 1780, 4to. volume ii. page 437, note, r. ‘To
what base uses may we not return, Horatio!’ The edifice which had
been erected for Monks to chaunt forth their _Requiescats_ in solemn
procession; the shrine which had been endowed for the sweet repose of a
warrior’s soul; the--”
“I’ll tell you what, Mr. Barnaby Postern,” said I, starting up,
“you’ll contribute to _my_ sweet repose, unless you leave wandering in
Yorkshire, and return again to London Bridge: what have we to do with a
bead-roll of all the Bridge Chapels that are scattered through England?
I desire to know but of one; for, by its having existed, we are sure
that there might have been some sort of custom for their erection; and,
as old Chaucer saith,
‘Experience, though none auctoritye
Were in this world, is quite enough for me.’”
“True, Sir, true,” said the mild old Antiquary; “you have once more
brought me back to my starting-post; for I own that I am too apt, when
discoursing upon one subject, to branch out into others which seem to
illustrate, or are in any degree connected with it. You will, however,
I dare say, allow me to remark, that Plutarch denies the derivation of
the word Pontifex from the old Roman custom of sacrificing on Bridges,
which might, nevertheless, be the origin of Chapels being built upon
them. He mentions this in his Life of Numa Pompilius, in his ‘_Vitæ
Parallelæ_,’ best edition, by Augustine Bryan, and M. du Soul, London,
1729-24, 4to. volume i. page 142. The Greek passage begins, ‘Νουμᾷ
δὲ και τὴν των αρχιερεων [Greek: Nouma de kai tên tôn archiereôn],’
&c., and the Latin, ‘_Jam etiam sacerdotum_;’ but I shall give you the
excellent modern English version of Dr. Langhorne, in his very popular
translation of the old Classic, from the edition of Mr. Archdeacon
Wrangham, London, 1813, 8vo. volume i. pages 181, 182: ‘To Numa,’ says
the passage, ‘is attributed the institution of that high order of
priests, called _Pontifices_; over which, he is said to have presided
himself. Some say, they were called _Pontifices_, as employed in the
service of those powerful gods that govern the world; for _potens_, in
the Roman language, signifies powerful. Others, that they were ordered
by their law-giver to perform such offices as were in their power,
and standing excused when there was some great impediment. But most
writers assign a ridiculous reason for the term, as if they were called
_Pontifices_, from their offering sacrifices upon the Bridge, which
the Latins call _Pontem_; such kinds of ceremonies, it seems, being
looked upon as the most sacred, and of the highest antiquity. These
Priests, too, are said to have been commissioned to keep the Bridges in
repair, as one of the most indispensable parts of their sacred office.’
Plutarchus, the author of this, you remember, died about A. D. 140;
and the period of which he wrote, was about 630 years before the birth
of Christ. That giant of learning, also, John Jacob Hoffmann, denies
that the word _Pontifex_ had any thing to do with a Bridge; as you may
see discussed at considerable length, in his ‘_Lexicon Universale_,’
Leyden, 1698, folio, volume iii. page 836, column 2, where he says, it
is compounded of _posse_ and _facere_, that is to say, such persons as
are _able to do_ the thing, or sacrifice: but as the article is equally
long, erudite, and curious, I refer you to the original.
“And now we come to speak of Stow’s singular hypothesis, that the River
Thames was turned in its current, during the erection of the first
Stone Bridge at London. He states this in his ‘_Survey_,’ volume i.
page 58, where he also says, that the course of the stream was carried
through ‘a trench cast for that purpose; beginning, as it is supposed,
East about Rotherhithe, and ending in the West about Patricksey, now
termed Battersey.’ Strype, the last, and, perhaps, the best Editor of
our old Metropolitan Historian, on the page above cited, seems inclined
to support this idea; for he says, ‘It is much controverted whether
the River Thames was turned, when the Bridge over it was built, and
whether the River was more subject to overflow its banks anciently than
at present; and from all that hath been seen and written upon the
turning of the River, it seems very evident to me, that it _was_ turned
while the Bridge was building, and that it is more subject to overflow
its banks now, than it was formerly; for the channel of the River must
have been deeper than it is now, or the Palace of Westminster would
never have been built where the Hall and the rest of its remains are
now situated. Is it to be supposed that any Prince would have built
a Palace, where the lower rooms were liable to be overflowed at a
spring-tide, as we see the Hall has been several times of late years,
and the lawyers brought out on porters’ backs? The reason whereof is,
that the sands have raised the channel, and, consequently, the tides
must rise higher in proportion, than they did formerly; and unless some
care is taken to cleanse the River, the buildings on the same level
with the floor of Westminster-Hall, will not be habitable much longer,
as the sand and ouse are still daily increasing, and choking up the
bed of the River.’ Nicholas Hawksmoor, also, on page 8 of his work,
which I have already quoted, says, that ‘many skilful persons have
thought that the River Thames was not turned, but that the flowing of
the tides was then different, and that the water did not rise so high
at the Bridge; for the Thames might heretofore overflow the marshes
near the sea, and have a greater spreading; which being now restrained
by the bank, called the wall of the Thames, into narrower limits,
and the water which comes from the sea into the mouth of the Thames
during the flood, not being received by the marshes, must come up into
the country, and so swell the tide higher at London than it usually
did. The celebrated Sir Christopher Wren was of opinion, that when
the foundation of London Bridge was laid, the course of the River was
_not_ turned, but that every pier was set upon piles of wood, which
were drove as far as might be under low-water mark, on which were laid
planks of timber, and upon them the foundation of the stone piers: the
heads of the said piles have been seen at a very low ebb, and may be so
still when some of the chalk or stone is removed to mend the Sterlings.’
“Maitland, and his Editor Entick, are also both opposed to the idea
that the River was turned during the erection of London Bridge, as
they evince on page 46 of their ‘_History_;’ where they ground their
objections to it on the following arguments. Firstly, it is supposed
that the vestiges of Knute’s Canal--which, as we have seen, took the
same course as Stow supposes the River to have taken,--might have
deceived him; a reason also adopted by Hawksmoor, in the place I last
cited. Secondly, the charge of such an immense work is next objected
to; as the cost of the ground intended for the trench, the embankment
of it, and the damming off the River itself, must have amounted to
at least treble the sum which would otherwise have been required to
erect the Bridge. The total silence of those Historians who mention
the construction of London Bridge, upon the subject of so great a work
as the turning of the River, is next insisted upon: and, finally, the
length of time which the building occupied,--thirty-three years,--is
adduced as alone sufficient to overthrow the whole hypothesis. ‘For,’
adds the author, ‘had the people concerned in erecting it, had dry
ground to have built upon, it might have been finished in a tenth
part of the time, and in a much more durable manner.’ Maitland then
proceeds to state, that, in 1730, he surveyed the Bridge, in company
with Mr. Bartholomew Sparruck, the Water-Carpenter of the same; and
that he observed in many places,--where the stones were washed from
the sterlings,--the mighty frames of piles whereon the stone piers or
pillars were founded; the exterior parts of which, consisted of huge
piles driven as closely together as art could effect. ‘On the tops of
these,’ he continues, ‘are laid long planks, or beams of timber, of
the thickness of ten inches, strongly bolted; whereon is placed the
base of the stone pier, nine feet above the bed of the River, and three
below the sterlings; and on the outside of this wooden foundation,--and
for its preservation,--are drove the piles called the sterlings.’ He
then goes on to observe, that Mr. Sparruck informed him, that he and
the Bridge-Mason had frequently taken out of the lowermost layers of
stones in the piers, several of the original stones, which were laid in
pitch instead of mortar; and that from this circumstance they imagined,
that all the outside stones of the piers, as high as the sterlings,
were originally bedded in the same material, to prevent the water from
damaging the work. This labour was, he thinks, continued at every ebb
tide, until the piers were raised above high-water mark; and hence
he argues, that if the Thames had been turned, there would not have
been any occasion for the use of pitch, and that Plaster of Paris was
not then in use in this country. These are the principal heads of the
dispute concerning the turning of the River: to which I only add my own
settled conviction, that _the course of the Thames was not altered_.”
“But pray, my worthy friend,” said I, as he concluded, “what other
buildings stood upon the Bridge built by Peter of Colechurch, besides
the Chapel of St. Thomas?”
“That is a point,” replied he, “upon which Antiquaries are very far
from being decided: for whilst some assert, with Sir Joseph Ayloffe in
his account of the Bridge attached to Vertue’s prints, that, at first,
there were no houses upon it, and that it was only plainly coped with
stone until 1395,--late in the reign of Richard II.,--others argue that
it was built upon to some extent two centuries before, and, indeed,
there is proof of this being the case in the reign of King Edward I.,
as I shall shew you anon. Stow, in his ‘_Survey_,’ volume i. page 22,
says that the Bridge Gate, which was erected at the Southwark end,
was one of the four first and principal gates of the City, and stood
there long before the Conquest, when there was only a Bridge of timber,
being the seventh and last mentioned by Fitz-Stephen. Maitland, at page
30 of his first volume, when he comes to speak of the same erection,
denies not only the truth, but even the probability of Stow’s
assertions; and, indeed, Stephanides himself says only at page 24, ‘On
the West,’--that is of London,--‘are two Castles well fortified; and
the City wall is both high and thick with seven double gates, and many
towers on the North side, placed at proper distances. London once had
its walls and towers in like manner on the South, but that vast River,
the Thames, which abounds with fish, enjoys the benefit of tides, and
washes the City on this side, hath, in a long tract of time, totally
subverted and carried away the walls in this part.’ The Latin of this
passage commences at ‘_Ab Occidente duo Castella munitissima_,’ &c.
Maitland then goes on to argue, that Fitz-Stephen could have no regard
to a gate on the South, there being no wall remaining; ‘whereas,’ says
he, ‘on the contrary, it is manifest that his seven gates were in the
continued wall on the land side.’
“It is probable, however, that, at a very early period after its
erection, towers were reared upon London Bridge, for there was one
standing at each end; but of these I shall speak more largely under
future years: remarking only, that it is by no means impossible for a
Watch-tower and gate to have stood upon the Bridge, even from its very
first erection, seeing that it was, as it were, a new key to the City.
A sort of Barbican, Mr. Geoffrey, such as you derive your name from;
for you remember the essential importance which such buildings were
of, and how Bagford speaks of them in his Letter to Hearne, which I
have already quoted, page lxii. ‘Here,’ says he, ‘they kept Cohorts
of Souldiers in continual service’--for your Barbican Tower was of
Roman invention,--‘to watch in the night; that if any sudden fire
should happen, they might be in a readiness to extinguish it, as also
to give notice if an enemy were gathering or marching towards the City
to surprise them. In short, it was a Watch-tower by day; and at night,
they lighted some combustible material on the top thereof, to give
directions to the weary traveller repairing to the City, either with
provision or on some other occasion.’
“But to pass from probabilities to certainties, let us now, having got
the Bridge fairly built of stone, consider the many events and changes
which it hath experienced, from its infancy in the thirteenth Century,
to its old age in the nineteenth: and so, my excellent auditor, Here
begin the Books of the Chronicles of London Bridge.
“That sorrowful exclamation, ‘No sooner born than dead!’ may well, at
the period at which we are now arrived, be uttered over this scarcely
completed edifice; for in the night of the 10th of July, 1212, within
four years after its being finished, a dreadful conflagration took
place upon it. Stow, at page 60 of his ‘_Survey_,’ cites the Book
of Dunmow, William de Packington, and William of Coventry, as his
authorities for that excellent account of it which I shall presently
repeat to you. Let me, however, first observe, that Packington was
Secretary and Treasurer to Edward the Black Prince, in Gascoigne,
about 1380. For _William_ of Coventry, I conceive that we should read
_Walter_ of Coventry; because the former, who wrote about 1360, is
celebrated in page 148 of Bishop Nicolson’s ‘_Historical Libraries_,’
already cited, as the Author of a work ‘concerning the coming of the
Carmelites into England.’ Walter, on the contrary, at page 61, is
mentioned as having compiled three books of Chronicles, about the year
1217, which yet remain in Manuscript in Bennet College, Cambridge.
The ‘_Chronicle of Dunmow_,’ which is the other authority quoted by
Stow, is now to be found only in a small quarto volume in the Harleian
Library of Manuscripts, No. 530, article ii. page 2 a. It consists of
a miscellaneous collection of notes, in the hand writings of Stow,
Camden, and perhaps Sir Henry Savile; transcribed upon old, stained,
and worn-out, paper. The notice of this great fire is very brief, and,
with the heading of the extracts, runs thus: ‘_Collectanea ex Chronico
de Dunmowe_.’--‘1213. London was burned and the Brydge also, and many
peryshed by violence of the fyre.’ Stow’s own account, however, is the
most interesting extant, and is as follows. ‘The Borough of Southwark,’
says he, ‘upon the South side of the River of Thames, as also the
Church of our Lady of the Canons there,’--that is to say the Church
of St. Mary Overies, which changed its name upon being re-founded, in
1106, for Canons Regular, by William de Pont de l’Arche, and William
D’Auncy, Norman knights,--these ‘being on fire, and an exceeding great
multitude of people passing the Bridge, either to extinguish and quench
it, or else to gaze and behold it; suddenly the North part, by blowing
of the South wind was also set on fire; and the people which were even
now passing the Bridge, perceiving the same, would have returned, but
were stopped by the fire: and it came to pass, that as they stayed or
protracted the 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 there
came to aid them many ships and vessels, into which the multitude so
unadvisedly rushed, that the ships being thereby drowned, they all
perished. It was said, that through the fire and shipwreck, there were
destroyed above three thousand persons, whose bodies were found in part
or half burned, besides those that were wholly burned to ashes, and
could not be found.’
“Such is Stow’s account of this melancholy event, which is best
confirmed by the ‘_Annals of Waverley_,’ page 173; but they state
also, that under this year, ‘1212, London, about the Bridge, was great
part burned, together with the Priory of Southwark.’ Now, if we might
credit the ‘_Historiæ Angliæ_’ of that wily, but elegant Italian,
Polydore Vergil, we might be sure, that even at this period, London
Bridge was built upon: ‘_Ipso illo anno_,’ says he, at page 276 of
his book, setting out, however, with an erroneous date, ‘In that same
year’--1211,--‘all the buildings that were erected upon London Bridge,
were, even upon both sides, destroyed by fire: the which is esteemed
a place of wonder.’ Polydore Vergil, you know, was an Historian of
the reign of King Henry VIII. so we shall refer to him hereafter;
and his work, now cited, was written at that Monarch’s request, so
late as about the year 1521. It is esteemed chiefly for its elegant
diction; and the best edition of it is considered to be that printed at
Leyden, in 1651, octavo; though the foregoing reference is to the last
impression of the Basil folio, A. D. 1570.
“There does not appear, however, to have been any very effectual or
speedy order taken for the restoration of London Bridge; for in the
‘_Rotuli Clausi_,’ or the Close Rolls, of the 15th Year of King John,
1213, Membrane the 3rd, is the following entry. ‘It is commanded to
the Mayor and Sheriffs of London, that the halfpence which are now
taken of foreign Merchants, shall be given to the work of London
Bridge. Witness Myself at the Tower of London, on the 18th day of
December, in the 15th year of our reign.’--You will find the Latin of
this printed in the second impression of Thomas Hearne’s edition of
the ‘_Liber Niger Scaccarii_,’ London, 1771, 8vo. volume i. page *471;
and the original record may be seen in the Tower of London, written
in so small, delicate, and abbreviated a character, that it hardly
makes two lines on the narrow parchment roll. And now that we are
speaking of the repairs of London Bridge, I should observe, that they
are closely connected with the history of the Bridge-House and Yard
in Tooley Street, Southwark; since Stow tells you in his ‘_Survey_,’
volume ii. page 24, that they were so called and appointed, as being ‘a
storehouse for stone, timber, or whatsoever pertaineth to the buildings
or repairing of London Bridge.’ He adds too, that this House ‘seemeth
to have taken beginning with the first foundation of the Bridge either
of stone or timber;’ and that it is ‘a large plot of ground on the
bank of the River Thames, containing divers large buildings for the
stowage’ of materials for the repairs of London Bridge. Of events which
particularly concern this place, I shall, however, speak more fully in
their proper order of time.
“In the year 1235, you will recollect that Isabel, third daughter
of King John, by his third Queen, Isabella of Angoulême, was sent
with great splendour into Germany, to marry the Emperor Frederick
II. She was attended by William Brewer, Bishop of Exeter, and a
Privy Councillor to King Henry III., and also by the Archbishop of
Cologne, the Imperial proxy, who had pronounced her Empress. Upon
this occasion, according to the customs of the ancient Norman Law and
the Feudal System, the King received an aid to furnish her dowry,
of two marks out of every Knight’s Fee;--that is to say, as it is
usually accepted, £1. 6_s._ 8_d._ from every person who possessed an
estate of £20. per annum, which was granted by the Common Council
of the kingdom. This rather uncommon aid, you find certified in
Thomas Madox’s ‘_History and Antiquities of the Exchequer of the
Kings of England_,’ London, 1711, folio, page 412; and in the
voluminous collections of that eminent Antiquary, now preserved with
Sir Hans Sloane’s Manuscripts in the British Museum, No. 4563, page
181 b, is the following very curious document, which connects this
circumstance with the history of London Bridge. ‘To be remembered
concerning the payments of Purprestures’--fines for enclosing and
damaging of Land--‘and of Escheats’--accidental returns of estates to
their principal owners,--‘It is commanded to the Sheriffs, that they
get all the arrears of all the above rents, and the issues of all
Purprestures and Escheats; _excepting the rents of London Bridge_, and
the remainder of the amerciaments belonging to the Circuit of W. of
York,’--most probably Walter Grey, then Archbishop of York, and Lord
Chancellor,--‘as well in the County of Middlesex as at the Tower, and
all the deficiencies (of the aid) for marrying the King’s sister, and
for the passing over this sea into Gascony.’ In the Exchequer Rolls of
the 32nd of Henry III., A. D. 1247, 12 a.
“Towards the latter end of the year 1248, King Henry vainly endeavoured
to collect from his Barons, a sum sufficient to enable him to recover
certain provinces in France; upon which, he offered a portion of his
plate and jewels for sale to the Citizens of London, by whom they were
bought. The King, displeased at finding they readily procured money
for such a purpose, and yet pleaded poverty whenever he solicited a
supply, resolved upon retaliation; and, to that end, kept his Christmas
in the City, forced the inhabitants to present him with divers costly
New Year’s gifts, and established a Market at Westminster, to last for
fifteen days, beginning on the 13th of October, during which time all
other fairs were suspended, and, in London itself, all commerce was
prohibited. I think too, that we may trace the effects of Henry’s anger
yet farther; for, in the Patent Roll of the 34th year of his reign,
1249, Membrane the 5th, is the following writ.
“‘Of taking the City of London into the hands of our Lord the King. The
King, &c. to his faithful W. de Haverhull, his Treasurer; Peter Blund,
Constable of the Tower of London; and Ernald Gerandin, his Chamberlain:
Greeting. We command that without delay, you take into your hands our
City of London, with the County of Middlesex, and London Bridge in
like manner: so that the issues of the same be answered for to us at
our Exchequer at our pleasure. And all the aforesaid shall be in safe
custody, until the receipt of another mandate from us. In testimony of
which thing, etcætera, Witness the King at Merton, on the 20th day of
May.’ The original of this is of course in the Tower.