Salisbury, he pulled down the Exchange, together with the whole of Great Salisbury House, and erected Cecil Street on its site, about the year 1696.

WORCESTER HOUSE stood near Ivy Bridge, on the spot now occupied by Beaufort Buildings; its grounds, which extended to the river, were bounded on the east by the buildings of the Savoy, and on the west by the gardens of Salisbury House. In the time of Henry the Eighth this mansion belonged to the See of Carlisle, and was known by the name of Carlisle House; but in the reign of that monarch, it was exchanged by Bishop Heath with the King for Rochester Place, at Lambeth. It next came into the possession of the Earl of Bedford, when it was called Bedford House, and Russell House. It was afterwards inhabited by the Earls of Worcester, whence it acquired the name of Worcester House,*and Edward, the last earl of that title, died there, on the 3d of March,

Concerning Building the old House," says Strype, "there goes this story: That there being a very large Walnut-tree growing in the Garden, which much obstructed the eastern Prospect of Salisbury House, near adjoining, it was proposed to the Earl of Worcester's Gardener, by the Earl of Salisbury's or his Agent, that if he could prevail with his Lord to cut down the said Tree, he should have £100, which Offer was told the Earl of Worcester, who ordered him to do it, and take the £100, both which were performed to the great Satisfaction of the Earl of Salisbury, as he thought; but, there being no great Kindness betwixt the two Earls, the Earl of Worcester soon caused to be built, in the Place of the Walnut-tree, a large brick House, which then took away the whole east Prospect."-Strype's Stow, vol. 2. P. 114.

1627. From him it descended to his eldest son, Henry, who was created Duke of Beaufort, when it again changed its name to that of its new occupier. The celebrated Lord Chancellor Clarendon lived in this mansion for a short time, whilst his own house was building: paying for it the then enormous rent of £500 a year.

The Duke of Beaufort having purchased Buckingham House at Chelsea, caused this mansion, which was in a very dilapidated state, to be pulled down, and erected a smaller house for himself, for transacting his business in town, which was afterwards, through the carelessness of a servant, burnt down. The site and grounds are now occupied by Beaufort Buildings, (which mostly consist of large and respectable houses), and by different wharfs on the river side.

OLD LONDON BRIDGE.

WITH the exception of Dion Cassius, no mention is made by any historian of a BRIDGE over the River Thames in the Roman times; but that writer has incidentally noticed one, when recording the invasion of Britain, by the Emperor Claudius, in the year 44. His account, in substance, is, that "The Britons, retreating upon the River Thames, where it falls into the sea, (it being, from inundation, stagnant,) readily passed over, from knowing both the firm and the easilyfordable parts, whilst the Romans, in following them, were much endangered: upon which, swimming back, another party, crossing by a Bridge a little higher up, came up with and slew many of the Britons, but pur

suing the rest incautiously, were themselves entangled in the marshes, and had a great number lost."*

But little reliance can be placed upon this information; for as Dion Cassius wrote almost two centuries after the invasion by Claudius, and as no other authority ever alluded to a Bridge across the Thames, earlier than the tenth century, the probability is, that his statement was either founded on incorrect materials, or that he mistook some stream flowing into the Thames for the river itself.

"

The Saxon Chronicle," in noticing the irruption of Olaf, or Anlaf, the Dane, [or rather Norwegian King,] under the date 993, acquaints us, that "he sailed with 390 ships to Staines, which having plundered without opposition, he returned to Sandwich." Hence it has been inferred, that there was no Bridge across the Thames at London, at that period, or it would have been fortified by the citizens, and this incursion prevented. But William of Malmesbury, in mentioning the attack on the City by Sweyn, King of Denmark, in the following year, viz. 994, informs us,

* The original passage is subjoined: vide Dionis "Historiæ Romanæ," tom. ii. p. 958. Lib. lx. Sect. xx.

“ ἀναχωρησάντων δ ̓ ἐντεῦθεν τῶν Βρεττανῶν ἐπὶ τὸν Ταμέσαν ποταμὸν, καθ ̓ ὃ ἔς τε τὸν Ὠκεανὸν ἐκβάλλει, πλημμύροντός τε αυτοῦ λιμνάζει, καὶ ῥαδίως αυτὸν διαβάντων, ἅτε καὶ τὰ σέριφα τά τε ἔυπορα τοῦ χωρίου ἀκριβῶς εἰδότων· ὁι Ῥωμαῖοι ἐπακολουθήσαντες σφίσι, ταύτη μὲν ἐσφάλησαν, διανηξαμένων δ' αυθις τῶν Κελτῶν, καὶ τινων ἑτέρων διὰ γεφύρας ὀλίγον ἄνω διελθόντων, πολλαχόθεν τε ἅμα αυτοῖς προσέμιξαν, καὶ πολλοὺς ἀυτῶν κατέκοψαν τούς τε λοιποὺς ἀπερισκέπτως ἐπιδιώ κοντες, ἔς τε ἔλη δυσδιέξοδα ἐσέπεσον, καὶ συχνοὺς ἀπέβαλαν.”