CHAPTER V

THE BUILDINGS

The Kings of England had many palaces, both within and without the City. Their principal palace from King Cnut to King Henry VIII. was the “King’s House” of Westminster. Within the City itself was first and foremost the Citadel, Castle, Palace, and Prison, called the Tower of London. Baynard’s Castle was held successively by the Baynards, who lost it in 1111, by a son of Gilbert, Earl of Clare, and his heirs until 1213, when the then holder, Robert FitzWalter, being on the side of the Barons, the King seized and destroyed the place. Afterwards, however, he permitted the owner to restore it. This was done imperfectly, for when the Dominicans removed from their quarters in Holborn to the place now called Blackfriars, they built their church and part of their house with the stones of Baynard’s Castle and the Tower of Montfichet.

In 1428 Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, built a house by the riverside to the east of the old castle, and apparently named it after the former Baynard’s Castle, just as at the present day we call a modern structure in Regent’s Park by the old and venerable name of St. Katherine’s by the Tower.

A smaller Tower stood beside the first Baynard’s Castle, also on or without the wall, called Montfichet. Both places were intended by the Normans as strongholds, from which the City could be kept down, if necessary. On the building of the Dominican House, the Mayor of London, Gregory Rokesley, gave permission for the use of some of the stones by the Friars. The best of them had already been taken for the repair of St. Paul’s.

A third Tower was built at the confluence of the Fleet and the Thames, by order of the King, upon the portion of wall south of Ludgate Hill. This tower is described by Stow as having been “large and magnificent and such as was fit for the reception of a king; and where Edward I. intended some time at his pleasure to lye.” He granted to the citizens a three years’ toll on goods brought into the City for sale, in order that they might build the wall so as to enclose the Dominicans’ house, and put up this tower at the angle. It stood until 1502, when John Shaw, Mayor, commanded it to be taken down.

On the west bank of the Fleet, opposite to this Tower, was another, afterwards called Bridewell. Stow’s account of its early history has an air of uncertainty:—

“I read, that in the year 1087, the 20th of William the First, the City of London, with the Church of S. Paul being burned, Mauritius then Bishop of London, afterwards began the Foundation of a New Church, whereunto King William (saith mine Author) gave the choice Stones of this Castle, standing near to the Bank of the River of Thames, at the West End of the City. After this Mauritius, Richard his Successor purchased the Streets above Paul’s Church, compassing the same with a Wall of Stone, and Gates. King Henry the First gave to this Richard, so much of the Moat or Wall of the Castle, on the Thames side to the South, as should be needful to make the said Wall of the Churchyard, and so much more as should suffice to make a way without the Wall on the North side, etc.

This Tower or Castle being thus destroyed, stood, as it may seem, in Place where now standeth the House called Bridewell. For notwithstanding the Destruction of the said Castle or Tower the House remained large, so that the Kings of this Realm long after were lodged there, and kept their Courts. For in the Ninth Year of Henry the Third, the Courts of Law and Justice were kept in the King’s House, wheresoever he was Lodged, and not elsewhere.

More (as Matthew Paris hath) about the Year 1210, King John, in the Twelfth Year of his Reign, summoned a Parliament at S. Brides in London; where he exacted of the Clergy, and Religious Persons, the sum of One Hundred Thousand Pounds: And besides all this, the White Monks were compelled to cancel their Privileges, and to pay 40,000_l._ to the King, etc. This House of S. Brides (of later Time) being left, and not used by the Kings, fell to Ruin; insomuch that the very Platform thereof remained (for great part) waste, and, as it were, but a Lay-stall of Filth and Rubbish, only a fair Well remained there. A great part whereof, namely on the West, as hath been said, was given to the Bishop of Salisbury; the other Part toward the East remained waste, until King Henry the Eighth builded a stately and beautiful House thereupon, giving it to Name Bridewell, of the Parish and Well there. This House he purposely builded for the Entertainment of the Emperor Charles the Fifth; who in the Year 1522 came into this City, as I have showed in my _Summary_, _Annals_, and large _Chronicles_.” (Stow, vol. i. p. 63.)

The Tower Royal, whose name is still preserved in the City, was one of the King’s houses; Stephen is said to have lodged there; the Princess of Wales, mother of Richard II., fled here during Wat Tyler’s rebellion. The King’s Wardrobe, a name also surviving, was a house of the King. And in Bucklersbury there was another house, Serne’s Tower, also called the King’s House. On the south side of London, besides Greenwich and Eltham, was the Palace of Kennington.

As for the site of the last-named palace, if you walk along the Kennington Road from Bridge Street, Westminster, you presently come to a place where four roads meet, Upper Kennington Lane on the left, and Lower Kennington Lane on the right; the road goes on to the Horns Tavern and Kennington Park. On the right-hand side stood the palace. In the year 1636 a plan of the house and grounds was executed; but by that time the mediæval character of the place was quite forgotten. It was a square house, probably Elizabethan.

Of this last once magnificent palace not a stone remains and not a memory or tradition; it is entirely forgotten. The reason of this strange oblivion is very simple. When it was pulled down, which was some time before 1667, for then, Camden says, there was not a stone remaining, there were no houses within half a mile in every direction. Even a hundred and fifty years later there were no cottages or houses near the spot. The moat, however, remained, and a long stone barn.

In this house Harold Harefoot crowned himself. In this house his half-brother Hardacnut drank himself to death.

Forty years after this event, when Domesday Book was compiled, the place was in the possession of a London citizen, Theodric by name and a goldsmith by trade. It was still a royal manor, because the goldsmith held it of Edward the Confessor. It was then valued at three pounds a year.

We next hear of Kennington in 1189, when King Richard granted it on lease, or for life, to Sir Robert Percy with the title of Lord of the Manor. Henry III. came here on several occasions; here he held his Lambeth Parliament. He kept his Christmas here in 1231. Great was the feasting and boundless the hospitality of this Christmas, at which the King lavished the treasures of the State.

Edward I. was here occasionally. During his reign it was the residence of John, Earl of Surrey, and of his son, John Plantagenet, Earl of Warren and Surrey. Edward III. made the manor part of the Duchy of Cornwall. After the death of the Black Prince the princess lived here with the young Prince Richard. I do not find that Henry IV. was fond of a house which would certainly be haunted—especially the room in which he was to sleep—by the sorrowful shade of his murdered cousin. Nor did Henry V. come here during his short reign. Henry VI. however, made use of Kennington Palace, so did Henry VII.; and the last of the Queens, whose name can be connected with the palace, was Catherine of Arragon.

The name that we especially associate with Kennington Palace is that of Richard II. When the Black Prince died, in 1376, Richard remained at Kennington under the care of his mother and the tutorship of Sir Guiscard d’Angle, “that accomplished knight.”

In the year of his accession, 1377, occurred the great riot of London, which arose out of Wyclyf’s trial in St. Paul’s and the quarrel between the Bishop of London and John of Gaunt. The latter, after the dismissal of Wyclyf, repaired to the house of John de Ypres, close beside the river, where he was sitting at dinner, when one of his following ran hastily to warn him that the people were flocking together with intent to murder him if they could. The Duke therefore hastily ran down to the nearest stairs, took a boat across the river, and fled as quickly as possible to Kennington Palace, where he took shelter with the young Prince Richard and his guardians.

One more reminiscence of Kennington Palace. The last occasion on which Richard lodged there was when he brought home his little bride Isabel, the Queen of eight years. They brought her from Dover, resting on the way at Canterbury and Rochester. At Blackheath they were met by the Mayor and Aldermen, attired with great magnificence of costume to do honour to the bride. After reverences due, they fell into their place and rode on with the procession. When they arrived at Newington, the King thanked the Mayor and permitted him to leave the procession and return home. He himself, with his company, rode by the cross-country lane from Newington to Kennington Palace. I observe that this proves the existence of a path or lane where is now Upper Kennington Lane. At this palace the little Queen rested a night, and next day was carried in another procession to the Tower. The knights rode before, and the French ladies came after. It is pretty to read how Isabel, with her long fair hair falling over her shoulders, and her sweet childish face, sat up and smiled upon the people, playing and pretending to be queen, which she had been practising ever since her betrothal. Needless to say that all hearts were ravished. The good people of London were ever ready to welcome one princess after another, and to lose their hearts to them, whether it was Isabel of France, or Katherine her sister, or Anne Boleyn, or Queen Charlotte, or the fair Princess of Denmark. So great a press was there that many were actually squeezed to death at London Bridge, where the houses only left twelve feet in breadth. Isabel’s queenship proved a pretence; before she was old enough to be Queen, indeed, her husband was in confinement; before she understood that he was a captive, he was murdered, and the splendid extravagant reign was over.

London was, in very truth, a city of Palaces. There were, in London itself, more palaces than in Venice and Florence and Verona and Genoa all together.

The Fitz Alans, Earls of Arundel, had their town house in Botolph Lane, Billingsgate, down to the end of the sixteenth century. The street is, and always has been, narrow, and, from its proximity to the fish-market, is, and always has been, unsavoury. The Earls of Northumberland had town houses successively in Crutched Friars, Fenchurch Street, and Aldersgate Street. The Earls of Worcester lived in Worcester Lane, on the river-bank; the Duke of Buckingham on College Hill—observe how the nobles, like the merchants, built their houses in the most busy part of the town. The Beaumonts and the Huntingdons lived beside Paul’s Wharf; the Lords of Berkeley had a house near Blackfriars; Doctors’ Commons was the town house of the Blounts, Lords Mountjoy. Close to Paul’s Wharf stood the mansion once occupied by the widow of Richard, Duke of York, mother of Edward IV., Clarence, and Richard III. Edward the Black Prince lived on Fish Street Hill, and the house was afterwards turned into an inn. The De la Poles had a house in Lombard Street. The De Veres, Earls of Oxford, lived first in St. Mary Axe, and afterwards in Oxford Court, St. Swithin’s Lane; Cromwell, Earl of Essex, had a house in Throgmorton Street. The Barons FitzWalter had a house where now stands Grocers’ Hall, Poultry. In Aldersgate Street were houses of the Earl of Westmoreland, the Earl of Northumberland, and the Earl of Thanet, Lord Percy, and the Marquis of Dorchester. Suffolk Lane marks the site of the “Manor of the Rose,” belonging successively to the Suffolks and the Buckinghams; Lovell’s Court, Paternoster Row, marks the site of the Lovells’ mansion; between Amen Corner and Ludgate Street stood Abergavenny House, where lived in the reign of Edward II. the Earl of Richmond and Duke of Brittany, grandson of Henry III. Afterwards it became the house of John Hastings, Earl of Pembroke, who married Lady Margaret, daughter of Edward III. It passed to the Nevilles, Earls of Abergavenny, and from them to the Stationers’ Company. Warwick Lane runs over Warwick House. The Sidneys, Earls of Leicester, lived in the Old Bailey. The Staffords, Dukes of Buckingham, lived in Milk Street. (See Appendix V.)

We must add to this list the houses more or less connected with the sovereigns. Such as the King’s Ward Mote, the Tower Royal, the Erber, Cold Harbour, Baynard’s Castle, Crosby House, Bridewell, the Savoy, the great nobles’ houses along the riverside, which came later; the Halls of the City Companies; the town houses of Bishops and Abbots, especially those on the south side; the town houses of the country gentry, such as those of Pont de l’Arche in the reign of Henry I., or of Sir John Fastolf in the fifteenth century; the houses in the City used for trade and official business such as Blackwell and Guildhall; and the houses of the great City merchants such as those of Philpot, Whittington, and Picard, and we have a list not to be equalled by that of any other area of the same size.

Of the architecture of London churches before the Fire we need not speak—one or two, especially St. Helen’s, St. Ethelburga, St. Bartholomew the Great, and St. Mary Overies, survive to show us what they were; that is to say, it is impossible in most cases to know at what period a church, long since destroyed, was built, repaired, or rebuilt. The general opinion is that these ancient churches were not remarkable, as a rule, for beauty or splendour. Outside each lay its churchyard, a narrow enclosure continually being encroached upon as land grew dear. Before the Fire a great many of the churches were hidden from the streets by the houses which had been built upon part of the churchyards. The present condition of St. Ethelburga is an example of this; other examples occur in the houses which stand on the north side of St. Mary le Bow, on the north side of St. Alphege, and all round St. Katherine Colman. The swallowing up of churchyards is shown by the miserable fragments remaining of those belonging to St. Peter, Thames Street, St. John the Baptist, St. Olave, Silver Street, St. Osyth, St. Martin Outwich, while the restoration lately completed of St. Martin, Ludgate Hill, proved that the so-called Stationers’ Garden on the north side of the church had once been the burial-ground. And there are many other instances. The architecture of the Monastic Houses belongs to all contemporary buildings of the kind. That which may still be studied at Westminster consisted of a noble church, as splendid, as stately, and as rich as the brothers could afford or could effect by the help of their friends. Beside the church was the cloister, which was the actual living-place of the brethren. There they walked, sat, worked, and talked. Within the cloister was the garth, the open space which was sometimes turned into a garden, and sometimes served as a burying-ground; monks were also buried beneath the stones of the cloister. The open carved work in later times was glazed; the hard stones—seats and floor—were covered with cloth and carpet; there were desks for those who studied. On one side of the cloister was the Chapter House, where the monks assembled every morning. On the other side was the Abbot’s House. On the fourth side was the Refectory, a hall which the Brethren loved to make stately, like the church; not for purposes of gluttony, but of hospitality, and because they were jealous of the fair fame of the House. Besides these buildings were the library, the Scriptorum, the Calefactory, the Dormitories, the kitchen and cellar, the Misericorde, the Infirmary, and the gardens. All these things belong to every Monastic House. In London there was so great a number of them, that we passed House after House as we walked along the wall, and saw spire after spire, tower after tower; they circled London as with a chain of fortresses to keep out the hosts of hell. We come next to the great noble’s town house, and the rich merchant’s house. We have already regarded the appearance of such a house. It was entered by a gate of architectural beauty, without a portcullis or a ditch, for there was no fortified house in the City except the Tower; though many of the houses were so strongly built, and protected by gates so massive, that any sudden outbreak of the mob could be kept back; thus the house of the Hanseatic merchants possessed gates massive enough to keep out the mob until relief arrived, or the foreign merchants could make good their retreat upon the river. You may learn the appearance of such a house from that of Hampton Court or any old College of Oxford or Cambridge. It consisted of at least two square Courts and a Hall between; a guard-room over the gate; a stable; a place for arms; a kitchen with buttery, cellar, storehouses, and a garden. Round the courts ran buildings two storeys high; the rooms were long and low and only used as sleeping-rooms.

One will find the houses more unclean than the streets. What can one expect? The floors are strewn thick with rushes, and it is costly to change them; they lie, therefore, thick with accumulations of refuse—bones, grease, and every abomination. Rushes are warm even after they are dirty, and warmth comes before cleanliness. Yet if we were to go into those houses where the better sort of citizens live, we should find sweet herbs and fragrant branches and strong perfumes scattered about to counteract the close and evil-smelling atmosphere of the sleeping-rooms.

Let us consider the construction and the furniture of a London citizen’s house. Not, that is, such a house as Crosby Hall, which was a palace, or that of the Earl of Warwick, which was a barrack as well as a Palace, but the house of the substantial merchant, one of the better sort, say the house of a retail trader, and the house of a craftsman.

Among the treasures collected by Riley may be found the specifications for building a new house. It is evidently a house meant for a man of position, one William de Hanington, a pelterer, _i.e._ a skinner or furrier: a member of a most wealthy and flourishing trade at a time when men and women of every consideration wore furs for half the year. Whatever the position of this pelterer, the house designed for him was evidently, though the dimensions are not given, large and commodious. Here are the exact words:—

“Simon de Canterbury, carpenter, came before the Mayor, etc.... and acknowledged that he would make at his own proper charges down to the locks, for William de Hanigtone, pelterer, before the Feast of Easter then ensuing, a Hall and a room with a Chimney, and one larder between the same hall and room: and one sollar over the room and larder: also, an oriole at the end of the Hall beyond the high bench: and one step with an oriole, from the ground to the door of the Hall aforesaid, outside of the Hall: and two enclosures as cellars, opposite to each other, beneath the Hall: and one enclosure for a sewer, with two pipes leading to the said sewer and one stable between the said Hall and the old kitchen and twelve feet in width with a sollar above and stable, and a garret above the sollar aforesaid: and at one end of such sollar there is to be a kitchen, with a chimney: and there is to be an oriole between the said Hall and the old chamber 8 feet in width.”

According to Riley, the first oriole is an oriel window such as is commonly found in a Hall, the second oriole is a porch, and the third is a small chamber. Without this explanation the document would be unintelligible.

The house was to contain a large hall with, no doubt, a fire under the lantern in the middle of the hall; also a sitting-room with a chimney near the hall, but with a larder between. In the larder was, one supposes, the entrance to the cellars. The “old chamber” with the “oriole” beside provided two bedrooms; the solar or upper chamber over the larder and sitting-room was another bedroom; the solar and garret over the stable gave two more bedrooms; there was the “old kitchen” and there was the new kitchen. In all, five bedrooms, two sitting-rooms, and two kitchens, with cellars and other things. The buttery or larder always stood, for convenience, next to the hall. Sometimes it was called a _Spence_, and the servant who attended to it was called the Spenser or Despencer, which shows the origin of a very common surname found everywhere, from the House of Lords to the village pothouse. The room with a chimney next to the larder was sometimes called the “berser” or the “ladies’ bower”: some houses had a “parlour” or room where visitors of distinction might be received. Such was the house of a substantial citizen. As for the house of the retailer, there are many pictures which leave us in little doubt as to the appearance of these houses. Thus, as good an illustration as I know of the mediæval street with its shops is given by Lacroix (see _Science and Literature in the Middle Ages_, p. 161). The street is quite narrow: there is no gutter running down the middle, but perhaps this was an oversight of the limner. The pictures represent four shops, viz., that of a barber, an apothecary, a tailor, and a furrier. The houses are detached, not standing side by side in a line, but each according to the will of the builder: they are built of wood and plaster, and are gabled, with tiled roofs. There is a room—the solar or sollar—above the shop and a garret in the roof. The barber’s shop has a sign: it is a pole projecting into the street horizontally, hung with brass or latoun basins, which indicate an important part of the barber’s calling. The shops are all open to the street, and the goods are displayed upon a counter. (See Appendix VI.) A pent-house, or pentice, projecting from the front of the house, protects the goods on the counter; hangings on either side shelter them further from wind and rain and sun; and there is a curtain suspended from the pentice for still further protection. This illustration represents a French town. In London it was necessary to ensure a greater amount of protection against cold, and rain, and hail, and snow. Consequently the upper half of the window was covered in and glazed, while the lower half in very cold weather was closed by means of a shutter. In summer the shutter disappears, and the window is always open. This arrangement was probably what Chaucer calls a “shot” window. Mr. Baring-Gould (_Old Country Life_) gives plans and drawings of two ancient country houses. The first of these shows the houses built round a small court, into which all the windows of the house looked. A gateway, over which was a room, led into the hall, a room of 20 feet by 15 feet. Beyond the hall was the ladies’ bower. Above the bower were bedrooms. The kitchen, buttery, and dairy took up two other sides of the court. In front of the house were the yard, the barn, and the stables. The court was no more than 18 feet square. We have, therefore, the court as the leading feature of a mediæval house; it survives in colleges and in some almshouses to this day. The dimensions of the court marked the splendour or the humility of the house. The rich merchant when he began to build laid down his court with a view to the proportions of his hall; we may be quite sure that Whittington sat in a hall which proclaimed his wealth; the great hall of Crosby House was not the only noble hall belonging to a City merchant.

The following details and specifications are found in the MSS. belonging to the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul’s, and printed in an abridged form in the _9th Report of the Royal Historical Commission_, p. 20:—

“Agreement between Master Walter Cook and Sir Henry Jolypas, clerks, and John More, tymbermongere, and John Gerard, carpenter, citizens of London, for the erection of three shops in Friday Street, with one cellar below. The three shops are to have three ‘stalles’ and three ‘entreclos’ on the ground floor. On the first floor each house is to have ‘une sale, une spence, et une cusyne,’ and in each ‘sale’ there are to be ‘benches et speres.’ The second floor in each house is to be divided into ‘une principal chambre, une drawying chamber, et une forein,’ and was to have ‘une seylingpece.’ Each house is to have two ‘esteires.’ The height from the ground to the ‘gistes del primer flore’ is to be ten feet and a half, and the ‘punchons’ of the first floor are to be nine feet up to the ‘gistes’ above, and the ‘punchons’ of the second floor eight feet up the ‘resoner.’ Each house is to have a gable towards the street on the east, according to a ‘patron’ made on parchment. The ‘huisses’ and ‘fenestres’ are to be made of ‘Estricchebord.’ Dated, August 20, 11 Henry IV.”

It is generally stated that access to the upper chamber of a mediæval house was by stairs on the outside. I venture to think that this statement requires explanation. The houses of London at first consisted of nothing more than a room below and a smaller room above, and in the upper room—oh! so tiny—were a bed and a cradle, and the cushions or pillows of which the Londoner was so fond. I have seen one or two old houses in which a ladder from the room below served for access to the room above, and this arrangement, I believe, was that commonly adopted. But early in the fourteenth century we find houses of two or three storeys, each of which in some cases formed the freehold of different persons; in fact, it was an early kind of “flat.” It is observed that communication to these upper storeys could not be made through the lower rooms and must have been by an external staircase. (See also below, p. 252.) We find this arrangement in the modern flat; and in Edinburgh in the old flats. There were quarrels among the occupants of these “flats.” King Edward II. passed an ordinance directing each owner to keep his own part in due repair.

Riley quotes a case in which a widow claimed Free Bench in a tenement belonging to her late husband in the parish of St. Nicholas Flesh Shambles. The sheriffs gave her a wing (alam) or perhaps the principal room (aulam) with a chamber, a cellar, and the right of easement in the kitchen, stable, common drain, and courtyard; the rest of the house remained in possession of the heirs and next-of-kin of the deceased.

The chief source of information on the houses of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries is Fitz-Aylwin’s Assize, of which an abridgment will be found in Appendix VII. The regulations were drawn up in consequence of a fire in 1212, which destroyed a part of Southwark and a part of London Bridge. The following by Riley (Introduction to _Liber Albus_, p. xxx) is an explanation or commentary chiefly on that Assize:—

“The party-walls of the houses were of freestone, three feet thick and sixteen feet high, from which the roof (whether covered with tiles or thatch) ran up to a point, with the gable towards the street. Along this wall rain-gutters were laid, to carry off the water, either on to the ground of the party to whom the house belonged or into the high road. Kennels for its reception are not mentioned in the Assize, but they were very general, about 100 years later. If arches were left in the walls, for ‘almeria’ or ‘aumbries’ (cupboards or larders), they were to be one foot in depth, and no more. The framework rising from the top of the party-wall was of course of wood, and the gable facing the street, as well as the one opposite to it, seems to have been in general made of the same material, plastered over probably by the ‘daubers,’ and perhaps whitewashed. The upper room was generally known as the ‘solar,’ and is also called in Fitz-Alwyne’s Assize the ‘domus,’ or ‘house’: its usual height in comparison with the room below does not appear from the present work; but from a deed bearing date 1217 or 1218, it appears that the corbels or joists for supporting the upper floor were inserted at a height of eight feet from the ground. Apart from the main room or rooms on the ground floor in the houses of the citizens was the ‘necessary chamber’; in reference to which it was enacted by the Assize, that if the pit was walled with stone, the mouth of it was to be two and a half feet from the neighbour’s land; but in case it was not faced with stone, the distance was to be three and a half feet. The same regulation too held good, at a somewhat later period, in reference to sinks for receiving refuse or dirty water.

At the time of the promulgation of Fitz-Alwyne’s Assize, it is evident that the houses in London consisted of but one storey over the ground floor and no more. At what period more storeys were first added does not appear; but in the early part of the fourteenth century we find houses in London of two or three storeys mentioned; each of which storeys, as also the cellar beneath, occasionally formed the freehold of different individuals: a state of things which caused such multiplied disputes between the owners, that the King (Edward the Second) was at length obliged to interfere by mandate, directing each owner to keep his own part in due repair. The upper storeys in houses of this description were entered probably by stairs on the outside.

Cellars are not mentioned in the Assize, but we find them noticed, and that too as places used for business, as early as the first half of the reign of Henry the Third. It is incidentally mentioned, also, that steps led to these cellars from the street; indeed, they seem to have seriously encroached upon the footway at times, for at later periods they are the subject of frequent enactment. By Fitz-Alwyne’s Assize, contrary to the spirit of equity that has prevailed in more recent times, a person when building had full liberty to obstruct a neighbour’s ancient lights, unless, indeed, some writing could be produced by that neighbour showing a right on his side to the contrary.

The Assize, as already noticed, makes no provision for the materials to be used for roofing; within a century and a half later, however, we find reiterated enactments that the houses of the citizens shall be covered with lead, tiles, or stone. Stalls, too, are not mentioned in the Assize; but these had become common in the latter part of the following century. These stalls were projections—of wooden framework, no doubt—from the gable facing the street, and were used as shops for the exposure of various articles for sale. By civic enactment we find it ordered that these stalls shall not be more than two and a half feet in depth, movable and flexible, according to the discretion of the Alderman of the Ward, and according as the streets or lanes are wide or narrow. The pentices, or pent-houses, which are so frequently mentioned in the City ordinances, must have been projections on a larger scale, as the citizens are reminded that they are to be made at least nine feet in height, ‘so as to allow of people riding beneath’; a provision, from which it is evident that they must have extended beyond the portion of the street reserved as a footpath. In favour of the landlords, it was also enacted that penthouses, once fastened by iron nails or wooden pegs to the timber framework of the house—be the occupier a tenant for life, for years, or quarterly,—should be deemed not removable, but fixtures, part and parcel of the freehold.

Windows are mentioned in the Assize. Glass, however, was used only by the most opulent in those days, and the windows of the citizens, _temp._ Richard the First, were evidently mere apertures, open in the day, crossed perhaps with iron stanchions, and covered, no doubt, by wooden shutters at night. In the reign of Henry the Third, however, glass, packed in the _Karke_, is enumerated among the regular imports into this country, from Flanders, most probably. Glaziers (_Verrers_) are mentioned as an established Mystery, in the time of Edward the Third, and in the account given of a riot which took place, about forty years later, at Barking, in Essex, and the vicinity, the offenders are represented, even in those suburban districts, as arming themselves with doors and windows, ‘by way of shield’; glass windows of lattice-work, in all probability, being meant.

There is no mention of, or most remote allusion to, chimneys in Fitz-Alwyne’s Assize; and at that period, if they existed at all in this country, they were to be found only in the abodes of the most wealthy; the smoke in the houses of the middle and lower classes having to find its way out at the doors and windows as it best might. By the close, however, of the following century, the use of chimneys had become, probably, comparatively common; for, by way of prevention against fire, we find it enacted that chimneys shall be faced with plaster, tiles, or stone; and part of the oath taken by the Scavagers of the City on entering office is to the effect that they will see ‘that all chimneys, ovens, and rere-dosses, are made of stone, and sufficiently protected against the peril of fire.’ In the same prudent spirit too it was enacted that no reredos of an oven or furnace, where bread or ale was made, or meat was cooked, should be placed near wooden partition, lath-work, or boards; and, in case of contravention thereof, the Scavager was to remove the same, exacting four pence from the offender for his trouble.

By way of further precaution against fire it was also ordered, that occupiers of large houses should keep one or two ladders for the succour of their neighbours on an emergency; and that they should keep, in summer, _i.e._ between the Feasts of Whitsuntide and of Saint Bartholomew, in consequence of the excessive drought, a barrel or large earthen vessel full of water before the house, for the purpose of quenching fire; unless, indeed, the house should happen to have ‘a fountain’ of its own. For the more speedy removal also of burning houses, each Ward was enjoined to provide a strong iron hook, with a wooden handle, two chains, and two strong cords; these to be left in possession of the Bedel of the Ward, who was also to be provided with a good horn, ‘loudly sounding.’ Nothing could more strongly bespeak the frail nature of the London houses, even to the days of Edward the Third, than the above enactments as to the barrel of water and the Bedel’s hook.

The mention of conflagrations naturally leads to some enquiry about fuel. Charcoal (_carbones_) is frequently mentioned: it was prepared in the country, and the suburbs, perhaps, as well, for it is spoken of as being brought into the City by cart; by enactment, _temp._ Richard the Second, it is ordered that charcoal shall be sold at the rate, between Michaelmas and Easter, of ten pence, and between Easter and Michaelmas, of eight pence per quarter, the price of it, as also of firewood, being assessed by the Mayor and Aldermen. Seacoal (_carbo marinus_) too was in common use so early as the time of Edward the Second, and perhaps much earlier, being sold in sacks, and measured by the quarter under the inspection of Meters appointed by the Mayor. Seacoal Lane, in the vicinity of the Fleet River, or Ditch, is mentioned under that name, we learn from other authorities, so early as 1253, the reign of Henry the Third; it had its name from the seacoal being brought thither by water, and there stored. The different kinds of wood used for fuel seem to have been distinguished under the names of ‘_talwode_,’ ‘_faget_,’ and ‘_busche_,’ tallwood, faggots, and (probably) brushwood. Carts with wood and charcoal on sale stood at Smithfield and on Cornhill, and seacoal is mentioned as paying custom at Billingsgate. Ferns, too, reeds, and stubble were sometimes used as fuel.

To revert, however, to the structure of houses. Bricks, as distinguished from tiles, are not mentioned throughout the book, or indeed in any other English work of so early a date; and there is strong reason to believe that the ‘_teule_’ or ‘tile’ was used indifferently for tile or brick. At all events, there can be no doubt that, like those of Roman times, the bricks then in use were much thinner than at the present day; and supposing the tiles to be flat, there would be nothing to distinguish them from bricks. Repeated injunctions by the civic authorities are to be met with, that the _teules_ shall be ‘well burnt, of the ancient scantling, and well leaded;’ the latter provision, however, it is apprehended, could only apply to such _teules_ as were used for genuine tiles. The ‘Tilers’ so often mentioned, in all probability performed the duties of the modern bricklayers as well. Lime was sold, sometimes by the sack, containing one bushel, and sometimes by the basket, holding half a quarter. _Temp._ Edward the Third, a sack of burnt lime cost one penny, and tiles were sold at the rate of from five to eight shillings the thousand.”

* * * * *

“Tenements are mentioned, about the time probably of Edward the Second, as renting in the City above the sum of forty shillings, and below. The fact has been already noticed that in some cases houses of two and three storeys were divided into distinct separate freeholds. In one instance a case is met with, perhaps a not uncommon one, of a widow claiming her Free-bench in a tenement that had belonged to her late husband (in the parish of St. Nicholas Flesh-Shambles), and the Sheriffs putting her in possession of a wing of the building, the principal chamber and the cellar beneath that chamber, with a right of easement in the kitchen, stable, common drain and courtyard; the rest remaining in possession of the heirs and next of kin of the deceased; an arrangement certainly by no means conducive to a state of domestic tranquillity, but bespeaking the existence of considerable mansions, and that too in that most uninviting locality—the near neighbourhood of ‘Stynkyng Lane’ and the Convent of the Friars Minors.

It sometimes happened that a house was situate in two Wards; in such case it was provided that the owner should be assessed in the Ward in which he went to bed, slept, and put on his clothes. Of course such an enactment as this could only apply to a house with more than one room, on the floor where the sleeping-room was situate, and probably of more than ordinary magnitude.

The ‘_shopae_,’ or shops, were probably mere open rooms on the ground floors, with wide windows, closed with shutters, but destitute of stanchions, perhaps; these rooms being enlarged, no doubt, in some instances, by the extra space afforded by the projecting and movable stalls already mentioned: of their plan or structure, in the present volume, no further particulars are given. ‘_Seldæ_,’ _selds_, or _shealds_, are occasionally mentioned as places for the stowage or sale of goods; the _selda_ of Winchester, for example, belonging probably to the Soke or exclusive jurisdiction of the Bishop of that diocese; and the _selda_ in Friday Street, to which place, in the latter part of the reign of Edward the Third, the sale of hides was wholly restricted. These _seldæ_ seem to have been sheds, on a large scale, used as warehouses, and belonged probably only to public Guilds, or men of considerable opulence; there is some evidence also that cranes and balances for the ascertaining of Customs and Pesage were kept beneath them.

Before quitting this subject, a few words in reference to the relation of landlord and tenant within the City, will, perhaps, be not altogether inappropriate. By an ordinance, of the time probably of Edward the Second, or Edward the Third, it was enacted that every tenant at will within the franchise of the City, whose yearly rent was below forty shillings, should give the landlord (at any time, it is presumed) at least one quarter’s notice; but in case the yearly rent exceeded forty shillings, the notice was to be given a full half-year before leaving. In case of neglect on part of the tenant to give the proper notice, he was to pay the landlord a quarter or half-year’s rent, beyond the rent due at the time of leaving, as the case might be; or else to find a sufficient tenant for those periods. Conversely, the landlord was bound to give similar notice to his tenant; but in case the landlord sold the house, the tenant having no ‘specialty by deed,’ the purchaser was at liberty to eject him at his pleasure. On seizure of the tenant’s goods and chattels, at the suit of any other person, the landlord was deemed a preference creditor for two years’ rent in arrear, but no more; the landlord’s oath being taken for proof that so much rent was due.” (See Appendices VI. and VII.)