"nately compiled, as he obferved, of Layers of "broad flat Bricks, exactly of the Roman Stand"ard, and of Rag-ftone, cemented with a Mor"tar fo very firm and hard that the Stone itself as eafily gave Way as that." Whereas the Superftructure, though carried up of the fame Thicknefs, was neither of fuch elegant Workmanship, nor fuch good Mortar; nor was there one of the broad thin Roman Bricks to be found in any Part of the upper Wall.

The Foundation here fpoken of was about nine Feet under Ground: Hence it appears that the Roman Works, by whatever Means it has happened, was funk fo far below the prefent Surface of the City, as no-where to be discovered but by digging, and this being only partial, in different Places, and at different Times, no certain Conclufions can be drawn from the Parts thus accidentally brought to Light, except more Care and Pains, as well as Charge, were beftowed in examining their Courfe, and determining their Extent. Indeed, if fome public fpirited Magistrate should arife, who being himself excited by a laudable Defire of promoting Difcoveries of this Kind, would give Encouragement to a certain Number of ingenious Workmen to employ their Time in fuch Pursuits, I make no Question, but by a careful Comparison of the Discoveries that have already been made, with those that might foon be made, the Limits of the Roman City would ftill be made appear, and the Point decided how much our Saxon Ancestors owed to their Predeceffors the Romans, and what the Norman Invaders owed to both; or, in other Words, where each left off, and the other began; a Matter, it must be owned, rather of Curiofity than Ufe.

From

From where Ludgate ftood, there is little of the Old Wall remaining; but the Measurements of the ancient Line are thus preferved: From Ludgate to Fleet-Ditch, weftward, is 450 Feet; from thence to the River Thames, 780 Feet; and from Fleet-Ditch, eastward, to the White Tower, to which the City Wall was anciently joined, 5950 Feet; fo that the whole Circumference of the City within the Walls is just three Miles and 165 Feet. That the City was formerly walled on the South Side along the River Thames, appears from Fitz Stephens, a Writer in the Time of Henry II. who fays, that the Wall on the North was in the Form of a Bow, and on the South like the String of it; and further, that the Ebbing and Flowing of the Thames had then wholly washed it down on that Side.

The firft building of the City Wall is fixed by Maitland to the Era of Theodofius in 368; by others to that of Hellena, Mother of Conftantine, about 60 Years earlier; but by Stow, to the Year 434; about which Time the City took the Name of Augufta. In 839 the old Wall was demolished; in 886 restored; in 994 and 1016 it was much injured by the Danes; but in 1215 repaired by the Barons, who, as Authors fáy, plundered and demolished the Houfes of the Jews, and with the Stones repaired the City Walls; and indeed a late Discovery of a Stone, with and old Hebrew Infcription upon it, found in the old Wall on the Backfide of Bethlem, seems to confirm this Fact.

Among the Gates formerly belonging to the City, the Bridge-Gate has been accounted one; but as it never could belong to the Walls I fee no Reason for extending it's Antiquity, as fome have done, beyond the Æra of the Bridge. It is as idle to fuppofe the Bridge built for the Convenience of

2

the

the Gate, and not the Gate for the Defence of the Bridge; as to fuppose Westminster built for the Sake of the Abbey, and not the Abbey for the Ufe of Westminster. Such Conjectures as these deferve no ferious Refutation. London-Bridge was erected about the Beginning of the 13th Century, and to that Time we muft refer the firft Erection of BridgeGate; but in 1726, the old Structure being much damaged by Fire, it was foon after repaired, and in 1728 finished as it now appears.-This fhort Account of the Antiquities of London may hereafter be resumed, if the imperfect Specimen here offered has the good Fortune to be favourably received.