We are apt to think and speak of the Roman occupation of Britain as if it had been little more than a mere inroad into the country--a brief episode having scarcely anything to do with the main course of our history. Our modern English civilization has over its whole surface so completely Teutonic and feudal a colour, that we can hardly conceive ourselves to have been other than Normans or Saxons from our emerging out of barbarism. Yet our island was in great part a Roman country, in a certain sense, for not less than years. So long was it from the invasion of Julius Caesar, which, if it did not actually make us tributaries to Rome, not only brought us into constant intercourse with Romanized Gaul, but, as Strabo, writing within years after, records, made almost the whole island familiarly known to the Romans, till the last remnants of the social fabric raised by that great people were thrown down and swept away by the Saxons in the latter part of the century. That is very nearly - of the whole period that has elapsed from the landing of Caesar to the present hour. It is within a few years of as long a time as the English have been settled in Ireland. It is a portion of our history of as great extent as has passed since the middle of the reign of Henry III.-since the intermediate point between the grant of Magna Charta and the establishment of the House of Commons--a date which may be said to stand almost at the commencement of the whole system of our existing civilization. Or even if we reckon the era of Roman Britain only from the expedition of Claudius, which commenced the colonization of the country a years after its invasion, to the breaking up of the imperial government in the beginning of the century, still here is a period of above centuries and a half-or as long as from the present day back to the wars of the Roses. To a Briton, therefore,

There is sound sense and truth, as well as elegant fancy, in what has been written by the excellent Camden:

Whilst I treat of the Roman empire in Britain (which lasted, as I said, about

476

years), it comes into my mind how many colonies of Romans must have been transplanted hither in so long a time; what numbers of soldiers were continually sent from Rome, for garrisons; how many persons were despatched hither, to negotiate affairs, public or private; and that these, intermarrying with the Britons, seated themselves here, and multiplied into families; for

wherever

, says Seneca,

the Roman conquers, he inhabits

. So that I have oft-times concluded that the Britons might derive themselves from the Trojans by these Romans, who doubtless descended from the Trojans, with greater probability than either the Arverni, who from Trojan blood styled themselves brethren to the Romans, or the Mamertini, Hedui, and others, who upon fabulous grounds grafted themselves into the Trojan stock.

Quos domuit, nexuque pio longinqua revinxit.

Whom conquered she in sacred bonds hath tied.Britannia, Gibson's Translation; p. cvii. Edit. of 1722.

However, we do not desire to stand pledged to the Trojan part of this speculation.

The spot on which London is built, or at least, that on which the buildings were most probably erected, was pointed out by nature for the site of a city. It was the suspicion of the sagacious Wren, as we are informed in the

Parentalia,

ad flumen Tamesin, in fines Cassivellauni.

But the elevation on which London is built offered a site at once raised above the water, and at the same time close upon the navigable portion of it-conditions which did not meet in any other locality on either side of the river, or estuary, from the sea upwards. It was the spot on which a town could be set down, so as to take advantage of the facilities of communication between the coast and the interior presented by this great natural highway. To this peculiarity of position London probably owed both its existence and its name. Many conjectures have been offered as to the meaning of the name London. Like all our oldest British names of places, it is most probably Celtic, and there can be little doubt that the latter part of it is merely the or same word with the Saxon town--which is found in the names of many more of our most ancient towns both in England and Scotland. It seems to signify, what a town uniformly was in early times, a place of strength--a place either naturally strong or fortified by art, usually--both the and the other; and it may be recognised in its Welsh form in the Latin and . The has been conceived by some etymologists to be , a wood; by others, , full, populous; by others, , a plain; but no of these derivations seems to furnish a name for this settlement by the river-side so appropriate and distinctive as that from , the ancient British word for ships. London would thus mean the town of ships--a description which must have been applicable to it from its foundation, if it originated in the way we have supposed. Or, at any rate, the comparative eminence of London as a resort for ships may be as ancient as the name--which is answer enough to Maitland's objection to this etymology, even if his assumption were to be conceded, that the town could not have deserved this name at the time of its foundation. But the probability is, that the spot was resorted to as a landing-place by the craft ascending the river, and that in course of time the town grew up around the port. The etymology from receives some corroboration from of the Latin forms of the name, , which is that given in the Itinerary of Antoninus; while the of Ammianus Marcellinus seems to show that the syllable had very early come to be pronounced much in the way it still is--a natural effect of the nasal consonant by which the vowel is followed in what we have supposed to be the original word. Camden states that London is actually called , that is, a harbour for ships, by an ancient British or Welsh bard.

The silence of Caesar has been taken as a proof that London did not exist when he visited the country; and certainly it is a proof, if any such were wanted, that Geoffrey of Monmouth's great city of Troynovant, with its strong wall adorned with numerous towers, and its splendid public edifices of all kinds, making it excel every other city in the world, had not yet been built. But, although the place was doubtless neither famous, nor in any respect considerable, at this early

The London of the Britons could only have been what Caesar, and Strabo after him, have described every British town as being, a collection of huts set down on a dry spot in the midst of the marshes, or in a cleared space within a wood, and encompassed, in addition to these natural protections, by the artificial defences of a mound and a ditch. Within these inclosures, Strabo tells us, the inhabitants were accustomed to stall as many cattle as sufficed for a few months' consumption; and Caesar relates that, when the town or fastness of Cassivellaunus fell into his hands, he found in it a great number of cattle, which, he intimates, had been brought thither by the people when they came from all parts to take refuge in that chief stronghold. It is probable that most of the cattle, in which we are informed the island abounded, still roamed wild and unappropriated through the woods and pastures-dividing the country with the infinite multitude () of human beings, by which, as Caesar notes, it was already peopled. Whether there were any herds regarded as belonging either to individuals, or to the various villages and other communities, does not appear. But the southern Britons, we know, practised agriculture, and wore cloth: that is implied in Caesar's statement, that the ruder tribes of the interior for the most part sowed no corn, and were dressed only in skins. The country, therefore, was not all woodland and marsh. No doubt, the southern coast presented already, not only many patches of cultivation, but some considerable tracts brought under the plough. As for London, however, we know that at a date many centuries later a vast forest still covered the country all around it only a few miles back from the river, and that a fen or lake of great extent, whence the part of the metropolis now called Finsbury derives its name, lay on the north-east close to the city wall. When it was a British town, it probably occupied only the face and summit of the natural elevation ascending from the river, stretching from between and the Tower on the hand to Dowgate on the other, and going back no farther than to the line of the present and . The Wall Brook and the Sher Bourne on the west, and the Lang Bourne on the north-though their straggling waters had not yet become known to fame by these, or perhaps by any other names,--and to the east the wide-spread marsh which long after continued to cover the low grounds now occupied by the suburb of , furnished such natural boundaries as were usually sought for by

The earliest mention of London by any extant writer of antiquity occurs in the pages of Tacitus, who did not compose his till more than a century and a half after the invasion of Britain by Julius Caesar. The name is not noticed either by Strabo or Pliny the Elder, his predecessors, although both have given us descriptions of the British islands. But it appears from Tacitus that in the year , in the reign of the Emperor Nero, London, or , as he calls it, was already a place of great importance;--

not indeed dignified by the name of a colony,

but yet of the

first

distinction for abundance of resident merchants and of traffic with other places;

When the Britons rose in arms against the Roman domination at the call of the outraged Boadicea, the imperial general Suetonius Paulinus, then engaged at the opposite side of the island in the conquest of the isle of Anglesey, hastened across the country to London, and only abandoned his intention of making the preservation of that town his object, upon finding that the force he could reckon upon would be insufficient for the protection of--a place which was probably as yet without walls.[n.150.2]  All he could be prevailed upon to do by the prayers and tears of the inhabitants was to receive such of them as chose into his ranks before marching away. But the women, and the aged, and others also, the historian intimates, detained by the pleasantness of the place ), staid behind, and were in consequence destroyed by the enemy; for Boadicea, too, appears to have marched direct upon London as upon the centre and chief seat of the Roman power and civilization, In that town, and in the municipium or free town of Verulam, which was also sacked, it is asserted that there perished in this hour of unrelenting vengeance as many as citizens and allies of Rome; the former term being intended to denote the inhabitants of Verulam, the latter those of London. Both from these expressions, and from the whole

It was,

a scene of devastation, and spoliation, and butchery not to be uttered. On the miserable people who fell into their hands there is nothing of what is most dreadful and ferocious that they did not inflict. Well-born and beautiful women they hung up naked, and, cutting off their breasts, sewed them upon their mouths, so as that they might be made to seem as if they were eating their own flesh; and after that they ran sharp stakes lengthways through their bodies. All this they did in the midst of sacrifices and festivity and derision, both in their other consecrated places and especially in the grove of Andate--for so they name the goddess Victory, who is

one

of the chief objects of their worship.

The soil is almost uniformly divided into

four

strata; the uppermost,

thirteen

feet

six

inches thick, of factitious earth; the

second

,

two

feet thick, of brick, apparently the ruins of buildings; the

third

,

three

inches thick, of wood ashes, apparently the remains of a town built of wood and destroyed by fire; the

fourth

, of Roman pavement, common and tesselated.

Archaeologia, vol. viii. p. 132.

The rage, the courage, the confidence, the numbers of the insurgents, however, all proved of no avail against the military skill of the masters of the world. A single battle did not so much scatter their mixed and tumultuous array as literally tread it, coagulated into mass of gore, into the earth. Horribly were the horrors of the sack of London avenged. It was not a battle, indeed, but rather a --a hewing down and indiscriminate slaughter of every thing that had life-men, women, even the beasts of burthen-crowded into a narrow defile, and there left without power either to resist or to fly, or to do aught but propel another upon the sword. About only of the Roman soldiers were killed, and about as many more wounded; of the Britons, are said to have fallen on that day and in that spot. Their queen and leader, Boadicea, escaped from the field of battle; but, resolved that only her dead body, if even that, should fall into the hands of the victors, the heroine took poison, and so ended her life, now that all else was ended and gone.

The advantages of its situation probably enabled London soon to recover from the desolation to which it was reduced by Boadicea; but the silence of history, for more than centuries leaves us only ground for concluding that it was fortunate enough during all that time to afford no materials for history as it has been commonly written, going on in a course of even, noiseless prosperity, and sharing no more either in the calamities or the glories of war. Ptolemy, indeed, in his Geography, compiled in the early part of the century, mentions London (which he calls ) among the cities of the Cantii; but it cannot for a moment be inferred, from this unsupported statement, in the face of all probability, that London at that date stood on the south side of the Thames. Ptolemy is supposed to have taken much of his information about the north-western quarter of Europe from Phenician sources; and his geography of Britain has all the appearance of being descriptive of the country before it became known to the Romans, of whose occupation of any part of it he says not a word. At that early

The next mention that is made of London is so late as the year , when, immediately after the usurper Allectus, the murderer and successor of the more famous Carausius, had himself been overthrown and put to death by the Praefect Asclepiodotus, a body of Franks, who had been in his service, fell upon the town, and had begun to plunder it, when the opportune arrival of a part of the fleet of the Emperor Constantius in the Thames-

which always,

stood the Londoners a true friend

It would seem to have been soon after its deliverance by Theodosius that London received, or assumed, the name of Augusta--a distinction which was enjoyed, it has been reckoned, by about cities in all throughout the empire, for the most part the capitals of their provinces or districts. Ammianus, in the places to which we have just been referring, describes it as an old town, and appears to intimate that it was called Lundinium at the time of which he speaks, but that when he wrote (which must have been within half a century after) it was designated Augusta.[n.154.1]  It may have adopted the latter name, in compliment or flattery to its deliverer and restorer, Theodosius, on his becoming Emperor of the West, in the year . However acquired, the title may be held to imply that it was now regarded as a town of the pretension, and most probably as the capital of Roman Britain. Its metropolitan character may also be inferred from the figure it makes in the Itinerary of Antoninus (about the end of the century), in which, of British roads that are given, begin from London, and others terminate at that city. Camden, with great probability, considers the famous London Stone, of which a small fragment still remains encased in another stone standing against the south wall of , in , as the central , or milestone, similar to that in the Forum at Rome, from which the chief British high roads radiated, and the distances on them were reckoned. , of which is a part, is supposed by Wren to have been the principal street of Roman London, and it is not unlikely that it may have been a British road before the arrival of the Romans. Extending to the north-west, it may have joined the other great highway, which appears to have run along the line of ,

fixed in the ground very deep, fastened with bars of iron, and otherwise so strongly set, that, if carts do run against it through negligence, the wheels be broken, and the stone itself unshaken.

In the adjoining ground to the south, upon digging for altars,

were discovered some tesselated pavements, and other extensive remains of Roman workmanship and buildings.

Probably,

this might in some degree have imitated the

Milliarium Aureum

at Constantinople, which was not in the form of a pillar as at Rome, but an eminent building; for under its roof, according to Cedrenus and Suidas, stood the statues of Constantine and Helena, Trajan, an equestrian statue of Hadrian, a statue of Fortune, and many other figures and decorations.

a fair-written Gospel-book,

Roman London in course of time certainly extended over a much greater space than was occupied by the original British town, or even probably by that which Boadicea sacked and laid waste. Appearances which still exist, and numerous remains that have been discovered in modern times, prove that it must have spread out from the central height, which appears to have been built upon, not only to the east and the west, but also to the north, and even across the river to the south. With the exception of or sepulchral stones, which throw hardly any light upon the matter, no ancient inscriptions have been found in London; but there are great classes of indications by which we are assisted in conjecturing the probable limits of the Roman city; although, in consequence of the various facts not being all referable to the same epoch, they might not always, separately considered, conduct us to precisely the same conclusions.

I. The evidence we have is that afforded by the situations of the several Roman burial grounds connected with the city, as established by the different collections of sepulchral remains that have been discovered. It was the custom of the Romans, and indeed of most of the other nations of antiquity, to inter their dead always without the city, but at the same time generally in its near neighbourhood. Frequently the cemeteries were immediately without the gates, and were extended for some distance along both sides of the road beyond, as is still to be seen in what is called the Street of Tombs at Pompeii. Stow has given us a very particular account from his own observation of the discovery that has been recorded of a burial-place belonging to Roman London. It was found, he tells us, about the year , in course of digging for clay in

a large field, of old time, called Lottesworth, now Spitalfield,

Besides those urns,

many other pots were found in the same place, made of a white earth, with long necks and handles, like to our stone jugs: these were empty, but seemed to be buried full of some liquid matter, long since consumed and soaked through.

There were found,

divers vials and other fashioned glasses, some most cunningly wrought, such as I have not seen the like, and some of crystal, all which had water in them, nothing differing in clearness, taste, or savour from common spring water, whatsoever it was at the

first

. Some of these glasses had oil in them, very thick, and earthly in savour. Some were supposed to have balm in them, but had lost the virtue.

There were also,

lamps of white earth and red, artificially wrought with divers antiques about them; some

three

or

four

images, made of white earth, about a span long each of them;

one

I remember was of Pallas; the rest I have forgotten. I myself have reserved (amongst divers of those antiquities there)

one

urn with the ashes and bones, and

one

pot of white earth very small, not exceeding the quantity of a quarter of a wine pint, made in the shape of a hare squatted upon her legs, and between her ears is the mouth of the pot.

such as are used in the wheels of shod carts, being each of them as big as a man's finger, and a quarter of a yard long, the heads

two

inches over.

the old wood, scant turned into earth, but still retaining both the grain and proper colour

one

whereof,

being of stone, contained the bones of a man; and the other of lead, beautifully embellished with scollop-shells and a crotister border, contained those of a woman, at whose head and feet were placed

two

urns of the height of

three

feet each; and at the sides divers beautiful red earthen bottles, with a number of lachrymatories of hexagon and octagon forms; and on each side of the inhumed bones were deposited

two

ivory sceptres of the length of eighteen inches each; and upon the breast the figure of a small Cupid, curiously wrought; as were likewise

two

pieces of jet, resembling nails, of the length of

three

inches.

II. Secondly, we have the course of the old City Wall to guide us, in as far as it can still be ascertained. The earliest writer who mentions the wall of London is Fitzstephen, towards the close of the century, who describes it as then both high and thick, having double gates, and many towers or turrets on the north side placed at proper distances. The gates are supposed by Maitland to have been Ludgate, Newgate, Aldersgate, Cripplegate, Bishopsgate, , and the Postern gate near the Tower. At the east end of the city was what Fitzstephen calls the Palatine Tower; and on the west were well-fortified castles, which are understood to have been Baynard's Castle and the Castle of Montfichet.

London,

once had its walls and towers in like manner on the south; but that vast river, the Thames, which abounds with fish, enjoys the benefit of tides, and washes the city on this side, hath in a long tract of time totally subverted and carried away the walls in this part.

It was compiled,

alternately of layers of broad flat bricks and of rag-stone. The bricks lay in double ranges; and, each brick being but

one

inch and

three

-tenths in thickness, the whole layer, with the mortar interposed, exceeded not

three

inches. The layers of stone were not quite

two

feet thick of our measure; it is probable they were intended for

two

of the Roman, their rule being somewhat shorter than ours. In this part of the wall,

it was very observable that the mortar was (as usually in the Roman work) so very firm and hard, that the stone itself as easily broke and gave way as that.

The outside, or that towards the suburbs, was faced with a coarse sort of stone, not compiled with any great care or skill, nor disposed into a regular method; but on the inside there appeared more marks of workmanship and art. At the bottom were

five

layers composed of squares of flint and of freestone; though they were not so in all parts, yet in some the squares were near equal, about

five

inches diameter, and ranged in a quincunx order. Over these were a layer of brick, then of hewn free-stone, and so alternately brick and stone to the top. There were of the bricks in all

six

layers, each consisting only of a double course, except that which lay above all, in which there were

four

courses of bricks where the layer was entire. These bricks were of the shape of those now in use, but much larger, being near

eleven

inches in length,

five

in breadth, and somewhat above

two

and a half in thickness. Of the stone there were

five

layers, and each of equal thickness in all parts for its whole length. The highest and lowest of these were somewhat above a foot in thickness; the

three

middle layers each

five

inches; so that the whole height of this additional work was near

nine

feet. As to the interior parts, or the main bulk of the wall, it was made up of pieces of rubble-stone, with a few bricks of the same sort as those used in the inner facing of the wall, laid uncertainly, as they happened to come to hand, and not in any stated method. There was not

one

of the broad, thin Roman bricks mentioned above in all this part; nor was the mortar near so hard as in that below.

become a sacrifice to devouring time.

It is composed,

of stone, with layers of brick interposed, after the Roman manner, and is the most considerable remain of Roman workmanship yet extant in any part of England that I know of, being

twenty-six

feet in height.

Even at the present day, after a quarter of a century into which there has probably been crowded as much of demolition, reconstruction, and transformation of all kinds, within the limits of old London, as had taken place in all the preceding interval, of times the length, from the rebuilding of the city after the great fire, an expedition of discovery round the little civic world which the wall once girded in will not, to a vigilant antiquarian eye, be wholly unproductive. Setting out from , we have still, as when Maitland wrote, where stood the old Postern-gate at the south-eastern termination of the wall, in what is now called , a few posts set across the footpath to mark the spot, which is opposite to about the middle of the north line of the . The wall went anciently close up to the Tower, but in the beginning of the reign of Richard I. his famous Chancellor, Bishop Longchamp, pulled down feet of it, in order to enlarge the Tower, and to encompass it with this ditch or moat,

intending,

to have derived the river of Thames, with her tides, to have flowed about it, which would not be.

Such,

was their negligence then, which hath been some trouble to their successors, since they suffered a weak and wooden building to be then made, inhabited by persons of lewd life, often by inquest of Portsoken Ward presented, but not reformed.

greatly straitened by encroachments, unlawfully made and suffered, for gardens and houses,

from the Postern north till over against the principal foregate of the Lord Lumley's house ;

But a still more curious fragment of the Roman foundation was disinterred only a few weeks ago, a little farther to the north, in the course of the operations now in progress for the extension of the Railway. Beneath a range of houses which have been in part demolished, in a court entering from the east side of , nearly opposite to Milbourne's Almshouses, and behind the south-west corner of , the workmen, having penetrated to the natural earth--a hard, dry, sandy gravel-came upon a wall feet and a half thick, running in the direction of the portions already described, that is to say, a very little to the west of north, or parallel to the line of the ; which, by the resistance it offered, was at once conjectured to be of Roman masonry. When we saw it, it had been laid bare on both sides to the height of about or feet, .and there was an opportunity of examining its construction, both on the surface and in the interior. The principal part of it consisted of courses of squared stones, regularly laid, with layers of flat bricks below them, and similar layers above--the latter at least carried all the way through the wall--as represented in the subjoined drawing. The mortar, which appeared to be extremely hard, had a few pebbles mixed up with it; and here and there were interstices or air-cells, as if it had not been spread, but poured in among the stones. The stones were a granulated limestone, such as might

From this point up to , and thence, in a north-westerly direction, behind the south side of , or between that street and , , and , the line of the wall can now only be traced by a slight elevation of the surface, which is generally more or less discernible where it had stood, and where no doubt its foundation for the most part still exists under the modern buildings that have been raised upon the same site. It was at the west end of that Woodward, in the beginning of the last century, examined the portion of the wall then laid bare from the foundation, and about to be demolished. Here stood Bishop's-gate, at the point where the street called Bishopsgate Within is still divided from Bishopsgate Without. Hence the wall was carried in a westerly direction, with a slight deflection to the north, between Bishopsgate Churchyard and . We are informed that it was reached in a few years ago, in digging for the foundation of the St. Ethelburga Charity Schools. From the end of this street it proceeded in the same direction along the north side of the street still called ; and here a few fragments of it still remain above-ground. small portion extends westward from the church of All

Hallows on the Wall, which is built upon it. A little farther on, opposite to the entry to Sion College, another fragment may be seen over a brick wall, which screens it in the greater part from the street. And still farther to the west the old wall still forms the southern boundary of the court-yard of the White Horse Inn, and the back of the premises of Messrs. Deacon and Co., canal-carriers.

But of the most interesting remnants on the whole line is that to be found in Cripplegate Churchyard, part of the southern boundary of which, dividing it from the continuation of called , is still formed by the old city wall, which here terminates its course to the westward with a circular inclosure, in very good preservation, the basis, no doubt, of of the towers by which it was formerly adorned and strengthened, and the only of which any traces are now to be found. Access to the inside of the inclosure may be obtained through the entry to the Clothworkers' Almshouses at the end of .

From this point the line of the wall turns to the south, and a portion of it extending in that direction also remains, dividing the churchyard from the houses in Mugwell Street, nearly parallel to which it had continued its course, passing by the back of Barbers' Hall, the front of which is in Mugwell Street, and then descending rather more than half way down the back of , when it turned again to the west, and was carried across Aldersgate, and behind the houses forming the north side of Bull and Mouth Street, where another small part of it may be still seen dividing the houses from the extensive churchyard of St. Botolph's, Aldersgate. From the west end of Bull and Mouth Street it deflected a little towards the south-west, passing behind , till it arrived within a short distance of , and there, turning again to the south, struck down upon , which it crossed a little to the east of its present termination at the . From it proceeded southward in a line parallel to the , behind which or small fragments of it are still standing. , forming part of the back wall of the premises of Messrs. Elston and Co., builders, has an arched cavity hollowed out of it, at the height of about feet from the ground, exactly resembling those in Mr. Atkinson's warehouse; but, as the latter have been formed in the inner and this in the outer side of the wall, it would rather seem that neither had made part of its original construction. Lud-gate stood at the present point of division between and , immediately to the west of , or directly in front of the London Coffee House. From this point, or rather from a spot a few yards farther to the south, the wall again turned to the west, with a slight inclination southward, passing behind the south side of ,--where a small fragment of it is still to be seen forming part of the wall of a butcher's shop in what is now called St. ,--till it abutted upon the bank of the , which it then accompanied to the Thames.

But it is matter of historical record that a portion of the space thus encompassed was taken into the city at a comparatively recent date. Till the year the wall proceeded in straight line from Newgate to the river, as we learn from Matthew Paris, who informs us that the part of it to the south of Ludgate was then pulled down, with the permission of the city, by Robert Kilwarby, Archbishop of Canterbury, to make way for his foundation of a house for the Preaching or Black Friars; upon which Edward I. commanded the city to build a new wall running west from Ludgate to the Fleet, and thence southward

where,

at about eighteen feet deep the operations were checked by a stone wall of intense hardness, running in a direction towards the centre of

St. Paul's

, and which cost the labourers

three

or

four

days to cut through.

It is not improbable, however, that, even during the Roman occupation, the extension of the city towards the west may have led to an alteration of part of the original line of the wall in that quarter, and to the carrying of it in the direction of Aldersgate, Newgate, and Ludgate, even by such a sharp turn as it made at .--All that we contend for is, that that is not likely to have been the course in which it proceeded when the portion of it from Cripplegate churchyard to the sudden break off behind was designed and erected. In other directions, as well as in this, there is good ground for inferring that what was at time considered as country, and without the circuit of the city, was built upon by the Romans in a later age. Sepulchral remains have been found, as we have seen, within at least the more recent line of the wall, not only in , but also at Bishopsgate on the north side of the city, and at St; Dunstan's in the East towards its southern or eastern boundary. But it is remarkable that in each of these instances the urns and other evidences of sepulture were found under pavements; thus showing that, although the place had once been a cemetery, it had afterwards come to be built upon. No doubt even the space that was completely covered with houses, and that would therefore naturally be accounted an integral part of the city, must have gradually spread itself out over the country on all sides in the course of the or centuries during which London, under the Roman dominion, was, we have every reason to believe, a flourishing town, growing in population, as well as in wealth and general

highly impregnated with animal and vegetable matter, and almost of an inky blackness in colour.

Throughout the same line also,

were at intervals noticed a vast and almost continuous number of wooden piles, which in

Prince's Street

were particularly frequent, and where also they descended much deeper. The nature of the ground, and the quantity of these piles, tend to strengthen the probability of a channel having flowed in this direction, draining off the water from the adjoining marshes, and that too (from the numerous Roman remains accompanying these indications) at a very remote period.

[n.147.1] See No. V.-London Bridge.

[n.147.2] Dion's words are dia\ gefu/ras o)li/gon a)/nw Hist. Rom. lib. lx. c. 29.

[n.147.3] kaq' o(\ e)s te to\n w)keano\n e)kba/llei.--Dio. Hist. Rom. lib. lx. c.29.

[n.147.4] De Bell. Gall. v. 14.

[n.147.5] De Bell. Gall. v. 18.

[n.147.6] De Bell. Gall. v.11.

[n.148.1] plhmmu/ronto/s te au)tw=| limna/zei, kai\ r(adi/ws au)to\n diaba/ntwn (tw=n Brettanw=n), a(/ti kai\ ta\ ste/rifa ta/ te eu)/pora th=s xw/ras a)kribw=s ei)do/twn.-Hist. Rom. lx. 20.

[n.150.1] Cognomento quidem coloniae non insigne, sed copia negociatorum et commeatuum maxime celebre.--Annal. xiv. 33.

[n.150.2] Tacitus, indeed, states that the barbarians avoided the fortified places and military stations of the province, to attack what would at once afford the richest spoil, and offer the least resistance.--Tacitus, Annal. xiv.33.

[n.151.1] po/leis te du/o *(rwmai+ka/s.--Hist. Rom. lxii. 7.

[n.151.2] So called, certainly not ea non lucendo, as the jokers say, and many etymologists gravely dream, but either from affording free admission to the light of day, or perhaps from a fire or other artificial light which in some cases may have been kept burning on the altar.

[n.151.4] Gough, in his edition of Camden's Britannia, vol. ii. p. 15, on the authority of an account drawn up by Mr. Rogers and Mr. Colebroke, who, we suppose, may have been the contractors for the sewer.

[n.152.1] Archaeologia, vol. xxiv. pp. 192-194; in account by A. J. Kempe, Esq.

[n.153.1] Ammianus Marcellinus, xxvii. 8.

[n.153.2] In integrum restituit civitates et castra multiplicibus quidem damnis adflicta. Am. Marcelin. xxviii. 3. And again, Instaurabat urbes, et praesidiaria, ut diximus, castra.-lbid.

[n.154.1] Egressus, tendensque ad Lundinium vetus oppidum, quod Augustam posteritas appellavit. Am. Marcel. xxvii, 8, And again--Ab Augusta profectus, quam veteres appellavere Lundinium.-xxviii. 3.

[n.155.1] It will be perceived that these lines do not exactly coincide with those traced on the annexed plan of Roman London. But it would require half-a-dozen plans to exhibit all the conjectures that have been proposed in regard to the courses of the Roman roads in London and its neighbourhood.

[n.158.1] Remarks upon the Ancient and Present State of London, occasioned by some Roman Urns, Coins, and other Antiquities, lately discovered. Third Edit. 8vo. Lon. 1723. The publication consists of a Letter to Sir Christopher Wren, dated the 23rd of June, 1707, followed by another to Thomas Hearne, dated the 30th of November, 1711.

[n.158.2] Gough's Camden (Edit. of 1806), ii. 93.

[n.159.1] Malcolm's Londinium Redivivum, iv. 450-1.

[n.159.2] Weaver, Funeral Monuments.

[n.159.3] Archaeologia, v. 291.

[n.159.4] See our Third Number- Paul's Cross.

[n.160.1] See Archaeologia, xxvi. 466, and xxvii. 412. Gent. Mag., 1814, and ann. seq.

[n.160.2] Pegge's translation, 1772.

[n.161.1] Didoron, quo utimur, longum sesquipede, latum pede.-Nat. Hist. xxxv. 49. Instead of didoron, Harduin reads Lydion.

[n.161.2] Letter to Wren, pp. 20, &c.

[n.162.1] Letter to Hearne, 1711, p. 48.

[n.162.2] Lord Lumley's house, built in the time of Henry VIII. by Sir Thomas Wyatt the Elder, stood next to Milbourne's Almshouses, in Cooper's Row, which appears to have been formerly called Woodrof Lane.

[n.166.1] Observations on the Roman Remains found in Various Parts of London in the years 1834, 1835, 1836; by Mr. Charles Roach Smith. In Archaeologia, xxvii. pp. 140-153. In this wall, it is added, were cemented two large sea-shells, evidently for ornament. Sir William Gell notices this as a common practice in Pompeii. Close to the wall were found several of the second-brass coins of Vespasian and Domitian, and above it a fine Samian dish, with a hammer nearly a foot long, and some other iron tools.

[n.167.1] Account of Various Roman Antiquities, discovered on the site of the Church of St. Michael, Crooked Lane and in East Cheap; by A. J. Kempe, Esq. In Archaeologia, xxiv. 190, &c.

[n.167.2] Archaeologia, vol. xxvii. pp. 140, &c.