volume iv. London, 1812, 8vo. page 552, and volume vi. part I. page

402. I shall close this notice of these most ancient views of London Bridge, by observing to you, that there is a view and a ground-plan of it, with measurements, engraved by Toms, on the second plate in Hawksmoor’s work, already cited.

“Let me remark to you, however, Mr. Barbican, as touching the Chapel which I have thus described to you, that the custom of erecting Religious Houses on Bridges, is certainly of great antiquity. A notable instance of this kind was on the Bridge at Droitwich, where the road passed through the Chapel and separated the congregation from the reading-desk and pulpit. Another famous Bridge Chapel is also to be found erected over the River Calder, at Wakefield, in the West Riding of Yorkshire; of which, a folding view, by W. Lodge, is inserted in the ‘_Ducatus Leodiensis_’ of Ralph Thoresby, London, 1715, folio, sometimes placed at page 164. This beautiful fane, you know, was built by King Edward IV. in memory of his father, Richard, Duke of York, who was killed in the battle fought near Wakefield, on December the 31st, 1460. The Bridge Chapel, however, though extremely rich in its architecture, was not so singular as our’s at London, since it was not built _in_ the pier, and descending even to the water’s edge, but _upon_ the pier, and the platform of the Bridge itself. Somewhat like our shrine of St. Thomas, however, as it belonged to the poor of the town, it was, about 1779, converted into a dwelling-house, and let at a small annual rent to a retail dealer in old clothes! as that industrious Antiquary, Richard Gough, tells us, in his ‘_British Topography_,’ London, 1780, 4to. volume ii. page 437, note, r. ‘To what base uses may we not return, Horatio!’ The edifice which had been erected for Monks to chaunt forth their _Requiescats_ in solemn procession; the shrine which had been endowed for the sweet repose of a warrior’s soul; the--”

“I’ll tell you what, Mr. Barnaby Postern,” said I, starting up, “you’ll contribute to _my_ sweet repose, unless you leave wandering in Yorkshire, and return again to London Bridge: what have we to do with a bead-roll of all the Bridge Chapels that are scattered through England? I desire to know but of one; for, by its having existed, we are sure that there might have been some sort of custom for their erection; and, as old Chaucer saith,

‘Experience, though none auctoritye Were in this world, is quite enough for me.’”

“True, Sir, true,” said the mild old Antiquary; “you have once more brought me back to my starting-post; for I own that I am too apt, when discoursing upon one subject, to branch out into others which seem to illustrate, or are in any degree connected with it. You will, however, I dare say, allow me to remark, that Plutarch denies the derivation of the word Pontifex from the old Roman custom of sacrificing on Bridges, which might, nevertheless, be the origin of Chapels being built upon them. He mentions this in his Life of Numa Pompilius, in his ‘_Vitæ Parallelæ_,’ best edition, by Augustine Bryan, and M. du Soul, London, 1729-24, 4to. volume i. page 142. The Greek passage begins, ‘Νουμᾷ δὲ και τὴν των αρχιερεων [Greek: Nouma de kai tên tôn archiereôn],’ &c., and the Latin, ‘_Jam etiam sacerdotum_;’ but I shall give you the excellent modern English version of Dr. Langhorne, in his very popular translation of the old Classic, from the edition of Mr. Archdeacon Wrangham, London, 1813, 8vo. volume i. pages 181, 182: ‘To Numa,’ says the passage, ‘is attributed the institution of that high order of priests, called _Pontifices_; over which, he is said to have presided himself. Some say, they were called _Pontifices_, as employed in the service of those powerful gods that govern the world; for _potens_, in the Roman language, signifies powerful. Others, that they were ordered by their law-giver to perform such offices as were in their power, and standing excused when there was some great impediment. But most writers assign a ridiculous reason for the term, as if they were called _Pontifices_, from their offering sacrifices upon the Bridge, which the Latins call _Pontem_; such kinds of ceremonies, it seems, being looked upon as the most sacred, and of the highest antiquity. These Priests, too, are said to have been commissioned to keep the Bridges in repair, as one of the most indispensable parts of their sacred office.’ Plutarchus, the author of this, you remember, died about A. D. 140; and the period of which he wrote, was about 630 years before the birth of Christ. That giant of learning, also, John Jacob Hoffmann, denies that the word _Pontifex_ had any thing to do with a Bridge; as you may see discussed at considerable length, in his ‘_Lexicon Universale_,’ Leyden, 1698, folio, volume iii. page 836, column 2, where he says, it is compounded of _posse_ and _facere_, that is to say, such persons as are _able to do_ the thing, or sacrifice: but as the article is equally long, erudite, and curious, I refer you to the original.

“And now we come to speak of Stow’s singular hypothesis, that the River Thames was turned in its current, during the erection of the first Stone Bridge at London. He states this in his ‘_Survey_,’ volume i. page 58, where he also says, that the course of the stream was carried through ‘a trench cast for that purpose; beginning, as it is supposed, East about Rotherhithe, and ending in the West about Patricksey, now termed Battersey.’ Strype, the last, and, perhaps, the best Editor of our old Metropolitan Historian, on the page above cited, seems inclined to support this idea; for he says, ‘It is much controverted whether the River Thames was turned, when the Bridge over it was built, and whether the River was more subject to overflow its banks anciently than at present; and from all that hath been seen and written upon the turning of the River, it seems very evident to me, that it _was_ turned while the Bridge was building, and that it is more subject to overflow its banks now, than it was formerly; for the channel of the River must have been deeper than it is now, or the Palace of Westminster would never have been built where the Hall and the rest of its remains are now situated. Is it to be supposed that any Prince would have built a Palace, where the lower rooms were liable to be overflowed at a spring-tide, as we see the Hall has been several times of late years, and the lawyers brought out on porters’ backs? The reason whereof is, that the sands have raised the channel, and, consequently, the tides must rise higher in proportion, than they did formerly; and unless some care is taken to cleanse the River, the buildings on the same level with the floor of Westminster-Hall, will not be habitable much longer, as the sand and ouse are still daily increasing, and choking up the bed of the River.’ Nicholas Hawksmoor, also, on page 8 of his work, which I have already quoted, says, that ‘many skilful persons have thought that the River Thames was not turned, but that the flowing of the tides was then different, and that the water did not rise so high at the Bridge; for the Thames might heretofore overflow the marshes near the sea, and have a greater spreading; which being now restrained by the bank, called the wall of the Thames, into narrower limits, and the water which comes from the sea into the mouth of the Thames during the flood, not being received by the marshes, must come up into the country, and so swell the tide higher at London than it usually