tion. The one is
the varying acreage or area comprised under this name, and the other
is the natural increase of population over every part of the area. Let
us shortly glance at both these groups of disturbing causes.

The original London was the nucleus of that which now constitutes the
_City_ of London. The London of the Britons before the Romans landed,
is supposed to have been little other than 'a collection of huts set
down on a dry spot in the midst of the marshes;' a forest nearly
bounded this spot, at no great distance from the Thames; and a lake or
fen existed, _outside_ London, at or near the site now occupied by
Finsbury Square. The area of London, at this early period, is supposed
to have been bounded by--to use their modern designation--Tower Hill
on the east, Dowgate Hill on the west, Lombard and Fenchurch Streets
on the north, and of course the river on the south--a limited area,
certainly, not much exceeding half a mile in length by a quarter in
breadth. There are indications that brooks bounded this area on the
north and west, and a marsh on the east; but there is no reason to
believe that the city had walls. The terrible devastation in the time
of Boadicea must have nearly destroyed London, destined to be replaced
by one of Roman construction.

The Roman London was evidently of larger size. The ancient city-wall
is known to have been of Roman substructure, although surmounted by
work of later date. It had many turrets or towers, and seven
double-gates, supposed to have been Ludgate, Newgate, Aldersgate,
Cripplegate, Bishopsgate, Aldgate, and the Tower Postern-gate; and the
streets now named from those gates will serve to mark out the included
area. Roman London may be said to lie about sixteen feet below _our_
London, over all this area; about two feet being the _debris_ of the
Roman buildings, and the rest being subsequent accumulations of
rubbish, at the rate, say, of a foot in a century. In the later Saxon
and Norman times, the western portion of the wall was extended so as
to include a somewhat larger area, the utmost limit of 'London within
the walls' being 370 acres.

But London refused to stay within its walls; it walked forth into the
country; and even so far back as 1662, London, beyond these limits,
was four times as large as that 'within the walls.' Of this exterior
portion, 230 acres constituted the 'city without the walls,' subjected
to civic jurisdiction by successive grants; it formed