Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association

ISSN: 0002-2470 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm16

Attitudes and Responses Towards Air Pollution in

Medieval England

Peter Brimblecombe

To cite this article: Peter Brimblecombe (1976) Attitudes and Responses Towards Air Pollution
in Medieval England, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 26:10, 941-945, DOI:
10.1080/00022470.1976.10470341

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1976.10470341

Published online: 13 Mar 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1380

View related articles

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uawm16
 C^otu e Bjttfc Impioro TLonDottf $ cat
leDtfjtelonDei&jptapnc/anD^cotlon*
Dc aibpnc/anD tbalpa Camber*

London's medieval citizens reacted strongly to the in-

troduction of coal as a fuel fearing it would be detri-
mental to their health. Familiarity with coal resulted
in popular objection being directed more against the
aesthetic damage caused by coal smoke. Laws and
schemes proposed by early agitators were forgotten as
the destruction of England's forests necessitated the
unrestricted adoption of coal as a fuel. The figure is a
reproduction of a woodcut from Chronycle of Englonde,
printed by Richard Pynson in 1510 and is the earliest
printed picture of London. St. Paul's Cathedral domi-
nates the center. Note the chimneys that have begun to
dot the housetops. At the top right is the Tower of
London and London Bridge. Source: Medieval London,
Timothy Baker, Cassell, 1970

Peter Brimblecombe
University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom

It is possible to trace the rise of Lon-
don's air pollution problem through
seven hundred years and to see that the
city's air quality has been intimately
connected with the use of coal. In fact,
a history of air pollution is almost a
history of fuel. In the earliest air pollu-
tion incidents, of the thirteenth century,
it is not only possible to link the pollu-
tion with coal burning, but also to single
out the lime burning industry as the
predominant problem in that period.1
Through the centuries that followed,
other industries and domestic con-
sumption became major contributors to
London's smog, but even in Shake-
spearean times, the reputation of the
lime kiln remained, as the poet has
Falstaff say that something he dislikes
"is more hateful to me than the reek of
a lime kiln." 2 This paper examines the
perception and control of air pollution
from the thirteenth century until the
year 1661, which is significant because
of the publication of the first serious
work on air pollution, John Evelyn's
Fumifugium; or the Inconvenience of
the Air and Smoke of London Dissi-
pated. 3 It was immediately followed by
John Graunt's Natural and Political
Observations upon the Bills of Mortal-
ity,4 a statistical examination of the
health of an urban population, attri-

October 1976 Volume 26, No. 10 941

buting much of London's public health
problem to air pollution. These years
mark the end of a period in which there
had been a lack of awareness of the im-
pact of air pollution on the population
in anything but a limited and transitory
way. However, it is valuable to examine
the reactions of people during this pe-
riod of "innocence" where they were
unaffected by many of the factors, such
as the "media," and education which
influence the modern reaction to air
pollution.
Galloway5 and Nef6 have written
fairly extensively on the technical and
economic aspects of the early coal trade,
but neither is able to find any significant
use of coal before the thirteenth century,
when it was known as sea-coal because
it was shipped from Newcastle to Lon-
don as ballast.1 It was probably im-
ported into London in modest quantities
by the beginning of the thirteenth cen-
tury as it was well enough known by
1228 for a street to be called Sacoles
Lane,7 and in 1236 there is a record of it
being unloaded from a ship in the
Thames.8 Stowe9 says that Sea Coal
Lane was a place where "sea-coals were
to be had," but it has been suggested
that it was a place where early coal
traders lived rather than stocked sea-
coal, as William of Plessy lived there in
1253.10 However, the fact that during
the next century a street nearby was
called Lymbarneres Lane11 suggests
that coal was probably procurable in
relatively large quantities in the area, for
use in lime kilns.
Records of the annual imports of coal
into London are not found until 1580,
even though it had been regularly me-
tered since the thirteenth century and
taxed at Billingsgate at one farthing for
two quarters (0.68 ton).12 The fact that
the number of "metiers" was not in-
creased from the earliest times until the
reign of Queen Elizabeth I, is regarded
by Nef6 as evidence that there was only
a slight increase in the quantity of coal
imported into London over the first
three centuries of its use. This may be
true, but historians appear to have
placed too much emphasis on the small
size of coal stocks in southern England
during the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries. Stores of coal were usually
held by smiths, but even in recent times
an active smith, using coal as the prin-
cipal fuel would only use about twenty
tons a year. In the thirteenth century
these stores were usually only a ton or
so,1 but there are very large stocks of
coal associated with lime burning. The
Tower purchased 1100 quarters (370
tons) in 127813 and even private indi-
viduals made purchases in excess of 100
tons in London.14
The use of coal for forging and lime
burning so dominated the early coal
trade, that the Newcastle historian
Grey15 says that the coal trade began in
942
the 1570s as in former times it was only
used by smiths and lime burners. It was
no doubt used by other industries on a
small scale in London and coastal towns,
because of its cheapness compared to
wood. One Stephen le Chandeler (can-
dlemaker) is recorded as having sold coal
in medieval London16 and it is inter-
esting to wonder whether he used it in
candlemaking. In Scotland it was quite
acceptable as a domestic fuel17 and it is
associated with domestic supplies of
firewood as far south as Lincolnshire by
the early part of the fourteenth centu-
ry,18 but southern England was certainly
centuries away from accepting the fuel
for household use. The Scottish habit
was certainly known to the English as it
was sent from Newcastle into Scotland
for prisoners held hostage there in
1323.19 The Monks of Tynemouth began
to use coal as a fuel for salt making in the
fifteenth century and in the next cen-
tury Cardinal Wolsey encouraged ex-
periments in smelting lead with coal,
while supervising the See of Durham,
but nothing seems to have come from
these very early experiments. The
shortage of wood became increasingly
severe as the sixteenth century drew to
a close, and coal became acceptable as a
domestic fuel. Coal was also rapidly
adopted into industry, even though for
many industries there were considerable
technical difficulties to overcome.20
The widening use of coal through the
seventeenth century stopped the rise of
firewood prices so characteristic of the
beginning of that century.6 Records of
coal imported into London become fre-
quent toward the end of the century
also, and their magnitude hints at the
extent to which pollution would have
been possible, the annual coal import
being some 100,000 tons before 1620.6
Historians writing on the development
of the coal trade5'6 have noted the oc-
casional mention of air pollution in
contemporary records, but have been
interested only to the extent that this
slowed the acceptance of coal as a fuel.
A few writers of books about air pollu-
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
tion tackle the history of the subject, but
make little use of primary source mate-
rial.21-22 Chambers has been careful to
point out that evidence of air pollution
in early times is no indication of any
significant awareness of air pollution, or
even the existence of a pollution prob-
lem. Thus in order to make full use of
the information in early documents, it
is necessary to consider how air pollu-
tion was perceived before the industrial
revolution.
Perception of Air Quality
The overall impression that early
documents give is that of the extreme
sensitivity of pre-industrial urban man
to contaminants in the air, from the
earliest complaints of Queen Eleanor
who had to leave Nottingham because of
the smoke in 125723 to the "fine nosed
dames" of the seventeenth century, who
Howes24 says would not even enter a
house where sea-coal had been burnt.
This is in marked contrast to the toler-
ance shown by modern city dwellers.
The reason for these contrasting atti-
tudes is not as easy to understand as
might first be thought. The immediate
reaction is to allow the medieval citizen
a cleaner atmosphere and imagine that
any deterioration in its quality would be
so much more obvious than in the
present; however, there would seem lit-
tle to support such a hypothesis if we
look more closely at the conditions
within cities before the Restoration. The
cities cannot have been attractive places
to live in, particularly for the poor; foul
smells from poor sanitation and refuse
piles must have been most oppressive,
especially in the summer months, yet
the high "industrial" activity in these
months lead to strong complaints about
the burning of sea coal in May and June
during the thirteenth century.1 The
complaints came mainly from the
nobles, and it might be argued that the
feeling about air pollution was only an
upper class reaction by people who lived
in considerably less polluted surround-
ings, but even if one is willing to accept
the doubtful assumption that the no-
bility were able to breathe purer air,
their much easier access to legislative
procedures probably accounts for the
fact that their opinions dominate me-
dieval documents. Even among a pre-
dominance of upper class complaints, it
is possible to find some reactions of the
"average" urban man in early times.25
If there was any particular group to be
seen as outspoken about air pollution it
would be the visitor. From medieval
times to the present people visiting
polluted cities have found the conditions
more a subject for complaint than the
cities' permanent residents. The earliest
recorded complaint about air pollution
in Britain arises from Eleanor's visit to
Nottingham, while the extensive action
 in London in the year 130726 arises from
complaints made initially by nobles and
prelates visiting the city. A similar sit-
uation is found in more recent periods
such as Defoe's sharp criticism of the
northern cities27 or the present reaction
by travelers to Los Angeles.
The reactions against air pollution are
strong and direct, and one marvels at
this, from people probably all guilty of
ejecting rubbish or human dung onto the
street or into the nearest ditch. Their
directness also contrasts them with
modern man, tied as he is to the pollut-
ing industries and their products. Few
of either the nobility or the poor in the
middle ages would have had, or been
aware of, any economic link with the
polluting lime and smelting industries,
so they could agitate strongly against
them without fear of personal financial
harm. Change always brings strong re-
sistance; so the introduction of coal was,
perhaps, bound to lead to a conservative
reaction, except from the artisans who
were to profit from the use of cheaper
fuel. Perhaps the consumers profited
also, as it may have been the introduc-
tion of coal that allowed the price of lime
to be kept at the values laid down by
"ancient ordinances," but the public,
then as now, could hardly be expected to
be sympathetic towards the problems of
a "capitalist" industry. The black smoke
of shallow bituminous coal must have
made its use very obvious, although no
objections to the ugliness of smoke are
found before the seventeenth century.
Despite the diffuse pollution of decaying
organic material, the air must have been
quite clear, but the point source emis-
sion of black smoke must have made the
culprit easily identifiable.
The predominant fear of the thir-
teenth century was that the smoke from
sea-coal would affect one's health.1'28-29
With the increasing use of coal in the
following centuries this fear vanished. In
a population with a high death rate from
poor sanitation any change due to
burning coal would be extremely diffi-
cult to detect. If anything, the opposite
reaction made itself felt as Defoe,30
presumably writing from eye-witness
accounts of the plague says in Journals
of the plague year that the coal smoke
actually drove away the plague. The
cleansing action of sulfurous smoke
seems to be a return to much earlier at-
titudes. In Roman times sulfur was
burnt in religious rites and in Anglo-
Saxon England the smoke from coal was
thought to drive away bad spirits. It was
only the closer observations of men such
as Digby, Evelyn, and Graunt, whose
more scientific approach could recognize
the damaging effects of air pollution
among the disguising influence of poor
public health.
Although the initial fears of damage
to health fell away among the general
public quite rapidly, the objection to the
October 1976 Volume 26, No. 10
smell of burning coal persisted through
most of the period under discussion and
occurs in almost every document com-
plaining about air pollution. This is the
predominant aesthetic objection, over-
riding the modern complaints of the vi-
sual impact; loss of light and loss of vi-
sual clarity. The stench of burning sea-
coal is described as intolerable in a
document of the thirteenth century26
and Evelyn puts forward similar objec-
tions in his Fumifugium.3 In a docu-
ment of 1587 it is interesting to note that
Queen Elizabeth I finds the taste of
sea-coals annoying,31 which may be a
reflection of the fact that sulfur dioxide
can be detected by taste in the air at
lower concentrations than it can be
smelled. The description of the pollution
as annoying supports the claim above
that the fear for health strongly held in
earlier times (by Queen Eleanor and
Queen Margaret) had moderated by the
mid-sixteenth century. The pressure of
necessity finally drove away the objec-
tions to coal on the grounds of smell, as
by 1635 a young citizen in a play of
Henry Glapthorne is heard saying
"would I were in my native Citty ayre
agen, within the wholesome smell of
seacole.. .".32
The corroding effect of pollution from
coal burning damages buildings
aesthetically rather than structurally,
but by the early seventeenth century the
effect evoked comment. Blackening by
smoke is much more obvious and its ef-
fects are heightened by any corrosion. In
1620 King James I "was moved with
compassion for the decayed fabric (of St.
Paul's)... near approaching ruin by the
corroding quality of coal smoke . . .
where unto it had been long subject," 33
which hints at the severity of the prob-
lem, so soon after coal came into general
use. Even earlier there are objections to
the "sootiness" of the smoke from coal.
Shakespeare has "Master Sea Coal" a
grubby dirty fellow.2
It is understandable that the reaction
to the dirtiness of coal smoke came
rather late, as washing of buildings and
even of clothes must have been infre-
quent in medieval times anyway. In the
Duke of Northumberland's book,34
commenced in 1520, an entry for a year's
fuel is found which outlines concern for
the effect of coal smoke on furnishings.
This predates Evelyn's well known
complaint by more than a century. Coal
was not used for cooking, even in the
north where it had long been accepted
for other domestic purposes, and wood
was specially bought for cooking. The
Hallmote of Bakers35 from the early
fourteenth century declared that "no
baker shall cause his fires to be lit with
fern, stubble, straw or reeds." There is
no mention about sea-coal, when a study
of medieval man would suggest that the
legislators would have been.strongly
against its use as a fuel for baking. One
can only suppose that its use was con-
sidered so abhorrent, that no baker
would have risked his reputation by
being foolish enough to try to use the
fuel. Howes24 says that ladies in the El-
izabethan period would not eat meat
that had been roasted over sea-coals,
and even by 1620, when wood had be-
come very short, coal was not used to a
great extent by bakers. A baker reck-
oned on using about five tons of coal a
year, but wood cost about twelve shil-
lings a week, which probably amounted
to a wagon load.36 Brewers in West-
minster were frequently harassed by the
authorities in the early part of the sev-
enteenth century for burning sea-
coal,37"39 even though the law proposed
to prohibit its use there was never
passed.40
Even though Evelyn3 is more con-
cerned with the obvious physical aspects
of air pollution, he does say that the
reasons for its origin lie in the greed of
the industrialists of his time. However,
political and economic motives have
been evident right from the early days of
coal usage. The economic pressures
which caused the switch to coal were
noted in the opening paragraph of this
section. Economic motives were also in
the minds of legislators and plaintiffs
who could see air pollution as lowering
the value of property as is illustrated in
a document of 1377 where a householder
and his wife complain that the smoke
has lowered the rent obtainable by let-
ting his rooms from ten marks to forty
shillings a year.25 The other aspect of the
case seems to illustrate the possibilities
pollution offers as a convenient instru-
ment to precipitate the wrath of the civic
authorities on a noisy neighbor. Lime
burners frequently set lime prices ex-
orbitantly high41 so pollution may have
been a convenient way of bringing
pressure to bear on them. Butchers42
and brewers43 were another trade that
came under frequent attack for pollu-
tion, although here it was primarily
water pollution. The effects were par-
tially airborne and again there seems to
be considerable scope for public feeling
against these groups on the grounds of
their hold on medieval prices. The most
interesting example of this kind is a case
which involved the Knights Templars
who were under repression in the open-
ing years of the fourteenth century and
finally expelled in 1312.44 They were
accused of being the main cause of the
perennial problem of blockage of the
Fleet river by their mill even though
contemporary records admit that the
smell is probably due to tannery refuse.
During the reign of Elizabeth I some
writers saw the smoke problem arising
from the fact that the good coal was
being exported.45 Chambers22 has even
seen religious motives in the slow ac-
ceptance of coal, which "was an un-
natural fuel."
943
Response
If the public response to change in
fuels was to some extent simply a con-
servative reaction, it is to be expected
that a frequently proposed solution to
air pollution problems in medieval times
was a return to the old fuels. The com-
missions setup in 1285 and 128846 were
apparently unsuccessful in finding any
ingenious solution to the problems of
pollution and the proclamation of 1307
simply bans the use of coal, insisting
that brushwood or charcoal be used.47
The reasons which prevented this from
being a success, although largely eco-
nomic, were probably also due to the
fact that coal is a better fuel for lime
burning and some forging operations.
However, even for domestic purposes to
which coal is not well suited, the con-
tinued use of wood was not possible be-
cause of the destruction of the English
forests. Hence the solution which
seemed reasonable to many in the thir-
teenth and fourteenth centuries, was so
obviously unworkable by the seven-
teenth century that even coal-smoke's
most eloquent critic, John Evelyn, does
not suggest that it could be abandoned
as a fuel.3
A related solution, to try and find
another fuel, seems to have received
scant attention. Owen45 suggested the
use of the relatively smokeless anthra-
cite in 1602, but nothing seems to have
come of this. Kings and Nobles in Scot-
land had long used "great coal" and al-
though this was brought to London it
did not find much favour possibly be-
cause it burnt without much light. It was
well known in London as an odorless
fuel by the end of the seventeenth cen-
tury, but was regarded very much as a
luxury item.6 Methods of rendering the
bituminous coal more pleasant were
attempted in the late sixteenth century,
but none seem to have had lasting suc-
cess. The main motive for coking coal
was not so much to make a smokeless
fuel, but to render it suitable for use in
industries such as steel and glass mak-
ing. However, domestic uses of coked
coal were not ignored long. In 1627 a
patent was granted for "rendering sea-
coal and pit coal as useful as charcoal,
for burning in houses without offence by
smell or smoke." Despite the furious
activity of Jacobean inventors who
patented some eight or nine methods of
"charking" coal in 1633, acceptance
cannot have been wide.21 Indicative of
the lack of popular acceptance of char-
coal is Evelyn's apparent lack of interest.
In 1656 he visited Sir Joseph Winter at
Greenwich and saw coal being charred,47
but makes only passing reference to this
when discussing solutions to London's
smoke problem in Fumifugium.3
Another approach that was tried very
early was to restrict the time or places
within the city where coal could be
944
burned. In 1302 a strange group of
benevolent blacksmiths vowed not to
burn sea-coal at night to prevent any ill
effect on their neighbors' health.48 In
1307 Edward I issued a proclamation
that during the time that Queen Mar-
garet, his consort, was resident in the
Tower no kilns be burnt in the city and
other places adjoining the Tower.28 It is
interesting to note that this proclama-
tion follows the ban on sea coal burning
and restricts all kilns regardless of the
fuel. In Queen Elizabeth's time, the
brewers said that they would use wood
in the brewing houses nearest the palace
of Westminster,31 and from then on well
into the seventeenth century brewers in
that area used sea-coal only at consid-
erable risk of being fined by any number
of administrative bodies.37"39 John
Evelyn proposed that industry be lo-
cated away from the residential areas of
London, and although the rebuilding
programmed after the great fire would
have given adequate scope for this, his
advice, as with the advice of many other
prominent planners of the time, went
quite unheeded.
The most obvious response to the
widespread domestic use of coal was the
need for chimneys in every house. The
increase in chimneys through Eliza-
bethan times was emphasized by the
editor of Holinshed's Chronicles.49 Al-
though this is necessary to make the
interior of the house bearable, its rele-
vance to air pollution on a larger scale is
that it is the chimney that allowed do-
mestic usage of coal to become so gen-
eralized. The chimney must not only
discharge the smoke, but it is also re-
quired to disperse it in such a way that
it does not affect the surroundings
unduly. The height of the chimney is one
of the primary factors that controls
dispersive efficiency, and although early
building codes were concerned mainly
with the fire risk and structural stability
of chimneys, a document of 1377 shows
that the importance of chimney height
was well* known and even hints that
some city regulations about minimum
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
chimney heights were already in exis-
tence.25
The officer responsible for public
health in medieval London was the
Chamberlain, but no records of his in-
volvement in air pollution episodes were
found in the present studies, although
the Chamberlain did seem to be in-
volved with pollution of the rivers of
London. Aldermen were chosen to in-
vestigate early air pollution prob-
lems29'50 and they associated themselves
with the sheriffs and bailiffs of the city.
King Edward II is on record as acting
directly through the Constable of the
Tower in 1310, John de Crumbwell.51
Penalties for contravening "pollution
abatement regulations" seem to have
been fines26 or the removal of the of-
fending kiln,51 a typical fate for kilns
that were a public nuisance in the thir-
teenth century.8 There is a popular no-
tion that a man was hung for burning
sea-coal in London in 1306,52 but this
invariably has no primary reference and
the Rolls for that year make no mention
of any pollution incident at all. The date
1306 may well be due to a textual error
in John Stowe's Survey of London.9
Chambers has argued that duties en-
forced by Richard III and the metage of
coal by the administration of Henry V
were pollution control measures, al-
though the textual evidence for this is
not cited.22 In the early part of the sev-
enteenth century the brewers in West-
minster were repressed by confusing
range of offices, which included that of
the Attorney-General,37 the Judges of
Serjeant's Inn and Inner Temple,37 the
Court of Exchequer38 and the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury.39 The action
against brewers using sea-coal by
Archbishop Laud is mentioned in his
trial of 1643.39 The prosecution claimed
that he had made brewers in Westmin-
ster pay fines for using sea-coal even
though the King had pardoned them.
Part of the money was to be used for the
repair of St. Paul's, which James I
thought damaged by coal smoke. Al-
though one cannot find much to admire
in Laud's administration, it did devote
an overwhelming importance to detail;
the easterly drift of coal smoke from
Westminster to central London can
hardly have escaped its notice, and the
desire to make the polluter pay for the
damage wrought would receive more
sympathy today than it did in his
times.
Conclusion
A concentrated list of medieval pol-
lution documents does draw undue at-
tention to what must have been a prob-
lem of only minor concern to early city
dwellers. Nevertheless it still seems
worthwhile to try and make some gen-
eralizations. Complaint seems to have
been induced by perceptible changes in
environmental quality. Environmental
quality in medieval cities was low, but it
is the change that the citizen noticed;
changes which began with the first large
scale use of coal late in the thirteenth
century. Contemporary records are seen
as showing another burst of feeling in
the early seventeenth century, which
might be attributed to an unprece-
dented twenty-fold increase in London's
coal imports between 1580 and 1680.
Visitors to the city experience an even
more rapid change in environmental
quality as they pass from a rural to an
urban climate, and perhaps this explains
the strong protest that they evoked.
An important aspect of such changes
in air quality is that it is a change in the
level of perception of the pollutants
rather than in the absolute level of pol-
lution. In the thirteenth century pollu-
tion is perceived through its smell,
rather than its visual impact; thus one
might conclude that the change in the
olfactory environment was larger than
the change in soiling of buildings or
clothes, presumably none too clean at
that time anyway. Benarie53 has treated
smell as a language and that a large class
of smells signify danger, so the new
smell, an acrid odour of burning coal,
was treated with caution and a certain
amount of fear for bodily well-being, by
early urban man. Yet sophistication in
perception was by no means lacking, and
even indirect effects, such as economic
changes, were perceived in the four-
teenth century.25 Awareness of the in-
direct effects of pollutants was not lim-
ited to the aristocracy, even if the re-
sponse is more evident from this sector.
However, attempts to limit the use of
coal, suggestions for new fuels and the
relocation of industry proved all too
futile, under the inexorable economic
pressures in a society where the powers
of industry and capital were growing
rapidly. Perhaps the attitudes and re-
sponses to air pollution in early times
serves to outline more clearly the pre-
dicament that must be faced and over-
come at the present time.
October 1976 Volume 26, No. 10
References
1. P. Brimblecombe, "Industrial air pollu-
tion in thirteenth century Britain,"
Weather 30: 388 (1975).
2. W. Shakespeare, from the Arden
Shakespeare Ed. H. F. Brooks and H.
Jenkins, Harvard, London. 1961.
3. J. Evelyn, Fumifugium, London. 1661.
4. J. Graunt, Natural and Political Obser-
vations, Tho. Roycroft, London, 1662.
5. R. Galloway, Annals of Coal Mining and
the Coal Trade, Vol. 1. Colliery Guardian
Co. Ltd., London, 1898.
6. J. U. Nef, The Rise of the British Coal
Industry. George Routledge & Sons,
London, 1932.
7. Pipe Roll (1228).
8. London Eyre, No. 106 (1224).
9. J. Stowe, Survey of London. Ed. C. L.
Kingsford, Oxford, 1971.
10. Cartae Antiquae, Chancery, L. No. 20 in
dorso.
11. R. R. Sharp, Calendar of Wills in the
Court of Hustings, Vol. 1. Corporation of
London, 1899.
12. H. T. Riley, Liber Albus, Richard Griffin
& Co., London, 1861.
13. F. J. North, Limestones, London, 1930.
14. Calendar of Early Mayors' Court Rolls.
Roll G. m3b.
15. Grey, Choreographia, or a Survey of
Newcastle-upon-Tine, 1649.
16. Calendar of Early Mayors' Court Rolls,
Roll A. mlb.
17. The Exchequer Rolls of Scotland (eg.
1264-66).
18. Calendar of Memoranda Rolls (Exche-
quer) 1326-1327.
19. Calendar of Close Rolls 16 Ed. II m4.
20. Harleian MSS 7009 f.9.
21. A. Marsh, Smoke, Faber and Faber,
London, 1947.
22. L. A. Chambers, Air Pollution. Ed. A. C.
Stern. Vol. 1. Academic Press, New York,
1968.
23. Annales de Dunstaplia (1257) from An-
nales Monastici Vol. Ill, 1858.
24. E. Howes, The Annals of England con-
tinued by E. Howes. 1631.
25. London Assize of Nuisance 1301-1431.
London Record Society, 1973.
26. Calendar of Close Rolls. 35 Ed. 1. m7d.
27. D. Defoe, A Tour through the Whole
Island of Great Britain. London,
1724-6.
28. Calendar of Close Rolls, 35 Ed. 1. m6d.
29. Calendar of Patent Rolls, 13 Ed. 1.
ml8d.
30. D. Defoe, A Journal of the Plague Year,
London, 1722.
31. Calendar of State Papers (Domestic)
(1547-80) p. 612.
32. H. Glapthorne, The Lady Mother, Ma-
lone Society Reprint, 1958.
33. Sir W. Dugdale, History of St. Paul's
Cathedral from its Foundation, London,
1658.
34. A Northumberland Household Book
Duke of Northumberland's Book.
1520.
35. H. T. Riley, "Hallmote of Bakers" in
Liber Albus. (ref. no. 12.), 1861.
36. Remembrancia. E. J. Francis & Co.,
London, 1878.
37. Historical Manuscript Commission IV,
54.
38. Calendar of State Papers (Domestic)
Charles I CCCXI (January 15, 1636).
39. Manuscripts of the House of Lords XI,
pp. 382-385.
40. Lord's Journal Hi, p. 269 (Bill of 1623).
41. Calendar of Letter Books of London E.
Fo CXXVII, CXCVII 6.
42. Rotuli Parliamentorum et Petitiones et
Placita in Parliamento, ii 460 (20 April,
1370).
43. G. O. Sayles, "Selected cases in the court
of King's Bench under Edward I," Sel-
don Society 57:151 (1938).
44. M. B. Honeyborne, "The Fleet and its
neighbourhood in early and medieval
times," in London Topographical Record
XIX.
45. G. Owen, A History of Pembrokeshire.
MSS published in Cambrian Register
1796,1595.
46. Calendar of Patent Rolls, 16 Ed. 1.
ml2.
47. J. Evelyn, Diaries. Ed. E. S. De Beer,
Oxford, 1955.
48. Calendar of Early Mayors' Court Rolls,
Roll B m5.
49. Harrison, Holinsheds Chronicle iii:16
(1577).
50. Calendar of Patent Rolls, 35 Ed. 1.
m5d.
51. Calendar of Close Rolls, 4 Ed. II m23d.
52. Calendar of Patent Rolls, 16 Ed. 1.
ml2.
53. M. M. Benarie, "Language as a model
relating to odour quality," Atmos. En-
viron. 7: 369 (1973).
Dr. Brimblecombe is a lecturer in
the School of Environmental Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich,
NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom.
945