are treated in convenient groups or sections, according to their nature. Short Excursions from the Metropolis are then noticed. Tables, lists, and serviceable information concerning railways, tramways, omnibuses, cabs, telegraphs, postal rules, and other special matters, follow these sections. An Alphabetical Index at the end furnishes the means of easy reference.
The information is brought down to the latest date, either in the Text or in the Appendix at the end. And the Clue-map has, in like manner, been filled in with the recently opened lines of Railway, &c., as well as with indications of the Railways sanctioned, but not yet completed.
HOTEL CHARGES.
There is only one class of hotels in and near London of which the charges can be stated with any degree of precision. The old hotels, both at the West-End and in the City, keep no printed tariff; they are not accustomed even to be asked beforehand what are their charges. Most of the visitors are more or less recommended by guests who have already sojourned at these establishments, and who can give information as to what they have paid. Some of the hotels decline to receive guests except by previous written application, or by direct introduction, and would rather be without those who would regard the bill with economical scrutiny. The dining hotels, such as the London and the Freemasons’ Tavern, in London, the Artichoke and various whitebait taverns at Blackwall, the Trafalgar and Crown and Sceptre taverns at Greenwich, and the Castle and Star and Garter taverns at Richmond, are costly taverns for dining, rather than hotels at which visitors sojourn; and the charges vary with every different degree of luxury in the viands served, and the mode of serving. The hotels which can be more easily tested, in reference to their charges, are the joint-stock undertakings. These are of two kinds: one, the hotels connected with the great railway termini, such as the Victoria, the Euston, the Great Northern, the Great Western, the Grosvenor, the Charing Cross, the Midland and Cannon Street; while the other group are unconnected with railways, such as the Westminster Palace, the Langham, the Salisbury, the Inns of Court, Alexandra, &c.
COLLINS’
ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LONDON.
Whether we consider London as the metropolis of a great and mighty empire, upon the dominions of whose sovereign the sun never sets, or as the home of more than three millions of people, and the richest city in the world to boot, it must ever be a place which strangers wish to visit. In these days of railways and steamers, the toil and cost of reaching it are, comparatively speaking, small; and, such being the case, the supply of visitors has very naturally been adjusted to the everyday increasing opportunities of gratifying so very sensible a desire. To such persons, on their arrival at this vast City of the Islands, we here, if they will accept us as their guides, beg to offer, ere going into more minute details, a
GENERAL DESCRIPTION.
Without cumbering our narrative with the fables of dim legendary lore, with regard to the origin of London—or Llyn-Din, “the town on the lake,”—we may mention, that the Romans, after conquering its ancient British inhabitants, about a.d. 61, finally rebuilt and walled it in about a.d. 301; from which time it became, in such excellent hands, a place of not a little importance. Roman remains, such as fine tesselated pavements, bronzes, weapons, pottery, and coins, are not seldom turned up by the spade of our sturdy excavators while digging below the foundations of houses; and a few scanty fragments of the old Roman Wall, which was rather more than three miles round, are still to be seen. London, in the Anglo-Norman times, though confined originally by the said wall, grew up a dense mass of brick and wooden houses, ill arranged, unclean, close, and for the most part terribly insalubrious. Pestilence was the natural consequence. Up to the great plague of 1664–5, which destroyed 68,596, some say 100,000 persons—there were, dating from the pestilence of 1348, no fewer than some nine visitations of widely-spreading epidemics in Old London. When, in 1666, the great fire, which burnt 13,200 houses, spread its ruins over 436 acres, and laid waste 400 streets, came to force the Cockneys to mend their ways somewhat, and open out their over-cramped habitations, some good was effected. But, unfortunately, during the rebuilding of the City, Sir Christopher Wren’s plans for laying its streets out on a more regular plan, were poorly attended to: hence the still incongruous condition of older London when compared, in many instances, with the results of modern architecture, with reference to air, light, and sanitary arrangements. On account of the rubbish left by the fire and other casualties, the City stands from twelve to sixteen feet higher than it did in the early part of its history—the roadways of Roman London, for example, being found on, or even below, the level of the cellars of the present houses.
From being a city hemmed within a wall, London expanded in all directions, and thus gradually formed a connection with various clusters of dwellings in the neighbourhood. It has, in fact, absorbed towns and villages to a considerable distance around: the chief of these once detached seats of population being the city of Westminster. By means of bridges, it has also absorbed Southwark and Bermondsey, Lambeth and Vauxhall, on the south side of the Thames, besides many hamlets and villages beyond the river.
By these extensions London proper, by which we mean the City, has gradually assumed, if we may so speak, the conditions of an existence like that of a kernel in a thickly surrounding and ever-growing mass. By the census of 1861, the population of the City was only 112,247; while including that with the entire metropolis, the number was 2,803,034—or twenty-five times as great as the former! It may here be remarked, that the population of the City is becoming smaller every year, on account of the substitution of public buildings, railway stations and viaducts, and large warehouses, in place of ordinary dwelling-houses. Fewer and fewer people live in the City. In 1851, the number was 127,869; it lessened by more than 15,000 between that year and 1861; while the population of the whole metropolis increased by as many as 440,000 in the same space of time.
If we follow the Registrar-General, London, as defined by him, extends north and south between Norwood and Hampstead, and east and west between Hammersmith and Woolwich. Its area is stated as 122 square miles. From the census returns of 1861, we find that its population then was 2,803,921 souls. It was, in 1871, 3,251,804. The real city population was 74,732.
The growth of London to its present enormous size may readily be accounted for, when we reflect that for ages it has been the capital of England, and the seat of her court and legislature; that since the union with Scotland and Ireland, it has become a centre for those two countries; and that, being the resort of the nobility, landed gentry, and other families of opulence, it has drawn a vast increase of population to minister to the tastes and wants of those classes; while its fine natural position, lying as it does on the banks of a great navigable river, some sixty miles from the sea, and its generally salubrious site and soil—the greater part of London is built on gravel, or on a species of clay resting on sand—alike plead in its favour.
At one time London, like ancient Babylon, might fairly have been called a brick-built city. It is so, of course, still, in some sense. But we are greatly improving: within the last few years a large number of stucco-fronted houses, of ornamental character, have been erected; and quite recently, many wholly of stone, apart altogether from the more important public buildings, which of course are of stone. Of distinct houses, there are now the prodigious number of 500,000, having, on an average, about 7.8 dwellers to a house. For our own part we are somewhat sceptical as to this average. But we quote it as given by a professedly good authority.
The Post-Office officials ascertained that there was built in one year alone, as long ago as 1864, no fewer than 9,000 new houses.