Part 152

"It is certain that, either under Constantine [the emperor] himself, or under one of his immediate successors, the outer wall was built. Though the building of the Roman wall, which still in a sense defines the city boundaries, is an event in the history of London not second in importance even to its foundation, since it made a mere village and fort with a 'tête du pont' into a great city and the capital of provincial Britain, yet we have no records by which an exact date can be assigned to it. All we know is that in 350 London had no wall: and in 369 the wall existed. The new wall must have taken in an immense tract of what was until then open country, especially along the Watling Street, towards Cheap and Newgate. It transformed London into Augusta; and though the new name hardly appears on the page of history, and never without a reference to the older one, its existence proves the increase in estimation which was then accorded to the place. The object of this extensive circumvallation is not very clear. The population to be protected might very well have been crowded into a much smaller space. … The wall enclosed a space of 380 acres, being 5,485 yards in length, or 3 miles and 205 yards. The portion along the river extended from Blackfriars to the Tower."

_W. J. Loftie, History of London, chapter 2 (volume 1)._

"The historian Ammianus Marcellinus, who wrote about A. D. 380, in the reign of Gratian, states that Londinium (he calls it Lundinium) was in his days called Augusta. From him we learn that Lupicinus, who was sent by Julian to repress the inroads of the Scots and Picts, made Londinium his head quarters, and there concerted the plan of the campaign. In the reign of Valentinian Britain was again disturbed, not only by the northern barbarians, but also by the Franks and Saxons. Theodosius, who was appointed commander of the legions and cohorts selected for this service, came from Boulogne, by way of Rutupiæ, to Londinium, the same route taken a few years previously by Lupicinus, and there he also matured his plan for the restoration of the tranquillity of the province. It is on this occasion that Marcellinus speaks twice of Londinium as an ancient town, then called Augusta. By the anonymous chorographer of Ravenna it is called Londinium Augusta; and it is in this sense, a cognomen or distinguishing appellation, as applied to a pre-eminent town or capital, that we must probably understand the term as used by Marcellinus in relation to Londinium. … The extent of Londinium, from Ludgate on the west to the Tower on the east, was about a mile, and about half a mile from the wall on the north (London Wall) to the Thames, giving dimensions far greater than those of any other Roman town in Britain. These were the limits of the city when the Romans relinquished the dominion of the island."

_Charles Roach Smith, Illustrations of Roman London, pages 11-12._

LONDON: 4th Century. The growth of the Roman city.

"That London gradually increased in importance beyond the dignity of a commercial city is plain, from the mention of it in the Itinera, which show the number of marching roads beginning and terminating there. … London then [in the times of Julian and Theodosius] bore the name of 'Augusta,' or 'Londinium Augusta,' and this title is only applied to cities of pre-eminent importance. The area of Roman London was considerable, and, from discoveries made at different times, appears to have extended with the growth of Roman power. The walls when the Romans left Britain reached from Ludgate, on the west, to the Tower on the east, about one mile in length, and from London Wall to the Thames. … It also extended across the river on the Kentish side."

_H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 15._

"Roman Loudon was built on the elevated ground on both sides of a stream, known in after time by the name of Wallbrook, which ran into the Thames not far from Southwark Bridge. … Its walls were identical with those which enclosed the mediæval city of London. … The northern and north-eastern parts of the town were occupied with extensive and—to judge by the remains which have been brought to light—magnificent mansions. … At the period to which our last chapter had brought us [A. D. 353], the city had extended to the other side of the Thames, and the borough of Southwark stands upon ground which covers the floors of Roman houses and the pavings of Roman streets."

_T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5._

ALSO IN: _C. Roach Smith, Antiquities of Roman London._

{2036}

LONDON: 6th-9th Centuries. During the Saxon conquest and settlement.

For nearly half a century after its conquest by the East-Saxons (which took place probably about the middle of the 6th century) London "wholly disappears from our view." "We know nothing of the circumstances of its conquest, of the fate of its citizens, or of the settlement of the conquerors within its walls. That some such settlement had taken place, at least as early as the close of the seventh century, is plain from the story of Mellitus, when placed as bishop within its walls [see ENGLAND: A. D. 597-685]; but it is equally plain that the settlement was an English one, that the provincials had here as elsewhere disappeared, and that the ruin of the city had been complete. Had London merely surrendered to the East-Saxons and retained its older population and municipal life, it is hard to imagine how, within less than half a century, its burghers could have so wholly lost all trace of Christianity that not even a ruined church, as at Canterbury, remained for the use of the Christian bishop, and that the first care of Mellitus was to set up a mission church in the midst of a heathen population. It is even harder to imagine how all trace of the municipal institutions to which the Roman towns clung so obstinately should have so utterly disappeared. But more direct proofs of the wreck of the town meet us in the stray glimpses which we are able to get of its earlier topographical history. The story of early London is not that of a settled community slowly putting off the forms of Roman for those of English life, but of a number of little groups scattered here and there over the area within the walls, each growing up with its own life and institutions, gilds, sokes, religious houses, and the like, and only slowly drawing together into a municipal union which remained weak and imperfect even at the Norman Conquest. … Its position indeed was such that traffic could not fail to recreate the town; for whether a bridge or a ferry existed at this time, it was here that the traveller from Kent or Gaul would still cross the Thames, and it was from London that the roads still diverged which, silent and desolate as they had become, furnished the means of communication to any part of Britain."

_J. R. Green, The Conquest of England, pages 149 and 452-459._

"London may be said after this time [early in the 9th century] to be no longer the capital of one Saxon kingdom, but to be the special property of whichever king of whichever kingdom was then paramount in all England. When the supremacy of Mercia declined, and that of Wessex arose, London went to the conqueror. In 823, Egbert receives the submission of Essex, and in 827 he is in London, and in 833 a Witan is held there, at which he presides. Such are the scanty notes from which the history of London during the so-called Heptarchy must be compiled. … London had to bear the brunt of the attack [of the Danes] at first. Her walls wholly failed to protect her. Time after time the freebooters broke in. If the Saxons had spared anything of Roman London, it must have disappeared now. Massacre, slavery, and fire became familiar in her streets. At last the Danes seemed to have looked on her as their headquarters, and when, in 872, Alfred was forced to make truce with them, they actually retired to London as to their own city, to recruit. To Alfred, with his military experience and political sagacity, the possession of London was a necessity; but he had to wait long before he obtained it. His preparations were complete in 884. The story of the conflict is the story of his life. His first great success was the capture of London after a short siege: to hold it was the task of all his later years."

_W. J. Loftie, History of London, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

LONDON: A. D. 1013-1016. Resistance to the Danes.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

LONDON: 12th Century. Magnitude and importance of the city.

"We find them [the Londoners] active in the civil war of Stephen and Matilda. The famous bishop of Winchester tells the Londoners that they are almost accounted as noblemen on account of the greatness of their city; into the community of which it appears that some barons had been received. Indeed, the citizens, themselves, or at least the principal of them, were called barons. It was certainly by far the greatest city in England. There have been different estimates of its population, some of which are extravagant; but I think it could hardly have contained less than 30,000 or 40,000 souls within its walls; and the suburbs were very populous."

_H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 8, part 3 (volume 3)._

LONDON: 14th Century. Guilds. Livery Companies.

See GUILDS.

LONDON: A. D. 1381. In the hands of the followers of Wat Tyler and John Ball.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1381.

LONDON: 16th Century. In Shakespeare's time.

"The London of those days did not present the gigantic uniformity of the modern metropolis, and had not as yet become wholly absorbed in the whirl of business life. It was not as yet a whole province covered with houses, but a city of moderate size, surveyable from end to end, with walls and gates, beyond which lay pleasant suburbs. … Compared with the London of today, it possessed colour and the stamp of originality; for, as in the southern climes, business and domestic operations were carried on in the streets—and then the red houses with their woodwork, high gables, oriel windows and terraces, and the inhabitants in picturesque and gay attire. The upper circles of society did not, as yet, live apart in other districts; the nobility still had their mansions among the burgher class and the working people. Queen Elizabeth might be seen driving in an unwieldy gilt coach to some solemn service in St. Paul's Cathedral, or riding through the city to the Tower, to her hunting grounds, to a review of her troops, or might be seen starting for Richmond or Greenwich, accompanied by a brilliant retinue, on one of her magnificent barges that were kept in readiness close to where the theatres stood. Such a scene, with but little stretch of the imagination, might have led Shakespeare to think of the brilliant picture of Cleopatra on the Cydnus. The Thames was crossed by one bridge only, and was still pure and clear as crystal; swans swam about on it, and gardens and meadows lined its banks where we now have dusty wharfs and warehouses. Hundreds of boats would be skimming up and down the stream, and incessant would be the calls between the boatmen of 'Westward ho!' or 'Eastward ho!' And yet the loungers in the Temple Gardens and at Queenhithe could amuse themselves by catching salmon. {2037} In the streets crowds would be passing to and fro; above all, the well-known and dreaded apprentices, whose business it was to attract customers by calling out in front of the shops: 'What d'ye lack, gentles? what d'ye lack? My ware is best! Here shall you have your choice!' &c. Foreigners, too, of every nationality, resident in London, would be met with. Amid all this life every now and again would be seen the perambulation of one or other of the guilds, wedding processions, groups of country folk, gay companies of train-bands and archers. … The city was rich in springs and gardens, and the inhabitants still had leisure to enjoy their existence; time had not yet come to be synonymous with money, and men enjoyed their gossip at the barbers' and tobacconists' shops; at the latter, instruction was even given in the art of smoking, and in 1614 it is said that there were no less than 7,000 such shops in London. St. Paul's was a rendezvous for promenaders and idle folk; and on certain days, Smithfield and its Fair would be the centre of attraction; also Bartholomew Fair, with its puppet-shows and exhibitions of curiosities, where Bankes and his dancing-horse Morocco created a great sensation for a long time; Southwark, too, with its Paris Garden, attracted visitors to see the bear-baiting; it was here that the famous bear Sackerson put the women in a pleasant state of flutter; Master Slender had seen the bear loose twenty times, and taken it by the chain. No less attractive were the bowling-alleys, the fights at the Cock-pit and the tent-pegging in the tiltyard; and yet all these amusements were even surpassed by the newly-risen star of the theatre. … The population of London during the reign of the Bloody Mary is estimated by the Venetian ambassador, Giovanni Micheli, at 150,000, or, according to other MS. reports of his, at 180,000 souls. The population must have increased at an almost inconceivable rate, if we are to trust the reports of a second Venetian ambassador, Marc Antonio Correr, who, in 1610, reckoned the number of inhabitants at 300,000 souls; however, according to Raumer, another Venetian, Molino, estimated the population at 300,000 in 1607. The number of foreigners in London was extremely large, and in 1621 the colony of foreigners of all nations found settled there amounted to no less than 10,000 persons. Commerce, trade, and the industries were in a very flourishing state. The Thames alone, according to John Norden in his MS. description of Essex (1594), gave occupation to 40,000 men as boatmen, sailors, fishermen, and others. Great political and historical events had put new life into the English nation, and given it an important impetus, which manifested itself in London more especially, and exercised a stimulating influence upon literature and poetry. Indeed, it may be said that Shakespeare had the good fortune of having his life cast in one of the greatest historical periods, the gravitating point of which lay principally in London."

_K. Elze, William Shakespeare, chapter 3._

LONDON: A. D. 1647. Outbreak against the Independents and the Army.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST).

LONDON: A. D. 1665 The Great Plague.

"The water supply, it is now generally acknowledged, is the first cause of epidemic disease. In London, at the beginning of the reign of James I., it was threefold. Some water came to public conduits, like those in Cheap, by underground pipes from Tyburn. Some was drawn by water-wheels and other similar means from the Thames, polluted as it was, at London Bridge. A third source of supply was still more dangerous: in all the suburbs, and probably also in most houses in the city itself, people depended on wells. What wells among habitations, and especially filthy habitations, become, we know now, but in the 17th century, and much later, the idea of their danger had not been started. Such being the conditions of existence in London; the plague now and then smouldering for a year or two, now and then breaking out as in 1603, 1625, and 1636, a long drouth, which means resort to half dry and stagnant reservoirs, was sufficient to call it forth in all its strength. The heat of the summer weather in 1665 was such that the very birds of the air were imagined to languish in their flight. The 7th of June, said Pepys, was the hottest day that ever he felt in his life. The deaths from the plague, which had begun at the end of the previous year, in the suburb of St. Giles' in the Fields, at a house in Long Acre, where two Frenchmen had died of it, rose during June from 112 to 268. The entries in the diary are for four months almost continuous as to the progress of the plague. Although it was calculated that not less than 200,000 people had followed the example of the king and court, and fled from the doomed city, yet the deaths increased daily. The lord mayor, Lawrence, held his ground, as did the brave earl of Craven and General Monk, now became duke of Albemarle. Craven provided a burial-ground, the Pest Field, with a kind of cottage-hospital in Soho; but the only remedy that could be devised by the united wisdom of the corporation, fortified by the presence of the duke and the earl, was to order fires in all the streets, as if the weather was not already hot enough. Medical art seems to have utterly broken down. Those of the sick who were treated by a physician, only died a more painful death by cupping, scarifying and blistering. The city rectors, too, who had come back with the king, fled from the danger, as might be expected from their antecedents, and the nonconformist lecturers who remained had overwhelming congregations wherever they preached repentence to the terror-stricken people. … The symptoms were very distressing. Fever and vomiting were among the first, and every little ailment was thought premonitory, so that it was said at the time that as many died of fright as of the disease itself. … The fatal signs were glandular swellings which ran their course in a few hours, the plague spots turning to gangrene almost as soon as they appeared. The patients frequently expired the same day that they were seized. … The most terrible stories of premature burial were circulated. All business was suspended. Grass grew in the streets. No one went about. The rumbling wheels of the cart, and the cry, 'Bring out your dead!' alone broke the stillness of the night. … In the first weeks of September the number of fatal cases rose to 1,500 a day, the bills of mortality recording 24,000 deaths between the 1st and 21st of that month. Then at last it began to decline, but rose again at the beginning of October. {2038} A change of weather at length occurred, and the average declined so rapidly that, by the beginning of November, the number of deaths was reduced to 1,200, and before Christmas came it had fallen to the usual number of former years. In all, the official statements enumerated 97,306 deaths during the year, and, if we add those unrecorded, a very moderate estimate of the whole mortality would place it at the appalling figure of 100,000 at least."

_W. J. Loftie, History of London, chapter 11 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN; _S. Pepys, Diary, 1665._

LONDON: A. D. 1666. The Great Fire.

"While the war [with the Dutch] continued without any decisive success on either side, a calamity happened in London which threw the people into great consternation. Fire, breaking out [September 2, 1666] in a baker's house near the bridge, spread itself on all sides with such rapidity that no efforts could extinguish it, till it laid in ashes a considerable part of the city. The inhabitants, without being able to provide effectually for their relief, were reduced to be spectators of their own ruin; and were pursued from street to street by the flames which unexpectedly gathered round them. Three days and nights did the fire advance; and it was only by the blowing up of houses that it was at last extinguished. … About 400 streets and 13,000 houses were reduced to ashes. The causes of the calamity were evident. The narrow streets of London, the houses built entirely of wood, the dry season, and a violent east wind which blew; these were so many concurring circumstances which rendered it easy to assign the reason of the destruction that ensued. But the people were not satisfied with this obvious account. Prompted by blind rage, some ascribed the guilt to the republicans, others to the Catholics. … The fire of London, though at that time a great calamity, has proved in the issue beneficial both to the city and the kingdom. The city was rebuilt in a very little time, and care was taken to make the streets wider and more regular than before. … London became much more healthy after the fire."

_D. Hume, History of England, chapter 64._

"I went this morning [September 7] on foot from Whitehall as far as London Bridge, thro' the late Fleete-street, Ludgate hill, by St. Paules, Cheapeside, Exchange, Bishopsgate, Aldersgate, and out to Moorefields, thence through Cornehill, &c., with extraordinary difficulty, clambering over heaps of yet smoking rubbish, and frequently mistaking where I was. The ground under my feete so hot, that it even burnt the soles of my shoes. … At my returne I was infinitely concerned to find that goodly Church St. Paules now a sad ruine. … Thus lay in ashes that most venerable church, one of the most ancient pieces of early piety in ye Christian world, besides neere 100 more. … In five or six miles traversing about I did not see one loade of timber unconsum'd, nor many stones but what were calcin'd white as snow. … I then went towards Islington and Highgate, where one might have seen 200,000 people of all ranks and degrees dispers'd and lying along by their heaps of what they could save from the fire, deploring their losse, and tho' ready to perish for hunger and destitution, yet not asking one penny for reliefe, which to me appear'd a stranger sight than any I had yet beheld."

_J. Evelyn, Diary, September 7, 1666 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN: _S. Pepys, Diary, September 2-15, 1666 (volume 4)._

_L. Phillimore, Sir Christopher Wren, chapters 6-7._

LONDON: A. D. 1685. The most populous capital in Europe. The first lighting of the streets.