volume ii. page 24, that they were so called and appointed, as being ‘a

storehouse for stone, timber, or whatsoever pertaineth to the buildings or repairing of London Bridge.’ He adds too, that this House ‘seemeth to have taken beginning with the first foundation of the Bridge either of stone or timber;’ and that it is ‘a large plot of ground on the bank of the River Thames, containing divers large buildings for the stowage’ of materials for the repairs of London Bridge. Of events which particularly concern this place, I shall, however, speak more fully in their proper order of time.

“In the year 1235, you will recollect that Isabel, third daughter of King John, by his third Queen, Isabella of Angoulême, was sent with great splendour into Germany, to marry the Emperor Frederick II. She was attended by William Brewer, Bishop of Exeter, and a Privy Councillor to King Henry III., and also by the Archbishop of Cologne, the Imperial proxy, who had pronounced her Empress. Upon this occasion, according to the customs of the ancient Norman Law and the Feudal System, the King received an aid to furnish her dowry, of two marks out of every Knight’s Fee;--that is to say, as it is usually accepted, £1. 6_s._ 8_d._ from every person who possessed an estate of £20. per annum, which was granted by the Common Council of the kingdom. This rather uncommon aid, you find certified in Thomas Madox’s ‘_History and Antiquities of the Exchequer of the Kings of England_,’ London, 1711, folio, page 412; and in the voluminous collections of that eminent Antiquary, now preserved with Sir Hans Sloane’s Manuscripts in the British Museum, No. 4563, page 181 b, is the following very curious document, which connects this circumstance with the history of London Bridge. ‘To be remembered concerning the payments of Purprestures’--fines for enclosing and damaging of Land--‘and of Escheats’--accidental returns of estates to their principal owners,--‘It is commanded to the Sheriffs, that they get all the arrears of all the above rents, and the issues of all Purprestures and Escheats; _excepting the rents of London Bridge_, and the remainder of the amerciaments belonging to the Circuit of W. of York,’--most probably Walter Grey, then Archbishop of York, and Lord Chancellor,--‘as well in the County of Middlesex as at the Tower, and all the deficiencies (of the aid) for marrying the King’s sister, and for the passing over this sea into Gascony.’ In the Exchequer Rolls of the 32nd of Henry III., A. D. 1247, 12 a.

“Towards the latter end of the year 1248, King Henry vainly endeavoured to collect from his Barons, a sum sufficient to enable him to recover certain provinces in France; upon which, he offered a portion of his plate and jewels for sale to the Citizens of London, by whom they were bought. The King, displeased at finding they readily procured money for such a purpose, and yet pleaded poverty whenever he solicited a supply, resolved upon retaliation; and, to that end, kept his Christmas in the City, forced the inhabitants to present him with divers costly New Year’s gifts, and established a Market at Westminster, to last for fifteen days, beginning on the 13th of October, during which time all other fairs were suspended, and, in London itself, all commerce was prohibited. I think too, that we may trace the effects of Henry’s anger yet farther; for, in the Patent Roll of the 34th year of his reign, 1249, Membrane the 5th, is the following writ.

“‘Of taking the City of London into the hands of our Lord the King. The King, &c. to his faithful W. de Haverhull, his Treasurer; Peter Blund, Constable of the Tower of London; and Ernald Gerandin, his Chamberlain: Greeting. We command that without delay, you take into your hands our City of London, with the County of Middlesex, and London Bridge in like manner: so that the issues of the same be answered for to us at our Exchequer at our pleasure. And all the aforesaid shall be in safe custody, until the receipt of another mandate from us. In testimony of which thing, etcætera, Witness the King at Merton, on the 20th day of May.’ The original of this is of course in the Tower.

“In the same National depository of invaluable records, Mr. Geoffrey, there is, in the Patent Rolls of the 37th of Henry III.--1252,--Membrane the 4th, an entry entitled ‘A Protection for the Brethren of London Bridge, concerning the charitable gifts collected for the reparation of the said Bridge.’ This, like the foregoing instrument, has not, as I can remember, ever been printed; and, translated into English, it is as follows. ‘The King to the Archbishops, &c. Greeting. Know ye that we engage for the protection and defence of our Brethren of London Bridge, and their men, lands, goods, rents, and all their possessions. And therefore we command, that they, the Brethren, and their men, lands, goods, rents, and all possessions, in their hands, ye should hold protected and defended. Nor shall any bring upon them, or permit to be brought upon them, any injury, molestation, damage, or grievance. And if it be that any thing hath been forfeited by them, amendment shall be made without delay. And we also desire of you, that when the aforesaid Brethren, or their Messengers, shall come to you for your alms for their support, or for that of the aforesaid Bridge, ye shall courteously receive them, and cause them to be so received in all your Churches, Towns, and Courts; and that ye will bestow upon them of your goods according to your charity and the sight of our precept, the alms which they desire. So that in reward thereof ye may be worthy of all the blessings of mercy, and our special thanks shall be due unto you. In testimony of which thing, &c. Witness the King at Portsmouth, the fifteenth day of July.’

“Really,” said I to Mr. Postern, as he concluded the last Charter, “your memory, Mr. Barnaby, is little less than miraculous! Why, it must be like a chain cable, to hold together the contents of all these musty Patent Rolls, with their endless repetitions. I myself am called by my intimates, ‘_Memory Barbican_,’ and I can recollect events and stories indifferently well; but _you!_ you remind me of the Wandering Jew, who has lived eighteen hundred years, and never forgot any thing in his life!”

“Ah! my good Sir,” answered the Historian of London Bridge, “if my memory were equal to your praise of it, it were, indeed, worth boasting of; but in my broken narrative I can shew you but here and there an isolated fact, whilst to the greater part of the story, we are obliged to say with _Master Shallow_, ‘Barren! Barren! Beggars all! Beggars all!’”

“Take a draught out of the fragment of Master Shallow’s fat friend here,” returned I, pointing to the Sack Tankard, “and set out afresh, my old kinsman; but pray let us have the spur on the other leg now, and give us a little History to lighten our Law; with which request,--Here’s my service to you!” Mr. Postern bowed as I drank, and after having followed my example, thus continued.

“You must doubtless remember, my good Sir, that during those unhappy Baronial wars which lasted nearly the whole of the extended reign of Henry III. it was supposed that Queen Eleanor of Provence opposed the Sovereign’s agreeing to the Barons’ demands; and that in revenge for this, how very uncivilly the Citizens treated her at London Bridge. Matthew of Westminster tells the story under the year 1263, in his ‘_Flores Historiarum_.’ London, 1570, folio, Part ii. page 315; and he, as you will recollect, was a Benedictine Monk of Westminster, who flourished, as Bishop Nicholson supposes in his ‘_Historical Libraries_,’ page 66, about the year 1307, when his history ends. The event to which I allude was, that as the Queen was going by water to Windsor, just as her barge was preparing to shoot the Bridge, the populace intercepted her progress, attacked her with vehement exclamations and reproaches, and endeavoured to sink her vessel, and deprive her of life by casting heavy stones and mud into her boat. Upon this, she was compelled to return to the Tower, where the King had garrisoned himself, as the City had declared for the Barons, whence she was removed to the Bishop of London’s Palace, at St. Paul’s. It was in the latter end of the same year, that Simon de Montfort, the sturdy Earl of Leicester, and the Baronial leader, marched his forces through the County of Surrey towards London, in the hope that his friends, Thomas Fitz-Richard, then Lord Mayor, Thomas de Pynlesdon, Matthew Bukerel, and Michael Tony, with whom was connected an immense multitude of the common rabble, would open the Bridge Gates to him. When the King, however, became acquainted with the Earl’s design, he left the Tower, and encamped with his troops about Southwark, to oppose his passage. As the Earl of Leicester relied more upon the assistance of the Citizens, than on the valour of his own soldiers, he vigorously attacked the King’s troops, expecting that the Londoners would favour his entrance. Henry, however, had still several adherents in the City; and, indeed, Thomas Wikes, in his ‘_Chronicon_,’ page 58, as it is printed in volume ii. of Gale’s ‘_Scriptores_,’ already cited, tells us that the Baronial party in London was composed of the meanest and most worthless, whom the wisest and eldest endeavoured to controul. During the fight, therefore, some of the Royalists, and especially one John Gisors, a Norman, perceiving that the City was in motion to assist De Montfort, locked up the Bridge Gates, and threw the keys into the Thames. So prompt an action had nearly proved fatal to the Earl of Leicester, who had approached the Bridge with only a few soldiers, lest his designs should be discovered; but at length the Gates were broken open, the Citizens rushed out in multitudes to his rescue; King Henry was obliged to retreat, and De Montfort entered the City. By this event we are informed that there certainly _did_ exist a Bridge Gate in the year 1264; and the historians by whom the fact is related, are Matthew of Westminster, whose ‘_Flowers of Histories_’ I have already quoted, of which book, see page 317; and the ‘_Chronicon_’ of Thomas Wikes, a Canon Regular of Osney, near Oxford, which concludes with the year 1304.

“It would seem almost certain that, at this period, the keeping of London Bridge, with all its emoluments, was in the possession of the Brethren of St. Thomas of the Bridge; and the idea is somewhat supported by the Protection to which I referred you but a short time since. There is, however, in the Patent Rolls preserved in the Tower of London, of the 50th of Henry III.--1265,--Membrane the 43rd, the following instrument.

“‘For the Hospital of St. Catherine, concerning the Custody of London Bridge, with all the rents thereof for the space of five years.

‘The King to the Brethren and Chaplains ministring in the Chapel of St. Thomas upon London Bridge, the other inhabitants upon the same Bridge; and to all others to whom these letters shall come, Greeting: Know ye, that we commit unto the Master and Brethren of the Hospital of Saint Catherine near to our Tower of London, the Custody of the aforesaid Bridge with all its appurtenances, as well the rents and tenements thereof, as of others which belong to the aforesaid Bridge, within and without the City: to have and to hold by the said Master and Brethren for the space of five years. Yet so that out of the aforesaid rents, tenements, and other goods of the aforesaid Bridge, the repair and support of the Bridge is to be looked for, and to be done, from henceforth from that place as it shall be able, and as it hath been accustomed. And therefore we command you, that to the said Master and Brethren, as well as to the keepers of the aforesaid Bridge, all things belonging to that custody be applied, permitted, and paid, until the term aforesaid. Witness the King at Westminster, on the sixteenth day of November.’ The Latin of this writ you find printed in Hearne’s ‘_Liber Niger_,’ which I have before quoted, volume i. page *471; and it affords us certain proof of the early existence of dwellings on London Bridge.

“I will but remark in passing onwards, that Madox, in his ‘_History of the Exchequer_,’ already cited, page 534, quotes a Roll to shew that in the 52nd year of King Henry III.--1267,--Walter Harvey, and William de Durham, Bailiffs of the City of London, accounted to the Crown for the sum of £7. 0_s._ 2-1/2_d._ being the amount of the Custom of Fish brought to London Bridge Street, and other Customs also taken there. The term for which the Hospital of St. Catherine was to enjoy the custody of London Bridge, wanted, however, more than a whole twelvemonth of its completion, when a new Patent was issued by Henry III. in 1269, the 54th year of his reign, granting it to his Queen Eleanor of Provence. It is entitled, ‘The King gives to Eleanor, Queen of England, the custody of London Bridge, with the liberties;’ and you will find it the third article on the 4th Membrane, in the Patent Roll for the above year: the Latin is printed by Hearne in the place which I last cited, page *472, and the writ in English is as follows:”

“‘The King to all etcætera, Greeting. Seeing that some time since we would have granted to our most dear Consort Eleanor, Queen of England, the Custody of our Bridge at London, with the liberties and all other things belonging to that Bridge, to have for a certain term: We, therefore, do grant to the same Queen, out of our abundant grace and will, the custody of the Bridge aforesaid, with the liberties and all other things belonging to that Bridge, to be considered from the Feast of All Saints,’--1st of November--‘about to arrive; and from the same Feast of All Saints, until the full end of the six years next approaching, and following. In testimony of which thing, etcætera, Witness the King, at Woodstock, on the 10th day of September.’”

“And pray, Mr. Barnaby Postern,” said I, in a drowsy kind of voice, for I was almost tired at sitting so long silent, “did the Queen enjoy the whole of her term, or was the custody of London Bridge again otherwise disposed of?”

“You bring me, worthy Mr. Geoffrey,” answered he, “by your very seasonable question, to speak of a matter in which the Citizens of London obtained a great triumph on behalf of their Bridge. It is somewhat singular, that Stow, at page 60 of his ‘_Survey_,’ volume i. has very hastily, and, in my poor mind, very imperfectly, related this matter; whilst Maitland, on page 48 of his ‘_History_,’ volume i. has told it still less circumstantially. I shall therefore, my good friend, take the freedom to put the proceedings between the Queen and the Citizens in somewhat more particular a form, illustrating them by the very records from whence we derive our information; for to these let me say, that neither of the authors whom I have mentioned give you any reference. Previously to commencing, however, I must entreat you to bear with me, Mr. Barbican, if my proofs cited from the ancient Rolls of the Kingdom be dull and formal; and to remember that they are often the only _fragmenta_ we possess of past events. Tracing of local history is like endeavouring to follow the course of a dried-up river: a rude channel here and there presents itself; some mouldering ruin, once the abutment of an ancient Bridge, or----”

“Mr. Postern,” said I, taking up the Tankard, and interrupting him, “once more, here’s your health, and I wish you safe out of your wilderness: keep to one thing at a time, man, leave your dried-up river, and ‘turn again Barnaby,’ to the dispute between Queen Eleanor of Provence, and the Citizens of London, concerning yonder Bridge.”

“In good time,” continued my visitor, “you have brought me back again. And now, I would first request you to remember, that King Henry III. died at London, on the 16th of November, 1272; Prince Edward his son then being in the Crusade in Palestine; whence, however, he returned to England in July, or August, 1274. Now, almost the whole of the reign of Henry III. had been disturbed by the truculent Barons contending with him for the final settlement of Magna Charta; and these Civil Wars had very naturally produced numerous abuses with respect to the Estates of England, such as the Nobility assuming almost regal rights, imposing heavy tolls, and the officers of the Crown using divers exactions under colour of the law. Such was the state of English affairs at the return of King Edward I., and it was one of the first acts of his reign--as the ‘_Annals of Waverley_’ tell us on page 235,--to enquire into the state of the revenues, privileges, and lands of the Crown; as well as to examine into the conduct of the sheriffs and officers, who had at once defrauded the Sovereign and oppressed his subjects. For this purpose, as the next circuit of the Justices Itinerant was not expected for six years then to come,--as they generally travelled it but once in seven,--the King issued his Letters Patent under the Great Seal, dated from the Tower of London, on the 11th of October, 1274, appointing Commissioners for each County in England, to make this important inquisition. They were instructed to summon Juries to enquire on oath the answers to thirty-five Articles, examining into the King’s rights, royalties, and prerogatives, and into the extent of all frauds and abuses; the most full and ample instructions being given them for their conduct. The returns and answers to these enquiries constitute that interesting body of Records denominated the ‘_Hundred Rolls_,’ which are preserved in the Wakefield Tower, in the Tower of London: though, before we make any references to these, let me remark, that you will find their history, nature, and extent, fully described in the ‘_Reports from the Select Committee, appointed to enquire into the State of the Public Records_,’ 1801, folio, pages 54, 57-62; and ‘_Rotuli Hundredorum Tempore Henrici III. et Edwardi I. in Turri Londinensi, et in Curiâ receptæ Scaccarii Westmonasteriensi, asservati_.’ London, 1812-18, 2 volumes, folio. The original Patent Commissions, and Articles of Enquiry, are also still preserved in the Patent Rolls in the Tower, of the 2nd of Edward I., Membrane the 5th: by which we are informed, that Bartholomew de Bryaunton, and James de Saint Victoire, were appointed Inquisitors for the Counties of Kent, Surrey, Sussex, and Middlesex, and for the City of London: and that their enquiries for the latter place commenced in the 3rd year of King Edward I., 1274-75. On the first Membrane of the Roll for London it is stated, that twelve Jurors of Basinghall, or as it is often called Bassishaw Ward, gave the following evidence concerning London Bridge, for the original Latin of which see the ‘_Rotuli Hundredorum_,’ which I have already quoted, volume i. page 403, column 1.

“‘When they enquired concerning the Rents of the Citizens and Burgesses, &c.--They said that the custody of London Bridge, which is wont to belong only to the City, is alienated by the Lady Queen, Mother of Edward our King; and the Keepers of the said Bridge appointed by the same Lady Queen, expend but little in the amending and sustaining of the said Bridge. Whence danger may easily arise, very much to the damage of the King and of the City.’ This is the second Inquisition quoted by Stow, on page 60. On the third Membrane of this same Roll, containing the inquisition made in the Ward of William de Hadestok, or Tower Ward, the Jurors said that ‘the Lady Queen Eleanor, Mother of our Lord the King, is now possessed of the Bridge of London, who keeps it badly, and that it was belonging to the City of London:’ and also that the custody had been alienated ‘from the Battle of Evesham,’ August the 4th, 1265, as I have already shewn you, until the time of the inquisition. See page 405, column 1, of the ‘_Hundred Rolls_’ before cited.

“The Jurors of the Ward of Fori, or Fore-street, page 406, column 2 of the same book, and Membrane 4 of the original Roll, ‘said that London Bridge had been for a long time in the hands of the City and Citizens of London, and that such had been always accustomed by general consent, to be made keepers of the common Bridge of our Lord the King, and of his City, and of all passers over it; and now,’ they continued, ‘the aforesaid Bridge is in the hands of the Lady the Queen, and they know not by what warrant. They said also, that the same Bridge is greatly and perilously decayed through defect of keeping, which is to the great peril of our Lord the King and his City, and all passing over it.’ The evidence of the Jurors of the Ward of Walter le Poter, was to the same effect: and you will find it on Membrane 5 of the Roll, and on page 408, column 2, of the printed copy. A similar reply was also returned from the Ward of Peter Aunger, see Membrane 6, and page 410, column 1: from Coleman Street Ward, Membrane 7, page 412, column 1: and from the Ward of John de Blakethorne, Membrane 9, page 414, column 2; where, however, it is added, that ‘the Bridge of London, which was formerly in the custody of the whole Commonalty to be repaired and re-edified, is now under that of Brother Stephen de Foleborn for the Queen Mother.’

“The verdict of the twelve Jurors of the Ward of John Horn, also testifies the Queen’s possession of London Bridge, see Membrane 11, and page 416, column 2: but from Queenhithe Ward, or that of Simon de Hadestok, Membrane 13, and page 419, column 1, we learn that the Jurors ‘said that the Lord King Henry took the Bridge of London into his own hands, presently after the Battle of Evesham, and delivered it into the hands of the Lady the Queen, Mother of the Lord the King, who hath it now; and that to the great detriment of the Bridge, and the prejudice of all the people; it is also now nearly in a falling state, through defect of support.’ On Membrane 14, and page 420, column 1, the Jurors of the Ward of John de Northampton,--which is, by the way, the first Inquisition, so vaguely referred to by Stow, at page 60 of his ‘_Survey_,’--depose to the same effect; as do those of the Ward of Thomas de Basing, Membrane 15, and page 421, column 1; the latter adding only, that when the Bridge was held by the City, it was delivered to two honest Citizens to keep, saving the rents of their custody. The only information we gain from the Jurors of the Ward of Dowgate, Membrane 16, and page 422, column 2, is, that Brother Stephen, Bishop of Waterford, was custodier for Queen Eleanor, whilst their evidence on the Bridge dilapidations is quite as full as that of the other Wards.

“Such were the chief answers to the inquisitions concerning London Bridge, in the reign of King Edward I.; I say the chief, for there are yet several others, which, for the most part, are but abridged repetitions of those already cited. Indeed, they are recorded upon a different Roll, which is kept in the Chapter House, at West-Minster; and you may see their contents in the printed copies of the ‘_Hundred Rolls_’ to which I have so often referred you, volume i. pages 425-432.”

“Well, Master Postern,” said I, when my narrator came to this breathing place, “and how did King Edward and his Commissioners act upon this evidence against Queen Eleanor of Provence? Were they not of the mind of _Dogberry_ as it regarded the answers of the Citizens; ‘’Fore God! they are both in a tale,’ seeing that nearly all of them swore alike?”

“I cannot, now,” answered Mr. Postern, “call to mind any historical proof that the custody of London Bridge was immediately restored to the Mayor and Citizens, though Maitland states, at page 48 of his ‘_History_,’ but without quoting any authority, that the Citizens did not cease to prosecute their suit by _Quo Warranto_, until they regained their ancient rights and privileges. Now the fact is, it is by no means certain that there was any such suit ever commenced as it concerned the Bridge; for the inquisition was first commanded by the King, and the Citizens had only to answer concerning the ancient possession and present state of their property, part of which they stated had been alienated by the King to the Queen Mother, adding also, ‘_et nesciunt quo Warranto_,’ they knew not by what warrant, or right. This, probably, was the phrase which led Maitland astray; added to which, he cites at page 104 the _Quo Warranto_ Bag of the 3rd year of Edward I. No. 4, in the Exchequer, containing the complaints of the Citizens concerning levies unjustly made.

“It was, however, not the City of London only that presented and complained of alterations in the Bridge customs; for in Messrs. Manning and Bray’s ‘_History and Antiquities of Surrey_,’ London, 1804-14, folio, volume iii. page 548, there is the following entry. ‘At an Assize at Guildford, in Surrey, in the Octave of St. Michael,’--that is to say within the eight days succeeding the 29th of September,--‘in the 7th of Edward I. 1278--79, before John de Reygate and other Justices Itinerant. There came twelve for the Burgesses of Southwark. They present that a certain part of London Bridge, about the great gate of the Bridge, with the houses and buildings standing on that part, used to belong to the Burgh of the King, of Southwark, where the King used to have of rents of Assize,’--namely, fixed rents which could never be increased,--‘yearly 11_s._ 4_d._; and of the customs of things there sold, 16_s._ and one halfpenny, till fourteen years ago, in the time of King Henry III., when the Mayor and City of London appropriated it to the City:--the King to be consulted. Also they present that the Keeper of London Bridge holds a messuage which formerly belonged to Reginald de Colemille, who then held the same in Chief,’ immediately from the King, ‘by the rent of one penny farthing: and that Milo le Mareschall holds in Chief of the King two messuages which were formerly the property of Godefride de Marberer, and Henry le Mareschall, and pays yearly two pence halfpenny.’ The ‘_Assize Pleadings_,’ or Rolls, containing these particulars, were written in consequence of inquisitions into the damages and alienations of the King’s property, during the reign of King Henry III., as I have already remarked with regard to the Hundred Rolls: the original pleadings are preserved in the Tower of London, and in the Court of the Receipt of the Exchequer, in the Chapter House at Westminster. Such were the ancient rents of the houses on London Bridge; to which I may add, that a Fruiterer’s Shop, two yards and a half and one thumb in length, and three yards and two thumbs in depth, was let on a lease from the Bridge-master, at a rental of twelve pence.

“We well know, Mr. Barbican, that in the olden time, Bridges were applied to many purposes which now seem altogether foreign to such edifices. The celebrated Du Cange, you will recollect, in his ‘_Glossarium ad Scriptores Mediæ et Infimæ Latinitatis_,’ Paris, 1733-36, folio, volume ii. page 67, tells us, that Philip the Fair, King of France, ordained in 1304, that the public Exchange, or Bankers’ Money Table for Paris, should be held upon the Great Bridge there, between the Church of St. Leufred and the Great Arch, as it was anciently accustomed to be. You may remember, also, that Bridges were once considered as Funeral Monuments, for Olaus Wormius, in his ‘_Monumentum Danicorum_,’ Hafnia, 1643, folio, page 523, when speaking of the Island of Foesoe, observes, that there was erected a Bridge at the costs of two or three persons, as well to preserve their own names to posterity, as to commemorate that of Jotheimnt who converted them to Christianity. He adds also, that the word _Bru_, which is unquestionably the most ancient etymon of the term Bridge, signifies that coronal of stone with which the large burial-places, or _tumuli_, in fields, were encircled. With what great propriety then, did the blessed Peter of Colechurch confide his fame to, and rest his most excellent bones, in London Bridge!

“Such, then, being the purposes to which Bridges were once appropriated, we are not to wonder that a Market formerly existed upon that of London; although the circumstance is marked only by the order for its removal, which we find mentioned by Maitland in his ‘_History_,’ volume i. page 104, in the following terms. ‘In the fifth year of this King’s reign,’ that is to say Edward I. 1276,--‘it was ordained, that there should not be kept a Market on London Bridge, nor in any other place, except those appointed for that purpose: also that no person should go out of the City to Southwark to buy cattle, or any wares which might be bought in the City, under the penalty of the forfeiture of the thing bought. This is the first Ordinance of the Common Council we find on record, concerning the regulation and appointment of Markets in this City.’ The margin of Maitland’s work states that he derived this information from the book entitled ‘_Liber Albus_,’ preserved in the Record Chamber of the City of London, folio, 130 a. Now this same White Book, which I imagine to have been so called from its having once had a cover of cream-coloured calf, was a most curious and elaborate work, compiled, as it is supposed by Strype, by one J. Carpenter, who was Town Clerk in the reign of Henry V., and a great benefactor to the City. It is dated November 5th, 1419, in the Mayoralty of Master Richard Whyttington, and the 7th year of the Reign of Henry V. and ‘it contains laudable customs not written, wont to be observed in the City, and other notable things worthy of remembrance here and there scatteringly, not in any order written.’ Some of these memoranda, as the Latin Prologue to the volume sets forth, are short indexes to the contents of other City Books, Rolls, and Charters, which are cited by their names, or marks; and in the 4th Book, folio 70 a, there is a reference to another record marked A, page cxxx., concerning the market on London Bridge, which was probably the occasion of Maitland’s marginal note, as the ‘_Liber Albus Transcriptum_,’ itself, has not in any part of it a page numbered 130. The volume then, in which this very ancient order of the Common Council is really contained, is a small folio of a moderate thickness, cased in boards, covered with white leather, having a coating of rough calf over it. The outside is garnished with bosses and clasps, now black with age; and in the centre, a metal border holds down a piece of parchment, on which is written in Latin the title of the volume, in a clear black letter, guarded by a plate of horn: informing us that it was begun in the 4th year of the reign of Edward I. 1275, and finished in his 22nd year, 1293. The leaves are of parchment, with the contents written in a small Court-hand in Latin; and on folio 130 a, is this entry. ‘Also that no Market place shall be kept upon London Bridge, nor in any other place excepting the appointed stations.’ On the preceding folio, namely 129 b, there is also this farther order concerning the Bridge: ‘Item, that no regraters,’--that is to say those who both bought and sold in the same market or fair,--‘shall come from below London Bridge, for the buying and preparing of bread in the City; because the Bakers of Southwark are not permitted by the statutes of our City, to come from without the City.’ Before I quit these venerable records of London, I must observe to you that they contain an almost infinite number of very curious memoranda concerning London Bridge, which would occupy no trivial time, either to collect or relate; since in the same ‘_Liber Albus_’ are numerous references to such particulars, see ‘for a taste now,’ as _Touchstone_ saith, the articles entitled ‘Of the Customs of the Bridge, Part I. folio xii. a;’--‘of the Fees’--of Fish,--‘of the Bridge Bailiff, folio xii. b;’--‘concerning the keeping, rent, and course, of the water under the wall,’--Wall-brook;--‘of the cleansing of Fleet-ditch, and of the Bridge of London, and the roads about London,’ book iv. page 16 a; ‘That the Quays and house of St. Botolph be built and repaired by the keepers of the Bridge, volume E. folio cxxv.;’ and ‘Writ for the keepers of the Bridge against the Parson of Wolchurchaw, concerning the stalls on the same. Volume G. folio clviii.’ Such are a few of the very many historical notices relating to London Bridge, preserved in the Civic Records; ‘Books,’ says Strype, in the interesting Preface to his first edition of Stow’s Survey, London, 1720, never afterwards reprinted,--‘Books, that contain such a treasure, as, notwithstanding what Mr. Stow, as well as others, have extracted thence, and published, many other things in vast variety still remain there unprinted,’ and, we may almost add, unknown. Alas! my good Sir, can we wonder at the paucity of historical narrative, when we reflect how often its very sources are undiscovered? Too many of our topographers, ‘content to dwell in decencies for ever!’ flatter each other, and copy each other’s errors; but how seldom do we see one, who, diving deeply into the broad stream of Antiquarian lore, brings up----”

“Mr. Postern,” said I, with some warmth, “this is actually intolerable; there is really nothing but what serves you for a Jack o’lanthorn to go astray by. Whether it be a book, or a bit of musty morality, which has nothing at all to do with the matter, away go you over hedges and ditches, and through a thousand thickets and sloughs, rather than keep the straight road; and dragging me along with you, over the boots in mire. I think, on the whole, indeed, that my estate is gracious that you have not _all_ the Bridge Records at command, for then should I be overwhelmed, and _you_ be ten times more wearisome. Come back then, my good Sir; do pray come back again, and finish the reign of Edward I., as it was connected with the history of London Bridge.”

“I own,” answered Mr. Postern, in his usual undisturbed manner, “that your patience is somewhat tried by these details; but ever remember, Mr. Barbican, I pray you, that our ancient Charters, with all their barbarisms and tautology, our old Latin Chronicles, with all their monkish fables and rudeness, our brief Patent Rolls, with all their dryness and seeming want of interest,--ever remember that these are the sure foundations on which all History is built. Simple truth was, in general, the only aim of the first Chroniclers, to which later ages have added grace of style, vividness of description, and interest of narrative, to adorn their antique fidelity and plainness.

“But to proceed.--We are not made acquainted, Sir, with any particulars of the repairs which followed these inquisitions concerning London Bridge; but in the 9th year of King Edward I.--1280,--there was the following Patent issued for its support: the original of which is preserved with the other Patent Rolls in the Wakefield Tower, in the Tower of London, 9th Edward I. Membrane 25-27; a copy of the Latin is printed in Hearne’s ‘_Liber Niger_,’ which I have already quoted,