volume ii., page 791, shews us that in his time the enlarging of the

Bridge was recorded upon the North side of the Nonesuch House, in the following inscription:--

“‘ANNO MDCLXXXV., ET PRIMO JACOBI II. REGIS,

This Street was opened and enlarged from 12, to the width of 20 foot:

SIR JAMES SMITH, KNIGHT, LORD MAYOR.’

“Even until the time, however, when London Bridge was entirely cleared of its houses, the street over it has always been described as dark, narrow, and dangerous. ‘The houses on each side,’--says Pennant, page 320,--‘overhung, and leaned in a most terrific manner. In most places they hid the arches, and nothing appeared but the rude piers.--I well remember the street on London Bridge, narrow, darksome, and dangerous to passengers, from the multitude of carriages: frequent arches of strong timber crossing the street, from the tops of the houses to keep them together, and from falling into the river. Nothing but use could preserve the repose of the inmates, who soon grew deaf to the noise of falling waters, the clamors of watermen, or the frequent shrieks of drowning wretches. Most of the houses were tenanted by pin or needle-makers, and economical ladies were wont to drive from the St. James’s end of the town, to make cheap purchases.’

“The ‘_New and Universal History, Description, and Survey of the Cities of London and Westminster, the Borough of Southwark, and their adjacent parts_,’ by Walter Harrison, London, 1776, folio, furnishes some few additional features to this scene: although the work itself is, perhaps, anything but reputable; being chiefly a compilation from Stow and Strype, without much acknowledgment of the originals. Some particulars of London Bridge, however, the compiler himself actually knew, and on page 24, he says,--‘Across the middle of the street there were several lofty arches, extending from one side to the other, the bottom part of each arch terminating at the first story, and the upper part reaching near the top of the buildings. These arches were designed to support the houses on each side the street, and were therefore formed of strong timbers bolted into the houses, which, being covered with lath and plaister, appeared as if built with stone.’ The Rev. J. Motley, in his ‘_Seymour’s Survey of London_,’ volume i., page 48, also says,--‘On each side, between the houses, are left three vacancies, opposite to each other, two with stone walls, upon which are iron rails, that people passing along may take a view of the river East and West, and may also step out of the way of carts and coaches, the passage being formerly very narrow, and the floors of the houses that lay cross the streets being low, they not only rendered those places dark, but likewise obstructed the free passage of carts, if they were loaded any way high, and coaches, so that they could not pass by one another, which oftentimes occasioned great stops upon the Bridge, and was a great hindrance to passengers.’ As there was no regular foot-way over the Bridge, it was therefore the most usual and safest custom to follow a carriage which might be passing across it. The brief notice of London Bridge in Hoffmann’s ‘_Lexicon Universale_’ is not worth repeating, but you will find it in volume iii., page 833, column i., character ξ [Greek: x]: and though a much better account of it in 1697 appears in Motraye’s ‘_Voyages_,’ volume i., page 150, it contains nothing new. He calls it ‘one of the strongest buildings which he had seen in this nation.’

“A very melancholy instance of suicide which took place in April, 1689, bears testimony to the power of the torrent at London Bridge at that period; and you will find it recorded in that very interesting work, entitled ‘_The Travels and Memoirs of Sir John Reresby, Baronet_,’ best edition, with a Preface by Edmund Lodge, Esq., London, 1813, 8vo. page 406.--‘About this time,’--says the Author of this volume,--‘a very sad accident happened, which, for a while, was the discourse of the whole town: Mr. Temple, son to Sir William Temple, who had married a French lady with 20,000 pistoles; a sedate and accomplished young gentleman, who had lately by King William been made Secretary of War; took a pair of oars, and drawing near the Bridge, leapt into the Thames and drowned himself, leaving a note behind him in the boat, to this effect: ‘My folly in undertaking what I could not perform, whereby some misfortunes have befallen the King’s service, is the cause of my putting myself to this sudden end; I wish him success in all his undertakings, and a better servant.’ Pennant, in repeating this anecdote in his ‘_Account of London_,’ page 323, adds that it took place on the 14th of April; that the unhappy suicide loaded his pockets with stones to destroy all chance of safety; and that his father’s false and profane reflection on the occasion was, ‘that a wise man might dispose of himself, and make his life as short as he pleased!’

“From a very remote period, the City of London has protected the persons and property of its Orphans; and so early as the year 1391 the Orphans’ Fund was possessed of very considerable wealth, since the sum of 2000 marks, or £1333. 6_s._ 8_d._, was then borrowed from it to procure corn during a dearth. In the year 1693, the City stood indebted to the same source, as well as to other creditors, in the amount of £747,500, and an Act of Parliament was at length procured, establishing a fund for their re-payment; by which all the City estates, excepting those belonging to the Hospitals, London Bridge, and such places as were liable to its repairs, were charged with raising the annual sum of £8000, clear of all deductions, as a perpetual deposit for paying an interest of 4 per cent. to the said creditors. The act itself is in