temples, and other edifices of that people, which have been discovered on the site of modern Bath, at various times; and we are well assured, that early in the third century, the waters of this place were by them solemnly dedicated to Apollo Medicus, to whose honour a bronze statue was erected.

After the expulsion of the Roman legions, Aquæ Solis appears to have remained in comparative tranquillity for several years: but during the bloody and protracted wars between the Southern Britons and the Saxons, it was the theatre of many obstinately contested conflicts. About the end of the fifth, and beginning of the sixth centuries, the Saxon generals, Ælla and Cerdic, were successively defeated here by the renowned Prince Arthur: in 557, the town was besieged and taken by the Saxon leaders, Ceaulin and Cuthwin. While under their sway, its name was changed from Aquæ Solis, to Hat-Bathun; "HotBaths," and Acemannes cester, or "the sick man's city." By these appellations and their derivatives, Balnea, Badonia, Badonessa, Bathonia, Acamannus, and Achumanens, it is subsequently designated by the Saxon and monkish chroniclers. In the sixth century, its inhabitants were converted to Christianity, and a temple, which had previously been dedicated to Minerva, is said to have been converted into a Christian church. In succeeding ages, other religious houses were founded here by the West Saxon kings. A Nunnery was commenced in 676, which was destroyed by the Danes, and rebuilt by king Offa, about 775, and this was honoured by bequests and grants from different monarchs. Athelstan increased the importance of the town by the establishment of a Mint, and, like many of his successors, both Saxons and Danes, made it a place of temporary residence.

Early in the tenth century the Nunnery was changed to an Abbey, and in 973, King Edgar was crowned in its Church by Archbishop Dunstan; on which occasion various liberties and privileges were granted to the inmates of that house, and to the inhabitants of the town.

From the general survey of the kingdom, called the Domesday-Book, it appears that Bath was held in demesne by William the Conqueror in 1086; that it then contained 178 burgesses, besides six unoccupied houses; and that the annual rent, or fee-farm, paid to the crown, was sixty pounds by tale, and one mark of gold: in addition to which, the mint paid yearly one hundred shillings.

After the Norman Conquest, Bath derived much additional importance from its monastic establishment. The abundant collection of relics possessed by the inmates of that house, and the salubrity of the waters in and near the town, attracted, in those early times, innumerable pilgrims and visitors: for whose accommodation, houses and hostelries were erected, and baths were constructed. Its celebrity was also much increased about the end of the eleventh century, when the Monastery, with the greater part of the town, having been plundered and burnt by the partisans of Robert, Duke of Normandy, were granted by William Rufus, to John de Villula, Bishop of Wells, in augmentation of the diocese of Somersetshire, and for the purpose of transferring the episcopal seat to this place. Under the superintendence of that prelate, and by means of the wealth which

he had acquired by practising the medical profession, the newly-established City and Cathedral Church were speedily re-erected, and the former was endowed with important privileges, by the reigning monarch, and by his successor, Henry the First. Immediately after King Stephen's accession to the throne, the whole City, together with St. Peter's Church, are said to have been destroyed by fire. The latter was probably rebuilt by Robert, then Bishop of the diocese. About this time, also, the removal of the seat of the prelate from Wells to Bath, caused great dissensions between the Canons of the former city, and the Monks of the latter: "the Canons affirming that the translation of the See by John de Villula could not be held good, because it was made against their consent. The dispute was eventually referred to Bishop Robert, who decreed that the Bishops should neither derive their title from Wells, as of old, nor from Bath, as in modern times, but that they should in future take their names from both churches, and be called Bishops of BATH-and-WELLS: that the Monks of Bath and the Canons of Wells should, on a vacancy of the See, appoint an equal number of delegates, by whose votes the Bishop should be chosen, (the Dean of Wells being the returning officer,) and that he should be enthroned in both churches."*

From the year 1165 to 1174, the City of Bath was retained by Henry the Second, who, in the latter year, granted it, together with the Bishopric, to Reginald Fitz Joceline: on whose death in 1191, Savaric, a relation of the Emperor of Germany, having been promoted to this See with the annexation of the Abbey of Glastonbury, (as one of the conditions of King Richard's release from captivity,) assumed the title of Bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, and granted the Archdeaconry of Bath to the Prior and Convent of the latter Abbey. But in 1193, whether voluntarily or by compulsion is unknown, Savaric resigned the City, then valued at £100 yearly, to the King. Shortly afterwards, that monarch granted to the inhabitants a charter, whereby those who were of the GuildMerchant were freed from all kinds of tolls and exactions. This charter was confirmed with additional privileges by Henry the Third: in the early part of whose reign the City was leased to the Prior of Bath for the yearly sum of £30; and it appears that in 1235-6 he was compelled to pay £13. 11s. beyond his rent, for the repairs of the King's houses and baths, which had been neglected, and were much dilapidated. About this time Bath again became subordinate to Wells, in "episcopal authority and power."

During the early part of Edward the First's government, the City was assigned in dower to Queen Eleanor: but was subsequently granted, in perpetual alms, by that monarch, to the Bishop of the diocese, in exchange for the patronage of the Abbey of Glastonbury. In 1297-8, the citizens of Bath first returned members to parliament. By Edward the Second, the original charters of the City were confirmed, and additional privileges were granted. The franchises of the inhabitants were also extended by his successor; in the forty-seventh year of whose reign, the tenth paid by them towards carrying on the wars in France was £13. 6s. 8d, whilst the burgesses of the neighbouring * Britton's "History and Antiquities of Bath Abbey Church,” p. 32.

town of Bristol paid £220. Three years afterwards, the men of Bath complained that the people of Bristol injured their trade, and prevented the sale of their merchandise, by holding a fair on the same day as themselves. A remedy was therefore granted them by parliament. From a return of the collectors of the poll-tax in 1377, it appears that the City of Bath then contained only 570 lay inhabitants; whilst the ecclesiastics within the Archdeaconry were estimated at 201, beneficed and non-beneficed. About this time, mandates were directed to the Mayor and Bailiffs for the repair of the City walls and towers, which had been allowed to fall to decay.

During several succeeding reigns, the name of Bath seldom appears in the pages of history. Insignificant in size, scanty in population, the quiet resort of invalids alone, it held out no temptation to the partisan during the furious struggles for power which marked the fifteenth century, and it is consequently unnoticed in the barren and confused accounts of those tempestuous times. We learn from various sources that its inhabitants paid their quotas of aids, subsidies, and taxes, and obtained, by purchase or grant from a continued succession of monarchs, various liberties and privileges ;-but beyond this, little is known of the state of the city, or of the affairs of its occupants. In the reign of Henry the Fifth began those dissensions between the Citizens and the Monks of Saint Peter's Abbey which only terminated on the dissolution of that house and the dispersion of its inmates. The latter claimed the right of ringing the Abbey bells, both earlier in the morning and later in the evening than those of the Parish Churches; this, the former considered an infringement of their rights, and persisted in ringing the bells of their respective Churches, both before and after those of the Abbey had been sounded. So furious a contest arose between the contending parties, that although the royal authority interposed between them, they were never thoroughly reconciled.

Leland, who visited Bath in the reign of Henry the Eighth, states, that it then had four gates and that the walls by which it was surrounded, contained many Roman antiquities, which he supposed to have been collected and inserted therein, by the Norman architects who constructed the fortifications of the City. The towers by which the outworks had in ancient times been guarded, had all been destroyed, excepting one over the Town Gate, and another called "Gascoyn's Tower." There were three baths, known by the respective appellations of the Cross Bath, the Hot Bath, and the King's Bath and the inhabitants had been, and then were, chiefly supported by the manufacture of cloth, a trade which was much on the decay.

The citizens, who had long exercised and enjoyed many important liberties and franchises, had not the exclusive privileges which they now possess, till 1590, when they were declared to be a body corporate, and at the same time were authorized to purchase lands: their jurisdiction was also extended much beyond the ancient limits. In the ensuing year, the City was honoured with the presence of Queen Elizabeth, during whose visit various improvements were projected, and partially carried into effect, as appears from a letter written in 1596, and printed in Warner's History of Bath, p. 187. It states

C

that "the Citie of Bathe, being both poore enough and proude enough, hath, since her Highnesse being there, wonderfully beautified itselfe in fine houses for victualling and lodging, but decayes as fast as their ancient and honest trades of merchandize and clothing. The fair Church her Highnesse gave order should be re-edified, stands at a stay; and their common sewer, which before stood in an ill place, stands now in no place, for they have not any at all; which for a towne so plentifullye served of water, in a countrey so well provided of stone, in a place resorted unto so greatly, (being at two times of the yeare, as it were, the pilgrimage of health to all saints,) seemeth an unworthie and dishonourable thing. Wherefore, if your Lordship would authorize me, or some wiser than me, to take a strict account of the money, by her Majesty's gracious graunt gathered and to be gathered, which, in the opinion of manie, cannot be lesse than ten thousand pounds, (though, not to wrong them, I thinke they have bestowed upon the point of 10,000 pounds, abating but one cipher,) I would not doubt of a ruinate Church to make a reverent Church, and of an unsavorie town a most sweet town."

In the succeeding reign, the inhabitants of Bath, who were known to be averse to James's government, were stigmatized for being accessory to the gunpowder plot; one of the conspirators having confessed that he had many meetings at Bath, "about this hellish design." They were consequently watched with great jealousy and suspicion by the government. In the early stages of the civil dissensions, which characterized the reign of Charles the First, this City was fortified by the partisans of the royal cause at an expense of £7000. It was afterwards seized by the parliamentary forces, under Sir William Waller, when Prince Maurice, and the Marquis of Hertford, with a considerable body of forces, advanced towards it, and succeeded in drawing Waller's army to Lansdown Hill. Here the latter erected breastworks; but the Royalists, unwilling to engage in the advantageous position he had selected, retired towards Marshfield. Waller, perceiving this, sent his whole body of horse down the hill, to charge them in the rear and flanks, which they did so effectually, that the royal forces were thrown into disorder. Prince Maurice and the Earl of Caernarvon, however, rallied, and succeeded in routing several bodies of the enemy. They next attempted to seize Waller's cannon, which were advantageously planted on the top of a hill, the declivity of which was occupied by strong bodies of the enemy, flanked on either side by a thick wood. The contest was for some time maintained with equal vigour by both armies: but at length, Sir Belville Grenville, with a party of horse, a detachment of infantry, and a body of pikemen, bore down all opposition, and gained the brow of the eminence, where that gallant leader was slain. The enemy in the mean time retreated behind a stone wall on the same level, and both parties suspended their operations for a time. During the night, Waller retreated with his army to Bath, leaving possession of the field, and a large portion of his artillery, to the enemy. He was again defeated in a subsequent battle, and the City of Bath was recovered by the royalists; in whose possession it remained till June, 1645,

when, through the treachery of the governor, as it is asserted, the republicans again succeeded in taking it. A monument is raised to the memory of Grenville, on

Lansdown.

General Fairfax, indignant at the loyalty of the citizens, exacted from them such disproportionate levies, and burdened them with the maintenance of so many troops, that early in the ensuing year they petitioned Mr. John Harrington, who was a staunch republican, to exert his influence in their favor. From a letter written to Captain Harrington, son of the above-mentioned gentleman, in the same year, it appears that the desired redress was obtained. After thanking him for quartering his own troop in the City, it says,—“ Many citizens had no monies ready, and were threatened with pillage. Eighteen horses were provided at the market-house, and delivered up as you desired; but the men required were excused on your desiring, nor was any seizure made, or plunder, except in liquors and bedding. Our meal was taken by the Marlborow troop, but they restored it again to many of the poorer sort. Our beds they occupied entirely, but no greater mischief has happened as yet. We have no divine service; the churches are full of the troops, furniture, and bedding. I have sent this by a poor man, who may suffer if he is found out, and I dare not send a man on purpose on horseback, as the horse would be taken."

Although a strong royal party seems to have existed in Bath, it was not until the death of Cromwell, in 1658, that they ventured to declare their principles: but no sooner had the second Charles ascended the throne, than they presented congratulatory addresses, exhibited processions in honour of the event, and in various ways manifested their loyalty and attachment to the new monarch.

In 1646, the City Magistrates, under the authority of Queen Elizabeth's charter, convened a common council, to enact various by-laws for the regulation of tradesmen and others, also for the better management of the baths, cleansing of the streets, and for the general improvement of the City. These ordinances were, in after years, strictly attended to, and the beneficial result has extended to the present time.

In 1663, the King, attended by his brother the Duke of York, the Duchess of Clarence, Prince Rupert, and a numerous assemblage of the nobility, visited the City; when the monarch, in gratitude for the loyalty exhibited by its inhabitants towards his father and himself, confirmed their original charters, and granted them a new one with additional privileges. At the same time, the royal physician, Sir Alexander Frazer, finding that the waters of the place might be used internally with advantage to the patient, recommended their general use; so that, according to Warner, "the epoch of drinking the hot waters of Bath, may be fixed to the time of Charles the Second's visit to this City."

During the reign of the ill-omened bigot, James the Second, some of the citizens of Bath, who had favoured the cause of the Duke of Monmouth, were executed, under a warrant from the infamous judge Jeffries. This document contains the following passages :