In the ancient language of the Goths, Lun signi fied a Grove, and Den a Town; and, at this day, there are, in the modern Scandinavia, towns or villages which retain the common name of Lunden. The first rude towns of the Goths were places of strength in woods: the northern Gauls, who were Goths from Scandinavia, traded with Britain; and it is probable, the southern parts of the island, with which they carried on their traffic, had been seized and colonized by that bold and adventurous race. As to the silence of Cæsar relative to London, which some have urged as a proof that the town did not exist at the time of his invasion, it ought rather to be taken as proof, which may be added to many others, that Cæsar never reached the Thames, and that the river he describes, and which antiqua. ries hastily concluded to be the Thames, was no other than the river Medway.

But London, before the Romans introduced, the arts into the island, could be nothing more than a rude fastness, or an emporium suited to the commerce of the times. The first mention of London, in authentic history, is by Tacitus, who speaks of its being sacked in the year 61, under the Roman Emperor Nero, by the British Queen Boadicea; and, from his relation of that event, it appears that it was then a place of importance among the Roman possessions in Britain. He says that it was "the chief residence of merchants, and the great mart of trade and commerce." It is afterwards mentioned by Ammianus Marcelinus, a Latin author in the reign of the Emperor Julian, who calls it "Vetustum oppidum," an ancient town.

State of London under the Romans.

The condition of London under the Romans was that of a Præfecture; that is to say, a place governed by Roman laws, administered by a magis trate called a Præfect, annually sent from Rome;

and it is probable that the inhabitants were Romans and Britons, living, together under the government and protection of Rome."

Original Site of London.

Some antiquaries imagine the first scite of London to have been on the south side of the Thames: but there is no reason to believe the original town stood on any other spot than the peninsula on the northern banks formed by the Thames in front; the river Fleet on the west; and the stream after. wards named Walbrooke on the east.

Walls; Military Roads; and Gates.

The walls were unquestionably reared by the Romans; but under which of the emperors it is impossible to determine. Their original bounda ries seem to have been Ludgate-hill on the west; a spot near the site of the Tower, on the east; Cripplegate on the north; and Thames-street, on the south.

Four great military roads extended from London into the country; the Prætorian way, afterwards named by the Saxons Watling-street, passing under a gate on the north side of the site of the modern Newgate; the road to Dover, beginning at Watlingstreet, and passing the Trajectus, or ferry at Dow gate; the Hermin-street, passing under Cripplegate; a road that passed under Aldgate by Bethnal-green to Old Ford; and a pass through the river Lee to Durolitum, the modern Layton in Essex.

It is probable the gates were originally only four in number, Newgate, Cripplegate, Aldgate, and Dowgate, corresponding with the great military roads, to which six others were added, as new roads were constructed, namely, the Postern on Towerhill, Bishopsgate, Moorgate, Aldersgate, Ludgate, and Bridgegate. The walls, immediately previous

to their being demolished, were more than three miles in circumference; guarded, on the three sides next the land, with fifteen lofty towers. But it is certain that the walls were originally of considerable less extent; for, in the reign of Edward IV. the circuit of them is given with great accuracy, which is as follows: From the tower to Aldgate was 82 perches; from Aldgate to Bishopsgate, 86 perches; from Bishopsgate to Cripplegate, 162; from Crip. plegate to Aldersgate, 75; from Aldersgate to Newgate, 66; and from thence to Ludgate, 42 perches; from Ludgate to Fleet-ditch, 60 perches; and from Fleet-bridge to the Thames, 70 perches; making the whole extent of the wall at that time something more than two miles.

State of London from the Evacuation of the Romans till seized by the Saxons.

After the Romans, in the decay of their empire, relinquished Britain, London continued in possession of the Britons for more than ninety years, before it fell into the hands of the Saxons; but, in the general confusion of the country during the Saxon invasion, the commerce of London would decline, and of the nature of its civil government, in that interval, it is impossible to determine.

Its State under the Saxons and Danes.

On the establishment of the Heptarchy, or the seven Saxon kingdoms in Britain, London was the capital of the kingdom of the East Saxons, or Essex; and again rose into consequence as a commercial town. When the Saxon kingdoms were re

*In $53, during the existence of the Heptarchy, London was of such weight, that it was chosen for the place of meeting of a Wittenagemot, or assembly of the great men of England, to deliberate on means to repel the Danes, whose inroads already threatened the nation with destruction,

solved into one monarchy under Egbert, London did not immediately hold the first rank; Winches. fer, Canterbury, and York, being all of higher consideration till the time of Alfred the Great, who constituted London the capital of all England. During the ravages committed in Britain by the Danes, London principally suffered; but after the wounds inflicted by the Danish invasion were healed, London began to grow into that prosperity which has since exalted it above all the commer cial cities in the world.

Respecting the nature of the civil government of London under the Saxons and Danes, we have some, though far from compleat, information. The civil powers seem to have been chiefly exercised by the Bishop, and the Portreve or Portgrave, a magistrate appointed by the king; but it is scarcely to be doubted that part of the civil authority resided in the body of the citizens. It is plain, from subsequent records under the Norman kings, referring to former times, that the citizens of London enjoyed various privileges and immunities; they were free from all base service or tenure; and it may be fairly concluded, from a view of that part of its history, that the city enjoyed a government of a mixed, and in some degree of a popular, nature.

Its State under the Normans.

At the conquest of England by the Normans, London was a place of great wealth and power; and its civil government and privileges as they existed under the Saxons, were confirmed by a charter of William the Conqueror. The immediate successors of William alternately harrassed the city with their usurpations and lawless acts, and soothed it with new charters to confirm old privileges or grant new ones, till at length the civil government of London took a form very little different from that by which it is at present distinguished.

The title of port-reve was lost in that of bai liff, and afterwards of mayor, names derived from the Norman language; and the municipal power was gradually vested in the citizens, and officers chosen by themselves.

In the reign of Henry I. London obtained a most important grant, by the annexation of the county of Middlesex to its jurisdiction, with a power of appointing a Sheriff and justiciary from among themselves. This was done to prevent that county from being any longer an asylum for bankrupts and fraudulent persons; who, having deserted London with the goods and effects of their creditors, lived there in open defiance of those they had injured. It was at this period that the Citizens established themselves into companies according to their arts, mysteries, or manufacture.

Its State from the Reign of Stephen till that of Edward III.

In the ensuing reign the Londoners purchased from Stephen, whose cause they espoused, the right of chusing their own Sheriffs. They were, however, rather severely treated by Matilda, the mother of Henry III. In the reign of Richard I. London was disgraced by the massacre of nearly all the Jews residing in it, the chief incitement to which appears to have been their opulence, and in the subsequent reigns they were plundered and persecuted with the most unrelenting cruelty, and at length in the reign of Edward I. expelled the kingdom. In the reign of King John, Henry Fitz-Alwyn was first elected to the trust of mayor, a dignity he had held under a different name for twenty years successively before, but under the nomination of the prince. Henry III. harrassed the citizens by seizing their old charters and making them purchase new ones, and as it has been justly said, " acted like a sharper, void of every principle of honor and justice, or.