104 THOMAS KEN AND IZAAK WALTON 



therefore that of Izaak Walton, must be given up 

 for want of the needful information now unattain- 

 able. Mr. R. B. Marston is of opinion (and I 

 agree with him) that although members of a 

 company like the ironmongers are not necessarily 

 all ironmongers, just as members of the Stationers' 

 Company are not all stationers, yet as a matter of 

 fact most of them are stationers or ironmongers ; 

 and the evidence that Walton was a sempster or 

 haberdasher is by no means so abundantly clear as 

 to nullify the suggestion that after all Walton was 

 an ironmonger and not a sempster. If Walton was 

 a sempster, there does not seem to be any reason 

 why he should not have said so in his marriage 

 licence. 



Having now settled Walton in London, whether 

 as a hosier, haberdasher, or ironmonger, and married 

 him to Rachel Floud, I will now proceed to find 

 out in what part or parts of London he dwelt during 

 his residence in that city. This I will do as briefly 

 as I can, for I am as anxious as he must have been 

 to get him out of it, and away to the river banks. 



Sir John Hawkins says on the authority of a 

 deed in his possession that "in 1624 Walton dwelt 

 on the north side of Fleet Street, in a house two 

 doors west of the end of Chancery Lane, and 



