THE THAMES.

The facilities of transit afforded by the river highway led to the extension of the City towards the East, where the necessities of commerce converted its banks into a continuous succession of quays and wharves; whilst on the West the social life of the Court and City filled the entire frontage of the waterway between London and Westminster with the palaces of the great. Here, on “the Silent Highway,” all classes met. Kings and queens in the royal pomp of their state-barges were rowed from the Tower to the Palace of Westminster; nobles passed East or West from their river mansions in their journeys to the City and the Court; the merchant brought his goods to Queenhithe and the wharves; fish and other provisions were landed at Billingsgate; watermen carried passengers to Greenwich, or up stream to Hampton Court; and the City apprentices practised water-quintain and other sports, in preparation for the grand Easter aquatic tournament described by the old chronicler of Henry the Second’s time, FitzStephen.

The great obstacle to the navigation of the river was the picturesque but obstructive Old London Bridge. Its numerous narrow arches, whose piers rested on huge sterlings, caused so great a fall in the stream that the passage through was a feat which none but experienced boatmen could safely attempt. John Mowbray, the second Duke of Norfolk, a companion of Henry V. in his French wars, nearly perished here in 1428. Taking barge with his retinue at St. Mary Overy, he prepared to pass through the bridge; but, through unskilful steering, the barge struck against the piles, and was overturned. Several of the party perished, but the Duke and two or three other gentlemen saved themselves by leaping on to the piles, and were drawn up with ropes to the bridge above.

The great fall of the rushing tide through the narrow arches is well shown in the earliest known view of the bridge, which is given in the beautiful illumination of the manuscript poems of Charles, duke of Orleans, who was a prisoner in the Tower of London. The date of this interesting pictorial record has been assigned to the year 1500.

The bridge consisted of a drawbridge and nineteen broad-pointed arches, with massive piers varying in breadth from twenty-five to thirty-four feet. Outside the piers were immense wooden sterlings, which were probably added later to keep the foundations of the piers from being undermined. By these obstructions the entire channel of the river was reduced from its normal breadth of 900 feet to a total waterway of 194 feet, or less than one-fourth of the whole.

Peter of Colechurch was the architect and builder of London Bridge, replacing the older wooden bridge by a stone structure which was finished in 1176. The weakness of the new building, however, soon showed itself. In 1280, less than eighty years after its completion, the bridge was so decayed that men were afraid to pass over it, and a subsidy was granted towards its restoration. A hundred years later its condition engaged the attention of “a great collection or gathering of all archbishops, bishops, and other persons.” Notwithstanding the counsels of this distinguished assembly, things went from bad to worse; and in a professional survey made in 1425, one of the arches was found to be cracked, and the water-course of the Thames was seen below. This was the reason of an Act made by the Court of Aldermen, that no person should drive a cart or car shod with iron over the bridge, upon pain of “punishment of his body and to pay 6s. 8d.” In 1492, a reward of five shillings was given to John Johnson, that the King’s “great gonne should not pass over the bridge, but rather by another way.” “The other way” involved at this date a journey up river to Kingston, where the first bridge was to be found.For the greater part of its length, houses were built completely over the bridge, leaving only three vacancies, one an open space called the Square, not far from the city, and another at the Southwark end where the drawbridge was. The thoroughfare passed through the centre of the bridge beneath the houses, forming a kind of tunnel with shops on either side. As there was no footway, it was the safest and most usual custom to follow a carriage which might be passing across.

The practice of erecting houses on bridges frequently prevailed in early times, the object doubtless being to secure property for the maintenance of the bridge. In many instances, too, a chapel was added. A curious instance of this custom was on the bridge at Droitwich, where the road passed through the chapel, and separated the congregation from the reading-desk and pulpit. Another famous bridge chapel was erected over the river Calder at Wakefield.

London Bridge had a beautiful chapel dedicated to St. Thomas of Acon, and consisting of two floors, the upper being on a level with the Bridge road, and the lower only slightly above the level of the river, its apartment occupying the interior of the chapel pier. Another notable building was the Bridge Gate or Tower, situated at a distance of about one-third of the length from the Southwark end, and forming the boundary limit between the City and that borough. Adjoining it on the Surrey side was the drawbridge, which could be lowered for the passage of vessels up the river, and for defence of the City from the south in times of invasion. Another tower stood almost at the entrance into Southwark, on the second pier. Here, in 1263, Simon de Montfort forced a passage into the city. In 1471 the Kentish Mariners, under the bastard Falconbridge, burnt the gate, and some fourteen houses on the bridge. Sir Thomas Wyatt, in 1554, was repulsed, after a determined attack on the bridge and its defenders; not, however, before he had attacked the Bishop of Winchester’s palace at the bridge foot, and cut to pieces all his books, “so that men might have gone up to their knees in the leaves so torn out.” Over this tower the traitors’ heads were fixed in the sixteenth century, having been removed from the Gate Tower, north of the drawbridge. These gates were decorated with leafy boughs and garlands of flowers on Midsummer Day. On the west wall, set up in 1492, was a statue of the patron and supposed guardian of the bridge and City, St. Thomas of Canterbury.

From a period which may perhaps be assigned to the earlier part of the thirteenth century, enterprising City tradesmen had availed themselves of the excellent business situation of the bridge thoroughfare. A grant of the above-named period exists, made to the fraternity and proctors of the bridge, of “one shop upon the bridge, between the shop of Andrew le Ferun and the shop of the bridge.” The shops with their various quaint signs tempted the wayfarer with a great variety of enticing wares. The Bridge Records of the fourteenth century refer to the trades of Cutter, Pouchmaker, Glover, Goldsmith, and Bowyer. At a later date we meet with the sign of the “Three Shepherds,” “The Botell,” “Floure-de-Lice,” “Horshede,” “Ravynshede,” “Bell,” “Bore,” “Cheker,” “Castell,” “Bulle,” “Whyte Horse,” “Panyer,” “Tonne,” the “Nonnes,” “Holy Lambe,” the “Chales” (chalice), “Catte,” “Bore’s Head,” “Seint Savyoures,” “Redde Rose,” “Three Cornysshe Chowys” (choughs), and many others.

The great rush of water, through the narrow arches of the old bridge, which proved so dangerous to the navigation of the river, was turned to useful account by the citizens as a motive power for water supply. Early attempts were made in this direction in 1479-80, but the project did not take practical form till 1582, when waterworks were erected under the arches nearest to the City bank of the river, on a plan devised by an ingenious Dutchman named Peter Morris.

London Bridge was the scene of a grand pageant of chivalry in 1390, when two doughty champions representing England and Scotland, engaged in a passage of arms or jousting in the presence of King Richard II. and his courtiers. The Scottish champion was Sir David Lindsay, who was opposed on behalf of England by Sir John Welles. The Scotsman was victorious, and it is characteristic of the condition of society at that period, that a safe-conduct was provided for Sir David Lindsay, both for his journey to London and return to Scotland.

Old London Bridge, after existing considerably over 600 years, was finally demolished in 1832, when the bones of its builder, Peter of Colechurch, were found beneath the masonry in the foundation of the chapel. Before its removal, the obstruction of its numerous arches and their ponderous sterlings frequently caused the river to become ice-bound in winter. In times of more than usual severity, the frost lasted for several weeks, and fairs with amusements of all kinds were held upon the ice. The earliest of these frosts on record is that in the year 1092, and they continued at frequent intervals till so recent a period as 1814. Work being largely brought to a stop at these times, all the Londoners disported themselves on the ice, and several prints of the scenes, and chap-books and broadsides printed upon the ice, have come down to us, but are very scarce.

The swans which are met with in the upper reaches of the Thames, belong to the Crown and two of the City Companies, namely the Vintners and the Dyers. These Companies have by immemorial usage kept a “game of swans,” as it is called, on the Thames, a right which is strictly confined to the Crown and those to whom the Crown may grant the privilege. Once a year an expedition was made by the swan-herds of the Companies to mark the young birds with each Company’s distinguishing nicks; this was made the occasion of a festive gathering of the members of the Company, and was known as “Swan-upping.” The importance which attached to this privilege in former days is seen in the nomenclature of the district in Lower Thames Street, closely adjoining London Bridge, where Old Swan Pier, Swan Lane, &c., remain to this day. At one time the Bridge House appears to have possessed the privilege of keeping a “game of swans,” but this has long since lapsed, probably through non-usage.

From very early times down to the middle of the eighteenth century, the London Bridge of Peter of Colechurch, and its little-known predecessors, formed the only thoroughfare across the Thames within the limits of the Metropolis. Quite naturally therefore, the Borough of Southwark, situated at the southern approach to the bridge, early became a place of importance. For many centuries it consisted almost solely of the main thoroughfare leading to the foot of the bridge. This well-frequented route was under strict order and government, whilst the localities behind the highway on either side, and skirting the river’s banks, were the resort and hiding-place of lawless persons and offenders of every description. To provide for the large number of travellers passing to and from London and the southern counties, Southwark’s main street was occupied almost exclusively by inn-keepers.

Early in the fourteenth century the citizens of London petitioned the King for jurisdiction over Southwark, which was a harbour for felons, thieves, and other malefactors. They succeeded in 1327 in obtaining from Edward III. a charter by which the King sold the vill or town of Southwark to the citizens of London, retaining for himself the Lordship of the Manor and the appointment of the bailiff. Some few years later the inhabitants regained their former privileges, and kept possession of them till the reign of Edward VI., when the Crown in 1550, by another charter, made a second grant of Southwark to the City of London for a valuable consideration.

Within a month of the grant of this charter, namely on 12th May, 1550, the Court of Aldermen appointed Sir John Ayloffe, Barber-Surgeon, as Alderman of the ward of Bridge Without, by which term the Borough of Southwark was designated for City municipal purposes.

An Act of Common Council was also passed in the following July, providing for the election of an alderman by the inhabitants of the borough. This ordinance was never acted upon, the appointment of Alderman of Bridge Without remaining in the hands of the Court of Aldermen. The constitution of the ward was never completed, no representatives were elected as Common Councilmen, and the office of alderman for this ward consequently became a sinecure. It has long been held by the senior member of the Court of Aldermen, or the next in seniority who is willing to accept it; when a vacancy occurs it is offered to the senior alderman, and on his refusal to the next in seniority, and so on. The alderman who accepts it is called the Father of the City, and thereupon vacates the aldermanship of his own ward, for which a vacancy is duly declared. The curious spectacle is thus seen of a ward presided over by an alderman, but being without a constituency or any local representation.

The Corporation of London, having been Lord of the Manor of Southwark, exercised their rights through the Recorder of London, whom they appointed High Steward of Southwark. In that capacity he held Courts Leet as Steward of the Corporation, charging the leet juries and appointing days for receiving their reports as to nuisances. This slight jurisdiction of the City over the ancient borough has now disappeared, consequent upon the constitution of Southwark into a municipality by itself.

Now, having spoken of the City’s jurisdiction, which, as we have seen, was of a very light description, we must revert shortly to the earlier history of the borough. The year 1347 found the larger part of Southwark still in the possession of the powerful family of the Earls De Warren, whose ancestor, William de Warren, was a great favourite of the Conqueror. This young lord married William’s daughter or stepdaughter, and received as her dowry some 300 manors. Early in the reign of Edward III. the Earl’s Bailiff and the King’s had a common box for the toll collected. The King’s Bailiff had the box, and the Earl’s Bailiff the keys. At each division of the toll the King received two-thirds and the Earl one-third of the amount collected. In course of time the manors became vested in a larger number of owners. This appears from the names of the manors, of which the principal were the “Gildable Manor,” or the Liberty of the Mayor, the Manor of the Maze, the Liberty of my Lord of Barmesey (the Abbot of Bermondsey), the Liberty of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Liberty of Paris Garden, and the Suffolk Manor, which comprised the property of Brandon, duke of Suffolk.

Winchester House, situated west of St. Mary Overy’s Church, was built in 1107 by Bishop Giffard. It has had famous occupants besides the prelates: such were Simon de Montfort and his wife; and James Stuart, king of Scotland, who was married here to the niece of Cardinal Beaufort in 1424. No less interesting was its history in later times, with which we have here, however, no concern.

From the Bridge foot, looking south, extends the great highway called Long Southwark. In this main street was held the market of the Borough, which also occupied the Churchyard of St. Margaret, at the end of the great thoroughfare. Close by, opposite St. George’s Church, were the cage, pillory, stocks, and whipping-post, for the correction of offenders sentenced at the Court of Piepowder at Our Lady Fair. Behind Winchester House was the ducking-stool for sousing scolds in the river.

Southwark Fair, or Our Lady Fair, was held at Michaelmas, under a charter granted by Edward IV. in 1462. It occupied the main thoroughfare of the Borough, and overflowed on either side into the courts and inn-yards, invading even the bridge itself. In 1499, as we learn from the Bridge House Records, 7s. 8d. was “leveid and gaderid of divers artificers stonding and selling their wares and chefres on the said bridge in the tyme of Oure Ladye Faire in Southwerke.”

The Manor of Paris Garden took its name from Robert de Paris, who held the manor in the reign of Richard II. That part of the Liberty of Paris Garden bordering on the Thames was known as Bankside, and was the site of several early theatres. Long before the legitimate drama made its appearance, bull and bear-baiting flourished at Bankside. The bull-ring was the special delight of the Southwark people, and boats by hundreds were always passing to and fro, filled with sightseers from Westminster and the city.

Many of the Southwark inns had signs referring to this sport. Such were “The Chained Bull,” “The Bull and Chain,” and “The Bull and Dog.” At the bridge foot, Southwark, was the famed tavern of “The Bear,” and the token of its proprietor was impressed with a bear passant, with a collar and chain. Of the theatres which took the place of these exhibitions, and were at first contemporaneous with them, the most famous was the Shakespearian playhouse known as the Globe. It was built in 1593 for William Burbage. A licence was granted by James I. permitting Shakespeare and others to act here in 1603. The building was of wood, hexagonal in form, and was used by Shakespeare as a summer theatre. Ben Jonson was also connected with it as a partner, playwright, or actor. The building was destroyed by fire in 1613, but was rebuilt in the following year; its site is now covered by a portion of Barclay and Perkins’s brewery.

The Rose was probably the oldest theatre upon Bankside, excepting the early circuses in Paris Garden already mentioned. These were leased in James the First’s reign by Edward Alleyn, the founder of Dulwich College, and Philip Henslow; the latter also held the Rose Theatre for several years. The Swan was in high repute before 1598, but after 1620 both the Rose and Swan were occasionally used by gladiators and fencers. The Hope, used both for bear-baiting and as a playhouse, was situated near the Rose. In 1614 Ben Jonson’s Bartholomew Fair was first acted here; at a later date the building was used for prize-fighting; and in 1632 again for bear-baiting. In 1648 all theatres were suppressed.

Southwark was famous for its inns. The Hostelers or Inn-holders of the City of London formed themselves into a guild at an early date, and the Company still flourishes, and has a quaint old hall in College Street, Dowgate Hill. A curious petition was presented by its members in 1473; it complained that “the members of the Fraternity, in being called hostellers and not inn-holders, had no title by which to distinguish themselves from their servants,” and prayed that they might be recognised as the “misterie of Innholders.” More than 500 years later we find that the servant still keeps the title of ostler, while the master has to be content with the roundabout expression of hotel-keeper or proprietor.

Aubrey, the antiquary, writing in 1678, says:—“Before the Reformation public inns were rare; travellers were entertained at religious houses if occasion served.” The word “inn,” literally a dwelling or abiding-place, was formerly used in a wide sense. The Inns of Court still retain the name; but the town houses or resting-places of great personages, whose business brought them to London, were often so called. Thus, there were in Southwark the inns of the Bishop of Rochester and of the Abbot of Waverley, south of Winchester House; those of the Abbot of Hyde and the Abbot of Battle, and the hostelry of the Prior of Lewes. The inn of the Cobhams was the Green Dragon in Foul Lane, and was still known in 1562 as Cobham’s Inn. But it is of the hostelry proper that we have now to speak.

Space will admit of little more than an enumeration of the most notable hostelries. The Chequers Inn in Chequer Court, High Street, appears to have taken its name from the arms of the De Warrens. The Boar’s Head, though not as famous as its namesake in Eastcheap, was the scene of a performance of stage-plays in 1602, by the servants of the Earls of Oxford and Worcester. The Tabard, so well known as the starting-place of Chaucer’s Canterbury Pilgrims, was on the east side of the High Street. It was built probably in the fourteenth century, and continued until quite modern times to possess an apartment which was known as the Pilgrims’ room. Other well-known inns were the George and the Falcon.Among the many places of interest in the High Street were the famous prisons of the Marshalsea and the King’s Bench. The former was so called “as pertaining to the Marshals of England.” The Court of the Marshalsea was held by the Steward and Marshal of the King’s house. Both court and prison can be traced as early as Edward the Third’s reign, and they no doubt existed at a much earlier period. The King’s Bench Prison, familiarly known as “The Bench,” closely adjoined the Marshalsea, from which it was separated by about twenty houses. To this prison, it is said, Henry V. when Prince of Wales, was committed by Judge Gascoigne for striking him when seated on the bench. Among its prisoners have been many notable persons, especially in later times.

Tooley Street, skirting the river eastward from the bridge foot, derived its name from a corruption of St. Olave’s Street. St. Olaf, the Christian King of Norway, came to the assistance of Ethelred II. against the Danes in 1008, and destroyed London Bridge, which was then in their possession. He pulled down the piles of the bridge by means of ropes attached to his ships. This friendly act, together with his reputation as a Christian sovereign, procured him the gratitude of the English nation. No less than four churches in London were dedicated to this saint—those, namely, in Tooley Street, Hart Street, Silver Street, and Old Jewry.

Closely adjoining St. Olave’s Church was the Bridge House, the centre of administration for the bridge and its repairs, and an institution hardly second in importance to any in Southwark. Indeed, the Borough has no other heraldic device than the curious “mark” of the Bridge House, which it has adopted as its heraldic cognisance. The origin of the Bridge House Trust extends back probably to the period of the early wooden bridge which existed before the building of Peter of Colechurch’s stone bridge in 1176. London Bridge, being regarded, and with good reason, as a work of national importance, attracted a long roll of wealthy benefactors. William Rufus and his successors (probably, too, his Norman and Saxon predecessors) made grants of tolls and taxes for its support. Other benefactors included Richard, archbishop of Canterbury (Becket’s successor) in 1174; Cardinal Hugo di Petraleone, papal legate to this country in 1176; Henry Fitzailwin, first Mayor of London; and numerous wealthy citizens and ecclesiastics who, either in their lifetime or by their wills, left valuable property to the Bridge House funds. This was administered in early times by the Bridge Masters or Wardens, two in number, who were appointed by the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the City.

This post was one much coveted in early times, and was bestowed upon men of the highest position in the City. The Wardens’ duties were honourable and doubtless profitable, but they entailed great responsibilities. They had in their ward and keeping all the goods of the bridge, whether lands, rents, tenements, or commodities, and possessed large, if not absolute, powers of dealing with the bridge property by sale or otherwise for the profit of the Trust. On the other hand, their responsibility was strictly personal, and unthrifty wardens were removed from office. This was the case in 1351, when the wardens were removed after ten years’ service for showing a deficit of 21l. odd. The unfortunate wardens for the year 1440, Thomas Badby and Richard Lovelas, owed no less than 327l. 9s. 10d., the loss having arisen from many of the houses on the bridge being dilapidated and unlet. The wardens obtained the King’s intercession on their behalf, and the Court of Aldermen compromised the matter by accepting 200 marks in full discharge of the debt.

The wardens kept great state at the Bridge House, which was necessarily an establishment of considerable extent. Behind the Tooley Street frontage the premises extended to the river, where was a wharf for landing stone, timber, and all other necessaries for the repair of the bridge, the houses upon it, and the large property belonging to the estate. Besides the necessary offices, the Bridge House contained state apartments for official meetings, and the sumptuous entertainments already mentioned. In fact, the Bridge House in mediÆval times largely resembled and took the place of the Mansion House of modern days. The building itself must have been pleasantly situated; it possessed extensive grounds, which were laid out as a garden with ponds and a fountain. The wardens kept, as we have seen, a “game” of swans, and, moreover, a pack of hounds.

Besides its great service to the citizens of London in establishing their world-wide commerce, the Thames also largely contributed to the health and recreation of the inhabitants of London. Fitzstephen, writing in the twelfth century, thus describes the water sports in his day: “In the Easter holidays they play at a game resembling a naval engagement. A target is firmly fixed to the trunk of a tree, which is fixed in the middle of the river, and in the prow of a boat, driven along by oars and the current, stands a young man, who is to strike the target with his lance. If, in hitting it, he break his lance and keep his position unmoved, he gains his point and attains his desire; but, if his lance be not shivered by the blow, he is tumbled into the river, and his boat passes by, driven along by its own motion. Two boats, however, are placed there, one on each side of the target, and in them a number of young men to take up the striker when he first emerges from the stream, or when—

‘A second time he rises from the wave.’

“On the bridge, and in balconies on the banks of the river, stand the spectators,

‘... well disposed to laugh.’”[3]

Other recreation was afforded by fishing, as the Thames abounded with fish of all kinds, from the noble sturgeon and the salmon to the shoals of smelts and whitebait.

The river presented a gay scene, being the great highway for all classes of society, both for purposes of locomotion and for conveyance of goods. The traffic between the court and city was naturally carried on by wherries from London Bridge or Blackfriars to Westminster. The King and Queen had their royal barges, so had the noblemen whose mansions lined the south side of the Strand, each having stairs for approach from the river. Gower gives a charming picture of his meeting his patron, King Richard II., on the river, when the King summoned him to his barge and asked him to write “some new thinge.” The poet obeyed by presenting the King with his “Confessio Amantis.”

From time to time, gay pageants were seen on the Thames. The Sovereign would proceed in state from the Palace at Greenwich to the Tower, or from the Tower, Baynard’s Castle, or other residence, to the Palace of Westminster, and the City guilds accompanied their sheriffs or mayors on their way to Westminster to take oath of office. The accounts of the Grocers’ Company for the year 1436 mention payments for the hire of barges to attend the sheriffs’ show; but John Stow, the historian of London, describes the water procession as an innovation made by John Norman, mayor in 1450. He writes: “This John Norman was the first mayor that was rowed by water to Westminster to take his oath, for before that time they rode on horseback. He caused a barge to be made at his own charge, and every company had several barges, well decked and trimmed, to pass along with him; for joy whereof, the watermen made a song in his praise, beginning, ‘Row thy boat, Norman.’”

Of the more important buildings which formed conspicuous ornaments of the river’s banks we shall speak when describing the royal palaces.