London and the Kingdom - Volume I | Page 5

the Earl of Shrewsbury. The
cutlery trade, even in those days, was the main-stay of the town, and
yet the earl could make and unmake the rules and ordinances which
governed the Cutlers' Company, and could claim one half of the fines
imposed on its members.(5)
When, during the reign of Charles II, nearly every municipal borough
in the kingdom was forced to surrender its charter to the king, the
citizens of Durham surrendered theirs to the Bishop, who, to the intense
horror of a contemporary writer, reserved to himself and his successors
in the See the power of approving and confirming the mayor, aldermen,
recorder, and common council of that city.(6)

(M4)
The commercial greatness of London can be traced back to the time of
the Roman occupation of Britain. From being little more than a
stockaded fort, situate at a point on the river's bank which admitted of
an easy passage by ferry across to Southwark, London prospered under
the protection afforded to its traders by the presence of the Roman
legions, but it never in those days became the capital of the province.
Although a flourishing centre of commerce in the middle of the first
century of the Christian era, it was not deemed of sufficient importance
by Suetonius, the Roman general, to run the risk of defending against
Boadicea,(7) and although thought worthy of the title of Augusta--a
name bestowed only on towns of exceptional standing--the Romans did
not hesitate to leave both town and province to their fate as soon as
danger threatened them nearer home.
(M5)
For military no less than for commercial purposes--and the Roman
occupation of Britain was mainly a military one--good roads were
essential, and these the Romans excelled in making. It is remarkable
that in the Itinerary of Antoninus Pius, London figures either as the
starting point or as the terminus to nearly one-half of the routes
described in the portion relating to Britain.(8) The name of one and
only one of these Roman highways survives in the city at the present
day, and then only in its Teutonic and not Roman form--the Watling or
"Wathelinga" Street, the street which led from Kent through the city of
London to Chester and York, and thence by two branches to Carlisle
and the neighbourhood of Newcastle. The Ermin Street, another Roman
road with a Teutonic name, led from London to Lincoln, with branches
to Doncaster and York, but its name no longer survives in the city.
(M6)
The same reasons that led the Romans to establish good roads
throughout the country led them also to erect a bridge across the river
from London to Southwark, and in later years to enclose the city with a
wall. To the building of the bridge, which probably took place in the

early years of the Roman occupation, London owed much of its
youthful prosperity; whenever any accident happened to the bridge the
damage was always promptly repaired. Not so with the walls of the city.
They were allowed to fall into decay until the prudence and military
genius of the great Alfred caused them to be repaired as a bulwark
against the onslaughts of the Danes.
(M7)
"Britain had been occupied by the Romans, but had not become
Roman,"(9) and the scanty and superficial civilization which the
Britons had received from the Roman occupation was obliterated by the
calamities which followed the northern invasions of the fifth and
following centuries. A Christian city, as Augusta had probably been,
not a vestige of a Christian church of the Roman period has come down
to us.(10) It quickly lapsed into paganism. Its very name disappears,
and with it the names of its streets, its traditions and its customs. Its
inhabitants forgot the Latin tongue, and the memories of 400 years
were clean wiped out. There remains to us of the present day nothing to
remind us of London under the Roman empire, save a fragment of a
wall, a milestone, a few coins and statuettes, and some articles of
personal ornament or domestic use--little more in fact, than what may
be seen in the Museum attached to the Guildhall Library. The long
subjection to Roman rule had one disastrous effect. It enervated the
people and left them powerless to cope with those enemies who, as
soon as the iron hand of the Roman legions was removed, came forth
from their hiding places to harry the land.
(M8)
Thus it was that when the Picts and Scots again broke loose from their
northern fastnesses and threatened London as they had done before
(A.D. 368), they once more appealed for aid to the Roman emperor, by
whose assistance the marauders had formerly been driven back. But
times were different in 446 to what they had been in 368. The Roman
empire