The traditional Romanesque-style St. Paul’s Cathedral of the Middle Ages was once one of the largest buildings in Europe, towering high above everything else in London. Its construction created the pre-metric length of a ‘foot’. While Westminster Abbey continued as the principle church of English royalty, St. Paul’s became the stage for national events.

At the very start of the 7^th century Augustine ordained Mellitus as Bishop of the East Saxons. In the year 604 St. Paul’s, at the top of Ludgate Hill in London, was founded as Mellitus’s cathedral, with the episcopal see being the area north of the Thames extending to, approximately, the modern-day Essex, Middlesex and Hertfordshire. From 693 the cathedral contained the tomb of Erkenwald, an early Bishop of London and Essex and the first saint to be buried in the city. The original cathedral building was no doubt a relatively small and simple structure that stood until 962 when it was destroyed by fire and rebuilt.

In 1087 there was another fire that destroyed much of London, including St. Paul’s, and the Normans replaced the second cathedral on the same site but on a much grander scale. The size of the new cathedral was so great that it took over 130 years to complete. Work began in the late 11^th century under the direction of Bishop Maurice and it was finally finished in the 1320s. Even as construction work was taking place, a major fire in the 1130s caused much damage.

The Norman building was designed in the Romanesque style, constructed at least in part from stone quarried at Caen in Normandy and Taynton in Oxfordshire. Along the way it rose higher and grew larger, rising early on above the level of the city walls and all London’s other properties. In around 1175 the main building was complete, by which time it dwarfed all other structures in the city and could be seen from miles around. It was by then larger than England’s other great cathedrals of the period such as Bury St. Edmunds, Ely, Peterborough and Rochester. The only larger building in the whole of Europe at that time was its contemporary, Winchester Cathedral, which was started eight years earlier.

The first section to be completed was the choir at the east end of the cathedral, with a rounded apse. Below it was the crypt, with painted vaults. The transepts that gave the building its cross-shape, projecting north and south of the central crossing, were each five bays long, with chapels on the east sides, perhaps a later addition, and aisles on their west sides. They contained a number of altars and the ‘miraculous’ Crux borealis – a rood, or crucifix that was to be much revered over the following centuries – by  the north transept door. The treasury, where the liturgical robes and precious objects were kept, was located along the south side of the choir, entered through the first bay of the south transept.

The nave, twelve bays in length, with aisles on each side below galleries, was under construction during the time of Maurice’s successor, Bishop Richard de Belmeis the elder, in the second and third decades of the 12^th century. A rib-vaulted ceiling above the nave was constructed in the latter 12^th century. The west façade included a triple portal, with low flanking towers to the north and south that were used as prisons. A residence for the bishops was built adjoining the north-west corner of the main building.

The impressive tower and spire above the central crossing were completed in about 1220, dominating the surrounding city and countryside. The tower stood about 260 feet above the crossing floor and the spire above that 274 feet high, with a total height together of almost 500 feet, or 152 metres, 30 metres taller than the present dome. Unstable from the beginning, the tower required buttresses to keep it in place. A chapter house was added in the angle between the nave and southern transept sometime prior to 1240. Despite the cathedral’s dedication in 1241 work was still continuing.

During its construction a particular length was noted as being 57 feet by the foot of Canon Algar. In order to ensure its standardisation the measurement was carved into a pier-base in the nave and for at least several centuries was known as the ‘foot of St. Paul’. The phrase went out of use after the 15^th century and the column destroyed, most likely in the Great Fire of 1666, but a foot continued as part of imperial measurements into modern times.

London-based William Hogarth was possibly the first great artist of note to create an individual style that was uniquely English, without a large measure of reference to earlier Continental schools. In an age when other artists followed rules, codes and styles created in antiquity he was bold enough to go in his own direction. 

In addition to his own artistic achievements, Hogarth was largely responsible for starting a series of events that began to elevate British art to a level where it would later be taken as seriously as that of Continental countries such as Italy, France and Holland. A champion of local artists to the point of bigotry, it was largely through his efforts that we can see a British school of art forming during the 18^th century. He was also unique in combining the humour found in 18^th century satirical prints with that of fine art. Hogarth was able to work in several genres, notably humorous satire, historical, and portraiture, but it was the creation of the ‘modern moral subject’ for which he would be best remembered.

William Hogarth was born in 1697. His earliest years were spent living in Bartholomew Close, Smithfield but when he was still young his family moved to the nearby Clerkenwell. Hogarth’s father, Richard, had been a teacher who came to London in the hope of teaching Latin and Greek. Unable to make enough income from teaching he tried his hand at running a coffee shop at St. John’s Gate at which only classical languages could be spoken. It was not a success and when it failed he was held for debt in Fleet Prison in 1707.

William, brought up by well-educated and non-conformist parents, therefore spent his childhood alternating between reasonable comfort and hardship in the less salubrious parts of the metropolis. That period of his life was to remain a constant influence, leaving him embittered towards those he felt had exploited and made promises to his father – particularly booksellers – yet failed to help in time of need.

In 1714 William was apprenticed to the gold and silver engraver Ellis Gamble, based at Leicester Fields. The area had only recently been developed as a residential suburb, on what had previously been fields, but was already being populated by artisans who typically lived above their workshop. The art of silver engraving had rapidly evolved in London after the arrival of skilled Huguenots from France at the end of the 17^th century, and where they found a ready market amongst Britain’s aristocracy and wealthy merchants.

Outside of his employment, Hogarth was admiring the painting of leading artists. It would be too ambitious for an untrained young man to attempt anything so grand. Instead Hogarth began thinking about a skill somewhat closer to those he had learnt: engraving pictures on to copper, which would allow him to express himself artistically. In 1720 he set up his own business.

At that same time Hogarth was observing and sketching what he saw around him. He invented for himself a system involving straight lines and letters to record particular events of interest that he could reproduce later. This ability to memorise and later reproduce a scene he had observed was a talent that was to set him apart from other artists. He produced caricatures of people he saw, in the style of Dutch comic paintings. No doubt he was aware of his artistic limitations. Wishing to rise above that of a mere engraver, in the year he started his business venture Hogarth invested two guineas to enroll at the newly-opened art academy at St. Martin’s Lane. There he was able to learn and practice techniques and also meet with members of London’s small artistic community.

The opening of Hogarth’s print shop coincided with the major national disaster of the South Sea Bubble and the following year he produced his first satirical print, attacking those responsible for the greed that led to the financial collapse, which had taken place in August 1720.

In 1724 Hogarth produced his first independently published work, Masquerades and Operas or The Taste of the Town, a satirical attack on the Italian opera, which had for some years been popular with those people who preferred imported art. As with The South Sea Scheme, it featured several actual London locations, transplanted into one scene. Normally such prints would be sold by a book or print-seller who would pay the artist a one-off fee. Hogarth instead chose to bypass the normal publishers and set up his own distribution, selling prints through several outlets for one shilling, a price he probably judged would be attractive to the print-buying middle classes. Counterfeit copies quickly began to appear around town at half the price, with his original prints returned unsold. Refusing to give up, he took out advertisements in the Daily Courant listing the outlets where legitimate prints could be purchased. The episode brought Hogarth’s name to the public for the first time and he continued producing a series of new satirical prints.

The late 16^th century, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, was the first great blossoming of London theatre, providing a platform for the talents of playwrights such as William Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe. Yet the playhouses of the time were located outside of the City in the expanding suburbs.

The dominant theatrical tradition in England during the Middle Ages was ‘mystery’ plays. These were moralistic dramas based on the Bible and usually performed in churches or on temporary stages at seasonal fairs by amateur actors or members of guilds. After the Reformation they were viewed as Catholic mysticism and therefore fell out of favour. In their place came secular productions, normally performed by strolling players at inns.

During the 16^th century there were a number of inns in the London area built around courtyards overlooked by galleries. By the middle of the century some of these, such as the Saracen’s Head at Islington and the Boar’s Head outside Aldgate, were being used as a venue for the performance of plays. (The only remaining example of those types of inn in London is the George at Borough High Street). Jerome Savage of the Earl of Warwick’s Company of actors converted a building for performances at the well-to-do suburb of Newington Butts to the south of London, sometime before 1576. It was known as the Playhouse, from the medieval word ‘pleghows’. It finally closed in 1596.

As the popularity of plays grew during the Elizabethan era restrictions on actors and the content of plays were tightened. An Act of Parliament of 1572 classed all kinds of performers (including buskers, jugglers, fortune tellers and so on) in the same category as vagabonds unless in possession of a begging licence or “belonging to any baron of this land…”. In fact, in those times everyone needed some status in law, such as a freeman belonging to a Livery Company, an employee of a freeman or government official, or a retainer of a noble. Anyone who was not was considered as a vagabond, rogue or beggar and liable to be rounded up and thrown in gaol. Companies of actors and playwrights therefore sought the protection of powerful patrons.

The actor, impresario and carpenter James Burbage wrote to and received the patronage of the Earl of Leicester and his company were known as ‘Lord Leicester’s Men’ until receiving a licence directly from Queen Elizabeth. The Lord Admiral’s Men, associated with Christopher Marlowe, had the patronage of Lord Howard, the Admiral of the Fleet (who had defeated the Spanish Armada); and the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, which included William Shakespeare, that of Lord Hunsdon, the Lord Chamberlain. Others were named Sussex’s, Oxford’s, Essex’s and Warwick’s Men after their patrons.

The attitude of the City of London authorities became increasingly puritanical, believing performances attracted “vagrant persons” and “masterless men” and that actors were “a very superfluous sort of men”. They distracted young men from their apprenticeships and, as plays were mostly watched on Sundays, it was also felt they were keeping people away from their attendance at church. The Merchant Taylors, who had been performing plays in their hall, ceased to do so in 1573. The following year the City authorities introduced a system of control and censorship and any inn holding performances was required to hold a licence and donate certain sums of money to hospitals within the City. Each play was obliged to be first performed before the mayor and aldermen prior to its public performance to ensure it contained nothing that was lewd, seditious or likely to cause a riot. By the end of the century playhouses were banned completely within the City.

Many of the ‘liberties’ enjoyed by former ecclesiastic institutions and estates, under which they were outside of the control of the City authorities, still remained in place long after the dissolution of the monasteries. One such area was the land of the former priory of Holywell at Shoreditch, a hamlet of humble cottages in the latter 16^th century.

James Burbage’s company had been performing at the Bull Tavern, within the City on Bishopsgate but needed to look elsewhere for a venue. His brother-in-law, John Brayne, a wealthy member of the Grocers’ Company, had in 1567 built a performance venue for strolling players at the Red Lion at Whitechapel but it only functioned for a year. In 1576, together with Burbage, he erected the Theatre (from the Greek, and later Latin theatrum) at Holywell, England’s first purpose-built playhouse since Roman times. It was of timber-framed construction on a masonry plinth. Designed in a circular or octagonal fashion inspired by the inns in which plays were being performed, it established the shape of playhouses for the following 50 years or more. The Theatre probably held between six to eight hundred people in the audience, with many standing in the open central pit around which were more expensive banked seating areas. Burbage also had an interest in another London theatre, based in the former refectory of the Blackfriars monastery and leased out for use by child actors.

Being outside of the City’s jurisdiction, Brayne and Burbage were able to hold performances of plays at the Theatre without censorship. Nevertheless, they were the subject of occasional criticism from those who believed it attracted London’s lowlife. William Fleetwood, the Recorder of London, wrote to the Queen’s minister Lord Burghley on the subject in 1584.

Burbage staged performances of plays by Christopher Marlowe amongst others. William Shakespeare joined the resident troupe in the 1580s and later became a part-owner of the company. From 1594 the Theatre was used exclusively by Shakespeare’s Chamberlain’s Men. His mid-career plays were first performed there, including Richard II, Henry IV Parts I and II, Love’s Labour’s Lost, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Much Ado About Nothing and The Merchant of Venice. The leading man of the company was Burbage’s son Richard.

The success of the Theatre prompted Henry Lanman to build the Curtain playhouse nearby in Curtain Close just a few months later in 1577, which continued until 1622. It was most likely of similar design but little record of it remains. Possibly Shakespeare’s Henry V was first performed there during a year-long closure of the Theatre. In 1585 Burbage and Lanman made an agreement to co-operate and pool profits. From 1603 the Curtain was home to the Queen Anne’s Men (under the patronage of the wife of James I).

Between medieval times and the 18th century Bankside at Southwark, on the far side of London Bridge, was beyond the jurisdiction of the City authorities. It was a place associated with popular and illicit pleasures such as inns, brothels, bear-baiting and cock pits, much of which developed from the late 16th century. Borough High Street was lined with taverns and Southwark was an ideal place to build theatres outside of the interference of the City.

The Rose, built by Philip Henslowe and in operation from 1587 until 1606, was the first playhouse to be built at Bankside, its octagonal shape inspired by the Theatre. It was the home of the Lord Admiral’s Men, of which Henslowe’s son-in-law Edward Alleyn, one of the most successful actors of his time, was the lead man. Alleyn had first found fame playing the title role in Christopher Marlowe’s Tamburlaine the Great (c.1588), Doctor Faustus (c.1592) and Barbas in The Jew of Malta (c.1589) and became the great rival of Richard Burbage. Shakespeare’s Titus Adronicus and Henry VI were first performed at the Rose, as were most of Christopher Marlowe’s plays.

The Rose was followed at Bankside by Francis Langley’s Swan theatre in 1595 but that was demolished in 1606, by which time Henslowe and the Admiral’s men had already moved north of the City to Cripplegate. The Swan was described by Johannes de Witt, a Dutch visitor to London, as being built of flint stones supported by wooden pillars and seating 3,000 people.

James Burbage died in February 1597 and was buried at St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch. His sons, the actor Richard and theatre manager Cuthbert, inherited his share of the company. The Theatre was well-established and flourishing by then, so it was time to move to a larger and more prestigious location. They therefore purchased Upper Frater Hall at Blackfriars on the west side of the City, another liberty outside the control of the authorities. Unfortunately, they were not welcomed there by their new neighbours, who complained to the powerful Privy Council. The council were effectively the Queen’s government, the most powerful body in the land, so the Burbages were forced to give up on that plan. They then attempted to negotiate with Charles Allen, their landlord at Holywell. Allen, however, decided to terminate their lease and threatened to tear down the playhouse and use the timbers.

Faced with the loss of the Theatre, the Burbages waited until Allen had left his home at Holywell for the Christmas holiday of 1598. They assembled a group of workmen and on the night of 28^th December dismantled the building and transported the parts over the river to Bankside. When he discovered the building had been removed Allen attempted to sue the brothers’ carpenter, Peter Street, for the loss of the materials but his case was dismissed. For the following year the Chamberlain’s Men performed at the Curtain at Shoreditch.

The Theatre had been cleverly constructed by James Burbage using timber frames and pegs in case of such need. Its parts were reused at Bankside and a new theatre built there, reopening as the Globe. It was a twenty-sided polygonal open-air building with a diameter of around twenty-four to thirty metres, making it similar but larger than The Rose. In its centre was a yard for the stage and a standing audience, surrounded by three tiers of seated galleries. The first performance was probably Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Julius Caesar in late 1599.

To pay for the cost of the new building the Burbage brothers offered members of the cast shares and four of them, including Shakespeare, took up the offer. About fifteen of Shakespeare’s plays were first performed at the Globe including Romeo and Juliet, King Lear, Macbeth, Pericles, Othello and the Taming of the Shrew. Hamlet was first performed at the Globe in 1601 with Richard Burbage in the title role. The building, located at what is now the southern end of Southwark Bridge, was destroyed by fire in 1613 but rebuilt the following year. It was eventually demolished in 1644. (A smaller replica version, which opened in 1997, stands near the original site).

Competition between the Globe and the Rose prompted Henslowe and Alleyn to look for a new site. They hired Peter Street, the carpenter of the Globe, to build the Fortune theatre at Golden Lane, Finsbury Fields. Unlike the previous playhouses it was a square building. That venue continued until closed in 1642 by the puritanical government authorities after the Civil War. Becoming wealthy from his theatrical ventures, Alleyn founded Dulwich College in 1619.

Audiences at playhouses such as the Globe came from all strata of society, from the criminal and working-classes to the nobility, each tending to watch from their own separate areas of the theatre. Being open-air and, without the convenience of modern lighting and heating, performances took place each afternoon at two o’clock.

Special performances were occasionally performed for the royalty or nobility. Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost possibly had its debut for Queen Elizabeth at Whitehall Palace during the Christmas season of 1597. The first performance of Twelfth Night was given in the hall of Middle Temple in 1602.

Southwark Fair, held in early September and immediately following Bartholomew Fair at Smithfield, was a major event in London’s annual calendar. The theatres closed during the period of the fair and instead gave themselves over to providing cheap lodging. There was a certain amount of inter-relationship between the theatres and the fairs. Plays occasionally referenced specific attractions at the fairs, such as a performing monkey, or a magician who could make a banquet disappear. Ben Jonson set his entire play Bartholomew Fair, first performed in 1614, at that event. Puppet shows at the fairs sometimes referenced popular plays by Shakespeare and others.

All playhouses around London were forced to close for a year in 1593 due to a plague that hit the City. When they reopened, the first performances of Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus and The Merchant of Venice were given at the Rose, and The Comedy of Errors at the hall of Gray’s Inn. A play performed at the Rose in 1597 was considered so seditious by the government that all playhouses were closed again for a year as punishment.

Plays in the Elizabethan era were performed exclusively by men and boys (impersonating women where necessary) and generally without scenery, the story being told through the dialogue and costumes. Good clothes were extremely expensive at the time and there were strict ‘sumptuary’ laws detailing which classes of people could wear particular garments. It was not uncommon for the wealthy to bequeath clothes to their servants who, unable to wear them by law, would sell them to companies of actors to be used in plays. It was normal for performances to be given in contemporary Elizabethan costume, even when the play was set in ancient times.

Theatre companies of the time performed a different play each day, normally from a repertory of around forty, requiring the cast to be keeping many parts to memory. Leading actors with principle parts would have needed to deliver around 5,000 lines per week. Mornings were spent learning the lines for the afternoon performance and junior actors probably did not have the benefit of a rehearsal or even reading the entire script. If a particular play was not successful on its first night it was normally dropped from the repertoire, whereas the more successful were revived on a continual basis.

During the reign of James I, who succeeded Queen Elizabeth in 1603, the playhouses pressed to be allowed to operate in the City to prevent the inconvenience of theatre-goers having to cross the river. Thames watermen gained much of their income from the carrying of passengers and in 1613 petitioned against any relaxation of the regulations. Their plea was met by a more successful counter-petition from the players. Playhouses subsequently transferred across the river and away from Southwark.

Sources include: Liza Picard ‘Elizabeth’s London’; Nicholas Robins ‘Walking Shakespeare’s London’; information from the Globe theatre; Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith ‘The History of East London’; Dan Cruickshank ‘Spitalfields’; Julian Bowsher ‘The topography of London’s early playhouses’ (London Topographical Society); Professor Tiffany Stern, London Historians lecture, September 2020.

< Go back to Tudor London

The medieval London Bridge had stood for centuries as the only dry Thames crossing in or around the city. The opening of Westminster Bridge in 1749 highlighted the restrictions and limitations of the ancient structure and the City Corporation decided to modernize it on its old foundations.

Old London Bridge contained many shops and houses, which restricted passage across the river. The naturalist Thomas Pennant wrote in the 18^th century:

I well remember the street on London Bridge, narrow, darksome, and dangerous to passengers from the multitude of carriages: frequent arches of strong timber crossed the street, from the tops of the houses, to keep them together, and from falling in the river.

By the 18^th century the medieval bridge was looking ancient and long out of fashion. In 1736 the architect Nicholas Hawksmoor published a pamphlet arguing that the bridge failed its city and represented the “lowest Barbarity”. Westminster Bridge, which opened in 1750 without buildings across it, looked modern and was widely admired. Seven years later work began to remove the buildings from London Bridge, which was completed in 1762. The remodeled bridge was much wider, with raised pavements. A pedestrian route was made through the tower of St. Magnus the Martyr church on the north bank. Balustrades and half-domed pedestrian alcoves were added. Two of the medieval arches were replaced by a larger central arch in a Gothic style.

The remodeled bridge still largely used the old medieval foundations. Despite all the work and the large financial outlay, the changes proved inadequate and required continuous repair. Unlike Westminster Bridge it was not a thing of beauty and the roadway was too narrow for the traffic.

In 1799 a competition was held for designs for an entirely new crossing to replace the existing one. Those received included a revolutionary single-span cast-iron bridge from Thomas Telford that allowed ships to pass under, and a double-bridge in a classical design by George Dance the Younger. Both required large amounts of property to be purchased and demolished for the approaches, were therefore considered too expensive, and no action was taken.

A report of 1800 into the need for improvements in the Port of London highlighted the limitations to navigation caused by the crossing. The narrow arches created a weir-effect, with a fall of up to five feet. In 1812 coal-boat owners petitioned the City for a new bridge, pointing out the regular loss of life, as well as inconvenience, caused by the ancient structure. With the fast-growing population of the metropolis the narrow roadway also caused congestion for carriage and pedestrian traffic. The narrow arches slowed the flow of the river, allowing it to freeze over during very cold winters. In 1813-14 the frozen river caused damage to the bridge.

Petitions continued to be submitted to both the City and Parliament but with little result. In 1816 the City Corporation decided to delay any decision until after Southwark Bridge, then under construction, had been opened. In 1821 prizes of between £100 and £250 were offered for the three best ideas for a new bridge, to be judged by a committee that included the architects John Nash, John Soane and Robert Smirke. Over fifty designs were received including one by the engineer John Rennie who was responsible for both Waterloo and Southwark bridges. The prizes for the best submissions were awarded but none of the winning entries were put into practice.

In the meantime, an Act of Parliament was passed in 1822 to remove the bridge’s waterworks, which supplied river water to parts of the City, in order to improve navigation. The London Bridge Waterworks company was sold to its oldest rival, the New River Company. At the same time a Parliamentary committee recommended the building of a completely new structure and that finally spurred the City’s Bridge House committee, responsible for its operation, into action.

A Bill for a new bridge was finally passed in 1823, to be paid for partly by the City of London Corporation and by the Treasury from coal tax, on the condition that it was wider than the previous bridge. Despite it not being a winning design, it was decided to proceed with Rennie’s rather conservative scheme for a plain, five-span structure, lacking the flair of Waterloo Bridge or engineering innovation of Southwark.  Rennie had died in 1821, so the work went ahead in 1824 under the supervision of his sons, John Rennie (the Younger) and George. The contractors were Messrs Jolliffe & Banks, with whom the Rennies had a long working relationship, including the construction of Waterloo and Southwark Bridges. In order to keep the old bridge open for traffic during construction it was decided that the new one should be on a different alignment, about one hundred feet upstream.

Work began in March 1824 and the foundation stone laid by Lord Mayor John Garratt in June 1825. An inscription within the stone, translated from Latin, read:

The free course of the river being obstructed by the numerous piers of the ancient bridge, and the passage of boats and vessels through its narrow channels being often attended with danger and loss of life by reason of the force and rapidity of the current, the City of London, desirous of providing a remedy for this evil, and at the same time consulting the convenience of commerce in this vast emporium of all nations, under the sanction and with the liberal aid of Parliament, resolved to erect a bridge upon a foundation altogether new, with arches of a wider span, and of a character corresponding to the dignity and importance of this royal City; nor does any other time seem to be more suitable for such an undertaking than when in a period of universal peace, the British Empire flourishing in glory, wealth, population, and domestic union, is governed by a Prince the patron and encourager of the arts, under whose auspices the Metropolis has been daily advancing in elegance and splendour.

The new bridge consisted of five semi-elliptical arches of varying widths, made of granite from Devon and Scotland. At the time of completion the central arch, of over 152 feet in width and a rise of over 37 feet, was possibly the largest such arch anywhere. The final width of the roadway was 52 feet, a decision having been made during construction to increase it by six feet.

London Bridge was the only dry crossing over the Thames in London until the mid-18^th century. The first wooden bridge was built by the Romans, followed later by others by the Saxons and Normans. At the very beginning of the 13^th century the last of those was replaced by a stone bridge that was to remain for over six hundred years.

 Houses and shops were built on the medieval bridge from soon after its opening. The bridge was effectively an extension of the City as well as a means to cross the river, with over a hundred properties across it. Over time these buildings were gradually replaced and modernised. New forms of building construction developed during the early 16^th century, with the introduction of the timber ‘frame’ method associated with the Tudor period. The view of London in 1647 by Wenceslaus Hollar shows a quite different group of buildings across the bridge than that drawn Antonis van der Wyngaerde a hundred years earlier. Larger structures that overhung the sides of the bridge had replaced those of earlier times.

The chapel of St.Thomas that had stood in the centre of the bridge since the 13^th century was not immune from the great religious changes of the Reformation. In January 1549 it was decided that it should be closed and converted into a house. Little initially took place and the old chapel remained empty for several years. Between 1548 and 1550 the bells in its belfry were removed and the organ destroyed but the demolition workers finally moved in during 1553. There are records during the following decade of the site being used as a dwelling.

A drawbridge could be raised to allow the passage of ships too large to pass through the arches of the bridge. It was also raised to prevent entry into the City on several occasions when London was confronted by a hostile mob. Yet in 1497 it was decided that the drawbridge was in such a poor condition that it was too dangerous to continue being used. As a consequence, boats of any large size could no longer pass through the bridge to dock at Queenshithe and had instead to unload at the wharves downstream. In 1500, however, Henry VII decided he would sail his royal barque upstream and carpenters were required to work through the night to ensure the drawbridge would open for him.

In 1305 a tradition had begun whereby the heads of executed rebels and traitors were displayed on poles above the drawbridge tower, the first being William Wallace (‘Braveheart’). By 1577 the stone drawbridge tower had become so dilapidated that it was demolished and the heads moved to the Southwark end of the bridge.

A great fire in September 1725 destroyed many of the houses at the southern end and damaged the gate. It was enlarged in around 1728 to allow for the passage of two carts or coaches, together with two posterns for pedestrians. Yet by 1754 the gate had become dilapidated and was demolished along with the other City gates.

When the drawbridge tower was demolished an extraordinary building was erected in its place between the seventh and eighth arches from the Southwark end. Nonesuch (or Nonsuch) House was perhaps so named because there was nothing else to compare. It had stone foundations, which were laid by the Lord Mayor of London in the presence of the sheriffs and bridge masters. The remainder of the structure was made entirely of wood, on a frame made in Holland, and held together by pegs without the use of any nails. It was a large building, spanning the roadway and overhanging the sides of the bridge, taking two years to complete. Below it was a clear passage of twenty feet width for those crossing the bridge. It was an ornate design in a mixture of medieval and Renaissance styles, with a tower, an onion-shaped cupola and gilded weather vane on each corner, and many windows and carvings on the exterior panels. It was one of the glories of London for nearly rwo hundred years. The contemporary writer John Stow described it as “a beautifull and chargeable peece of worke”. Little is otherwise known about it and it may have been used by the Corporation of London for functions and banquets. Nonesuch House survived until 1757 when all the houses on the bridge were demolished.

Downriver of London the Thameside hamlets on the north bank were quite isolated from the City and surrounding districts until at least the 16^th century. They were most easily reached by boat and evolved into communities employed in maritime industries. On the south bank the fishing village of Deptford developed into a major naval shipbuilding centre.

During Roman times there was a settlement in what is now Wapping that included a bathhouse, in existence between the 2^nd and 4^th centuries. Much of the area was submerged at high tides but a gravel bank that ran parallel with the Thames allowed for a pathway, which in later centuries would become Ratcliff Highway. During the Anglo-Saxon period a church was established dedicated to St. Dunstan at what was then known as Stibenhede. The village of Stepney, as it later became known, gradually grew in all directions around it, including down to the riverside hamlet of Ratcliff where Stepney’s port developed, with cottages inhabited by fisherman and ferrymen. Ratcliff was first mentioned in documents in around 1000 and in the 14^th century was referred to as Redclyf. Its gravel shoreline was one of the few suitable landing places below London Bridge.

Other than Ratcliff, the entire riverside area east of the Tower of London, including the Isle of Dogs and Lea Valley, was low-lying and marshy and prone to flooding. It was held by the Bishops of London until the 16^th century and in the reign of Edward II their bondmen converted much of Stepney Marsh – the Isle of Dogs – to meadow, with the alluvial deposits making it a rich pastureland. At some point a wall was built to protect low-lying Wapping from the river but the wall was destroyed by flooding between 1560 and 1570. In 1580 much of the marshes came into the ownership of the Crown. Queen Elizabeth had that year issued a proclamation that no new building should be erected within three miles of London. An exception was granted to various people, however, to build along the riverfront at Wapping Marsh to protect the land. Another flood occurred in March 1660. Three days later Samuel Pepys was passing by boat and recorded: “…in our way we saw the great breach which the late high water had made, to the loss of many 1000l [£1000] to the people about Limehouse”. The process of draining the marshes to the west of Ratcliff was undertaken in the early 16^th century when Cornelius Vanderdelft, a Dutchman with specialist knowledge in land drainage, was commissioned to oversee the task.

There was a rapid increase in the population to the east of the City in the fifty years between 1580 and 1630, with much of the increase along the riverside. A wall of built-up ground as high as eight or nine feet above the level of the land was created, eventually extending all the way along the shore as far as the River Lea, with drainage ditches dug across the low ground. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth people were encouraged to settle and build houses on or close to the wall so that it would be maintained. Cottages and workshops developed along the water’s edge, creating the hamlet of Wapping-in-the-Wose (‘in the marsh’), with each householder responsible for maintaining the wall. The Elizabethan historian John Stow said that there were no houses there in about 1560 but forty years later Wapping was occupied by “seafaring men and tradesmen dealing in commodities for the supply of shipping and seamen”. The buildings were constructed in precarious and rickety fashion overhanging the wall, interrupted by numerous stairs down to the river. The wall formed the streets of Wapping High Street and Wapping Wall, as well as Foxes Lanes (now Glamis Road), creating a link between London to the west and the hamlets of Shadwell and Ratcliff to the east. Similarly, causeways higher than the surrounding meadows were created with buildings along them. Thus, Wapping evolved as a river-facing community, otherwise isolated by its surrounding marsh.

It was said that a large trade also grew at Wapping in the making and selling of counterfeit goods, outside of the jurisdiction of the City of London authorities. Counterfeit indigo, musk, saffron, cochineal, wax, nutmeg, steel and other commodities were made. Craftsmen of the City petitioned James I. A royal commission was appointed that recommended the authority of London livery companies be extended to a radius of five or six miles beyond the City but nothing came of it.

During the Middle Ages Deptford Strand, opposite the Isle of Dogs on the south bank of the Thames, developed as a fishing village. It was very close to the royal palace of Greenwich and therefore not surprising that Henry VIII chose to develop a naval dockyard there. The village thus became a centre of shipbuilding and repairing and home to marine craftsmen and mariners. A group of master-mariners were concerned with safety on the river and its estuary and in 1513 petitioned the king to form a standard of pilotage. Thus, the organisation that became known as Trinity House  was founded, which is still deeply involved in maritime safety around Britain.Sir Thomas Spert, the original Master of Trinity House, was buried in St. Dunstan’s church.

Some of the most interesting records of mid-17^th century London are the diaries written by Samuel Pepys during the years 1660 to 1669. He was born into humble circumstances in the city yet rose to become one of the country’s most senior, able and unusually conscientious civil servants who helped create the modern navy. A cultured man, he befriended the great intellectuals of his age and was the confidant of two successive kings.

Pepys was born in February 1633 above his father’s shop in Salisbury Court, a lane that ran between Fleet Street and the Thames and was baptised in the nearby St. Bride’s church. His father was a tailor and mother a former laundress. Both were of puritan faith and his mother quite extreme in her beliefs. During the Civil War the teenage Samuel witnessed several of the great events of the time. In the summer of 1647 he watched as the New Model Army marched into London and in January 1649, as a fifteen year old boy, was in the crowd in Whitehall to witness the execution of King Charles.

Pepys studied at the eminent cathedral school at St. Paul’s where he was taught about the Bible and classical literature, giving him a love of books for the rest of his life. From there he won a scholarship to Cambridge University. Graduating in 1654 he returned to London where he soon married a 15-year old girl, Elizabeth, a Huguenot immigrant, at St. Margaret’s church at Westminster.

After completing his studies Pepys found work as assistant to a relation, Edward Montagu, a member of the Admiralty Committee of the Parliamentary navy, which brought with it a small apartment at Whitehall for Samuel and his wife. That was followed by a position in the Exchequer’s office, which was headed by George Downing (after whom Downing Street is named).

As London descended into chaos in the dying days of the Commonwealth government at the end of 1659 Pepys decided to begin writing a diary. At university he had learnt a system of shorthand known as Tachygraphy with which he was able to accurately record lectures and sermons. It was by that method that he wrote his diaries except for names, which are written in long-hand. He continued until 31^st May 1669, describing in candid detail his life, thoughts and the world around him.

St. Paul’s, the great Anglican cathedral church of London, had humble beginnings in the 7^th century Saxon period as a small building in an almost deserted city.

After the Roman period Christianity waned in Britain. Augustine arrived in 597, sent by Pope Gregory the Great to convert the Saxons, and he was followed in 601 by a group of monks that included Mellitus. A hundred years later the monk Bede wrote in his Ecclesiastic History of the English People an account of the founding of St. Paul’s Cathedral:

In the year of our Lord 604, Augustine, Archbishop of Britain, consecrated two bishops, Mellitus and Justus. Mellitus was appointed to preach in the province of the East Saxons, which is separated from Kent by the river Thames, and bounded on the east by the sea. Its capital is the city of London, which stands on the banks of the Thames, and is a trading centre for many nations who visit it by land and sea. At this time Sabert. Ethelbert’s nephew through his sister Ricula, ruled the province under the suzerainty [overlordship] of Ethelbert, who, as already stated, governed all the English peoples as far north as the Humber. When this province too had received the faith through the preaching of Mellitus, King Ethelbert built a church dedicated to the holy Apostle Paul in the city of London, which he appointed as the episcopal see of Mellitus and his successors.¹

As the church was dedicated to St. Paul it is possible that it contained some minor relics of the apostle, perhaps pieces of cloth from his tomb at the basilica of San Paolo in Rome.

Following the deaths of Ethelbert and Sabert the East Saxons reverted to paganism and Mellitus left for Gaul in 616. He returned later as Archbishop but, with London occupied by the pagan East Saxons, he based himself at Canterbury and thus the see of southern England has remained there since. The fate of St. Paul’s is unknown during the mid-7^th century. Perhaps the building was put to some other use or could have been demolished and rebuilt later.

Christianity re-emerged in London when the Archbishop appointed Erkenwald as Bishop of London and Essex in 675 and the line of bishops has remained unbroken since that time. Erkenwald died in 693 and his remains were kept at St. Paul’s. He was later canonised, sometime by the 10^th century, and his tomb became a medieval shrine and place of pilgrimage until it was destroyed in the Reformation.

The diocese of the Bishop of London during the time of Mellitus and Erkenwald included, broadly speaking, Essex and what would later become the counties of Middlesex and much of Hertfordshire. During the following centuries however the borders of the diocese occasionally changed with, for example, the loss of St. Albans and the north part of the diocese during the reign of King Offa of Mercia in the 8^th century. On occasions it found itself straddling more than one Saxon kingdom.

During the times of raids in the mid-9^th century London came under the control of heathen Vikings. An agreement by Alfred of Wessex in the latter part of the century set a border along the River Lea between the Saxon and Viking territories, with London under Alfred’s control and Essex as Viking land. Thus, for a time the authority of the bishops probably did not extend eastwards of London.

Bede’s account of the founding of St. Paul’s continues by explaining that Ethelbert, who had converted to Christianity along with Sabert, bestowed many gifts to the churches at London, Rochester and Canterbury, as well as land and possessions to provide an income for the bishops. The exact location of the areas provided to St. Paul’s is not entirely clear and changed over time, particularly following the Norman conquest in 1066. This is in part due to benefactions (both received, as well as provided by the bishop) and changes in diocesan boundaries, and by politics. There is also a lack of clarity, as well as some fluidity, regarding those lands held for the benefit of the bishop and those for the chapter of St. Paul’s. The waters as to which lands were legitimately held by St. Paul’s and the division between bishop and chapter were further muddied because the canons took to forging legal documents during the 12^th century in order to substantiate their claims. Genuine original legal documents prior to the Domesday Book of 1086 regarding land ownership are rare.

At an early stage areas held by St. Paul’s seem to have included 24 hides stretching north from the London wall, including Moorfields, St. Pancras and the modern Camden, as well as an area on the Essex coast around Tillingham. During the 8^th century the Bishop of London was granted the manor of Fulham, which included Finchley to the north of London, while the chapter of St. Paul’s gained much of the modern-day north-western suburbs of London. Other lands acquired by the bishops during Saxon times included territory between the rivers Crouch and Blackwater in Essex and by the bishop and chapter in the Clacton area. By the time of the Domesday Book the bishop also held land to the north and east of London that included Stepney, Hackney and Clerkenwell. At some point the bishops gained the sokes of Cornhill and Bishopsgate within the city, giving them control of large sections of adjoining and strategically important areas inside and outside of the city walls.

London during the later Saxon period began to grow into a strategically and economically important town but was yet to be the major city it became in subsequent centuries. Likewise, its bishops of London were of lesser political importance than others within the kingdom. When, for example, King Alfred met his closest advisors at Chelsea in 898 to formally lay out a new street pattern for London the group included the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Worcester but not the Bishop of London.

It was noted in the Anglo Saxon Chronicles for the year 962 that a great fire destroyed St. Paul’s minster and that it was re-founded, probably under Bishop Aelfstan, in the same year. Although perhaps small compared with the vast cathedral of the future, this new building, located at the top of Ludgate Hill, was likely to have stood high above the others in London. It was probably built of stone and by the time of its demise in 1087 it had an elegant ceiling supported by wooden beams, with the tomb of St. Erkenwald behind the high altar.

King Cnut did not favour St. Paul’s during his reign, perhaps because his father’s enemy Aethelred had been buried there and also that Bishop Aelfwig had backed Cnut’s rival to become king. One of the cathedral’s most prestigious relics, the body of Alphege, Archbishop of Canterbury who had been murdered by Vikings, was moved on the king’s orders to Canterbury. Despite London’s growing economic importance the lack of regard for its cathedral continued under King Edward, who instead greatly favoured both Winchester and Westminster Abbey.

Following its destruction yet again by fire in 1087 the Normans decided to rebuild St. Paul’s Cathedral on a much grander scale and it became one of the largest of all Christian churches, eclipsing even Edward the Confessor’s great monastery at Westminster.

¹ Translation: Leo Sherley-Price, A History of the English Church and People (Penguin publishing)

Sources include: Various ‘St. Paul’s – The Cathedral Church of London; Christopher Brooke ‘London 800-1216’; John Schofield ‘London 1100-1600’. Illustration courtesy of the collection of Hawk Norton.

Forward to St. Paul’s Cathedral in the early Middle Ages >

At each major English port the officials responsible for collecting duties on imports and exports on behalf of the monarch were based at a building known as Custom House. For centuries Custom House in London played a central part in the working of the commercial Thames and was a major source of income for the Exchequer.

England’s major export during the early Middle Ages was wool and in 1203 King John introduced a tax on its export. London duties were paid at Wool Quay, immediately upstream from the Tower of London. By the time of Edward I import duties on wine and other goods were providing a considerable income to the Exchequer. London’s first recorded Custom House building was constructed at Wool Quay by the Sheriff of London in 1382 during the reign of Richard II. The poet and author Geoffrey Chaucer was Comptroller of the Customs of Wools, Skins and Tanned Hides from 1374 until 1386, and based there for his work as manager of tax collectors.

Those officials appointed as collectors and controllers during the mid-15^th century were from amongst London’s leading merchants and stayed in their posts for short periods, often then rising to higher civic offices. The leading London customs officials during the latter years of Edward IV and reign of Henry VII, however, were royal servants who held their positions for many years. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth eight principal officers were employed at Custom House, each with between two and sixteen men below them.

The medieval Custom House was rebuilt in red brick 1559 of three stories, with the lower level being an open arcade. Inspectors from there known as ‘tide-waiters’ boarded each ship as it arrived to obtain a certificate of the vessel’s cargo. That was recorded at Custom House and the duty calculated. With confiscated goods stored inside, often of a flammable nature, fire was always a danger. When the Elizabethan property was destroyed in the Great Fire it was the first building that Charles II proposed to be rebuilt, with funds coming from a newly-introduced tax on coal arriving into the capital. The King surprised everyone by appointing Christopher Wren, a professor of astronomy from Oxford, to oversee the work, his first design project in London, at a cost of £10,000. Wren’s building was constructed in a U-shape around a courtyard. It featured a main hall known as the Long Room, where merchants and ships’ captains came to make payments. It gave its name to the equivalent office in customs buildings in all Britain’s ports, regardless of their shape and size.

Wren’s building was in turn devastated by fire in 1715. Its replacement, designed by Thomas Ripley, was of the same plan as Wren’s but of three storeys rather than two. Daniel Defoe wrote of it “As the city is the centre of business, there is Custom-house, an article, which, as it brings in an immense revenue to the public, so it cannot be removed from its place, all the vast import and export of goods being, of necessity, made there…The stateliness of the building, showed the greatness of the business that is transacted there: the Long Room is like an Exchange every morning and the crowd of people who appear there, and the business they do, is not to be explained by words, nothing of that kind in Europe is like it”.

With growing trade in the port, and being somewhat dilapidated, a larger building was being planned when in 1814 it anyway met the fate of its predecessors, destroyed by fire along with ten houses. Surrounding properties east of Billingsgate were purchased for the larger site with a waterfront almost 150 metres long. A new building was designed by David Laing, Surveyor to the Customs and a pupil of John Soane, featuring a much-praised triple-domed hall in a French style. Its facade onto Lower Thames Street was in a plain style of yellow stock brick but more decorative Ionic colonnades faced onto the river. The cellars housed a warehouse where seized goods were stored before going for auction. During excavation work, older wooden medieval embankments were discovered and a sturdy stone wall that may have been part of the Roman fortifications, as well as other ancient objects. The new building was opened by Lord Liverpool, First Lord of the Treasury in May 1817. Unfortunately, Laing had not foreseen that the piling underpinning the building had been poorly and fraudulently carried out by a contractor and in 1825 part of the river façade and the floor of the main hall collapsed. By then such work was the responsibility of the Office of Works and their surveyor Robert Smirke was commissioned to put things right. He created a new river-facing façade that remain today.

In the early 19^th century the tide-waiters boarded inbound ships at Gravesend and stayed on board until their cargoes were discharged in the Port. In the docks and wharves ‘landing-officers’ took note of goods as they came ashore, and once duties were paid a receipt was given. These particulars were then taken to the Long Room where clerks sat at desks compiling the information. The system was modified in later decades whereby the master of each ship arriving or leaving the Port was obliged to attend the Long Room to report on its cargo and necessary payment made.

At the first year of the reign of Elizabeth nearly £74,000 was collected at Custom House. In 1840 that had risen to over £11,000,000, almost half of the total from the United Kingdom’s ports. Throughout that century customs duties were progressively simplified. In 1853 there were over 1,100 rates of duty, yet most income came from just a small number of types of goods. Towards the century’s end the number of rates had been greatly reduced and focussed on those imports that created most income, namely tobacco, spirits, tea and wine.

The Custom House of today is comprised of David Laing’s west wing and a central section, including the current Long Room by Robert Smirke. The East Wing was badly damaged during the Second World War and rebuilt in 1966. As the Port of London moved ever further downriver, and the methods changed by which duties were paid, Custom House was no longer required for its original purpose. Ships’ masters no longer arrived to pay their duties and the building continued as a rather grand office of HM Revenue & Customs. HMRC were due to vacate the building in 2021 and plans have been submitted for the building to be converted into a hotel.

Sources include: Walter Thornbury ‘Old & New London’; W.W.Hutchings ‘London Town Past and Present’; Arthur Bryant ‘Liquid History’; ‘The Overseas Trade of London: Exchequer Customs Accounts 1480-1481’ ed. H.S.Cobb; Fiona Rule ‘London’s Docklands – A Lost Quarter’; Gustav Milne ‘The Port of Medieval London’; Daniel Defoe ‘A Tour Through the Whole Island of Great Britain’; John Summerson ‘Georgian London’; HM Revenue & Customs – Custom House visitor guide’.

< Return to The Port of London

The City of London has had a mayor for over 800 years. The first mayor was Henry FitzAilwin. In modern times a new Lord Mayor is elected annually, is head of the City of London Corporation, and acts as an international ambassador for the City.

The role of the Mayor of the City of London (not to be confused with the modern mayor of Greater London) is an ancient one. The first mayor, chosen in 1189 from amongst a small group of leading citizens, was Henry FitzAilwin, who remained in office until his death in 1212. For over twenty years he presided over the city, apparently unchallenged in his role, through turbulent times of near-civil war and riots. He must have been a remarkable man, acceptable to both Prince (later King) John and King Richard (‘the Lionheart’) as well as the leading people of London, with strong diplomatic skills and a firm grip on power. The exact circumstances of FitzAilwin’s appointment are a mystery but it is probably unlikely he was elected and simply emerged as the best-suited of a small group of men. The post may well have initially been an informal one, with some documents in the early 1190s failing to give his title.

Despite his place in London’s history, much about FitzAilwin is unknown or uncertain. He was born into a well-to-do London family. His name is English, not Norman, and tells us that he is the son of Ailwin (derived from the Saxon ‘Aethelwine’). It was in Ailwin’s house that the husting court was held in the early 12^th century. An alderman by 1168, FitzAilwin would certainly have been a man of some wealth and of high regard. As further evidence we know that three years before his appointment he, together with the Bishop of London, was one of those entrusted with handling the funds to pay King Richard’s ransom after the King was taken captive near Vienna while returning from a crusade.

FitzAilwin is known to have had large business premises at Candlewick (Cannon) Street close to the London Stone (and he is sometimes referred to as Henry FitzAilwin de Londonestone). He also had a quay at London Bridge and properties in the eastern part of the city. Although not certain, it is most probable that his main trade was in the production of cloth. He and his brother Alan inherited Watton manor in Hertfordshire but he also held land in Surrey, at Edmonton in Middlesex, and on the Thames in Kent. His London home was adjacent to St. Swithin’s church, of which he was a patron. He was married to Margaret, with four sons, of whom Peter FitzHenry (who predeceased his father) was a benefactor of Bermondsey Priory. Peter’s wife Isabel, daughter of Bartholomew de Chennay was buried there.

The best-known regulation introduced during the time of FitzAilwin’s mayoralty is the Assize of Buildings. It followed a major fire in 1212 that caused a number of deaths, as well as serious and widespread damage in Southwark and across London Bridge. The by-law stipulated the materials of which any new buildings should be constructed in order to minimise the future danger.

As was expected of a wealthy citizen of his time, FitzAilwin was a benefactor of several religious institutions, including Holy Trinity, Aldgate, St. Bartholomew’s hospital, and Westminster Abbey. He contributed to the foundation of St. Mary Spital and founded the chapel at Watton. When FitzAilwin died in September 1212 he was buried at the entrance to the chapter house of Holy Trinity.

FitzAilwin was closely associated with Roger FitzAlan who may have been related or a business associate. There are well over 100 existing documents that bear the signature of FitzAilwin as mayor and around 70 of those also include FitzAlan’s signature. After FitzAilwin’s death, FitzAlan succeeded him as mayor and may have been his chosen successor. No mayor since FitzAilwin has held the post of Mayor of the City of London for life, or for so long.

Sources include: Christopher Brooke ‘London 800-1216’; Caroline M.Barron ‘London in the Later Middle Ages’; Oxford Dictionary of National Biography

< Back to London in the early Middle Ages

In the 18^th century the world’s greatest commercial business was based in London, with its grand headquarters in Leadenhall Street in the City. During its 270-year history the East India Company brought spices from the Far East that changed Britain’s cuisine, refashioned the nation’s use of fabrics from wool to cotton, then introduced tea as the favoured beverage. More significantly, it was in large part responsible for changing the world’s economy in favour of Britain but at great cost to the Indian sub-continent and China. Initially a trading company, its private army conquered a huge country, leading it to rule over a vast population.

For centuries Asia was the world’s greatest manufacturing area, with spices and exotic luxury goods sent overland from there to Europe via Istanbul and on to Venice. Thus, a camel was incorporated into the heraldic device of London’s medieval Grocers’ Company. Vasco da Gama was the first European to open a direct sea route with the Far East, first arriving in India in May 1498, and the Portuguese monopolised maritime routes with India and China for the next century, bringing valuable silks and spices to Europe.

Political conflict with Spain and Portugal in the second half of the 16^th century disrupted supplies of Asian products from reaching England. A group of London merchants attempted to trade via the Baltic and Russia, forming the Muscovy Company. Another group, with overlapping membership to the Muscovy Company, went via the Mediterranean as the Levant Company. In April 1591 James Lancaster set out from Devon with three ships owned by Levant Company merchants to find a route to the Far East, reaching Ceylon (Sri Lanka). The mission was a disaster and few of the crews arrived back in England in 1594. Nevertheless, the voyage provided much useful information that would be used in the following years.

In the second half of the 16^th century Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands were part of the Habsburg Empire but when the Dutch formed their own independent state in 1581 their supply of Asian products was severed. In 1595 a Dutch fleet sailed to Indonesia and thereby ended Portugal’s monopoly of trade with the Far East. That led to the formation of the Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC) in 1602. It established a dominant position during the following century and for a time the VOC accounted for half the world’s shipping.

Political differences between the various nations disrupted imports of spices to England, which caused the price of pepper to almost triple. News of a successful voyage to Asia in 1599 by the Dutch encouraged London merchants to enter the trade. A meeting was chaired by the Mayor at Founders’ Hall and an association, dominated by Levant Company merchants, was formed. On New Year’s Eve 1600 a royal charter was granted by Queen Elizabeth to the ‘Company and Merchants trading to the East Indies’, or ‘East India Company’, giving them a monopoly on English trade between the Cape of Good Hope and Magellan’s Strait.

A small fleet of well-armed ships carrying around 500 crew, many of them Thames watermen and commanded by James Lancaster, sailed from Woolwich in 1601, backed by 218 subscribers. A variety of goods, including metals, fabrics, lace and gifts for foreign officials, as well as bullion, were sent on the outbound voyage. Despite poor sailing conditions that made for slow progress and many of the crew succumbing to scurvy, they arrived at Achin on the Indonesian island of Sumatra in the spring of 1602. A trade agreement with the sultan was struck and a small settlement established as a base. Pepper, cloves, indigo, mace and silk were brought back, providing substantial returns for the investors. Subsequent voyages were also highly successful, so on further sailings the company’s ships sought additional trading places, on the coast of India and as far as Japan.

England’s main product was woollen cloth, for which there was little interest in the warm climates, and other manufactures were of inferior quality to those produced in Asia, so the company had to mainly trade with bullion. It was therefore given the right to export silver – something that had previously been illegal – in order to purchase spices. The eighth voyage alone provided subscribers with a 221% profit. Continuing voyages ensured that spices were thereafter widely available in Britain, changing the nation’s cuisine. In 1617 alone the company brought back to London two million pounds weight of pepper. A decade later a commercial treaty was concluded with the powerful Mughal emperor, who ruled much of the sub-continent, giving the East India Company exclusive trading rights with the Surat region. By 1620 the Company had established twelve factories in the Far East.

During the early decades of the 17^th century the members of the East India Company were amongst the greatest merchants of the City of London, many of whom were also aldermen. Not only was it necessary to be wealthy to finance expensive voyages but also to have a close relationship with the King and his government to negotiate duties and privileges. There was overlapping membership of the East India and Levant Companies, as well as the Muscovy Company.

The first chairman of the East India Company was Sir Thomas Smythe. He was a member of both the City of London’s Skinners and Haberdashers livery companies and succeeded his father as Collector of Customs for the Port of London. He sat as an MP, a City alderman, and served as Sheriff of London. Smythe was a member of both the Merchant Adventurers and Levant Company, making him one of the most important London merchants of the late 16^th century. He was knighted in 1603 by James I, who appointed him as Ambassador to Russia. Returning to London he immersed himself in the East India Company, which for the first 20 years operated from his house in Philpot Lane. In 1606 Smythe arranged the granting of the first charter from King James for the Virginia Company, which was responsible for the settlement of Jamestown, and served as its first Governor. He served as Governor of the East India Company until 1621 except for two years.

The company’s fortunes waned during the 1630s due to competition from the Dutch and low selling prices of the products being returned to England. There was a lack of enthusiasm from investors and doubts that the company could survive. King Charles invested in, and granted a charter to, an alternative scheme to trade in those places neglected by the EIC around the Indian Ocean, led by Sir William Courteen, the founder of the colony of Barbados. A primary interest was the creation of a new colony at Madagascar. A fleet sailed in 1636 but Courteen died within three months of its departure and the Courteen Association became a very expensive failure.

Despite these issues, a fleet of four vessels was sent out in around 1642. The sinking of one of the ships led to a loss of the venture. Yet there was some success in the creation of the agreement with the local ruler to establish a fort on the east coast of India, resulting in the establishment of the town of Madras (now known as Chennai). That in turn created an important springboard for future trade with Bengal.

With the overthrow of King Charles, being loyal to the monarchy became a liability during the Civil War. The incumbent members of the company were replaced with a new breed of traders. They were men who had been involved in trade with the American and West Indian colonies and supporters of the Courteen Association, led by the London merchant Maurice Thomson. In 1657 the Cromwellian Protectorate granted the company with a new charter that merged it with the Courteen Association. Until then each of the early voyages was funded as an individual venture but a permanent joint-stock corporation was formed, allowing the shares to be publicly traded. They could initially be purchased from the East India headquarters and later at the Royal Exchange.

Thomson and his associates arranged for the company to lease the Guinea Company’s right to trade with the coast of Africa. It was useful to the EIC, who could then re-provision at Guinea Company forts on their voyage, as well as collecting gold to be used as currency in the Far East. On their return journey they could bring fabrics and cowrie shells that were in demand in Africa. Two years later an important supply base was also established on the island of St. Helena in the South Atlantic, en-route between England and the Far East. An additional supply base later became available when a British colony was established at Cape Town during the Napoleonic Wars.

The Cromwellian Protectorate came to an end in 1660 with the Restoration of the Monarchy. Charles II granted the EIC with a new charter the following year, which significantly extended its powers. It was thereafter authorised to govern its own settlements, raise armed forces to protect its trade, to mint its own coins, and arrest interlopers. On the other hand, Charles replaced the Guinea Company with his own Royal Adventurers into Africa company, thus ending the East India’s short involvement on that continent.

The competition for trading bases in Asia and specific produce such as nutmeg and mace was fierce and often bloody. The Dutch VOC were better-organised, with superior fleets, and ruthless. In 1682 they finally expelled the East India Company from the Spice Islands. Instead, the English focussed their attention on India and its textiles.  One of the Company’s trading stations was established at Bombay (Mumbai) on the west coast of the Indian sub-continent. It had been transferred to Charles II in 1661 as part of the dowry of Catherine of Braganza (as was Tangier in Morocco) by the Portuguese who had originally established the port but found it increasing difficult to defend. Bombay was rented to a reluctant East India Company in 1667 for £10 per year. In time it proved extremely beneficial and also acted as a model for subsequent colonisation. In the 1690s another base was established at the commercial centre of Calcutta on the prosperous Bengali coast of India and the area was soon providing over half the Company’s imports from Asia.

By 1700 the East India Company was making twenty to thirty sailings per year to the Far East and was England’s largest corporation. The Indian subcontinent accounted for substantially more than 20 percent of the world’s gross domestic production, compared with less than two percent by Britain. The Bengal region in the north-east was the richest part of the Mughal empire. Its weavers had for centuries efficiently produced a vast range of the finest textiles in silk and cotton. These colourful products, such as muslin, calico, chintz, dungaree and gingham, became the East India’s primary imports into England. Business boomed and in the early 18^th century East India-imported calico overtook native British wool as the most popular textile in English homes. This was to the great detriment of the local weaving industry, leading in 1697 to riots by London’s textile workers and assaults on the property of the Company and its directors. Two decades later there were attacks on London’s streets on women wearing calico. The government’s response was to restrict its importation and ban the use of powered looms in Bengal.

Between 1699 and 1774 the East India Company’s business increased to as much as 15 percent of total annual imports into Britain, its taxes and other payments often keeping the British government solvent. From its headquarters in London instructions were sent around the world regarding what goods should be purchased and the price to be paid. Local Company governors in India were given autonomy as to how those purchases could be achieved.

Probably the best-known attempt to assassinate a British monarch is the ‘Gunpowder Plot’ conspiracy of 1605. It is still celebrated in England every 5^th November as ‘Guy Fawkes Night’.

During the latter decades of the 16^th century and throughout the next there was a general intolerance of Catholics by many of the Protestant majority in Britain. Most of the Catholic minority were loyal to the monarchy but there was a relatively small number of extremists and, as was often the case, their threat to the Protestant establishment resulted in exaggerated rumours of plots and insurrection, resulting in anti-Catholic laws and occasional suppression.

When, upon the death of Elizabeth I in 1603, James VI of Scotland inherited the English Crown (as James I of England) there was no doubt a mixture of concern and hope amongst Catholics as to his intentions. It seems that James was privately tolerant of his Catholic subjects, provided they were loyal to him. Yet political expedience and the deep-rooted anti-Catholic sentiments of many amongst his ministers and subjects dictated that he should be seen to strongly support the Anglican traditions and present a hard line against papists. In 1604, for example, he encouraged legislation against Jesuit priests; and in February 1605 he initiated a crackdown on ‘recusants’ – those who refused to attend Church of England services – of whom more than 5,500 are estimated to have been prosecuted. Catholic extremists, who wished for an overthrow of the Protestant monarchy and government through an invasion by a foreign Catholic power, were also no doubt despondent that peace had finally been made with Spain.

A number of Catholic gentry, many of whom had suffered one way or another for their religious beliefs, came together in 1604 to undertake a plan to assassinate the King, members of the Privy Council, and MPs by blowing up the Houses of Parliament during the ceremony for the State Opening. The initial plotters were Thomas Percy, Thomas Wintour, Robert Catesby, John Wright and Guy Fawkes. Catesby was the son of Sir William Catesby who had previously been imprisoned for harbouring Father Edmund Campion, the leader of English Jesuits. Percy was related to the Earls of Northumberland who had been involved in previous Catholic uprisings. Wright and Wintour were gentry who had experienced Catholic suppression.

The Yorkshireman Guy Fawkes spent ten years as a soldier fighting in the Low Countries for the Archduke of Austria within the English regiment of Sir William Stanley, a Catholic exile. In 1603 he visited the King of Spain to discuss the situation of English Catholics and while there worked with one of the future Gunpowder Plot conspirators to obtain support for an invasion of England. He then travelled to Brussels where he was introduced to Wintour who was probably already working on the plot.

In May 1604 the conspirators met at the Duck & Drake inn on the Strand and agreed their commitment to the scheme. Fawkes assumed the identity of Cateby’s servant, John Johnson. Catesby initially hired lodgings and Fawkes was put in charge of digging a tunnel towards Westminster. This proved to be too difficult and in March 1605 a cellar below Parliament was acquired by Thomas Percy where 36 barrels of gunpowder were hidden behind some wood and pieces of iron. By this time several other people had been drawn into the group of conspirators, including the brothers of Wright and Wintour.

The next sitting of Parliament was continually delayed, and the gunpowder was beginning to spoil, so Fawkes was sent back to Flanders to obtain replacement explosive. While this was happening the group became even larger with the addition of a number of others, including Cateby’s cousin Thomas Tresham. All the conspirators, except Fawkes and one other, were related through family ties.

On 26th October 1605 an anonymous letter was received at his home in Hoxton by Lord Monteagle, a lapsed Catholic, warning him not to attend the Opening of Parliament, and it is possible that this letter was sent by Tresham. Monteagle immediately sent it on to Robert Cecil, Secretary of State. Several of the conspirators learnt of the letter but in the following days concluded that no action would come as a result. On 3rd November the main conspirators met, and plans were made for leaving London. Fawkes was to fire the gunpowder, then leave for Flanders to spread news of the success on the Continent.