issues which arise from this treatment of the subject. London in relation to England was in the earliest period outside all that Anglo-Saxon polity could hold. Its existence and its continuance were never parts of the English settlement of the country, and it is because the non-English elements of London are so prominent that we are able to define the special position to which it attained in that settlement. London was never a city of the English, but it became a cityinstitution under English dominance. This is a vital distinction, and because it is possible to make it, the facts on both the London side and the English side can be classified and arranged in distinct groupsgroups having relationship one to the other, but so dissimilar as never to have merged. The merging of London into early English institutions is, in fact, an unthinkable proposition, for they nowhere meet on common ground.

I am aware of the opposition to such a point of view. Coming from the schools which have so long been dominated by the sweeping generalities of Freeman and his followers, it is an opposition not easy to meet. Because Stubbs on purely scientific grounds, and Freeman on historical grounds, have proved, and I think successfully proved, that the English conquest resulted in the dominance of English government, language, and life generally, it is not necessary to conclude that in no spot in Teutonic England did pre-English life exist or reveal itself. Because history is silent it is not necessary to conclude

that no other evidence exists-that both historical survival and traditional survival have no value. The value of both is greater far than has ever been recognised, and it is the recognition of their value which has made my own study possible.

To have studied London to the full is to know that London tells her own story, and that no one can tell it for her. Whatever credit may come to those who act as scribe, it is after all a small thing, for the inspiration is drawn from the great city itself. It is true that the story I have to tell differs altogether from that hitherto told, but it is impossible for it to be wrong on that account. It includes whole masses of material which have hitherto been ignored, and though the proportions due to the inclusion may not be always exactly measured perhaps, the foundations of the edifice are perfect. This makes it quite impossible deliberately to twist London history or to change it in any particular direction. A mere bundle of ancient things brought together, as in a museum, for the curious may be used in such a way, as we see from Loftie's book, but the glory of quarrying in so magnificent a field of research brings to student and reader the glory of a London instinct with life, and a great life.

I have two apologies to make.

Perhaps it would have been more scientific to have commenced from the argument side of the subject, and therefore with the fourth chapter on survivals, working back from them to the actual remains of

Celtic and Roman London. Survivals are stubborn things to get over. They do not exist without the strongest cause for existence, and that cause resides in the originals from which they owe their beginning. I thought, however, that the chapter would be better in its chronological order, so that the argument should rest upon historical rather than anthropological methods. The structure of the book being historical, its order should be historical, but the reader would do well to consider the general position from the point of view now suggested.

I have also one word to say about the tradition of London. I could not omit this from my evidence, and I could not complete it. It will make a book by itself, and I hope to publish it soon. It is an important element in London history, and has been entirely neglected. I trust that the summary I have given in the text will suffice for immediate purposes. I am sure the completed study will satisfy many that the position I take up for London is historically sound.

Both the publishers and myself have to acknowledge with many thanks kind permission accorded us by the following to make use of illustrations :

The Society of Antiquaries of London, to reproduce from Archæologia-the Altar to Diana; Matronæ; Retiarius; and a portion of Braun and Hogenberg's plan; from an engraving, "Edward VI. giving charters to Bridewell and Bethlem hospitals." The London Topographical Society, to use their

reproductions of the views of London by Agas, Wyngaerde, and Visscher.

The Royal Geographical Society, to use from their Journal-Hollar's view of London Bridge; map of Southwark; the Fleet near Bagnigge Wells.

Mr C. Bathurst, to use illustrations from Roman Antiquities in Lydney Park.

Mr E. E. Newton, to use a selection from his collection of pictures of London.

And I must thank Mr T. F. Hobson, for so kindly obtaining for me Mr Wood's charming drawing of Wittenham Tump and directing the artist's attention to the best view for the purpose of my argument.

LAURENCE GOMME.

LONG CRENDON, BUCKS,

March 1914.