volume iii., pages 127, 319, 324, volume iv., page 61. I must not,

however, conclude these particulars of the numismatic reliques of London Bridge, without observing to you that there are some Medalets also extant, commemorative of its buildings. Of these coins we find a list in James Conder’s elegant volumes, entitled ‘_An Arrangement of Provincial Coins, Tokens, and Medalets, issued in Great Britain, Ireland, and the Colonies, within the last twenty years, from the farthing to the penny size_.’ Ipswich, 1798, octavo. Medalets, you know, Mr. Postern, are of that description of coins which were struck by the Romans, and used for scattering to the people upon solemn occasions: and those of which I am now speaking are of the class distinguished by bearing the representation of public buildings. In volume i., pages 72 and 73, of Mr. Conder’s work, are mentioned the following Medalets of London Bridge, of the penny size, executed by P. Kempson.

No. 40. A Bronzed or Copper Medalet: _Obverse_, a view of a Bridge, _Legend_,--‘LONDON BRIDGE THE FIRST OF STONE, COMPLEATED 1209.’ _Legend on the Exergue_,--‘THE HOUSES ON THE BRIDGE TAKEN DOWN, AND THE BRIDGE REPAIR’D, 1758.’--_Reverse_, a figure of Britannia with spear and shield, seated on a rock, holding an olive-branch;--_Legend_, indented on a raised circle round the field, ‘BRITISH PENNY TOKEN.’ On the Exergue a cypher ‘P.K.--MDCCXCVII.’ _Legend on the edge_,--‘I PROMISE TO PAY ON DEMAND THE BEARER ONE PENNY.’

No. 47. A Bronzed or Copper Medalet: _Obverse_, an ancient gateway,--_Legend_,--‘BRIDGE GATE AS REBUILT 1728.’--_Legend on the Exergue_, ‘TAKEN DOWN, 1766.’ _Reverse_, an upright figure of Justice. Legend and date on the rim as before.

There were also two Medalets of the halfpenny size, executed by P. Skidmore, of Coppice Row, Clerkenwell, which are likewise mentioned by Conder, in volume i., pages 103, 106.

No. 267. A Bronzed or Copper Medalet: _Obverse_, a view of a church,--_Legend_,--‘ST. MAGNUS LONDON BRIDGE. 1676.’--_Reverse_, a cypher, ‘P.S.C^o.,’ in a circle, _Legend_,--‘DEDICATED TO COLLECTORS OF MEDALS AND COINS.’

No. 300. A Bronzed or Copper Medalet: _Obverse_, an ancient gateway,--_Legend_,--‘BRIDGE GATE, BT. 1728:’ within the Archway the name of ‘Jacobs.’--_Reverse_, as before.

“I am inclined to think, Mr. Barnaby Postern, that there have been several traditional mistakes perpetuated, as to persons supposed to have dwelt upon London Bridge; for, upon investigating the subject, I can find no authority to support my recording them as inhabitants of that part of London. The author of an exceedingly amusing work, entitled ‘_Wine and Walnuts_,’ London, 1823, octavo, in which are contained many witty scenes and curious conversations of eminent characters in the last century, has entitled the seventh chapter of his second volume ‘_Old London Bridge; with portraits of some of its inhabitants_.’ In this article, on page 81, we are told that ‘Master John Bunyan, one of your heaven-born geniuses, resided, for some time, upon London Bridge;’ though I cannot discover any such circumstance in either of the lives of that good man now extant, though he certainly preached, for some time, at a Chapel in Southwark. Perhaps, however, this assertion may be explained by the following passage from the Preface affixed to the Index attached to the first volume of ‘_The Labours of that eminent servant of Christ Mr. John Bunyan_,’ London, 1692, folio. It is there stated, that in 1688 ‘he published six books, being the time of K. James 2d’s. liberty of conscience, and was seized with a sweating distemper, of which, after his some weeks going about, proved his death, at his very loving friend’s Mr. Strudwick’s, a Grocer,’--at the sign of the Star,--‘at _Holborn Bridge_, London, on August 31st.’ It is also recorded on the same page of ‘_Wine and Walnuts_,’ that ‘Master Abel, the great importer of wines, was another of the marvels of old London Bridge; he set up a sign, Thank God I am _Abel_, quoth the wag, and had, in front of his house, the sign of a bell.’ As I have also heard the same particulars repeated elsewhere, it is possible that there may be some traditionary authority for them; but upon carefully reading over the very rare tracts relating to Mr. Alderman Abel, preserved in the British Museum, I find nothing concerning his residence on London Bridge, and I should rather imagine, from their statements, that he lived at his Ticket, or Patent Office, situate in Aldermary Church-Yard. The same chapter, however, contains some authentic notices of Artists who really did live upon this venerable edifice. Of these, one of the most eminent was Hans Holbein, the great painter of the Court of Henry VIII.; but though we can hardly suppose that he inhabited the Nonesuch House, yet his actual residence here is certified by Lord Orford, in his ‘_Anecdotes of Painting_,’ vide his ‘_Works_,’ edit. London, 1798-1822, quarto, volume iii., page 72, note. ‘The father of the Lord Treasurer Oxford’--says the noble author in that place,--‘passing over London Bridge, was caught in a shower; and stepping into a goldsmith’s shop for shelter, he found there a picture of Holbein,--who had lived in that house,--and his family. He offered the goldsmith £100. for it, who consented to let him have it, but desired first to shew it to some persons. Immediately after, happened the fire of London, and the picture was destroyed.’ Another famous Artist of London Bridge, who is mentioned in both the works which I last cited, was Peter Monamy; so excellent a painter of marine subjects, as to be considered but little inferior to Vandevelde himself. Lord Orford says of him, at page 421, that he ‘received his first rudiments of drawing from a sign and house-painter on London Bridge;’--and that ‘the shallow waves, that rolled under his window, taught young Monamy what his master could not teach him, and fitted him to paint the turbulence of the ocean.’ This artist died at Westminster in 1749. We are also informed, by Edward Edwards, in his ‘_Continuation of Walpole’s Anecdotes of Painting_,’ London, 1808, quarto, page 214, that Dominic Serres, the Marine Painter, who died in 1793, also once kept a shop upon London Bridge. To these celebrated men, the author of ‘_Wine and Walnuts_’ adds Jack Laguerre, the Engraver, ‘a great humourist, wit, singer, player, caricaturist, mimic, and a good scene-painter,’ son to that Louis, who painted stair-cases and saloons, where, as Pope says, ‘sprawl the saints of Verrio and Laguerre.’ His residence, according to our lively author, who states that he received his information from ‘old Dr. Monsey and others,’ was on the first floor of the dwelling of a waggish bookseller, and author of all-work, named Crispin Tucker; the owner of half-a-shop on the East side, under the Southern gate. The artist’s _studio_ was, chiefly, in a bow-windowed back room, which projected over the Thames, and trembled at every half-ebb tide; in which Hogarth had resided in his early life, when he engraved for old John Bowles, of the Black Horse in Cornhill. It resembled, we are told, on page 135 of the work and volume which I have already quoted, one of the alchemist’s laboratories from the pencil of the elder Teniers. It was ‘a complete smoke-stained confusionary, with a German-stove, crucibles, pipkins, nests of drawers, with rings of twine to pull them out; here a box of asphaltum, there glass-stoppered bottles, varnishes, dabbers, gravers, etching-tools, walls of wax, obsolete copper-plates, many engraved on both sides, caricatures, and poetry scribbled over the walls; a pallet hung up as an heir-loom, the colours dry upon it, hard as stone; an easel; all the multifarious _arcanalia_ of engraving, and, lastly, a Printing-press!’ This curious picture is also from the information of Dr. Monsey, but I cannot produce you any other authority for its truth; and I shall likewise, therefore, leave you to read, and judge for yourself, the amusing account of Dean Swift’s and Pope’s visits and conversations with Crispin Tucker, of London Bridge, in chapters viii. and ix. of the work I have referred to.

“It was, however, not only the ordinary buildings in the Bridge-street, which were formerly occupied as shops and warehouses, but even the Chapel of St. Thomas, which, in its later years, was called Chapel-House, and the Nonesuch-House, were used for similar purposes before they were taken down. Mr. John Nichols, in his ‘_Literary Anecdotes_,’ tells us, volume vi., part i., page 402, note, on the authority of Dr. Ducarel, that ‘the house over the Chapel belonged to Mr. Baldwin, Haberdasher, who was born there; and when, at seventy-one, he was ordered to go to Chislehurst for a change of air, he could not sleep in the country, for want of the noise,’--the roaring and rushing of the tide beneath the Bridge,--‘he had been always used to hear.’ My good friend, Mr. J. T. Smith, too, in his very interesting volume of the ‘_Ancient Topography of London_,’ which you have already quoted, page 26, has also the following observations concerning the modern use of this Chapel. ‘By the _Morning Advertiser_,’ says he, ‘for April 26th, 1798, it appears that Aldermen Gill and Wright had been in partnership upwards of fifty years; and that their shop stood on the centre of London Bridge, and their warehouse for paper was directly under it, which was a Chapel for divine service, in one of the old arches; and, long within legal memory, the service was performed every sabbath and Saint’s day. Although the floor was always, at high-water mark, from ten to twelve feet under the surface; yet such was the excellency of the materials and the masonry, that not the least damp, or leak, ever happened, and the paper was kept as safe and dry as it would have been in a garret.’ In that ‘_Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster_,’ printed in 1734, and purporting to have been compiled by Robert Seymour, Esq., but which was in reality the production of the Rev. John Motley, the famous collector of Joe Miller’s Jests, it is stated in volume i., book i., page 48, that at that time one side of the Nonesuch House was inhabited by Mr. Bray, a Stationer, and the other by Mr. West, a Dry-Salter. So much then, Mr. Barnaby, for the few anecdotes which I have been able to collect of the dwellings and inhabitants of old London Bridge.”

“And a very fair Memorial too, Master Geoffrey,” answered the Antiquary, “especially when we consider the extreme difficulty of procuring such information as this is: but, to carry on our history, I must now enter upon a less amusing subject; the summary of the Bridge Accounts for the years 1624 and 1625, taken from the printed sheet which I have so often cited. ‘1624. To John Langley, and Richard Foxe, Bridge-Masters, half a year’s fee at our Lady-day, £50: and for the other half year augmented by order of the Court of Aldermen, £66. 8_s._ 4_d._, and for their Liveries, &c. £6. Total £122. 8_s._ 4_d._ Rental £2054. 4_s._ 2_d._--1625. To the said Bridge-Masters, £133. 6_s._ 8_d._ Liveries, &c. £6. Total to each of them, £69. 3_s._ 4_d._ Rental, £2054. 4_s._ 2_d._’ These notices of the prosperity of this edifice, conduct us down to the time when so much of its glory was lost in devastating flames and mouldering ruins.

“The year 1632-33 must be ever memorable in the history of London Bridge: for scarcely in the awful conflagration which consumed almost the whole City, did our brave old edifice suffer so severely. And now, Mr. Barbican, you must forgive me if I be a little prolix in describing that desolating fire, since it not only destroyed more than a third part of the Bridge Houses, but, at one time, its ravages were feared even in the City itself. I shall commence my account then by reminding you that Richard Bloome, one of Stow’s continuators, on page 61 of his ‘_Survey_,’ thus speaks of the calamity. ‘On the 13th day of February, between eleven and twelve at night, there happened in the house of one Briggs, a Needle-maker near St. Magnus Church, at the North end of the Bridge, by the carelessness of a Maid-Servant setting a tub of hot sea-coal ashes under a pair of stairs, a sad and lamentable fire, which consumed all the buildings before eight of the clock the next morning, from the North end of the Bridge to the first vacancy on both sides, containing forty-two houses; water then being very scarce, the Thames being almost frozen over. Beneath, in the vaults and cellars, the fire remained glowing and burning a whole week after.’

“There are not wanting several general views of London taken before this fire, by which we are made acquainted with those extensive piles of dwellings it destroyed; several of which I have already mentioned to you. Another also, which is most excellent and rare, is that entitled in Latin, ‘_London the most flourishing City of Britain, and the most celebrated emporium of the whole world_.’ It was engraven by John Visscher in 1616, and published in Holland, ‘by Jud. Hondius at the sign of the Watchful Dog;’ a four sheet print measuring 7 feet 1-1/2 inch by 1 foot 4-3/4 inches, with an English description beneath it. ‘A Capital View,’ adds Gough, in his ‘_British Topography_,’ already cited, volume i., page 749, ‘the plates destroyed in Holland about twenty years ago. T. Davies sold the only impression of it to the King for ten guineas.’ There is, likewise, a variation of this view, without a date, having eight Latin verses at either corner, with the name of ‘Ludovicus Hondius Lusitt.’ It is, says Mr. J. T. Smith, in his ‘_Ancient Topography of London_,’ page 25, ‘extremely well executed, and exhibits a wind-mill standing in the Strand, very near where the New Church is now erected; and another above the Water-works at Queenhithe.’ He considers it as earlier than the productions of Hollar, from the circumstance that the Palace of Whitehall appears in its original state, before the Banquetting House and York and Somerset Water-gates were erected by Inigo Jones. It is also shewn to be a view of the time of King James I., by a royal procession being introduced on the water, in which the royal barge is surmounted by the thistle. London Bridge forms a very large and important feature in this engraving, and I have been informed, that the edifice alone was copied in quarto, for the work entitled ‘_London before the Great Fire_;’ but as that publication stopped with the second number, it was never exhibited for sale.

Of the very curious print by Visscher, however,--and I must not forget to observe that a fine impression of it is in the possession of John Dent, Esq.--there was also an imitation of the same size, but somewhat inferior, called, from the place where it was engraven, ‘the Venetian copy of Visscher’s View.’ It is, like its prototype, entitled in Latin, ‘_London the most flourishing City in Britain_,’ &c. to which is added, ‘_Printed in Venice, by Nicolo Misserini, 1629, Franco Valegio fecit_:’ it also contains a Latin dedication, and a description in Italian. There is an impression, probably, of this latter print, preserved in volume xiii. of the famous illustrated Pennant’s London, bequeathed by the late Charles Crowle, Esq. to the British Museum; but all the inscriptions have been cruelly cut away, and the print itself doubled in numerous folds to make it fit to the size of the volume! This engraving, however, bears the name of Rombout Vanden Hoege, and shews us, with great minuteness, on rather a large scale, the GROUP OF BUILDINGS ON LONDON BRIDGE, BURNED DOWN IN 1632-33,

which extended to the first opening, and which, from the very appearance which they present, must have contained a considerable number of inhabitants; but of the fire itself, and of all the distressing events attending it, I am about to give you a very particular and interesting account, from the pen of an eye-witness of the conflagration. This narrative is contained in a coarse paper Manuscript volume, of a small quarto size, written in the print-hand of the 17th century, with some lines of faded red ink and chalk interspersed. The volume contains 517 pages in all, and is entitled ‘_A Record of the Mercies of God; or, a Thankefull Remembrance_;’ it being a collection, or journal, of remarkable providences and reflections, made by one Nehemiah Wallington, a Puritan Citizen and Turner, who lived in Little East-cheap, and who was evidently a friend of Burton and Bastwick, he having been several times examined concerning them before the Court of Star-Chamber. In this most singular record then, at pages 479-488, is an article entitled ‘_Of the great fire vpon the Bridge_;’ preceded by Mottoes from Psalms lxvi. 5; lxxi. 17; cxi. 2; Isaiah xlv. 7; and Amos iii. 6; which runs in the following terms.

“‘1633. It is the bounden dutie of vs all that haue beene the beholders of the wonderfull workes of the Lord our God, his mercyes and iudgements shewed heretofore; and now of late of a fearefull fire, wee should not forgett itt ourselues, and we should declare it to all others, euen to y^e generations to come.--On the xi. day of February, (being Monday, 1633) began, by God’s iust hand, a fearefull fire in the house of one Mr. Iohn Brigges, neere tenn of the clocke att night, it burnt down his house and the next house, with all the goods that were in them; and, as I heere, that Briggs, his wife, and childe, escaped with their liues very hardly, hauing nothing on their bodies but their shurt and smoke: and the fire burnt so fearcely, that itt could not be quenched till it had burnt downe all the houses on both sides of the way, from S. Magnes Church to the first open place. And allthough there was water enough very neere, yet they could not safely come at it, but all the conduittes neere were opened, and the pipes that carried watter through the streets were cutt open, and the watter swept down with broomes with helpe enough; but it was the will of God it should not preuaile. And the hand of God was the more seene in this, in as much as no meanes would prosper. For the 3 Engines, which are such excellent things, that nothing that euer was deuised could do so much good, yet none of these did prosper, for they were all broken, and the tide was verie low that they could get no watter; and the pipes that were cutt yeilded but littel watter. Some ladders were broke to the hurt of many, for some had their legges broke, some had their armes, and some their ribbes broken, and many lost their liues. This fire burnt fiercely all night, and part of the next day (for my man was there about twelue a cloke, and he said he did see the fardest house on fire) till all was burnt and pulled downe to the ground. Yet the timber, and wood, and coales in the sellers, could not be quenched all that weeke, till the Tuesday following, in the afternoone, the xix of February, for I was there then my selfe, and had a liue cole of fire in my hand, and burnt my finger with it. Notwithstanding there were as many night and day as could labour one by another to carry away timber, and brickes, and tiles, and rubbish cast downe into the liters. So that on Wensday the Bridge was cleared that passengers might goe ouer.’

“‘At the begining of this fire, as I lay in my bed and heard y^e sweeping of the channels and crying for water, water, I arose about one of the cloke, and looked downe Fish-street-hill, and did behold such a fearfull and dreadfull fire vaunting it selfe ouer the tops of houses, like a Captaine florishing and displaying his banner; and seeing so much meanes and so little good, it did make me thinke of that fire which the Lord threateneth against Ierusalem, for the breach of his Sabbath day. He saith thus: ‘But if ye will not here me to sanctifie the Sabbath day, and to beare no burden, nor to goe through y^e gates of Ierusalem in the Sabbath day, then will I kindle a fire in y^e gates there, and it shall deuoure the palaces of Ierusalem, and it shall not be quenched.’ Iere. xvii. 27.

“‘I did heere that on the other side of y^e Bridge, the Bruers brought abundance of watter in vessells on their draies, which did, with the blissing of God, much good; and this mircie of God I thought on, that there was but littel wind; for had y^e wind bin as high as it was a weeke before, I thinke it would have indangered y^e most part of the Citie; for in Thames Street there is much pitch, tarre, rosen, and oyle, in their houses: Therefore, as God remembers mercy in iustice, let us remember thankefullnes in sorrow. ‘Therefore will I praise the Lord with my whole heart, and I will speake of all thy marvellous workes;’ ‘for it is of the Lord’s mercy that wee are not consumed,’ Lament. iii., 22. The Names, and Trades, and number of the Houses burnt vpon the Bridg, heere you may see vnder nethe.--

“‘1. Mr. William Vyner,--_Haberdasher of smal Wares_. 2. Mr. Iohn Broome,--_Hosier_. 3. Mr. Arther Lee,--_Haberdasher of smal Wares_. 4. M^{ris}. Iohane Broome,--_Hosier_. 5. Mr. Ralph Panne,--_Shewmaker_. 6. Mr. Abraham Marten,--_Haberdasher of Hattes_. 7. Mr. Ieremiah Champney,--_Hosier_. 8. Mr. John Terrill,--_Silke man_. 9. Mr. Ellis Midmore,--_Milliner_. 10. Mr. Francis Finch,--_Hosier_. 11. Mr. Andrewe Bouth,--_Haberdasher of small Wares_. 12. Mr. Samuel Petty,--_Glouer_. 13. Mr. Valentin Beale,--_Mercer_. 14. M^{ris}. ---- Chambers, _Senior_. 15. Mr. Ieremiah Chamley,--_Silke man_. 16. The Blew Bore,--_empti_. 17. Mr. Iohn Gouer,--_Stiller of Strong Waters_. 18. Mr. Iohn Wilding, _Iunior_,--_Girdler_. 19. Mr. Daniel Conney,--_Silke man_. 20. Mr. Stephen Beale,--_Lyning Draper_. 21. M^{ris}. Iane Langham,--_Mercer_. 22. Mr. Iames Dunkin, _Wolling Draper_. 23. Mr. Matthew Harding,--_Salter_. 24. Mr. Abraham Chambers,--_Haberdasher of smal Wares_. 25. and 26.--Mr. Lyne Daniel,--_Haberdasher of Hattes_, _a double house_. 27. M^{ris}. ---- Brookes,--_Glouer_. 28. Mr. ---- Couerley,--_Hosier_. 29. Mr. Iohn Dransfielde,--_Grocer_. 30. Mr. Newman, _emptie_. 31. Mr. Edward Warnett, and 32. Mr. Samuel Wood, _partoners_,--_Haberdashers of Small Wares_. 33. Mr. Iohn Greene,--_Haberdasher of Hattes_. 34. Mr. Heugh Powel,--_Haberdasher of Hattes_. 35. Mr. Samuel Armitage,--_Haberdasher of Small Wares_. 36. Mr. Iohn Sherley,--_Haberdasher of Small Wares_. 37. Mr. John Lawrymore,--_Grocer_. 38. Mr. Timothy Drake,--_Woolling Draper_. 39. Mr. Iohn Brigges,--_Needle-maker_.’--at whose house the fire commenced,--‘40. Mr. Richard Shelbuery,--_Scriuener_. 41. Mr. Edward Greene,--_Hosier_. 42. Mr. ---- Hazard,--_the Curate_, and 43. Mr. ---- Hewlett,--_the Clarke_,--_at S. Magnus Cloyster_.’

“This narrative has, however, already appeared in print in the ‘_Gentleman’s Magazine_’ for November, 1824, pages 387, 388; the extract having been furnished by the possessor of the volume, Mr. William Upcott, of the London Institution.

“Of the ground-plot of London Bridge, after the damage done by this fire, there is yet extant a very curious survey, preserved under the care of Mr. Smith, in the British Museum. It consists of an unpublished drawing on parchment, measuring four feet five inches in length, by ten inches in breadth: and it, perhaps, belonged to Sir Hans Sloane, as it is kept with some other fragmenta of his property. In this drawing, the piers are represented in a tint of yellow, placed upon sterlings of Indian ink; and it was executed, as I suppose, soon after this fatal conflagration, since there is a note written in an ancient hand attached to the seventh pier from the City end, stating that ‘_the Fire burnt to the prickt line_,’ which is drawn from it; and which accords with all the subsequent views taken of the platform, and houses on the Bridge.

“I am next to speak,” continued my unwearied Historian, “of the manner in which this terrible destruction of London Bridge was repaired: and concerning this we are informed by Richard Bloome, a Continuator of Stow, who tells us in his ‘_Survey_,’ volume i., page 61, that after the fire, ‘this North end of the Bridge lay unbuilt for many years, only deal boards were set up on both sides, to prevent people’s falling into the Thames, many of which deals were, by high winds, oft blown down, which made it very dangerous in the nights, although there were lanthorns and candles hung upon all the cross beams that held the pales together.’ We have two views of London Bridge, in which the Northern end of it appears in this state, but in each of them the temporary erection is quite of a different nature; and it is somewhat singular that the writer whom I last cited, should positively speak as follows, concerning the early restoration of the destroyed houses, when there seems no real authority to support his assertions. ‘For about the year 1645,’--says he,--‘the North end of this part last burned, began to be rebuilt; and in the year 1646 was finished: the building was of timber, very substantial and beautiful, for the houses were three stories high, besides the cellars, which were within and between the piers. And over the houses were stately platforms leaded, with rails and ballusters about them, very commodious and pleasant for walking, and enjoying so fine a prospect up and down the River; and some had pretty little gardens with arbours. This half being finished, the other half was intended to be rebuilt answerable to this, which would have been a great glory to the Bridge and honour to the City, the street, or passage, being twenty feet broad; whereas the other part, at the South end, was not above fourteen, and, in some places, but twelve.’

“Now, notwithstanding this particular description of these new buildings, neither of the engravings which I have alluded to have any indications of them; although one of them was published in 1647, and the other in 1666. The first of these represents the North end of London Bridge, from St. Magnus’ Church to the houses beyond the first opening, as occupied by a _covered_ passage formed of planks, leaving recesses standing out from the main erection, which was supported by buttresses of wood fastened to platforms on the outside of the Bridge.

“We derive this view of the dilapidations of London Bridge from a very rare and magnificent print, well known to collectors and antiquaries, by the name of the ‘_Long Antwerp view of London_;’ for which, Mr. Geoffrey Barbican, if you ever meet with it, you may consider twenty guineas as a very moderate price. This famous engraving is an etching by the matchless Wenceslaus Hollar; it is in seven sheets, measuring two yards and an half in length, by 17-1/2 inches in height: it bears a dedication to Queen Henrietta Maria, and William Prince of Orange, with a copy of Latin verses written by Edward Benlowes, Esq.; and, though it was sold in London, the following publication line appears on one side written in Latin:--‘_Sold at Amsterdam by Cornelius Danckers, in Calf Street, at the sign of the Image of Gratitude, in the year 1647_.’ The e is, by the way, a pretty fair, but smaller copy of this view of London and Westminster in two sheets, in a series of prints commonly called ‘_Boydell’s Perspectives_,’ measuring 37-1/2 inches, by 10-1/4 inches, signed ‘_R. Benning, del. et sculp._,’ and entitled ‘_A View of London as it was in the year 1647_.’ The publication line is, ‘_Sold by J. Boydell, Engraver, at the Unicorn in Cheapside, London, 1756_.’ You will find both the original, and the copy, in the xiii.th and xiv.th volumes of Mr. Crowle’s Illustrated Pennant, which I have already cited to you, and the view takes in from above the Parliament House at Westminster to beyond St. Catherine’s; but the Bridge is the _keimelion_ of the plate, for that noble edifice is represented with all its buildings, from St. Magnus’ Church, down to the Southwark Tower, the size of 10 inches in length, with the principal buildings about two inches square. The other view to which I have alluded, was also etched by Hollar, upon two sheets measuring 27 inches by 4-1/4: and it consists of two prospects, one over the other, on the same plate, the upper one representing, ‘_London from St. Mary Overies Steeple in Southwark, in its flourishing condition before the Fire_;’ and the lower one entitled, ‘_Another prospect of the said City, taken from the same place, as it appeareth now after the said calamity and destruction by Fire_.’ Copies of these interesting etchings are, however, neither dear nor uncommon; though, if you would have so fine an impression as that in the Print Room of the British Museum, you will scarcely procure it under three Guineas. In the upper of these prospects, the Northern end of London Bridge is shewn to be a passage fenced by wooden palings without any houses, excepting one building, which occupies the whole width of the Bridge; having a gate in it surmounted by the King’s Arms, and standing immediately before the old Church of St. Magnus.

“Independently of these views, we have another very strong evidence that this part was not built upon even in the year 1665, contained in that most interesting and curious work, the ‘_Memoirs and Diary of Samuel Pepys, Esq., F.R.S. and Secretary to the Admiralty in the reigns of Charles II. and James II_.’ Edited by Richard, Lord Braybrooke, London, 1825, 4to. volume 1., page 388: where, under the date of January 24th, 1665-66, that observant journalist has the following entry. ‘My Lord,’--Edward Montague, Earl of Sandwich,--‘and I, the weather being a little fairer, went by water to Deptford; and the wind being again very furious, so as we durst not go by water, walked to London round the Bridge, no boat being able to stirre; and, Lord! what a dirty walk we had, and so strong the wind, that in the fields we many times could not carry our bodies against it, but were driven backwards. It was dangerous to walk the streets, the bricks and tiles falling from the houses, that the whole streets were covered with them; and whole chimneys, nay, whole houses, in two or three places, blowed down. But above all, _the pales on London Bridge, on both sides, were blown away_;’--almost the very words, you observe, which I have quoted you from Richard Bloome,--‘so that we were forced to stoop very low, for fear of blowing off the Bridge. We could see no boats in the Thames afloat, but what were broke loose, and carried through the Bridge, it being ebbing water. And the greatest sight of all was, among other parcels of ships driven here and there in clusters together, one was quite overset, and lay with her masts all along in the water, and her keel above water.’ The desolation, and wintry chillness of this picture, is enough to make one shiver even in the Dog-days.”

When the worthy old Chronicler had arrived at the conclusion of this narrative, as usual I took up the story, and began thus:--“This, Mr. Barnaby Postern, was indeed a fatal destruction, and one would imagine that it was no such happy event as to cause a jesting ballad to be made to commemorate it; but yet, though in the following verses there are some discordant circumstances, and even the date is at variance with that which you have already given, there can be little doubt but that they relate to the Fire of which you have now spoken. You will find them printed at the end of a very rare, but, at the same time, a very worthless publication, entitled ‘_The Loves of Hero and Leander, a mock Poem: Together with choice Poems and rare pieces of drollery, got by heart, and often repeated by divers witty Gentlemen and Ladies that use to walke in the New Exchange, and at their recreations in Hide Park_.’ London, 1653, 12mo., pages 44-48. There is also another edition of 1682; but I pray you to remember, that many of the fescennine rhymes, some of which would have done honour to Hudibras, and many of the witty points of this song, are, in that latter copy, most vilely perverted; I shall give it you, therefore, as it stands in the former impression.

‘_Some_ Christian people _all_ give ear Unto the grief of us: Caused by the death of three children dear. The which it happen’d thus.

And eke there befel an accident, By fault of a Carpenter’s son, Who to saw chips his sharp ax-e-lent Woe worth the time may Lon----

May London say: Woe worth the Carpenter! And all such _block-head_ fools; Would he were hanged up like a _sarpent_ here For meddling with edge tools.

For into the chips there fell a spark, Which put out in such flames, That it was known into South-wark Which lies beyond the Thames.

For _Loe_! the Bridge was wondrous _high_ With water underneath: O’er which as many fishes fly As birds therein do breathe.

And yet the fire consumed the Brigg, Not far from place of landing; And though the building was full big, It fell down,--_not with standing_.

And eke into the water fell So many pewter dishes, That a man might have taken up very well Both boil’d and roasted fishes!

And thus the Bridge of London Town, For building that was sumptuous, Was _all_ by fire _half_ burnt down, For being too _contumptious_!

Thus you have _all_ but _half_ my song, Pray list to what comes _ater_; For now I have _cool’d_ you with the _fire_,-- I’ll _warm_ you with the _water_!

I’ll tell you what the River’s name’s Where these children did slide--a, It was fair London’s swiftest Thames Which keeps both Time and Tide--a.

All on the tenth of January, To the wonder of much people; ’Twas frozen o’er that well ’twould bear Almost a country steeple!

Three children sliding thereabout, Upon a place too thin; That so at last it did _fall out_, That they did all _fall in_.

A great Lord there was that laid with the King, And with the King great wager makes; But when he saw that he could not win He sigh’d,--and would have drawn stakes.

He said it would bear a man for to slide, And laid a hundred pound; The King said it would break, and so it did, For three children there were drown’d.

Of which, one’s head was from his should-- ers stricken,--whose name was John; Who then cried out as loud as he could ‘Oh Lon-a! Lon-a! Lon-don!’

‘Oh! tut--tut--turn from thy sinful race!’ Thus did his speech decay; I wonder that in such a case He had no more to say.

And thus being drown’d, Alack! Alack! The water ran down their throats, And stopp’d their breath three hours by the clock, Before they could get any boats!

Ye parents all that children have, And ye that have none yet, Preserve your children from the grave, And teach them at home to sit.

For had these at a sermon been, Or else upon dry ground, Why then I never would have been seen, If that they had been drown’d!

Even as a huntsman ties his dogs, For fear they should go fro him; So tye your children with severity’s clogs, _Untie ’em_--and you’ll _undo ’em_.

God bless our noble Parliament, And rid them from all fears; God bless _all_ the Commons of this land, And God bless--_some_ of the Peers!’

“And now, Sir, I shall, by your favour, say a few words with respect to the tune to which these verses were formerly sung; which I am the better enabled to do by the researches of a gentleman, to whom, in several other particulars of our history, I have been considerably indebted. By his information, I shall first inform you, that the foregoing Song exists in its original state, in the Pepysian Collection of Ballads preserved in Magdalen College, Cambridge, volume ii., page 146; where it is called ‘_The Lamentation of a bad market, or the drownding of three children on the Thames. To the tune of the Ladies’ Fall. Printed for F. Coles, T. Vere, J. Wright, and J. Clarke._’ Now the old verses, entitled ‘_A Lamentable Ballad of the Lady’s Fall_,’ you will find, with some account of it prefixed, in Bishop Percy’s ‘_Reliques of Ancient English Poetry_,’ volume iii., book ii., article x., page 137, fourth edition, London, 1794, octavo; or, indeed, you may consult any edition but the last. From the Editor’s notice of this latter poem, we learn that it was sung to the tune of the verses called ‘_The Shepherd’s Slumber_;’ better known by the first three words of the commencing stanza.

‘In pescod time, when hound to horne Gives eare till buck be kill’d; And little lads with pipes of corne, Sate keeping beasts a-field.’

“I have not, Mr. Barnaby, found the musical notation of _this_ song, though I am almost inclined to think it was sung to the very common tune of ‘_Flying Fame_,’ so familiar to every body under the name of ‘_Chevy Chace_;’ for in volume iv., page 1, of Tom D’Urfey’s collection of Songs called ‘_Wit and Mirth_,’ London, 1719, 12mo., you may see this very ballad on London Bridge, entitled ‘_Three children sliding on the Thames. Tune, Chevy chace_.’ Listen then, my good Sir, whilst, with my very unmelodious voice, I attempt to give you some idea of it;--the music I have alluded to, runs thus:--

[Music:

‘Some Chris-tian peo-ple all give ear, Un-to the grief of us: Caused by the death of three Chil-dren dear. The which it hap-pened thus.’”]

“Thank ye, thank ye, honest Master Geoffrey Barbican,” said my visitor, as I concluded; “my thanks to you, both for your music and poetry; for I verily think as you do, that the verses which you have repeated relate to this conflagration of 1633, although there was the difference of a month between the actual fact, and your rhyming record of it. It appears to me, too, as if I recognized in the 16th stanza,--where the last words of the drowning victim are uttered by his head in broken accents,--the original of Gay’s description of the death of Doll, the Pippin-woman, contained in the 2nd book of his ‘_Trivia_,’ since she died in much the same place and manner.

“The rental of the Bridge House was, doubtless considerably lessened by this destructive fire; but in the printed document of the Bridge-Masters’ Accounts, there is not any notice of the amount of rents for some years after it. In 1636, however, we are informed that the salaries, horsekeeping, and liveries, of John Potter, and David Bourne, the Wardens, amounted to £71. 3_s._ 4_d._ each; and in the following year the rental is stated to have been only £1836. 7_s._ 6_d._, whilst the fees, &c. of John Hawes and Noadiah Rawlins amounted to £72. In that Manuscript treatise on the payment of Tythes, which I have mentioned to you as being in the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, Cornelius Burgess, the then Rector of St. Magnus, observes that ‘the best third part of the Parish was consumed by the late fire on London Bridge: yet no part of the annual charges lying on the Parsonage is abated. And it is yet capable of a large improvement, by reason that a good part of it being Citty land, provisions have been accordingly made to keepe downe the tithes generally throughout the Parish to vnreasonable low proportions, some very few houses excepted.’ According to Newcourt, in his ‘_Repertorium Ecclesiasticum_,’ volume i., page 396, these tythes before this conflagration amounted to £109. for 90 houses, of which about 40 houses were destroyed; though, in the Manuscript valuation of 1638, they are reduced to £81. 12_s._ 8_d._

“The destruction of London Bridge, however, was not allowed to pass without a more appropriate memorial than the song which you have repeated; for in the parochial records of the Church adjoining, it is stated, that Susanna Chambers by her will, dated the 28th day of December, 1640, left ‘unto the Parson of the Parish Church of St. Magnus, on, or near, London Bridge, or unto such other Preacher of God’s word as my said son Richard Chambers, his heirs, administrators, and assignees shall yearly appoint, the yearly sum of twenty shillings of lawful English money, for a Sermon to be preached on the 12th day of February, in every year, within the said Parish Church of St. Magnus, London Bridge, or any other near thereunto, in commemoration of God’s merciful preservation of the said Church of St. Magnus from ruin in the late and terrible fire of London Bridge; and also the sum of seventeen shillings and sixpence to the poor of that Parish of St. Magnus; and two shillings and sixpence to the clerk and sexton.’ This gift is mentioned by most of the London Historians; and I would observe to you that I am informed, with regard to the present state of this bequest, that the money for the Sermon, the Clerk, and the Sexton, has not been claimed within the memory of the oldest inhabitant of the Parish: but that the poor have, ever since, duly received their legacy. Whilst I am speaking of St. Magnus’ Church, I may also remark, that in consequence of the dissolution of the Fraternity belonging to it, which I have before mentioned, there has been a perpetuity of £21. 6_s._ 8_d._ paid by the Exchequer ever since the time of Queen Mary.

“In the 43rd volume of that most extraordinary collection of Tracts, which the late excellent King George III. presented to the British Museum, there is a pamphlet of four leaves commemorating a remarkable flow of the Thames at London Bridge, the title to which is given by Gough in his ‘_British Topography_,’ volume i., page 731: and it bears the same proportion to its contents, as the show-cloth of a travelling menagerie does to the actual exhibition. ‘_A Strange Wonder, or the Citie’s Amazement. Being a Relation occasioned by a wonderfull and vnusuall accident, that happened in the River of Thames, Friday, Feb. 4, 1641. There flowing Two Tydes at London Bridge, within the space of an houre and a halfe, the last comming with such violence and hideous noyse, that it not onely affrighted, but even astonished above 500 watermen that stood beholding it on both sides the Thames. Which latter Tyde rose sixe foote higher then the former Tyde had done, to the great admiration of all men._’ London, 1641. Small quarto. This tract is subsequently named ‘_True Newes from Heaven_,’ and the author takes occasion, from the event which he records, to lament the vices and confusion of his time. The fact itself occupies but a small portion of his text; and he relates it thus.--‘Fryday, Februarie 4, 1641, it was high water at one of the clocke at noone, a time--by reason so accommodated for all imployments by water or land,--very fit to afford witnesse of a strange and notorious accident. After it was full high water, and that it flowed its full due time as all Almanacks set downe; and water-men, the vnquestionable prognosticators in that affaire, with confidence mainetaine it stood a quiet still dead water, a full houre and halfe, without moving or returning any way never so litle: Yea, the water-men flung in stickes to the streame, as near as they could guesse, which lay in the water as vpon the earth, without moving this way or that. Dishes likewise, and wodden buckets, they set a swimming, but it proved a stilling, for move they would not any way by force of stream or water; so that it seemed the water was indeed asleepe or dead, or had changed or borrowed the stability of the earth. The water-men not content with this evidence, would needs make the vtmost of the tryall, that they might report with the more boldnesse the truth of the matter: and with more credible confidence they tooke their boates and lanched into the streame or very channell: but the boates that lay hailed up on the shore moved as much, except when they used their oares; nay,--a thing worthy the admiration of all men,--they rowed under the very arches, tooke up their oares and slept there, or, at least, lay still an houre very neare, their boates not so much as moved through any way, either upward or downeward: the water seeming as plaine, quiet, even, and stable as a pavement under the arch, where, if any where in the Thames, there must be moving by reason of the narrownesse of the place. In this posture stood the water a whole houre and halfe, or rather above, by the testimony of above five hundred water-men, on either side the Thames, whom not to believe in this case were stupiditie, not discretion. At last, when all men expected its ebb, being filled with amazement that it stood so long as hath been delivered, behold a greater wonder, a new Tyde comes in! A new Tyde with a witnesse, you might easily take notice of him; so lowde he roared, that the noise was guessed to be about Greenwich when it was heard so, not onely clearly, but fearfully to the Bridge; and up he comes tumbling, roaring, and foaming in that furious manner, that it was horror unto all that beheld it. And as it gave sufficient notice to the eare of its comming, so it left sufficient satisfaction to the eye that it was now come; having raised the water foure foote higher then the first Tyde had done, foure foote by rule! as by evident measure did appear, and presently ebbed in as hasty, confused, unaccustomed manner. See here, Reader! a wonder, that--all things considered,--the oldest man never saw or heard of the like.’

“Lord Clarendon, in his ‘_History of the Rebellion_,’ volume i., part ii., book iv. page 521, Oxford, 1819, 8vo., states that when John Hampden and the four other members of Parliament were accused of High Treason, and were, by their own party, brought back in triumph from the City, January the 11th, 1641-42, ‘from London-Bridge to Westminster, the Thames was guarded with above a hundred lighters and longboats, laden with small pieces of ordnance, and dressed up with waistclothes and streamers, as ready for fight,’ These forces, together with the City Trained-bands under Major General Skippon, were not less to honour, than to defend, the return of the accused Members. The same noble Historian tells us farther, in the same volume and part,