Chapter VI: Part 6

The citizens, in the reign of John, suffered considerable loss from the depredations of the Dauphin, who had been invited from France to assist the barons. In 1272 a riot between the monks and the citizens caused the burning of the priory. The terrible plague, called the black death, that occurred between 1348 and 1349, destroyed two-thirds of the population. The city no sooner was beginning to recover from this terrible visitation than one of its residents, John Listher, a dyer by profession, incited an insurrection called the Norfolk Levellers. They managed in 1381 to do much damage before the rebellion was quelled by the Bishop of Norwich, who defeated Listher and had him executed. From Henry IV. the citizens received permission to be governed by a mayor and sheriffs in 1403, and Norwich was made a county of itself. But in spite of it all the city severely suffered: what with the continued dissension between the monks and the citizens, when the monastic buildings were burnt down, and the tumults by tradesmen all too ready to lay aside their tools and follow some hare-brained leader with a grievance, and later on, after the peaceful period of Elizabeth, the Civil War. The most notable insurrection was that conducted under the reign of Edward VI. by a tanner, Robert Kett, and his brother William. Under the pretence of resisting the "enclosure of waste lands," they contrived to excite a most formidable rising. They seized upon the palace of the Earl of Surrey, and, converting it into a prison, confined many of the aristocracy. They then encamped upon Mouse-hold Heath, where eventually they were routed by the army under the Earl of Warwick in 1549. The two brothers were taken prisoners, Robert being hanged on Norwich Castle, and William suffering a like penalty on the steeple of Wymondham church, the parish from which they had both come. During the reign of Elizabeth a large body of Dutch and Walloons settled in Norwich, and introduced among many other articles the manufacture of bombazine, for which the city soon became noted. These refugees were Protestants, who had sought an asylum in England to escape the persecution of the Duke of Alva, and though many Roman Catholics and even some of the Protestants were unwilling martyrs to the stake at Norwich during this same reign of Elizabeth, the city no doubt appeared to these exiles to offer a better chance of life than that in the Netherlands. By the year 1582 their numbers had increased to five thousand. The Queen, who had encouraged and protected these emigrants, thus laid the foundation of the commercial and manufacturing prosperity of the town, as she had done elsewhere, and on her visit to Norwich was sumptuously feted. But the Civil War in Charles I.'s reign did much to upset trade in Norwich. It was held by the Parliamentarians, who seem to have got out of control. The Cathedral was barbarously defaced, all its plate and ornaments looted, and the Bishop's Palace greatly damaged. The Castle, on the other hand, was strongly fortified for Cromwell. After the Restoration, Norwich was one of the first to swear allegiance to Charles II., who with his consort paid it a visit. He went away richer than he came, the city having assigned its fee-farm to him, with the presentation of L1000 sterling besides. Since then the citizens have been content to lead a quiet life, and carry on such manufactures as ironworks, mustard, starch, and brewing of ale, though the textile manufacture, once important, has now declined. Printing, which was introduced here in 1570, but discontinued for several years, was revived in 1701, when newspapers began to be printed and circulated. Though, as we have seen, the monks and citizens often did not agree, yet we must not forget that it was mainly owing to the establishment of the See that prosperity came to Norwich. The presence of the Cathedral immediately rescued the city from oblivion, and, more, it raised it above the commonplace. All credit must be awarded to Herbert de Lozinga. For some reason or other he was dissatisfied with Thetford, which was then the seat of the Diocese, and determined to transfer it elsewhere. For this purpose in 1094 he purchased a large plot of ground near the Castle and soon commenced the building of a magnificent cathedral. It was purely Norman. Though it has undergone many alterations, additions, and restorations, Lozinga's plan is still in great evidence, much more so than many other examples of Norman work in England. With the establishment of a Benedictine monastery, Lozinga brought his work to a close, and dedicated it to Holy Trinity in 1101. As presented to us now, it is a spacious cruciform structure, with a highly finished and ornamental Norman tower rising from the centre. This again is surmounted by an elegant octagonal spire of the Later Decorated style, and crocketed at the angles. The spire is 315 feet, and its height is exceeded in England only by that at Salisbury. The west front is of Norman character, with a central entrance, over which was placed a large window in the Later English style. The nave, remarkable for its elaborate 328 bosses, was stone-vaulted in the fifteenth century. The vaulting of the transepts and the chantry of Bishop Nix dates from the sixteenth century. The choir is richly ornamented with excellent design in tracery work of the Later English style, whilst the east end has several circular chapels. The Lady Chapel, which was early English, was unfortunately demolished about 1580. The cloisters are very fine. They are 12 feet wide, and cover an area of 175 square feet, with 45 windows inserted. They were commenced in 1297 and completed in 1430. Though mainly composed of the Decorated period, they range in character from the early years of that style down to the Later English style. The Cathedral, in common with the city, suffered severely. At one time it was very much destroyed by fire. The dome was repaired soon after by John of Oxford, who was the fourth bishop.

THE AETHELBERT GATE]

Besides this it received repeated assaults arising from the numerous disagreements between the monks and the citizens. It is always marvellous to think how such great works of art have come down to the present day exhibiting, in spite of fires, Commonwealth defacements, repairs and alterations, so much evidence of the skill of those great masters of mediaeval architecture. The Chapter House, usually a great feature of the cathedral, is missing at Norwich, though it once existed. There are two monumental effigies, one to Bishop Goldwell about 1499, and the other to Bishop Bathurst in 1837, the work of Chantrey. Of the mural monuments there is one to Sir William Boleyn. He was the great-grandfather of Queen Elizabeth. His remains were interred on the south side of the Presbytery, in the midst of which once stood the tomb of Herbert de Lozinga, the founder. "Best viewed from the east," wrote George Borrow in "The Lavengro" in a description of Norwich Cathedral. Perhaps the advice of this extraordinary man is the best one to follow. Born at East Dereham, Norfolk, in 1803, of Cornish descent, educated at Norwich Grammar School, which he supplemented with the study of some twenty languages, he passed an adventurous and varied career from running away from Norwich to be a footpad to travelling partly with gypsies over Europe and Asia, the latter part being supposed to account for his disappearance--the veiled period he called it, lasting from 1826 to 1833. In subsequent years he found time between his restless wanderings to write "The Gypsies in Spain" (1841), "The Bible in Spain" (1843), the much delayed auto-biography, appearing in 1851, and "The Romany Rye" in 1857. After another long disappearance, when it was believed he was dead, he came to life again by publishing his "Romano Lavo-Lil" (Gypsy Word-Book) in 1874. From this year till his death in 1881 the famous philologist, traveller, and author spent most of his time in lodgings in Norwich, where he became a familiar figure. The lives of many men can lay a better claim to be recognised by Norwich than Borrow, through virtue of their birthright. In the fourteenth century William Bateman, one time Bishop of Norwich, founded the great college of Trinity Hall at Cambridge. His great example was followed by another native of Norwich, Dr. Kaye or Caius, who established the beautiful college of Gonville and Caius at the same university. Matthew Parker, second Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury, as chaplain attended Queen Anne Boleyn to the scaffold; Robert Green became a popular writer in the reign of Elizabeth. In 1734 Edward King was born here. He gained much recognition as author of a work on ancient architecture entitled "Munimenta Antiqua," and for his many antiquarian researches was admitted Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. The Reverend William Beloe acquired a reputation by his translation of Herodotus, though possibly only known to classical scholars. The Linnaean Society owes its inception to Sir James Edward Smith, M. D., whose first president he became. This distinguished native of Norwich was also the author of the "Flora Britannica."

The beautiful gate of Erpingham, which was erected in 1420 and faces the west end of the Cathedral, recalls the munificence of Sir Thomas Erpingham, by whom it was built. He greatly distinguished himself at the battle of Agincourt, and was eventually interred in the Cathedral of Norwich, the town of his residence, though not of his birth. Another resident was Sir John Fastof, who lived fighting as a renowned warrior for Henry IV., V., and VI. in their wars in France.

FROM THE NORTHEAST]

From the old Grammar School came, besides Borrow, Sir Edward Coke, who was born in Norfolk. When only forty years of age he became Attorney-General, and lived in the reign of Elizabeth, always at strife with his dangerous and brilliant legal rival, Francis Bacon. Coke, by his opposition to the royal prerogative of raising money on the validity of the Court of High Commission, and in taking a considerable share in the drawing up of the Petition of Right, and in the debates upon the conduct of Buckingham, earned the dislike of James I. Though treading on dangerous ground, Coke nevertheless received active employment, and appears to have got on quite well in spite of royal displeasure.

Two other scholars were Brooke and Lord Nelson. Brooke entered the East India Company's army in 1819 at the age of sixteen. In his remarkable career he assisted the Sultan of Brunti to reduce the marauding Dyak tribes of Sarawak, and with such success that the Sultan created him rajah of the province of Sarawak in 1841.

A famous school of landscape painting was that at Norwich. It flourished in the first part of the nineteenth century, the principal artists of which were Crome,--who by the way was a native of Norwich,--Cotman, Vincent, and Stark.

Of recent years the Cathedral has undergone extensive restoration, namely, in 1892 and 1900.

Before closing this account we think it would be of interest to outline the causes that embittered the existence of the Jews and led to their persecution through the disappearance of a Christian boy in 1144 from Norwich.

We have had occasion, under Lincoln, to mention the attitude adopted by the citizens towards the Jews. If anything, the feeling was more intense at Norwich. It is uncertain when they first resided in England, though it is supposed they visited before the Conquest for purposes of the slave trade, of which they held a monopoly. The position of the Jews in a Christian State entirely depended upon the attitude of the Church, whose stringent measures effectually precluded any Semitic from the exercise of any public office unless the reception was confirmed by oaths of a Christian character. As this clause was foreign to the tenets of the Hebrew religion, and as the Church regarded the means of loans lent out on interest as prohibited by the Gospel, and as a disreputable calling and unworthy of a Christian, usury became the only means of subsistence to the Jew in England. They were not affected by the views of the Church, and soon made themselves felt. As, however, capital was needed for the building of monasteries, abbeys, and cathedrals by the Church, and the kings of England, especially John and Henry III., found it convenient to extort tallage, the Jews were tolerated. The rate of interest demanded for what was in the first place a trifling loan in a few years increased to a formidable debt. The means adopted by the Christian Church and kings of the middle ages to free themselves from this bondage in no way reflect any honour. The custom appears to have been for the king to seize the whole of the estate, both treasure and debts, of the Jew on his demise, though there may have been sons to inherit. Another was to burn the proofs of indebtedness after having slain the creditors, as the attack against the Jews organised by a set of nobles, who were deep in their debt, is recorded to have taken place at York. For the Jew being a usurer, the estate fell into the hands of the King, who might be influenced to cancel the debt for a much smaller amount. We cannot then wonder that the lower classes followed in the steps of their superiors. But above all, in the twelfth century the Church encouraged the circulation of a suspicion that the Jews sacrificed Christian children in their Passover. However, the suspicion or "blood accusation," as it was called, first took root with a case in which a boy of the name of William disappeared at Norwich. This terrible accusation against the Jews has since been proved to have been founded on the shallowest pretexts, but at the time the myth was nevertheless encouraged by the clergy, since it attracted vast numbers of pilgrims to any cathedral or church which might contain the martyred remains of these boy-saints. The example of Norwich was followed in the same century by one at Gloucester and Edmondsbury, whilst in the following century the supposed martyrdom of Hugh of Lincoln served only to increase and confirm the popular belief. Hence the intense ill-feeling between the Christian and the Jew.

London

St. Paul's.

Si quaeris monumentum, circumspice.

No epitaph more noble and impressive can have possibly been conceived than the simple Latin inscription placed upon the modest tomb of Christopher Wren: "If ye seek my monument, look around." When building this magnificent structure, the great architect was preparing a glorious sepulchre to receive his remains. Some thirty-five years it took Wren to realise this great achievement--an achievement the more astounding when we learn that he was actively engaged throughout the whole time in the planning and personal superintendence of some thirty churches in London, no two of which are alike. Daily he walked around jotting down a sketch of the next detail to be worked upon, deciding, as the work progressed, and maturing his plans, throwing out one day a course, another day realising an idea that had just occurred to him. Thus the fabric rose higher day by day, month by month, year by year. He adhered to no carefully prepared plans; he entrusted nothing to his subordinates; he hugged the entire responsibility. They did not know what phase of work the morrow would bring. On the day each workman would receive a rough section and plan jotted down on the spot, accompanied with verbal instructions. If, even when finished according to his directions, Wren was dissatisfied with this gem of his brain, down it had to come, to be substituted by some other improved idea. Of course Wren had in the first place to submit plans for the proposed cathedral. It is not likely that any committee would engage in anything so important blindfolded. But these plans only formed the shell on which to peg any new suggestions that might crop up in the progress of the work, very much after the fashion of a plastic sketch submitted by the sculptor to a committee, who look wise and generally make foolish comments. The sketch is merely an indication of what is to come after, and is intended as some guarantee. Without this no conscientious committee would commit themselves to any agreement. They control the expenditure of the public subscriptions. If the finished work does not come up to the promised standard of excellence, the committee can fall back upon the sketch and get exonerated of all culpable blame. The artist gets the abuse for the failure or departure from the original. When such necessarily rough sketches are faithfully carried out, they often are failures; for what look well in a rough sketch often become serious blemishes in the completed work. The true artist is never satisfied--that is, that extraordinary being who has a greater love for art than for mere coin--and will alter and improve upon his original design at every suggestion (and they crowd thick upon him) that makes itself manifest, with a total disregard to his own pocket and that punctuality so essential to the successful city man. He has got his ideal, and he is determined to reach it if he has to go through a brick wall.

Very much in the same way, we may be sure, Wren was actuated. His pay was no inducement. He received only L200 a year throughout the whole time of building, and then at one time a certain portion of this miserable pittance was withheld by order of Parliament, because his detractors accused him of delaying the final completion of the work from corrupt motives. Wren's clerk of the works, by name Nicholas Hawksmoor, who afterwards became famous as the builder of several London churches, was paid only twenty pence a day. Tijou, his ironworker, and Grinling Gibbons, the famous carver in wood, were all actuated by the same ideal when they helped to give expression to their master's genius. However, in one or two particulars, which will be mentioned later on, Wren's superior judgment was overruled by his committee. Much to his intense and lasting mortification they carried the day and stamped themselves as incompetent judges. This process of realisation, this seeking after an ideal, sometimes led Wren into strange architectural difficulties, only to be overcome in a masterly way. By discovering these little inconsistencies, the architect's skilfulness in taking advantage of accidents, in turning what appeared an irremediable blunder into a great success, shows what a complete understanding he had in that great branch of art--architecture--and endorses more than ever the great position he will always be accorded.

An example will serve to illustrate his ingenuity.

How many people, when climbing up the stairs that lead to the whispering gallery and elsewhere, have ever noticed any peculiarity about them? Yet there is one. When first they were being built each step was meant to be of the same height, but as they mounted higher, Wren suddenly discovered that the top one would be an ugly tall one to ascend. To avoid this meant one of two things, either to demolish what had already been completed and start afresh, or to turn this accident to good account. The latter alternative was chosen. By gradually reducing the height of the remaining steps, he contrived to overcome the difficulty so successfully that he has tricked the eye and foot, so slight is the difference of each tread. They appear to be equidistant as the ones lower down, and the illusion can only be dispelled by measurement.

If any one is observant on reaching the top of Ludgate Hill, one peculiarity of the great building will strike him. It is that the great west facade does not squarely face Ludgate Hill, but bears considerably to the right. In fact its axis does not run due east and west.

On the advancement of Wren to be principal architect, he was not only commissioned to erect the Cathedral, but was to rebuild the city. His scheme was very thorough. It comprised the widening of the streets; the complete insulation of all important churches; the public buildings were to have good frontages; and the halls of the City Guilds were to form a quadrangle around the Guildhall. To carry these improvements into effect, Government issued orders that none except Wren's rebuilding would be recognised. Unfortunately much valuable time was wasted in an attempt at the restoration of the old cathedral, insisted upon by the committee, against Wren's wishes, and it was only when a portion of the nave fell down that Dean Sancroft was able to obtain the consent of the committee to raze the old walls to the ground and to allow Wren to build from the very foundations. The delay of this decision had in the meanwhile given opportunity to individuals to erect buildings much as they pleased upon their own properties in spite of Government prohibition, with the result that to a great extent streets and boundaries, which existed before the Great Fire, were reproduced. It also caused the loss of a far more spacious frontage than now exists, which we may be sure formed an important item in Wren's design for the Cathedral. The architect, however, by receding the west front from the old site now occupied by the statue of Queen Ann, has cleverly spaced out a noble frontage. Another consideration that determined Wren to alter the axis of the Cathedral was his great aversion to utilising the old foundations. His great ambition was to strike out for himself and to be dependent on no one else's work. In order to realise this he laid the axis of the new work to a point farther north of that of the old cathedral, and the plan by this projection has in a marvellous way covered practically the same ground, whilst at the same time Wren managed to secure fresh ground for his foundations almost throughout the whole church. The plan of St. Paul's is a Latin cross, and is based upon classical lines. The principal front, the west, is composed of a double portico of Corinthian fluted pillars, with two flights of steps leading down to the road-level. In fact the entire body of the ground floor is above the elevation of the street. Overhead is a large pediment, with its panel sculptured in high relief. On either side the west front is flanked by a campanile tower, composed at the summit of grouped circular pillars. Just inside, on the left, is the Morning Chapel, whilst straight on the opposite side lies the Chapel of the Order of St. Michael and St. George. Proceeding eastwards, the nave is flanked by three massive and imposing arches. Then comes the dome or cupola, rising to a height of 365 feet, or 404 feet to the top of the cross. Viewed from the interior the inner dome is 225 feet, and rests at the intersection of the cross. The transepts are carried one arch to the north and one to the south, each of which are bound by semi-circular rows of Corinthian pillars.

Continuing again towards the east, a couple of steps mark the commencement of the choir leading from the dome, and is carried forward by three arches on either side. Behind the altar the colossal building terminates in the apsidal Chapel of Jesus. Throughout the entire length and breadth of the building is the crypt below. There under the choir, the nearest to the south wall in the crypt chapel, is the modest slab that covers the remains of the great architect of the grand edifice. Next to him lies the body of Lord Leighton, the greatest president the Royal Academy has ever had. Just in the one corner are buried some of the most eminent of England's painters, sculptors, and musicians. Those more generally known are Sir Joshua Reynolds, the first president of the Royal Academy; Benjamin West, who succeeded him in office; Sir Thomas Lawrence, who next filled it, and Sir John Millais, who held the dignity only a few months after Leighton's death. The remains of J. M. W. Turner, James Barry, John Foley, Sir Edwin Landseer, and Sir Arthur Sullivan, musician, who are also some of the many great builders of art, have all been accorded a little plot of ground close to their very great brother-artist and predecessor, Sir Christopher Wren. In the centre of the crypt, or rather right underneath the dome, is a noble mausoleum containing the body of England's greatest admiral, Viscount Horatio Nelson, whilst just close to him between the crypt chapel and the dome is the massive sarcophagus of granite, encased in which is the body of the Duke of Wellington. The monument of this hero of Waterloo is the chief feature of the plastic art that attracts the visitor on looking up the nave. It is the great artistic expression of Stevens, the sculptor, and dwarfs all other monuments in its immediate neighbourhood. We would like to enumerate the names of all the great men that lie in the mighty shadow of St. Paul's, and pay some tribute to the many artists who have, through their monuments, endeavoured their best to honour the memories of those who have so worthily upheld the traditions of the great empire; but any such attempt we feel we must relinquish, and devote all the space we can to Wren's work and to that of his predecessors.

The wonderful wood-carving of the choir stall, and especially the remarkable realistic floral designs of the Bishop's throne, were executed by Grinling Gibbons, who lived between 1648 and 1720. He was born at Rotterdam, and as a youth came over to England, and was discovered by Evelyn, the diarist. So astonished was Evelyn by the genius of Gibbons, who had just carved in wood a copy of Tintoretto's "Crucifixion," that he introduced him to Wren, Pepys, and the King. With such powerful friends and his marvellous talent he soon became the most famous carver of his age. In viewing the great edifice one cannot help thinking from whence came the money which enabled Wren to carry on the work. With the exception of the Tillingham farm there were no endowments, and people were, after the fire, far from being generous donors. As funds were absolutely necessary, royal warrants were issued to authorise the building committee to borrow on the security of the coal and wine taxes. As the remuneration of Wren, Grinling Gibbons, and Tijou was nothing to speak of, we may take it that practically the whole of the proceeds was sunk in the materials and the workmen's wages.

Throughout the whole time of building Wren was harassed by petty annoyances on the part of the committee, who interfered in small matters of technical and artistic knowledge which lay quite beyond their province. Against the architect's will they insisted upon the erection of the heavy iron railings which fence in the Cathedral and mar the beautiful gradations of lines from the lowest step of the transept entrances to the summit of the dome's cross. This only serves as one of many such instances. Finally, Wren's persecutors went so far as to suspend his patent in the year 1718, being the forty-ninth of his office and the eighty-sixth of his age, and William Benson was appointed to succeed him.

This abrupt dismissal entirely upset any plan of internal decoration which Wren might have been thinking of, though it is supposed he had proposed to enrich and beautify St. Paul's with a scheme of colour composed of marble and mosaic work with gold and paintings. With the exception of the frescoes in the dome by Sir James Thornhill, nothing of importance was done for fifty years after Wren's death. A proposal to contribute a number of paintings from Sir Joshua Reynolds and the members of the Royal Academy was negatived by Dr. Terrick, who was Bishop of London at that time. In 1891 W. B. Richmond, A.R.A., was commissioned to decorate the choir and the dome with mosaic work, it being considered the most suitable material on account of the brilliancy of its surface, and the easiest to clean without risk of injury to the work. Sir William Richmond, K.C.B. (as he has since been created), decided to depart from modern methods in favour of the ancient way of embedding in cement cubes, so chosen and disposed to suit the various shades of his subjects. They represent various incidents taken from the Bible, treated most skilfully, as one would naturally expect from such a talented artist.

The difficulties of such an undertaking, restricted within certain limits as it must be by the nature of the material, together with the many attendant side-issues of which the outside public have not the faintest idea, can only be known to the artist himself, and perhaps to some of his _confreres_.

In course of erection is the gilt iron balustrade upon the cornice that runs round the church in continuation of that commenced by Wren at the west end. This is the gift of Mr. Somers Clarke. He has also designed the fittings for the installation of the electric light, which is the generous presentation of Mr. Pierpont Morgan.

In conclusion, we cannot help recalling the incident that cheered the closing years of Wren. Once every year the aged artist came from his retirement at Hampton Court to London, to spend the day seated beneath the great dome, happy to view the creation of his great intellect, though possibly disturbed now and then by a little grain of discontent: how much better he could do it now, if only he had youth and opportunity--a worry that only assails the true artist.

In the natural sequence of dates we ought to have opened this account with the earlier foundations. This we purposely disregarded, and introduced the reader straightway to the most beautiful and impressive building of St. Paul's that the site has ever had, leaving the others to be dealt with until now.

The earliest known house for religious observance on the site of the present cathedral was a temple. In accordance with the usual practice of early founders, it is not surprising to find that the site selected for it was upon the highest spot of ground in the city. If we follow the accounts of old London, it would have been folly for the Romans to have erected an important building like a temple upon a lower level, which might have got swamped by an unusual rising of the tidal Thames. Apart from such consideration, it was not the Roman custom to debase, but rather to elevate as high as possible, any object they held in great reverence. It would form also a convenient centre to rally round in defence of any attack. In all accounts of the site of St. Paul's the writers have plenty to say about the three churches, but seldom, if ever, allude to the temple erected by the Romans.

This is the more curious when etymologists have endeavoured to explain the affinity of Christian symbols to those of heathenism, showing how it was clearly impossible, and hardly to be expected, that pagan customs should be suddenly arrested and completely abolished, and an entire set of new observances introduced expressly for the new faith--Christianity. Such a sudden change could not, they contend, be thrust upon a people brought up to revere the old heathen deities and observe customs rendered sacred through superstition and countless ages. They required a gradual weaning, and this, so they say, was done by christianising the pagan symbols derived from nature-worship and adapting them to meet the requirements of the new faith,--symbols which, in course of time, became so clothed that their original significance was lost sight of.

It would greatly astonish all devout Christians to learn that the many objects they look up to with sacred awe and wonder of mystery, the inverted triangles which often form an ornament in church windows, the facing towards the east, even the derivation of the very nave they may happen to be in, with a variety of other symbols, existed long before Christianity was ever thought of. It may also be a little disturbing to learn that, quite unintentionally, they are indirectly paying respect to many of the most heathen observances cloaked under the garb of Christian religion. It is far from our intention to advocate a return to pagan darkness, but if this be really true, surely there is a very close connection between the temple and the Christian church. For this very reason, and the more so in that certain lines of their argument are not to be refuted, we would accord a greater importance than has been hitherto done to the Roman temple that undoubtedly first stood on the prominent piece of land in the London of those days. We do not mean to say that at the time this temple was erected to Diana the sufferings and crucifixion of Our Lord had not already borne fruit, but the very existence of the temple clearly indicates that in London, at any rate, the new faith was very much in its infancy, if it existed at all. But the demolition of the temple, to make room for the first Christian church, which was in turn destroyed in 302 during the Diocletian persecution, clearly gives evidence that there must have been growing indications of the presence of converts and missionaries which led to the erection of the latter from the ruins of the former.

A matter of twenty years later, in the reign of Constantine, the church was rebuilt, and completed by 337. What the shape of the first one was can only be conjectured. It would most probably be based upon the temple. The second was undoubtedly Romanesque, if we can rely upon the dates of its rebuilding. They fall conveniently between 306 and 337, a period of marvellous development of ecclesiastical architecture based upon classical remains, which the favourable attitude of Constantine towards Christianity encouraged. Converts in Rome had increased to such numbers that it was felt that some covered-in space was essential to protect the congregation against the sun's hot rays and inclement weather, the more especially as such a building, far from attracting hostile attention, would serve to the furtherance of Christianity. The form it took was the conversion of the basilica. As anything that came from Rome was looked upon as a correct thing to copy, it is not surprising to learn that travelling merchants and missionaries were able to control the taste of the cities they passed through. In this way each country adopted the basilica, though in many features they differed from each other, consequent on customs, surroundings, and climatic conditions. However, about the year 597, the pagan Saxons appear to have destroyed the church. We come then to the first church of St. Paul's of which we have authentic record. It was built by Ethelbert, King of Kent, in 607. He had first to obtain the sanction of Sebert, who claimed London as being in his dominion of the East Angles. To this see Mellitus was appointed as the first bishop. He was one of the forty monks who had accompanied Augustine in 597 to help to carry out Pope Gregory the Great's scheme, which was to divide England into two provinces with metropolitans of equal dignity at London and York, with twelve suffragans to each. Since then London's see has become third, ranking next to York. In the course of four hundred and eighty years, 607-1087, no doubt Ethelbert's church underwent considerable alteration, probably commencing with a very humble building, perhaps chiefly of wood, and as portions got out of repair such characteristics of stone buildings, as learnt from travellers returning from Italy, were introduced, thus gradually transforming the Saxon church to architecture "in the Roman way." For after the departure of the Romans the Britons at first appear to have returned to primitive methods of architecture. It is only as time progressed that they gradually became initiated, through the visits of travellers, into the working of stone, which, after the arrival of the Normans, came into more general practice.

ST. PAUL'S AND LUDGATE HILL]

To provide for the maintenance of St. Paul's, Ethelbert endowed it with a farm at Tillingham in Essex. The property is still managed, the rents of which are controlled by the Dean and Chapter.

The chief event which took place within its walls was the first great Ecclesiastical Council of the English Church under the presidency of Archbishop Lanfranc. Twelve years afterwards, in 1087, a great conflagration completely destroyed the church. No time was lost, for apparently in the same year building operations were put in hand for what many writers call Old St. Paul's, the second church. By this time we may take it that architecture in England had advanced considerably, and if anything it was a rather fortunate accident that overtook Ethelbert's building. The nation had by now realised that 1000 A.D. was the dreaded millennium of the past; they recognised they had a stern master in William the Conqueror, who, though he might be harsh upon them, would allow no one else to be so. For some years prior to the millennium few buildings of any importance were erected, so thoroughly had the mind been terrorised at the prospect of the world coming to an end, and even after it had proved false, the reaction does not seem to have taken place till the accession of the Norman. When it did occur, we see by examples now extant what a great advance architecture had made, or rather, the knowledge of stone-work had become more general. This can only be attributed to the monks and stonemasons who followed in the wake of the Conquest. The plan of the Norman church of St. Paul's was the Latin cross. The body of it appears to have been narrower and considerably longer than Wren's cathedral. In fact we are much indebted to the numerous discoveries of Mr. Penrose, and we learn that the west front came right to the fore of Queen Anne's statue, which then did not exist. Another great difference was that the axis of Old St. Paul's, as one faces the west front, was more to the left of the statue, whereas that of the present building runs right through the centre of it. At the outset the Cathedral consisted of a nave of twelve bays, transepts, and a short apsidal choir built in the round arched style peculiar to Norman architecture. The whole then stood within spacious precincts enclosed by a continuous wall. In the wall were six gates. The principal one opened in the west on to Ludgate Hill, whilst the second, at St. Paul's Alley, led to "Little North Dore"; the third, at Canon's Alley, showed the way to the north transept door; the fourth was called Little Gate, and led from Cheapside to Paul's Cross (where now stands a fountain); the fifth, St. Augustine's Gate, faced Watling Street; and the sixth was the entrance from the side of the river to the south transept. A matter of 130 years later, it was decided to extend eastwards from the choir and introduce the newly developed style, which was the use of the pointed arch. The new work, consisting of eight bays, was carried out, but it caused the demolition of the old parish church of St. Faith, which lay right in the course. As some compensation the parishioners were allowed to use a portion of the crypt under the new choir as their parish church. After the Great Fire much controversy arose. The parishioners of St. Faith's claimed their right to bury their dead in the whole space beneath the choir of Wren's cathedral. This the Chapter disallowing, a lawsuit ensued, which resulted in a compromise, the parishioners being satisfied with rights of burial in the north aisle of the crypt. The "new work" was solemnly dedicated in 1240. In the meantime a spire, 489 feet in height, was put in hand and was finally completed in 1315. The spire of Old St. Paul's proved to be a great source of anxiety. It was struck by lightning three times, and eventually was completely destroyed by fire, from a fourth lightning in the reign of Elizabeth, in 1561. It was never put up again. Right in the angle of the south transept and the nave existed a fair-sized Chapter House, which appears to have had cloisters, the remains of which can still be seen in the gardens on the south side of the nave, whilst on the north side of the choir the position of Paul's Cross is defined by the insertion of stones let into the ground. Paul's Cross, which by order of Parliament was demolished in 1643, was a pulpit of wood, mounted upon steps of stone, and covered with lead. At this place, the Court, the Mayor, the Aldermen, and the chief citizens used to assemble to listen to sermons from the most eminent divines, who were appointed to preach every Sunday in the forenoon. It was used as early as 1259, and not only were sermons delivered from it, but also political and ecclesiastical discourses were held.

Old St. Paul's, by the time of Charles I., got into such a terrible state of dilapidation that steps were taken to put it into thorough repair. A fund was established and the work was intrusted to Inigo Jones. He got as far as the refacing of the Cathedral inside and out, and the adding of a classical portico, when his labours were interrupted by the Commonwealth. The famous architect died before the Restoration. In the meantime Cromwell's troops did considerable damage, what with stabling their horses within the sacred edifice and employing their leisure time in defacing the building. They removed and sold the scaffolding, which Inigo Jones had set up for the purpose of restoring the vaulting, and in consequence much of the roof-work fell down. At the Restoration, Dr. Wren, as he was then called, was appointed Assistant-Surveyor-General of his Majesty's Works, and instructed to repair the fabric. However, on September 2, 1666, the Great Fire of London broke out and completely destroyed Old St. Paul's. Instead of carrying out his scheme of restoration, Wren was afterwards enabled to leave to posterity this masterpiece of genius that took him from the year 1675 till the year 1710 to realise.

How is one to describe London, the capital of the British Empire, and the largest city in the world? The subject-matter would take volumes, if an exhaustive treatise be required. Here it necessarily can only be a slight sketch. If we are to put any reliance on Geoffrey of Monmouth, a city existed here 1107 years before Christ was born, and 354 even before Rome came into existence. The founder, he asserts, was Brute, a lineal descendant of the Trojan AEneas, by whom the city was called New Troy, or Troy-novant, till the advent of Lud, who changed it to Coer Lud or Lud-town, and encompassed it with walls. Though the king's name is made evident in Ludgate Hill, which runs up to St. Paul's west front, this author's statements are considered as pleasing fictions by serious-minded authorities. Again, it is said to have been the capital of the Trinobantes in 54 B.C. With the arrival of the Romans we get more definite information, yet we are inclined to think that they must have found some kind of a British settlement, the more especially if we bear in mind that, until the Romans came, the mouth of the Thames was close at hand. The Thames of to-day was not the Thames of that time. It was very much shallower, possibly quite easy to ford at low tide. This was caused by the great inundation over large tracts of the counties of Kent and Essex, which took place every time it became high tide.

Till the Romans set the example of reclaiming the land and confining the river to its channel, a great volume of water had thus expended itself and reduced the depth considerably. But to the early Britons, where the higher level of land checked and brought back the wandering Thames, to continue its upward course within its proper confinement, must have appeared the mouth. In their belief that such was the case it is only natural to suppose that the Britons would take advantage of such an excellent site. A clearing was gradually made, for London was well wooded once, on the highest ground, which would be somewhere from the site of St. Paul's to as far as the Bank of England, and a temple was erected within some groves. To the Romans in 61 A.D. it was known as Londinium or Colonia Augusta, the former, no doubt, being a Latinised form of Lyn-Din, meaning "the town on the lake." Boadicea, Queen of the Iceni, in the same year is credited with having reduced it to ashes, and to have put 70,000 Romans and strangers to the sword. This wholesale slaughter was punished, in the same year, by Suetonius, who retaliated by a massacre of 80,000 Britons, a defeat that so preyed upon Boadicea that she promptly poisoned herself. Tacitus, the Roman historian, who lived about 90 years after Christ, relates how Suetonius felt constrained to abandon London, "that place of busy traffic and thronged with traders," to the British, because he did not feel equal to the task of defending it. This is surely a proof that London was no mushroom city, though Tacitus makes no mention of a mint, as he does when he describes Verulamium and Camulodum. There also appears to have been another British settlement on the south bank, now known as Southwark. This district, by the way, has just within the last few days been erected into a see with the cathedral, or throne, installed in its fine old church of St. Saviour. This is where Gower, the father of English poets, is interred, and is honoured with a quaint coloured monument principally of carved wood, and the holy precincts also contain the remains of Shakespeare's brother. Southwark is the Londinium attributed to Ptolemy's description as being on the south bank of the Thames, though it does not discredit the existence of that on the north. As to the actual size and exact site of early London, it will be many years before that can be accurately determined. As old buildings are pulled down and excavations are made for foundations, speculation becomes much narrowed. The discoveries by Wren, and recently by Mr. Arthur Taylor, the late Mr. H. Black, Mr. Roach-Smith and Mr. J. E. Price, one of our greatest authorities, have thrown much light on early London. It has been found that cemeteries once existed in Cheapside, on the site of St. Paul's, close to Newgate and elsewhere, which are known to date from the Later Roman period. On the assumption that it was an illegal Roman practice to bury the dead within the city walls, it follows they must have been outside, thus limiting the habitable area.

As to when and where the first bridge spanned the Thames are points difficult to decide. Sir George Airy supposes that the bridge mentioned by Dion Cassius (43 A.D.) at the mouth of the Thames was not far from the site of London Bridge, on the inference that the mouth of the Thames of early times was close to this site. Dr. Guest, on the other hand, recognises it as a bridge made by the Britons, but places it as being constructed over the marshy valley of the Lea, near Stratford, his theory being that the Britons would have been unable to bridge over a tidal river like the Thames with the width of three hundred yards, and a difference of nearly twenty feet in the rise and fall of the water. From remains found of ancient piles in the river-bed, and the great number of Roman coins, a well-known practice observed by this Latin race to commemorate any important undertaking, antiquarians seem to agree that there was a Roman bridge in the Anno Domini period of their occupation, and that indications point to its location at London Bridge. In their time London was a port of considerable importance. As many as eight hundred vessels are said to have been employed in exporting corn alone in the year 359, which shows that agriculture was in full swing. With the departure of the Romans in 409 the city became the capital of the Saxon kingdom of Essex, and was called Lundenceaster. Subsequent events of importance are those that occurred under the dynasties of the Norman (1066-1154), the Plantagenet (1154-1485), the Tudor (1485-1603), the Stuart (1603-1714), interrupted in the midst by Cromwell's Protectorate, and finally the Hanoverian succession, which brings us down to this year of grace, with Edward VII., King of Great Britain and Ireland, Emperor of India, and monarch of the greatest and most prosperous empire. To attempt to give a detailed account of all that happened under the successive heads of the State is clearly impossible. Two events, however, stand out prominently. One was the Great Plague of London that commenced in December 1664, and carried off a matter of ninety thousand victims. The horrors of this pestilence are graphically described in the Diary of Samuel Pepys, who was an eye-witness. Daniel Defoe, though writing some years after, has given us a wonderfully realistic account in his "History of the Plague." Fires were kept up night and day, to purify the air, for three days. No sooner did the infection come to an end than the great conflagration of September 2, 1666, broke out. It began at one o'clock in the morning in a baker's shop in Pudding Lane, behind Monument Yard. It spread from the Tower to the Temple Church of the Middle Temple in Fleet Street, and away to Holborn. In the short space of four days it destroyed eighty-nine churches (including St. Paul's), the city gates, the Royal Exchange, the Custom House, Guildhall, Sion College, and many other public buildings, besides some fourteen thousand houses and the ruin of four hundred streets. The Monument, built by Wren in 1671-1672, commemorates the origin of the fire, 202 feet from its base.

It is only within recent years that London--by which is meant London in its broadest sense; that is, including the city and excluding the suburbs--has been divided into a number of townships. It is now no longer correct to call Marylebone, Paddington, and many other such, "parishes." They are all boroughs, and possess a mayor and corporation of their own, each with a townhall to support the dignity. They have a certain amount to say in local affairs, the more important being under the control of the London County Council, who in turn hold themselves responsible to Parliament.