However, the continuators of Stow
imagine, that Linstead, in this account,
exceeds the truth, in ascribing all the
praise of so public a work to a small house
of religious, who might probably only
consent to its being built, upon the monks
receiving a sufficient recompence for the
loss of the ferry, by which they had al-
ways been supported; the probability of
this appears from there being lands ap-
propriated for the repairs of the bridge so
early as in the reign of Henry I.  Besides,
it can scarcely be supposed, that a petty
convent could be able to erect and support
such an edifice, which, besides other ac-
cidents, was burnt down in 1136, and
was again so ruinous in 1163, that it was
obliged to be new built, under the inspec-
tion of Peter, Curate of St. Mary Cole-

At length, the continual and large ex-
pence in maintaining a wooden bridge
becoming burthensome to the people,
who, when the lands appropriated to that
use fell short of their produce, were taxed
to make up the deficiencies, it was resolved
in 1176, to build one of stone, a little to
the west of the other, which in the time
of William the Conqueror began at Bo-
tolph's wharf; and this structure was
completed in 1209.

The foundation is, by the vulgar, ge-
nerally believed to be laid upon wool-
packs, which opinion probably arose from
a tax being laid upon every pack of wool,
towards its construction.  Mr. Stow is of
opinion, that before the bridge was erect-
ed, they were obliged to turn the Thames
into a large canal made for that purpose,
which began at Battersea, and returned
into the bed of the river at Rotherhithe;
but this supposition has not the least foun-
dation.  Mr. Maitland justly observes,
that the purchase of the ground through
which this spacious water course was to
run; the expence of digging and raising
the banks of sufficient strength; and the
prodigious expence of damming off the