ROMANO-BRITISH LONDON of the wall at the Heralds' College, or to have deflected towards Ludgate. During recent years this wall has occasionally been met with in building operations, and in one part, according to the workmen's account, it lies under the south side of the street, but no further record seems to have been made. Still more to the east, the line of this wall is somewhat doubtful, but what appears to have been another portion was disclosed at the south- east corner of Suffolk Lane (Plan C, 64).^^ At Monument Yard (Plan C, 65), what was described as ' a portion of the Roman wall' was discovered in 1880." Although this is somewhat to the north of the line generally accepted, there is no great improbability in the wall having followed this course. Monument Yard is about due east from the south-east corner of Suffolk Lane, and the wall may have followed in this direction as far as the approach of the old bridge. Fish Street Hill, from the east side of which it may have taken a south-easterly line to the Tower. This view is strongly supported by the discovery of a thick wall in Lower Thames Street (Plan C, 66) bounding the Roman building found on the site of the Coal Exchange. This is described as a ragstone wall, and is represented on the plan as being about 7 ft. thick. Its position is directly on the line suggested above (Fig. 25). During excavations for the Custom House, three successive lines of piling were noticed at distances of 53, 86, and 103 ft. from the existing range of the wharf, and there was also a thick piece of wall, described as of chalk rubble faced with Purbeck stone. The exact position is not clear, but it may have been a continuation of that at the Coal Exchange (Plan C, 67). Whatever may be thought of the probability of the various pieces of wall above enumerated having formed a continuous southern defence, it is clear from all descriptions that it was of a very different character from that of the wall surrounding the City on its land sides, and it seems extremely improbable that the original wall could have been carried along the river front. Had such a wall ever existed it is quite inconceivable that all trace of it should have been destroyed ; yet no wall of this description has been revealed by excavations. Fitz Stephen,"^ in the i 2th century, refers to the tradition that London once had a wall on the south side, but that it had been washed away by the river. That the tides should have had this action is extremely improbable, because the river bank adjoining the City shows everywhere accumulation, and there is ample evidence of its having been repeatedly embanked and encroached upon in Roman times. It has further been argued that there must have originally been a south wall as it would have been ridiculous to protect the land side and leave the river-front open to attack. This argument might possess some weight if the popular notion that the City wall was not erected until late Roman times were correct. In the earlier days of the Roman occupation their power at sea was supreme, and without fear from attack in this quarter the land side defence may have sufficed, just as we know it to have done in the Middle Ages. During the later Roman period, harassed by the constant incursions of the Saxons, a river defence was doubtless more necessary, and at this time the wall which has been noticed along Thames " JrcA xl, 45. ^'^ Jntigutiry, ii, 220. " Cat. Ant'iq. Roy. Exch. xxiii.
- '^ ' Descriptio nobilissimae civitatis Londoniae.'
71
