“I very much question,” returned I, “if either the good foundress of the Church, or she to whom it was dedicated,—if Mary the Saint, or Mary the Sinner,—were ever addressed by so unceremonious an epithet in their lives; but, however, as it’s a parochial custom, and your wish, here’s Prosperity to St. Saviour’s Church, and the Immortal Memory of Old Moll!” Mr. Postern having made a low bow of acknowledgment for my compliance, thus continued.
“I have made it evident then, and, indeed, it is agreed to on all sides, that there was a Wooden Bridge over the Thames, at London, at least as early as the year 1052; and Maitland, at page 44 of his History, is inclined to believe that it was erected between the years 993 and 1016, at the public cost, to prevent the Danish incursions up the River. John Stow, however, in volume i., page 57, of his ‘Survey,’ attributes the building of the first Wooden Bridge over the Thames, at London, to the pious Brothers of St. Mary’s Monastery, on the Bankside. He gives you this account on the authority of Master Bartholomew Fowle, alias Fowler, alias Linsted, the last Prior of St. Mary Overies; who, surrendering his Convent on the 14th of October, 1540,—in the 30th year of Henry VIII.,—had a pension assigned him of £100 per Annum, which it is well known, that he enjoyed until 1553. This honest gentleman you find spoken of in John Stevens’s ‘Supplement to Sir William Dugdale’s Monasticon Anglicanum,’ London, 1723, folio, volume ii., page 98; and from him old Stow states, that, ‘a Ferry being kept in the place where now the Bridge is built, the Ferryman and his wife deceasing, left the said Ferry to their only daughter, a maiden named Mary; which, with the goods left her by her parents, as also with the profits rising of the said Ferry, built a house of Sisters in the place where now standeth the East part of St. Mary Overies Church, above the choir, where she was buried. Unto the which house she gave the oversight and profits of the Ferry. But afterwards, the said house of Sisters being converted into a College of Priests, the Priests built the Bridge of Timber, as all the other great Bridges of this land were, and, from time to time, kept the same in good reparations. Till at length, considering the great charges of repairing the same, there was, by aid of the Citizens of London, and others, a Bridge built with arches of stone, as shall be shewed.’
“The first who attacks this story is William Lambarde, the Perambulator of Kent, in his ‘Dictionarium Angliæ Topographicum et Historicum,’ London, 1730, quarto, page 176; wherein he scruples not to call Prior Fowler ‘an obscure man,’ whom he charges with telling this narrative, ‘without date of time, or warrant of writing,’ and then sums up his remarks in these words. ‘As for the first buildinge, I leave it to eche man’s libertye what to beleve of it; but as for the name Auderie, I think Mr. Fowler mistoke it, for I finde bothe in the Recordes of the Queene’s Courtes and otherwise, it signifieth over the water, as Southrey, on the South side of the water: the ignorance whereof, might easily dryve Fowler—a man belyke unlearned in the Saxon tongue,—to some other invention.’
“Maitland and Entick, at page 44 of their History, are not much more believing than Lambarde, the Lawyer; for they assert that the Convent of Bermondsey, founded by Alwin Child, a Citizen of London, in the year 1082, was the first religious house on the South side of the River, within the Bills of Mortality. The second, say they, speaking after Sir William Dugdale in his ‘Monasticon Anglicanum,’ London, 1661, folio, pages 84, 940, was the Priory of St. Mary Overies, founded by William Giffard, Bishop of Winchester, in the reign of King Henry I. Now Bishop Tanner, in his ‘Notitia Monastica,’ best edition by James Nasmith, Cambridge, 1787, folio, XX. Surrey,—for you know the book is unpaged and arranged alphabetically under Counties, of which Pennant heavily complains,—is inclined to think that Stow was in the right, although he had not discovered any thing either in print or manuscript to support his narrative. He is also willing to believe, that Bishop Giffard did not do more for St. Mary Overies, than rebuild the body of the Church: and, certainly, that he did not, in 1106, place Regular Canons there, since he refers to Matthew of Westminster to prove that they were then but newly come into England, and placed in that Church; whilst Bishop Giffard was himself in exile until the year 1107. The ‘Domesday Book,’ also, the most veritable and invaluable record of our land, thus hints at a Religious House in Southwark; which, as that Survey was made about the year 1083, was, of course, long anterior to the times of which I spake last. You will find the passage in Nichols’ edition of the register, London, 1783, folio, volume i. Sudrie, folio 32 a, column 1; and the words are as follow. ‘The same Bishop,’—that is to say, Odo, Bishop of Baieux,—‘has in Southwark one Monastery, and one Harbour. King Edward held it on the day he died.’—January the 5th, 1066—‘Whoever had the Church, held it of the King. From the profits of the Harbour, where ships were moored, the King had two parts.’ ‘Now,’ concludes the worthy Dr. Tanner, ‘if Monasterium here denote any thing more than an ordinary Church, it may be thought to mean this Religious House, there being no pretence for any other in this Borough to claim to be as old as the Confessor’s time, or, indeed, as the making of the Domesday Book, A. D. 1083.’ Vide Sign. U u 2; Notes r, and s.
“Maitland, however, cannot be brought to believe in the foundation of a Wooden Bridge by the Brethren of St. Mary; and on page 44 of his work, already cited, he thus gives the reasons for his non-conformity. ‘As the Ferry,’ he commences, ‘is said to have been the chief support of the Priory, ’twould have been ridiculous in the Prior and Canons, to have sacrificed their principal dependence, to enrich themselves by a wild chimera of increasing their revenues in the execution of a project, which, probably, would have cost six times the sum of the intrinsic value of their whole estate; and, when effected, would, in all likelihood, not have brought in so great an annual sum as the profits arising by the Ferry, seeing it may be presumed that foot-passengers would have been exempt from Pontage.’ He next proceeds to quote a deed of King Henry I., which I shall produce in its proper order of time, exempting certain Abbey lands from being charged with the work of London Bridge: which he considers as a sufficient proof that the Priests of St. Mary did not preserve the erection in repair, and therefore, says he, ‘as the latter part of this traditionary account is a manifest falsehood, the former is very likely to be of the same stamp.’ He then sums up all by these bold words. ‘As it appears that some religious foundations only were exempt from the work of this Bridge, and they, too, by charter, I think ’tis not to be doubted, but all civil bodies and incorporations were liable to contribute to the repairs thereof. And, consequently, that Linsted and his followers exceed the truth, by ascribing all the praise of so public a benefaction to a small House of Religious; who, with greater probability, only consented to the building of this Bridge, upon sufficient considerations and allowances, to be made to them for the loss of their Ferry, by which they had been always supported.’ Such are the objections against the attributing the building of the First Wooden Bridge to the Monks of Southwark; but we may remark, by the way, that Stow was a laborious and inquisitive Antiquary, who saw and inquired, as well as read for himself, and, in all probability, had both seen and conversed with Prior Fowle; whilst Maitland and Entick were often contented to write in their libraries from the works of others, and speak of places with which they were but very slightly acquainted. We may add too, that, as the Priests of St. Mary were Regular Canons of St. Austin, by their rule they were not permitted to be wealthy, but were to sell the whole of their property, give to the poor, have all things in common, and never be unemployed. I know very well, that in opposition to Stow’s account of Mary Audery’s foundation, you may bring forward that assertion made in Stevens’s ‘Supplement to Dugdale,’ which I have already cited, volume ii. page 97; wherein she is called ‘a noble woman,’ and, consequently, could not be the Ferryman’s daughter. But of this let me observe, that the authority of Stow’s ‘Survey,’ given in the margin, is mis-quoted; for although it is certain that the action itself was sufficiently noble, yet the old Citizen never calls her other than ‘a Maiden named Mary.’ You may see the place to which Stevens refers, in Strype’s edition of the ‘Survey,’ volume ii. page 10; and let me remark now, before I quit the history of St. Mary Overies, as connected with that of London Bridge, that there is yet extant there, a monumental effigy conveying the strongest lesson of man’s mortality; it being the resemblance of a body in that state, when corruption is beginning its great triumph. Prating Vergers and Sextons commonly tell you, that the persons whom these figures represent, endeavoured to fast the whole of Lent, in imitation of the great Christian pattern, and that dying in the act, they were reduced to such a cadaverous appearance at their decease. There has, however, been a new legend invented for this sculpture, as it is commonly reported to be that of Audery, the Ferryman,
father of the foundress of St. Mary Overies. It was formerly placed on the ground, under the North window of the Bishop’s Court, which, before the present repairs, stood at the North East corner of the Chapel of the Virgin Mary. Where it will be removed to hereafter, time only can unfold, for, as yet, even the Churchwardens themselves know not.
“In speaking of this person’s tomb, I must not, however, omit to notice, that there is a singularly curious, although, probably, fabulous tract of 30 pages, of his life, the title of which I shall give you at length. ‘The True History of the Life and sudden Death of old John Overs, the rich Ferry-Man of London, shewing, how he lost his life, by his own covetousness. And of his daughter Mary, who caused the Church of St. Mary Overs in Southwark to be built; and of the building of London Bridge.’ There are two editions of this book, the first of which was published in 12mo., in 1637, and a reprint of it in 8vo., which, though it be shorn of the wood-cuts that decorated the Editio Princeps, is, perhaps, the most interesting to us, inasmuch as it bears this curious imprint.—‘London: Printed for T. Harris at the Looking-Glass, on London Bridge: and sold by C. Corbet at Addison’s Head, in Fleet-street, 1744. Price six pence.’ You may see this work in Sir W. Musgrave’s Biographical Tracts in the British Museum; its first nine pages are occupied with a definition and exhortation against covetousness, in the best Puritanic style of the seventeenth century; and then, on page 10, the history opens thus:—‘Before there was any Bridge at all built over the Thames, there was only a Ferry, to which divers boats belonged, to transport all passengers betwixt Southwark and Churchyard Alley, that being the high-road way betwixt Middlesex, and Sussex, and London. This Ferry was rented of the City, by one John Overs, which he enjoyed for many years together, to his great profit; for it is to be imagined, that no small benefit could arise from the ferrying over footmen, horsemen, all manner of cattle, all market folks that came with provisions to the City, strangers and others.’
“Overs, however, though he kept several servants, and apprentices, was of so covetous a soul, that notwithstanding he possessed an estate equal to that of the best Alderman in London, acquired by unceasing labour, frugality, and usury, yet his habit and dwelling were both strongly expressive of the most miserable poverty. He had, as we have already seen, an only daughter, ‘of a beautiful aspect,’ says the tract, ‘and a pious disposition; whom he had care to see well and liberally educated, though at the cheapest rate; and yet so, that when she grew ripe and mature for marriage, he would suffer no man of what condition or quality soever, by his good will, to have any sight of her, much less access unto her.’ A young gallant, however, who seems to have thought more of being the Waterman’s heir than his son-in-law, took the opportunity, whilst he was engaged at the Ferry, to be admitted into her company; ‘the first interview,’ says the story, ‘pleased well; the second better; but the third concluded the match between them.—In all this interim, the poor silly rich old Ferryman, not dreaming of any such passages, but thinking all things to be as secure by land as he knew they were by water,’ continued his former wretched and penurious course of life. From the disgusting instances which are given of this caitiff’s avarice, he would seem to have been the very prototype and model of Elwes and Dancer; and, as the title-page of the book sets forth, even his death was the effect of his covetousness. To save the expense of one day’s food in his family, he formed a scheme to feign himself dead for twenty-four hours; in the vain expectation that his servants would, out of propriety, fast until after his funeral. Having procured his daughter to consent to this plan, even against her better nature, he was put into a sheet, and stretched out in his chamber, having one taper burning at his head, and another at his feet, according to the custom of the time. When, however, his servants were informed of his decease, instead of lamenting, they were overjoyed; and, having danced round the body, they brake open his larder, and fell to banqueting. The Ferryman bore all this as long, and as much like a dead man, as he was able; ‘but, when he could endure it no longer,’ says the tract, ‘stirring and struggling in his sheet, like a ghost, with a candle in each hand, he purposed to rise up, and rate ‘em for their sauciness and boldness; when one of them thinking that the Devil was about to rise in his likeness, being in a great amaze, catched hold of the butt-end of a broken oar, which was in the chamber, and, being a sturdy knave, thinking to kill the Devil at the first blow, actually struck out his brains.’ It is added, that the servant was acquitted, and the Ferryman made accessary and cause of his own death. The estate of Overs then fell to his daughter, and her lover hearing of it, hastened up from the country; but, in riding post, his horse stumbled, and he brake his neck on the highway. The young heiress was almost distracted at these events, and was recalled to her faculties only by having to provide for her father’s interment; for he was not permitted to have Christian burial, being considered as an excommunicated man, on account of his extortions, usury, and truly miserable life. The Friars of Bermondsey Abbey were, however, prevailed upon, by money, their Abbot being then away, to give a little earth to the remains of the wretched Ferryman. But upon the Abbot’s return, observing a grave which had been but recently covered in, and learning who lay there, he was not only angry with his Monks for having done such an injury to the Church, for the sake of gain, but he also had the body taken up again, laid on the back of his own Ass, and, turning the animal out at the Abbey gates, desired of God that he might carry him to some place where he best deserved to be buried. The Ass proceeded with a gentle and solemn pace through Kent Street, and along the highway, to the small pond once called St. Thomas a Waterings, then the common place of execution, and shook off the Ferryman’s body directly under the gibbet, where it was put into the ground, without any kind of ceremony. Mary Overs, extremely distressed by such a succession of sorrows, and desirous to be free from the importunity of the numerous suitors for her hand and fortune, resolved to retire into a cloister; which she shortly afterwards did, having first provided for the foundation of that Church which still commemorates her name.
“Such is the story related by this tract; and, if it were possible, one might suppose, that the pious maiden, out of her filial love, had placed that effigy in her fane, which I before mentioned to be sculptured in memory of her father; since it would, by no means, improperly represent the cadaverous features of the old Waterman. The figure, itself, is of the third form of the classes of Sepulchral Monuments, invented by Maurice Johnson, Esq.,—namely, tables with effigies or sculptures,—and the last of the arrangement adopted by Smart Lethullier, Esq., that is to say,—the representation of a skeleton in a shroud, lying either under, or on, a table tomb. Richard Gough, you know, in his ‘Sepulchral Monuments,’ London, 1786-96, folio, volume i., part 1, Introduction, page cxi. where you will find all these particulars, attributes most of these figures to the fifteenth century, and Audery certainly died very long before the time of William I. However this may be, as I am laying before you all the illustrations of Bridge history, both authentic and traditional, which are now to be found, I must not omit to add, that the supposed effigy of Audery is six feet eight inches in length; and represents his decayed body lying in its winding-sheet. His hair is turned up in a roll above his head, though in the ‘History of Southwark,’ by M. Concannen, Junior, and A. Morgan, Deptford, 1795, octavo, page 101, Note, he is erroneously stated to have ‘a shorn crown,’ and is, therefore, supposed to represent Linsted, the last Prior of St. Mary’s.