Again, London must be a Place of Strength when Paulinus Suetonius, in his Return from Mora, i.e. Anglesey, marched with so much Resolution through the midst of the Enemies Country, to possess himself of it, with an Intention to make it the Seat of the War, as Tacitus saith. But that not finding there so considerable a Number of Roman Forces as he expected, he altered his Purpose, and chose to preserve the rest with the Loss of one Town. This affords an Argument of the Bigness of London at that Time. For he had now in all about Ten thousand Men well armed: But this Number was insufficient to defend it. Tacitus speaks of it as a very pleasant Place, saying, The Sweetness of the Place tempted some to stay behind, who were all cut off by Boadicia. Nor is there any Reason to think the Romans built the City of London, where there was neither a Colony, nor a Municipium, as the said Bishop seems to confess. Nor doth it appear that they had built any Cities in Britain at this Time: No, not Camalodunum, which was a Roman Colony; nor Verulamium, a Municipal or Free City, enjoying their own Municipal Laws, by the Favour and Allowance of the Romans. Nor is it probable that in so short a Time, as from Julius Cæsar to Nero, in whose Reign Tacitus gives the former Account of London, could become so famous for her Merchants and Provisions. Nor yet do the Roman Histories give any Account why TRINOBANTUM should in so few Years change its Name into LONDON. But the British History accounts for this Name; namely, that Lud, Brother to Cassivelan, renewed the Walls of it, and called it LUD-DIN, that is, the City of LUD, or Llwyd; which to this Day is a known British Name, signifying GREY in English. And it came by an easy Variation to be called Lundin; and one of its Gates, near which LUD was interred, called Porth Lud, or Ludgate, as it is called to this Day. This Lud was Son to Belinus Magnus; whose Name is still continued on Belinsgate. The Bishop of Worcester does not pretend to derive London from any Latin Word; a Presumption that it is not of a Roman Original. Ammianus Marcellinus, who flourished A. D. 380. called it Vetuslum Oppidum, i.e. an ancient Town, and makes it to be the City of the Trinobantes. He calls it Lundinum. Tacitus and Ptolomy, Londinium; Stephanus, Lindonion.

Lastly, The same Learned Welshman observeth the Antiquity of London by a Coin of the Emperor Claudius relating to Britain; which Camden speaks of: It had Britannicus on one side, and on the Reverse, METROPOLIS ETIMINII BA. LO. Where Camden conceives Etiminii to be the same with Adminii. Which Adminius was the Son of Cunobelin, King of Camalodunum; and being expelled by his Father, fled to Caligula when he was making War upon the Ocean, as Suetonius writes: And that it is not unlikely he might ingratiate himself with Britannicus, the Son of Claudius, or with Claudius himself, who was also stiled Britannicus; and so have been constituted King of London, as BA. LO. i.e. BASILEOS LONDINI, may import: Since that Cities were sometimes bestowed by the Romans upon the Britains, as Camalodunum was upon Cunobelin; and some Cities upon Cogidunus.

And yet after all, let me subjoin what another learned Antiquarian affirms: That Geffrey of Monmouth cannot be credited, who wrote that London was a City in the British Times, a City compassed with Walls, and fortified with innumerable Towers; since the Britains in those Days were Barbarous and Savage; and their Towns no other than Groves and Thickets, invironed only with an Hedge and a Ditch. Nor was there a Brick among them; nor at all, (as far as the Romans at their Descent here could observe) had they ever gone about to raise one Stone upon another.

Now a Word or two concerning the Buildings of the City.

In Q. Elizabeth's Time were strict Proclamations against Inmates, and Increase of New Buildings in the City; yet to small Effect. In the 2. Reg. Jacob. I. An. 1605, Mar. 1. A Proclamation was issued forth, forbidding all Increase of New Building within the City, and one Mile thereof; and likewise commanding all Persons henceforwards to build their Forefronts and Windows, either of Brick or Stone; as well for Decency, as by reason all great and well-grown Woods were much spent and wasted; so as Timber for Shipping waxed scarce. But this also had little Effect. When upon Octob. 10. 1607, Proclamation was made again to the same Purpose. And Octob. 16. some were censured in the Star-Chamber, for building contrary to the Tenor of the Proclamation. Again, by a Proclamation, An. 1614, all Commissioners were required to proceed with all strictness against all Offenders in this sort. From this time began the new Reformation of Building. The first House of Note thus Built was an House in the Strand belonging to Colonel Cecil: After that, an House near Drapers-Hall. Next to that, a Goldsmith's House in Cheapside, over-against Sadlers-Hall: And a Leather- seller's House in St. Paul's Church-Yard, near the Northgate; who was compelled thereunto, after he had set up his House, being all of Timber.]

IN few Years after, as Simeon of Durham (an ancient Writer) reporteth, Helen, the Mother of Constantine the Great, was the first that inwalled this City about the Year of Christ CCCVI. But however, those Walls of Stone might be builded by the said Helen, yet the Britains, I know, had no Skill of Building with Stone; as may appear by that which followeth about the Year of Christ CCCXCIX, when Arcadius and Honorius, the Sons of Theodofius Magnus, go- verned the Empire, the one in the East, the other in the West. For Honorius having received Britain, the City of Rome was invaded and destroyed by the Goths. After which Time the Romans left to rule in Britain, as being employed in Defence of their Territories nearer home. Whereupon the Britains, not able to defend themselves against the Invasions of their Enemies, were many Years together under the Oppression of two most cruel Nations, the Scots