Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 14.djvu/872

 842 LONDON [HISTORY. sex Arch. Trans., i. 33). The name Newgate is significant of its recent erection, and it has been remarked that it stands alone among the gates as not being attached to a ward bearing the same name. It is mentioned in an ordinance of Edward I., where it is connected with Ludgate. A question arises as to the arrangement of the area included j within the walls, the course of which has already been traced. ! There is a strong preponderance of evidence against the belief that j the present line of streets follows that of Roman London to any considerable extent, Sir William Tite gave reasons for believing that Bishopsgate Street was not a Roman thoroughfare (Archseo- logia, xxxvi. 203), and in the late excavations in Leadenhall Mr Loftus Brock found remains of a building which he supposed to be a basilica, apparently crossing the present thoroughfare of Grace- church Street. Sir AVilliam Tite agreed with Dr Stukeley s sugges tion that on the site of the Mansion House (formerly Stocks market) stood the Roman forum, and he states that a line drawn from that spot as a centre would pass by the pavements found on the site of the Excise Office. Besides the forum, Dr Stukeley suggested the sites of seven other public buildings, the Arx Palatina, guarding the south-eastern angle of the city, where the Tower now stands, the grove and temple of Diana on the site of St Paul s, an episcopal residence, &c. No traces of any of these buildings have been found, and they are therefore purely conjec tural. As to the temple of Diana, Wren formed an opinion strongly adverse to the old tradition of its existence (Parcntalia, p. 266). Although we know thatthe Christian church was established in Britain during the later period of Roman domination, there is little to be learnt respecting it, and the Bishop Restitutus who is said to have attended a council on the Continent is a somewhat mythical character. After the walls the most important points for consideration in relation to Roman London are (1) the existence of a bridge, and (2) the purpose of the London Stone. 1. Dion Cassius, who lived in the early part of the 3d century (Hist. Horn., lib. Ix. c. 20), states that there was a bridge over the Thames at the time of the invasion of Claudius (43 A.D.), but he places it a little above the mouth of the river (&quot;higher up&quot;). The position is vague, but, as already stated, the mouth of the Thames in these early times may be considered as not far from where London Bridge now stands. Sir George Airy holds that this bridge was not far from the site of London Bridge (Proceedings of Institut. Civil Engineers, xlix. 120), but Dr Guest was not prepared to allow t .iat the Britons were able to construct a bridge over a tidal river such as the Thames, some 300 yards wide, with a difference of level at high and low water of nearly 20 feet. He therefore suggested that the bridge was constructed over the marshy valley of the Lea, probably near Stratford. It needs some temerity to differ from so great an authority as the late Dr Guest, but it does strike one as rather surprising that, having accepted the fact of a bridge made by the Britons, he should deny that these Britons possessed a town or village in the place to which he supposes that Aulus Plautius retired. It may be considered certain that there was no bridge over the Thames in the time of Julius Cresar ; for he would not have marched his troops all the way to Coway Stakes in search of a ford if he could have crossed by a bridge at London. As the Welsh word for &quot; bridge &quot; is &quot; pont,&quot; and this was taken directly from the Latin, the inference is almost conclusive that the Britons acquired their knowledge of bridges from the Romans. Looking at the stsige of culture which the Britons had probably reached, it would further be a natural inference that there was no such tiling as a bridge anywhere in Britain before the Roman occupation ; but, if Dion s statement is correct, it may be suggested as a possible explanation that the increased intercourse with Gaul during the hundred years that elapsed between Julius Cresar s raids and Claudius Cxsar s invasion may have led to the construction of a bridge of some kind across the Thames at this point, through the influence and under the guidance of Roman traders and engineers. If so, the word &quot;pont&quot; may have been borrowed by the Britons before the commencement of the Roman occupation. Much stronger are the reasons for believing that there was a bridge in Roman times. Remains of Roman villas are found in Southwark, which was evidently a portion of Londinium, and it therefore hardly seems likely that a bridge-building people such as the Romans would remain contented with a ferry. Mr Roach Smith is a strong advocate for the bridge, and remarks, &quot;It would natu rally be erected somewhere in the direct line of road into Kent, which I cannot but think pointed towards the site of Old London Bridge, both from its central situation, from the general absence of the foundations of buildings in the approaches on the northern side, and from discoveries recently made in the Thames on the line of the old bridge &quot; (Archseologia, xxix. 160). Mr Smith has, however, still stronger arguments, which he states as follows : &quot; Throughout the entire line of the old bridge, the bed of the river was found to contain ancient wooden piles; and, when these piles, subsequently to the erection of the nsw bridge, were pulled up to deepen the channel of the river, many thousands of Roman coins, with abund ance of broken Roman tiles and pottery, were discovered, and immediately beneath some of the central piles brass medallions of Aurelius, Faustina, and Commodus. All these remains are indica tive of a bridge. The enormous quantities of Roman coins may be accounted for by consideration ol the well-known practice of the Romans to make these imperishable monuments subservient towards perpetuating the memory, not only of their conquests, but also of those public works which were the natural result of their successes in remote parts of the world. They may have been deposited either upon the building or repairs of the bridge, as well as upon the accession of a new emperor&quot; (Archaeological Journal, i. 113). 2. The &quot; London Stone &quot; has very generally been supposed to be a &quot; milliarium&quot; or central point for measuring distances, but Sir Chris topher Wren believed it was part of some more considerable monu ments in the forum, and his reason for this belief was that &quot;in the adjoining ground on the south side (upon digging for cellars after the great fire) were discovered some tesselated pavements and other ex tensive remains of Roman workmanship and buildings&quot; (Parentalia, pp. 265, 266). King, in his Munimcnta Antiqua, writes &quot; London Stone, preserved with such reverential care through so many ages, and now having its top encased within another stone in Cannon Street, was plainly deemed a record of the highest antiquity of some still more important kind ; though we are at present unacquainted with the original intent and purport for which it was placed. It is fixed at present close under the south wall of St Swithiu s Church, but was formerly a little nearer the channel facing the same place, which seems to prove its having had some more ancient and peculiar designation than that of having been a Roman milliary, even if it were ever used for that purpose afterwards. It was fixed deep in. the ground, and is mentioned so early as the time of Athelstan, king of the West Saxons, without any particular reference to its having been considered as a Roman milliary stone.&quot; Holinshed (who was followed by Shakespeare in 2 Henry VI., act 4 sc. 6) tells us that when Cade, in 1450, forced his way into London, he first of all proceeded to London Stone, and having struck his sword upon it, said in reference to himself and in explanation of his own action, &quot;Now is Mortimer lord of this city.&quot; Mr H. C. Coote, in a paper published in the Trans. London and Middlesex Arch. Soc. for 1878, points out that this act meant something to the mob who followed the rebel chief, and was not a piece of foolish acting. Mr G. L. Gomme (Primitive Folk-Moots, pp. 155, 156) takes up the matter at this point, and places the tradition implied by Cade s significant action as belonging to times when the London Stone was, as other great stones were, the place where the suitors of an open-air assembly was accustomed to gather together and to legislate for the government of the city. Corroborative facts have been gathered from other parts of the country, and, although more evidence is required, such as we have is strongly in favour of the supposition that the London Stone is a prehistoric monument. SAXON (449-1066). At the beginning of the 5th century the Roman legions left Britain. From this period to the arrival of the Saxons there was a space of time when the Briton was left alone, and there is no reason to believe that London ceased to be the important commercial town which it had grown to be. After the Saxon invasion we do not hear of the city being ravaged, and it possibly held its own under the various vicissi tudes it had to pass through, although Dr Guest writes that &quot;good reason may be given for the belief that even London itself for a while lay desolate and uninhabited :&amp;gt; (Archaeological Journal, xix. 219). About 449 or 450 the invaders first settled in Britain, and in 457 Hengist and ./Esc fouglit against the Britons at Crayford, driving them out of Kent. The vanquished fled to London in great terror, and apparently found a shelter there. 1 The Saxons disliked walled towns, and in many instances they destroyed those which they conquered. This was not done in London, and it is just possible that the Britons may have been ablo to purchase their freedom from destruction. We have, however, little or no data upon which we can form an opinion. Mr Kemble wrote of towns generally that the Saxons neither cared to take possession of them nor took the trouble to destroy them. They enslaved the inhabitants or expelled them, as a mere necessary pre caution and preliminary to their own peaceable possession (Batons in England, ii. 296). The only question is whether London, being an exceptional city, had an exceptional fate. Along the banks of the Thames arc several small havens whose names have remained tons, such as Rotherhith, Lambhith (Lambeth), Cheh-hith (Chelsea), and it is not unlikely that the Saxon who would not settle in the city itself associated himself with these small open spots. Places were thus founded over a large space which otherwise might have remained unsettled. At what time tha 1 If the London-burg here mentioned in the Saxon Chronicle is not London south of the Thames (or Southwark), the fugitives must have crossed the river, and if so this is additional reason for believing that there was then a bridge. The same reasoning will apply to what is related further on, of the Danes crossing to Surrey in the year 851, as it is not likely that a ferry would suffice on these occasions. Moreover, a bridge is shortly after specially mentioned by tho chronicler.