Part 4

It has been mentioned above how in several cases, as is clear even from our imperfect records, that later walls were founded directly on Roman walls. Modern buildings were thus in direct and unbroken succession to Roman ones and maintained the same alignment. In the Archer collection at the British Museum is a drawing of “a Roman pavement and foundations, supposed to be remains of Tower Royal” in Cannon Street; this again was square with modern work. Roman remains have been found under several churches. Massive walls of chalk were found under St. Benet’s, Gracechurch. Roach Smith, speaking of a floor found at the corner of Clement’s Lane, says: “This adds another to the numerous instances of churches in London standing on foundations of Roman buildings.” In 1724 Roman foundations were found under St. Mary, Woolnoth, and “three foundations of churches in the same place” (_Minutes Soc. Ant._, June 17). Even Westminster Abbey and St. Martin’s in the Fields were built on Roman sites, and so probably was St. Andrew’s, Holborn.

This continuity of the buildings from the Roman Age is not only an interesting fact, but it is a strong argument for the general continuity of the street lines as well. The plan of the extensive finds in and about Lombard Street in 1785 shows the building to have conformed very much to lines parallel with, and at right angles to St. Swithin, Sherborne, Abchurch, Nicholas, Birchin and Clement’s Lanes, and I cannot doubt that these lanes are in some degree the successors of Roman streets. In “Lombard Street and Birchin Lane the discoveries are said to have indicated a row of houses” (_V.C.H._). If all the evidence as to the “orientation” of buildings and walls was laid down on a plan, merely marking the direction of the minor ones with a cross, we might build up further results in regard to the direction of the streets. At the same time it would be vain to expect any large and simple scheme of lay-out of the chess-board type, the Walbrook and other streams, and probably the persistence of some earlier lines (Watling Street to St. Albans?) would have interfered with that. The Walbrook seems to have been crossed by two chief bridges, which must have been governing facts in the lay-out. One was at Bucklersbury, the other, Horseshoe Bridge farther south, is recorded from the thirteenth century. Cannon Street, I cannot doubt, represents one east to west street. Thames Street must have been formed when the south City Wall was built. I have spoken of the north-south lines above. Saint Benet “Gerschereche” is mentioned in a charter of 1053 (_Athen._, February 3, 1906).

Wren found a “causeway” made up of stones and tiles by Bow Church (under the present tower). It is suggested in _V.C.H._ that this was an embankment, but _causeway_ was one of the regular names for a Roman road. At Rochester one 5 ft. or 6 ft. thick of hard stuff has been found crossing some soft ground.

The best way now to see again the old Roman City of London is to go to the foot of the hill below St. Magnus the Martyr and then, turning away from the riverside quays of the seaport, to walk up the street which still retains something of the look of a High Street in an old market town. Behind it we may still discern the ghost of the Roman Axis Street. Right and left are narrow streets with red plastered houses separated by little “drangways.” Here at a corner is a small temple with a dedication to the deified emperor. There is the great City Bath. Farther on is the civic centre, the market-place and hall; one, a square piazza containing imperial statues in gilt bronze, and the other a big building having internal ranks of tall Corinthian columns, a wide apse, and an open timber roof—sombre but noble. Round about are many isolated and widespreading mansions, one doubtless being the palace of the Governor of the province. Beyond are the walls and gates which will be next described, and in the background rise the northern heaths and wooded hills now called Hampstead and Highgate.

“On alien ground, breathing an alien air, A Roman stood, far from his ancient home, And gazing, murmured, ‘Ah, the hills are fair, But not the hills of Rome.’” MARY E. COLERIDGE.

+CHAPTER III+

WALLS, GATES AND BRIDGE

“Gem of all Joy and Jasper of Jocundity, Strong be thy walls that about thee stand; London, thou art the flower of cities all.”

WILLIAM DUNBAR.

THE walls, gates and bastions of the City may be traced by the record of early maps such as that of Braun and Hogenberg. The bastions of the east side are particularly shown on a plan of Holy Trinity Priory made in the sixteenth century; the west side from Ludgate to Cripplegate plainly appears in Hollar’s plan after the fire, 1667. There were two bastions between Ludgate and Newgate, then an angle bastion to the north; three more on the straight length to Aldersgate, then one beyond that gate at the angle where the wall turned north again; two bastions occurred between this angle and the bastion at the corner where the wall again turned east, which now exists in Cripplegate Churchyard.

Several of the gates stood until 1760. In an old MS. book of notes I find under the heading “Remarkable Transactions in ye Mayoralty of Sir J. Chitty.”—“In July, ye gates of Aldgate, Cripplegate and Ludgate were sold by public auction in ye council chamber, Guildhall, and were accordingly taken down without obstructing either ye foot or cartway, and their sites laid into ye streets. Aldgate for £157, 10s.; Cripplegate, £93; and Ludgate for £148.” Many old drawings of parts of the wall are preserved in the Crace, the Archer and other collections. The exact line of the wall and positions of the bastions has been verified by modern excavations and discoveries. For full description and a plan, see the _Victoria County History_ and _Archæologia_, lxii. (1912). A good description of what was visible in 1855 is given in _The Builder_ for that year.

In September 1903 an important section of the Roman wall was found in excavating the site of Newgate Prison; in some parts it was about a dozen feet high. I saw it in October and noted—“The wall is about 8½ ft. wide. On the outside and inside one or two courses of facing stones were first raised and the core of rubble was then filled in to that height; first there was a thick couch of mortar, then a layer of rubble stones, then another liberal supply of mortar running down between the stones as grout; there were two or three such levellings-up in the heights between the tile bonding courses.” The wall had a rough rubble foundation, then a course of plinth stones on the outside, with three tile courses corresponding to it on the inside of the wall, then followed five courses of the fairly square facing stones on both sides of the wall, then two rows of tile, five courses more stone and two rows of tile, then five more stone courses; above this level the wall had been destroyed. The stones and tiles were set in mortar, and the latter, except for the three courses at the bottom on the inside, which served as a plinth, were carried right through the thickness of the wall; the “tiles” were Roman bricks about 18 in. by 12 in. and 1½ in. thick, laid in what we call Flemish bond. The stone facing courses were a little higher at the bottom than upwards, but all were comparatively small and square; there was a clear distinction between the wrought facings and the rubble filling, which was practically concrete. The “facings” were hard skins adhering to the filling and required by the method of building as described above (Fig. 30).

The mode of construction of the wall is likely to be misunderstood when we speak as we almost necessarily do of facings and filling and of bond tiles. The “facing” stones were small, roughly wrought, and set in much mortar; they formed outer skins to the concreted mass into which they tailed back. The whole was homogeneous. The method was analogous to the facing of concrete with triangular bricks notching back into the core.

The tile courses in the City Wall were doubtless bonds, but they also divided the wall into strata locking up the moisture of the mortar from too rapid absorption and evaporation. I have little doubt that the wall was carried up a stratum at a time over long lengths; it would thus have been available as a defence from an early stage, and scaffolding would not have been required. The building of this wall and casting the ditch about it required a great constructive effort. A strip of ground some 100 feet wide must have been cleared as a preliminary. Then the immense quantity of stone required would have been brought by ships and barges. It is often said that old material was not re-used in the wall, but I can hardly think that two miles of chamfered plinth had to be provided out of new stone at the very beginning of the work. And material from destroyed monuments was doubtless broken up for the small facing stones. The lime-burning, brick-making, stone-cutting, as well as the actual building, called for much labour. It would be interesting to have the quantities taken out and an estimate prepared.

The south wall along the river front is well described in _V.C.H._ Roach Smith, in an article in vol. i. of the _Archæological Journal_, recorded the fact that it had “alternate layers of red and yellow plain and curve-edged (_i.e._ flanged) tiles”; the rest being of ragstone and flint. It was founded on piles. In _The Builder_ (January 19, 1912) it is recorded that in digging for a foundation at No. 125 Lower Thames Street, between Fish Street Hill and Pudding Lane, there was found the base of the Roman wall resting upon long and thick timber balks laid crosswise, with piles beneath them; there were three courses of rough rag and sandstone capped with two courses of yellow bonding tiles, all in reddish mortar; what remained was about 3 ft. high and 10 ft. wide, and was at 24 ft. below the existing pavement. Full evidence of the course of the City Wall along the river front has been found (_Archæol._ xliii.). It may be noticed that in mediæval regulations foreign sailors might not go beyond Thames Street; that is, pass where the wall had been, into the City proper. This south wall, like the bastions, contained remnants of Roman monuments.

The south wall would have been interrupted at the outlet of the Walbrook, which must have been a tidal creek. This was doubtless the original harbour, and there would have been quays within the line of the wall. Daremberg and Saglio’s plan of Bordeaux shows a remarkable parallel to Londinium, standing on the bank of a great river, flanked by a little stream and with a port within the walls (Fig. 29). It seems probable that the strong wall which Roach Smith reports as having been found on the east side of the Walbrook may have been a quay wall. The Thames has been much encroached on where it passes the City. In making the approach to new London Bridge three successive embankments were found, one being of squared trunks of trees. A similar timber wall has just been found in Miles Lane. In Lower Thames Street the Roman house found on its north side was built on piles, “probably on the river bank” (_Athen._, 1848), and the south City Wall was wholly built on timbering. In earlier Londinium, Cannon Street must have been the southern thoroughfare.

_Bastions._—In July 1909, when the angle bastion near Giltspur Street was excavated, I noted that close to it the City Wall was badly fractured, and inclined outwards; there had evidently been a serious settlement here, which was sufficiently accounted for by the nature of the ground—wet clay on the bank of a stream. The wall was taken lower than the ordinary level here, and the bastion was founded at a lower level still. The bastion was not bonded to the City Wall, but merely built against it with a straight joint; it was of horseshoe shape on plan and projected about 27 ft., the masonry was rubble in thin courses, and the whole looked mediæval to me. In the careful report in _Archæologia_ it was said that some evidence for Roman date was discovered in the foundation. The facts suggested to me not only that the bastion had been built against the wall, but that it was probably built at a point of failure in the original wall. It is agreed that the bastions were built later than the wall, and with a straight joint between them and it, and I would suggest that they were built to cover cracks and form buttresses as well as for their additional defensive value, and this may very well have been the general procedure. It would have been impossible to build a wall measured by miles on inferior foundations without bad settlements; the Egyptians provided for them by building such walls in sections with inclined straight joints at intervals.

M. Blanchet, writing of the walls of the cities of Gaul, says: “Often the curtains are not bonded with the towers. This independence reminds one of a precept of Philo’s, which advises that the method should be followed so as to prevent the consequences of unequal settlement between the two. But there is a more simple explanation—the town under immediate danger ensures itself first with the curtain and adds the towers after. Most of the fortifications are those which the Romans built on the approach of the Barbarian invasions. To this period belong the walls of Rome and those of the cities of Gaul.” Choisy again has an interesting account of the towers of the walls of Constantinople, with a diagram of arches in the sides of the towers at the ground level, which were built so that the effective part of their foundations should be kept clear of the wall. Now, the foundations of the London bastions provide evidence of a similar way of thinking.

In Fig. 31 I give a sketch of this angle bastion made on July 5, 1909. Here is seen the City Wall curving round from the north to the west, and against it the bastion. The Roman wall was badly cracked and leaning outward (A); in the corner by the bastion the plinth and the foundation are seen, and below a sloping bank of wet clay (C), and farther out water (W). The bastion was built of rubble, and was hollow to the base; the form was different below and above (see B). In the sketch the tile courses are seen going through the thickness of the wall.

The bastions which have been most carefully examined are those on the site of the General Post Office, described in _Archæologia_, lxiii. (1912). One is said to have been built in “the usual manner of random rubble”; it was separate from the City Wall, and the foundation was deeper than that of the wall. A second was built in a very soft spot. “Why it should have been selected is not easy to see, as at a little distance either way the builders could have found firm soil.” Its site was an old stream bed, and the conditions might well be the cause of a settlement at the point. This, as suggested above, may have been the reason the bastion was erected just here. (For the bastion by Giltspur Street, see _S. A. Proceedings_, 2 S. xxii. 476.)

Nothing very definitely Roman was found in these bastions, but one at All Hallows was certainly Roman. This is described as (I condense) “built of stonework which, like the rest, so far as they have been observed, is of random rubble, built principally of irregular pieces and ragstone with portions of Roman tile (none complete) and other material; much of it appears to have done duty in some previous building. A base was formed of large square stones a uniform height of 2 ft.; they had been employed in some former building; several had lewis holes. This base rested on a table of large flat stones 9 in. thick. Most of these seem to have been portions of a cornice. Roman origin was shown by red mortar in which the joints had been set.” The foundation was about 3 ft. below that of the City Wall, and projected into the original Roman ditch. What is called the “table” above was a square-fronted lower base; the back of this base was set in advance of the City Wall; indeed, it was 3 ft. in front of it on the eastern side and “the gravel in this intervening space was undisturbed.” This gap is specially to be noted. The description of the masonry as random rubble must apply mainly to the core of the work, for the illustrations show an approximation to courses on the face; indeed, on the east side, thirteen courses may be counted in the photograph up to a line which seems to be the top of a sloping plinth; these courses averaged about 4½ in. high. The full significance of this account is only brought out on comparing it with Price’s description of what was found in excavating the Camomile Street bastion. This bastion was founded on two deep courses of heavy stones taken from Roman buildings, many sculptured, and having lewis holes in them. These masonry courses were set 1½ ft. in advance of the City Wall, one over the other, forming a straight joint, and leaving a gap “separated from the wall by an intervening space filled with rubble” (Price) which was filled with small stones. This curious and carefully-arranged construction in both bastions was clearly with the object of making the foundations of the bastions take their bearings away from the wall so that they would tend to lean inwards against the wall; it is analogous to the arches of the Constantinople towers. This bastion had a batter or slope at the bottom of about 4 ft. high. Price describes the masonry as “rag rubble walling faced with random courses. The size of the blocks of which the facing was composed varied from 3 in. to 8½ in. thick [high] and from 5 in. to 14 in. long.” This account is supported by the carefully-executed illustrations which show coursed facings of small stones which seem almost identical with the facings of the City Wall. Such masonry of small facing “blocks” with concreted rubble behind is certainly Roman. The masonry at the All Hallows bastion seems to have approximated to the same character; there it may be noticed the courses became narrower upwards. This was certainly not so regular as the masonry of the City Wall, but it may be said to have resembled it (Fig. 32).

At the Guildhall Museum is “a group of architectural remains and fragments of sculptured stones from tombs, public buildings, etc., found in a bastion of London Wall, Duke Street, Aldgate, 1881.” This find is best described in _The Athenæum_ for that year. Mr. Watkins, while excavating in Houndsditch and Duke Street, found the City Wall and a mass of masonry extending 18 ft. outward from the wall; the stones were dressed and weighed from 1 cwt. to 1½ tons. “In the structure he observed a channel 15 in. deep by 18 in. wide, which showed signs of use as a watercourse. It had been filled with concrete composed of chalk and flints. The site was the foundation of one of the bastions composed of sculptured stones in character similar to those previously recorded, upwards of twenty in number.” This was the second bastion east of Bishopsgate. The channel filled with concrete suggests a gap dividing the bastion from the City Wall as already described; but see also account in _V.C.H._

In 1887 Mr. Loftus Brock reported to the British Archæological Association the removal of part of the City Wall on the east side of Wormwood Street. Nearly opposite Bevis Marks Synagogue the foundation of a circular-fronted bastion was found of worked freestones and not bonded into the main wall (_The Builder_, May 28, 1887). A paper by J. E. Price in 1884 (London and Middlesex Archæol. Soc.) referred to the discovery of a bastion containing several sculptured stones in St. Mary Axe (_The Builder_, November 22, 1884, and compare _V.C.H._).

In 1852 an excavation was made against the outside of the City Wall on Tower Hill, and a number of large wrought and carved stones were found (_The Builder_, September 4, 1852) (Fig. 33). In an account given in the _Journal of the British Archæological Association_ the workmen are said to have discovered a “complete quarry of stones cut in various forms and evidently belonging to some important building ... 125 making 40 cart loads.” Fairholt made an etching of the place while the work was in progress, which shows that the “quarry” was heaped against the external face of the wall like the bases of the other bastions, and that, in fact, it was a ruined bastion Fig. 34 from Roach Smith’s _Roman London_, slightly modified). Another account is given in the Antiquarian Etching Club by A. H. Burkitt, with a plate: “These interesting remains were discovered during the excavations in June 1852, which laid bare the wall to its base. The various portions of stone, which amounted to about forty cart loads, bear evidence of having belonged to an important building. The inscription and band of laurel leaves, which probably formed an ornament above it, indicate a monument of considerable magnitude to the memory of a commander of the Roman Navy. There were found at the same time fragments of frescoes with inscriptions.” (In Fig. 33 the fragment with laurel leaves is represented upside down.)

The two stones specially mentioned are now in the British Museum. It appears from the accounts and illustrations that this bastion was built against the wall without being bonded to it in the lower part, that its foundation was formed of large carved and moulded stones, and was at a lower level than that of the wall. (The part below the plinth in Fig. 34 on the left is rough foundation.)

We thus have clear record that several of the bastions on the east and north sides of the City were constructed in a similar way. Those farther west near the Post Office were probably rebuilt in mediæval times. These were hollow at the base, not solid like the others.

The towers of the city wall of Carcassone, described by Viollet le Duc (_Dict._, vol. i.), were so similar in construction that it is plain our bastions were constructed according to general custom. In the illustration we see big stones at the base of the bastion only; large window-like openings closed with woodwork above; and an upper storey rising higher than the wall top. Fig. 35 is a suggested restoration of one of the London bastions, showing the foundation gap A, and an upper storey overlapping the City Wall.