.….… .......…- .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.•••• • • • • • • •*****！*®.***. ſg. ） --- → ← → · § ¶ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ***t-， ！=）º £ © ® ° ）4 r. ******** Vºtſºf ºn ſºsºſ,، r.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · *~~ ~~~~“ （“”“”“”“”· ••• • • • • ** * * * *ſ* * * * *∞ zººs. ººº-ºº-ººººº- | № ä § §， ：§ Ë | № №ž Sæsº Ë · · · · ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- - - - ~~~~. --- ， :，（ ----- *';' .. ' •.vi ...“，ſº;$\.***.**. ſæſº）, į ſºſº）， { |- �| !!!!!!！!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!！!!!！!！!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!！!!！!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!！!!！!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ȚE Šſae§įįïïÈË §ţi §§§)， ſ'] Ë{IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII; ■ ■ ∞ ， ， ！ ſā№ ºr; ^ \， :.ae §2º^S. Jº-º-º-º: º J. J.-L. *-ºsº.º.º.º. C. L. Sº J. D. J. J., * I ſº, ... ', }°T，，ſ} º ſºn （f.） ¿žšºjº }.*¿¿ $¢& ^2}， ș .*¿¿ {… * .*--*-*. a * {|- 3 ±ș **） ** , ■* * � *: • � *-- * { × # } ſºr�-* * * |-† á R * ● *+ x ; Ķ, ！ `--º *4- } ; #3 ſ |-|-→ș.'; }? -. '. 3- ',% -{, ，, , ， ， , , ， , , , º5 , ±§+ * ·----*.~~}~~ ~~•,+… } * · * -` ', …| • •.. ' }------ș%~„ 4. ***-·ł și „… …’ ， s'k-º'-ººſ: Ķī£.， ſ.ſ. ， ， ， ， , ，■ ■ ' :', , , , ， ，}· · · *· : „ “??,，· , ' ' + · ·*****）:3· · · · **|× § ø ±;#ę „-º ț¢&##* ¿ºs aetae: „a”=oiºſ: º „falſe" ºeſº. . L'*' + '.!,' , ， ， … ！ ！ !! !！:（?:\ſ*:', 'º „izº : 1&##-##&&&&&&&&&&&ä，& {}; -№ſſeſſitae， ſiiſ，….……ſå. : º.a. :） && ！a.ſk， ſºº-，-，*， ** ***ſi， kešſējſ， ENGLAND IN THE DAYS OF OLD BYGONE ENGLAND, Social Studies in its Historic Byways and Highways, BY WILLIAM ANDREWS. “Of interest alike to the antiquary and general reader is ‘Bygone England,’ a book from the able pen of Mr. William Andrews, devoted to the consideration of some of the phases of the social life of this country in the olden time.”—Whitehall Review. “A very readable and instructive volume.”— The Globe. “Many are the subjects of interest introduced into this chatty volume.”—Saturday Review. “There is a large mass of information in this capital volume, and it is so pleasantly put, that many will be tempted to study it. Mr. Andrews has done his work with great skill.”—London Qwarterly Review. “We welcome ‘Bygone England.’ It is another of Mr. Andrews' meritorious achievements in the path of popularising archaeological and old-time information without in any way writing down to an ignoble level.”—The Antiquary. “A delightful volume for all who love to dive into the origin of Social habits and customs, and to penetrate into the byways of history.”—Liverpool Daily Post, “‘A delightful book,' is the verdict that the reader will give after a perusal of its pages. Mr. Andrews has presented to us in a very pleasing form some phases of the social life of England in the olden time.”—Publishers' Circular. “Some of the chapters are very interesting, and , are most useful for those who desire to know the origin and history of some of our daily practices and amusements.”—The World. “In recommending this book to the general public, we do so, feeling confident that within its pages they will find much that is worth knowing, that they will never find their interest flag, nor their curiosity ungratified.”—Hull Daily News. *ºl iſ Sºlº, | !} Wº%- l—iº-Eš, - Sºzºs WZ º º º $º tº #: \! wº sº THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN THE TIME () F SI R ROBERT W A LPOLF. &ngfano . . . in fBe %)aps of Öto, £g ºmiſtiam &mbrews. LONDON : WILLIAM ANDREWS & CO., 5, FARRINGDON AVENUE, E.C. 1897, §=< É=; IIIHRHNDRews&G|| ſº ºf T, Tºº, tº àſ º ſº lºº& 㺠U R *|[. =2 º - º, 24° º ||ºf %2. º º |\reface. HIS volume of new studies on old-time themes, chiefly concerning the social and domestic life of England, is sent forth with a hope that it may prove entertaining and instructive. It is a companion work to “Bygone England,” which the critical press and reading public received with a warm welcome on its publication, and thus encouraged me to prepare this and other volumes dealing with the highways and byways of history. WILLIAM ANDREWS. THE HULL Perss, February 14th, 1897. WHEN WIGS WIFRE WORN PowDERING THE HAIR MEN WEARING MUFFS CoNCERNING CORPORATION CUSTOMs BRIBES FOR THE PALATE Content:5. REBEL HEADS on CITY GATES - URIAL AT CROSS ROADS ETAINING THE DEAD FOR DEBT A NobleMAN’s Hous EHOLD IN TUDOR TIMES BREAD AND BAKING IN BYGONE DAYS ARISE, MISTRESS, ARISE | - THE TURNSPIT - A GOSSIP ABOUT THE GOOSE - BELLS As TIME-TELLERS THE AGE OF SNUFFING STATE LOTTERIES BEAR-BAITING - MORRIS DANCERs THE FOLK-LORE OF MIDSUMMER EVE HARVEST HOME - CURIOUS CHARITIES AN OLD-TIME CHRONICLER INDEX - e 105 115 122 134 142 144 150 156 168 186 205 222 234 244 255 266 275 Englano in the ſº)ays of Qib, —º- ~~ (Clben (Oligº were (Glorn. HE wig was for a long period extremely popular in old England, and its history is full of interest. At the present time, when the wig is no longer worn by the leaders of fashion, we cannot fully realize the important place it held in bygone times. Pro- fessional, as well as fashionable people did not dare to appear in public without their wigs, and they vied with each other in size and style. To trace the origin of the wig our investigations must be carried to far distant times. It was worn in Egypt in remote days, and the Egyptians are said to have invented it, not merely as a covering for baldness, but as a means of adding to 1 2 Englano in the Øay)3 of Qib, the attractiveness of the person wearing it. On the mummies of Egypt wigs are found, and we give a picture of one now in the British Museum. This particular wig probably belonged to a female, and was found near the small temple of Isis, Thebes. “As the Egyptians always shaved their heads,” says Dr. T. Robin- son, “they could : scarcely devise a better covering than the wig, which, while it protected them from the rays of EGYPTIAN wig (PROBABLY FoR FEMALE), FROM THE BRITISH MUSEUM. the Sun, allowed, from the texture of the article, the transpiration from the head to escape, which is not the case with the turban.” Dr. Robinson has devoted much study to this subject, and his conclusions merit careful consideration. He also points out that in the examples of Egyptian wigs in the British and Berlin Museums the upper portions are made of curled hair, the plaited hair being confined to the lower part and the sides. On the T(lben UCligg were UClorn. 3 authority of Wilkinson, says Dr. Robinson, “these wigs were worn both within the house and out of doors. At parties the head-dress of the guests was bound with a chaplet of flowers, and ointment was put upon the top of the wig, as if it had really been the hair of the head.” We find in Assyrian sculptures representations of the wig, and its use is recorded amongst ancient nations, including Persians, Medes, Lydians, Car- ians, Greeks, and Romans. Amongst the latter nation galerus, a round cap, was the common name for a wig. The early fathers of the Church denounced the wig as an invention of the Evil One. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, as a proof of the virtue of his simple sister Gorgonia, said, “she neither cared to curl her own hair, nor to repair its lack of beauty by the aid of a wig.” St. Jerome pronounced these adornments as unworthy of Christianity. The matter received consideration or perhaps, to put it more correctly, condemnation, at many councils, commencing at Constantinople, and coming down to the Provincial Council at Tours. The wig was not tolerated, even if worn as a joke. “There is no joke in the matter,” said the enraged St. Bernard : “the woman who wears a wig commits 4 Englano in the Øays of QIo, a mortal sin.” St. John Chrysostom pleaded powerfully against this enormity ; and others might be mentioned who spoke with no uncertain sound against this fashion. Dr. Doran relates a strange story, saying St. Jerome vouches for its authenticity, and by him it was told to deter ladies from wearing wigs. “Praetexta,” to use Doran's words, “was a very respectable lady, married to a somewhat paganist husband, Hymetius. Their niece, Eustachia, resided with them. At the instigation of the husband Praetexta took the shy Eustachia in hand, attired her in a splendid dress, and covered her fair neck with ringlets. Having enjoyed the sight of the modest maiden so attired, Praetexta went to bed. To that bedside immediately descended an angel, with wrath upon his brow, and billows of angry sounds rolling from his lips. ‘Thou hast,' said the spirit, “obeyed thy husband rather than the Lord, and has dared to deck the hair of a virgin, and made her look like a daughter of earth. For this do I wither up thy hands, and bid them recognize the enormity of thy crime in the amount of thy anguish and bodily suffering. Five months more shalt thou live, and then Hell shall be thy portion ; and if thou art bold (Clbell UCligg Were U(lorn. 5 enough to touch the head of Eustachia again, thy husband and thy children shall die even before thee.’” - Church history furnishes some strange stories against wearing wigs, and the following may be taken as a good example. Clemens of Alexandria, so runs the tale, surprised wig-wearers by telling those that knelt at church to receive the blessing, they must please to bear in mind that the bene- diction remained on the wig, and did not pass through to the wearer | Some immediately re- moved their wigs, but others allowed them to remain, no doubt hoping to receive a blessing. Poetry and history supply many interesting passages bearing on our present investigations. The Lycians having been engaged in war, were defeated. Mausoleus, their conqueror, ruthlessly directed the subdued men to have their heads shaven. This was humiliating in the extreme, and the Lycians were keenly alive to their ridiculous appearance. The king's general was tempted with bribes, and finally yielded, and allowed wigs to be imported for them from Greece, and thus the symbol of degredation became the pink of Lycian fashion. Hannibal, the brave soldier, is recorded to have 6 Englano in the Øay 3 of QIO. worn two sorts of wigs; one to improve, and the other to disguise his person. Wigs are said to have been worn in England in the reign of King Stephen, but their palmy days belong to the seventeenth and the earlier part of the eighteenth centuries. Says Stow, they were introduced into this country about the time of the Massacre of Paris, but they are not often alluded to until the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The earliest payment for one in the Privy Purse expenses occurs in December, 1529, and is for twenty shillings “for a perwyke for Sexton, the king's fool.” Some twenty years later wigs, or, to give the full title, periwigs, became popular. In France the mania was at its height in the reign of Louis XIV. We are told in 1656 he had not fewer than forty court perruquiers, and these, by an order of Council, were declared artistes. In addition to this, Le Gros instituted at Paris an Académie de France des Perruquiers. Robinson records that a storm was gathering about their heads. He tells us “the celebrated Colbert, amazed at the large sums spent for foreign hair, conceived the idea of prohibiting the wearing of wigs at Court, and tried to introduce a kind of cap.” He lost the day, for it was proved that (Clben Ulligs were (Glorn. 7 more money reached the country for wigs than went out to purchase hair. The fashion increased ; larger wigs were worn, and some even cost £200 apiece. Charles II. was the earliest English king repre- sented on the Great Seal wearing a large periwig. Dr. Doran assures us that the king did not bring the fashion to Whitehall. “He forbade,” we are told, “the members of the Universities to wear periwigs, smoke tobacco, or to read their sermons. The members did all three, and Charles soon found himself doing the first two.” Pepys' “Diary" contains much interesting information concerning wigs. Under date of 2nd November, 1663, he writes: “I heard the Duke say that he was going to wear a periwig, and says the King also will. I never till this day observed that the King is mighty gray.” It was perhaps the change in the colour of his Majesty's hair that induced him to assume the head-dress he had previously so strongly condemned. As might be expected, Pepys, who delighted to be in the fashion, adopted the wig. He took time to consider the matter, and had consultations with Mr. Jervas, his old barber, about the affair. Referring in his “Diary” to 8 Englano in the Øay)3 of QIo. one of his visits to his hairdresser, Pepys says “I did try two or three borders and periwigs, meaning to wear one, and yet I have no stomach for it ; but that the pains of keeping my hair clean is great. He trimmed me, and at last I parted, but my mind was almost altered from my first purpose, from the trouble which I forsee in wearing them also.” Weeks passed before he could make up his mind to wear a wig. Mrs. Pepys was taken to the periwig-maker's shop to see the one made for Mr. Pepys, and expressed her satisfaction on seeing it. We read in April, 1665, of the wig being at Jervas' under repair. Early in May, Pepys writes in his “Diary,” he suffered his hair to grow long, in order to wear it, but he said “I will have it cut off all short again, and will keep to periwigs.” Later, under date of September 3rd, he writes: “Lord's day. Up ; and put on my coloured silk suit, very fine, and my new periwig, bought a good while since, but durst not wear, because the plague was in West- minster when I bought it ; and it is a wonder what will be in fashion, after the plague is done, as to periwigs, for nobody will dare to buy any hair, for fear of the infection, that it had been cut off the heads of people dead of the plague.” UÇlben UCligg Were U(lorn, 9 We learn from an entry in the “Diary’ for June 11th, 1666, that ladies in addition to assuming masculine costume for riding, wore long wigs. “Walking in the galleries at Whitehall,” observes Mr. Pepys, “I find the ladies of honour dressed in their riding garbs, with coats and doublets with deep skirts, just for all the world like mine, and buttoned their doublets up the breast, with periwigs and with hats, so that, only for long petticoats dragging under their men's coats, nobody could take them for women in any point whatever.” Pepys, we have seen, wondered if periwigs would survive after the terrible plague. He thought not, but he was mistaken. Wigs still remained popular. The plague passed away, and its terrors were forgotten. The world of folly went on much as of yore, perhaps with greater gaiety, as a reaction to the lengthened time of depression. In some instances the wig appears much out of place, and a notable example is that given in the portrait by Kneller, of George, Earl of Albemarle. He is dressed in armour, and wearing a long flowing wig. Anything more absurd could scarcely be conceived. 10 Englano in the Øay)3 of QIO. The beau of the period when the wig was popular carried in his pocket beautifully made combs, and in his box at the play, or in other places, combed his periwig, and rendered himself irresistible to the ladies. Making love seems to have been the chief sº aim of his life. Sir *} º S John Hawkins, in his Šsam& sº º History of Music,” tº published in 1776, has {ſº º \\ Š&W | g §§§ $ N wº y | º }}}} ^º {{&}}º º t º W º º tº § tºº ºº \ an informing note on §§ * § ~3° (º tº . & sº combing customs. “On the Mall and in the theatre,” he tells us, ſ “gentlemen conversed º º *\ and combed their per- THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE. ukes. There is now in being a fine picture by the elder Laroon of John, Duke of Marlborough, at his levée, in which his Grace is represented dressed in a scarlet suit, with large white satin cuffs, and a very long white peruke which he combs, while his valet, who stands behind him, adjusts the curls after the comb has passed through them.” Allusions to the practice may be found in the plays from the reign of Charles II. down to the days of Queen Anne. We read in (Clben UCligg Were Ülorn. 11 Dryden's prologue to “Almanzor and Almahide"— “But as when vizard mask appears in pit, Straight every man who thinks himself a wit Perks up, and, managing a comb with grace, With his white wig sets off his nut-brown face.” Says Congreve, in the “Way of the World”:— “The gentlemen stay but to comb, madam, and will wait on you.” Thomas Brown, in his “Letters from the Dead to the Living” presents a pen portrait of beaux, as they appeared at the commencement of the eigh- teenth century. Some of the passages are well worth reproducing, as they contain valuable infor- mation concerning wigs. “We met,” says the writer, “three flaming beaux of the first magni- tude. He in the middle made a most magnificent figure—his periwig was large enough to have loaded a camel, and he bestowed upon it at least a bushel of powder, I warrant you. His sword-knot dangled upon the ground, and his steinkirk, that was most agreeably discoloured with snuff from the top to the bottom, reach'd down to his waist; he carry'd his hat under his left arm, walk'd with both hands in the waistband of his breeches, and his cane, that hung negligently down in a string from his right arm, trail'd most harmoniously 12 Englano in the Øay5 of QIO. against the pebbles, while the master of it was tripping it nicely upon his toes, or humming to himself.” Down to the middle of the eighteenth century, wigs continued to increase in size. It will not now be without interest to direct attention to a few of the many styles of wigs. Randle Holme, in his “Academy of Armory,” published in 1684, has some in- teresting illustrations, and we will draw upon him for a couple of , pictures. Our first example is 4 º called the campaign-wig. He says º it “hath knots or bobs, or dildo, §: on each side, with a curled fore- CAMPAIGN-WIG. head.” This is not so cumbrous as the periwig we have noticed. Another example from Holme is a smaller style of periwig with tail, and from this wig doubtless tº originated the familiar pig-tail. - It was of various forms, and PERIWIG WITH TAIL. Swift says:– “We who wear our wigs With fantail and with snake.” A third example given by Holme is named the “short-bob,” and is a plain peruke, imitating a Culben UUltgs were Ulorn. 13 natural head of hair. “Perukes,” says Malcolm, 55 in his “Manners and Customs,” “were an highly important article in 1734. Those of right gray human hair were four guineas each ; light grizzle ties, three guineas; and other colours in proportion, to twenty-five shillings. Right gray human hair, cue perukes, from two guineas; white, fifteen shillings each, which was the price of dark ones; and right gray bob perukes, two guineas and a half; fifteen shillings was the price of dark bobs. Those mixed with horsehair were much lower. It will be observed, from the gradations in price, that real gray hair was most in fashion, and dark of no estimation.” As time ran its course, wigs became more varied in form, and bore different Ilä,I\leS. We find in the days of Queen Anne such designations as black riding-wigs, bag- wigs, and nightcap-wigs. These were in addition to the long, formally curled perukes. In 1706, the English, led by § Marlborough, gained a great victory on the battlefield of Ramillies, and that gave the title to a long wig SE § i§ ; ſ º& a º N described as “having a long, gradually plaited tail, called the *. } diminishing, 14 Englano in the Øays of QIO. ‘ Ramillie-tail, which was tied with a great bow at the top, and a smaller one at the bottom.” It is stated in Read's Weekly Journal of May 1st, 1736, in a report of the marriage of the Prince of Wales, that “the officers of the Horse and Foot Guards wore Ramillie periwigs by his Majesty's order.” We meet in the reign of George II. ºr rººm ww. other forms of the wig, and more titles for them ; the most popular, perhaps, was the pigtail-wig. The pig-tails were worn hanging down the back, or tied up in a knot behind, as shown in our illustration. This form of wig was popular in the Aft army, but in 1804, orders º. were given for it to be º z reduced to seven inches ºft § sºft % ſº te §mſ/ſº # § r #####. in length, and finally, in ſ/º. º º 2 Aft º º º 1808, to be cut off. % ºf Here is a picture of ſº #ff *X. ###: * * * an ordinary man ; by no ºft means can he be regarded BAG-WIG. as a beau. He is wearing a common bag-wig, dating back to about the middle of the eighteenth UClben UCligg Were U(\lorn. 15 * century. The style is modified to suit an in- dividual taste, and for one who did not follow the extreme fashion of his time. In this example may be observed the sausage curls over the ear, and the frizziness over the forehead. We have directed attention to the large peri- wigs, and given a portrait of the Earl of Albemarle wearing one. In the picture of the House of Commons in the time of Sir Robert Walpole we get an excellent indication of how popular the periwig was amongst the law-makers of the land. Farquhar, in a comedy called “ Love and a Bottle,” brought out in 1698, says, “a full wig is imagined to be as infallible a token of wit as the laurel.” Tillotson is usually regarded as the first amongst the English clergy to adopt the wig. He said in one of his sermons : “I can remember since the wearing of hair below the ears was looked upon as a sin of the first magnitude, and when ministers generally, whatever their text was, did either find or make occasion to reprove the great sin of long hair ; and if they saw any one in the congregation guilty in that kind, they would point him out particularly, and let fly at him with great zeal.” Dr. Tillotson died on November 24th, 1694, . 16 Englano in the Øay)3 of QIO. Wigs found favour with parsons, and in course of time they appear to have been indispensable. A volume in 1765, was issued under the title of “Free Advice to a Young Clergyman,” from the pen of the Rev. John Chubbe, in which he recommended the young preacher to always wear ºzº \º WW tºº \ ARCHIBISHOP TILLOTSON. a full wig until age had made his own hair respectable. Dr. Randolph, on his advancement to the bishopric, presumed to wait upon George IV. to kiss hands without wearing a wig. This could not be overlooked by the king, and he said, “My lord, you must have a wig.” Bishops wore (Clben UClig3 were U(\lorn. 17 wigs until the days of William IV. Bishop Blomfield is said to have been the first bishop to set the example of wearing his own hair. Even as late as 1858, at the marriage of the Princess Royal of England, Archbishop Sumner appeared in his wig. Medical men kept up the custom of wearing wigs for a long period; perhaps they felt like a character in Fielding's farce, “The Mock Doctor,” who exclaims, “I must have a physician's habit, for a physician can no more prescribe with- out a full wig than without a fee.” The wig known as the full-bottomed wig was worn by the medical profession – “Physic of old her entry made - Beneath the immense, full-bottom'd shade ; While the gilt cane, with solemn pride To each suspicious nose applied, Seemed but a necessary prop To bear the weight of wig at top.” We are told Dr. Delmahoy's wig was particularly celebrated in a song which commenced : “If you would see a noble wig, And in that wig a man look big, To Ludgate Hill repair, my boy, And gaze on Dr. Delmahoy.” In the middle of the last century so much 2 18 Ellglalić) in the Øay5 of (WIO, importance was attached to this portion of a medical man's costume, that Dr. Brocklesby's barber was in the habit of carrying a bandbox through the High Change, exclaiming : Make way for Dr. Brocklesby's wig Professional wigs are now confined to the Speaker in the House of Commons, who, when in the chair, wears a full-bottomed one, and to judges and barristers. Such wigs are made of horsehair, cleaned and curled with care, and woven on silk threads, and shaped to fit the head with exactness. The cost of a barrister's wig of frizzed hair is from five to six guineas. An eminent counsel in years agone wished to make a motion before Judge Cockburn, and in his hurry appeared without a wig. “I hear your voice,” sternly said his Lordship, “but I cannot see you.” The barrister had to obtain the loan of a wig from a learned friend before the judge would listen to him. Lord Eldon suffered much from headache, and when he was raised to the peerage he petitioned the King to allow him to dispense with the wig. He was refused ; his Majesty saying he could not permit such an innovation. In vain did his Lord- ship show that the wig was an innovation, as the TJUlbeit UCligg were U(lorn. 19 old judges did not wear them. “True,” said the King ; “the old judges wore beards.” In more recent times we have particulars of several instances of both bench and bar discarding the use of the wig. At the Summer Assizes at Lancaster, in 1819, a barrister named Mr. Scarlett hurried into court, and was permitted to take part in a trial without his wig and gown. Next day the whole of the members of the bar appeared without their professional badges, but only on this occasion, although on the previous day a hope had been expressed that the time was not far distant when the mummeries of costume would be entirely discarded. We learn from a report in the Times of July 24th, 1868, that on account of the unprecedented heat of the weather on the day before in the Court of Probate and Divorce the learned judge and bar appeared without wigs. On July 22nd, 1874, it is recorded that Dr. Kenealy rose to open the case for the defence in the Tichborne suit ; he sought and obtained permission, to remove his wig on account of the excessive heat. Towards the close of the last century few were the young men at the Universities who ventured 20 Englano in the Øays of QIO. to wear their own hair, and such as did were designated Apollos. Women, as well as men, called into requisition, to add to their charms, artificial accessories in the form of wigs and curls. Ladies' hair was curled and frizzed with considerable care, and frequently false curls were worn under the name of heart- HEART- BREAKERS, breakers. It will be seen from the illustration we give that these curls increased the beauty of a pretty face. Queen Elizabeth, we gather from Hentzner and other authorities, wore false hair. We are told that ladies, in compliment to her, dyed (Clben UClígs were (ClOril. 21 their hair a sandy hue, the natural colour of the Queen's locks. We present a picture of a barber's shop in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. It looks more like the home of a magician than the workshop of a hair- dresser, although we see the barber thoughtfully --~~~ E---> C- =====Pºsºs A BARBER's SHOP IN THE TIME OF QUEEN ELIZABETH. employed on a wig. The barber at this period was an important man. A few of his duties consisted in dressing wigs, using the razor, cutting hair, starching beards, curling moustachios, tying up love-locks, dressing sword-wounds received in 22 Englano in the Eagg of QIO, street frays, and the last, and by no means the least, of his varied functions was that of receiver and circulator of news and scandal. It is recorded that Mary Queen of Scots obtained wigs from Edinburgh not merely while in Scotland, but during her long and weary captivity in England. From “The True Report of the Last Moments of Mary Stuart,” it appears, when the executioner lifted the head by the hair to show it to the spectators, it fell from his hands owing to the hair being false. We have previously mentioned Pepys' allusions to women and wigs in 1666. Coming down to later times, we read in the Whiteholl Evening Post of August 17th, 1727, that when the King, George II., reviewed the Guards, the three eldest Prin- cesses “went to Richmond in riding habits, with hats, and feathers, and periwigs.” It will be seen from the picture of a person with and without a wig that its use made a plain face presentable, There is a good election story of Daniel O'Connell. It is related during a fierce debate on the hustings, O'Connell with his biting, witty tongue attacked his opponent on account of his ill-favoured countenance. But, not to be outdone, and thinking to turn the gathering (Clben UCligg Were U(\lorn. 23 against O'Connell, his adversary called out, “Take off your wig, and I’ll warrant that you’ll prove the uglier.” The witty Irishman immediately re- sponded, amidst roars of laughter from the crowd, by snatching the wig from off his own head and exposing to view a bald plate, destitute of a single *-* WITH AND WITHOUT A WIG. hair. The relative question of beauty was scarcely settled by this amusing rejoinder, but the laugh was certainly on O'Connell's side An interesting tale is told of Peter the Great of Russia. In the year 1716, the famous Emperor was at Dantzig, taking part in a public ceremony, and feeling his head somewhat cold, he stretched 24 Englano in the Øay3 of QIO. out his hand, and seizing the wig from the head of the burgomaster sitting below him, he placed it on his own regal head. The surprise of the spectators may be better imagined than described. On the Czar returning the wig, his attendants explained that his Majesty was in the habit of borrowing the wig of any nobleman within reach STEALING A WIG. on similar occasions. His Majesty, it may be added, was short of hair. In the palmy days of wigs the price of a full wig of an English gentleman was from thirty to forty guineas. Street quarrels in the olden time were by no means uncommon ; care had to be (Clben (Cligg Were (Clotil. 25 exercised that wigs were not lost. Says Swift :— “Triumphing Tories and desponding Whigs, Forget their feuds, and join to save their wigs.” Although precautions were taken to prevent wigs being stolen, we are told that robberies were frequently committed. Sam Rogers thus describes a successful mode of operation : “A boy was carried covered over in a butcher's tray by a tall man, and the wig was twisted off in a moment by the boy. The bewildered owner looked all around for it, when an accomplice impeded his progress under the pretence of assisting him while the tray-bearer made off.” Gay, in his “Trivia,” thus writes:— “Nor is the flaxen wig with safety worn : High on the shoulders in a basket borne Lurks the sly boy, whose hand, to rapine bred, Plucks off the curling honours of thy head.” We will bring our gossip about wigs to a close with an account of the Peruke Riot. On February 11th, 1765, a curious spectacle was witnessed in the streets of London, and one that caused some amusement. Fashion had changed; the peruke was no longer in favour, and only worn to a limited extent. A large number of peruke-makers were thrown out of employment, 26 Englano in the Øays of QIO. and distress prevailed amongst them. The sufferers thought that help might be obtained from George III., and a petition was accordingly drawn up for the enforcement of gentlefolk wearing wigs for the benefit of the wig-makers. A procession was formed, and waited upon the Ring at St. James's Palace. His Majesty, we are told, returned a gracious answer, but it must have cost him considerable effort to have main- tained his gravity. Besides the monarch, the unemployed had to encounter the men of the metropolis, and from a report of the period we learn they did not fare so well. “As the distressed men went processionally through the town,” says the account, “it was observed that most of the wig-makers, who wanted other people to wear them, wore no wigs them- selves; and this striking the London mob as something monstrously unfair and inconsistent, they seized the petitioners, and cut off all their hair per force.” - Horace Walpole alludes to this ludicrous petition in one of his letters. “Should we y wonder,” he writes, “if carpenters were to remonstrate that since the Peace there is no demand for wooden legs?” The wags of the day TJClben (Clig3 were (Clorn, 27 could not allow the opportunity to pass without attempting to provoke more mirth out of the matter, and a petition was published purporting to come from the body carpenters imploring his Majesty to wear a wooden leg, and to enjoin his servants to appear in his royal presence with the same graceful decoration. |Nowbering the 1bair. I N the olden days hair-powder was largely used in this country, and many circumstances connected with its history are curious and interesting. We learn from Josephus that the Jews used hair-powder, and from the East it was no doubt imported into Rome. The history of the luxurious days of the later Roman Empire supplies some strange stories. At this period gold-dust was employed by several of the emperors. “The hair of Commodus,” it is stated on the authority of Herodian, “glittered from its natural whiteness, and from the quantity of essences and gold-dust with which it was loaded, so that when the sun was shining it might have been thought that his head was on fire.” It is supposed, and not without a good show of reason, that the Saxons used coloured hair- powder, or perhaps they dyed their hair. In Saxon pictures the beard and hair are often painted blue. Strutt supplies interesting notes on the subject. “In some instances,” he says, “which, indeed, are not so common, the hair is represented of a bright red colour, and in others |NOWOering the bait. 29 it is of a green and Orange hue. I have no doubt existing in my own mind, that arts of some kind were practised at this period to colour the hair; but whether it was done by tingeing or dyeing it with liquids prepared for that purpose according to the ancient Eastern custom, or by powders of different hues cast into it, agreeably to the modern practice, I shall not presume to determine.” It was customary among the Gauls to wash the hair with a lixivium made of chalk in order to increase its redness. The same custom was maintained in England for a long period, and was not given up until after the reign of Elizabeth. The sandy-coloured hair of the queen greatly increased the popularity of the practice. The satirists have many allusions to this subject, more especially those of the reigns of James and Charles I. In a series of epigrams entitled “Wit's Recreations,” 1640, the following appears under the heading of “Our Monsieur Powder- o } } wig :— “Oh, doe but marke yon crisped sir, you meet ! How like a pageant he doth walk the street ! See how his perfumed head is powdered ore ; 'Twou'd stink else, for it wanted salt before.” 30 Englano in the Øay3 of (WIO. In “Musarum Deliciae,” 1655, we read :— “At the devill's shopps you buy A dresse of powdered hayre, On which your feathers flaunt and fly; But i'de wish you have a care, Lest Lucifer's selfe, who is not prouder, Do one day dresse up your haire with a powder.” From the pen of R. Younge, in 1656, appeared, “The Impartial Monitor.” The author closes with a tirade against female follies in these words:– “It were a good deed to tell men also of mealing their heads and shoulders, of wearing fardingales about their legs, etc.; for these likewise deserve the rod, since all that are discreet do but hate and scorn them for it.” A “Loyal Litany ” against the Oliverians runs thus:– “From a king-killing Saint, Patch, powder, and paint, Libera nos, Domine.” Massinger, in the “City Madam,” printed in 1679, describing the dress of a rich merchant's wife, mentions powder thus:– “Since your husband was knighted, as I said, The reverend hood cast off, your borrowed hair Powdered and curled, was by your dresser's art, Formed like a coronet, hanged with diamonds And richest orient pearls.” - |YOWOering the ſhair. 31 John Gay, in his poem, “Trivia, or the Art of Walking the Streets of London,” published in 1716, advises in passing a coxcomb, “Him like the Miller, pass with caution by, Lest from his shoulder clouds of powder fly.” We learn from the “Annals of the Barber- Surgeons” some particulars respecting the taxing of powder. On 8th August, 1751, “Mr. John Brooks,” it is stated, “attended and produced a deed to which he requested the subscription of the Court; this deed recited that by an Act of Parliament passed in the tenth year of Queen Anne, it was enacted that a duty of twopence per pound should be laid upon all starch imported, and of a penny per pound upon all starch made in Great Britain, that no perfumer, barber, or seller of hair-powder should mix any powder of alabaster, plaster of Paris, whiting, lime, etc. (sweet scents excepted), with any starch to be made use of for making hair-powder, under a pain of forfeiting the hair-powder and £50, and that any person who should expose the same for sale should forfeit it and £20.” Other details were given in the deed, and the Barber-Surgeons gave it their support, and promised twenty guineas 32 Englano in the Øay)3 of QIO. towards the cost of passing the Bill through Parliament. * A few years prior to the above proceeding we gather from the Gentleman's Mogozine particulars of some convictions for using powder not made in accordance with the laws of the land. “On the 20th October, 1745,” it is recorded, “fifty-one barbers were convicted before the commissioners of excise, and fined in the penalty of £20, for having in their custody hair-powder not made of starch, contrary to Act of Parliament: and on the 27th of the same month, forty-nine other barbers were convicted of the same offence, and fined in the like penalty.” Before powder was used, the hair was generally greased with pomade, and powdering operations were attended with some trouble. In houses of any pretension was a small room set apart for the purpose, and it was known as “the powdering-room.” Here were fixed two curtains, and the person went behind, exposing the head only, which received its proper supply of powder without any going on the clothes of the individual dressed. In the Rambler, No. 109, under date 1751, a young gentleman writes that his mother would |NOWöering the bait. 33 rather follow him to his grave than see him sneak about with dirty shoes and blotted fingers, hair unpowdered, and a hat uncocked. We have seen that hair-powder was taxed, and on the 5th of May, 1795, an Act of Parliament was passed taxing persons using it. Pitt was in . power, and being sorely in need of money, hit upon the plan of a tax of a guinea per head on those who used hair-powder. He was prepared to meet much ridicule by this movement, but he saw that it would yield a considerable revenue, estimating it as much as £200,000 a year. Fox, with force, said that a fiscal arrangement dependent on a capricious fashion must be regarded as an absurdity, but the Opposition were unable to defeat the proposal, and the Act was passed. Pitt's powerful rival, Charles James Fox, in his early manhood, was one of the most fashionable men about town. Here are a few particulars of his “get up” about 1770, drawn from the Monthly Magazine : “He had his chapeau-bas, his red- heeled shoes, and his blue hair-powder.” Later, when Pitt's tax was gathered, like other Whigs he refused to use hair-powder. For more than a quarter of a century it had been customary for men to wear their hair long, tied in a pig-tail and 3 34 Englalto in the Øay3 of QIO, powdered. Pitt's measure gave rise to a number of Crop Clubs. The Times for April 14th, 1795, contains particulars of one. “A numerous club,” says the paragraph, “has been formed in Lambeth, called the Crop Club, every member of which, on his entrance, is obliged to have his head docked as close as the Duke of Bridgewater's old bay coach-horses. This assemblage is instituted for the purpose of opposing, or rather evading, the tax on powdered heads.” Hair cropping was by no means confined to the humbler ranks of society The Times of April 25th, 1795, reports that :— “The following noblemen and gentlemen were at the party with the Duke of Bedford, at Woburn Abbey, when a general cropping and combing out of hair-powder took place : Lord W. Russell, Lord Villiers, Lord Paget, &c., &c. They entered into an engagement to forfeit a sum of money if any of them wore their hair tied, or powdered, within a certain period. Many noblemen and gentlemen in the county of Bedford have since followed the example: it has become general with the gentry in Hampshire, and the ladies have left off wearing powder.” Hair-powder did not long continue in use in the army, for in 1799 it was abolished on account of the high price of flour, caused through |NOWOering the ſpair. 35 the bad harvests. Using flour for the hair instead of for food was an old grievance among the poor. In the “Art of Dressing the Hair,” 1770, the author complains — “Their hoarded grain contractors spare, And starve the poor to beautify the hair.” Pitt's estimates proved correct, for in the first year the tax produced £210,136. The tax was increased from a guinea to one pound three shillings and sixpence. Pitt's Tory friends gave him loyal support. The Whigs might taunt them by calling them “guinea-pigs,” it mattered little, for they were not merely ready to pay the tax for themselves but to pay patriotic guineas for their servants. A number of persons were exempt from paying the tax, including “the royal family and their servants, the clergy with an income of under £100 per annum, subalterns, non-com- missioned officers and privates in the army and navy, and all officers and privates of the yeomanry and volunteers enrolled during the past year. A father having more than two unmarried daughters might obtain on payment for two, a license for the remainder.” A gentlemen took out a license for his butler, coachman, and footman, etc., and if 36 Englano in the Øay)3 of QIO, he changed during the year it stood good for the newly engaged servants. Powder was not wholly set aside by ladies until 1793, when with consideration Queen Charlotte abandoned its use, swayed no doubt by her desire to cheapen, in that time of dearth, the flour of which it was made. It has been said its disuse was attributable to Sir Joshua Reynolds, Angelica Kauffmann, and other painters of their day, but it is much more likely that the artists painted the hair “full and flowing ” because they found it so, not that they as a class dictated to their patronesses in despite of fashion. The French Revolution had somewhat to do with the change, a powdered head or wig was a token of aristocracy, and as the fashion might lead to the guillotine, sensible people discarded it long before the English legislature put a tax upon its use. With reference to this Sir Walter Scott says in the fifth chapter of “The Antiquary '':— “Regular were the Antiquary's inquiries at an old-fashioned barber, who dressed the only three wigs in the parish, which, in defiance of taxes and times, were still subjected to the operation of powdering and frizzling, and who for that purpose divided his time among |YOWOering the ſhair. 37 the three employers whom fashion had yet left him.” “Fly with this letter, Caxon,” said the senior (the Antiquary), holding out his missive, “ fly to Knockwinnock, and bring me back an answer. Go as fast as if the town council were met and waiting for the provost, and the provost was waiting for his new powdered wig.” “Ah, sir,” answered the messenger, with a deep sigh, “thae days hae lang gane by. Deil a wig has a provost of Fairport worn sin’ auld Provost Jervie's time —and he had a quean of a servant-lass that dressed it hersel', wi' the doup o' a candle and a dredging box. But I hae seen the day, Monk- barns, when the town council of Fairport wad hae as soon wanted their town-clerk, or their gill of brandy ower-head after the haddies, as they wad hae wanted ilk ane a weel-favoured, sonsy, decent periwig on his pow. Hegh, sirs nae wonder the commons will be discontent, and rise against the law, when they see magistrates, and bailies, and deacons, and the provost himsel', wi' heads as bald an' as bare as one o' my blocks.” It was not in Scotland alone that the barber was peripatetic. “In the last century,” says Mrs. G. Linnaeus Banks, author of the “Manchester 38 Englano in the Øays of QIO, Man" and other popular novels, “he waited on his chief customers or patrons at their own homes, not merely to shave, but to powder the hair or the wig, and he had to start on his round betimes. Where the patron was the owner of a spare periwig it might be dressed in advance, and sent home in a box, or mounted on a stand, such as a barrister keeps handy at the present day. But when ladies had powdered top-knots, the hairdresser made his harvest, especially when a ball or a rout made the calls for his services many and imperative. When at least a couple of hours were required for the arrangement of a single toupée or tower, or commode, as the head-dress was called, it may well be understood that for two or three days prior to the ball the hairdresser was in demand, and as it was impossible to lie down without disarranging the structure he had raised on pads, or framework of wire, plastering with pomatum and disguising with powder, the belles so adorned or disfigured were compelled to sit up night and day, catching what sleep was possible in a chair. And when I add that a head so dressed was rarely disturbed for ten days or a fortnight, it needs no stretch of imagination to realize what a mass of loathsome nastiness the |NOWOering the ſhair. 39 fine ladies of the last century carried about with them, or what strong stomachs the barbers must have had to deal with them.” The Tories often regarded with mistrust any persons who did not use hair-powder. The Rev. J. Charles Cox, LL.D., F.S.A., the eminent antiquary, relates a good story respecting his grandfather. “So late as 1820," says Dr. Cox, “Major Cox of Derby, an excellent Tory, declined for some time to allow his son Edward to become a pupil of a well-known clerical tutor, for the sole reason that the clergyman did not powder, and wore his hair short, arguing that he must therefore, be a dangerous revolutionist.” In 1869 the tax on hair-powder was repealed, when only some 800 persons paid it, producing about £1,000 per year. (IDen Wearing (IDuffg. HE muff in bygone times was worn by men as well as women. Several writers state that it was introduced into England in the reign of Charles II., but this is not correct, for, although it is not of great antiquity, it can certainly be traced back to a much earlier period. Most probably it reached us from France, and when it came into fashion it was small in size. The earliest representation of a muff that has come under our notice occurs in a drawing by Gaspar Rutz (1598) of an English lady, and she wears it pendant from her girdle. A few years later in the wardrobe accounts of Prince Henry of Wales, a charge is made for embroidering two muffs. The entries occur in 1608, and are as follow :-“One of cloth of silver, embroidered with purles, plates, and Venice twists of silver and gold; the other of black Satten, embroidered with black silk and bugles, viz., for one É7, the other 60s.” Muffs were usually ornamented with bunches of gay ribbons, or some other decorations, Ten wearing (IDuffs. 41 and were generally hung round the neck with ribbons. Several poems and plays of the olden time contain references to men using muffs. One of the earliest, if not the first, to mention a man wearing a muff, occurs in an epistle by Samuel Rowlands, written about 1600. It is as follows:– “Behold a most accomplished cavalier That the world’s ape of fashion doth appear, Walking the streets his humour to disclose, In the French doublet and the German hose. The muffes, cloak, Spanish hat, Toledo blade, Italian ruff, a shoe right Spanish made.” A ballad, describing the frost fair on the Thames in the winter of 1683–4, mentions amongst those present — “A spark of the Bar with his cane and his muff.” In course of time the muff was increased in size, until it was very large. Dryden, in the epilogue of “The Husband his own Cuckstool,” 1696, refers to the monstrous muff worn by the beau. Pepys made a point of being in fashion, but in respect to the muff he was most economical. He says he took his wife's last year's muff, and it is 42 Englano in the Øay)3 of QIo. pleasing to record that he gallantly bought her a The W OI) e. Professional men did not neglect to add to their dignity by the use of the muff. In addition to the gold-headed cane, the doctor carried a muff. An old book called “The Mother-in-law,” includes a character who is advised by his friends to become a physician. Says one to him : “'Tis but putting on the doctor's gown and cap, and you'll have more knowledge in an instant than you'll know what to do withal.” Observes another friend: “Besides, sir, if you had no other qualification than that muff of yours, twould go a great way. A muff is more than half in the making of a doctor.” Cibble tells Nightshade in Cumberland’s “Cholerick Man,” 1775, to “Tuck your hands in your muff and never open your lips for the rest of the afternoon ; 'twill gain you respect in every house you enter.” Alexander Wedderburn, before being called to the English Bar in 1757, had practised as an advocate in his native city, Edinburgh. In his references to his early days, there is an allusion to the muff, show- ing that its use must have been by no means uncommon in Scotland in the middle of the eighteenth century. “Knowing my countrymen (IDen Wearing (IDuffs. 43 at that time,” he tells us, “I was at great pains to study and assume a very grave, solemn deportment for a young man, which my marked features, notwithstanding my small stature, would render more im- ////, ///z.)))))))\\\\\? sº - arº-S posing. Men then wore in winter small muffs, and I flatter myself that, as I paced to the Parliament House, no man of fifty could look more thought- ful or steady. My first client was a citizen whom I did not know. He called upon me in the course of a cause, and becoming familiar with him, I asked him ‘how he came to employ me?’ The answer was: “Why, I had noticed you in the High Street, going to the court, the MAN witH MUFF, 1693. (From a Print of the Period.) most punctual of any, as the clock struck nine, and you looked so grave and business-like, that I resolved from your j } appearance to have you for my advocate.’ 44 Englano in the Øay)3 of . (WIO. More instances of the muff amongst professional men might be cited, but the foregoing are sufficient to indicate the value set upon it by this class. Towards the end of the seventeenth century it was customary to carry in the muff small dogs known as “muff dogs,” and Hollar made a picture of one of these little animals. A tale is told of the eccentric head of one of the colleges at Oxford, who had a great aversion to the undergraduates wearing long hair, that on one occasion he reduced the length of a young man's hair by means of a bread-knife. It is stated that he carried concealed in his muff a pair of scissors, and with these he slyly cut off offending locks. Both the Tatler and the Spectator include notices of the muff. In No. 153 of the Tatler, 1710, is a description of a poor but doubtless a proud person with a muff. “I saw,” it is stated, “he was reduced to extreme poverty, by certain shabby superfluities in his dress, for—notwith- standing that it was a very sultry day for the time of the year—he wore a loose great coat and a muff. Here we see poverty trying to imitate prosperity.” There are at least three allusions to (IMen wearing (IDuffs. 45 the muff in the pages of the Spectator. We find in the issue for March 19th, 1711, a correspondent desires Addison to be “very satyrical upon the little muff” that was then fashionable amongst Iſle]]. A satirical print was published in 1756, at the Gold Acorn Tavern, facing Hungerford Market, London, called the “Beau Admiral.” It represents Admiral Byng carrying a large muff. He had been sent to relieve Minorca, besieged by the French, and after a futile action with- drew his ships, declaring that the ministry had not furnished him with a sufficient fleet to successfully fight the enemy. This action made the ministry furious, and Byng was brought before a court martial, and early in 1757 he was, according to sentence, shot at Portsmouth. In America muffs were popular with both men and women. Old newspapers contain references to them. The following advertisement is drawn from the Boston News Letter of March 5th, 1715 :— “Any man that took up a Man's Muff drop't on the Lord's Day between the Old Meeting House & the South, are desired to bring it to the Printer's Office, and shall be rewarded,” 46 Englano in the Øays of Qib, Mrs. Alice Morse Earle, in her “Costume of Colonial Times” (New York: 1894), gives other instances of men's muffs being missing, “In 1725,” says Mrs. Earle, “Dr. Prince lost his ‘black bear- skin muff,' and in 1740 a sable-skin man's muff was advertised.” It is clear from Mrs. Earle's investigations that the beaux of New England followed closely the lead of the dandies of Old England. “I can easily fancy,” she says, “the mincing face of Horace Walpole peering out of a carriage window or a sedan-chair, with his hands and his wrists thrust in a great muff; but when I look at the severe and ascetic countenance in the portrait of Thomas Prince, I find it hard to think of him, walking solemnly along Boston streets, carrying his big bear-skin muff.” Other Bostonians, we are told, maintained the fashion until a much later period. Judge Dana employed it even after Revolutionary times. In 1783, in the will of René Hett, of New York, several muffs are mentioned, and were considered of sufficient account to form bequests. The puritans of New England had little regard for warmth in their places of worship, and it is not surprising that men wore muffs. People were obliged to attend the services of the church unless (INen wearing (INuffs. 47 they were sick, yet little attempt was made to render the places comfortable. The first stove introduced into a meeting-house in Massachusetts was at Boston in 1773. In 1793 two stoves were placed in the Friends' meeting- house, Salem, and in 1809 one was erected in the North Church, Salem. Persons are still living in the United States who can remember the knocking of feet on a cold day towards the close of a long sermon. The preachers would ask for a little patience and promise to close their discourses. Concerning Corporation Cu3tom3. HE history of old English Municipal Cor- porations contains some quaint and interesting information respecting the laws, customs, and every-day life of our forefathers. The institution of corporate towns dates back to a remote period, and in this country we had our corporations before the Norman Conquest. The Norman kings frequently granted charters for the incorporation of towns, and an example is the grant of a charter to London by Henry I. in the year 1101. For more than a century and a half no person was permitted to hold office in a municipal cor- poration unless he had previously taken sacrament according to the rites of the Established Church. The act regulating this matter was known as the Test Act, which remained in force from the days of Charles II. to those of George IV. It was repealed on the 9th May, 1828. In the latter reign, in 1835, was passed the Municipal Reform Act, which greatly changed the constitution of Concerning Corporation Cu3tom3. 49 many corporate towns and boroughs. It is not, however, so much the laws as local customs to which we wish to direct attention. The mace as a weapon may be traced back to a remote period, and was a staff about five feet in length with a metal head usually spiked. Maces were used by the heavy cavalry in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, but went out of use in England in the reign of Elizabeth. It is not clear when the ornamental maces came to be regarded as an ensign of authority. Their first use may be traced back to the twelfth century. At that period and later spikeless maces were carried by the guards attending princes, as a convenient weapon to protect them against the sudden attacks of the assassin. Happily their need passed away, and as a symbol of rank only they have remained. In civic processions the mace is usually borne before the mayor, and when the sovereign visits a corporate town it is customary for the mayor to bear the mace before the monarch. We learn from history that when Princess Margaret was on her way to Scotland in 1503 to be united in marriage to James IV., as she passed through the city of York the Lord Mayor shouldered the mace and carried it 4 50 Englano in the Øay)3 of QIO, before her. The mace was formerly borne before the mayoress of Southampton when she went out in state. A singular custom connected with the º º ſº THE LORD MAYOR OF YORK ESCORTING PRINCESS MARGARET. mace obtained at Leicester. It was customary for the newly-elected mayor to proceed to the castle, and in accordance with a charter Concerning Corporation Cu3tom3. 51 granted by James I., take an oath before the steward of the Duchy of Lancaster, “to perform faithfully and well all and every ancient custom, and so forth according to the best of his know- ledge.” On arrival at a certain place within the precincts of the stronghold the mayor had the great mace lowered from an upright position as a token of acknowledgment to the ancient feudal earls within their castle. In 1766 Mr. Fisher, a Jacobite, was elected mayor, and like others of his class was ever ready when opportunity offered to show his aversion to the reigning dynasty. He purposely omitted the ceremony of lowering the mace. When the servant of the mayor refused to “slope the mace,” the Constable of the castle or his deputy refused to admit the mayor. The ceremony was discontinued after this occurrence, and the mayor went in private to take the oath. The following ordinances were in force at Kingston-upon-Hull about 1450, and point their own moral. “No Mayor should debase his honourable office by selling (during his Mayoralty) ale or wine in his house.” “Whenever the Mayor appeared in public he 52 Englano in the Pays of QIO, should have a sword carried before him, and his officers should constantly attend him; also he should cause everything to be done for the honour of the town, and should not hold his office for two years together.” “No Aldermen should keep ale-houses or taverns, nor absent themselves from the town's business, nor discover what is said in their councils, under heavy penalties.” An entry in the annals of Hull in 1549 states that three of the former sheriffs of the town, named respectively Johnson, Jebson, and Thorp, were fined £6 13s. 4d. each “for being deficient in the elegance of their entertainments, for neglect- ing to wear scarlet gowns, and for not providing the same for their wives during their shrievalties.” Ten years later a Mr. Gregory was chosen sheriff, and he refused to accept the office. The matter was referred to the Queen in Council, and he was ordered to be fined £100, to be disfranchised and turned out of the town. We are told that the order was executed. We gather from the ancient records of Canter- bury that, in 1544, it was decided “that during winter every dark-night the aldermen, common council, and inn-holders are to find one candle, Concerning Corporation Customs. 53 with light, at their doors, and the other inhabitants are to do in like fashion upon request, and if any lantern be stolen, the offender shall be set in the pillory at the mayor's discretion; the candles are to be lighted at six, and continued until burnt out.” In 1549 the sheriff of Canterbury paid a fine of three shillings and fourpence for wearing his beard. Another quaint item in the Canterbury records under the year 1556 is an order directing the mayor every year before Christmas to provide for the mayoress, his wife, to wear one scarlet gown, and a bonnet of velvet. If the mayor failed to procure the foregoing he was liable to a fine of £10. At Nottingham the new mayor took office on the 29th September each year. The outgoing mayor and other members of the corporation marched in procession to St. Mary's Church. At the conclusion of divine service all retired to the vestry, and the retiring mayor occupied the chair at the head of a table covered with a black cloth, in the middle of which lay the mace covered with rosemary and sprigs of bay. This was called burying the mace, and no doubt was meant to denote the official decease of the late holder. 54 Englano in the Øays of QIO. The new mayor was then formally elected, and the outgoing mayor took up the mace, kissed it, and delivered it to his successor with a suitable speech. After the election of other town officials the company proceeded to the chancel of the church, where the mayor took the oath of office, BU RYING THE M ACE AT NOTTINGHAM, which was administered by the senior coroner. After the mayor had been proclaimed in public places by the town clerk, a banquet was held at the municipal buildings; the fare consisted of bread and cheese, fruit in season, and pipes of Concerning Corporation Cu3tOmg, 55 tobacco The proclaiming of the new mayor did not end on the day of election : on the following market-day he was proclaimed in face of the whole market, and the ceremony took place at one of the town crosses. We learn from the Report of the Royal Com- THE MAYOR OF WYCOM BE GOING TO THE GUILD HALL. mission issued in 1837 that the election of the Mayor of Wycombe was enacted with not a little ceremony. The great bell of the church was tolled for an hour, then a merry peal was rang. The retiring mayor and aldermen proceeded to 56 Englano in the Days of Oſo. church, and after service walked in procession to the Guildhall, preceded by a woman strewing flowers and a drummer beating a drum. The mayor was next elected, and he and his fellow- members of the corporation marched round the market-house, and wound up the day by being weighed, and their weights were duly recorded by the sergeant-at-mace, who was rewarded with a small sum of money for his trouble. In the Gentlemen’s Magazine for 1782 we find particulars of past mayoral customs at Abingdon, Berkshire. “Riding through Abingdon,” says a correspondent, “I found the people in the street at the entrance of the town very busy in adorning the outside of their houses with boughs of trees and garlands of flowers, and the paths were strewed with rushes. One house was dis- tinguished by a greater number of garlands than the rest. On inquiring the reason, it seemed that it was usual to have this ceremony performed in the street in which the new mayor lived, on the first Sunday that he went to church after his election.” At Newcastle-on-Tyne still lingers a curious custom which dates back to the period when strife was rife between England and Scotland. It has Concerning Corporation Custonig. 57 long been the practice to present the judges attend- ing the Assizes on their arrival with two pairs of gloves, a pair to each of their marshals and to the other members of their retinue, also to the clerks of Assize and their officers. The judges are entertained in a hospitable manner during their stay in the city. At the conclusion of the business of the Assizes the mayor and other members of the Corporation in full regalia wait upon the judges, and the mayor thus addresses them — “My Lords, we have to congratulate you upon having completed your labours in this ancient town, and have also to inform you that you travel hence to Carlisle, through a border county much and often infested by the Scots; we therefore present each of your lordships with a piece of money to buy therewith a dagger to defend - yourselves.” The mayor then gives the senior judge a piece of gold of the reign of James I., termed a Jacobus, and to the junior judge a coin of the reign of Charles I., called a Carolus. After the judge in commission has returned thanks the ceremony is ended. Some time ago a witty judge returned thanks as follows: “I thank the mayor and corporation much for this gift. I doubt, however, 58 Englano in the Øay)3 of QIO. whether the Scots have been so troublesome on the borders lately; I doubt, too, whether daggers in any numbers are to be purchased in this ancient town for the protection of my suite and of myself; and I doubt if these coins are altogether a legal tender at the present time.” The local authorities are anxious to keep up the ancient custom enjoined upon them by an old charter, but they often experience great difficulty in obtaining the old-time pieces of money. Some- times as much as £15 has been paid for one of the scarce coins. “Upon the resignation or the death of a judge who has travelled the northern circuit, we are told the corporation at once offer to purchase from his representative the “dagger- money' received on his visits to Newcastle, in order to use it on future occasions.” It was customary, in the olden time, for the mayor and other members of the Banbury Cor- poration to repair to Oxford during the assizes and visit the judge at his lodgings, and the mayor, with all the graces of speech at his command, ask “my lord ” to accept a present of the celebrated Banbury cakes, wine, some long clay pipes, and a pound of tobacco. The judge accepted these with gratitude, or, at all COncerning CorpOtation Cu3tOm3. 59 events, in gracious terms expressed his thanks for their kindness. The Corporation of Ludlow used to offer hospitality to the judges. The representatives of the town met the train in which the judges travelled from Shrewsbury to Hereford, and offered to them cake and wine, the former on an ancient silver salver, and the latter in a loving-cup wreathed with flowers. Mr. Justice Hill was the cause of the custom coming to a conclusion in 1858. He was travelling the circuit, and he communi- cated with the mayor saying, “owing to the delay occasioned, Her Majesty's judges would not stop at Ludlow to receive the wonted hospitality.” We are told the mayor and corporation were offended, and did not offer to renew the ancient courtesy. The making of a “sutor of Selkirk" is attended with some ceremony. “It was formerly the practice of the burgh corporation of Selkirk,” says Dr. Charles Rogers, the social historian of Scotland, “to provide a collation or dejeſłmer on the invitation of a burgess. The rite of initiation consisted in the newly-accepted brother passing through the mouth a bunch of bristles which had previously been mouthed by all the members of the board. This practice was termed ‘licking the 60 Englano in the Øays of QIO. birse :’ it took its origin at a period when shoe- making was the staple trade of the place, the birse being the emblem of the craft. When Sir Walter Scott was made a burgess or ‘sutor of Selkirk,’ he took precaution before mouthing the beslabbered brush to wash it in his wine, but the act of rebellion was punished by his being com- pelled to drink the polluted liquor.” In 1819, Prince Leopold was created “a sutor of Selkirk,” but the ceremony was modified to meet his more refined tastes, and the old style has not been resumed. Mr. Andrew Lang, a distinguished native of the town, has had the honour conferred upon him of being made a sutor. The Mayor of Altrineham, Cheshire, in bygone times was, if we are to put any faith in pro- verbial lore, a person of humble position, and on this account the “honour” was ridiculed. An old rhyme says— “The Mayor of Altrincham, and the Mayor of Over, The one is a thatcher, and the other a dauber.” Sir Walter Scott, in “The Heart of Mid- Lothian,” introduces the mayor into his pages in no flattering manner. Mr. Alfred Ingham, in his “History of Altrincham and Bowdon” (1879), has collected for his book some curious Concerning CorpOtation Cu3tom9. 61 information bearing on this theme. He relates a tradition respecting one of the mayors gifted with the grace of repartee, which is well worth reproducing —“The Mayor of Over—for he and the Mayor of Altrincham are often coupled— journeyed once upon a time to Manchester. He was somewhat proud, though he went on foot, and on arriving at Altrincham, felt he would be all the better for a shave. The knight of the steel and the strop performed the operation most satisfactorily ; and as his worship rose to depart, he said rather grand-eloquently, ‘You may tell your customers that you have had the honour of shaving the Mayor of Over.” “And you,' retorted the ready-witted fellow, ‘may tell yours that you have had the honour of being shaved by the Mayor of Altrincham.” The rest can be better imagined than described.” We learn from Mr. J. Potter Briscoe that a strange tradition still lingers in Nottingham, to the effect that when King John last visited the town, he called at the house of the mayor, and the residence of the priest of St. Mary's. Find- ing neither ale in the cellar of one, nor bread in the cupboard of the other, His Majesty ordered every publican in the town to contribute six- 62 Englano in the Øay)3 of QIo, pennyworth of ale to the mayor annually, and that every baker should give a half-penny loaf weekly to the priest. The custom was continued down to the time of Blackner, the Nottingham historian, who published his history in 1815. The mayor of Rye, in bygone times, had almost unlimited authority, and if anyone spoke evil of him, he was immediately taken and grievously punished by his body, but if he struck the mayor, he ran the risk of having cut off the hand that dealt the blow. As late as 1600, at Hartlepool, it was enacted, that anyone calling a member of the council a liar be fined eleven shillings and sixpence, if, how- ever, the term false was used, the fine was only six shillings and eightpence. jôribeg for the Dalate. IN the days of old it was no uncommon practice for public bodies and private persons to attempt to bribe judges and others with presents. Frequently the gifts consisted of drink or food. In some instances money was expected and given. It is not, however, to bribery in general we want to direct attention, but to some of its more curious phases, and especially those which appealed to the recipients' love of good cheer, Some of the judges even in a corrupt age would not be tempted. One of the most upright of our judges was Sir Matthew Hale. It had long been customary for the Dean and Chapter of Salisbury to present to the judges of the Western Circuit six sugar loaves. The gift was sent to Hale, and he directed his servant to pay for the sugar before he tried a case in which the donors were interested. On another occasion while he was on circuit, a gentleman gave him a buck, hoping by this act to gain his favour in a 64 Englano in the Øay 3 of QIO. case that was to be tried before him. When the trial was about to commence, Hale remembered the name of the gentleman and inquired if he was the person from whom the venison had been received. On being informed that such was the fact, he would not allow the trial to proceed until he had made payment for the buck. The gentleman strongly protested against receiving the money, saying that he had only presented the same to the Chief Baron as he had done to other judges who had gone the circuit. Further instances might be mentioned of presents being offered and refused by Hale, but the foregoing are sufficient to show the character of the man. Newcastle-on-Tyne municipal records contain many references to presents of sugar loaves. There are for example gifts to noblemen who called at the town on their way to Scotland. In January 1593, we find particulars of 23s. 7d. for sugar and wine “sent in a present to my L. Ambassador as he came travling through this towne to Scotland called my L. Souch.” The charges are as follow — “Paide for 2 gallons of secke 2 gallons and a quarte of clared wine 11s. 3d. A sugar loaf weis 8 lb. and a quarter at 18d. per pound - tº 12s. 4d.” Jöribeg for the Dalate, 65 A little later the Earl of Essex was bound for Scotland and received a present at the hands of the local authorities. The town accounts state : “Sept. 1594.—Paide for four sugar loaves weide 273 lbs. - wº * - 41s. 8d. 5 gallons and a pottle of claret, - lls. 4 gallons secke - - * <- 10s. 8d. Soma - 4- wº * -- 63s. 4d.” In the following month the Earl of Essex, in company of my Lord Wharton, returned from North Britain and received sugar and wine costing the town £4 14s. 10d. The details of the amount are as under — “Oct. 1594.—Paide for 3 sugar loves weide 304 lb. 18d. per lb. & &º £2 5s. 10d. For clarid wine and secke - * £2 9s. 0d.” The Bishop of Durham was not overlooked. In February, 1596, we find an entry as follows:— “Paide for 4 pottles secke and 2 quarte, for 3 pottles of white wine, and 4 pottles and a quarte of clared wine for a present to the bishop of Dorum - - - ** - 17s. 6d. Paide for 11 lb. of suger which went with the wine 18d. per pounde - 16s. 6d.” “Mr. Maiore and his brethren” enjoyed sugar and sundry pottles of wine. 66 Englano in the Øays of QIO. It is satisfactory to find that the ladies were not neglected at Newcastle-on-Tyne. Here is an entry referring to the entertainment of the Mayoress and other ladies:– “April, 1595.-Paide for secke, suger, clared wine, and caikes, to Mrs. Maris, and other gentlewomen, in Mr. Baxter, his chamber - - 6s. 8d.” In the same month is an entry far different in character. It is a charge of 4d. for leading a scolding woman through the town wearing the brank. Payments for inflicting punishment on men and women frequently occur. The accounts of the borough of St. Ives, Cornwall, contain an item as follows:– “1640,—Payde Nicholas Prigge for two loaves of sugar, which were pre- sented to Mr. Recorder - 31 10s. 0d.” The records of the city of Winchester include particulars of many presents of sugar loaves and other gifts. On March 24th, 1592, it was decided at a meeting of the municipal authorities to present the Lord Marquis of Winchester with a sugar loaf weighing five pounds, and a gallon of sack, on his coming to the Lent Assizes. The accounts of the city at this period contain entries Mae №ſſì.|ſ： （a）（ſ-2）， OR SCOLD'S BRITYLE. WOMAN WEARING A BRANK, THE BRANK, or SCOLD'S BRIDLE. JBribes for the Dalate. 69 of payments for sugar loaves given to the Re- corder for a New Year's present, and for pottles of wine bestowed on distinguished visitors. At a meeting held in 1603 of the local authorities of Nottingham, it was agreed that the town should present to the Recorder, Sir Henry Pierrepoint, as follows:—“A sugar loaf, 9s. ; lemons, 1s. 8d. ; white wine, one gallon, 2s. 8d. ; claret, one gallon, 2s. 8d. ; muskadyne, one pottle, 2s. 8d.; sack, one pottle, 2s. ; total, 20s. 8d.” A year later the burgesses of Nottingham wished to show the great esteem they entertained for the Earl of Shrewsbury, and it was decided to give to him “a veal of mutton, a lamb, a dozen chickens, two dozen rabbits, two dozen of pigeons, and four capons.” This is a truly formidable list, and seems more suitable for stocking a shop than a gentleman's larder. The porpoise in past times was prized as a delicacy, and placed on royal tables. Down to the days of Queen Elizabeth it was used by the nobles as an article of food. In the reign of that queen, a penny in twelve was the market due at Newcastle-on-Tyne, when the fish were cut up and exposed for sale. The heads, fins, and numbles were taken in addition. The seal was 70 Englano in the Øay)3 of QIo. subject to the same regulations. The porpoise was deemed suitable for a present. In 1491 it is recorded that a large porpoise was sent from Yarmouth as a gift to the Earl of Oxford. The annals of Exeter furnish particulars of several gifts of fish. In 1600 it was decided by the local authorities to present to the Recorder of the city, Mr. Sergeant Hale, annually during his life, eight salmon of the river Exe. The Mayor for the time being had a like quantity allowed. It was resolved on the 10th January, 1610, to present, at the cost of the citizens, to the Speaker of the Parliament, in token of good will, a hogshead of Malaga wine, or a hogshead of claret, whichever might be deemed most acceptable, and one baked salmon pie. Sir George Trenchard in 1593 received from the Mayor of Lyme a box of marmalade and six oranges, costing 7s. Six months later the municipal accounts of Lyme include an entry as follows:— “1595.-Given to Sir George Trenchard a fair box marmalade gilted, a barrel of conserves oranges and lemons and potatoes - - tº tº e- - 22s. 10d.” Mr. George Roberts, in his “Social History of JBribeg for the Dalate. 71 the Southern Counties,” has an interesting note respecting the potatoes named in the foregoing entry. He says:–“The sweet potato (Con- volvulus Batatas) was known in England before the common potato, which received its name from its resemblance to the Batata. This plant was introduced into this country by Sir Francis Drake and Sir John Hawkins in the middle of the sixteenth century. The roots were, about the close of the reign of Elizabeth, imported in considerable quantities from Spain and the Canaries, and were used as a confection rather than as a nourishing vegetable.” We will close this paper with particulars of a present which may be regarded more of an example of esteem than an attempt at bribery. Hull, in the days of old, was noted for its ale. The Corporation of the town often presented one or two barrels to persons to whom they desired to show a token of regard. Andrew Marvell, the incorruptible patriot, represented the place in Parliament from 1658 until his death in 1678. He was in close touch with the leading men of the town, and wrote long and interesting letters, detailing the operations of the House of Commons, to the Mayor and Aldermen. In one of his 72 Englano in the Øays of QIO, epistles to the Burgesses of Hull he refers to a gift of ale. “We must,” says Marvell, “first give thanks for the kind present you have been pleased to send us, which will give occasion to us to remember you often ; but the quantity is so great that it might make sober men forgetful.” Marvell's father was master of the Hull Grammar ANDREW MARVELL, School, and it was there the patriot was educated. Hull ale finds a place in proverbial lore, and is named by Ray and others. Taylor, the water poet, visited the town in 1622, and was the guest of George Pease, landlord of the “King's Head” Inn, High Street. In Taylor's poem, entitled “A Very Merrie Ferry Voyage; or, Yorke for JBribes for the [[Salate. 73 My Money,” he thus averts to Hull ale:– “'Thanks to my loving host and hostess, Pease, There at mine inne each night I took mine ease; And there I got a cantle of Hull Chesse.” * The poet, in a foot-note, says:–“ Hull cheese is much like a loaf out of the brewer's basket; it is composed of two samples, mault and water in one compound, and is cousin german to the mightiest ale in England.” Ray quotes the proverb, “You have eaten some Hull cheese,” as equivalent to an accusation of drunkenness. iRebel lbeaog On City (5ateg. HE barbarous custom of spiking heads on city gates, and on other prominent places, may be traced back to the days of Edward I. His wise laws won for him the title of “the English Justinian,” but he does not appear to have tempered justice with mercy. In his age little value was set upon human life. His scheme of conquest included the subjugation and annexation of Scotland and Wales. David, the brother of Llewellyn the Welsh Prince, had been on the side of the English, and at the hands of Edward had experienced kindness, but in return he showed little gratitude. In 1282 he made an unprovoked attack on Hawarden Castle. Subsequently his brother Llewellyn joined in the rising, and undertook the conduct of the war in South Wales, while David attempted to defend the North of the country. In a skirmish on the Wye, Llewellyn was slain by a single knight. David soon fell into the hands of the English, and was sent in chains to Shrewsbury. ſRebel beaos on City (5ates. 75 Here he was tried by Parliament, consisting of “the first national convention in which the Common had any share by legal authority, and the earliest lawful trace of a mixed assembly of Lords and Commons.” Guilty of being a traitor was the verdict returned, and David was con- demned to a new and cruel mode of execution, viz., “to be dragged at a horse's tail through the streets of Shrewsbury, and to be afterwards hung and cut down while alive, his heart and bowels burnt before his face, his body quartered and his head sent to London.” The head of Llewellyn was also to be sent to London, to be spiked on the Tower encircled with a crown of ivy. On the gates of old London Bridge have been spiked the heads of many famous men—not a few whose brave deeds add glory to the annals of England and Scotland. The heroic deeds of Sir William Wallace have done much to increase the dignity of the history of North Britain. After rendering gallant service to his native land, he was betrayed into the hands of the English by his friend and countryman, Sir John Menteith, at Glasgow. He was conveyed to London, was tried and condemned as a rebel, and on August 23rd, 1305, suffered a horrible death, similar to 76 Englano in the Øay5 of QIo. the fate of David, Prince of Wales. His body was divided and sent into four parts of Scotland, and his head set up on a pole on London Bridge. Edward I. degraded himself by this cruel revenge on a patriotic man. In the following year the º nº & J ; i ; ſº : -- 4. fººtº: §§§§§ º § § & i ſº | #|####|ºnſº º ºp, #ill | . # | i #|| * |}. # - - - º ...tº ſ Sºlſ -- }º. - º WT º iſºftº: º º º º º lſ. i Ş #|. Hill OLD LONDON BRIDGE, SHEw ING HEADS OF REBELS ON THE GATE, head of another Scotch rebel, Simon Frazer, was spiked beside that of Wallace. In the reign of Edward II., Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, rose to almost supreme power, but his rule was most distasteful to the people. iRebel beaos on City (5ates. 77 It was oppressive and ended in disaster. In 1316, when the Earl was at the height of his fame, he discovered that a knight formerly in his household had been induced by the King of England to carry to the King of Scotland a letter asking that some of his soldiers might slay him. The Earl was then at Ponte- fract and had the knight brought before him, and by his orders he was speedily executed, and his head spiked on the walls of the castle. The Barons met the forces of Edward II. at Boroughbridge, in 1322, and were totally routed, and their leaders, the Earl of Hereford was slain, and the Earl of Lancaster was taken prisoner, and afterwards executed at Pontefract. About thirty knights and barons suffered death on the scaffold in various parts of the country, so that terror might be widely spread. Some of the bodies were suspended for long periods in chains, and amongst the number were those of Sir Roger de Clifford, Sir John Mowbray, and Sir Jocalyn D'Eyville. They were hanged at York, and for three years their bodies were hung in chains, and then the Friar Preachers committed them to the ground. Another rebel, Sir Bartholomew de Badlesmere, was executed at 78 Englano in the Øay,3 of QIO, Canterbury, and his head was cut off and spiked on the city gate at Canterbury. At Boroughbridge Sir Andrew de Harcla displayed courage of a high order, and was rewarded with the title of the Earl of Carlisle, and military duties of a more important order were entrusted to him, but he did not long enjoy his honours. The Scots advanced into this country and met the English at the Abbey of Byland, and completely overpowered them ; the Earl remaining inactive at Boroughbridge with 2,000 foot and horse soldiers. On a writ dated at Knaresborough, February 27th, 1323, he was tried for treachery, his collusion with the Scotch was clearly proved, and the following sentence was passed upon him —“To be degraded both himself and his heirs from the rank of earl, to be ungirt of his sword, his gilded spurs hacked from his heels—said to be the first example of its kind —to be hanged, drawn, and beheaded, his heart and entrails torn out and burnt to ashes, and the ashes scattered to the winds; his carcase to be divided into four quarters, one to be hung on the top of the Tower at Carlisle, another at New- castle, the third on the bridge at York, and the fourth at Shrewsbury, while his head was to be frebel beaog on City (Bates. 79 spiked on London Bridge.” “You may divide my body as you please,” said the Earl, “but I give my soul to God.” On March 3rd, 1323, the terrible sentence was carried out. Under the year 1397, John Timbs, in his “Curiosities of London,” records that the heads of four traitor knights were spiked on London Bridge. - On Bramham Moor, Yorkshire, on Sunday, February 19th, 1408, Sir Thomas Rokeby, high sheriff of the county, fighting for Henry IV., completely defeated an army raised by the Earl of Northumberland, and other nobles who had revolted against the king. The Earl was slain on the field, and his chief associate, Lord Bardolf, was mortally wounded and taken prisoner, but died before he could be removed from the scene of the battle. The heads of these two noblemen were cut off, and that of the Earl placed upon a hedge-stake, and carried in a mock procession through the chief towns on the route to London, and finally found a resting-place on London Bridge. He was popular amongst his friends, and they greatly grieved at his death. It was indeed a sore trial to those who had loved him well to see his mutilated head, full of silver 80 Englano in the Øay).5 of QIO. hairs, carried through the streets of Ilondon, a gruesome exhibition for a heartless public. The head of Lord Bardolf was also spiked on London Bridge. Some passages in the life of Eleanor Cobham, first mistress and afterwards wife of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, furnish an insight into the superstitions of the period. She was tried in 1441 for treason and witchcraft. The chief charge against her was that she and her accomplices had made a waxen image of the reigning monarch, Henry VI., and placed it before a slow fire, believing that as the wax melted the king's life would waste away. She was found guilty and had to do public penance in the streets of London, and was imprisoned for life in the Isle of Man. Three per- sons who had assisted her crimes suffered death. One Margaret Jourdain, of Eye, near West- minster, was burned in Smithfield. Southwell, a priest, died before execution in the Tower, and Sir Roger Bolinbroke, a priest, and reputed necromancer, was hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn, and his head was fixed on London Bridge. The Duchess, in the event of Henry's death, expected that the Duke of Gloucester, as iRebel beaog on City, Gates. 81 nearest heir of the house of Lancaster, would be crowned king. The details of Jack Cade's insurrection are well- known, and perhaps a copy of an inscription on a roadside monument at Heathfield, near Cuckfield in Sussex, will answer our present purpose :— Near this spot was slain the notorious rebel JACK CADE, . By Alexander Iden, Sheriff of Kent, A.D. 1450. His body was carried to London, and his head fixed on London Bridge. This is the success of all rebels, and this fortune chanceth even to traitors. Hall's Chronicle. In 1496 two heads were placed on London Bridge; one was Flammock's, a lawyer, and the other that of a farmer's who had suffered death at Tyburn, for taking a leading part in a great Cornish insurrection. John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, was tried, and executed on June 22nd, 1535, nominally for high treason, but, as a matter of fact, because he would not be a party to the king's actions. Shortly before his execution the Pope sent to him a Cardinal's hat. Said the king when he heard of the honour to be conferred upon the aged prelate, who was then about seventy-seven 6 82 Englano in the Øay,3 of QIO, years old, “’Fore heaven, he shall wear it on his shoulders then, for by the time it arrives he shall not have a head to place it upon.” Fisher met his death with firmness. At five o'clock in the morning of his execution he was awakened and the time named to him. He turned over in bed saying: “Then I can have two hours more sleep, as I am not to die until nine.” Two hours later he arose, dressed himself in his best apparel, saying, this was his wedding day, when he was to be married to death, and it was befitting to appear in becoming attire. His head was severed from his body, and after the executioner had removed all the clothing, he left the corpse on the scaffold until night, when it was removed by the guard to All Hallows Churchyard, and interred in a grave dug with their halberds. It was not suffered to remain there, but was exhumed and buried in the Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula in the Tower. The head was spiked on London Bridge. Hall and others record that the features became fresher and more comely every day, and were life-like. Crowds were attracted to the strange sight, which was regarded as a miracle. This annoyed the king not a little, and he gave orders for the head to be thrown into the river, - iRebel ſheabs on City (5ates, 83 A similar offence to that of Fisher's brought to the block a month later the head of a still greater and wiser man, Sir Thomas More. He was far in advance of his times, and his teaching is bearing fruit in our day. His head was placed on London Bridge, until his devoted daughter, Margaret Roper, bribed a man to move it, and º º | º ºft # º | º § º - | P | Wººtt | sº } | | º | # º | º # º U | | | º º | | i. º | | #| || | # | | º -- I |# =|ºilº -—º: | #. | # º º # º | | *º- drop it into a boat in which she sat. She kept the sacred relic for many years, and at her death it was buried with her in a vault under St. Dunstan's Church, Canterbury. We learn from the annals of London Bridge, that in the year 1577, “several heads were 84 Englano in the Øay 3 of QIO, removed from the north end of the Drawbridge to the Southwark entrance, and hence called Traitors' Gate.” Heads of priests and others heightened the sickening sight of the bridge. We may here remark that Paul Hentzner in his “Travels in England,” written in 1598, says in speaking of London Bridge –“ Upon this is built a tower, on whose top the heads of such as have been executed for high treason are placed on iron spikes; we counted about thirty.” Hentzner's curious and interesting work was reprinted at London in 1889. Sir Christopher Wren completed Temple Bar, March 1672-3, and in 1684 the first ghastly trophy was fixed upon it. Sir Thomas Arm- strong was accused of being connected with the Rye House Plot, but made his escape to Holland, and was outlawed. He, however, within a year surrendered himself, demanding to be put on his trial. Jefferies in a most brutal manner refused the request, declaring that he had nothing to do but to award death. Armstrong sued for the benefit of the law, but without avail. The judge ordered his execution “according to law,” adding, “You shall have full benefit of the law.” RS:#Hºrriſ iſſiºn m \"º" *W* MARGARET ROPER TAKING LEAVE OF HER FATHER, SIR THOMAS MORE, IS35. iRebel fibeaog on City, Gate.g. 87 On June 24th, 1683, Armstrong was executed, and his head set up on Westminster Hall; his quarters were divided between Aldgate, Alders- gate, and Temple Bar, and the fourth sent to Stafford, the borough he had formerly represented in Parliament. Sir John Friend and Sir William Perkins, on April 9th, 1696, suffered death at Tyburn for complicity in a conspiracy to assassinate William III., and on the next day their heads crowned Temple Bar. John Evelyn in his Diary wrote, “A dismal sight which many pitied.” In May, 1716, the head of Colonel Henry Oxburg was spiked above the Bar. He had taken part in the rising of Mar. The head of Councillor Layer was placed on the Bar in 1723, for plotting to murder King George. For more than thirty years Layer's head looked sorrowfully down on busy Fleet Street. A stormy night at last sent it rolling into the Strand, and it is recorded it was picked up by an attorney, and taken into a neighbouring tavern, and according to Nicholls, it found a resting place under the floor. It is stated that Dr. Rawlinson “paid a large sum of money for a substitute foisted upon him as a genuine article.” 88 Englano in the Øay3 of QIO. He died without discovering that he had been imposed upon, and, according to his directions, the relic was placed in his right hand and buried with him. The Rebellion of '45 brought two more heads to Temple Bar. On July 30th, 1746, Colonel Towneley and Captain Fletcher were beheaded on Kennington Common, and on the follow- ing day their heads were elevated on the Bar. Respecting their heads Walpole wrote on August 15th, 1746, “I have been this morning to the Tower, and passed under the new heads at Temple Bar, where people made a trade of letting spying- glasses at a halfpenny a look.” The fresh heads were made the theme of poetry and prose. One of the halfpenny loyal sightseers penned the following doggerel — “Three heads here I spy, Which the glass did draw nigh, The better to have a good sight; Triangle they are placed, And bald and barefaced ; Not one of them e'er was upright.” We reproduce a curious print published in 1746 representing “Temple Bar” with three heads raised on tall poles or iron rods. The devil looks #3 - †1 Z. |||ſº r tiº £ºl'ſ !!! *śjºll!...il/? º ! ' º - { §§ º sº º | Rºſſ.'); % = % ! f ſº - Å. ||| !!!ººl' *} k § 2 | | ||||}| º . |||}|{{h % ſ | t ||| | 5 ſ III 2. Sºlíſ Hº l w º ſº ſº 7% % M º ar i A ſº [T] A. ºntº Hº | # º º º º | º - - --~ m - | sº 3. is lºſsº º #|| $/º sº }. #|| - | \'ll f | º º lº s". lsº º º º § º | #|-ºš "..."ºniº ſº | º | | “Observe the banner which would all enslave, . Which ruined traytors did so proudly wave, The devil seems the project to despise; A fiend confused from off the trophy flies. While trembling rebels at the fabrick gaze, And dread their fate with horror and amaze, Let Briton’s sons the emblematick view And plainly see what to rebellion's due.” copy of A PRINT PUBLISHED IN 1746. iRebel ſheabs on City (5ates. 91 down in triumph and waves the rebel banner, on which are three crowns and a coffin, with the motto, ‘A crown or a grave.” Underneath was written some wretched verses. It is recorded in the “Annual Register” that on “January 20th (between two and three a.m.), 1766, a man was taken up for discharging musket bullets from a steel cross-bow at the two remaining heads upon Temple Bar. On being examined he affected a disorder in his senses, and said his reason for doing so was his strong attachment to the present Government, and that he thought it was not sufficient that a traitor should merely suffer death; that this provoked his indignation, and that it had been his constant practice for three nights past to amuse himself in the same manner. And it is much to be feared,” says the recorder of the event, “that he is a near relation to one of the unhappy sufferers.” On being searched, about fifty musket bullets were found on the man, and these were wrapped up in a paper with a motto—“Eripuit ille vitam.” Dr. Johnson says that once being with Gold- smith in Westminster Abbey, “While we surveyed the Poets' Corner, I said to him — ‘Forsitan et nostrum momen miscebitur illis.’ 92 Englano in the Øay3 of QIO. (Perhaps some day our names may mix with theirs). When we got to Temple Bar he stopped me, pointed to the heads upon it, and slyly whispered :– } %y ‘Forsitan et nostrum . . . miscebitur Istis. One of the heads was blown down on April 1st, 1772, and the other did not remain much longer. The head of Colonel Towneley is pre- served in the chapel at Townely Hall, near Burnley. It is perforated, showing that it had been thrust upon a spike. During a visit on May 21st, 1892, to Towneley Hall by the members of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society, the skull was seen, and a note on the subject appears in the Transactions of the Society. The heads of not a few Scotchmen were spiked on the gates of Carlisle, and some romantic stories have come down to us respecting them. One of these we related in our “Bygone England,” and to make this account more complete we may perhaps be permitted to reproduce it. “A young and beautiful lady,” so runs the tale, “came every morning at sunrise, and every evening at sunset, to look at the head TEMPLE BAR IN DR. Joh NSON'S TIME, iRebel ſheabs on City (5ates. 95 of a comely youth with long yellow hair, till at length the lady and the laddie's head dis- appeared.” The incident is the subject of a song, in which the lovesick damsel bewails the fate of her lover. Here are two of the verses — “White was the rose in my lover's hat As he rowled me in his lowland plaidie ; His heart was true as death in love, His head was aye in battle ready. His long, long hair, in yellow hanks, Wav'd o'er his cheeks sae sweet and ruddy; But now it waves o'er Carlisle, yetts - In dripping ringlets, soil'd and bloody.” Many persons in Hull supported the lost cause of Henry VI., but the governing author- ities of the town gave their support to Edward IV., and those that were on the side of the fallen king met with little mercy at the hands of the local Aldermen. Mr. T. Tindall Wildridge, who has done so much to bring to light hidden facts in the history of Hull, tells us that the Aldermen in 1461 agreed that the head of Nicholas Bradshawe, for his violent language, be set at the Beverley Gate—the gate that was at a later period closed against Charles I., when he desired to enter Hull. 96 JEnglano in the Øay3 of QIO. A number of the inhabitants who would not renounce their allegiance to the House of Lancaster were ordered to leave the town on pain of death. “Among these outcasts,” says Mr. Wildridge, “was a women, who, coming back again, was subjected to the indignity of the thewes (tumbrel or hand-barrow, in which scolds were customarily wheeled round the town previous to being ducked); she was thus led out of the Beverley Gate.” On the walls and gates of York have been spiked many heads, and with particulars of a few of the more important we will bring to a close our gleanings on this gruesome theme, though not one without value to the student of history. Richard Scrope, Archbishop of York, strongly opposed the accession of Henry IV., and warmly advocated the claims of the Earl of March. A conspiracy against the king cost him and others their lives. It is recorded that the king directed Chief Justice Gascoigne to condemn the Arch- bishop to death. As might be expected from an upright judge who cast into prison the king's son for contempt of court, he firmly refused to be a party to a barbarous and unjust action. Another judge was quickly found ready to obey the king's iRebel ſheaò3 on City (5ateg. 97 behest, and the requisite condemnation was obtained. Scrope was beheaded on June 8th, 1405, in a field between Bishopthorpe and York. Thomas Gent, the old historian of York, gives a sympathetic account of the execution : “The poor unfortunate Archbishop was put upon a horse, about the value of forty pence, with a halter about its neck, but without a saddle on its back. The Archbishop gave thanks to God, saying, ‘I never liked a horse better than I like this l’ He twice sang the Psalm Eacaudi, being habited in a sky- coloured loose garment, with sleeves of the same colour, but they would not permit him to wear the linen vesture used by bishops. At the fatal place of execution he laid his hood and tunic on the ground, offered himself and his cause to Heaven, and desired the executioner to give him five strokes, in token of the five wounds of our Saviour, which was done accordingly.” This is the first instance of an English prelate being executed by the civil power. Lord Mowbray, Earl Marshal of England, Sir William Plumpton and others who were mixed up in the conspiracy were beheaded. The heads of the Archbishop and that of Mowbray were. spiked and put up on the city walls. On the last day in the year 1460 was fought 7 98 Englano in the Øay)3 of QIO. the battle of Wakefield, which ended in a victory for the house of Lancaster. Richard, Duke of York, the aspirant to the throne, and many of his loyal supporters were slain, some so severely wounded as to die shortly afterwards, and others taken prisoners to be subsequently beheaded. The Duke's head was cut from his body, encircled by a mock diadem of paper, and spiked above Micklegate Bar, York, with the face turned to the city — “So York may overlook the town of York.” The head of the young Earl of Rutland, murdered by Lord Clifford, was also set up at York. The headless bodies of the unfortunate pair were quietly buried at Pontefract. The heads of the following Yorkists were also set up at York “ for a spectacle to the people and also as a terror to adversaries:”—The Earl of Salisbury, Sir Edward Bouchier, Sir Richard Limbricke, Sir Thomas Harrington of London, Sir Thomas Neville, Sir William Parr, Sir Jacob Pykeryng, Sir Ralph Stanley, John Hanson, Mayor of Hull, and others. The Lancastrians did not long enjoy their victory. Richard's son, the Earl of March, * – *-* *- MICKLEGATE BAR, YORK. iRebel [beaog on City (5ateg. 101 succeeded to his father's title and claimed the right to the English crown. On Palm Sunday, March 21st, 1461, the forces of the Red and the White Roses met at Towton-field. The battle raged during a blinding snowstorm, and the Yorkists gained a complete victory. Edward then proceeded to York and entered by Mickle- gate Bar. Here the saddening sight of the head of his father and other brave men who had fallen fighting for his cause were displayed, also that of his brother. He had them removed, and in their stead, to still keep up the ghastly show, were placed the heads of his foes at Towton, and amongst the number the Earl of Devonshire, Sir William Hill, the Earl of Kyme, and Sir Thomas Foulford. Shakespeare notices this act of retali- ation in Henry VI. (Part III., Act II., Scene 6). “Warwick. From off the gates of York fetch down the head, Your father's head, which Clifford placed there: Instead thereof, let this supply the room ; Measure for measure must be answered.” Edward had the heads of his father and his brother taken to Pontefract, placed with their bodies, and then with great pomp the remains were removed to the church at Fotheringay and there reinterred. 102 Englano in the Øay)3 of QIO. An attempt was made in 1569 to dethrone Elizabeth, and place in her stead Mary Queen of Scots. The leaders of the revolt were the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland. It ended in failure, and was the last trial with arms to restore the Papal power in England. The leaders for a time made their escape, but the government, with a vengeance that has seldom been equalled, cruelly punished the masses. Men were hanged at every market-cross and village-green from Wetherby to Newcastle, the large part of the north from whence the rebels had come. The Earl of Northumberland managed to evade capture for nearly two years by hiding in a wretched cottage. He was betrayed and brought to York. On August 22nd, 1572, he was be- headed, and he died, we are told, “Avowing the Pope' supremacy, and denying subjection to the Queen, affirming the land to be in a schism, and her obedient subjects little better than heretics.” The Earl's head was spiked above Micklegate |Bar, where it remained for about a couple of years, and then it was stolen in the night by persons unknown. After the defeat of the Jacobites at Culloden on April 16th, 1746, the Duke of Cumberland on iſºebel beabs on City (5ates. 103 his route to London visited York, and left behind him a number of prisoners. On November 1st, ten of the rebels were hanged, drawn, and quartered, and a week later eleven more suffered a similar fate. The head of one of the un- fortunate men, that of Captain Hamilton, was sent to Carlisle. The heads of Conolly and Mayne were spiked over Micklegate Bar, York, and eight years later were stolen. A reward was offered for the detection of the offenders. The following is a copy of the notice issued :— “York, Guildhall, Feb. 4, 1754. “Whereas on Monday night, or Tuesday morning last, the heads of two of the rebels, which were fixed upon poles on the top of Micklegate Bar, in this City, were wilfully and designedly taken down, and carried away : If any person or persons (except the person or persons who actually took down and carried away the same) will discover the person or persons who were guilty of so unlawful and audacious an action, or anywise hiding or assisting therein, he, she, or they shall, upon the conviction of the offenders, receive a reward of Ten Pounds from the Mayor and Commonality of the City of York. “By order of the said Mayor and said Commonality, JoHN RAPER, Common Clerk of the said City and County of the same.” A tailor named William Arundel and an accomplice were found guilty of the crime. In 104 Englano in the Øay3 of QIO, addition to being fined, Arundel was committed to prison for two years. - This last act closes a long and painful chapter in our history. Many of our larger old English towns have their gruesome tales of Rebel Heads on their chief gates. JBurial at CrO39 TROaog. T was customary in the olden time when a person committed suicide to bury the body at the meeting of four cross roads. We are told by writers who have paid special attention to this subject, that this strange mode of burial was confined to the humbler members of society. A careful consideration of this matter, from particulars furnished by parish registers and from other old-time records and writings, confirms the statement. Shakespeare, in the grave scene in Hamlet, puts into the mouths of the clowns who are preparing the grave of Ophelia something to the same effect. Here are his words:— SECOND CLOWN : But is this law " FIRST CLOWN: Ay, marry, is't ; crowner's quest law. SECOND CLowN: Will you ha’ the truth on’t. If this had not been a gentlewoman, she should have been buried out o' Christian burial. FIRST CLOWN: Why, there thou say'st; and the more pity that great folk should have coun- tenance in this world to drown or hang themselves more than their even Christian (that is, their equal fellow Christian). 106 Englano in the Pays of QIO. Bearing somewhat on this subject, there is a striking passage in Hone’s “Every Day Book.” Mention is first made of a fatal duel in 1803. It appears two military officers quarrelled and fought at Primrose Hill, because their dogs had quarrelled in Hyde Park. Moralising on the fatal event, the writer concludes his reflections as follows:—“The humble suicide is buried with ignominy in a cross road, and the finger-post marks his grave for public scorn. The proud duellist reposes in a Christian grave beneath marble, proud and daring as himself.” The more humane of our countrymen condemned burial at cross roads, and a much needed reform was brought about. Before reproducing the Act of Parliament respecting the burial of suicides it will not be without interest to give details of a few burials in the highways. Mr. Simpson in his interesting volume of Derby gleanings, states that on the 10th of July, 1618, “an old incorrigible rogue cut his own throat in the County Gaol, and was buried in Green Lane, Derby.” We have not any par- ticulars of this “incorrigible rogue.” He would doubtless be interred at night, and a stake driven through his body. JBurial at CrO33 iHOao.3, 107 The parish register of West Hallam, in the same county, supplies another instance of burial at four lane ends. The entry reads thus;–“ 1698, Katharine, the wife of Tho. Smith, als Cutler, was found felo de se by ye Coroner's inquest, and interred in ye cross ways near ye wind mill on ye same day.” The local historian is silent respect- ing this case of suicide, and all that is now known of the poor woman's sad end is contained in the parish register. It is recorded in a Norwich newspaper, of 1728, that the body of a hat-presser, after a verdict of felo de se, was accordingly buried in the highway. Not far from Boston is a thorn tree known as the “Hawthorn tree,” which is represented in a pretty picture in Pishey Thompson's well-known “History and Antiquities of Boston" (1856). It is in the parish of Fishtoft, and at the intersec- tions of the Tower Lane and the road to Fishtoft Church by the low road to Freiston. “This tree,” says Thompson, “is traditionally stated to have been originally a stake driven into the grave of a (female) suicide, who was buried at cross roads.” The story is generally believed in the Boston district, although Mr. William Stevenson in a learned paper in “Bygone Lincolnshire,” vol. II., 108 Englano in the Øay)3 of QIO. p. 212, states as far as concerns the hawthorn growing from a stake driven into the ground the tradition has no foundation in fact. Mr. John Higson took interest in Lancashire lore, and from his gleanings we draw the fol- lowing particulars of the suicide and burial of James Hill, a Droylsden innkeeper. He tells us that the poor fellow was inflamed with jealousy, suddenly disappeared, and about a fortnight afterwards was found hung or strangled in a tree in Newton Wood, near Hyde. A coroner's inquest pronounced it an act of suicide, and in accordance with the verdict, the corpse was interred on the 21st May, 1774, at the three- lane-ends, near the brook, close by the present Commercial Inn, Newton Moor. Much sympathy was exhibited towards Hill in Droylsden, and a band of resolute fellows, about three o'clock on the morning of the 5th June, disinterred his remains, and re-buried them in Ashton church- yard. A woman who casually met them spread the information, and they were glad to convey back the body on the 18th of the same month, when the final interment took place at Newton Moor. A number of Droylsdenians joined to defray the expense of a gravestone, on which the JBurial at CrO33 iPOaog. 109 following epitaph was written by Joseph Willan, of Openshaw, and was neatly engraved — Here is Deposited the Body of the unfortunate JAMES HILL, Late of Droylsden, who ended his Life May 6th, 1774, In the forty-second year of his age. Unhappy Hill, with anxious Cares oppress'd, Rashly presumed to find Death his Rest. With this vague Hope in Lonesome Wood did he Strangle himself, as Jury did agree; For which Christian burial he's denied, And is consign'd to Lie at this wayside. Reader Reflect what may be the consequences of a crime, which excludes the possibility of repentance. In old parish registers we have found records of burials at cross roads, and Lancashire history furnishes several examples. - It is stated in “Legends and Superstitions of the County of Durham,” by William Brockie, published in 1886, that in the Mile End Road, South Shields, at the corner of the left-hand side going northward, just adjoining Fairless's old ballast way, lies the body of a suicide, with a stake driven through it. It is, I believe, a poor baker, who put an end to his existence seventy or eighty years ago, and who was buried in this frightful manner, at midnight, in unconsecrated ground. 110 Englano in the Øay)3 of QIO. The top of the stake used to rise a foot or two above the ground within the last thirty years, and boys used to amuse themselves by standing with one foot upon it. Considerable consternation was caused in London towards the close of 1811 on account of certain murders. The foul deeds were com- mitted by an Irishman called John Williams. He was arrested, and during his confinement in Coldbathfields committed suicide. His remains were buried in Cannon Street, and a stake was driven through the body. Many curious items dealing with this custom may be found in the columns of old newspapers. The following particulars, for example, are drawn from the Morning Post, of 27th April, 1810 — “The officers appointed to execute the ceremony of driving the stake through the dead body of James Cowling, a deserter from the London Militia, who deprived himself of existence by cutting his throat at a public-house in Gilbert Street, Clare Market, in consequence of which a verdict of self-murder, very properly delayed the business until twelve o'clock on Wednesday night, when the deceased was buried in the cross roads at the end of Blackmoor Street, Clare Market.” jSurial at CrO33 iPOao.3. 111 The most painful case which has come under our notice occurred at Newcastle-on-Tyne. Martha Wilson, the widow of a seaman, was last seen alive by her neighbours on Sunday, the 13th April, 1817, and on the following Tuesday she was found dead, suspended from a cord tied to a nail in her room at the Trinity House. She was sub- ject to fits of melancholy, and had threatened to destroy herself. On the Wednesday following an inquest was held, and the jury returned a verdict of felo de se. Her mortal remains were buried in the public highway at night, and the strange sight was watched by a large gathering of the public. After a stake had been driven through the body of the poor widow the grave was closed. The last interment at cross roads in London of which we have been able to discover any account occurred in June, 1823, when a man named Griffiths, who had committed suicide, was buried at the junction of Eaton Street and Grosvenor Blace and the King's Road. The burial took place about half-past one in the morning, and the old practice of driving a stake through the body in this case was not performed. given will Perhaps the few particulars we have g 112 Englano in the Øay3 of QIO. be sufficient to fully illustrate the old-time custom of the burial of suicides at cross roads. At last the impropriety of the proceedings was forced upon Parliament, and on the 8th July, 1823, the Royal Assent was given to an Act “to alter and amend the law relating to the interment of the remains of any person found felo de se.” The statute is brief, consisting of only two clauses, viz. – 1. That after the passing of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any coroner, or any other person having authority to hold inquests, to issue any warrant or other process directing the interment of the remains of persons against whom a finding of felo de se shall be had, in any public highway, but that such coroner or other officer shall give directions for the private interment of the remains of such person felo de se, without any stake being driven through the body of such person, in the church- yard, or other burial ground of the parish or place in which the remains of such person might by the laws or custom of England be interred, if the verdict of felo de se had not been found against such person ; such interment to be made within twenty-four hours of the finding of the inquisition, and to take place between the hours of nine and twelve at night. 2. Provided, nevertheless, that nothing herein contained shall authorise the performing of any of the rites of Christian burial, or the interment of the remains of any such person as aforesaid; nor shall anything hereinbefore contained be taken to alter the laws ar usages relating to JBurial at CrO33 iroat)3. 113 the burial of such persons, except so far as relates to the interment of such remains in such churchyard or burial ground, at such time and in such a manner as aforesaid. Another change was brought about in 1882 respecting the burial of suicides. We gather from “The Chronicles of Twyford,” by F. J. Snell, M.A., that in the closing days of 1881 a factory operative, of irreproachable character, with his own hand took his life. The jury returned a verdict of felo de se, adding a rider to the effect that it was committed whilst the deceased was under great mental depression. “It was necessary,” says Mr. Snell, “in order to comply with the requirements of the law, that the interment should take place between the hours of 9 p.m. and midnight, and also within twenty- four hours of the issuing of the coroner's warrant. In this case it was issued about eight o'clock in the evening. The Superintendent of the Police was obliged to arrange for the funeral the same night. Some delay was caused through the absence of the cemetery keeper from home, but about 10 p.m. two excavators commenced digging the grave in a remote corner of the cemetery, and the interment took place a few minutes before midnight.” After the burial, the pastor of the 8 114 Englano in the Øagg of QIO. church with which the poor man was associated offered an extempore prayer. It is recorded that a large number of spectators watched with deep interest the proceedings, and that extreme indignation was felt throughout the town. In the following year, the two members for Tiverton introduced a bill into the House of Commons “to amend the law relating to the interment of any person found felo de se.” The effect of the measure was to repeal the enactments requiring hurried burial without religious rites, and to sanction the interment “in any of the ways pre- scribed or authorised by the Burial Laws Amend- ment Act of 1880.” £)etaining the Øeao for £ebt. N the Continent, in Prussia for example, it was formerly the practice to detain the dead for debt. A belief long prevailed that such proceedings were legal in England, and in not a few cases, acting upon this supposition, corpses have been arrested, and in more instances pre- cautions have been taken to avoid such painful events. The earliest record we have found on this theme occurs in the parish register of Sparsholt, Berkshire. “The corpse of John Matthews, of Fawler,” it is stated, “was stopt on the church- way for debt, August 27, 1689. And having laine there fower days, was, by Justices' warrant, buryied in the place to prevent annoyances—but about sixe weeks after, by an Order of Sessions, taken up and buried in the churchyard by the wife of the deceased.” In the churchyard of North Wingfield, Derby- 116 IEllglalto in the Eagg of Qib, shire, a gravestone bears the following inscrip- tion — In Memory of THOMAS, Son of JoHN and MARY CLAy, Who departed this life December 16th, 1724, In the 40th year of his age. What though no mournful kindred stand Around the solemn bier, No parents wring the trembling hand, Or drop the silent tear. No costly oak adorned with art My weary limbs enclose, No friends impart a winding sheet To deck my last repose. The circumstances which led to the foregoing epitaph are thus narrated. Thomas Clay was a man of intemperate habits, and at the time of his death was indebted to Adlington, the village inn-keeper, to the amount of twenty pounds. The publican resolved to seize the body; but the parents of the deceased carefully kept the door locked until the day appointed for the funeral. As soon as the door was opened, Adlington rushed into the house and seized the corpse, and placed it on a form in the open street. Clay's friends refused to pay the publican's account, and after the body had been exposed for several days, the inn-keeper buried it in a bacon chest. AE)etaining the Øeao for º)ebt. 117 This subject has received attention in the pages of Notes and Queries, and in the issue of May 2nd, 1896, the following appeared:—“At Brandeston, Suffolk,” said a contributor, “there is a well- authenticated story of the body of the ‘old squire,' Mr. John Revett or Rivett, who died in 1809, being removed secretly at night, by some of the servants and tenantry, from the library at Brandeston Hall, where it lay, to the church of Brandeston, which is in the park close by the Hall. Mr. Revett, like many of the family, had been very extravagant, keeping his own pack of hounds, etc.; and what with elections and un- limited hospitality, had got heavily into debt, and had involved the old family estate so, that Brandeston and Cretingham, which had been in the Revett family from 1480, got into Chancery after his death, and passed out of the family in 1830, or thereabouts. The belief of the people, with whom the old squire was very popular, was that if the body was not removed to the sanctuary it would be seized for debt; hence their action.” A son of one of the old servants, whose father assisted in carrying the body to the church, related the story in 1895 to the correspondent of Notes and Queries. It is well known in the village. 118 Englano in the Øay 3 of QIO. The most painful case of arresting a dead body which has come under our notice, is that of John Elliott, in 1811. The particulars are given in the “Annual Register,” and also in the Gentleman's Magazine for that year, but not so fully nor correctly as in a newspaper report of that period, which is reproduced in the pages of Notes and Queries for March 28th, 1896. The facts of the case are as follow —John Elliott, at the time of his death, on October 3rd, 1811, was indebted to Baker, a bricklayer, and Heasman, a carpenter, a small sum for work done. These two men, with two sheriffs' officers, on Monday, October 7th, proceeded to the house where Elliott lay dead, and were there met by the son of the deceased. He stated that his father was dead. The officers informed him that they had a warrant to arrest the deceased, and asked where the body lay. The son pointed out the room, saying the door was locked, and his mother had gone out and taken the key, but was expected every minute. After waiting a few minutes, one of the men violently kicked the door, broke it open, and entered the room where the body lay in a coffin. The body was identified, and possession taken of it. The interment was fixed by the family for the 3)etaining the Øeao for º)ebt. 119 following Wednesday, and at four o'clock on that day, the undertaker and his man arrived for the purpose of removing the body to Shoreditch Church for burial, but Baker and Heasman and the sheriffs' men entered the house with a shell, and took it into the room where the corpse lay. After asking the son to pay the debt and prevent his father's body being taken away, and he reply- ing that he was unable to discharge it, Baker and Heasman literally crammed the naked body into the shell, and put it into a cart before the house, where it remained over half-an-hour, attracting to the place a large number of people who behaved in a riotous manner. The body was then removed to Heasman's house, and placed in a cellar until October 11th, when it was conveyed by him and others to Bethnal Green, and left in a burial vault. Such are the details briefly stated that were given to the judge who tried the men who com- mitted this outrageous public indecency. The jury, after retiring for a few minutes, returned, and awarded damages £200. We have given at some length the foregoing case, to illustrate the lawless condition of the country at the commencement of this century. 120 Englano in the Øay3 of QIO. We may congratulate ourselves on living in happier times. It was currently reported at the death of Sheridan, in 1816, that an attempt would be made to detain his body for debt, but at his funeral no such action occurred. Mr. John Cameron, in his work issued in 1892, under the title of “The Parish of Campsie,” states that in 1824 died the Rev. James Lapslie, vicar of the parish, who was, at the time of his death, in debt, and the proceedings of a creditor are thus related —“On the day of the funeral,” says Mr. Cameron, “the body was arrested at the mouth of the open grave, and further pro- cedure barred by some legal process, until the arresting creditor had satisfaction given him for the payment of the debt owing by the deceased. Sir Samuel Stirling, sixth baronet, became security to the arresting creditor, and the body was then consigned to the grave.” Much reliable information on old-time subjects has been carefully chronicled by Mr. I. W. Dick- inson, B.A., the author of “Yorkshire Life and Character.” He tells us that in the earlier years of the present century it was generally believed that a corpse could be detained for debt, and it was, in Petaining the Øeao for º)ebt. 121 several instances in the West Riding, successfully carried out, the friends subscribing on the spot in order to be enabled to pay their last respects to the dead. Mr. Dickinson also tells me of another West Riding belief, that a doctor, summoned to a sick bed, could legally take the nearest way, even through corn fields and private grounds, or whatever else intervened, without rendering himself liable for damages. We gather from Notes and Queries of March 28th, 1896, that the fact was established in 1841, that the body of a debtor, dying in custody, cannot be detained in prison after death. It appears that Scott, gaoler of Halifax, acting for Mr. Lane Fox, the Lord of the Manor, detained the body of one of the debtors who died in prison. It was subsequently buried in the gaol in unconsecrated ground, on the refusal of the debtor's executors to pay the claims that were demanded of them. Action was taken against the gaoler, and at a trial at York Assizes he was convicted of breaking the laws of his country. El Tºlobleman’9 lbougebolò in Cuôor Cimeg, HE Earls of Northumberland, members of the Percy family, for a long period were a power in the north of England. Their pedigree has been traced back to Mainfred, a Danish chieftain who rendered great service to Rollo in the Conquest of Normandy. William de Perci, of Perei, near Villedieu, landed on the English shore with Duke William, and for valour at the battle of Hastings he was rewarded with extensive grants of land in Yorkshire. In their northern strongholds this noble family lived in stately style, and frequently figured on the battle-field, and took their share in events which make up the history of the country. The story of their lives, with its lights and shades, reads like a romance ; but it is outside the purpose of our paper to linger over its romantic episodes. It may be stated that the fourth Earl was Lord Lieutenant of Yorkshire, and by direction of King Henry VII., he had to make Žl ſºlobleman's ſhousebOIO, 123 known to the inhabitants of his county the reasons for a most objectionable tax for the purpose of engaging in a war with Bretagne. This gave rise to a bitter feeling against him, the people erroneouly believing that the tax was levied at his instigation. In 1489, a mob broke into his house at Cockledge, near Thirsk, murdering him and several of his servants. The Earl had been a generous man, and was much beloved, and his untimely death was deeply deplored. He was buried in Beverley Minster, and 14,000 people attended his funeral, which was conducted in a magnificent manner, at a cost of £1,037 6s. 8d., equalling some £10,000 in our current coin. Skelton, the poet laureate, in an elegy, lamented his “dolourous death.” The lines commence — “I wayle, I wepe, I sobbe, I sigh ful sore The dedely fate, the dolefulle destenny Of him that is gone, alas ! without restore Of the blode royall, descending nobelly, Whose Lordshipe doutles was slayne lamentably.” His son, the fifth Earl, who was born at Leconfield Castle in the year 1457, was a man of aesthetic tastes, and a patron of learning. He is described as being “vain—and excessively fond of pomp and display.” When the Princess 124 JEnglano in the Øay5 Of (WIO. Margaret journeyed to Scotland to marry the Ring, the Earl escorted her through Yorkshire. According to an old account, he was “well horst, upon a fayre courser, with a cloth to the ground of cramsyn velvett, all borded of orfavery, his armes very riche in many places uppom his saddle and harnys, and his sterrops gilt. With him was many noble Knights, all arrayed in his sayd Livery of Velvett with some goldsmith's work, great chaynes, and war wel mounted; a Herault, bearing his cotte and other gentylmen in such wayes array'd of his said Livery, sum in Velvett, others in Damask, Chamlett, etc., well mounted to the number of 300 Horsys.” The Princess made her public entry into Edinburgh riding on a pillion behind the King. The Earl had three castles, and lived at them alternately, and, as he had only sufficient fur- niture for one, it was removed from one house to the other when he changed residences. Seven- teen carts and one waggon were employed to convey it. This Percy's taste for poetry prompted him to have painted on the walls and ceilings of his castles moral lessons in verse. The following may be quoted as a specimen — Ží ſºlobleman’s ſhouseboſo, 125 “Punyshe moderatly, and discretly correct, As well to mercy, as to justice havynge a respect ; So shall ye have meryte for the punyshment, And cause the offender to be sory and penitent. If ye be movede with anger or hastynes, Pause in youre mynde and your yre repress: Defer vengeance unto your anger asswagede be; So shall ye mynyster justice, and do dewe equyte.” We have another proof of his love of poetry preserved in the British Museum, in the form of a beautiful manuscript engrossed on vellum, richly emblazoned, and superbly illuminated. It includes specimens of the best poetry then pro- duced, and a metrical account of the Percy family, by one of the Earl's chaplains, named Peares. This interesting work was prepared under his directions. In the year 1512, he commenced the compila- tion of what we now call the “Northumberland Household Book,” and it contains regulations and other details respecting his castles at Wressel and Leckonfield. From this curious work we obtain an interesting picture of the home life of a nobleman in Tudor times. We find that the Earl lived in state and splendour little inferior to that of the King. The household was conducted 126 Englano in the Øay3 of QIO. on the same plan as that of the reigning monarch, and the warrants were made out in the same form and style. “As the King had his Privy Council and great council of Parliament to assist him in enacting statutes and regulations for the public weal,” says a writer who has made a study of this subject, “so the Earl of Northumberland had his council, composed of his principal officers, by whose advice and assistance he established this code of economic laws; as the King had his lords and grooms of the bed-chamber, who waited in their respective turns, so the Earl of North- umberland was attended by the constables and bailiffs of his several castles, who entered into waiting in regular succession.” We further find that all the leading officers of his household were men of gentle birth, and consisted of “con- troller, clerk of the kitchen, chamberlain, treasurer, secretary, clerk of the signet, - survisor, heralds, ushers, almoner, a schoolmaster for teach- ing grammar, minstrels, eleven priests, presided over by a doctor of divinity or dean of the chapel, and a band of choristers, composed of eleven singing men and six singing boys.” The head officials sat at a table called the Knight's Board. Every day were expected to sit down to Žl ſºlobleman's 1001136 bolò. 127 dinner 166 officers and domestic servants and fifty-seven visitors. The amount annually spent in house-keeping was £1,118 17s. 8d., represent- ing in our money about £10,000. The number of daily meals was four, and con- sisted of breakfast taken at seven, dinner at ten, supper at four o'clock, and livery served in the bedroom between eight and nine, before retiring to rest. The lord sat at the head of the table in state. The oaken table, long and clumsy, stood in the great hall, and the guests were ranged according to their station on long, hard, and comfortless benches. The massive family silver salt cellar was placed in the middle of the table, and persons of rank sat above it, and those of an inferior position below it. There was a great display of pewter dishes and wooden cups, and plenty of food and liquor was on the table. But elegance did not prevail: forks had not been introduced, and fingers were used to convey food to the mouth. The allowances at the meals were most liberal. One perceives there was much wine and beer consumed in those days. Take, for example, that at breakfast. On flesh days it included “for my lord and lady a loaf of bread on trenchers, two 128 Englano in the Eagg of QIO. manchets (loaves of fine meal), a quart of wine, half a chine of mutton, or a chine of beef boiled.” The fare of the two elder children, “my Lord Percy, and Mr. Thomas Percy,” consisted of “half a loaf of household bread, a manchet, one pottle of beer (two quarts (), a chicken, or else three mutton bones boiled.” It will be noticed that wine was not served to the two young noble- men. The fare of the two little children is thus described : “Breakfasts for the nurcery, for my lady Margaret and Mr. Yngram Percy, a manchet, one quart of beer, three mutton bones boiled.” My ladies' gentlewomen were served with “a pottle of beer, three mutton bones boiled, or else a piece of beef boiled.” The breakfast on fish days was as follows:—“For my lord and my lady, a loaf of bread on trenchers, two manchets, a quart of beer, a quart of wine, two pieces of salt-fish, six baked herrings, or a dish of sprats; for the two elder sons, half a loaf of household bread, a manchet, a pottle of beer, a dish of butter, a piece of salt-fish, a dish of sprats, or three white (fresh) herrings; for the two children in the nursery, a manchet, a quart of beer, a dish of butter, a piece of salt-fish, a dish of sprats, or three white herrings; and for my lady's gentlewomen, a loaf Žl ſºlobleman's ThougebOIO, 129 of bread, a pottle of beer, a piece of salt-fish, or three white herrings.” It will be observed that the family dined two to a plate or mess, this being the usual practice in the Middle Ages. The other meals were quite, if not more substantial than that of breakfast. The liveries, as we have previously stated, were consumed in the bed- chamber just before retiring to rest, and the Earl and Countess had placed on their table, “two manchets, a loaf of household bread, a gallon of beer, and a quart of wine.” The wine was warmed and mixed with spices. After reading the preceding bills of fare, we are not surprised to learn that at this period the English people were regarded as the greatest eaters in Europe. In the “Northumberland Household Book” is a long and interesting list of articles and their prices, which were expected to last a year. It will not be without interest to reproduce a few of the more important items, as follow :—Wheat 236% quarters at 6s. 8d. The market price to- day is very different. Malt, as might be expected from the quantity of beer brewed, is a rather large total, being 249 quarters, 1 bushel, and the price 4s. per quarter; hops, 656 lbs., at 13s. 4d. per 120 lbs. ; fat oxen, 109, at 13s. 4d. each ; 9 130 Englano in the Øay)3 of QIO. lean oxen, 24, at 8s. each ; to be fed in his lord- ship's pastures; sheep, 787, fat and lean, at 1s. 8d. each, one with another; porks (pigs), 25, at 2s. each ; calves, 28, at 1s. 8d. each ; lambs, 60, of which 10, at 1s. each, to serve from Christmas to Shrovetide, and 50, at 10d. each, to serve from Easter to Midsummer. The list of fish is large, and includes 160 stock-fish at 2%d. each for the Lent season; salt-fish, 1,122, at 4d. each ; white herrings, 9 barrels, at 10s, the barrel; red herrings, 10 cades (each cade containing 500), at 6s. 8d. the cade; sprats, 5 cades (each cade containing 1,000), at 2s. the cade; salt salmon, 200, at 6d. each ; salt sturgeon, 3 firkins, at 10s. each firkin; salt eels, 5 cags, at 4s. each. Thirty-six gallons of oil, at 11; d. per gallon, were provided for frying the fish. Salt is entered twice—bay salt, 10 quarters, at 4s. the quarter; and white salt, 6% quarters, at 4s. the quarter; vinegar, 40 gallons, at 4d. the gallon. The quantity of mustard, ready-made, is large, being 180 gallons, at 24d. per gallon. In old Christmas carols there are frequent allusions to mustard. During the Commonwealth, it was threatened to stop Christ- mastide festivals by Act of Parliament, and this caused the tallow-chandlers to loudly complain, Žl ſºlobleman's ThougebOIO. 131 for they could not sell their mustard on account of the diminished consumption of brawn. In the familiar old carol, sung annually at Queen's College, Oxford, is a line – “The boar's head with mustard.” In a carol sung before Prince Henry, at St. John's College, Oxford, in 1607, is a couplet:- “Let this boar's head and mustard Stand for pig, goose, and custard.” Under the heading of spices are enumerated :— Pepper, 50 lbs., raisons of currants, 200 lbs., prunes, 15.1% lbs., ginger, 21% lbs., mace, 6 lbs., cloves, 3% lbs., sugar, 2004 lbs., cinnamon, 17 lbs., 3} quarters almonds, 152 lbs., dates, 30 lbs., nutmegs, 14 lbs., grains of Paradise, 7 lbs., turnfole, 104 lbs., Saunders, 10 lbs., powder of annes, 3} lbs., rice, 19 lbs., comfits, 194 lbs., galagals, 3 lb., long pepper, 3 lb., blanch powder, 2 lbs. The amount of the foregoing is £25 19s. 7d. The list of wine embraces—Gascony wine, 10 tuns, 2 hogsheads, at £4 14s. 4d. per tun, viz., red, 3 tuns, claret, 5 tuns, and white, 2 tuns, 2 hogsheads. There was also provided 90 gallons of verjuice, at 3d. per gallon; this was a sour juice of unripe grapes, apples, or crabs. A barrel and a half of 132 Englano in the Øay 3 of QIO. honey was provided at a cost of 33s. The fore- going are the chief items of food and drink for the annual consumption in a Tudor household. The fuel consisted of sea coal, 80 chaldrons, charcoal, 20 quarters, and 4,140 faggots for brew- ing and baking. Sixty-four loads of wood had also to be provided, for the coal could not be burnt without it. The coal must have been poor. The expenses provide for the players at Christ- mas, and they appear to have acted 20 plays at 1s. 8d. per play. We find a bearward attended at Christmas for making sport with his beasts, and in the “Household Book” he is referred to amongst those receiving payments as follows:– “Furst, my Lorde usith and accustomyth to gyff yerely the Kynge or the Queene's barwarde, if they have one, when they custome to come unto him, yerely—vjs. viijd.” “Item, my Lorde usith and accustomyth to gyfe yerly, when his Lordshipe is at home, to his barward, when he comyth to my Lorde in Christmas with his Lordshippe's beests, for makynge of his Lordship pastyme, the said xi days—xx8.” At this period, bear-baiting was a popular amusement. Sunday was a great day for the pastime. It was on the last Sunday of April, 1520, that part of the chancel of St. Mary's Žl ſºlobleman's ThougebOIO. 133 Church, Beverley, fell, killing a number of people. According to a popular tradition, a bear was being baited, and mass was being sung at the same time, but at the latter only fifty-five attended and all were killed, whereas at the former about a thousand were present. Hence the origin of the Yorkshire saying, “It is better to be at the baiting of a bear than the singing of a mass.” An expert horseman was also employed in connection with the household. He had not to be afraid of a fence, and it was his duty to attend my Lord when hunting. JBreat) and Jºaking in Jöpg|One ſºap3. HE earliest form of bread consisted of grain soaked in water, then pressed, and after- wards dried by means of the sun or fire. Another early kind of bread took the form of porridge or pudding, consisting of flour mixed with water and boiled. Next came the method of kneading dough, and the result was tough and unleavened bread. In Saxon times women made bread, and the modern title “lady” is softened from the Saxon hlaf-dige, meaning the distributor of bread. We learn from contemporary pictures that Anglo- Saxon bread consisted of round cakes, not unlike the Roman loaves of which we get representations in the pictures at Pompeii, and not unlike our Good-Friday cross-buns, which we are told come down to us from our Saxon forefathers. In connection with monasteries were bake- houses, and the work here would be done by the conversi or lay brothers. The holy bread in the mass was baked in the convents and churches JBaking in J39Gone Bagg, 135 by the priests or monks with much ceremony. Ovens were sometimes connected with old churches. Some of the monks in Saxon times do not appear to have fared well. We find it recorded that in the eighth century those at the Abbey of St. Edmund had to partake of barley bread because the income of the house was not suf- ficent to provide wheaten-bread twice or thrice daily. Towards the close of the thirteenth century the chief bakers who supplied London with bread lived at Stratford-le-Bow, Essex, doubtless on account of being near Epping Forest, where they could obtain cheap firewood. At a later period some were located at Bromley-by-Bow. The bread was brought to London in carts, and exposed for sale in Bread Street. The bakers attended daily excepting on Sundays and great festivals. It was no uncommon circumstance to seize the bread on its way to town for being of light weight, or made of unsound materials. It was not until the year 1302 that London . bakers were permitted to sell bread in shops. A Royal Charter was granted in 1307 to the London Bakers' Company. The charter, we are 136 Englano in the Øays of QIO. told, “empowered the company to correct offences concerning the trade, to make laws and ordinances, to levy fines and penalties for non-observance thereof; and within the city and suburbs, and twelve miles round, to view, search, prove, and weigh all bread sold ; and in case of finding it unwholesome, or not of due assize, to distribute it to the poor of the parish where it was found, and to impose fines, and levy the same by distress and sale of offenders' goods.” When reform be- came the order of the day the power of the Bakers' Company passed away. There are various old-time statutes of the assize of bread in London. The earliest dates back to the days of Henry II. Another belongs to the reign of Henry III. ; it regulated the price of bread according to the value of corn. A baker breaking the law was fined, and if his offence was serious he was placed in the pillory. These statutes were extended under Edward VI., Charles II., and Queen Anne. In 1266 bakers were commanded not to impress their bread with the sign of the cross, Agnus Dei, or the name of Jesus Christ. The lot of the baker in bygone times was a very hard one. He could not sell where he liked, JBaking in JBygone ſºaps. 137 and the price of his bread was regulated by those in authority. Pike, in his “History of Crime in England,” says, “Turn where he might, the traveller in London in 1348 could hardly fail to light upon some group, which would tell him the character of the people he had to see. Here, perhaps, a baker with a loaf hung round his neck, was being jeered, and pelted in the pillory, because he had given short weight, or because, when men had asked him for bread, he had given them not a stone, but a lump of iron enclosed by a crust.” At this period women were largely employed in the bakehouse. Women in mediaeval times performed much of the rougher kind of labour. Mr. Pike tells a tragic tale to illustrate the heartless character of bakehouse women in by- gone times:–“At Middleton, in Derbyshire, there lived a man whose wife bore a name well known to readers of mediaeval romances, Isolda or Isoult. As he lay one night asleep in his bed, this female Othello took him by the neck and strangled him. As soon as he was dead, she carried the body to an oven which adjourned their chamber, and piled up a fire to destroy the traces of her guilt. But, though she had so far shown the energy and power of a man, her 138 Englano in the Øay)3 of QIO. courage seems to have failed her at the last moment. She took to flight, and her crime was discovered.” In the olden time, it was the practice of females to deliver bread from house to house in London. The bakers gave them thirteen articles for twelve, and the odd article appears to have been the legitimate profit which they were entitled to receive in return for their work. From this old custom we obtain the baker's dozen of thirteen. Bakers were not permitted to give credit to women retailers if they were known to be in debt to others. It was also against the law to receive back unsold bread if cold. The latter regulation would make the saleswomen energetic in their labours. In many places the ducking-stool was employed to punish offending bakers. The old records of Beverley contain references to this subject. “During the Middle Ages,” it is stated on good authority, “scarcely any spectacle was so pleasing to the people of Central Europe as that of the public punishment of the cheating baker. The penalties inflicted on swindling bakers included confiscation of property, deprivation of civil and other rights, banishment from the town for certain JBaking in J39GOne Eagg. 139 periods, bodily punishment, the pillory, and the gibbet. If a baker was found guilty of an offence against the law, he was arrested and kept in safe custody till the gibbet was ready for him. It was erected as nearly as possible in the middle of the town, the beam projecting over a stagnant pool; at the end of the beam was a pulley, over which ran a rope fastened to a basket large enough to hold a man. The baker was forced into the basket, which was drawn up to the beam ; there he hung over the muddy pool, the butt of the jeers and missiles of a jubilant crowd. The only way to escape was to jump into the dirty water and run through the crowd to his home, and if he did not take the jump willingly, he was sometimes helped out of the basket by means of a pole. In some towns a large cage was used instead of a basket, and, instead of taking a jump, the culprit was lowered into the filthy pool and drawn up again several times until the town authorities thought he had had enough.” In some parts of Turkey it was, until recently, the rule to punish a baker who did not give full weight by nailing his ear to the doorpost. If he were out when the officers of justice arrived his son or his servant was punished in his stead, as the authorities were very 140 Englano in the Øay,3 of QIO. much averse from making their men do the journey twice. The Court Leet records of many of our old English towns include items of interest bearing on this subject. At Manchester, at the Court Leet held October 1, 1561, it was resolved that no person or persons be permitted to make for sale any kind of bread in which butter is mixed, under a fine of 10s. Later, the use of Suet was forbidden. In 1595, we are told that “the Court Leet Jury of Manchester ordered that no person was to be allowed to use butter or suet in cakes or bread ; fine, 20s. No baker or other person to be allowed to bake said cakes, &c.; fine, 20s. No person to be allowed to sell the same ; fine, 20s.” Next year, on September 30, we gather from the records that “eight officers were appointed to see that no fleshmeat was eaten on Fridays and Saturdays, and twelve for the overseeing of them that put butter, cream, or suet in their cakes.” We learn from the history of Worcester that an order was made in 1641 that the bakers were not to make spice bread or short cakes, “inasmuch as it enhaunced the price of butter.” A rather curious regulation in bygone times was the one which enforced the baker of white JBaking in J39Gone ºagg. 141 bread not to make brown, and the baker of brown bread not to make white. Very heavy fines used to be inflicted on persons selling short weight of bread. “A baker was convicted yesterday,” says the Times of July 8th, 1795, “at the Public Office, Whitechapel, of making bread to the amount of 307 ounces deficient in weight, and fined a penalty of £64 7s.” In the same journal, three days later, we read, “A baker was yesterday convicted in the penalty of £106 5s. on 420 ounces of bread, deficient in weight.” The market records, week after week, in 1795, as a rule, record an increased price of grain, and by the middle of the year the matter had become serious. The members of the Privy Council gave the subject careful consider- ation, and strongly recommended that families should refrain from having puddings, pies, and other articles made of flour. With the following paragraph from the Times of July 22nd, 1795, we close our notes on bread in bygone days —“His Majesty has given orders for the bread used in his household to be made of meal and rye mixed. No other sort is to be permitted to be baked, and the Royal Family eat bread of the same quality as their servants do.” Elrige, (Digtregg, Elrige N the olden time in many places in the pro- vinces it was the practice on Christmas-day morning to permit the servants and apprentices to remain in bed, and for the mistress to get up and attend to the household duties. The bellman at Bewdley used to go round the town, and after ringing his bell and saying, “Good-morning, masters, mistresses, and all, I wish you a merry Christmas,” he sang the following: “Arise, mistress, arise, And make your tarts and pies, And let your maids lie still ; For if they should rise and spoil your pies, You'd take it very ill. Whilst you are sleeping in your bed, I the cold wintry nights must tread Past twelve o’clock, &c.” Bewdley was famous for its ringers and singers, and its town crier was a man of note. An old couplet says: - “For ringers, singers, and a crier Bewdley excelled all Worcestershire.” Žltige, (IDí3tre23, Elrige 1 143 In Lancashire was heard the following, pro- claimed in the towns and villages: “Get up old wives, And bake your pies, 'Tis Christmas-day in the morning; The bells shall ring, The birds shall sing, 'Tis Christmas-day in the morning.” At Morley, near Leeds, a man was formerly paid for blowing a horn at 5 a.m. to make known the time for commencing, and at 8 p.m. the hour for giving up work. His blast was heard daily except on Sundays. On Christmas-day morning he blew his horn and sang : h “Dames arise and bake your pies, And let your maids lie still ; For they have risen all the year, Sore against their will.” Che (ſurng pit. NE of the most menial positions in an ancient feudal household was that of turn- spit. A person too old or too young for more important duties usually performed the work. John Lydgate, the monk of Bury, who was born in 1375, and died in 1460, gives us a picture of the turnspit as follows:– “His mouth wel wet, his sleeves right thredbare, A turnbroche, a boy for hagge of ware, With louring face noddynge and slumberyng.” Says Aubrey that these servants “did lick the dripping for their pains.” In the reign of Edward III., the manor of Finchingfield was held by Sir John Compes, by the service of turning the spit at His Majesty's coronation. This certainly appears a humble position for a knight to fill in “the gallant days of chivalry.” The spits or “broches” were often made of silver, and were usually carried to the table with the fish, fowl, or joint roasted upon them. (Ibe Curng pit, 145 The humble turnspit was not overlooked by the guests in the days of old, when largess was bestowed. We gather from “Howard's House- hold Book” that Lord Howard gave four old turnspits a penny each. When Mary Tudor dined at Havering, she rewarded the turnbroches with sixteen-pence. Dogs as well as men performed the task of turning the spit from an early period, and old- time literature includes many references to the subject. Doctor Caius, the founder of the college at Cambridge bearing his name, is the earliest English writer on the dog. “There is,” wrote Caius, “ comprehended under the curs of the coarsest kind, a certain dog in kitchen service excellent. For when any meat is to be roasted they go into a wheel, where they, turning about with the weight of their bodies, so diligently look to their business, that no drudge nor scullion can do the feat more cunningly, whom the popular sort hereupon term turnspits.” We have seen several pictures of dogs turning the Spit, and an interesting example appears in a work entitled “Remarks on a Tour in North and South Wales,” published in 1800. The dog is engaged in his by no means pleasant work. 10 146 Englano in the Øay)3 of QIO. “Newcastle, near Carmarthen,” says the author, “is a pleasant village. At a decent inn here a dog is employed as turnspit. Great care is taken that this animal does not observe the cook approach the larder; if he does, he immediately hides himself for the remainder of the day, and the guest must be contented with more humble fare than intended.” Mr. Jesse, a popular writer on rural subjects, was a keen observer of old-time customs and institutions, and the best account of the turnspit that has come under our notice is from his pen. “How well do I remember, in the days of my youth,” says Mr. Jesse, “watching the operations of a turnspit at the house of a worthy old Welsh clergyman in Worcestershire, who taught me to read. He was a good man, wore a bushy wig, black worsted stockings, and large plaited buckles in his shoes. As he had several boarders as well as day scholars, his two turnspits had plenty to do. They were long-bodied, crook-legged, and ugly dogs, with a suspicious, unhappy look about them, as if they were weary of the task they had to do, and expected every moment to be seized upon to do it. Cooks in those days, as they are said to be at present, were very cross, and if the (Ibe Curnopit. 147 poor animal, wearied with having a larger joint than usual to turn, stopped for a moment, the voice of the cook might be heard rating him in no very gentle terms. When we consider that a large, solid piece of beef would take at least three hours before it was properly roasted, we may form some idea of the task a dog had to perform in turning a wheel during that time. A pointer has pleasure in finding game, the terrior worries rats with eagerness and delight, and the bull-dog even attacks bulls with the greatest energy, while the poor turnspit performs his task with compul- sion, like a culprit on a treadmill, subject to scolding or beating if he stops a moment to rest his weary limbs, and is then kicked about the kitchen when the task is over.” The mode of teaching the dog its duties is described in a book of anecdotes published at Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1809. It was more summary than humane. The dog was put in the wheel, and a burning coal with him ; he could not stop without burning his legs, and so was kept upon the full gallop. These dogs were by no means fond of their profession. It was indeed hard work to run in a wheel for two or three hours, turning a piece of meat twice their own weight. 148 Englano in the Øagg of QIO. In the same work two more anecdotes bearing on this theme also find a place, and are worth reproducing. “Some years ago,” we are told, “a party of young men, at Bath, hired the chairmen on a Saturday night to steal all the turnspits in the town, and lock them up till the following evening. Accordingly, on Sunday, when every- body has roast meat for dinner, all the cooks were to be seen in the streets, ‘Pray have you seen our Chloe' asks one. “Why," replies the other, ‘I was coming to ask if you had seen our Pompey.’ Up came a third, while they were talking, to inquire for her Toby. And there was no roast meat in Bath that day. It is told of these dogs in this city, that one Sunday, when they had as usual followed their mistresses to church, the lesson for the day happened to be that chapter in Ezekiel, wherein the self-moving chariots are described. When first the word wheel was pronounced, all the curs pricked up their ears in alarm ; at the second wheel they set up a doleful howl. When the dreadful word was uttered a third time, every one of them scampered out of church, as fast as he could, with his tail between his legs.” Allusions to this subject may be found in some (Ibe Curnopit. 149 of the poets of the olden time, more especially in those of a political character. Pitt, in his Art of Preaching, has the following on a man who speaks much, but to little purpose:– “His arguments in silly circles run, Still round and round, and end where they begun. So the poor turnspit, as the wheel runs round, The more he gains, the more he loses ground.” El CŞ053ip about the G500ge. HE goose figures largely in the history, the legends, and the proverbial lore of our own and other lands. In ancient Egypt it was an object of adoration in the temple and an article of diet on the table. The Egyptians mainly took beef and goose flesh as their animal food, and it has been suggested that they expected to obtain physical power from the beef and mental vigour from the goose. To support this theory, it has been shown that other nations have eaten the flesh of wolves and drunk the blood of lions, hoping thereby to become fierce and courageous. Some other nations have refused to partake of the hare and the deer on account of the timidity of these animals, fearing lest by eating their flesh they should also partake of their characteristic fearfulness and timidity. Pliny thought very highly of the goose, saying “that one might almost be tempted to think these creatures have an appreciation of wisdom, for it is said that one of them was a constant companion Žl (3053ip about tbe (50.03e. 151 of the peripatetic philosopher Lacydes, and would never leave him, either in public or when at the bath, by night or by day.” The cackling of the goose saved Rome. Ac- cording to a very old story, the guards of the city were asleep, and the enemy taking advantage of this, were making their way through a weak part of the fortifications, expecting to take the city by surprise. The wakeful geese hearing them, at once commenced cackling, and their noise awoke the Romans, who soon made short work of their foes. This circumstance greatly increased the gratitude of the Roman citizens for the goose. We gather from the quaint words of an old chronicler a probable solution of the familiar phrase, “To cook one's goose.” “The kyng of Swedland"—so runs the ancient record—“coming to a towne of his enemyes with very little com- pany, his enemyes, to slyghte his forces, did hang out a goose for him to shoote ; but perceiving before nyghte that these fewe soldiers had in- vaded and sette their chief houlds on fire, they demanded of him what his intent was, to whom he replyed, ‘To cook your goose'.” In the days when the bow and arrow were the the chief weapons of warfare, it was customary 152 Englano in the Øay)3 of QIo. for the sheriffs of the counties where geese were reared to gather sufficient quantities of feathers to wing the arrows of the English army. Some of the old ballads contain references to winging the arrow with goose feathers. A familiar instance is the following : “‘Bend all your bows,” said Robin Hood; ‘And with the gray goose wing, Such sport now show as you would do 5 57 In the presence of the king’. To check the exportation of feathers, a heavy export duty was put upon them. ! The goose frequently figures in English tenures. In a poem by Gascoigne, published in 1575, there is an allusion to rent-day gifts, which appear to have been general in the olden time : “And when the tenants come to pay their quarter's rent, They bring some fowle at Midsummer, a dish of fish in Lent, At Christmasse a capon, and at Michaelmasse a goose.” A strange manorial custom was kept up at Hilton in the days of Charles II. An image of brass, known as Jack of Hilton, was kept there. “In the mouth,” we are told, “was a little hole just large enough to admit the head of a pin ; water was poured in by a hole in the back, which was afterwards stopped up,” The figure was El G3033ip about the GOO3e. 153 then set on the fire; and during the time it was blowing off steam, the lord of the manor of Essington was obliged to bring a goose to Hilton and drive it three times round the hall-fire. He next delivered the goose to the cook; and when dressed, he carried it to the table and received in return a dish of meat for his own mess. In bygone times, Lincolnshire was a great place for breeding geese; and its extensive bogs, marshes, and swamps were well adopted for the purpose. The drainage and cultivation of the land have done away with the haunts suitable for the goose ; but in a great measure Lincolnshire has lost its reputation for its geese. Frequently in the time when geese were largely bred, one farmer would have a thousand breeding-geese, and they would multiply some sevenfold every year, so that he would have under his care annually, some eight thousand geese. He had to be careful that they did not wander from the particular district where they had a right to allow them to feed, for they were regarded as trespassers, and the owner could not get stray geese back unless he paid a fine of twopence for each offender. Within the last fifty years it was a common 154 Englano in the Øay 3 of QIO. occurrence to see on sale in the market-place at Nottingham at the Goose Fair from fifteen to twenty thousand geese, which had been brought from the fens of Lincolnshire. A street on the Lincolnshire side of the town is called Goosegate. The origin of the custom of eating a goose at Michaelmas is lost in the shadows of the dim historic past. According to one legend, Saint Martin was tormented with a goose, which he killed and ate. He died after eating it ; and ever since, Christians have, as a matter of duty, on the saint's day sacrificed the goose. We have seen from the preceding quotation from Gascoigne that the goose formed a popular Michaelmas dish from an early period. It is a common saying, “The older the goose the harder to pluck,” when old men are unwilling to part with their money. The barbarous practice of plucking live geese for the sake of their quills gave rise to the saying. It was usual to pluck live geese about five times a year. Quills for pens were much in request before the introduction of steel pens. One London house, it is stated, sold annually six million quill pens. A pro- fessional pen-cutter could turn out about twelve hundred daily. Žl (5033ip about the G5003e. 155 Considerable economy was exercised in the use of quill pens. Leo Allatius, after writing forty years with one pen, lost it, and it is said he mourned for it as for a friend. William Hutton wrote the history of his family with one pen, which he wore down to the stump. He put it aside, accompanied by the following lines: THIS PEN. “As a choice relic I’ll keep thee, Who saved my ancestors and me. For seven long weeks you daily wrought Till into light our lives you brought, And every falsehood you avoided While by the hand of Hutton guided.” June 3, 1779. In conclusion, it may be stated that Philemon Holland, the celebrated translator, wrote one of his books with a single pen, and recorded in rhyme the feat as follows: “With one sole pen I wrote this book, Made of a gray goose quill; A pen it was when I it took, A pen I leave it still.” JBells as Cime-Cellerø. HE ringing of the bell in bygone times was general as a signal to commence and to close the daily round of labour. In some of the more remote towns and villages of old England the custom lingers at the ingathering of the harvest. At Driffield, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, for example, the harvest bell is still rung at five o'clock in the morning to arouse the labourers from their slumbers, and at seven in the evening the welcome sound of the bell intimates the time for closing work for the day. References to this subject may sometimes be found in parish accounts and other old church documents. In the parish chest of Barrow-on- Humber, Lincolnshire, is preserved a copy of the “Office and Duty of the Parish Clerk,” bearing date of 1713, stating — “Item.—He is to ring a Bell Every working day morn- ing at Break of the day, and continue the ringing thereof until All Saints, and also to ring a Bell Every Evening about the sunseting until harvest be fully ended: which -Bells are to begin to ring from the beginning of the harvest.” jBell3 ag (ſime="Cellerg. 157 We learn from an old survey of the parish, still retained amongst the church papers, the reward given to the clerk for ringing the harvest bell. Says the document :— “The Clarke Receiveth from Every Cottoger at Easter for Ringing the Day and Night Bell in Harvest two pecks of wheat.” Barrow-on-Humber became famous for its bells, beer, and singers. An old rhyme states — “Barrow for ringing, And Barrow for singing, And the Oak for good stout ale.” The Oak is the sign of the village inn, and a place of more than local reputation for its strong, home- brewed ale. We have traces of the custom of ringing the harvest bell in various parts of the Midlands. At Moreton and at Walgrave, in Northampton- shire, the harvest bell was rung at four o'clock in the morning. At Spratton, Wellingborough, and other places in the county, the custom is still remembered, but not kept up. It was customary in many places, when the last load of grain was brought home, to deck it with the boughs of the oak and ash, and a merry peal of the church bells made known the news 158 Englano in the Øay3 of QIO, that the farmer had ended his harvest, the farm labourers riding on the top of the load to sing— “Harvest home ! harvest home ! The boughs they do shake, the bells they do ring, So merrily we bring the harvest in, harvest in So merrily we bring the harvest in.” In some of the more remote villages of the country, the gleaners' bell is rung as a signal to commence gleaning. By this means, to use the words of Mr. Thomas North, our leading authority on bell lore, the old and feeble, as well as the young and active, may have a fair start. At Lyddington, Rutland, says Mr. North, the clerk claims a fee of a penny a week from women and big children, as a recompense for his trouble. The parish clerk at West Deeping, Lincolnshire, claimed twopence a head from the gleaners, but as they refused to pay, he declined to ring the bell. Bearing on this theme may be included particulars of a bell formerly rung at Louth when the harvest on the “Gatherums” was ripe. “A piece of ground so called,” writes Mr. North, “was in former times cultivated for the benefit of the poor. When the ‘pescods’ were ripe, the church bell was rung, which gave warning to the poor that the time had arrived when they might gather JBell3 as Cime=Celler3. 159 them ; hence (it is said) gather 'em or gatherum.” From the church accounts is drawn the following: “1536. Item for Knylyng the bell in harvest for gatheringe of the pescods. º º e iiijd.” Similar entries occur in the books of the church. An inscription on a bell at Coventry, dated 1675, states :— “I ring at six to let men know When to and fro’ their work to goe.” At St. Ives a bell bears a pithy inscription as follows:— “Arise, and go about your business.” The bells of Bow are amongst the best known in England, and figure in the legendary lore as well as in the business life of London. Every reader is familiar with the story of Dick Whitting- ton leaving the city in despair, resting on Highgate Hill, and hearing the famous bells, which seemed to say in their merry peals— “Turn again, Whittington, Thou worthy citizen, Lord Mayor of London.” In 1469, an order was given by the Court of the Common Council for Bow bell to be rung every night at nine o'clock. Nine was the recognised 160 Englano in the Øays of QIo. time for tradesmen to close their shops. The clerk, whose duty it was to ring the bell, was irregular in his habits, and the late performance of his duties disappointed the toiling apprentices, who thus addressed him :- “Clerk of Bow bell, With thy yellow locks, For thy late ringing Thy head shall have knocks.” The clerk replied:— “Children of Cheape, Hold you all still, For you shall hear Bow Bell Ring at your will.” The foregoing rhymes take us back to a period before clocks were in general use in this country. The parentage of the present clock cannot be traced with any degree of certainty. We learn that as early as 996, Gerbert, a distinguished Benedictine monk (subsequently Pope Sylvester II.), constructed for Magdeburg a clock, with a weight as a motive power. Clocks with weights were used in monasteries in Europe in the eleventh century. It is supposed that they had not dials to indicate the time, but at certain intervals struck a bell to make known the time for prayers. jBells ag Cime="Cellerg. 161 From the fact that a clock-keeper was employed at St. Paul's, London, in 1286, it is presumed that there must have been a clock, but we have not been able to discover any details respecting it. There was a clock at Westminster in 1290, and two years later £30 was paid for a large clock put up at Canterbury Cathedral. Thirty pounds represented a large sum of money in the year 1292. About 1326 an astronomical clock was erected at St. Albans. It was the work of Richard de Wallingford, a blacksmith's son of the town, who rose to the position of Abbot there. In the earlier half of the fourteenth century are traces of numerous other clocks in England. According to Haydn’s “Dictionary of Dates,” in the year 1530 the first portable clock was made. This statement does not agree with a writer in “Chambers's Encyclopædia” (edition 1890). “The date,” we are told in that work, “when portable clocks were first made, cannot be determined. They are mentioned in the beginning of the fourteenth century. The motive power must have been a mainspring instead of a weight. The Society of Antiquaries of England possess one, with the inscription in Bohemian that it was made at Prague, by Jacob Zech, in 1525. It has 11 162 Englano in the Oays of QIO. a spring for motive power, with fusee, and is one of the oldest portable clocks in a perfect state in England.” It is asserted that no clock in this country went accurately before the one was erected at Hampton Court, in 1540. Shakespeare, in his Love's Labour's Lost, gives us an idea of the unsatisfactory manner clocks kept time in the days of old. He says:— “Like a German clock, Still a-repairing ; ever out of frame; And never going aright.” Coming down to later times, we may give a few particulars of the difficulty of ascertaining the time in the country in the earlier years of the last century. Norrisson Scatcherd, the historian of Morley, near Leeds, gives in his history, published in 1830, an amusing sketch of a local worthy named John Jackson, better known as “Old Trash,” poet, schoolmaster, mechanic, stone- cutter, land-measurer, etc., who was buried at Woodkirk on May 19th, 1764. “He con- structed a clock, and in order to make it useful to the clothiers who attended Leeds market from Earls and Hanging Heaton, Dewsbury, º * !}* § Lº–º-º: III # º ſtºº!!!. f. i º! ; - iſ | } | }; # iſºsº. ††† gº staš"till •r *11, ti in #|| % #;" t t *| łł : º; # - ſºlºiſ º | li ºliºse.” º! #| ######## ſº º # § º: # | % * #! | ####### §: # º #|ſº *jillºššº. ºiº/. ſºiſ; innistinº;' tºº Fºrk fºlſº | ...,' irm titlé, §j j} #: }}/ ii. 1, r* ºf trº. | |: § tº: ºn " |!!}}}}'}; 4; i. ºr tº: r # st; ſº frt ºf ºtiºn º $ºś ######: º #| #; 㺠ti - | ": a 2: . #: ::::::::::::iſ ||||||}: º {\\ º ºf stiffſ, º | ſº- #; ſºlº º § | f # i ſãº. tº º” - |\; #!! #. | º ſ ! lºſt ſtººlſ: *tº | -- º ####": **, | : º::::::::::::: § ſ # #: § tº 1, ºğ #j | tº 1 : Hºlliſºniiſºs il li t Ri § # iS$ º º ñá i § § ; - º §§§ §: #; - -" - &: 1: | - - º ####### ifºil i §§ f } º §:#fffl. Mºº ޺ºtº:=ºiſºfº.ºr - ". **. º º : ": ; º: # 1 =º: III - Li - " ſº º ºfºrº º: 2 ſºil; fººt. At 3:#ſºft| | . . . = # i. #ſº #. | | | | | | ºf a lºft, ſº , ſºlº".."4"|";" " ſº- †. || || |H ºr ; | :* *** {{!. . .'; "[[{{!!!...º. | | | | º:"Riº", ji'i it's: 1. .. º: º *** ºntº; º | CLOCK, HAMPTON COU RT PALACE. j6ell3 as Cime='Celler3. 165 Chickenley, etc., he kept a lamp suspended near the face of it, and burning through the winter nights, and he would have no shutters nor curtains to his window, so that the clothiers had only to stop and look through it to know the time. Now, in our age of luxury and refinement, the accomo- dation thus presented by ‘Old Trash' may seem insignificant and foolish, but I can assure the reader that it was not. The clothiers in the early part of the eighteenth century were obliged to be upon the bridge at Leeds, where the market was held, by about six o'clock in the summer, and seven in the winter; and hither they were convened by a bell anciently pertaining to a Chantry Chapel, which once was annexed to Leeds Bridge. They did not all ride, but most went on foot. They did not carry watches, for few of them had ever possessed such a valuable. They did not dine on fish, flesh, and fowl, with wine, etc., as some do now. No 1 no | The care- ful housewife wrapped up a bit of Oatcake and cheese in a little checked handkerchief, and charged her husband to mind and not get above a pint of ale at ‘The Rodney." Would Jackson's clock then be of no use to men who had few such in their villages 2 Who seldom saw a watch, but 166 Englano in the Øay5 of QIO. took much of their intelligence from the note of the cuckoo.” For an extended period, the curfew bell has been a most important time-teller. The sounds are no longer heard as the signal for putting out fires, as they were in the days of the Norman kings. It is generally asserted that William the Conqueror introduced the curfew custom into England, but it is highly probable that he only enforced a law which had long been in existence in the kingdom, and which prevailed in France, Italy, Spain, and other countries on the Continent. Houses at this period were usually built of wood, and fires were frequent and often fatal, and on the whole it was a wise policy to put out household fires at night. The fire as a rule was made in a hole in the middle of the floor, and the smoke escaped through the roof. In an account of the manners and customs of the English people, drawn up in 1678, the writer states that before the Reformation, “Ordinary men's houses, as copy- holders and the like, had no chimneys, but flues like louver holes; some of them were in being when I was a boy.” In the year 1103, Henry I. modified the curfew custom. In “Liber Albus,” we find a curious picture of London life under JSCII3 ag Cime=Celler3. 167 Some of the Plantagenet kings, commencing with Edward I. It was against the city regulations for armed persons to wander about the city after the ringing of the curfew bell. We may infer from a circumstance in the closing days of William I., that from a remote period there was a religious service at eight o'clock at night. It will be remembered that the king died from the injuries received by the plunging of his horse, caused by the animal treading on some hot ashes. Shortly before his death he was roused from the stupor which clouded his mind, by the ringing of the vesper bell of a neighbouring church. He asked if it were in England and if it were the curfew bell that he heard. On being told that he was in his “ own Normandy,” and the bell was for evening prayer, he “charged them bid the monks pray for his soul, and remained for a while dull and heavy.” At Tamworth, in 1390, a bye-law was passed, and “it provided that no man, woman, or servant should go out after the ringing of the curfew from one place to another unless they had a light in their hands, under pain of imprisonment.” For a long period it was the signal for closing public- houses. (Ibe Elge of $nuffing, N this country old customs linger long, and although the age of snuffing has passed away, in some quarters the piquant pinch still finds favour. Our ancient municipal corporations have been reformed, but old usages are still maintained and revived. In 1896 we saw an account in the newspapers of an amusing episode which occurred during a meeting of the Pontefract Town Council. One of the aldermen, noticing that the councillors had “to go borrowing ” snuff. suggested the re-introduction of the old Corpora- tion snuff-box. The official box, in the shape of an antler, was unearthed from underneath the aldermanic bench amidst much amusement, and the Mayor promised ere another sitting the article in question should be duly cleaned and replenished with the stimulating powder. Sir Albert K. Rollit, the learned and genial member of Parliament for South Islington, when Mayor of his native town of Hull a few years ago, presented to his brother members of the Corpora- (Ibe Elge of $5muffing. 169 tion a massive and valuable snuff-box. The gift was much appreciated. In a compilation recently published under the title of “The Corporation Plate and Insignia of Office, &c., of the Cities and Towns of England and Wales,” will be found particulars of snuff-boxes belonging to some of the older municipal bodies. In bygone times taking snuff was extremely popular, its palmy days in England being during the eighteenth century. Snuff was praised in poetry and prose. Peer and peasant, rich and poor, the lady in her drawing-room and the humble housewife alike enjoyed the pungent pinch. The snuff-box was to be seen everywhere. The earliest allusion we have to snuffing occurs in the narrative of the second voyage of Columbus in 1494. It is there related by Roman Pane, the friar, who accompanied the expedition, that the aborigines of America reduced tobacco to a powder, and drew it through a cane half a cubit long ; one end of this they placed in the nose and the other upon the powder. He also stated that it purged them very much. Snuff and other forms of tobacco on their introduction had many bitter opponents. After the Great Plague the popularity of tobacco and 170 Englano in the Eagg of QIO. snuff increased, for during the time of the terrible visitation both had been largely used as disinfect- ants. There is a curious entry in Thomas Hearne's Diary, 1720-21, bearing on this theme. He writes as follows under date of January 21 — “I have been told that in the last great plague in London none that kept tobacconists' shops had the plague. It is certain that Smoaking was looked upon as a most excellent preservative. In so much that even children were obliged to Smoak. And I remember that I heard formerly Tom Rogers, who was yeoman beadle, say that when he was that year when the plague raged a school- boy at Eton, all the boys in the school were obliged to smoak in the school every morning, and that he was never whipped so much in his life as he was one morning for not smoaking.” Pepys says in his Diary on June 7, 1665 – “The hottest day that ever I felt in my life. This day, much against my will, I did in Drury Lane see two or three houses marked with a red cross upon the doors, and ‘Lord have mercy upon us!’ writ there; which was a sad sight to me, being the first of the kind that to my remem- brance I ever saw. It put me into ill-conception of myself and my smell, so that I was forced to (Ibe Elge of $nuffing. 171 buy some roll tobacco to smell and chew, which took apprehension.” Another impetus to the habit of snuff-taking was given in 1702. Our Fleet was under the command of Sir George Rooke, and it is recorded that at Port Saint Mary, near Cadiz, several thousand barrels of choice Spanish snuff were captured. At Vigo on the homeward voyage more native snuff was obtained, and found its way to England, instead of the Spanish market, as it was originally intended. The snuff was sold at the chief English ports for the benefit of the officers and men. In not a few instances waggon-loads were disposed of at fourpence per pound. It was named Vigo snuff, and the popularity of the ware, its cheapness, and novelty were the means of its coming into general use. In no part of the world did it become and remain more popular than in North Britain. A volume published in London in 1702, entitled “A Short Account of Scotland,” without the author's name, but apparently by a military officer, contains some interesting information on the social life of the people. We gather from this work that the chief stimulant of the Scotch at this period was snuff. “They are fond of tobacco,” it is stated, “but 172 Ellglalto ill the Øay)3 of QIO. more from the sneesh-box [snuff-box] than the pipe. And they made it so necessary that I have heard some of them say that, should their bread come in competition with it, they would rather fast than their sneesh should be taken away. Yet mostly it consists of the coarsest tobacco, dried by the fire, and pounded in a little engine after the form of a tap, which they carry in their pockets, and is both a mill to grind and a box to keep it in.” At social gatherings the snuff-mull was constantly passed round, and we are told that each guest left traces of its use on the table, on his knees, the folds of his dress, and on the floor. The preacher's voice was impaired with excessive indulgence in snuff. Long before the English visitor had written his book on Scotland, attempts had been made to prohibit snuff-taking in church. At the Kirk Session of St. Cuthbert's, held on June 18, 1640, it was decided that every snuff-taker in church be amerced in “twenty shillings for everie falt.” Under date of April 11, 1641, it is stated in the Rirk Session records of Soulton as follows:— “Statute with consent of the ministers and elders, that every one that takes snuff in tyme of Divine Service shall pay 6s. 8d., and give one public Cbe Elge of $5muffing. 173 confession of his fault.” At Dunfermline, the Kirk Session had this matter under consideration, and the bellman was directed “to tak notice of those who tak the sneising tobacco in tyme of Divine Service, and to inform concerning them.” A writer in a popular periodical, in a chapter on “The Divine Weed,” makes a mistake, we think, presuming people smoked in church in bygone days. “At one period in the history of tobacco,” says the contributor, “smoking was so common that it was actually practised in church.” Previous to the visit of James the First to the University of Cambridge, in 1615, the Vice- Chancellor issued a notice to the students, which enjoined that “Noe graduate, scholler, or student of this Universitie presume to take tobacco in Saint Marie's Church, uppon payne of finall expellinge the Universitie.” The taking of tobacco doubtless means using it in the form of snuff and not smoking it in a pipe. Later, and perhaps at the period under notice, a strong feeling prevailed against smoking in the public streets. In the records of the Methwold Manor, Norfolk, is an entry in the court books dated October 4, 1659, as follows:– “Wee agree that any person that is taken smookeing tobacco 174 Englano in the Øay)3 of QIO. in the street, forfeit one shilling for every time so taken, and it shall be put to the uses aforesaid (that is to the use of the towne). We present Nicholas Barber for smoking in the street, and do amerce him one shilling.” At a parish meeting held at Winteringham, on January 6, 1685, it was resolved —“None shall smoke tobacco in the streets upon paine of two shillings for every default.” Schoolmasters were forbidden to smoke. In the rules of Chigwell School, founded in 1629, only fourteen years after the visit of James to Cambridge, it is stated:—“The master must be a man of sound religion, neither Papist nor Puritan, of a grave behaviour, and sober and honest conversation, no tippler, or haunter of alehouses, and no puffer of tobacco.” We may come to the conclusion from the facts we have furnished, that if persons were not permitted to smoke in the street, it is quite certain they would not be allowed to do so in the house of prayer. Preachers of all sections of the religious world delighted in a pinch of snuff. Sneezing was heard in the highest and humblest churches, and it even made St. Peter's at Rome echo. The practice so excited the ire of Pope Innocent the (Ibe Elge of $nuffing. 175 Twelfth that he made an effort in 1690 to stop it in his churches, and “solemnly excommunicated all who should dare to take snuff.” Tyerman, in his “Life of Wesley,” tells us the great trouble the famous preacher had with his early converts. “Many of them were absolutely enslaved to snuff; some drank drams, &c., to remedy such evils, the preachers were enjoined on no account to take snuff, or to drink drams themselves; and were to speak to any one they saw snuffing in sermon time, and to answer the pretence that drams cured the colic and helped digestion.” Mr. Wesley cautioned a preacher going to Ireland against snuff, unless by order of a physician, declaring that no people were in such blind bondage to the silly, nasty, dirty custom as were the Irish. It is stated so far did Irishmen carry their love of snuffing, that it was customary, when a wake was on, to put a plate full of snuff upon the dead man's, or woman's stomach, from which each guest was expected to take a pinch upon being introduced to the corpse. In the earlier days of snuff-taking, people generally ground their own snuff by rubbing roll tobacco across a small grater, usually fixed inside the snuff-box. We find in old-time writings 176 Englano in the Øays of QIO. many allusions to making snuff from roll tobacco. In course of time snuff was flavoured with rich essences, and scented snuffs found favour with the ladies. The man of refinement prided himself on his taste for perfumed powder. We find it stated in Fairholt's book on “Tobacco,” that in the reign of William III. the beaux carried canes with hollow heads, that they might the more conveniently inhale a few grains through the perforations, as they sauntered in the fashionable promenades. Women quickly followed the lead of men in snuffing, in spite of satire in the Spectator and other papers of the period. The list of famous snuff-takers of the olden time is a long one, and only a few can be noticed here. Queen Charlotte heads the roll. She was per- sistent in the practice, and her unfilial and rude sons called her “Old Snuff.” Captain Gronow, when a boy at Eton, saw the Queen in company with the King taking an airing on the Terrace at Windsor, and relates “that her royal nose was covered with snuff both within and without.” Mrs. Siddons, “the queen of tragedy,” largely indulged in the use of snuff, both on and off the stage, even while taking her more important characters. Mrs. Jordan, another “stage star,” (Ibe Elge of $nuffing. 177 a representative of the comic muse, obtained animation from frequent use of snuff. Mrs. Unwin, the friend of Cowper, was extremely fond of it, and so was the poet, yet he was not a smoker. On snuff he wrote as follows:– “The pungent, nose-refreshing weed, Which whether pulverised it gain A speedy passage to the brain, Or whether touched with fire it rise In circling eddies to the skies, Does thought more quicken and refine Than all the breath of all the Nine.” Pope, in “The Rape of the Lock,” refers to ladies with their snuff-boxes always handy, and the fair Belinda found hers particularly useful in the battle she waged — “See, fierce Belinda on the baron flies With more than usual lightning in her eyes; And this bred lord, with manly strength endued, She with one finger and a thumb subdued. Just where the breath of life his nostrils drew A charge of snuff the wily virgin threw ; The gnomes direct, to every atom just, The pungent grains of titillating dust. Sudden with startling tears each eye o'erflows, And the high dome re-echoes to his nose.” Napoleon's legacy to the famous Lady Holland was a snuff-box, and Moore celebrated the gift 12 178 Englalto in the Øay)3 of Qib, in a verse written while he was in Paris in 1821 :— “Gift of the Hero, on his dying day, To her who pitying watch'd, for ever nigh; Oh, could he see the proud, the happy ray, This relic lights up in her generous eye, Sighing, he’d feel how easy 'tis to pay A friendship all his kingdoms could not buy.” Amongst ladies we have to include the charming Clarinda, a friend of Robert Burns, on whom he wrote when obliged to leave her — “She, the fair sun of all her sex, Has blest my glorious day, And shall, a glimmering planet, fix My worship to its ray.” She was much addicted to the use of snuff, more especially towards the closing years of her life, and to the last she was famous for her singular sprightliness in conversation. Dr. Deering wrote, about the end of the first half of the eighteenth century, a history of Nottingham, and in it he relates how ladies, enjoying their tea, between each dish regaled their nostrils with a pinch or two of snuff. The snuffboxes carried by them were usually costly, and generally elegant in form. David Garrick gave his wife a gold snuff. box. George Barrington, the celebrated pick- % }} }zº »)- ( /, S！ " ��! * Ō) PARTAKING OF THE PUNGENT PINCH. (Ibe Elge of $nuffing. 181 pocket and author, stole from Prince Orloff a Snuff-box, set with brilliants, valued at £30,000. Barrington was transported to Botany Bay, and at the opening of Sydney Theatre, January 16, 1796, Young's tragedy, The Revenge, was performed by convicts, and a prologue from Barrington's pen contained this passage — “From distant climes, o'er widespread seas, we come, Though not with much éclat, or beat of drum ; True patriots we, for, be it understood, We left our country for our country's good. No private views disgraced our generous zeal, What urged our travels was our country’s weal; And none will doubt but that our emigration Has proved most useful to the British nation.” In the olden time it was customary for the English Court to present to an Ambassador on his return home a gold snuff-box, and only in late years has this practice been discontinued. George IV. made a fraudulent display of snuff. taking ; he carried an empty box, and pretended to draw from it pinches and apply them to his nose. The great Napoleon could not endure smoking, but filled his waistcoat pocket with snuff, and partook of prodigious quantities. Nelson enjoyed his snuff, and his snuff-box finds a place among his relics at Greenwich. Literary 182 Englano in the Øay 3 of QIO. men and dramatists figure in imposing numbers amongst snuff-takers. Dryden enjoyed snuff, and did not object to share the luxury with others. A favourite haunt of his was Will's Coffee-house in Bow Street, Covent Garden, where he was met by the chief wits of the time. In the “London Spy,” by Ned Wright, it is related that a parcel of raw, second-rate beaux and wits were conceited if they had but the honour to dip a finger and thumb into Mr. Dryden's snuff-box. Addison, Bolingbroke, Congreve, Swift, and Pope were snuff takers. Dr. Samuel Johnson carried large supplies in his waistcoat pocket, and his friend Boswell thus praised it — “Oh snuff our fashionable end and aim Strasburg, Rappee, Dutch, Scotch, Whate'er thy name ; Powder celestial quintescence divine ! New joys entrance my soul while thou art mine.” Arkbuckle, another Scottish poet, author of many humorous and witty poems, wrote in 1719 as follows:– “Blest be his shade, may laurels ever bloom, And breathing sweets exhale around his tomb, Whose penetrating nostril taught mankind First how by Snuff to rouse the sleeping mind.” (Ibe Elge of $nuffing. 183 The following lines are by Robert Leighton, a modern Scotch poet of recognised ability – THE SNUFFIE AULD MAN. “By the cosie fireside, or the sun-ends o' gavels, The snuffie auld bodie is sure to be seen; Tap, tappin’ his snuff-box, he snifters and sneevils, And smachers the snuff frae his mou’ to his een. Since tobacco cam' in, and the snuffin' began, The hasna been seen sic a snuffie auld man. His haurins are dozen'd, his een sair bedizen'd, And red round the lids as the gills o' a fish ; His face is a bladdit, his sark-breest a smaddit— And snuffie a picture as ony could wish. He maks a mere merter o' a' thing he does, Wi’snuff frae his fingers an' draps frae his nose. And wow but his nose is a troublesome member— Day and nicht, there's nae end to its snuffie desire ; It's wide as the chimlie, it's red as an ember, And has to be fed like a dry-whinnie fire, It's a troublesome member, and gie's him nae peace, Even sleepin’ or eatin’ or sayin' the grace. The kirk is disturbed wi' his hauchin and sneezin', The domime stoppit when leadin’ the psalm ; The minister, deav'd out o' logic and reason, Pours gall in the lugs that are gapin’ for balm. The auld folks look surly, the young chaps jocose, While the bodie himsel’ is bambazed wi' his nose. He scrimps the auld wife baith in garnal and caddy; He snuffs what wad keep her in comfort and ease ; Rapee, Lundy fitt, Prince's Mixture, and Taddy, 184 Ellglalić) in the Øay)5 Of (Wić). She looks upon them as the warst o' her faes. And we’ll ne'er see an end o' her Rooshian war While the auld carle's nose is upheld like a Czar.” Charles and Mary Lamb both enjoyed snuff, and doubtless felt its use assisted them in their literary labours. Here is a picture drawn by Mary of the pair as they were penning their “Tales from Shakespeare,” sitting together at the same table. “Like a literary Darby and Joan,” she says, “I taking snuff, and he groaning all the while, and saying he can make nothing of it, till he has finished, when he finds he has made something of it.” Sterne was a snuff-taker, and when his wife was about to join him in Paris in 1762, he wrote a letter in which he said :-"You will find good tea upon the road from York to Dover ; only bring a little to carry you from Calais to Paris. Give the custom-house officer what I told you. At Calais give more, if you have much Scotch snuff; but as tobacco is good here, you had best bring a Scotch mull and make it yourself; that is, order your valet to manu- facture it, 'twill keep him out of mischief.” In another letter he says:–“You must be cautious about Scotch snuff; take half a pound in your pocket, and make Lyd do the same.” Sir Joshua (Ibe Elge of $5muffing. 185 Reynolds is described as taking snuff profusely. It is related that he powdered his waistcoat, let it fall in heaps upon the carpet, and even upon his palette, and it thus became mixed with his pigments and transferred to his pictures. Gibbon was a confirmed snuff-taker. In one of his letters he relates how he took snuff. “I drew my snuff- box,” he said, “rapp'd it, took snuff twice, and continued my discourse, in my usual attitude of my body bent forwards, and my forefinger stretched out.” Offering a pinch of snuff has always been regarded as a mark of civility, but there are some men who could not tolerate the practice. Frederick the Great, for example, disliked others to take snuff from his box. He was lying in the adjoining room to one where he had left his box, and his page helped himself to a pinch from it. He was detected, and Frederick said, “Put that box in your pocket; it is too small for both of us.” George II. liked to have his box for his own exclusive use, and when a gentleman at a masquerade helped himself to a pinch, the King in great anger threw away the box. $5tate Ilotterieg. OR more than two-and-a-half centuries state lotteries were popular in this country. They were imported into England from the continent ; prior to being known here they were established in Italy, and most probably they came to us from that country. An announcement of the first English lottery was made in 1566, and it stated that it would consist of forty-thousand lots or shares at ten shillings each. The prizes, many and valuable, included money, plate, and certain sorts of merchandise. The winner of the greatest and most excellent prize was entitled to receive “the value of five thousand poundes sterling, that is to say, three thousande poundes in ready money, seven hundred poundes in plate, gilte and white, and the reste in good tapisserie meete of hangings and other covertures, and certain sortes of good linen cloth.” Tapisserie and good linen cloth figure in several of the prizes, or to give the spelling of the announcement, prices. A large $5tate Lotteries. 187 number of small money prizes were offered, including ten thousand at fifteen shillings each, and nine thousand four hundred and eighteen at fourteen shillings each. The object of the lottery was to raise money to repair the harbours and to carry out other useful works. Although the undertaking was for an excellent purpose, and the prizes tempting, the sale of the tickets was slow, and special induce- ments were made by Queen Elizabeth to persons taking shares. Persons who “adventured money in this lottery” might visit several of the more important towns in “the Realme of Englande, and Dublyn and Waterforde in the Realm of Irelande,” and there remain for seven days without any molestation or arrest of them for any manner of offence saving treason, murder, pyracie, or any other felonie, or for breach of her Majesties peace during the time of her coming abiding or returne. Doubtless these conditions would induce many to take shares. Public bodies as well as private persons invested money in lottery tickets. Not so much as a matter of choice as to comply with the urgent wishes of the queen and her advisers. The public had little taste for the lottery, but the leading people in the 188 Englano in the Øay5 of QIO. land were almost compelled to take shares, and the same may be said of chief cities and towns. In the city records of Winchester for example, under the year 1566, it is stated:—“Taken out of the Coffer the sum of £10 towards the next drawen of the lottery.” On the 30th July, 1568, is another entry as follows:– “That £3 be taken out of the Coffers of the cytie and be put into the lottery, and so muche money as shall make up evyn lotts with those that are contrybuting of the cytie, so that it passed not 10s.” The eventful day arrived after long waiting for commencing the drawing of the lottery. The place selected for the purpose was at the west door of St. Paul's Cathedral, London. Opera- tions were commenced in 1569, on January 11th, and continued day and night until May 6th. Some years passed before another state lottery took place. It is believed that one noticed by Stow in his “Annales,” occurring in 1585, was the second. “A lotterie,” chronicles Stow, “for marvellous, rich, and beautiful armour was begunne to be drawne at London in S. Paules Churchyard, at the great West gate (a house of timber and board being there erected for that purpose) on S. Peter's Day in the morning, $5tate II.Otteries. 189 which lotteries continued in drawing day and night, for the space of two or three dayes.” Our first two Stuart kings do not appear to have employed the lottery as a means of raising money. James I. granted a lotterie in favour of the colony of Virginia. The prizes consisted of pieces of plate. It was drawn in a house built for the purpose near the West end of St. Paul's. The drawing commenced on the 29th June, and was completed by 20th July, 1612. It is said that a poor tailor won the first prize, viz. “foure thousand Crownes in fayre plate,” and that it was conveyed to his humble home in a stately style. The lottery gave general satisfaction, it was plainly and honestly conducted, and knights, esquires and leading citizens were present to check any attempt at cheating. During the reign of Charles I., in 1630, the earliest lottery for sums of money took place. The Puritans do not seem to have had any decided aversion to obtaining money by means of the lottery. During the Commonwealth it was resorted to for getting rid of forfeited Irish estates. At the restoration the real gaming spirit commenced and caused much misery and ruin, 190 Englano in the Øay5 of QIO. The lottery sheet was set up in many public places, and the Crown received a large revenue from this source. The financial arrangement of a lottery was simple, the state offered a certain sum of money to be repaid by a larger. We learn from Chambers’s “Book of Days,” that “The government gave £10 in prizes for every share taken, on an average. A great many blanks, or of prizes under £10 left of course, a surplus for the creation of a few magnificent prizes where with to attract the unwary public.” It was custom- ary for city firms known as lottery-office-keepers to contract for the lottery, and they always paid more than £10 per share, usually £16 was paid, which left the government a handsome profit. The contractors disposed of the tickets to the public for £20 to £22 each. The shares were frequently divided by the contractors into halves, quarters, eights, and sixteenths, and this was done at advanced prices. It was out of the clients for aliquot parts that the lottery-office- keepers reaped a heavy harvest. They were men who understood the art of advertising, and used pictures, poetry, and prose in a most effective manner. Our own collections of lottery puffs is curious and interesting. Some very good I SA I º ‘IT V HOI^II (n!) ${HJL NI Å?I?IJLJLOTI V 5) NI AAV RICI ſae #№ §§§ §§ $5tate ILOtteries. 193 examples are reproduced in “A History of English Lotteries,” by John Ashton, and publish- ed by the Leadenhall Press, London, in 1893. It is related that one firm of lottery ticket contractors gave an old woman fifty pounds a year to join them as a nominal partner on account of her name being Goodluck. We have stated that at the commencement of lotteries they were drawn near St. Paul's, sub- sequently the City Guildhall was the place, and later Cooper's Hall, Basinghall Street, was used for this purpose. Before the day appointed for the drawing of a lottery, public preparations had been made for it at Somerset House. Each lottery ticket had a counterpart and a counterfoil, and when the issue of the tickets was complete, an announcement was made, and a day fixed for the counterparts of the tickets to be sealed up in a box, and any ticket-holder might attend and see that his ticket was included with others in a box, and it was placed in a strong box and locked up with seven keys, then sealed with seven seals. Two other boxes, locked and sealed as the one with tickets, contained the prize tickets and blanks. These were removed with ceremony to the place of drawing. Four prancing horses 13 194 Englano in the Øays of QIO. would draw, on their own sledges, the wheels of fortune, each of which were about six feet in diameter. By their side galloped a detachment of Horse Guards. Arrived at their destination, the great wheels were placed at each end of a long table, where the managers of the lottery took their seats. With care the tickets were emptied into the wheels, and finally they were set in motion. Near each wheel stood a boy, usually from the Blue-Coat School. Simultaneously the lads put into the wheels their hands, each drawing a paper out. These they hold up, and an officer, called the proclaimer, calls out in a loud voice the number, say sixty another responds a prize or blank, as the case may be, and the drawing thus proceeds until it is finished, often a long and tedious piece of work. If even a blank is first drawn, the owner of the ticket received a prize of a thousand pounds, and a similar sum was won by the owner of the last ticket drawn. The boys were well rewarded for their trouble, and on the whole the lotteries appear to have been fairly conducted. We give a picture of a pageant-like machine, used in London to advertise the last state lottery. The artist by whom it was drawn wrote an ºve º ſº 'ºff; | # a.º. \!. # i. | º | º § 7% * º ºs º W W ATFIVE º: % 'ºff * Šs POSITIVELY || ºft the iast #LOTTERY th;t Yil ºver A tºrows us ENGLAND § s *§ § $ Š * *. § § SSS 300% § § 180ci $ Ş § ~ Tºdax Tº Fatº'ſ }s § § (KACŞ3 S$ f & - *s. O #5"|Fºrunº s §30000||DISTRIBUTED | - - 4: Grižić). Apl. LOTTERIES /~. - ... " fe ºvir ... end, ſºy ever * -—t /r-tº lisDail|ºl& Oct § = - ºff|{{\º: sºlº six Tili; |llſ fºllº 30000|| 36,000 tº zºº - s—llſ" T § t % *º- #. - - filiili º ſizī h - * & - §§ $ - NAA - & Ağ - º/2n \|||||||||||}}SU WAN - }/º ' --- -º-º-º: §§ 1% wº --- ſº X. sis = 2– - .2% \ º: >. ===Yº © K'ſ, ==3; * † | N % N - .*. ===# - | \\ /l. - - - - =\ S. # = ſºilſſº-º-º: | ==#=== Yº! Wil -º-; --—£-º-º-º-º: il ====E::= [. -- - -------> -- a-f *########Elºğ. - >~. ADVERTISING THE LAST STATE LOTTERY. 5tate ILOtteries. 197 entertaining letter respecting it. “As I was walking up Holborn on the 9th of October, 1826,” he says, “I saw a strange vehicle moving slowly on, and when I came up to it, found a machine, perhaps from twenty to thirty feet high, of an octagon shape, covered all over with lottery papers of various colours. It had a broad brass band round the bottom, and moved on a pivot; it had a very imposing effect. The driver and the horse seemed as dull as though they were attending a solemn funeral, whilst the different shopkeepers came to the doors and laughed; some of the people passing and repassing read the bills that were pasted on it, as if they had never read one before, others stationed themselves to look at it as long as it was in sight. It entered Monmouth Street, that den of filth and rags, where so great a number of young urchins gathered together in a few minutes as to be astonishing. There being an empty chair behind, one of them seated himself in it, and rode backwards; another said, “let’s have a stone through it,' and a third cried “let’s sludge it.’ This was no sooner proposed than they threw stones, oyster shells, and dirt, and burst several of the sheets; this attack brought the driver from his seat, and he 198 Englano in the Øay5 of QIO. was obliged to walk by the side of his machine up the foul street which his show canvassed, halting now and then to threaten the boys who still followed and threw. I made a sketch, and left the scene.” Powerful protests were made in parliament against the immorality of the lottery. It took a long time to bring those in office to a sense of their duty. The immense profits they yielded were extremely useful for state purposes. Mr. Parnell hit hard the men in power, and it was he who suggested that the following epitaph be inscribed on the tomb of a Chancellor of the Exchequer — “Here lies the RIGHT HON. NICHOLAS WANSITTART, once Chancellor of the Exchequer; the parton of Bible Societies, the builder of Churches, a friend to the education of the poor, an encourager of Savings' Banks, and a supporter of Lotteries.” On Wednesday, 18th October, 1826, the last state lottery was drawn in England, and it will not be without interest to reproduce from a London newspaper a report of the closing pro- ceedings. “Yesterday afternoon,” it is recorded, $5tate ILOtterieg. 199 “at about half past six o'clock, that old servant of the State, the Lottery, breathed its last, having for a long period of years, ever since the days of Queen Anne, contributed largely towards the public revenue of the country. This event took place at Cooper's Hall, Basinghall Street; and, such was the anxiety on the part of the public to witness the last drawing of the lottery, that great numbers of persons were attracted to the spot, independently of those who had an interest in the proceedings. The gallery of the Cooper's Hall was crowded to excess long before the period fixed for the drawing (five o'clock), and the utmost anxiety was felt by those who had shares in the lottery, for the arrival of the appointed hour. The annihilation of lotteries, it will be recollected was determined upon in the session of Parliament before last ; and thus, a source of revenue bringing into the treasury the sums of £250,000 and £300,000 per annum, will be dried up. This determination on the part of the legis- lature is hailed, by the greatest portion of the public, with joy, as it will put an end to a system which many believe to have fostered and encouraged the late speculations, the effects of 200 Englano in the Øay 3 of QIO. which have been and are still severely felt. A deficiency in the public revenue, to the extent of 4:250,000 annually, will occur, however, in the consequence of this annihilation of lotteries, and it must remain for those who have strenuously supported the putting a stop to lotteries, to provide for the deficiency. Although that which ended yesterday was the last, if we are informed correctly, the lottery- office keepers have been left with a great number of tickets remaining on their hands—a pretty strong proof that the public, in general, have now no relish for these schemes.” The drawing of the lottery commenced shortly after five o'clock, and ended at twenty minutes past six, so it did not take long to complete the last state lottery in England. Those most interested in lotteries did not let them die without trying to prove their value to the public and the state. Bish, who conducted an extensive business in tickets, issued an address as follows:– “At the present moment, when so many of the comforts of the poorer classes are more or less liable to taxation, it may surely be a question whether the abolition of lotteries, by which the 5tate ILOtterieg. 201 State was a gainer of nearly half a million per annum, be, or be not, a wise measure 'Tis true that, as they were formerly conducted, the system was fraught with some evil. Insur- ances were allowed upon the fate of numbers through protracted drawings; and, as the insurances could be effected for very small sums, those who could ill afford loss, imbibed a spirit of gambling, which the legislature, very wisely, most effectually prevented, by adopting, in the year 1809, the present improved mode of deciding the whole lottery in one day. As the present conducted, the lottery is a voluntary tax, contributed to only by those who can afford it, and collected without trouble or expense; one by which many branches of the revenue are considerably aided, and by means of which hundreds of persons find employment. The wisdom of those, who at this time resign the income produced by it, adds to the number of the unemployed, may, as I have observed in a former address, surely be questioned. Mr. Pitt, whose ability on matters of financial arrangements few will question, and whose morality was proverbial, would not, I am bold to say, have yielded to the outcry against a tax, the 202 Englano in the Øay3 of QIO. continuing of which would have enabled him to let the labourer drink his humble beverage at a reduced price, or the industrious artisan to pursue his occupation by a cheaper light. But we live in other times—in the age of improvement ' To stake patrimonal estates at hazard or écorté, in the purlieus of St. James's, is merely amusement, but to purchase a ticket in the lottery, by which a man may gain an estate at a trifling risk, is— immoral Nay, within a few hours of the time I write, were not many of our nobility and senators, some of whom, I dare say, voted against lotteries, assembled, betting thousands upon a horse race In saying so much, it may be thought that I am somewhat presumptuous, or that I take a partial view of the case. It is, however, my honest opinion, abstracted from personal con- siderations, that the measure of abolishing lotteries is an unwise one, and, as such, I give it to that public, of which I have been, for many years, the highly favoured servant, and for whose patronage, though lotteries cease, my gratitude will ever continue.” We will close our studies on this subject with a copy of an epitaph written in remembrance of these old-time institutions. It is as follows:– $5tate ILOtteries. 203 In Memory of THE STATE LOTTERy, the last of a long line whose origin in England commenced in the year 1569, which, after a series of tedious complaints, Eacpired on the 18th day of October, 1826. During a period of 257 years, the family flourished under the powerful protection of the British Parliament ; the Minister of the day continuing to give them his support for the improvement of the revenue. As they increased, it was found that their continuance corrupted the morals and encouraged a spirit of Speculation and Gambling among the lower classes of the people ; thousands of whom fell victims to their insinuating and tempting allurements. Many philanthropic individuals in the Senate, at various times for a series of years, pointed out their baneful influence without effect, His Majesty's Ministers still affording them their countenance and protection. The British Parliament being, at length, convinced of their 204 Englalto in the Øay).5 of QIO. mischievous tendency, His Majesty, GEORGE IV., on the 9th July, 1823, pronounced sentence of condemnation on the whole of the race ; from which time they were almost NEGLECTED BY THE BRITISH PUBLIC. Very great efforts were made by the Partizans and friends of the family to excite the public feeling in favour of the last of the race, in vain : It continued to linger out the few remaining moments of its existence without attention or sympathy, and finally terminated its career, unregretted by any virtuous mind. JBea rej6aiting. EW sports in England have been more popular than bear-baiting. Other forms of amusement waned before its attractions. The Sovereign, in the days of old, had as a member of his Court a Bearward, as well as a Chancellor. In and about London the sport was largely patronised, but it was by no means confined to the Metropolis; in all parts of the country bear- baitings were held. Fitzstephen, a monk of Canterbury, who lived in the reign of Henry II., in his description of London, relates that in the forenoon of every holy day during the winter SeaSOn, the youthful Londoners were amused with the baiting of bears and other animals. He says the bears were full grown. Edward III., in his proclamation, includes bear-baiting amongst “dishonest, trivial, and useless games.” The proclamation does not appear to have had any lasting effect on the public as regards bear-baiting. The diversion increased in popularity. - 206 Englano in the Øay)3 of QIO. Southwark was a popular place for baiting animals, and Sunday the usual day for the amusement. Stow has several notes bearing on this theme. In respect to charges to witness the sport, he tells us “those who go to the Paris Garden, the Belle Sauvage, the Theatre, to behold bear-baiting, interludes, or fence-play, must not account (i.e., reckon on) any pleasant spectacle unless they first pay one penny at the gate, another at the entrie of the scaffold, and a third for quiet standing.” We learn from Stow that at Southwark were two bear-gardens, the old and the new ; places wherein were kept bears, bulls, and other beasts to be baited ; as also mastiffs in their several kennels were there nourished to bait them. These bears and other beasts were baited in plots of ground scaffolded round for the beholders to stand safe. Stow condemns the foulness of these rude sights, and says the money idly thrown away upon them might have been given to the poor. In the reign of Henry VIII., Erasmus visited England, and he relates that many herds of bears were maintained at the Court for the purpose of being baited. We are further told by him that the rich nobles had their bearwards, and the JBeat-JBaiting. 2 07 Royal establishment its Master of the King's Bears. Men were not wanting to raise their voices against this brutal sport even at the time kings favoured it. Towards the close of the reign of Henry VIII., Crowley wrote some lines, which º % § % § º § % wº- º - #% * º f º § •º §:2:3:2::$35:S3 ׺cº º §: ãº; § ºš ** § § tº: Ç - - º º º ś §§ § § BEAR GARDEN, OR HOPE THEATRE, 1647. we have modernised, as follows:– “What folly is this to keep with danger A great mastiff dog, and foul, ugly bear, And to this intent to see these two fight With terrible tearing, a full ugly sight. And methinks these men are most fools of all Whose store of money is but very small, And yet every Sunday they will surely spend A penny or two, the bear-ward's living to mend. 208 Englano in the Øays of QIO. At Paris Garden, each Sunday, a man shall not fail To find two or three hundred for the bear-ward's vale; One halfpenny a piece they use for to give When some have not more in their purses, I believe. Well, at the last day their conscience will declare That the poor ought to have all that they may spare, If you therefore go to witness a bear fight Be sure that God His curse will upon you alight.” We may recognise the zeal of the writer, but we cannot commend the merits of his poetry. When Princess Elizabeth was confined at Hatfield House, she was visited by her sister, Queen Mary. On the morning after her arrival, after mass was over, a grand entertainment of bear-baiting took place, much to their enjoyment. Elizabeth, as a princess, took a delight in this sport, and when she occupied the throne she gave it her support. When the theatre, in the palmy days of Shakespeare and Burbage, was attracting a larger share of public patronage than the bear garden, she waxed indignant, and in 1591 an order was issued from the Privy Council, forbidding “plays to be performed on Thursdays because bear-baiting and such pastimes had usually been practised.” The Lord Mayor followed the order with an injunction in which it was stated “that in divers places the players are "HJ.378 V ZI^IGH '4 Iwº J. ‘ŞINI,LvGI HJ, zagorſ oºſ H JL ！№s= №.2， … ±±，±，±，±，±）; §§§:№ºaeae …！！！！！！！***！ ----£50！！！！≤ «»&（（**®© ®§Êtae§§§§）§ → · § ~~^\！\,}.\！* *_§§№ſ：§ºsae№：№ĒĒAſ ºs º .<~~§±！！！！±%±Ē№ ^^^ y^vº^. Aº§§ĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĖĖ№№& ●:：*«№№è=！№.§§s====* §§§§Ê№Ęğ！ * &！§§±（−ºs （***） © ***（№ •& <！--e… *ae ĢĒĶī£āÊae_-_№=2） §§==