“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