London is not a single city, but rather a sequence or confederation of cities. In its multifarious districts there is not only a division of labour, but a classification of society grade rising above grade, separate yet blended “a mighty maze, but not without a plan.” Says one of her most able and observing historians, “were we not accustomed to the admirable order that prevails, we should wonder how it was preserved.” The regular supply of the various food markets alone is a truly wonderful operation, including all the necessaries and, what the Londoner himself supposes to be, all the luxuries of life. The method of distribution is truly astonishing, and only becomes less so to the liver in the midst of it all by reason of his varying degree of familiarity therewith. As to the means of sustenance, no less than livelihood, of a great mass of its population, that is equally a mystery. All among the lower classes are not Fagins nor yet Micawbers. How do the poor live who rise in the morning without a penny in their pockets? How do they manage to sell their labour before they can earn the means of appeasing hunger? What are the contrivances on which they hit to carry on their humble traffic? These and similar questions are those which the economist and the city fathers not only have been obliged to heed, but have got still greater concern awaiting them ahead. Poverty and its allied crime, not necessarily brutalized inherent criminal instinct, but crime nevertheless, are the questions which have got to be met broadly, boldly, and on the most liberal lines by those who are responsible for London’s welfare.

During the first half of the nineteenth century the economists will tell one that England’s commercial industries stagnated, but perhaps the prodigious leaps which it was taking in the new competitive forces of the new world made this theory into a condition.

In general, however, the tastes of the people were improving, and with the freedom of the newspaper press, and the spread of general literature, there came a desire for many elegancies and refinements hitherto disregarded.

The foundation of the British Museum in 1750, by the purchase of the library and collection of Sir Hans Sloane, and Montagu House, gave an early impetus to the movement, which was again furthered when, in 1801, George III. presented a collection of Egyptian antiquities, and in 1805 and 1806 were purchased the Townley and Elgin marbles respectively. The Museum continued to increase until, in 1823, when George IV. presented his father’s library of sixty-five thousand volumes, Montagu House was found to be quite inadequate for its purpose, and the present building, designed by Sir Robert Smirke, and completed in 1827, was erected on its site. In making this gift, the king said, “for the purpose of advancing the literature of his country, and as a just tribute to the memory of a parent whose life was adorned with every public and private virtue.”

The magnificent reading-room was not constructed until 1855-57, but it became a “felt want” from the time when George IV. made his valuable presentation to the Museum. The great “reading age” was then only in its infancy.

Early in 1830 George IV. fell ill, and on the 25th of June he died. During his regency, although he himself had little to do with the matter, his name was associated with many splendid triumphs, by the marvellous progress of intellect, and by remarkable improvements in the liberal arts. With fine abilities and charming manners, England might have been proud of such a king, but he squandered his talents for his own gratification; alienated himself from all right-minded men; lived a disgraceful life, and died the subject of almost universal contempt. His epitaph has been written thus: “He was a bad son, a bad husband, a bad father, a bad subject, a bad monarch, and a bad friend.”

The memory of old London is in no way kept more lively than by the numerous City Companies or Guilds. Established with a good purpose, they rendered useful enough service in their day, but within the last half-century their power and influence has waned, until to-day but three, of the eighty or more, are actually considered as Trading Companies, the Goldsmiths’, the Apothecaries’ and the Stationers’.

The first companies, or fraternities, of Anglo-Saxon times gradually evolved themselves into the positive forms in which they have endured till to-day. Just when this evolution came about is obscure. An extinct “Knighten Guild” was licensed by Edgar, a reminiscence of which is supposed to exist to-day in Nightingale Lane, where the Guild was known to have been located.

The oldest of the City Companies now existing is the Weavers’ Company, having received its charter from Henry II. Though licensed, these trade organizations were not incorporated until the reign of Edward III., who generously enrolled himself as a member of the Merchant Tailors.

At this time it was ordained that all artificers should choose their trade, and, having chosen it, should practise no other; hence it was that these “Guilds” grew to such a position of wealth and influence, the ancient prototype, doubtless, of the modern “labour unions.”

The twelve great City Companies, whose governors ride about in the lord mayor’s procession of the 9th of November of each year, are, in order of precedence, ranked as follows: Mercers, Grocers, Drapers, Fishmongers, Goldsmiths, Skinners, Merchant Tailors, Haberdashers, Salters, Ironmongers, Vintners, Cloth-workers.

Allied with these are eighty odd other companies divided into three classes:

I. Those exercising a control over their trades: Goldsmiths, Apothecaries.

II. Those exercising the right of search or marking of wares: the Stationers, at whose “hall” must be entered all books for copyright; the Gunmakers, who “prove” all London-made guns; Saddlers, Pewterers, and Plumbers.

III. Companies into which persons carrying on certain occupations are compelled to enter: Apothecaries, Brewers, Builders, etc.

The “halls,” as they are called, are for the most part extensive quadrangular buildings with a courtyard in the centre.

The most pretentious, from an architectural point of view, are Goldsmiths’ Hall in Foster Lane, and Ironmongers’ Hall in Fenchurch Street.

Fishmongers’ Hall, at the northwest angle of London Bridge, built in 1831, is a handsome structure after the Greek order, with a fine dining-room. The Merchant Tailors’ Hall, in Threadneedle Street, has a wonderful banquet-room, with portraits of most of the Kings of England, since Henry VIII., adorning its walls.

Stationers’ Hall will perhaps be of the greatest interest to readers of this book. All who have to do with letters have a certain regard for the mysticism which circles around the words, “Entered at Stationers’ Hall.”

The Stationers’ Company was incorporated in 1557; it exercised a virtual monopoly of printing almanacs under a charter of James I. until 1775, when the judges of the Court of Common Pleas decided that their professed patent of monopoly was worthless, the Crown having no power to grant any such exclusive right. Doubtless many another archaic statute is of a like invalidity did but some protestful person choose to take issue therewith. The number of freemen of the company is about 1,100; that of the livery about 450. Printers were formerly obliged to be apprenticed to a member of the company, and all publications for copyright must be entered at their hall. The register of the works so entered for publication commenced from 1557, and is valuable for the light it throws on many points of literary history. The Copyright Act imposes on the company the additional duty of registering all assignments of copyrights. The charities of the company are numerous. In Dickens’ time Almanac Day (November 22d) was a busy day at the hall, but the great interest in this species of astrological superstition has waned, and, generally speaking, this day, like all others, is of great quietude and repose in these noble halls, where bewhiskered functionaries amble slowly through the routine in which blue paper documents with bright orange coloured stamps form the only note of liveliness in the entire ensemble.

The Goldsmiths’ Company assays all the gold and silver plate manufactured in the metropolis, and stamps it with the “hall-mark,” which varies each year, so it is thus possible to tell exactly the year in which any piece of London plate was produced.

The out-of-door amusements of society were at this time, as now, made much of. The turf, cricket, and riding to hounds being those functions which took the Londoner far afield. Nearer at home were the charms of Richmond, with its river, and the Star and Garter, and the Great Regatta at Henley, distinctly an affair of the younger element.

Tea-gardens, once highly popular, had fallen into disrepute so far as “society” was concerned. Bagnigge Wells, Merlin’s Cave, the London Spa, Marylebone Gardens, Cromwell’s Gardens, Jenny’s Whim, were all tea-gardens, with recesses, and avenues, and alcoves for love-making and tea-drinking, where an orchestra discoursed sweet music or an organ served as a substitute. An intelligent foreigner, who had published an account of his impressions of England, remarked: “The English take a great delight in the public gardens, near the metropolis, where they assemble and drink tea together in the open air. The number of these in the capital is amazing, and the order, regularity, neatness, and even elegance of them are truly admirable. They are, however, very rarely frequented by people of fashion; but the middle and lower ranks go there often, and seem much delighted with the music of an organ, which is usually played in an adjoining building.”

Vauxhall, the Arabia Felix of the youth of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, was still a fashionable resort, “a very pandemonium of society immorality,” says a historian. This can well be believed if the many stories current concerning “prince, duke, and noble, and much mob besides,” are accepted.

“Here the ’prentice from Aldgate may ogle a toast! Here his Worship must elbow the knight of the post! For the wicket is free to the great and the small; Sing Tantarara Vauxhall! Vauxhall!”

The first authentic notice of Vauxhall Gardens appears in the record of the Duchy of Cornwall in 1615, when for two hundred years, through the changes of successive ages, there was conducted a round of gaiety and abandon unlike any other Anglo-Saxon institution. Open, generally, only during the summer months, the entertainment varied from vocal and instrumental music to acrobats, “burlettas,” “promenades,” and other attractions of a more intellectual nature, and, it is to be feared, likewise of a lesser as well.

The exhibition usually wound up with a display of fireworks, set off at midnight. From 1830 to 1850 the gardens were at the very height of their later festivity, but during the next decade they finally sank into insignificance, and at last flickered out in favour of the more staid and sad amusements of the later Victorian period.

As for the indoor pleasures of society at this time, there were the theatre, the opera, and the concert-room. Dining at a popular restaurant or a gigantic hotel had not been thought of. There were, to be sure, the “assembly-rooms” and the “supper-rooms,” but there were many more establishments which catered to the pleasures of the masculine mind and taste than provided a fare of food and amusement which was acceptable to the feminine palate.

Of the men’s clubs, Brookes’ and White’s had long been established, and, though of the proprietary order, were sufficiently attractive and exclusive to have become very popular and highly successful. The other class were those establishments which fulfil the true spirit and province of a club, where an association of gentlemen join together in the expense of furnishing accommodation of refreshment and reading and lounging rooms. This was the basis on which the most ambitious clubs were founded; what they have degenerated into, in some instances, would defy even a rash man to attempt to diagnose, though many are still run on the conservative lines which do not open their doors to strangers, even on introduction, as with the famous Athenaeum Club.

Other clubs, whose names were already familiar in the London of Dickens’ day, were the Carleton, Conservative, Reform, University, and perhaps a score of others.

As is well known, Dickens was an inordinate lover of the drama, a patron of the theatre himself, and an amateur actor of no mean capabilities. As early as 1837 he had written an operetta, “The Village Coquettes,” which he had dedicated to Harley. It was performed, for the first time, on December 6, 1836, at the St. James’ Theatre. A London collector possesses the original “hand-bill,” announcing a performance of “Used Up” and “Mr. Nightingale’s Diary,” at the Philharmonic Hall, Liverpool, in 1852, in which Dickens, Sir John Tenniel, and Mark Lemon took part; also a playbill of the performance of “The Frozen Deep,” at the “Gallery of Illustration,” on Regent Street, on July 4, 1857, “by Charles Dickens and his amateur company before Queen Victoria and the Royal Family.”

The painting (1846) by C. R. Leslie, R. A., of Dickens as Captain Boabdil, in Ben Jonson’s play of “Every Man in His Humour,” is familiar to all Dickens lovers.

The theatres of London, during the later years of Dickens’ life, may be divided into two classes: those which were under “royal patronage,” and those more or less independent theatres which, if ever visited by royalty, were favoured with more or less unexpected and infrequent visits.

Of the first class, where the aristocracy, and the royal family as well, were pretty sure to be found at all important performances, the most notable were “Her Majesty’s,” “The Royal Italian Opera House,” “The Theatre Royal, Drury Lane.” Of the latter class, the most famous and who shall not say the most deservedly so were the “Haymarket Theatre,” “The Adelphi,” “The Lyceum,” and the “St. James’ Theatre.”

“Her Majesty’s Theatre,” on the western side of the Haymarket, was the original of the two Italian opera-houses in London; it was built in 1790, on the site of an older theatre, burnt down in 1867, and rebuilt in 1869. The freehold of some of the boxes was sold for as much as L8,000 each. The opera season was generally from March to August; but the main attractions and the largest audiences were found from May to July. The “Royal Italian Opera House” occupied the site of the former Covent Garden Theatre, as it does to-day, and was built in 1858 on the ruins of one destroyed by fire. The building is very remarkable, both within and without. Italian opera was produced here with a completeness scarcely paralleled in Europe. When not required for Italian operas, the building was often occupied by an “English Opera Company,” or occasionally for miscellaneous concerts. The “Floral Hall” adjoins this theatre on the Covent Garden side. “Drury Lane Theatre,” the fourth on the same site, was built in 1812; its glories live in the past, for the legitimate drama now alternates there with entertainments of a more spectacular and melodramatic character, and the Christmas pantomimes, that purely indigenous English institution. The “Haymarket Theatre,” exactly opposite “Her Majesty’s,” was built in 1821; under Mr. Buckstone’s management, comedy and farce were chiefly performed. The “Adelphi Theatre,” in the Strand, near Southampton Street, was rebuilt in 1858, when it had for a quarter of a century been celebrated for melodramas, and for the attractiveness of its comic actors. The “Lyceum Theatre,” or “English Opera House,” at the corner of Wellington Street, Strand, was built in 1834 as an English opera-house, but its fortunes were fluctuating, and the performances not of a definite kind. This was the house latterly taken over by Sir Henry Irving. The “Princess’ Theatre,” on the north side of Oxford Street, was built in 1830; after a few years of opera and miscellaneous dramas, it became the scene of Mr. Charles Kean’s Shakespearian revivals, and now resembles most of the other theatres. “St. James’ Theatre,” in King Street, St. James’, was built for Braham, the celebrated singer. “The Olympic” was a small house in Wych Street, Drury Lane, now destroyed. “The Strand Theatre” was famous for its burlesque extravaganzas, a form of theatrical amusement which of late has become exceedingly popular. The “New Globe Theatre” (destroyed so late as 1902) and “The Gaiety” (at the stage entrance of which are the old offices of Good Words, so frequently made use of by Dickens in the later years of his life), and “The Vaudeville,” were given over to musical comedy and farce. “The Adelphi,” though newly constructed at that time, was then, as now, the home of melodrama.

Others still recognized as popular and prosperous houses were “The Court Theatre,” Sloane Square; “The Royalty,” in Soho; “The Queen’s,” in Longacre; “The Prince of Wales’,” in Tottenham Street, formerly the Tottenham Theatre. Robertson’s comedies of “Caste,” “Our Boys,” etc., were favourite pieces there. “Sadler’s Wells,” “Marylebone Theatre,” “The Brittania,” at Hoxton, “The Standard,” in Shoreditch, and “The Pavilion,” in Whitechapel, were all notable for size and popularity, albeit those latterly mentioned were of a cheaper class.

South of the river were “Astley’s,” an old amphitheatre, “The Surrey Theatre,” and “The Victoria.”

At this time (1870) it was estimated that four thousand persons were employed in London theatres, supporting twelve thousand persons. The public expenditure thereon was estimated at L350,000 annually.

Of “concert rooms,” there were “Exeter Hall,” “St. James’ Hall,” “Hanover Square Rooms,” “Floral Hall,” connected with the Covent Garden Opera, “Willis’ Rooms,” and the “Queen’s Concert Rooms,” connected with “Her Majesty’s Theatre.”

Here were given the performances of such organizations as “The Sacred Harmonic Society,” “The Philharmonic Society,” “The Musical Union,” and the “Glee and Madrigal Societies,” “The Beethoven Society,” and others.

“Entertainments,” an indefinite and mysterious word, something akin to the olla podrida of sunny Spain, abounded.

Usually they were a sort of musical or sketch entertainment, thoroughly innocuous, and, while attaining a certain amount of popularity and presumably success to their projectors, were of a nature only amusing to the completely ennuied or juvenile temperament. Readings by various persons, more or less celebrated, not forgetting the name of Dickens, attracted, properly enough, huge crowds, who were willing to pay high prices to hear a popular author interpret his works. A species of lion-taming, which, if not exactly exciting, is harmless and withal edifying. The last two varieties of entertainment usually took place in the “Egyptian Hall,” in Piccadilly, “St. James’ Hall,” or “The Gallery of Illustration” in Regent Street.

Of miscellaneous amusements, appealing rather more to the middle class than the actual society element, if one really knows what species of human being actually makes up that vague body, were such attractions as were offered by “Madame Tussaud’s Waxwork Exhibition,” which suggests at once to the lover of Dickens Mrs. Jarley’s similar establishment, and such industrial exhibitions as took place from time to time, the most important of the period of which this book treats being, of course, the first great International Exhibition, held in Hyde Park in 1851.

Further down the social scale the amusements were a variation only of degree, not of kind.

The lower classes had their coffee-shops and, supposedly, in some degree the gin-palaces, which however, mostly existed in the picturesque vocabulary of the “smug” reformer.

The tavern, the chop-house, and the dining-room were variants only of the “assembly-rooms,” the “clubs,” and the grand establishments of the upper circles, and in a way performed the same function, provided entertainment for mankind.

As for amusements pure and simple, there was the “music-hall,” which, quoting a mid-Victorian writer, was a place where held forth a “species of musical performance, a singular compound of poor foreign music, but indifferently executed, and interspersed with comic songs of a most extravagant kind, to which is added or interpolated what the performers please to term ‘nigger’ dances, athletic and rope-dancing feats, the whole accompanied by much drinking and smoking.” Which will pass as a good enough description to apply to certain establishments of this class to-day, but which, in reality, loses considerable of its force by reason of its slurring resentment of what was in a way an invasion of a foreign custom which might be expected, sooner or later, to crowd out the conventional and sad amusements which in the main held forth, and which in a measure has since taken place. The only bearing that the matter has to the subject of this book is that some large numbers of the great public which, between sunset and its sleeping hours, must perforce be amused in some way, is to-day, as in days gone by, none too particular as to what means are taken to accomplish it.

There is a definite species of depravity which is supposed to be peculiarly the attribute of the lower classes. If it exists at all to-day, it probably does lie with the lower classes, but contemporary opinion points to the fact that it was not alone in those days the lower classes who sought enjoyment from the cockpit, the dog fight, the prize ring, or the more ancient bull-baiting, all of which existed to some degree in the early nineteenth century. Truly the influence of the Georges on society, of whatever class, must have been cruelly debasing, and it was not to be expected that the early years of Victoria’s reign should have been able to eradicate it thoroughly, and though such desires may never be entirely abolished, they are, in the main, not publicly recognized or openly permitted to-day, a fact which is greatly to the credit of the improved taste of the age in which we live.

Formerly it was said that there was but one class of hotels in and near London of which the charges could be stated with any degree of precision. The old hotels, both at the West End and in the City, kept no printed tariff, and were not accustomed even to be asked beforehand as to their charges. Most of the visitors were more or less recommended by guests who had already sojourned at these establishments, and who could give information as to what they had paid. Some of the hotels declined even 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.

Of these old-fashioned hotels, barbarous relics of another day, few are to be found now, and, though existing in reality, are being fast robbed of their clientiele, which demand something more in the way of conveniences with no diminution of comforts than it were possible to get in the two or three private houses thrown into one, and dubbed by the smugly respectable title of “Private Hotel.”

Other establishments did exist, it is true, in Dickens’ time: “The Golden Cross” and “Morley’s,” “Haxell’s,” and others of such class, from which coaches still ran to near-by towns, and which houses catered principally for the country visitor or the avowed commercially inclined. But aside from these, and the exclusive and presumably extravagant class of smaller houses, represented by such names as “Claridge’s,” “Fenton’s,” “Limner’s,” et als., there was no other accommodation except the “taverns” of masculine propensities of Fleet Street and the City generally.

The great joint stock hotels, such as “The Metropole,” “The Savoy,” and “The Cecil,” did not come into being until well toward the end of Dickens’ life, if we except the excellent and convenient railway hotels, such as made their appearance a few years earlier, as “Euston,” “King’s Cross,” and “Victoria.” The first of the really great modern caravanserais are best represented by those now somewhat out-of-date establishments, the “Westminster Palace,” “Inns of Court,” “Alexandra,” and others of the same ilk, while such as the magnificently appointed group of hotels to be found in the West Strand, Northumberland Avenue, or in Pall Mall were unthought of.

The prevailing customs of an era, with respect to clubs, taverns, coffee-houses, etc., mark signally the spirit of the age. The taverns of London, properly so called, were, in the earliest days of their prime, distinguished, each, for its particular class of visitors. The wits and poets met at “Will’s” in Covent Garden, and the politicians at “St. James’ Coffee-House,” from which Steele often dated his Tatler. Later, in the forties, there were perhaps five hundred houses of entertainment, as distinguished from the ordinary “public house,” or the more ambitious hotel.

The “dining-rooms,” “a la mode beef shops,” and “chop-houses” abounded in the “City,” and with unvarying monotony served four, six, or ninepenny “plates” with astonishing rapidity, quite rivalling in a way the modern “quick lunch.” The waiter was usually servile, and in such places as the “Cheshire Cheese,” “Simpson’s,” and “Thomas’,” was and is still active. He was a species of humanity chiefly distinguished for a cryptogrammatic system of reckoning your account, and the possessor of as choice a crop of beneath-the-chin whiskers as ever graced a Galway or a County Antrim squireen.

The London City waiter, as distinguished from his brethren of the West End, who are most Teutonic, is a unique character. Here is Leigh Hunt’s picture of one:

“He has no feeling of noise; even a loaf with him is hardly a loaf; it is so many ‘breads.’ His longest speech is making out a bill viva voce, ’Two beefs, one potato, three ales, two wines, six and two pence.’”

A unique institution existed during the first quarter of the last century. Some of Dickens’ characters, if not Dickens himself, must have known something of the sort. Charles Knight tells of more than one establishment in the vicinity of the “Royal Exchange,” where a sort of public gridiron was kept always at hand, for broiling a chop or steak which had been bought by the customer himself at a neighbouring butcher’s. For this service, the small sum of a penny was charged, the profit to the house probably arising from the sale of potable refreshments.

The houses which were famous for “fine old cheese,” “baked potatoes,” “mutton or pork pies,” “sheep’s trotters,” or “pig’s faces,” were mostly found, or, at least, were at their best, in the “City,” though they formed an humble and non-fastidious method of purveying to the demands of hunger, in that the establishments catered, more particularly, to the economically inclined, or even the poorer element of city workers.

The rise from these City eating-houses to the more ambitiously expensive caterers of the “West End” was gradual. Prices and the appointments increased as one journeyed westward through Fleet Street, the Strand, to Piccadilly and Regent Street.

Another institution peculiar to London, in its plan and scope at least, was the “coffee-house” of 1840, evolved from those of an earlier generation, but performing, in a way, similar functions.

At this time a “House of Commons Committee of Inquiry into the Operation of Import Duties” as was its stupendous title elicited some remarkable facts concerning the fast increasing number of “coffee-houses,” which had grown from ten or twelve to eighteen hundred in twenty-five years. One Pamphilon, who appears to have been the most successful, catering to five hundred or more persons per day, gave evidence to the effect that his house was frequented mostly by “lawyers, clerks, and commercial men, some of them managing clerks, many solicitors, and highly respectable gentlemen, who take coffee in the middle of the day in preference to a more stimulating drink ... at the present moment, besides a great number of newspapers every day, I am compelled to take in an increasing number of high-class periodicals.... I find there is an increasing demand for a better class of reading.”

And thus we see, at that day, even as before and since, a very intimate relation between good living and good reading. The practical person, the wary pedant, and the supercritical will scoff at this, but let it stand.

The “cigar divans” and “chess rooms” were modifications, in a way, of the “coffee-house,” though serving mainly evening refreshment, coffee and a “fine Havana” being ample for the needs of him who would ponder three or four hours over a game of chess.

Of the stilly night, there was another class of peripatetic caterers, the “sandwich man,” the “baked ’tato man,” the old women who served “hot coffee” to coachmen, and the more ambitious “coffee-stall,” which must have been the progenitor of the “Owl Lunch” wagons of the United States.

The baked potato man was of Victorian growth, and speedily became a recognized and popular functionary of his kind. His apparatus was not cumbrous, and was gaudy with brightly polished copper, and a headlight that flared like that of a modern locomotive. He sprang into being somewhere in the neighbourhood of St. George’s Fields, near “Guy’s,” Lant Street, and Marshalsea of Dickenesque renown, and soon spread his operations to every part of London.

The food supply of London and such social and economic problems as arise out of it are usually ignored by the mere guide-book, and, like enough, it will be assumed by many to have little to do with the purport of a volume such as the present. As a matter of fact, in one way or another, it has a great deal to do with the life of the day, using the word in its broadest sense.

England, as is well recognized by all, is wholly subservient to the conditions of trade, so far as edible commodities are concerned, throughout the world. Its beef, its corn, and its flour mainly come from America. Its teas, coffees, and spices mostly from other foreign nations, until latterly, when India and Ceylon have come to the fore with regard to the first named of these. Its mutton from New Zealand or Australia, and even potatoes from France, butter and eggs from Denmark and Brittany, until one is inclined to wonder what species of food product is really indigenous to Britain. At any rate, London is a vast caravanserai which has daily to be fed and clothed with supplies brought from the outer world.

In spite of the world-wide fame of the great markets of “Covent Garden,” “Smithfield,” and “Billingsgate,” London is wofully deficient in those intermediaries between the wholesaler and the consumer, the public market, as it exists in most Continental cities and in America.

An article in the Quarterly Review, in Dickens’ day, and it may be inferred things have only changed to a degree since that time, illustrated, in a whimsical way, the vastness of the supply system. The following is described as the supply of meat, poultry, bread, and beer, for one year: 72 miles of oxen, 10 abreast; 120 miles of sheep, do.; 7 miles of calves, do.; 9 miles of pigs, do.; 50 acres of poultry, close together; 20 miles of hares and rabbits, 100 abreast; a pyramid of loaves of bread, 600 feet square, and thrice the height of St. Paul’s; 1,000 columns of hogsheads of beer, each 1 mile high. In mere bulk this perhaps does not convey the impression of large figures, but it is certainly very expressive to imagine, for instance, that one has to eat his way through 72 miles of oxen.

The water used in the metropolis was chiefly supplied by the Thames, and by an artificial channel called the New River, which entered on the north side of the metropolis. The water is naturally good and soft. The spots at which it is raised from the Thames used to be within the bounds of the metropolis, at no great distance from the mouths of common sewers; but it is now obtained from parts of the river much higher up, and undergoes a very extensive filtration, with which eight companies are concerned. The returns of the registrar-general showed that the average daily supply of water for all purposes to the London population, during August, 1870, was 127,649,728 gallons, of which it is estimated the supply for domestic purposes amounted to about 90,000,000 gallons. The total number of houses fed was 512,540. The metropolis draws its coal supplies principally from the neighbourhood of Newcastle, but largely also from certain inland counties, the import from the latter being by railway. Newcastle coal is preferred. It arrives in vessels devoted exclusively to the trade; and so many and so excessive are the duties and profits affecting the article, that a ton of coal, which can be purchased at Newcastle for 6_s._ or 7_s._, costs, to a consumer in London, from 28_s._ to 33_s._ The quantity of coal brought to London annually much exceeds 6,000,000 tons, of which considerably more than 2,000,000 come by railway.

As for the markets themselves, “Billingsgate,” the great depot for the distribution of fish, is described in that section devoted to the Thames.

“Smithfield,” is the great wholesale cattle market, while “Leadenhall” Market, in the very heart of the business world of London, is headquarters for poultry.

A detailed description of “Covent Garden Market,” which deals with vegetables, fruits, and flowers only, must here suffice.

Covent Garden Market occupies a site which is exceedingly central to the metropolis. It was once the garden to the abbey and convent of Westminster: hence the name Convent or Covent. At the suppression of the religious houses in Henry VIII.’s reign, it devolved to the Crown. Edward VI. gave it to the Duke of Somerset; on his attainder it was granted to the Earl of Bedford, and in the Russell family it has since remained. From a design of Inigo Jones, who built the banqueting-room at Whitehall, the York Water Gate, and other architectural glories of London, it was intended to have surrounded it with a colonnade; but the north and a part of the east sides only were completed. The fruit and vegetable markets were rebuilt in 1829-30. The west side is occupied by the parish church of St. Paul’s, noticeable for its massive roof and portico. Butler, author of “Hudibras,” lies in its graveyard, without a stone to mark the spot. In 1721, however, a cenotaph was erected in his honour in Westminster Abbey. The election of members to serve in Parliament for the city of Westminster was formerly held in front of this church, the hustings for receiving the votes being temporary buildings. The south side is occupied by a row of brick dwellings. Within this square thus enclosed the finest fruit and vegetables from home and foreign growers are exposed for sale, cabbages and carrots from Essex and Surrey, tomatoes and asparagus from France and Spain, oranges from Seville and Jaffa, pines from Singapore, and bananas from the West Indies, not forgetting the humble but necessary potato from Jersey, Guernsey, or Brittany. A large paved space surrounding the interior square is occupied by the market-gardeners, who, as early as four or five in the morning, have carted the produce of their grounds, and wait to dispose of it to dealers in fruit and vegetables residing in different parts of London; any remainder is sold to persons who have standings in the market. Within this paved space rows of shops are conveniently arranged for the display of the choicest fruits of the season: the productions of the forcing-house, and the results of horticultural skill, appear in all their beauty. There are also conservatories, in which every beauty of the flower-garden may be obtained, from the rare exotic to the simplest native flower. The Floral Hall, close to Covent Garden Opera House, has an entrance from the northeast corner of the market, to which it is a sort of appendage, and to the theatre. Balls, concerts, etc., are occasionally given here. The Farringdon, Borough, Portman, Spitalfields, and other vegetable markets, are small imitations of that at Covent Garden.

The greater part of the corn, meaning, in this case, wheat, as well as maize, as Indian corn is known throughout Great Britain, used for bread and other purposes in the metropolis, is sold by corn-factors at the Corn Exchange, Mark Lane; but the corn itself is not taken to that place. Enormous quantities of flour are also brought in, having been ground at mills in the country and in foreign parts.

The beer and ale consumed in the metropolis is, of course, vast in quantity, beyond comprehension to the layman. If one could obtain admission to one of the long-standing establishments of Messrs. Barclay & Perkins or Truman & Hanbury, whose names are more than familiar to all who travel London streets, he would there see vessels and operations astonishing for their magnitude bins that are filled with 2,000 quarters of malt every week; brewing-rooms nearly as large as Westminster Hall; fermenting vessels holding 1,500 barrels each; a beer-tank large enough to float an up-river steamer; vats containing 100,000 gallons each; and 60,000 casks.