Читать книгу Chronicles of London Bridge - Richard Thompson - Страница 7

“I thank you,” replied my narrator, “I thank you, Mr. Geoffrey Barbican, for recalling me to the subject of our conversation; for this is the very point at which I would proceed with my history. You know, Sir,” continued he, in a much brisker tone, “I have already observed to you, that the First Wooden Bridge was erected much farther to the East than yonder stone bulwark; for when King William I. granted a Charter to the foundation of St. Peter’s Abbey, at West-Minster, in the second year of his reign, AD 1067, he confirmed to the Monks serving God in that place, a Gate in London, then called Butolph’s Gate, with a Wharf which stood at the head of London Bridge. This has ever been received as a well-established fact; for Stow relates it in his ‘Survey,’ volume i., pages 22 and 58; and Mr. John Dart, in his ‘History and Antiquities of the Abbey Church of St. Peter, Westminster,’ London, 1723, folio, volume i., page 20, supports it, in his List of Benefactors to the Abbey, in the time of King Edward the Confessor.

“The record is also given at length, by Stow, in English; but you may see it in the original Latin, in a curious Manuscript in the Cotton Library, marked Faustina, A. iii., which is entitled, ‘A Registry of the Regal and Pontifical Charters, Privileges, Agreements, and Covenants, of the Bishops and Abbots of the Church of the blessed Peter of Westminster; many whereof are Saxon ones, written in the Norman-Saxon characters.’ This volume is a little stout quarto, written in a small fair Church text, on parchment; adorned with many vermillion initial letters, and rubrics, or heads of chapters. The Charter to which I have now referred you, chapter xliv., is the last but one in the reign of King William I., folio 63, b, of the modern pagination; and, put into English, is as follows:—

“ ‘Concerning the lands of Almodus, of St. Butolph’s Gate, and of the Wharf at the head of London Bridge.

“ ‘William, King of England, to the Sheriffs and all Ministers, as, also, to his faithful subjects of London, French and English, greeting: Know ye, that I have granted unto God and to St. Peter of Westminster, and to the Abbot Vitalis, the House which Almodus, of the Gate of St. Botolph, gave to them when he was made a Monk; that is to say, his Lord’s Court, with his Houses, and one Wharf which is at the head of London Bridge, and others of his lands in the same City, like as King Edward more fully and beneficially granted them: and I will and command that they shall enjoy the same well, and quietly, and honourably, with sake and soke, and shall hold all the customs and laws of the aforesaid. And I defend them that none shall do them any injury. Witness, Walkeline, Bishop of Winchester, and William, Bishop of Durham, and R., Earl of Mell., and Hugh, Earl of Warwick.’

“And now let me remark that, by this we are informed that the City end of the Bridge was not anciently the foot of it, which is asserted by the evidence of Richard Newcourt, in his ‘Ecclesiastical History of the Diocess of London,’ London, 1708–10, folio, volume i., page 396, where he says, that ‘St. Magnus’ Church is sometimes called, in Latin, the Church of St. Magnus the Martyr, in the City of London, near the foot, or at the foot, of London Bridge.’

“This First Wooden Bridge, however, was not fated to stand long; for, on the sixteenth of November, the feast of St. Edmund the Archbishop, in the year 1091, ‘at the hour of six, a dreadful whirlwind from the South-East, coming from Africa, blew upon the City, and overthrew upwards of six hundred houses, several Churches, greatly damaged the Tower, and tore away the roof and part of the wall of the Church of St. Mary le Bow, in Cheapside. The roof was carried to a considerable distance, and fell with such force, that several of the rafters, being about twenty-eight feet in length, pierced upwards of twenty feet into the ground, and remained in the same position as when they stood in the Chapel.’

“The best accounts of this terrible event are to be found in the ‘Chronicle’ of Florence of Worcester, page 457, which was literally copied into the ‘Annales’ of Roger de Hoveden, Chaplain to King Henry II., printed in the ‘Scriptores post Bedam,’ already cited, page 462;—in William of Malmesbury, page 125;—and in the ‘Chronicle’ of John of Brompton, which I have also before quoted, page 987.

“During the same storm, too, the water in the Thames rushed along with such rapidity, and increased so violently, that London Bridge was entirely swept away; whilst the lands on each side were overflowed for a considerable distance. I cannot help observing how slightly, and erroneously, the ‘Annals of Waverley’ notice this most dreadful devastation; for at page 137, of the best edition by Dr. Thomas Gale, volume ii. of his ‘Historiæ Anglicanæ Scriptores xv.’ Oxford, 1691, folio, they merely state that ‘a vehement wind struck down London the 6th of the kalends of November,’—that is to say, on the 27th of October—‘at the hour of six!’ I doubt not but the truth was, that the good Monks of Waverley Abbey in Surrey felt nothing of this ventus vehemens themselves, and therefore gave a much more trivial record of it, than if it had shaken but a single bell in the turrets of their own Cenobium. The ‘Annals of Waverley,’ you know, were, down to about 1120, almost a translation from the ‘Saxon Chronicle,’ executed in the twelfth century. The following year, 1092, the sixth of the reign of William Rufus, was marked by a season fatal to bridges in general; although there is no mention that our’s at London participated in the destruction. This fact is related by William of Malmesbury, page 125, and by Roger de Hoveden, page 464, in these words:—‘Also, in his sixth year, there was such an excessive rain, and such high floods, the rivers overflowing the low grounds that lay near them, as the like was remembered by none. And afterward, in the winter, ensued a sudden frost; whereby the great streams were congealed in such a manner that they could draw two hundred horsemen and carriages over them; whilst at their thawing, many bridges, both of wood and stone, were borne down, and divers water mills were broken up and carried away!’

“Frequent destructions by fire seem, also, to have been a very general fate of all our ancient buildings; for, in 1093, the wooden houses and straw roofs of the London Citizens were again in flames, and a great part of the City was thus destroyed.

“Too soon after this calamity, at a most inauspicious time for commencing, or executing, expensive public works, in 1097, King William Rufus imposed a heavy tax upon his subjects for the re-building of London Bridge—though that might very well be defended—the erecting of the palace of West-Minster Hall, and the construction of a wall round the Tower. The ‘Saxon Chronicle’ speaks of these ill-advised undertakings in the blended tones of sorrow and of anger. ‘This was, in all things,’ says that faithful old history, at pages 316, 317, ‘a very heavy-timed year, and beyond measure laborious from the badness of the weather, both when men attempted to till the land, and, afterwards, to gather the fruits of their tilth; and from unjust contributions they never rested. Many counties also, that were confined to London by work, were grievously oppressed, on account of the wall that was building about the Tower, and the Bridge that was nearly all afloat, and the King’s Hall that they were building at West-Minster; and many men perished thereby.’

“Our brave old River of Thames itself, however, is of the same changeful nature as Luna, the mistress of his tides; for, if at one time, he overflows his banks, blows up his Bridge, or drowns an invading army, by the fury of his waves; at another season he contracts his waters into their narrowest channel, or draws them back into his urn, without leaving enough to float a wherry over his bed. Of this I shall give you several instances, as we get lower down the stream of time; and now only remark, in chronological order, that on the 6th of the Ides of October, videlicet the 10th, in the 15th Year of the reign of Henry I. 1114, the River was so dried up, and there was such want of water, that between the Tower of London and the Bridge, and even under it, ‘a great number of men, women, and children,’—says Stow, in his ‘Survey,’ volume i. page 58—‘did wade over both on horse and foot,’ the water coming up to their knees.

“The original account of this is to be found in the ‘Annales’ of Roger de Hoveden, page 473; from whom we derive the additional information, that this defect of water commenced in the middle of the night preceding, and lasted until the darkest part of the next. The same historian, also, records, on the same page, that in the year 1115, the winter was so severe, that all throughout England the Bridges were broken by the ice.

“But although London Bridge was an edifice to which there was a continual and heavy cost attached, yet its possessions were, even anciently, very extensive; for you find that so early as in the 23d year of Henry I., AD 1122, Thomas de Ardern, and Thomas his son, gave to the Monks of Bermondsey, and the Church of St. George in Southwark, the tenth of his Lord’s corn lands in Horndon, and the immense sum of Five Shillings per annum rent, out of the Lands pertaining to London Bridge. Calculate this, my good Sir, at twenty times its present value; for we know that in the Great Charter of King John, Chapter II. a knight paid but five pounds to the King as a Relief when he came to his estate; and that, Lord Coke tells you in his Second Institute, even several years later, was the fourth part of his annual income. Remember too, that sixpence by the week was then a living stipend to an ordinary labourer; that the Black Book of the Exchequer—which was written about the reign of Henry I.—ordains that a tenant shall pay one shilling to the King, instead of providing bread for one hundred soldiers for one meal; that the provender of twenty horses for one night, also to be paid by a tenant, was commuted for four pence; that in 1185, the tenants of Shireburn paid by custom two pence, or four hens, which they would; and, lastly, recollect, that in 1125—called by Robert de Monte, the dearest year ever known—a horseload of wheat was sold but for six shillings: in ordinary times, as in 1043, it was sixpence the quarter. Of all this you may see most abundant and curious proof, in Bishop Fleetwood’s ‘Chronicon Preciosum,’ London, 1745, 8vo. pages 55, 56; and therefore the gift of Thomas de Ardern was munificent.

“I should observe that Stow obtained the knowledge of this donation from the manuscript ‘Annals of Bermondsey Priory,’ which are now preserved in the Harleian Library in the British Museum, No. 231, very fairly written in a good legible black text upon vellum; having vermillion rubrics of the King’s Reign, and the date of the year. It is a rather small quarto volume, of 71 written leaves, delicately paged by some later hand; and the passage occurs on the reverse of folio 11. The Harleian Catalogue calls it, in Latin, ‘the Annals of the Abbey of St. Saviour’s of Bermondesie, from the year of our Lord 1042, down to the year of our Lord 1433; in which, beside the public affairs of each reign,’—told in the words of other Chronicles—‘many things are narrated which belong to the history of the same Abbey.’

“You have already seen that London Bridge was a public work, to which all England furnished some labourers; but, as I mentioned some time back, Maitland, in his ‘History of London,’ volume i. page 44, notices a deed cited by Stow, exempting the lands of Battle Abbey, in Sussex. This was granted by King Henry I. but is perhaps now lost, for it remains wholly unnoticed by the learned Editors of the new edition of Dugdale’s ‘Monasticon;’ and I must therefore give it you in the very words of the old Antiquary himself, who says, page 58, that in his time it remained with the seal very fair, in the custody of Joseph Holland, Esq.;—it is as follows:—

“ ‘Henry, King of England, to Ralph, Bishop of Chichester, and all the Officers of Sussex, sendeth greeting. Know ye, &c. I command by my kingly authority, that the manor called Alceston, which my father gave with other lands to the Abbey of Battle, be free and quiet from shires and hundreds, and all other customs of earthly servitude, as my father held the same, most freely and quietly; and namely, from the work of London Bridge, and the work of the Castle at Pevensey: and this I command upon my forfeiture. Witness, William Pont de l’Arche, at Berry.’

“The second year of the succeeding King, however, namely Stephen, saw London Bridge in a state to require the exertions of all England to raise it: for, in 1136, a fire broke out in the dwelling of one Aileward, near London Stone, that consumed Eastward as far as Aldgate; and to the Shrine of St. Erkenwald, in St. Paul’s Cathedral, to the West. On the Southern side of London the Wooden Bridge over the Thames was destroyed, but was soon after repaired, since Stephanides, whose description of London was written between 1170 and 1182, speaks of it as affording a convenient standing place to the spectators of the Citizens’ Water Tournaments. I shall give you the whole passage, because it describes a very curious sport of the twelfth century, which was celebrated in the immediate vicinity of this very spot; and the account is at page 76, beginning ‘In feriis Paschalibus;’ we’ll content ourselves, however, with Dr. Pegge’s translation of it, which runs thus.

“ ‘At Easter, the diversion is prosecuted on the water; a target is strongly fastened to a trunk or mast, fixed in the middle of the River, and a youngster standing upright in the stern of a boat, made to move as fast as the oars and current can carry it, is to strike the target with his lance; and if in hitting it he break his lance, and keep his place in the boat, he gains his point, and triumphs; but if it happen that the lance be not shivered by the force of the blow, he is of course tumbled into the water, and away goes his vessel without him. However, a couple of boats full of young men is placed, one on each side of the target, so as to be ready to take up the unsuccessful adventurer, the moment he emerges from the stream, and comes fairly to the surface. The Bridge, and the balconies on the banks, are filled with spectators, whose business it is to laugh.’

“Of this singular sport, Joseph Strutt copied in his ‘Sports and Pastimes of the People of England,’ London, 1801, 4to. page 92, plate x. a very curious illumination, contained in a volume of the Royal Manuscripts in the British Museum—2 B. vii.—which consists of a history of the Old Testament, the Psalter, the Hymns of the Church, and a Calendar; all richly painted in water-colours, and beautified with gold—‘yellow, glittering, precious gold,’—so highly embossed, as to be ‘sensible to feeling as to sight.’

“That volume brings back old days to my recollection, whenever I behold it; for, in the year 1553, it belonged to Queen Mary of England, and is bound in a truly regal style for her; being in thick boards covered with crimson velvet, richly embroidered with large flowers in coloured silks and gold twist; besides being garnished with gilt brass bosses and clasps, on the latter of which are engraven the Royal devices and supporters. Another, and more pleasing proof of its having been her’s—inasmuch as it records a good action of a London Citizen concerned with the affairs of this brave river—is to be found in a Latin note written in a beautiful black text hand, on the reverse of the last leaf of the volume. ‘This Book,’ it states, ‘formerly a gift, was afterwards carried away by a sailor; but that excellent and honest person, Baldwin Smith, Receiver of the Customs of the Port of London, hath restored and given it unto the most illustrious Mary, Queen of England, France, and Ireland, in the month of October, in the year of our Lord, 1553, in the first year of her reign.’ The text of this volume is said to have been written, and the illuminations executed, in the fourteenth century, though, from their style, I cannot help thinking that the period is nearly an hundred years too late; for beneath the pages of the Psalter is a series of most interesting and excellent drawings, in pen-and-ink outlines, very slightly and delicately tinted with colours, which was certainly a far more ancient custom. However that may be, this series consists ‘de omnibus rebus, et quibusdam aliis,’ for there are the representations of animals and birds, field-sports, games, legends, martyrdoms, battles, and fables, of an almost infinite variety; and in the course of them occur the figures of a water-quintain, both as it is described by Fitzstephen, and also of a more warlike character. The first of these was engraved by Strutt in the work which I have before referred to, and gives a very perfect idea of the River Tilting of the Twelfth Century,

which the illuminator had, no doubt, personally witnessed in his own time. The other, which has also been engraven in the same work, page 113, plate xv. shews two armed knights getting ‘grysly together,’ as the ‘Morte d’Arthur’ calls it, in boats;

and you will find it under the 60th Psalm, ‘Dominus repulisti nos,’ &c.

“Stow, in his ‘Survey,’ volume i. page 301, mentions a very rude imitation of this kind of jousting on the water at London; when he says, ‘I have seen also in the summer season, upon the River of Thames, some rowed in wherries, with staves in their hands, flat at the fore-end, running one against another, and, for the most part, one or both of them were overthrown and well ducked.’ In Queen Mary’s Manuscript, under the psalm of ‘Misericordiam et judicium cantabo,’ is also a representation of two fiends hurling a Monk from a rude stone Bridge; but as I rather think that did not occur at London, I mention it no farther.

“But now, to return to our subject:—Stow relates the particulars of the great fire of 1135–36, at page 58 of his ‘Survey,’ citing in the margin the ‘Annals of Bermondsey,’ and the ‘Book of Trinity Priory,’ as his authorities. The latter of these is, perhaps, now no more; but in the former you may find the conflagration mentioned at page 13 b, where it is said to have happened in the year 1135, and to have extended to the Church of St. Clement Danes. It was probably in the Register of Trinity Priory, that Stow found a notice that London Bridge was not only repaired, but a new one erected of elm timber, in 1163, by the most excellent Peter of Colechurch, Priest and Chaplain; since I find it in none of the historians with whom I am acquainted. It is, however, much better authenticated that the same pious architect began his labours upon the first stone one in 1176; for, in the ‘Annals of Waverley,’ at page 161, you find the following entry.—’1176. In this year, the Stone Bridge at London is begun by Peter, the Chaplain of Colechurch.’ Here, therefore, ends the history of the infancy of London Bridge: and a very chargeful infancy it was, for, as old Stow says, ‘it was maintained partly by the proper lands thereof, partly by the liberality of divers persons, and partly by taxations in divers shires, as I have proved, for the space of 215 years,’—And now, Mr. Geoffrey Barbican, your very good health.”

“Sir, my hearty thanks to you,” replied I, rubbing my eyes, “for this Bridge Story is as dull as proving a Peerage, where there’s no reliance, and much doubting:—but how’s this, Master Postern!” continued I, looking into the tankard, “you have drank, and I have drank, and yet the jug is as full as ever, and as hot as it was as first?”

“You’re pleased to be facetious, good Sir,” answered my visitor, “for truly I’m no Saint Richard to work such miracles; but, if you please, we’ll now return to the Bridge again.

“We are here entering upon the golden age of London Bridge, for the new stone building, by Peter of Colechurch, was such an ornament as the Thames had never before witnessed; indeed, in my poor judgment, it very far surpassed that erection, of which I shall hereafter have occasion to speak; and perhaps, for its time, even that which now stretches itself across the flood. The person to whom was entrusted the building of the first stone Bridge at London, was, as I have already told you, named Peter, a Priest and Chaplain of St. Mary Colechurch; an edifice, which, until the Great Fire of London, stood on the North side of the Poultry, at the South end of a turning denominated Conyhoop Lane, from a Poulterer’s shop having the sign of three Conies hanging over it. This Chapel, of which the skilful Peter was Curate, was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, and was famous as the place where St. Edmund and St. Thomas à Beckett were presented at the baptismal Font; still it must have been something very like having a church on a first floor, for you may remember Stow says, in his ‘Survey,’ volume i. page 552, that it was ‘built upon a vault above ground, so that men are forced to ascend into it by certain steps.’ Of the architectural knowledge of the Curate thereof, I have already shewed you that the Citizens of London had experienced some proofs, since he is said to have rebuilt their last wooden Bridge: and John Leland the Antiquary—whom I shall anon quote more particularly—observes, in the notes to his famous ‘Song of the Swan,’—a book of which I will also speak hereafter—that Radulphus de Diceto, Dean of London, who wrote about 1210, states from his own knowledge, that he was a native of this City. The same venerable Antiquary also tells us in his ‘Itinerary,’ edited by Thomas Hearne, Oxford, 1768–69, octavo, volume vii. part I. marginal folio 22, page 12—that ‘a Mason beinge Master of the Bridge Howse, buildyd à fundamentis the Chapell on London Bridge, à fundamentis propriis impensis;’ or, as we should now say, from bottom to top, at his own costs and charges. The property of Peter of Colechurch, however, would not stand Bridge-building by itself; and therefore the present will be the most fitting place, to give you some account of the other contributors to this great national work.

“Master Leland, in the same place which I last quoted, observes that ‘a Cardinale, and Archepisshope of Cantorbyri, gave 1000 Markes or li. to the erectynge of London Bridge.’ Now, the Cardinal who is here alluded to, was Hugo, Hugocio, or Huguzen di Petraleone, a Roman, Cardinal Deacon of St. Angelo, whom Pope Alexander III. sent, in 1176, to France, Scotland, and England, as his Legate; which you may find stated in Alphonso Ciaconio’s noble book entitled ‘Vitæ et Res Gestæ Pontificum Romanorum, et Sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ Cardinalium,’ Rome, printed with the Vatican types, in 1630, folio, page 578, a work of about 3000 pages in extent; of an enormous size, fairly bound in embossed vellum, and adorned with a prodigious number of copper-plates and wood-cut Armorial Ensigns; by the latter of which we are shewn, that this foreign contributor to the building of London Bridge bore for his arms, Quarterly, Argent and Gules, and over all, in the centre point, a sieve of the first. Whilst the Cardinal resided in England, he took some notice of the dispute which was then going on concerning the Primacy, between the Archbishops of Canterbury and York: when at a meeting held at Westminster, Roger de Ponte, the turbulent possessor of the latter see, arrogantly took his seat at the Cardinal’s right hand. Upon which the domestics of Richard, the mild and amiable Archbishop of Canterbury, took him thence by force, and in the ensuing scuffle he was beaten, and turned out of the assembly, with his episcopal robes sadly rent. Now this Richard was a Benedictine Monk, and Prior of the Monastery of St. Martin’s, Dover; who was elected to the See of Canterbury on the death of Thomas à Beckett, in 1174. ‘He was a man,’ says Bishop Godwin, when writing his memoirs, ‘very liberal, gentle, and passing wise;’ and, what gives him great honour in my sight, he was the very Prelate whom Leland mentions in the passage I quoted, as subscribing so nobly to the foundation of London Bridge. And yet, ’tis strange, that only in his ‘Itinerary,’ and in Stow’s ‘Survey,’ volume i. page 58, is this donation recorded; for even in the best and most splendid edition of Bishop Godwin’s volume, ‘De Præsulibus Angliæ Commentarius,’ by William Richardson, Canon of Lincoln, Cambridge, 1743, folio, page 79, the old Citizen is referred to at note y, as his authority for the fact. I cannot omit now giving you the blazon of this Prelate’s own arms, as they appear in that noble illuminated copy of Archbishop Parker’s work, ‘De Antiquitate et Privilegiis Ecclesiæ Cantuariensis cum Archiepiscopis ejusdem 70,’ Lambeth, 1572, folio, page 123, which is estimated to be fully worth its weight in gold. This truly valuable volume was presented by our late good King George the Third to the British Museum, and formerly belonged to Queen Elizabeth. The arms, however, were Azure, three Mullets in bend, between two Cottises Argent; and whenever you turn to this volume, on which the ancient Art of Illuminating shed its latest rays, I pray you fail not carefully to inspect it: for you will find it a copy of that edition printed at his own palace, by John Day; with many leaves impressed on vellum, and the whole of the book carefully ruled with red-ink lines, the initials coloured and gilded, and all the Armorial Ensigns, with the Frontispiece, excellently well emblazoned. And I pray you also, forget not well to note the binding; since a richer, or more fancifully embroidered covering there are few tomes which can exhibit. The ground of it is green velvet, intended to represent the vert of a park, and it is surrounded by a broad border of pales with a gate, worked in brown silk and gold twist; whilst within are trees, flowers, shrubs, tufts of grass, serpents, hinds, and does, all executed in richly coloured silks, and gold and silver wire. At the back are the Queen’s badges of red and white roses; the edges of the leaves are gilt, and the volume was once secured by ribbons of crimson silk.

“Of this most splendid book I must, indeed, yet add another word, that it may be estimated as it so well deserves. Dr. Ducarel, in his account of that astonishing copy of it which is deposited in the Archiepiscopal Palace at Lambeth, says, ‘It was first printed at Lambeth by John Daye in 1572; and so small a number were then published, that, except this complete copy, there is but one extant in England, known to be so, which is preserved in the Public Library of Cambridge, as I am informed.’ See his Letter of July the 15th, 1758, addressed to Archbishop Secker, which is inserted in the Rev. H. J. Todd’s ‘Catalogue of the Archiepiscopal Manuscripts in Lambeth Palace.’ London, 1812, folio, page 242, Art. 959.

“The life of Archbishop Richard, which this book contains, is nearly the same as that related by Francis Godwin, Bishop of Landaff; and before I leave speaking of this early and Reverend patron of London Bridge, let me endeavour to clear his memory from something like a stain which attaches to it. He received the Archbishop’s Pall, immediately after the death of a man of unconquerable spirit and insurmountable pride, for you will remember that he was successor to Beckett: and, perhaps, it was the strong contrast afforded by his yielding and quiet disposition, which has made some suppose that he did nothing worthy of memory. I am, however, myself rather surprised at the manner of his decease, when it is allowed by all his biographers, that he was a man so charitable, of such benefit to the revenues of the church, and was so liberal both to the poor, the nation, the King, and even the Pontiff himself. The story of his death is related by Gervase of Dover, by Henry Knyghton, the Canon of Leicester, and in the Chronicle of William Thorne, the Monk of St. Augustine’s, Canterbury; but I shall recite it to you from the old English edition of Francis Godwin’s ‘Catalogue of the Bishops of England, from the first planting of the Christian Religion in this Island:’ London, 1615, 4to. page 96. ‘The end of this man,’ says the Prelate, ‘is thus reported, how that being a sleepe at his Mannor of Wrotham, there seemed to come vnto him a certaine terrible personage’—Knyghton and Thorne say ‘the Lord appeared unto his sight,’—‘demaunding of him, who he was; whereunto, when for feare, the Archbishop answered nothing, Thou art he, quoth the other, that hast destroyed the goods of the Church, and I will destroy thee from off the earth: this having said, he vanished away. In the morning betime, the Archbishop got him up, and taking his iourney toward Rochester, related this fearfull vision vnto a friend of his by the way. Hee had no sooner told the tale, but hee was taken suddenly with a great cold and stifenesse in his limmes, so that they had much adoo to get him so farre as Haling, a house belonging to the Bishop of Rochester. There he tooke his bed, and being horribly tormented with the cholike, and other greefes, vntill the next day, the night following, the 16th of February, hee gaue vp the ghost, anno 1183.’

“Though such was his untimely end, yet his being so great a benefactor to the original building of old London Bridge, ought to make his name revered by every true-hearted Citizen of London; and, indeed, Bridge-building has been thought by some to be an act of real piety, witness those rude old verses printed in Leland’s ‘Itinerary,’ volume vii. part I. Marginal folio 64 b, page 79, which were composed on the erecting of the Bridge at Culham, in Oxfordshire, and hung up by Master Richard Fannand, Ironmonger, of Abingdon, in the Hall of St. Helen’s Hospital.

‘Off alle werkys in this worlde that ever were wrought,

Holy Chirche is chefe, there children been chersid.

For by baptim these barnes to blisse been ybrought,

Thorough the grace of God, and fayre refresshed.

Another blessid besines is Brigges to make,

Where, that the pepul may not passe after greet showers;

Dole it is to drawe a deed body out of a lake,

That was fulled in a fount stoon, and a felow of oures.

King Herry the fifte, in his fourthe yere,

He hathe yfounde for his folke a Brige in Berke schyre,

For cartis with carriages may goo and come clere,

That many Wynters afore were mareed in the myre.

And some oute of ther sadels flette to the grounde

Went forthe in the water wist no man whare;

Fyve wekys after or they were yfounde,

Ther kyn and ther knowlech caught them uppe with care.’

“By this then, you see there is much virtue in your Bridge-builder. The names of all the Benefactors to London Bridge, indeed, were fairly painted on a tablet, and hung up in St. Thomas’s Chapel, which stood upon the middle of it; and, doubtless, the donation of King Henry II. would be found there recorded, if that grateful testimonial were yet in existence. The King’s gift, however, is supposed to have been, in fact, the gift of the people, being the produce of a tax upon wool; and hence arose that absurd tradition, which the commonalty invented to make a wonder of the matter, that ‘London Bridge was built upon woolpacks,’ I am, indeed, inclined to think that the measure was not very popular; for the people of England seldom failed to complain of any additional duty placed upon that commodity; and of this you find some reliques in Lord Coke’s Commentary on the 30th Chapter of the ‘Magna Charta’ of King Henry III., contained in his ‘Second Institute,’ pages 58, 59. He is there speaking, you know, of the taking away of evil tolls and customs, and he observes, that some have supposed that there was a tribute due to the King by the Common Law, upon all wools, wool-fells—that is, the undressed sheep skins—and leather, to be taken as well of the English as of strangers, known by the name of Antiqua Custuma. This amounted to half a mark, or 6s. 8d. for every sack of wool of 26 stone weight; and a whole mark upon every last of leather. But even this his Lordship also endeavours to prove a recent custom, by a Patent Roll from the Exchequer, of the 3rd of Edward I., AD 1274, which states, that the Prelates, Chiefs, and the whole Common Council of the kingdom, had consented to grant this new custom of wool to him, and to his heirs. Now, even the words ‘novam consuetudinem’ may signify only a revival of the ancient tax, for some specific cause; as it might have lain dormant since the days of building London Bridge; thus having reference to a new occasion, and not to the date. But shortly previous to the final confirmation of the Great and Forest Charters, however, in the 25th of Edward I., 1296, the King set a new toll of forty shillings upon every sack of wool, without the consent of his Parliament; which the Commonalty felt to be a very heavy imposition. Against this they petitioned, and in the aforesaid ‘Confirmationes Chartarum,’ Chapter vii. it was provided that such things should be abolished, and not taken, but by common consent and good will; excepting the customs before granted. There appears to me, however, even a still nearer connection between the Duties raised for the building of London Bridge, and the xxiii. Chapter of the ‘Magna Charta’ of King John, for you there find that ‘No City, nor Freeman, shall be distrained to make Bridges or water-banks, but such as have of old been accustomed to do so:’ from which it is evident, that the taxation was general, and that this instrument was to make it particular; though, according to Lord Coke’s exposition, there was nothing gained by it: for, in his ‘Second Institute,’ folio 29, he says, that in the reigns of Richard I. and John, fictitious exactions were made in the names of Bridges, Bulwarks, and the like, but that neither the erection, nor the paying for them, was abolished by this act, since they could not be erected but by the King himself, or by an Act of Parliament.—But Mr. Barbican!—You doze, worthy Sir!”

“Why truly, Mr. Postern,” said I, rubbing my eyes, “Tax-gathering is always dull work; and I verily thought we’d lost sight of the Bridge in the paying for it. You’re as minute with all your authorities, as a Flemish painter that marks every hair on a cat’s back, and I can turn over your old dull authors in my own dusty book-room.”

“I must acknowledge,” said my visitor, “that such details are rather dry; but you very well know, my good friend, as Father Le Long said, ‘Truth is so delightful, that we should consider no labour too great to obtain it:’ and, indeed, I wished to bring before you some circumstances which lie widely scattered, although they, nevertheless, most excellently illustrate the story, and I would do all honour to the memory of the worthy Peter of Colechurch.”

“Really, Sir,” answered I, “if his blessing be worth having, it ought to rest upon your head; for had you been Peter of Colechurch himself, ten times over, you could scarcely have taken more pains with your history: and so—here’s your health, and his, Mr. Barnaby.”

“My best thanks to you, my honoured friend,” replied Mr. Postern, “and I’ll shortly repay your attention by a piece of a more brilliant description; for having once got the Bridge built, and paid for, we’ll take a look at the picturesque old edifice itself, and at some of the many gorgeous sights and interesting scenes which took place upon it: indeed it shall go hard but what I’ll find you amusement. The building, then, which the never-to-be-forgotten Peter of Colechurch began, took as long to complete as Solomon’s Temple, for thirty and three years were employed in erecting it. Ere that period, however, the charitable Priest who designed it, the learned Architect and wise builder who watched its progress, went the way of all flesh; as we shall find hereafter, in 1205, and not, as Maitland erroneously says, in the third of King John, AD 1201, though he also supposes that he might then be worn out by age or fatigue, since in the Patent Rolls of the Tower of London, of that year, M. 2, No. 9, is the following Letter Missive of the King to the Mayor and Citizens of London, recommending a new Architect. For other references you may consult Maitland’s History, page 45; Thomas Hearne’s edition of the ‘Liber Niger Scaccarii,’ London, 1771, octavo, volume i. page *470, where it is printed in the original Latin; and the ‘Calendarium Rotulorum Patentium in Turri Londinensi, Printed by Command,’ London, 1802, folio, page 1, column 1. The Letter is as follows:—

“ ‘John, by the Grace of God, King of England, &c. to his faithful and beloved the Mayor and Citizens of London, greeting. Considering how the Lord in a short time hath wrought in regard to the Bridges of Xainctes and Rochelle, by the great care and pains of our faithful, learned, and worthy Clerk, Isenbert, Master of the Schools of Xainctes: We therefore, by the advice of our Reverend Father in Christ, Hubert, (Walter) Archbishop of Canterbury, and that of others, have desired, directed, and enjoined him to use his best endeavour in building your Bridge, for your benefit, and that of the public: For we trust in the Lord, that this Bridge, so requisite for you, and all who shall pass the same, will, through his industry, and the divine blessing, soon be finished. Wherefore, without prejudice to our right, or that of the City of London, we will and grant, that the rents and profits of the several houses which the said Master of the Schools shall cause to be erected upon the Bridge aforesaid, be for ever appropriated to repair, maintain, and uphold the same. And seeing that the requisite work of the Bridge cannot be accomplished without your aid, and that of others, we charge, and exhort you, kindly to receive and honour the above-named Isenbert, and those employed by him, who will perform every thing to your advantage and credit, according to his directions, you affording him your joint advice and assistance in the premises. For whatever good office or honour you shall do to him, you ought to esteem the same as done to us. But, should any injury be offered to the said Isenbert, or to the persons employed by him, which we do not believe there will, see that the same be redressed so soon as it comes to your knowledge. Witness myself, at Molinel,’—in the Province of Bourbon, in France—‘the eighteenth day of April.’ ‘A Letter,’ adds Hearne, on page *471, ‘of the same form, was written to all the King’s faithful subjects constituting the realm of England;’ and the instrument itself is also to be found at length in the original Latin, in Sir Symonds D’Ewes’ extracts from the Records, Harleian MSS. in the British Museum, No. 86, page 1 a.

“It is, however, by no means clear, notwithstanding this Royal Writ, that Isenbert was employed by the Citizens to complete the building of London Bridge; indeed, the Rev. John Entick, in his edition of Maitland’s ‘History of London,’ volume i. page 45, imagines quite otherwise, because he found that King John, in the seventh year of his reign, 1205, three years, as he says, before the Bridge was finished, granted the custody of it to one Friar West, taking it from the Lord Mayor, and obliging the City to apply certain void places within its walls to be built on for its support. Strype also quotes the former instrument as being yet preserved in the ‘Rotuli Clausi,’ or Close Rolls, in the Tower, 7 John, c. 19, for you know it was a private instrument, and therefore sealed up, and directed to the persons whom it specially concerned.

“But now let us see how far this supposition is founded in truth. In the first place, the reference to the Close Rolls is erroneous, for the writ is to be found on the 15th Membrane, there being no such article as c. 19; and, in the next place, there was no such person as Friar West, for the title of Friar was not in use until the fourteenth century, and the person referred to was called Wasce, though the name of West has been copied and re-copied, and the error thus perpetuated ad infinitum. The actual words of the writ are, in English, as follow.

“ ‘The King to Geoffrey Fitz Peter, &c.’—Chief Justice of England.—‘We will that Brother Wasce, our Almoner, and some other lawful man of London, provided by you and the Mayor of London, be Attorney for the custody of London Bridge. And, therefore, we command you that they give the whole to these men, like as Peter, the Chaplain of Colechurch, possessed the same from them. Witness for the same, the Prior of Stoke, at Marlebridge, the 15th day of September.’ Notwithstanding this instrument, we hear no more of Frater Wasce, nor of Isenbert of Xainctes, but are told by Stow, page 58, without his referring to any other authority, that ‘this work, to wit the Arches, Chapel, and Stone Bridge over the Thames at London, having been thirty-three years in building, was, in the year 1209, finished by the worthy Merchants of London, Serle Mercer, William Almaine, and Benedict Botewrite, principal masters of that work.’

“This new Bridge consisted, then, of a stone platform, erected somewhat westward of the former, 926 feet long, and 40 in width, standing about 60 feet above the level of the water; and containing a Drawbridge, and 19 broad pointed arches, with massive piers varying from 25 to 34 feet in solidity, raised upon strong elm piles, covered by thick planks, bolted together. Such was the first stone London Bridge, commenced by Peter of Colechurch, AD 1176.

“Deeply as I venerate the memory of the great builder of that Bridge, which continued for so many centuries the wonder of Europe, yet I must not omit to notice to you, that many persons have grievously condemned his labours; the principal objections to which are summed up in the ‘Londinium Redivivum,’ of Mr. James Peller Malcolm, London, 1802–1807, 4to. volume ii. page 386, where he thus heavily censures that erection. ‘Whatever were the pretensions of Peter of Colechurch to eminence as an Ecclesiastical Architect, I think any person who views Vertue’s print of London Bridge, as it stood in 1209, will allow that he was a very bad Civil Engineer. He seems to have delighted in the number of his piers, which amounted to nineteen; and he was so ignorant of the true principles by which he should have been governed, that the centre was swelled into a Chapel, reducing the adjoining arches to half the diameter of the remainder. Indeed, it is wonderful that those piers maintained their situation, when we reflect how the torrent now rushes through, hurling heavy laden barges along as if they were feathers on the stream, when every practicable remedy to enlarge them has been applied.’

“An Architect of nearly an hundred years since, however, has considered these objections with somewhat more of mathematical proof; and what is better, even whilst he admits their full force, he still venerates the memory, and dares to applaud the public spirit, of the blessed Peter of Colechurch. You will readily guess that I allude to Master Nicholas Hawksmoor’s ‘Short Historical Account of London Bridge, with a proposition for a New Stone Bridge at Westminster,’ a quarto pamphlet of 47 pages, and 5 folding Copper-plates, originally published in the year 1736, for two shillings. The Author observes, at page 9, that the whole breadth of the River from North to South is nearly 900 feet, and that in his time there were eighteen solid piers of different dimensions, varying from 34 to 25 feet in thickness. According to this disposition, he argues, ‘the greatest water way is when the tide is above the sterlings, which is 450 feet, and, considering the impediments, it is not half the width of the River for the water to pass; but when the tide is fallen below the sterlings, the water-way is reduced to 194 feet—which is during the greatest part of the flux and reflux of the tide—and the river of 900 feet broad, is forced through a channel of 194 feet, which is not a quarter of the whole.’ We can at last, however, hardly judge of the Bridge of Peter of Colechurch with any degree of fairness, for that great benefactor of London died before he completed his Pontificate, as I may jocularly call it; and the author whom I last quoted, very candidly observes of him, that he, perhaps, ‘did not intend to add those immense Sterlings that have so much obstructed the River’s passage betwixt the Stone piers,’ and which, after all, are the great cause of the evil: for, says the same person, at page 13, when answering the common objection to altering London Bridge, on account of the expense attending it, ‘I have heard some masters of Hoys and Lighters say, that a Tonnage would willingly be paid for such a conveniency and security of their goods and vessels; and, as I have heard, an offer was made to pay Tonnage, if the Drawbridge had been opened, when the City last repaired it, to avoid the losses they suffered frequently by the Sterlings.’ ‘It is very probable,’ continues the same authority, ‘that the Sterlings were made afterwards, to keep the foundation of the piers from being undermined;—or, perhaps, these Sterlings might be increased after some damages that befell the piers, by the great quantity of ice which might be stopt by the narrowness of the arches; and those that intended to make the legs more secure, used such means as rendered them the less so, by the violent rapidity which they gave to the River so restrained,’ In addition to this, he also attempts an apology even for that very part of Peter’s Bridge, which has been the most condemned; having, perhaps, designed, says Mr. Hawksmoor, ‘by the narrowness of his arches, to restrain the ebbing of the tide, the better to preserve the navigation of the River above the Bridge, though it would not have any great effect if the Sterlings were taken away,’ considering ‘that if the River had its free course, it would ebb away so fast, that there would be scarce any navigation above the Bridge, a little time after high-water.’ This pamphlet also contains a defence of the Great Pier, which so violently excited the censure of Malcolm, who thought a Church on a Bridge was thrown away; for at page 12, he states that it might be intended ‘firstly to be a steadying of the whole machine, instead of making an angle, as it is in the famous Bridge at Prague, and in some of the Bridges in France; so that this fortress was placed in the middle of the Bridge, to stem the violence of the floods, ice, and all other accidents that might be forced against it. Secondly—that if by any accident of the ice or flood, or undermining any of the legs,’—he means the piers, but Hawksmoor frequently uses this very ungraceful epithet—‘some of the arches might fall, as five did, Anno 1282, yet, by the help of this great buttress—though this damage was done on one side—the arches on the other side stood firm, so that there was less expense, and greater encouragement to make the repair. The third reason was, that he had an opportunity to shew his piety, having a situation for erecting a Chapel, which was done, and his body deposited in it.’

“At the great repair of London Bridge, which took place between 1757 and 1770, several additional arguments were brought forward against the original edifice; of which Mr. Robert Mylne, in his Answers to the Select Committee of the House of Commons, for improving the Port of London, dated May the 15th, and October the 30th, 1801, printed in the Fourth Report of that Committee, states the following particulars. ‘The houses,’ says he, ‘being then taken down, and the sides of the Bridge being dismantled, the internal masses of its great bulk were found little better than rubbish, and of bad mason-work, &c. without active exertion, or even inert resistance. The original Piles, under the original stone-work of a very narrow Bridge, between the two modern sides and extreme parts, by cutting into the sides of the piers, and by one old being opened up, and totally removed, have been found composed of Sapling Oak and some Elm, carelessly worked, neither round nor square, but much decayed.’

“And now, worthy Mr. Barbican, having told you some of the objections to, and apologies for, the Bridge of the venerable Peter of Colechurch, before we ascend to the parapet, to examine the buildings which stood upon it, let me observe to you, that there are engraved Ground-plans of this Bridge, in George Vertue’s prints, which I shall mention more particularly hereafter, and also in Hawksmoor’s tract from which I have so largely quoted.”

Here let me for a moment interrupt the narrative of Mr. Postern, by stating that on the next page the Reader has a reduced copy of the interesting plan last mentioned, to which are subjoined Hawksmoor’s own measurements, and some additional particulars, also taken from Vertue; on the accuracy of every part of which, we have the best authority for placing the most complete reliance.