Movatterモバイル変換

he wig was for a long period extremely popular in old England, and itshistory is full of interest. At the present time, when the wig is nolonger worn by the leaders of fashion, we cannot fully realize theimportant place it held in bygone times. Professional, as well asfashionable 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 fardistant times. It was worn in Egypt in remote days, and the Egyptians aresaid to have invented it, not merely as a covering for baldness, but as ameans of adding to[Pg 2]the attractiveness of the person wearing it. On themummies of Egypt wigs are found, and we give a picture of one now in theBritish Museum. This particular wig probably belonged to a female, and wasfound near the small temple of Isis, Thebes. “As the Egyptians alwaysshaved their heads,” says Dr. T. Robinson, “they could scarcely devise abetter covering than the wig, which, while it protected them from the raysof the sun, allowed, from the texture of the article, the transpirationfrom the head to escape, which is not the case with the turban.” Dr.Robinson has devoted much study to this subject, and his conclusions meritcareful consideration. He also points out that in the examples of Egyptianwigs in the British and Berlin Museums the upper portions are made ofcurled hair, the plaited hair being confined to the lower part and thesides. On the[Pg 3] authority of Wilkinson, says Dr. Robinson, “these wigs wereworn both within the house and out of doors. At parties the head-dress ofthe guests was bound with a chaplet of flowers, and ointment was put uponthe 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 isrecorded amongst ancient nations, including Persians, Medes, Lydians,Carians, Greeks, and Romans. Amongst the latter nationgalerus, a roundcap, was the common name for a wig.

The early fathers of the Church denounced the wig as an invention of theEvil One. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, as a proof of the virtue of his simplesister Gorgonia, said, “she neither cared to curl her own hair, nor torepair its lack of beauty by the aid of a wig.” St. Jerome pronouncedthese adornments as unworthy of Christianity. The matter receivedconsideration or perhaps, to put it more correctly, condemnation, at manycouncils, commencing at Constantinople, and coming down to the ProvincialCouncil 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 womanwho wears a wig commits[Pg 4] a mortal sin.” St. John Chrysostom pleadedpowerfully against this enormity; and others might be mentioned who spokewith no uncertain sound against this fashion.

Dr. Doran relates a strange story, saying St. Jerome vouches for itsauthenticity, and by him it was told to deter ladies from wearing wigs.“Prætexta,” to use Doran’s words, “was a very respectable lady, married toa somewhat paganist husband, Hymetius. Their niece, Eustachia, residedwith them. At the instigation of the husband Prætexta took the shyEustachia in hand, attired her in a splendid dress, and covered her fairneck with ringlets. Having enjoyed the sight of the modest maiden soattired, Prætexta went to bed. To that bedside immediately descended anangel, with wrath upon his brow, and billows of angry sounds rolling fromhis lips. ‘Thou hast,’ said the spirit, ‘obeyed thy husband rather thanthe Lord, and has dared to deck the hair of a virgin, and made her looklike a daughter of earth. For this do I wither up thy hands, and bid themrecognize the enormity of thy crime in the amount of thy anguish andbodily suffering. Five months more shalt thou live, and then Hell shall bethy portion; and if thou art bold[Pg 5] enough to touch the head of Eustachiaagain, thy husband and thy children shall die even before thee.’”

Church history furnishes some strange stories against wearing wigs, andthe following may be taken as a good example. Clemens of Alexandria, soruns the tale, surprised wig-wearers by telling those that knelt at churchto receive the blessing, they must please to bear in mind that thebenediction remained on the wig, and did not pass through to the wearer!Some immediately removed their wigs, but others allowed them to remain, nodoubt hoping to receive a blessing.

Poetry and history supply many interesting passages bearing on our presentinvestigations. The Lycians having been engaged in war, were defeated.Mausoleus, their conqueror, ruthlessly directed the subdued men to havetheir heads shaven. This was humiliating in the extreme, and the Lycianswere keenly alive to their ridiculous appearance. The king’s general wastempted with bribes, and finally yielded, and allowed wigs to be importedfor them from Greece, and thus the symbol of degredation became the pinkof Lycian fashion.

Hannibal, the brave soldier, is recorded to have[Pg 6] 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 theeighteenth centuries. Says Stow, they were introduced into this countryabout the time of the Massacre of Paris, but they are not often alluded tountil the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The earliest payment for one in thePrivy Purse expenses occurs in December, 1529, and is for twenty shillings“for aperwyke for Sexton, the king’s fool.” Some twenty years laterwigs, or, to give the full title, periwigs, became popular.

In France the mania was at its height in the reign of Louis XIV. We aretold in 1656 he had not fewer than forty courtperruquiers, and these,by an order of Council, were declared artistes. In addition to this, LeGros instituted at Paris an Académie de France des Perruquiers. Robinsonrecords that a storm was gathering about their heads. He tells us “thecelebrated Colbert, amazed at the large sums spent for foreign hair,conceived the idea of prohibiting the wearing of wigs at Court, and triedto introduce a kind of cap.” He lost the day, for it was proved that[Pg 7] moremoney reached the country for wigs than went out to purchase hair. Thefashion increased; larger wigs were worn, and some even cost £200 apiece.

Charles II. was the earliest English king represented on the Great Sealwearing a large periwig. Dr. Doran assures us that the king did not bringthe fashion to Whitehall. “He forbade,” we are told, “the members of theUniversities to wear periwigs, smoke tobacco, or to read their sermons.The members did all three, and Charles soon found himself doing the firsttwo.”

Pepys’ “Diary” contains much interesting information concerning wigs.Under date of 2nd November, 1663, he writes: “I heard the Duke say that hewas going to wear a periwig, and says the King also will. I never tillthis day observed that the King is mighty gray.” It was perhaps the changein the colour of his Majesty’s hair that induced him to assume thehead-dress he had previously so strongly condemned.

As might be expected, Pepys, who delighted to be in the fashion, adoptedthe wig. He took time to consider the matter, and had consultations withMr. Jervas, his old barber, about the affair. Referring in his “Diary” to[Pg 8]one of his visits to his hairdresser, Pepys says “I did try two or threeborders and periwigs, meaning to wear one, and yet I have no stomach forit; 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 firstpurpose, from the trouble which I forsee in wearing them also.” Weekspassed before he could make up his mind to wear a wig. Mrs. Pepys wastaken to the periwig-maker’s shop to see the one made for Mr. Pepys, andexpressed her satisfaction on seeing it. We read in April, 1665, of thewig 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 hesaid “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 onmy coloured silk suit, very fine, and my new periwig, bought a good whilesince, but durst not wear, because the plague was in Westminster when Ibought it; and it is a wonder what will be in fashion, after the plague isdone, as to periwigs, for nobody will dare to buy any hair, for fear ofthe infection, that it had been cut off the heads of people dead of theplague.”

[Pg 9]We learn from an entry in the “Diary” for June 11th, 1666, that ladies inaddition to assuming masculine costume for riding, wore long wigs.“Walking in the galleries at Whitehall,” observes Mr. Pepys, “I find theladies of honour dressed in their riding garbs, with coats and doubletswith deep skirts, just for all the world like mine, and buttoned theirdoublets up the breast, with periwigs and with hats, so that, only forlong petticoats dragging under their men’s coats, nobody could take themfor women in any point whatever.”

Pepys, we have seen, wondered if periwigs would survive after the terribleplague. He thought not, but he was mistaken. Wigs still remained popular.The plague passed away, and its terrors were forgotten. The world of follywent on much as of yore, perhaps with greater gaiety, as a reaction to thelengthened time of depression.

In some instances the wig appears much out of place, and a notable exampleis that given in the portrait by Kneller, of George, Earl of Albemarle. Heis dressed in armour, and wearing a long flowing wig. Anything more absurdcould scarcely be conceived.

[Pg 10]The beau of the period when the wig was popular carried in his pocketbeautifully 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 aim of his life. Sir JohnHawkins, in his “History of Music,” published in 1776, has an informingnote on combing customs. “On the Mall and in the theatre,” he tells us,“gentlemen conversed and combed their perukes. There is now in being afine picture by the elder Laroon of John, Duke of Marlborough, at hislevée, in which his Grace is represented dressed in a scarlet suit, withlarge white satin cuffs, and a very long white peruke which he combs,while his valet, who stands behind him, adjusts the curls after the combhas passed through them.” Allusions to the practice may be found in theplays from the reign of Charles II. down to the days of Queen Anne. Weread in[Pg 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.”

Thomas Brown, in his “Letters from the Dead to the Living” presents a penportrait of beaux, as they appeared at the commencement of the eighteenthcentury. Some of the passages are well worth reproducing, as they containvaluable information concerning wigs. “We met,” says the writer, “threeflaming beaux of the first magnitude. He in the middle made a mostmagnificent 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. Hissword-knot dangled upon the ground, and his steinkirk, that was mostagreeably discoloured with snuff from the top to the bottom, reach’d downto his waist; he carry’d his hat under his left arm, walk’d with bothhands in the waistband of his breeches, and his cane, that hungnegligently down in a string from his right arm, trail’d mostharmoniously[Pg 12] against the pebbles, while the master of it was tripping itnicely upon his toes, or humming to himself.” Down to the middle of theeighteenth century, wigs continued to increase in size.

It will not now be without interest to direct attention to a few of themany styles of wigs.

Randle Holme, in his “Academy of Armory,” published in 1684, has someinteresting illustrations, and we will draw upon him for a couple ofpictures. Our first example is called the campaign-wig. He says it “hathknots or bobs, or dildo, on each side, with a curled forehead.” This isnot so cumbrous as the periwig we have noticed.

Another example from Holme is a smaller style of periwig with tail, andfrom this wig doubtless originated the familiar pig-tail. It was ofvarious forms, and Swift says:—

A third example given by Holme is named the “short-bob,” and is a plainperuke, imitating a[Pg 13] natural head of hair. “Perukes,” says Malcolm, in his“Manners and Customs,” “were an highly important article in 1734. Those ofright gray human hair were four guineas each; light grizzle ties, threeguineas; and other colours in proportion, to twenty-five shillings. Rightgray human hair, cue perukes, from two guineas; white, fifteen shillingseach, which was the price of dark ones; and right gray bob perukes, twoguineas and a half; fifteen shillings was the price of dark bobs. Thosemixed with horsehair were much lower. It will be observed, from thegradations in price, that real gray hair was most in fashion, and dark ofno estimation.” As time ran its course, wigs became more varied in form,and bore different names.

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, formallycurled perukes. In 1706, the English, led by Marlborough, gained a greatvictory on the battlefield of Ramillies, and that gave the title to a longwig described as “having a long, gradually diminishing, plaited tail,called the[Pg 14] ‘Ramillie-tail,’ which was tied with a great bow at the top,and a smaller one at the bottom.” It is stated in Read’sWeekly Journalof 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 hisMajesty’s order.” We meet in the reign of George II. other forms of thewig, and more titles for them; the most popular, perhaps, was thepigtail-wig. The pig-tails were worn hanging down the back, or tied up ina knot behind, as shown in our illustration. This form of wig was popularin the army, but in 1804, orders were given for it to be reduced to seveninches in length, and finally, in 1808, to be cut off.

Here is a picture of an ordinary man; by no means can he be regarded as abeau. He is wearing a common bag-wig, dating back to about the middle ofthe eighteenth[Pg 15] century. The style is modified to suit an individualtaste, and for one who did not follow the extreme fashion of his time. Inthis example may be observed the sausage curls over the ear, and thefrizziness over the forehead.

We have directed attention to the large periwigs, and given a portrait ofthe Earl of Albemarle wearing one. In the picture of the House of Commonsin the time of Sir Robert Walpole we get an excellent indication of howpopular the periwig was amongst the law-makers of the land. Farquhar, in acomedy called “Love and a Bottle,” brought out in 1698, says, “a full wigis imagined to be as infallible a token of wit as the laurel.”

Tillotson is usually regarded as the first amongst the English clergy toadopt the wig. He said in one of his sermons: “I can remember since thewearing of hair below the ears was looked upon as a sin of the firstmagnitude, and when ministers generally, whatever their text was, dideither find or make occasion to reprove the great sin of long hair; and ifthey saw any one in the congregation guilty in that kind, they would pointhim out particularly, and let fly at him with great zeal.” Dr. Tillotsondied on November 24th, 1694.

[Pg 16]Wigs found favour with parsons, and in course of time they appear to havebeen indispensable. A volume in 1765, was issued under the title of “FreeAdvice to a Young Clergyman,” from the pen of the Rev. John Chubbe, inwhich he recommended the young preacher to always wear a full wig untilage had made his own hair respectable. Dr. Randolph, on his advancement tothe bishopric, presumed to wait upon George IV. to kiss hands withoutwearing a wig. This could not be overlooked by the king, and he said, “Mylord, you must have a wig.” Bishops wore[Pg 17] wigs until the days of WilliamIV. Bishop Blomfield is said to have been the first bishop to set theexample of wearing his own hair. Even as late as 1858, at the marriage ofthe Princess Royal of England, Archbishop Sumner appeared in his wig.

Medical men kept up the custom of wearing wigs for a long period; perhapsthey felt like a character in Fielding’s farce, “The Mock Doctor,” whoexclaims, “I must have a physician’s habit, for a physician can no moreprescribe without a full wig than without a fee.” The wig known as thefull-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 whichcommenced:

“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[Pg 18] importance was attached to thisportion of a medical man’s costume, that Dr. Brocklesby’s barber was inthe habit of carrying a bandbox through the High Change, exclaiming: Makeway 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 andbarristers. Such wigs are made of horsehair, cleaned and curled with care,and woven on silk threads, and shaped to fit the head with exactness. Thecost 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 JudgeCockburn, and in his hurry appeared without a wig. “I hear your voice,”sternly said his Lordship, “but I cannot see you.” The barrister had toobtain the loan of a wig from a learned friend before the judge wouldlisten to him.

Lord Eldon suffered much from headache, and when he was raised to thepeerage he petitioned the King to allow him to dispense with the wig. Hewas refused; his Majesty saying he could not permit such an innovation. Invain did his Lordship show that the wig was an innovation, as the[Pg 19] oldjudges did not wear them. “True,” said the King; “the old judges worebeards.”

In more recent times we have particulars of several instances of bothbench and bar discarding the use of the wig. At the Summer Assizes atLancaster, in 1819, a barrister named Mr. Scarlett hurried into court, andwas permitted to take part in a trial without his wig and gown. Next daythe whole of the members of the bar appeared without their professionalbadges, but only on this occasion, although on the previous day a hope hadbeen expressed that the time was not far distant when the mummeries ofcostume would be entirely discarded.

We learn from a report in theTimes of July 24th, 1868, that on accountof the unprecedented heat of the weather on the day before in the Court ofProbate and Divorce the learned judge and bar appeared without wigs.

On July 22nd, 1874, it is recorded that Dr. Kenealy rose to open the casefor 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 theUniversities who ventured[Pg 20] to wear their own hair, and such as did weredesignated 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 wascurled and frizzed with considerable care, and frequently false curls wereworn under the name of heart-breakers. It will be seen from theillustration we give that these curls increased the beauty of a prettyface.

Queen Elizabeth, we gather from Hentzner and other authorities, wore falsehair. We are told that ladies, in compliment to her, dyed[Pg 21] their hair asandy 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 ahairdresser, although we see the barber thoughtfully employed on a wig.The barber at this period was an important man. A few of his dutiesconsisted in dressing wigs, using the razor, cutting hair, starchingbeards, curling moustachios, tying up love-locks, dressing sword-woundsreceived in[Pg 22] street frays, and the last, and by no means the least, of hisvaried functions was that of receiver and circulator of news and scandal.

It is recorded that Mary Queen of Scots obtained wigs from Edinburgh notmerely while in Scotland, but during her long and weary captivity inEngland. From “The True Report of the Last Moments of Mary Stuart,” itappears, when the executioner lifted the head by the hair to show it tothe 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 theWhitehall Evening Post ofAugust 17th, 1727, that when the King, George II., reviewed the Guards,the three eldest Princesses “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 thatits use made a plain face presentable. There is a good election story ofDaniel O’Connell. It is related during a fierce debate on the hustings,O’Connell with his biting, witty tongue attacked his opponent on accountof his ill-favoured countenance. But, not to be outdone, and thinking toturn the gathering[Pg 23] against O’Connell, his adversary called out, “Take offyour wig, and I’ll warrant that you’ll prove the uglier.” The wittyIrishman immediately responded, amidst roars of laughter from the crowd,by snatching the wig from off his own head and exposing to view a baldplate, destitute of a single hair. The relative question of beauty wasscarcely settled by this amusing rejoinder, but the laugh was certainly onO’Connell’s side.

An interesting tale is told of Peter the Great of Russia. In the year1716, the famous Emperor was at Dantzig, taking part in a public ceremony,and feeling his head somewhat cold, he stretched[Pg 24] out his hand, andseizing the wig from the head of the burgomaster sitting below him, heplaced it on his own regal head. The surprise of the spectators may bebetter imagined than described. On the Czar returning the wig, hisattendants explained that his Majesty was in the habit of borrowing thewig of any nobleman within reach on similar occasions. His Majesty, it maybe added, was short of hair.

In the palmy days of wigs the price of a full wig of an English gentlemanwas from thirty to forty guineas. Street quarrels in the olden time wereby no means uncommon; care had to be[Pg 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 toldthat robberies were frequently committed. Sam Rogers thus describes asuccessful mode of operation: “A boy was carried covered over in abutcher’s tray by a tall man, and the wig was twisted off in a moment bythe boy. The bewildered owner looked all around for it, when an accompliceimpeded his progress under the pretence of assisting him while thetray-bearer made off.”

“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 thePeruke Riot. On February 11th, 1765, a curious spectacle was witnessed inthe streets of London, and one that caused some amusement. Fashion hadchanged; the peruke was no longer in favour, and only worn to a limitedextent. A large number of peruke-makers were thrown out of employment,[Pg 26]and distress prevailed amongst them. The sufferers thought that help mightbe obtained from George III., and a petition was accordingly drawn up forthe enforcement of gentlefolk wearing wigs for the benefit of thewig-makers. A procession was formed, and waited upon the King at St.James’s Palace. His Majesty, we are told, returned a gracious answer, butit must have cost him considerable effort to have maintained his gravity.

Besides the monarch, the unemployed had to encounter the men of themetropolis, and from a report of the period we learn they did not fare sowell. “As the distressed men went processionally through the town,” saysthe account, “it was observed that most of the wig-makers, who wantedother people to wear them, wore no wigs themselves; and this striking theLondon mob as something monstrously unfair and inconsistent, they seizedthe petitioners, and cut off all their hairper force.”

Horace Walpole alludes to this ludicrous petition in one of his letters.“Should we wonder,” he writes, “if carpenters were to remonstrate thatsince the Peace there is no demand for wooden legs?” The wags of the day[Pg 27]could not allow the opportunity to pass without attempting to provoke moremirth out of the matter, and a petition was published purporting to comefrom the body carpenters imploring his Majesty to wear a wooden leg, andto enjoin his servants to appear in his royal presence with the samegraceful decoration.

Powdering the Hair.

In the olden days hair-powder was largely used in this country, and manycircumstances connected with its history are curious and interesting. Welearn from Josephus that the Jews used hair-powder, and from the East itwas no doubt imported into Rome. The history of the luxurious days of thelater Roman Empire supplies some strange stories. At this period gold-dustwas employed by several of the emperors. “The hair of Commodus,” it isstated on the authority of Herodian, “glittered from its naturalwhiteness, and from the quantity of essences and gold-dust with which itwas loaded, so that when the sun was shining it might have been thoughtthat his head was on fire.”

It is supposed, and not without a good show of reason, that the Saxonsused coloured hair-powder, or perhaps they dyed their hair. In Saxonpictures the beard and hair are often painted blue. Strutt suppliesinteresting 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[Pg 29] it is of a green and orange hue. I have no doubt existingin my own mind, that arts of some kind were practised at this period tocolour the hair; but whether it was done by tingeing or dyeing it withliquids prepared for that purpose according to the ancient Eastern custom,or by powders of different hues cast into it, agreeably to the modernpractice, I shall not presume to determine.”

It was customary among the Gauls to wash the hair with a lixivium made ofchalk in order to increase its redness. The same custom was maintained inEngland for a long period, and was not given up until after the reign ofElizabeth. The sandy-coloured hair of the queen greatly increased thepopularity of the practice.

The satirists have many allusions to this subject, more especially thoseof the reigns of James and Charles I. In a series of epigrams entitled“Wit’s Recreations,” 1640, the following appears under the heading of “OurMonsieur Powder-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.”

“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.” Theauthor closes with a tirade against female follies in these words:—“Itwere a good deed to tell men also of mealing their heads and shoulders, ofwearing fardingales about their legs, etc.; for these likewise deserve therod, since all that are discreet do but hate and scorn them for it.” A“Loyal Litany” against the Oliverians runs thus:—

Massinger, in the “City Madam,” printed in 1679, describing the dress of arich 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.”

[Pg 31]John Gay, in his poem, “Trivia, or the Art of Walking the Streets ofLondon,” 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 particularsrespecting the taxing of powder. On 8th August, 1751, “Mr. John Brooks,”it is stated, “attended and produced a deed to which he requested thesubscription of the Court; this deed recited that by an Act of Parliamentpassed in the tenth year of Queen Anne, it was enacted that a duty oftwopence per pound should be laid upon all starch imported, and of a pennyper pound upon all starch made in Great Britain, that no perfumer, barber,or seller of hair-powder should mix any powder of alabaster, plaster ofParis, whiting, lime, etc. (sweet scents excepted), with any starch to bemade use of for making hair-powder, under a pain of forfeiting thehair-powder and £50, and that any person who should expose the same forsale should forfeit it and £20.” Other details were given in the deed, andthe Barber-Surgeons gave it their support, and promised twenty guineas[Pg 32]towards the cost of passing the Bill through Parliament.

A few years prior to the above proceeding we gather from theGentleman’sMagazine particulars of some convictions for using powder not made inaccordance with the laws of the land. “On the 20th October, 1745,” it isrecorded, “fifty-one barbers were convicted before the commissioners ofexcise, and fined in the penalty of £20, for having in their custodyhair-powder not made of starch, contrary to Act of Parliament: and on the27th of the same month, forty-nine other barbers were convicted of thesame offence, and fined in the like penalty.”

Before powder was used, the hair was generally greased with pomade, andpowdering operations were attended with some trouble. In houses of anypretension 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 wentbehind, exposing the head only, which received its proper supply of powderwithout any going on the clothes of the individual dressed.

In theRambler, No. 109, under date 1751, a young gentleman writes thathis mother would[Pg 33] rather follow him to his grave than see him sneak aboutwith 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, anAct 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 guineaper head on those who used hair-powder. He was prepared to meet muchridicule by this movement, but he saw that it would yield a considerablerevenue, estimating it as much as £200,000 a year. Fox, with force, saidthat a fiscal arrangement dependent on a capricious fashion must beregarded as an absurdity, but the Opposition were unable to defeat theproposal, and the Act was passed. Pitt’s powerful rival, Charles JamesFox, 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 theMonthly Magazine: “He had his chapeau-bas, his red-heeled shoes, and hisblue hair-powder.” Later, when Pitt’s tax was gathered, like other Whigshe refused to use hair-powder. For more than a quarter of a century it hadbeen customary for men to wear their hair long, tied in a pig-tail and[Pg 34]powdered. Pitt’s measure gave rise to a number of Crop Clubs. TheTimesfor April 14th, 1795, contains particulars of one. “A numerous club,” saysthe paragraph, “has been formed in Lambeth, called theCrop Club, everymember of which, on his entrance, is obliged to have his head docked asclose as the Duke of Bridgewater’s old bay coach-horses. This assemblageis instituted for the purpose of opposing, or rather evading, the tax onpowdered heads.” Hair cropping was by no means confined to the humblerranks of society. TheTimes of April 25th, 1795, reports that:—“Thefollowing noblemen and gentlemen were at the party with the Duke ofBedford, at Woburn Abbey, when a general cropping and combing out ofhair-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 ofthem wore their hair tied, or powdered, within a certain period. Manynoblemen and gentlemen in the county of Bedford have since followed theexample: it has become general with the gentry in Hampshire, and theladies have left off wearing powder.” Hair-powder did not long continue inuse in the army, for in 1799 it was abolished on account of the high priceof flour, caused through[Pg 35] the bad harvests. Using flour for the hairinstead of for food was an old grievance among the poor. In the “Art ofDressing 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 shillingsand sixpence. Pitt’s Tory friends gave him loyal support. The Whigs mighttaunt them by calling them “guinea-pigs,” it mattered little, for theywere not merely ready to pay the tax for themselves but to pay patrioticguineas for their servants. A number of persons were exempt from payingthe tax, including “the royal family and their servants, the clergy withan income of under £100 per annum, subalterns, non-commissioned officersand privates in the army and navy, and all officers and privates of theyeomanry and volunteers enrolled during the past year. A father havingmore than two unmarried daughters might obtain on payment for two, alicense for the remainder.” A gentlemen took out a license for his butler,coachman, and footman, etc., and if[Pg 36] he changed during the year it stoodgood for the newly engaged servants.

Powder was not wholly set aside by ladies until 1793, when withconsideration Queen Charlotte abandoned its use, swayed no doubt by herdesire 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 morelikely that the artists painted the hair “full and flowing” because theyfound it so, not that they as a class dictated to their patronesses indespite of fashion. The French Revolution had somewhat to do with thechange, a powdered head or wig was a token of aristocracy, and as thefashion might lead to the guillotine, sensible people discarded it longbefore the English legislature put a tax upon its use.

With reference to this Sir Walter Scott says in the fifth chapter of “TheAntiquary”:—“Regular were the Antiquary’s inquiries at an old-fashionedbarber, who dressed the only three wigs in the parish, which, in defianceof taxes and times, were still subjected to the operation of powdering andfrizzling, and who for that purpose divided his time among[Pg 37] the threeemployers whom fashion had yet left him.”

“Fly with this letter, Caxon,” said the senior (the Antiquary), holdingout his missive, “fly to Knockwinnock, and bring me back an answer. Go asfast as if the town council were met and waiting for the provost, and theprovost was waiting for his new powdered wig.” “Ah, sir,” answered themessenger, with a deep sigh, “thae days hae lang gane by. Deil a wig has aprovost of Fairport worn sin’ auld Provost Jervie’s time—and he had aquean of a servant-lass that dressed it hersel’, wi’ the doup o’ a candleand a dredging box. But I hae seen the day, Monkbarns, when the towncouncil of Fairport wad hae as soon wanted their town-clerk, or their gillof brandy ower-head after the haddies, as they wad hae wanted ilk ane aweel-favoured, sonsy, decent periwig on his pow. Hegh, sirs! nae wonderthe commons will be discontent, and rise against the law, when they seemagistrates, and bailies, and deacons, and the provost himsel’, wi’ headsas bald an’ as bare as one o’ my blocks.”

It was not in Scotland alone that the barber was peripatetic. “In the lastcentury,” says Mrs. G. Linnæus Banks, author of the “Manchester[Pg 38] Man” andother popular novels, “he waited on his chief customers or patrons attheir 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 ownerof 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 andimperative. When at least a couple of hours were required for thearrangement of a single toupée or tower, or commode, as the head-dress wascalled, it may well be understood that for two or three days prior to theball the hairdresser was in demand, and as it was impossible to lie downwithout disarranging the structure he had raised on pads, or framework ofwire, plastering with pomatum and disguising with powder, the belles soadorned or disfigured were compelled to sit up night and day, catchingwhat sleep was possible in a chair. And when I add that a head so dressedwas rarely disturbed for ten days or a fortnight, it needs no stretch ofimagination to realize what a mass of loathsome nastiness the[Pg 39] fine ladiesof the last century carried about with them, or what strong stomachs thebarbers must have had to deal with them.”

The Tories often regarded with mistrust any persons who did not usehair-powder. The Rev. J. Charles Cox,LL.D., F.S.A., the eminentantiquary, relates a good story respecting his grandfather. “So late as1820,” says Dr. Cox, “Major Cox of Derby, an excellent Tory, declined forsome time to allow his son Edward to become a pupil of a well-knownclerical tutor, for the sole reason that the clergyman did not powder, andwore his hair short, arguing that he must therefore, be a dangerousrevolutionist.”

In 1869 the tax on hair-powder was repealed, when only some 800 personspaid it, producing about £1,000 per year.

Men wearing Muffs.

The muff in bygone times was worn by men as well as women. Several writersstate that it was introduced into England in the reign of Charles II., butthis is not correct, for, although it is not of great antiquity, it cancertainly be traced back to a much earlier period. Most probably itreached us from France, and when it came into fashion it was small insize.

The earliest representation of a muff that has come under our noticeoccurs in a drawing by Gaspar Rutz (1598) of an English lady, and shewears it pendant from her girdle. A few years later in the wardrobeaccounts of Prince Henry of Wales, a charge is made for embroidering twomuffs. The entries occur in 1608, and are as follow:—“One of cloth ofsilver, embroidered with purles, plates, and Venice twists of silver andgold; the other of black satten, embroidered with black silk and bugles,viz., for one £7, the other 60s.” Muffs were usually ornamented withbunches of gay ribbons, or some other decorations,[Pg 41] and were generallyhung round the neck with ribbons.

Several poems and plays of the olden time contain references to men usingmuffs. One of the earliest, if not the first, to mention a man wearing amuff, occurs in an epistle by Samuel Rowlands, written about 1600. It isas 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.
Themuffes, 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:—

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, refersto themonstrous muff worn by the beau.

Pepys made a point of being in fashion, but in respect to the muff he wasmost economical. He says he took his wife’s last year’s muff, and it is[Pg 42]pleasing to record that he gallantly bought her a new one.

Professional men did not neglect to add to their dignity by the use of themuff. In addition to the gold-headed cane, the doctor carried a muff. Anold book called “The Mother-in-law,” includes a character who is advisedby his friends to become a physician. Says one to him: “’Tis but puttingon the doctor’s gown and cap, and you’ll have more knowledge in an instantthan you’ll know what to do withal.” Observes another friend: “Besides,sir, if you had no other qualification than that muff of yours, twould goa great way. A muff is more than half in the making of a doctor.” Cibbletells Nightshade in Cumberland’s “Cholerick Man,” 1775, to “Tuck yourhands in yourmuff and never open your lips for the rest of theafternoon; ’twill gain you respect in every house you enter.” AlexanderWedderburn, before being called to the English Bar in 1757, had practisedas an advocate in his native city, Edinburgh. In his references to hisearly days, there is an allusion to the muff, showing that its use musthave been by no means uncommon in Scotland in the middle of the eighteenthcentury. “Knowing my countrymen[Pg 43]at that time,” he tells us, “I was atgreat pains to study and assume a very grave, solemn deportment for ayoung man, which my marked features, notwithstanding my small stature,would render more imposing. Men then wore in wintersmall muffs, and Iflatter myself that, as I paced to the Parliament House, no man of fiftycould look more thoughtful or steady. My first client was a citizen whom Idid not know. He called upon me in the course of a cause, and becomingfamiliar 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 mostpunctual of any, as the clock struck nine, and you looked so grave andbusiness-like, that I resolved from your appearance to have you for myadvocate.’”[Pg 44] More instances of the muff amongst professional men might becited, but the foregoing are sufficient to indicate the value set upon itby this class.

Towards the end of the seventeenth century it was customary to carry inthe muff small dogs known as “muff dogs,” and Hollar made a picture of oneof these little animals.

A tale is told of the eccentric head of one of the colleges at Oxford, whohad a great aversion to the undergraduates wearing long hair, that on oneoccasion he reduced the length of a young man’s hair by means of abread-knife. It is stated that he carried concealed in his muff a pair ofscissors, and with these he slyly cut off offending locks.

Both theTatler and theSpectator include notices of the muff. In No.153 of theTatler, 1710, is a description of a poor but doubtless aproud person with a muff. “I saw,” it is stated, “he was reduced toextreme poverty, by certain shabby superfluities in his dress,for—notwithstanding that it was a very sultry day for the time of theyear—he wore a loose great coat and amuff. Here we see poverty tryingto imitate prosperity.” There are at least three allusions to[Pg 45] the muff inthe pages of theSpectator. We find in the issue for March 19th, 1711, acorrespondent desires Addison to be “very satyrical upon the little muff”that was then fashionable amongst men.

A satirical print was published in 1756, at the Gold Acorn Tavern, facingHungerford Market, London, called the “Beau Admiral.” It representsAdmiral Byng carrying a large muff. He had been sent to relieve Minorca,besieged by the French, and after a futile action withdrew his ships,declaring that the ministry had not furnished him with a sufficient fleetto 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 newspaperscontain references to them. The following advertisement is drawn from theBoston News Letter of March 5th, 1715:—

[Pg 46]Mrs. Alice Morse Earle, in her “Costume of Colonial Times” (New York:1894), gives other instances of men’s muffs being missing, “In 1725,” saysMrs. Earle, “Dr. Prince lost his ‘black bear-skin muff,’ and in 1740 asable-skin man’s muff was advertised.” It is clear from Mrs. Earle’sinvestigations that the beaux of New England followed closely the lead ofthe dandies of Old England. “I can easily fancy,” she says, “the mincingface 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 atthe severe and ascetic countenance in the portrait of Thomas Prince, Ifind 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 iteven after Revolutionary times. In 1783, in the will of René Hett, of NewYork, several muffs are mentioned, and were considered of sufficientaccount to form bequests.

The puritans of New England had little regard for warmth in their placesof worship, and it is not surprising that men wore muffs. People wereobliged to attend the services of the church unless[Pg 47] they were sick, yetlittle attempt was made to render the places comfortable.

The first stove introduced into a meeting-house in Massachusetts was atBoston 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 theknocking of feet on a cold day towards the close of a long sermon. Thepreachers would ask for a little patience and promise to close theirdiscourses.

Concerning Corporation Customs.

The history of old English Municipal Corporations contains some quaint andinteresting information respecting the laws, customs, and every-day lifeof our forefathers. The institution of corporate towns dates back to aremote period, and in this country we had our corporations before theNorman Conquest. The Norman kings frequently granted charters for theincorporation of towns, and an example is the grant of a charter to Londonby Henry I. in the year 1101.

For more than a century and a half no person was permitted to hold officein a municipal corporation unless he had previously taken sacramentaccording to the rites of the Established Church. The act regulating thismatter was known as the Test Act, which remained in force from the days ofCharles 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, whichgreatly changed the constitution of[Pg 49] many corporate towns and boroughs. Itis not, however, so much the laws as local customs to which we wish todirect attention.

The mace as a weapon may be traced back to a remote period, and was astaff about five feet in length with a metal head usually spiked. Maceswere 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 clearwhen 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 periodand later spikeless maces were carried by the guards attending princes, asa convenient weapon to protect them against the sudden attacks of theassassin. Happily their need passed away, and as a symbol of rank onlythey have remained. In civic processions the mace is usually borne beforethe mayor, and when the sovereign visits a corporate town it is customaryfor the mayor to bear the mace before the monarch. We learn from historythat when Princess Margaret was on her way to Scotland in 1503 to beunited in marriage to James IV., as she passed through the city of Yorkthe Lord Mayor shouldered the mace and carried it[Pg 50]before her. The macewas formerly borne before the mayoress of Southampton when she went out instate. A singular custom connected with the mace obtained at Leicester. Itwas customary for the newly-elected mayor to proceed to the castle, and inaccordance with a charter granted by James I., take an oath before thesteward of the Duchy of Lancaster, “to perform faithfully and well all andevery ancient custom, and so forth according to the best of hisknowledge.” On arrival at a certain place within the precincts of thestronghold the mayor had the great mace lowered from an upright positionas a token of acknowledgment to the ancient feudal earls within theircastle. In 1766 Mr. Fisher, a Jacobite, was elected mayor, and like othersof his class was ever ready when opportunity offered to show his aversionto the reigning dynasty. He purposely omitted the ceremony of lowering themace. When the servant of the mayor refused to “slope the mace,” theConstable of the castle or his deputy refused to admit the mayor. Theceremony was discontinued after this occurrence, and the mayor went inprivate 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 hisMayoralty) ale or wine in his house.”

“Whenever the Mayor appeared in public he[Pg 52] should have a sword carriedbefore him, and his officers should constantly attend him; also he shouldcause everything to be done for the honour of the town, and should nothold his office for two years together.”

“No Aldermen should keep ale-houses or taverns, nor absent themselves fromthe town’s business, nor discover what is said in their councils, underheavy penalties.”

An entry in the annals of Hull in 1549 states that three of the formersheriffs of the town, named respectively Johnson, Jebson, and Thorp, werefined £6 13s. 4d. each “for being deficient in the elegance of theirentertainments, for neglecting to wear scarlet gowns, and for notproviding the same for their wives during their shrievalties.” Ten yearslater a Mr. Gregory was chosen sheriff, and he refused to accept theoffice. The matter was referred to the Queen in Council, and he wasordered 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 Canterbury that, in 1544, it wasdecided “that during winter every dark-night the aldermen, common council,and inn-holders are to find one candle,[Pg 53] with light, at their doors, andthe other inhabitants are to do in like fashion upon request, and if anylantern be stolen, the offender shall be set in the pillory at the mayor’sdiscretion; the candles are to be lighted at six, and continued untilburnt out.”

In 1549 the sheriff of Canterbury paid a fine of three shillings andfourpence for wearing his beard.

Another quaint item in the Canterbury records under the year 1556 is anorder directing the mayor every year before Christmas to provide for themayoress, his wife, to wear one scarlet gown, and a bonnet of velvet. Ifthe 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 inprocession to St. Mary’s Church. At the conclusion of divine service allretired to the vestry, and the retiring mayor occupied the chair at thehead of a table covered with a black cloth, in the middle of which lay themace covered with rosemary and sprigs of bay. This was called burying themace, and no doubt was meant to denote the official decease of the lateholder.[Pg 54]The new mayor was then formally elected, and the outgoing mayortook up the mace, kissed it, and delivered it to his successor with asuitable speech. After the election of other town officials the companyproceeded to the chancel of the church, where the mayor took the oath ofoffice, which was administered by the senior coroner. After the mayor hadbeen proclaimed in public places by the town clerk, a banquet was held atthe municipal buildings; the fare consisted of bread and cheese, fruit inseason, and pipes of[Pg 55] tobacco! The proclaiming of the new mayor did notend on the day of election: on the following market-day he was proclaimedin face of the whole market, and the ceremony took place at one of thetown crosses.

We learn from the Report of the Royal Commission issued in 1837 that theelection 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 wasrang. The retiring mayor and aldermen proceeded to[Pg 56] church, and afterservice walked in procession to the Guildhall, preceded by a womanstrewing flowers and a drummer beating a drum. The mayor was next elected,and he and his fellow-members of the corporation marched round themarket-house, and wound up the day by being weighed, and their weightswere duly recorded by the sergeant-at-mace, who was rewarded with a smallsum of money for his trouble.

In theGentlemen’s Magazine for 1782 we find particulars of past mayoralcustoms at Abingdon, Berkshire. “Riding through Abingdon,” says acorrespondent, “I found the people in the street at the entrance of thetown very busy in adorning the outside of their houses with boughs oftrees and garlands of flowers, and the paths were strewed with rushes. Onehouse was distinguished by a greater number of garlands than the rest. Oninquiring the reason, it seemed that it was usual to have this ceremonyperformed in the street in which the new mayor lived, on the first Sundaythat he went to church after his election.”

At Newcastle-on-Tyne still lingers a curious custom which dates back tothe period when strife was rife between England and Scotland. It has[Pg 57] longbeen the practice to present the judges attending the Assizes on theirarrival with two pairs of gloves, a pair to each of their marshals and tothe other members of their retinue, also to the clerks of Assize and theirofficers. The judges are entertained in a hospitable manner during theirstay in the city. At the conclusion of the business of the Assizes themayor and other members of the Corporation in full regalia wait upon thejudges, and the mayor thus addresses them:—

“My Lords, we have to congratulate you upon having completed your laboursin this ancient town, and have also to inform you that you travel hence toCarlisle, through a border county much and often infested by the Scots; wetherefore present each of your lordships with a piece of money to buytherewith a dagger to defend yourselves.”

The mayor then gives the senior judge a piece of gold of the reign ofJames I., termed aJacobus, and to the junior judge a coin of the reignof Charles I., called aCarolus. After the judge in commission hasreturned thanks the ceremony is ended. Some time ago a witty judgereturned thanks as follows: “I thank the mayor and corporation much forthis gift. I doubt, however,[Pg 58] whether the Scots have been so troublesomeon the borders lately; I doubt, too, whether daggers in any numbers are tobe purchased in this ancient town for the protection of my suite and ofmyself; and I doubt if these coins are altogether a legal tender at thepresent time.”

The local authorities are anxious to keep up the ancient custom enjoinedupon them by an old charter, but they often experience great difficulty inobtaining the old-time pieces of money. Sometimes as much as £15 has beenpaid for one of the scarce coins. “Upon the resignation or the death of ajudge who has travelled the northern circuit, we are told the corporationat once offer to purchase from his representative the ‘dagger-money’received on his visits to Newcastle, in order to use it on futureoccasions.”

It was customary, in the olden time, for the mayor and other members ofthe Banbury Corporation to repair to Oxford during the assizes and visitthe judge at his lodgings, and the mayor, with all the graces of speech athis command, ask “my lord” to accept a present of the celebrated Banburycakes, wine, some long clay pipes, and a pound of tobacco. The judgeaccepted these with gratitude, or, at all[Pg 59] events, in gracious termsexpressed his thanks for their kindness.

The Corporation of Ludlow used to offer hospitality to the judges. Therepresentatives of the town met the train in which the judges travelledfrom Shrewsbury to Hereford, and offered to them cake and wine, the formeron an ancient silver salver, and the latter in a loving-cup wreathed withflowers. Mr. Justice Hill was the cause of the custom coming to aconclusion in 1858. He was travelling the circuit, and he communicatedwith the mayor saying, “owing to the delay occasioned, Her Majesty’sjudges would not stop at Ludlow to receive the wonted hospitality.” We aretold the mayor and corporation were offended, and did not offer to renewthe ancient courtesy.

The making of a “sutor of Selkirk” is attended with some ceremony. “It wasformerly the practice of the burgh corporation of Selkirk,” says Dr.Charles Rogers, the social historian of Scotland, “to provide a collationordejeûner on the invitation of a burgess. The rite of initiationconsisted in the newly-accepted brother passing through the mouth a bunchof bristles which had previously been mouthed by all the members of theboard. This practice was termed ‘licking the[Pg 60] birse:’ it took its originat a period when shoemaking was the staple trade of the place, the birsebeing the emblem of the craft. When Sir Walter Scott was made a burgess or‘sutor of Selkirk,’ he took precaution before mouthing the beslabberedbrush to wash it in his wine, but the act of rebellion was punished by hisbeing compelled to drink the polluted liquor.” In 1819, Prince Leopold wascreated “a sutor of Selkirk,” but the ceremony was modified to meet hismore refined tastes, and the old style has not been resumed. Mr. AndrewLang, a distinguished native of the town, has had the honour conferredupon him of being made a sutor.

The Mayor of Altrincham, Cheshire, in bygone times was, if we are to putany faith in proverbial lore, a person of humble position, and on thisaccount 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 intohis pages in no flattering manner. Mr. Alfred Ingham, in his “History ofAltrincham and Bowdon” (1879), has collected for his book some curious[Pg 61]information bearing on this theme. He relates a tradition respecting oneof the mayors gifted with the grace of repartee, which is well worthreproducing:—“The Mayor of Over—for he and the Mayor of Altrincham areoften coupled—journeyed once upon a time to Manchester. He was somewhatproud, though he went on foot, and on arriving at Altrincham, felt hewould be all the better for a shave. The knight of the steel and the stropperformed the operation most satisfactorily; and as his worship rose todepart, he said rather grand-eloquently, ‘You may tell your customers thatyou have had the honour of shaving the Mayor of Over.’ ‘And you,’ retortedthe ready-witted fellow, ‘may tell yours that you have had the honour ofbeing shaved by the Mayor of Altrincham.’ The rest can be better imaginedthan described.”

We learn from Mr. J. Potter Briscoe that a strange tradition still lingersin Nottingham, to the effect that when King John last visited the town, hecalled at the house of the mayor, and the residence of the priest of St.Mary’s. Finding neither ale in the cellar of one, nor bread in thecupboard of the other, His Majesty ordered every publican in the town tocontribute[Pg 62]sixpennyworth of ale to the mayor annually, and that everybaker should give a half-penny loaf weekly to the priest. The custom wascontinued down to the time of Blackner, the Nottingham historian, whopublished his history in 1815.

The mayor of Rye, in bygone times, had almost unlimited authority, and ifanyone spoke evil of him, he was immediately taken and grievously punishedby his body, but if he struck the mayor, he ran the risk of having cut offthe hand that dealt the blow.

As late as 1600, at Hartlepool, it was enacted, that anyone calling amember of the council a liar be fined eleven shillings and sixpence, if,however, the term false was used, the fine was only six shillings andeightpence.

Bribes for the Palate.

In the days of old it was no uncommon practice for public bodies andprivate persons to attempt to bribe judges and others with presents.Frequently the gifts consisted of drink or food. In some instances moneywas expected and given. It is not, however, to bribery in general we wantto direct attention, but to some of its more curious phases, andespecially 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 themost upright of our judges was Sir Matthew Hale. It had long beencustomary for the Dean and Chapter of Salisbury to present to the judgesof the Western Circuit six sugar loaves. The gift was sent to Hale, and hedirected his servant to pay for the sugar before he tried a case in whichthe donors were interested. On another occasion while he was on circuit, agentleman gave him a buck, hoping by this act to gain his favour in a[Pg 64]case that was to be tried before him. When the trial was about tocommence, Hale remembered the name of the gentleman and inquired if he wasthe person from whom the venison had been received. On being informed thatsuch was the fact, he would not allow the trial to proceed until he hadmade payment for the buck. The gentleman strongly protested againstreceiving the money, saying that he had only presented the same to theChief Baron as he had done to other judges who had gone the circuit.Further instances might be mentioned of presents being offered and refusedby Hale, but the foregoing are sufficient to show the character of theman.

Newcastle-on-Tyne municipal records contain many references to presents ofsugar loaves. There are for example gifts to noblemen who called at thetown on their way to Scotland. In January 1593, we find particulars of23s. 7d. for sugar and wine “sent in a present to my L. Ambassador as hecame travling through this towne to Scotland called my L. Souch.”

[Pg 65]A little later the Earl of Essex was bound for Scotland and received apresent at the hands of the local authorities. The town accounts state:

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:—

The Bishop of Durham was not overlooked. In February, 1596, we find anentry as follows:—

[Pg 66]It is satisfactory to find that the ladies were not neglected atNewcastle-on-Tyne. Here is an entry referring to the entertainment of theMayoress and other ladies:—

In the same month is an entry far different in character. It is a chargeof 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 asfollows:—

The records of the city of Winchester include particulars of many presentsof sugar loaves and other gifts. On March 24th, 1592, it was decided at ameeting of the municipal authorities to present the Lord Marquis ofWinchester 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 periodcontain entries of payments for sugar loaves given to the Recorder fora New Year’s present, and for pottles of wine bestowed on distinguishedvisitors.

[Pg 69]At a meeting held in 1603 of the local authorities of Nottingham, it wasagreed that the town should present to the Recorder, Sir HenryPierrepoint, 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 esteemthey entertained for the Earl of Shrewsbury, and it was decided to give tohim “a veal of mutton, a lamb, a dozen chickens, two dozen rabbits, twodozen of pigeons, and four capons.” This is a truly formidable list, andseems more suitable for stocking a shop than a gentleman’s larder.

The porpoise in past times was prized as a delicacy, and placed on royaltables. Down to the days of Queen Elizabeth it was used by the nobles asan article of food. In the reign of that queen, a penny in twelve was themarket due at Newcastle-on-Tyne, when the fish were cut up and exposed forsale. The heads, fins, and numbles were taken in addition. The seal was[Pg 70]subject to the same regulations. The porpoise was deemed suitable for apresent. In 1491 it is recorded that a large porpoise was sent fromYarmouth as a gift to the Earl of Oxford.

The annals of Exeter furnish particulars of several gifts of fish. In 1600it was decided by the local authorities to present to the Recorder of thecity, Mr. Sergeant Hale, annually during his life, eight salmon of theriver Exe. The Mayor for the time being had a like quantity allowed. Itwas resolved on the 10th January, 1610, to present, at the cost of thecitizens, to the Speaker of the Parliament, in token of good will, ahogshead of Malaga wine, or a hogshead of claret, whichever might bedeemed most acceptable, and one baked salmon pie.

Sir George Trenchard in 1593 received from the Mayor of Lyme a box ofmarmalade and six oranges, costing 7s.

Mr. George Roberts, in his “Social History of[Pg 71] the Southern Counties,” hasan interesting note respecting the potatoes named in the foregoing entry.He says:—“The sweet potato (Convolvulus Batatas) was known in Englandbefore the common potato, which received its name from its resemblance tothe Batata. This plant was introduced into this country by Sir FrancisDrake and Sir John Hawkins in the middle of the sixteenth century. Theroots were, about the close of the reign of Elizabeth, imported inconsiderable quantities from Spain and the Canaries, and were used as aconfection rather than as a nourishing vegetable.”

We will close this paper with particulars of a present which may beregarded more of an example of esteem than an attempt at bribery. Hull, inthe days of old, was noted for its ale. The Corporation of the town oftenpresented one or two barrels to persons to whom they desired to show atoken of regard. Andrew Marvell, the incorruptible patriot, representedthe place in Parliament from 1658 until his death in 1678. He was in closetouch with the leading men of the town, and wrote long and interestingletters, detailing the operations of the House of Commons, to the Mayorand Aldermen. In one of his[Pg 72] epistles to the Burgesses of Hull he refersto a gift of ale. “We must,” says Marvell, “first give thanks for the kindpresent you have been pleased to send us, which will give occasion to usto remember you often; but the quantity is so great that it might makesober men forgetful.” Marvell’s father was master of the Hull GrammarSchool, 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 ofGeorge Pease, landlord of the “King’s Head” Inn, High Street. In Taylor’spoem, entitled “A Very Merrie Ferry Voyage; or, Yorke for[Pg 73] My Money,” hethus 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 ofHull Chesse.”

The poet, in a foot-note, says:—“Hull cheese is much like a loaf out ofthe brewer’s basket; it is composed of two samples, mault and water in onecompound, and is cousin german to the mightiest ale in England.” Rayquotes the proverb, “You have eaten some Hull cheese,” as equivalent to anaccusation of drunkenness.

Rebel Heads on City Gates.

The barbarous custom of spiking heads on city gates, and on otherprominent places, may be traced back to the days of Edward I. His wiselaws won for him the title of “the English Justinian,” but he does notappear to have tempered justice with mercy. In his age little value wasset upon human life. His scheme of conquest included the subjugation andannexation of Scotland and Wales.

David, the brother of Llewellyn the Welsh Prince, had been on the side ofthe English, and at the hands of Edward had experienced kindness, but inreturn he showed little gratitude. In 1282 he made an unprovoked attack onHawarden Castle. Subsequently his brother Llewellyn joined in the rising,and undertook the conduct of the war in South Wales, while David attemptedto defend the North of the country. In a skirmish on the Wye, Llewellynwas slain by a single knight. David soon fell into the hands of theEnglish, and was sent in chains to Shrewsbury.[Pg 75] Here he was tried byParliament, consisting of “the first national convention in which theCommon had any share by legal authority, and the earliest lawful trace ofa mixed assembly of Lords and Commons.” Guilty of being a traitor was theverdict returned, and David was condemned to a new and cruel mode ofexecution, viz., “to be dragged at a horse’s tail through the streets ofShrewsbury, and to be afterwards hung and cut down while alive, his heartand bowels burnt before his face, his body quartered and his head sent toLondon.” The head of Llewellyn was also to be sent to London, to be spikedon the Tower encircled with a crown of ivy.

On the gates of old London Bridge have been spiked the heads of manyfamous men—not a few whose brave deeds add glory to the annals of Englandand Scotland. The heroic deeds of Sir William Wallace have done much toincrease the dignity of the history of North Britain. After renderinggallant service to his native land, he was betrayed into the hands of theEnglish by his friend and countryman, Sir John Menteith, at Glasgow. Hewas conveyed to London, was tried and condemned as a rebel, and on August23rd, 1305, suffered a horrible death, similar to[Pg 76] the fate of David,Prince of Wales. His body was divided and sent into four parts ofScotland, and his head set up on a pole on London Bridge. Edward I.degraded himself by this cruel revenge on a patriotic man. In thefollowing year the head of another Scotch rebel, Simon Frazer, was spikedbeside that of Wallace.

In the reign of Edward II., Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, rose to almostsupreme power, but his rule was most distasteful to the people.[Pg 77] It wasoppressive and ended in disaster. In 1316, when the Earl was at the heightof his fame, he discovered that a knight formerly in his household hadbeen induced by the King of England to carry to the King of Scotland aletter asking that some of his soldiers might slay him. The Earl was thenat Pontefract and had the knight brought before him, and by his orders hewas speedily executed, and his head spiked on the walls of the castle.

The Barons met the forces of Edward II. at Boroughbridge, in 1322, andwere totally routed, and their leaders, the Earl of Hereford was slain,and the Earl of Lancaster was taken prisoner, and afterwards executed atPontefract. About thirty knights and barons suffered death on the scaffoldin various parts of the country, so that terror might be widely spread.Some of the bodies were suspended for long periods in chains, and amongstthe number were those of Sir Roger de Clifford, Sir John Mowbray, and SirJocalyn D’Eyville. They were hanged at York, and for three years theirbodies were hung in chains, and then the Friar Preachers committed them tothe ground. Another rebel, Sir Bartholomew de Badlesmere, was executedat[Pg 78] Canterbury, and his head was cut off and spiked on the city gate atCanterbury.

At Boroughbridge Sir Andrew de Harcla displayed courage of a high order,and was rewarded with the title of the Earl of Carlisle, and militaryduties of a more important order were entrusted to him, but he did notlong enjoy his honours. The Scots advanced into this country and met theEnglish at the Abbey of Byland, and completely overpowered them; the Earlremaining inactive at Boroughbridge with 2,000 foot and horse soldiers. Ona writ dated at Knaresborough, February 27th, 1323, he was tried fortreachery, his collusion with the Scotch was clearly proved, and thefollowing sentence was passed upon him:—“To be degraded both himself andhis heirs from the rank of earl, to be ungirt of his sword, his gildedspurs hacked from his heels—said to be the first example of its kind—tobe hanged, drawn, and beheaded, his heart and entrails torn out and burntto ashes, and the ashes scattered to the winds; his carcase to be dividedinto four quarters, one to be hung on the top of the Tower at Carlisle,another at Newcastle, the third on the bridge at York, and the fourth atShrewsbury, while his head was to be[Pg 79] spiked on London Bridge.” “You maydivide 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,” recordsthat the heads of four traitor knights were spiked on London Bridge.

On Bramham Moor, Yorkshire, on Sunday, February 19th, 1408, Sir ThomasRokeby, high sheriff of the county, fighting for Henry IV., completelydefeated an army raised by the Earl of Northumberland, and other nobleswho had revolted against the king. The Earl was slain on the field, andhis chief associate, Lord Bardolf, was mortally wounded and takenprisoner, but died before he could be removed from the scene of thebattle. The heads of these two noblemen were cut off, and that of the Earlplaced upon a hedge-stake, and carried in a mock procession through thechief towns on the route to London, and finally found a resting-place onLondon Bridge. He was popular amongst his friends, and they greatlygrieved at his death. It was indeed a sore trial to those who had lovedhim well to see his mutilated head, full of silver[Pg 80] hairs, carriedthrough the streets of London, a gruesome exhibition for a heartlesspublic. The head of Lord Bardolf was also spiked on London Bridge.

Some passages in the life of Eleanor Cobham, first mistress and afterwardswife of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, furnish an insight into thesuperstitions of the period. She was tried in 1441 for treason andwitchcraft. The chief charge against her was that she and her accompliceshad made a waxen image of the reigning monarch, Henry VI., and placed itbefore a slow fire, believing that as the wax melted the king’s life wouldwaste away. She was found guilty and had to do public penance in thestreets of London, and was imprisoned for life in the Isle of Man. Threepersons who had assisted her crimes suffered death. One Margaret Jourdain,of Eye, near Westminster, 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, andhis head was fixed on London Bridge. The Duchess, in the event of Henry’sdeath, expected that the Duke of Gloucester, as[Pg 81] nearest heir of thehouse of Lancaster, would be crowned king.

The details of Jack Cade’s insurrection are well-known, and perhaps a copyof an inscription on a roadside monument at Heathfield, near Cuckfield inSussex, will answer our present purpose:—

In 1496 two heads were placed on London Bridge; one was Flammock’s, alawyer, 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 hewould not be a party to the king’s actions. Shortly before his executionthe Pope sent to him a Cardinal’s hat. Said the king when he heard of thehonour to be conferred upon the aged prelate, who was then aboutseventy-seven[Pg 82] years old, “’Fore heaven, he shall wear it on his shouldersthen, for by the time it arrives he shall not have a head to place itupon.”

Fisher met his death with firmness. At five o’clock in the morning of hisexecution he was awakened and the time named to him. He turned over in bedsaying: “Then I can have two hours more sleep, as I am not to die untilnine.” 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, andit was befitting to appear in becoming attire. His head was severed fromhis body, and after the executioner had removed all the clothing, he leftthe corpse on the scaffold until night, when it was removed by the guardto All Hallows Churchyard, and interred in a grave dug with theirhalberds. It was not suffered to remain there, but was exhumed and buriedin the Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula in the Tower. The head was spiked onLondon Bridge. Hall and others record that the features became fresher andmore comely every day, and were life-like. Crowds were attracted to thestrange sight, which was regarded as a miracle. This annoyed the king nota little, and he gave orders for the head to be thrown into the river.

[Pg 83]A similar offence to that of Fisher’s brought to the block a month laterthe head of a still greater and wiser man, Sir Thomas More. He was far inadvance of his times, and his teaching is bearing fruit in our day. Hishead was placed on London Bridge, until his devoted daughter, MargaretRoper, bribed a man to move it, and drop it into a boat in which she sat.She kept the sacred relic for many years, and at her death it was buriedwith her in a vault under St. Dunstan’s Church, Canterbury.

We learn from the annals of London Bridge, that in the year 1577, “severalheads were[Pg 84] removed from the north end of the Drawbridge to the Southwarkentrance, 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,” writtenin 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 areplaced on iron spikes; we counted about thirty.”

Sir Christopher Wren completed Temple Bar, March 1672-3, and in 1684 thefirst ghastly trophy was fixed upon it. Sir Thomas Armstrong was accusedof being connected with the Rye House Plot, but made his escape toHolland, and was outlawed. He, however, within a year surrendered himself,demanding to be put on his trial. Jefferies in a most brutal mannerrefused the request, declaring that he had nothing to do but to awarddeath. Armstrong sued for the benefit of the law, but without avail. Thejudge ordered his execution “according to law,” adding, “You shall havefull benefit of the law.” On June 24th, 1683, Armstrong was executed,and his head set up on Westminster Hall; his quarters were divided betweenAldgate, Aldersgate, and Temple Bar, and the fourth sent to Stafford, theborough he had formerly represented in Parliament.

[Pg 87]Sir John Friend and Sir William Perkins, on April 9th, 1696, suffereddeath at Tyburn for complicity in a conspiracy to assassinate WilliamIII., and on the next day their heads crowned Temple Bar. John Evelyn inhis 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 plottingto murder King George. For more than thirty years Layer’s head lookedsorrowfully down on busy Fleet Street. A stormy night at last sent itrolling into the Strand, and it is recorded it was picked up by anattorney, 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 genuinearticle.”[Pg 88] He died without discovering that he had been imposed upon, and,according to his directions, the relic was placed in his right hand andburied 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 KenningtonCommon, and on the following day their heads were elevated on the Bar.Respecting their heads Walpole wrote on August 15th, 1746, “I have beenthis 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 alook.” The fresh heads were made the theme of poetry and prose. One of thehalfpenny 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 looksdown in triumph and waves the rebel banner, on which are three crowns anda coffin, with the motto, ‘A crown or a grave.’ Underneath was writtensome wretched verses.

[Pg 91]It is recorded in the “Annual Register” that on “January 20th (between twoand three a.m.), 1766, a man was taken up for discharging musket bulletsfrom a steel cross-bow at the two remaining heads upon Temple Bar. Onbeing examined he affected a disorder in his senses, and said his reasonfor doing so was his strong attachment to the present Government, and thathe thought it was not sufficient that a traitor should merely sufferdeath; that this provoked his indignation, and that it had been hisconstant practice for three nights past to amuse himself in the samemanner. 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 beingsearched, about fifty musket bullets were found on the man, and these werewrapped up in a paper with a motto—“Eripuit ille vitam.”

Dr. Johnson says that once being with Goldsmith in Westminster Abbey,“While we surveyed the Poets’ Corner, I said to him:—

[Pg 92](Perhaps some day our names may mix with theirs). When we got to TempleBar he stopped me, pointed to the heads upon it, and slyly whispered:—

One of the heads was blown down on April 1st, 1772, and the other did notremain much longer. The head of Colonel Towneley is preserved in thechapel at Townely Hall, near Burnley. It is perforated, showing that ithad been thrust upon a spike. During a visit on May 21st, 1892, toTowneley Hall by the members of the Lancashire and Cheshire AntiquarianSociety, the skull was seen, and a note on the subject appears in theTransactions of the Society.

[Pg 95]The heads of not a few Scotchmen were spiked on the gates of Carlisle, andsome romantic stories have come down to us respecting them. One of thesewe related in our “Bygone England,” and to make this account more completewe may perhaps be permitted to reproduce it. “A young and beautiful lady,”so runs the tale, “came every morning at sunrise, and every evening atsunset, to look at the head of a comely youth with long yellow hair,till at length the lady and the laddie’s head disappeared.” The incidentis the subject of a song, in which the lovesick damsel bewails the fate ofher 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 thegoverning authorities of the town gave their support to Edward IV., andthose that were on the side of the fallen king met with little mercy atthe hands of the local Aldermen. Mr. T. Tindall Wildridge, who has done somuch to bring to light hidden facts in the history of Hull, tells us thatthe Aldermen in 1461 agreed that the head of Nicholas Bradshawe, for hisviolent language, be set at the Beverley Gate—the gate that was at alater period closed against Charles I., when he desired to enter Hull.

[Pg 96]A number of the inhabitants who would not renounce their allegiance to theHouse of Lancaster were ordered to leave the town on pain of death. “Amongthese outcasts,” says Mr. Wildridge, “was a women, who, coming back again,was subjected to the indignity of the thewes (tumbrel or hand-barrow, inwhich scolds were customarily wheeled round the town previous to beingducked); she was thus led out of the Beverley Gate.”

On the walls and gates of York have been spiked many heads, and withparticulars of a few of the more important we will bring to a close ourgleanings on this gruesome theme, though not one without value to thestudent of history.

Richard Scrope, Archbishop of York, strongly opposed the accession ofHenry IV., and warmly advocated the claims of the Earl of March. Aconspiracy against the king cost him and others their lives. It isrecorded that the king directed Chief Justice Gascoigne to condemn theArchbishop to death. As might be expected from an upright judge who castinto prison the king’s son for contempt of court, he firmly refused to bea party to a barbarous and unjust action. Another judge was quickly foundready to obey the king’s[Pg 97] behest, and the requisite condemnation wasobtained. Scrope was beheaded on June 8th, 1405, in a field betweenBishopthorpe and York. Thomas Gent, the old historian of York, gives asympathetic account of the execution: “The poor unfortunate Archbishop wasput upon a horse, about the value of forty pence, with a halter about itsneck, but without a saddle on its back. The Archbishop gave thanks to God,saying, ‘I never liked a horse better than I like this!’ He twice sang thePsalmExaudi, being habited in a sky-coloured loose garment, withsleeves of the same colour, but they would not permit him to wear thelinen vesture used by bishops. At the fatal place of execution he laid hishood and tunic on the ground, offered himself and his cause to Heaven, anddesired the executioner to give him five strokes, in token of the fivewounds of our Saviour, which was done accordingly.” This is the firstinstance of an English prelate being executed by the civil power. LordMowbray, Earl Marshal of England, Sir William Plumpton and others who weremixed up in the conspiracy were beheaded. The heads of the Archbishop andthat of Mowbray were spiked and put up on the city walls.

On the last day in the year 1460 was fought[Pg 98] the battle of Wakefield,which ended in a victory for the house of Lancaster. Richard, Duke ofYork, the aspirant to the throne, and many of his loyal supporters wereslain, some so severely wounded as to die shortly afterwards, and otherstaken prisoners to be subsequently beheaded. The Duke’s head was cut fromhis body, encircled by a mock diadem of paper, and spiked above MicklegateBar, York, with the face turned to the city:—

The head of the young Earl of Rutland, murdered by Lord Clifford, was alsoset up at York. The headless bodies of the unfortunate pair were quietlyburied at Pontefract.

The heads of the following Yorkists were also set up at York “for aspectacle to the people and also as a terror to adversaries:”—The Earl ofSalisbury, Sir Edward Bouchier, Sir Richard Limbricke, Sir ThomasHarrington of London, Sir Thomas Neville, Sir William Parr, Sir JacobPykeryng, Sir Ralph Stanley, John Hanson, Mayor of Hull, and others.

[Pg 101]The Lancastrians did not long enjoy their victory. Richard’s son, the Earlof March, succeeded to his father’s title and claimed the right to theEnglish crown. On Palm Sunday, March 21st, 1461, the forces of the Red andthe White Roses met at Towton-field. The battle raged during a blindingsnowstorm, and the Yorkists gained a complete victory. Edward thenproceeded to York and entered by Micklegate Bar. Here the saddening sightof the head of his father and other brave men who had fallen fighting forhis 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 theheads of his foes at Towton, and amongst the number the Earl ofDevonshire, Sir William Hill, the Earl of Kyme, and Sir Thomas Foulford.Shakespeare notices this act of retaliation inHenry VI. (Part III., ActII., Scene 6).

Edward had the heads of his father and his brother taken to Pontefract,placed with their bodies, and then with great pomp the remains wereremoved to the church at Fotheringay and there reinterred.

[Pg 102]An attempt was made in 1569 to dethrone Elizabeth, and place in her steadMary Queen of Scots. The leaders of the revolt were the Earls ofNorthumberland and Westmoreland. It ended in failure, and was the lasttrial with arms to restore the Papal power in England. The leaders for atime made their escape, but the government, with a vengeance that hasseldom been equalled, cruelly punished the masses. Men were hanged atevery market-cross and village-green from Wetherby to Newcastle, the largepart of the north from whence the rebels had come. The Earl ofNorthumberland managed to evade capture for nearly two years by hiding ina wretched cottage. He was betrayed and brought to York. On August 22nd,1572, he was beheaded, and he died, we are told, “Avowing the Pope’ssupremacy, and denying subjection to the Queen, affirming the land to bein a schism, and her obedient subjects little better than heretics.” TheEarl’s head was spiked above Micklegate Bar, where it remained for about acouple 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, theDuke of Cumberland on[Pg 103] his route to London visited York, and left behindhim a number of prisoners. On November 1st, ten of the rebels were hanged,drawn, and quartered, and a week later eleven more suffered a similarfate. The head of one of the unfortunate men, that of Captain Hamilton,was sent to Carlisle. The heads of Conolly and Mayne were spiked overMicklegate Bar, York, and eight years later were stolen. A reward wasoffered for the detection of the offenders. The following is a copy of thenotice issued:—

A tailor named William Arundel and an accomplice were found guilty of thecrime. In[Pg 104] addition to being fined, Arundel was committed to prison fortwo years.

This last act closes a long and painful chapter in our history. Many ofour larger old English towns have their gruesome tales of Rebel Heads ontheir chief gates.

Burial at Cross Roads.

It was customary in the olden time when a person committed suicide to burythe body at the meeting of four cross roads. We are told by writers whohave paid special attention to this subject, that this strange mode ofburial was confined to the humbler members of society. A carefulconsideration of this matter, from particulars furnished by parishregisters and from other old-time records and writings, confirms thestatement. Shakespeare, in the grave scene inHamlet, puts into themouths of the clowns who are preparing the grave of Ophelia something tothe same effect. Here are his words:—

[Pg 106]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. Itappears two military officers quarrelled and fought at Primrose Hill,because their dogs had quarrelled in Hyde Park. Moralising on the fatalevent, the writer concludes his reflections as follows:—“The humblesuicide is buried with ignominy in a cross road, and the finger-post markshis grave for public scorn. The proud duellist reposes in a Christiangrave beneath marble, proud and daring as himself.” The more humane of ourcountrymen condemned burial at cross roads, and a much needed reform wasbrought about. Before reproducing the Act of Parliament respecting theburial of suicides it will not be without interest to give details of afew burials in the highways.

Mr. Simpson in his interesting volume of Derby gleanings, states that onthe 10th of July, 1618, “an old incorrigible rogue cut his own throat inthe County Gaol, and was buried in Green Lane, Derby.” We have not anyparticulars of this “incorrigible rogue.” He would doubtless be interredat night, and a stake driven through his body.

[Pg 107]The parish register of West Hallam, in the same county, supplies anotherinstance of burial at four lane ends. The entry reads thus;—“1698,Katharine, the wife of Tho. Smith, als Cutler, was foundfelo de se byye Coroner’s inquest, and interred in ye cross ways near ye wind mill onye same day.” The local historian is silent respecting this case ofsuicide, and all that is now known of the poor woman’s sad end iscontained in the parish register.

It is recorded in a Norwich newspaper, of 1728, that the body of ahat-presser, after a verdict offelo de se, was accordingly buried inthe highway.

Not far from Boston is a thorn tree known as the “Hawthorn tree,” which isrepresented in a pretty picture in Pishey Thompson’s well-known “Historyand Antiquities of Boston” (1856). It is in the parish of Fishtoft, and atthe intersections of the Tower Lane and the road to Fishtoft Church by thelow road to Freiston. “This tree,” says Thompson, “is traditionally statedto have been originally a stake driven into the grave of a (female)suicide, who was buried at cross roads.” The story is generally believedin the Boston district, although Mr. William Stevenson in a learned paperin “Bygone Lincolnshire,” vol. II.,[Pg 108] p. 212, states as far as concerns thehawthorn growing from a stake driven into the ground the tradition has nofoundation in fact.

Mr. John Higson took interest in Lancashire lore, and from his gleaningswe draw the following particulars of the suicide and burial of James Hill,a Droylsden innkeeper. He tells us that the poor fellow was inflamed withjealousy, suddenly disappeared, and about a fortnight afterwards was foundhung or strangled in a tree in Newton Wood, near Hyde. A coroner’s inquestpronounced it an act of suicide, and in accordance with the verdict, thecorpse was interred on the 21st May, 1774, at the three-lane-ends, nearthe brook, close by the present Commercial Inn, Newton Moor. Much sympathywas exhibited towards Hill in Droylsden, and a band of resolute fellows,about three o’clock on the morning of the 5th June, disinterred hisremains, and re-buried them in Ashton churchyard. A woman who casually metthem spread the information, and they were glad to convey back the body onthe 18th of the same month, when the final interment took place at NewtonMoor. A number of Droylsdenians joined to defray the expense of agravestone, on which the[Pg 109] following epitaph was written by Joseph Willan,of Openshaw, and was neatly engraved:—

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,” byWilliam Brockie, published in 1886, that in the Mile End Road, SouthShields, at the corner of the left-hand side going northward, justadjoining Fairless’s old ballast way, lies the body of a suicide, with astake driven through it. It is, I believe, a poor baker, who put an end tohis existence seventy or eighty years ago, and who was buried in thisfrightful manner, at midnight, in unconsecrated ground.[Pg 110] The top of thestake used to rise a foot or two above the ground within the last thirtyyears, and boys used to amuse themselves by standing with one foot uponit.

Considerable consternation was caused in London towards the close of 1811on account of certain murders. The foul deeds were committed by anIrishman called John Williams. He was arrested, and during his confinementin Coldbathfields committed suicide. His remains were buried in CannonStreet, and a stake was driven through the body.

Many curious items dealing with this custom may be found in the columns ofold newspapers. The following particulars, for example, are drawn from theMorning Post, of 27th April, 1810:—“The officers appointed to executethe ceremony of driving the stake through the dead body of James Cowling,a deserter from the London Militia, who deprived himself of existence bycutting his throat at a public-house in Gilbert Street, Clare Market, inconsequence of which a verdict of self-murder, very properly delayed thebusiness until twelve o’clock on Wednesday night, when the deceased wasburied in the cross roads at the end of Blackmoor Street, Clare Market.”

[Pg 111]The most painful case which has come under our notice occurred atNewcastle-on-Tyne. Martha Wilson, the widow of a seaman, was last seenalive by her neighbours on Sunday, the 13th April, 1817, and on thefollowing Tuesday she was found dead, suspended from a cord tied to a nailin her room at the Trinity House. She was subject to fits of melancholy,and had threatened to destroy herself. On the Wednesday following aninquest was held, and the jury returned a verdict offelo de se. Hermortal remains were buried in the public highway at night, and the strangesight was watched by a large gathering of the public. After a stake hadbeen 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 todiscover any account occurred in June, 1823, when a man named Griffiths,who had committed suicide, was buried at the junction of Eaton Street andGrosvenor Place and the King’s Road. The burial took place about half-pastone in the morning, and the old practice of driving a stake through thebody in this case was not performed.

Perhaps the few particulars we have given will[Pg 112] be sufficient to fullyillustrate the old-time custom of the burial of suicides at cross roads.At last the impropriety of the proceedings was forced upon Parliament, andon the 8th July, 1823, the Royal Assent was given to an Act “to alter andamend the law relating to the interment of the remains of any person foundfelo de se.” The statute is brief, consisting of only two clauses,viz.:—

Another change was brought about in 1882 respecting the burial ofsuicides. We gather from “The Chronicles of Twyford,” by F. J. Snell,M.A., that in the closing days of 1881 a factory operative, ofirreproachable character, with his own hand took his life. The juryreturned a verdict offelo de se, adding a rider to the effect that itwas committed whilst the deceased was under great mental depression. “Itwas necessary,” says Mr. Snell, “in order to comply with the requirementsof the law, that the interment should take place between the hours of 9p.m. and midnight, and also within twenty-four hours of the issuing of thecoroner’s warrant. In this case it was issued about eight o’clock in theevening. The Superintendent of the Police was obliged to arrange for thefuneral the same night. Some delay was caused through the absence of thecemetery keeper from home, but about 10 p.m. two excavators commenceddigging the grave in a remote corner of the cemetery, and the intermenttook place a few minutes before midnight.” After the burial, the pastor ofthe[Pg 114] church with which the poor man was associated offered an extemporeprayer. It is recorded that a large number of spectators watched with deepinterest the proceedings, and that extreme indignation was felt throughoutthe town. In the following year, the two members for Tiverton introduced abill into the House of Commons “to amend the law relating to the intermentof any person foundfelo de se.” The effect of the measure was to repealthe enactments requiring hurried burial without religious rites, and tosanction the interment “in any of the ways prescribed or authorised by theBurial Laws Amendment Act of 1880.”

Detaining the Dead for Debt.

On the Continent, in Prussia for example, it was formerly the practice todetain the dead for debt. A belief long prevailed that such proceedingswere legal in England, and in not a few cases, acting upon thissupposition, corpses have been arrested, and in more instances precautionshave been taken to avoid such painful events.

The earliest record we have found on this theme occurs in the parishregister of Sparsholt, Berkshire. “The corpse of John Matthews, ofFawler,” it is stated, “was stopt on the churchway 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, byan Order of Sessions, taken up and buried in the churchyard by the wife ofthe deceased.”

In the churchyard of North Wingfield,[Pg 116]Derbyshire, a gravestone bears thefollowing inscription:—

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 deathwas indebted to Adlington, the village inn-keeper, to the amount of twentypounds. The publican resolved to seize the body; but the parents of thedeceased carefully kept the door locked until the day appointed for thefuneral. As soon as the door was opened, Adlington rushed into the houseand seized the corpse, and placed it on a form in the open street. Clay’sfriends refused to pay the publican’s account, and after the body had beenexposed for several days, the inn-keeper buried it in a bacon chest.

[Pg 117]This subject has received attention in the pages ofNotes and Queries,and in the issue of May 2nd, 1896, the following appeared:—“AtBrandeston, Suffolk,” said a contributor, “there is a well-authenticatedstory of the body of the ‘old squire,’ Mr. John Revett or Rivett, who diedin 1809, being removed secretly at night, by some of the servants andtenantry, from the library at Brandeston Hall, where it lay, to the churchof Brandeston, which is in the park close by the Hall. Mr. Revett, likemany of the family, had been very extravagant, keeping his own pack ofhounds, etc.; and what with elections and unlimited hospitality, had gotheavily into debt, and had involved the old family estate so, thatBrandeston 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 wasvery popular, was that if the body was not removed to the sanctuary itwould be seized for debt; hence their action.” A son of one of the oldservants, whose father assisted in carrying the body to the church,related the story in 1895 to the correspondent ofNotes and Queries. Itis well known in the village.

[Pg 118]The most painful case of arresting a dead body which has come under ournotice, is that of John Elliott, in 1811. The particulars are given in the“Annual Register,” and also in theGentleman’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 ofNotes and Queries for March 28th,1896. The facts of the case are as follow:—John Elliott, at the time ofhis death, on October 3rd, 1811, was indebted to Baker, a bricklayer, andHeasman, a carpenter, a small sum for work done. These two men, with twosheriffs’ officers, on Monday, October 7th, proceeded to the house whereElliott lay dead, and were there met by the son of the deceased. He statedthat his father was dead. The officers informed him that they had awarrant to arrest the deceased, and asked where the body lay. The sonpointed out the room, saying the door was locked, and his mother had goneout and taken the key, but was expected every minute. After waiting a fewminutes, one of the men violently kicked the door, broke it open, andentered 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[Pg 119]following Wednesday, and at four o’clock on that day, the undertaker andhis man arrived for the purpose of removing the body to Shoreditch Churchfor burial, but Baker and Heasman and the sheriffs’ men entered the housewith a shell, and took it into the room where the corpse lay. After askingthe son to pay the debt and prevent his father’s body being taken away,and he replying that he was unable to discharge it, Baker and Heasmanliterally crammed the naked body into the shell, and put it into a cartbefore the house, where it remained over half-an-hour, attracting to theplace a large number of people who behaved in a riotous manner. The bodywas then removed to Heasman’s house, and placed in a cellar until October11th, when it was conveyed by him and others to Bethnal Green, and left ina burial vault.

Such are the details briefly stated that were given to the judge who triedthe men who committed this outrageous public indecency. The jury, afterretiring for a few minutes, returned, and awarded damages £200.

We have given at some length the foregoing case, to illustrate the lawlesscondition of the country at the commencement of this century.[Pg 120] We maycongratulate ourselves on living in happier times.

It was currently reported at the death of Sheridan, in 1816, that anattempt would be made to detain his body for debt, but at his funeral nosuch action occurred.

Mr. John Cameron, in his work issued in 1892, under the title of “TheParish of Campsie,” states that in 1824 died the Rev. James Lapslie, vicarof the parish, who was, at the time of his death, in debt, and theproceedings 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 procedure barred by some legal process, until the arrestingcreditor had satisfaction given him for the payment of the debt owing bythe deceased. Sir Samuel Stirling, sixth baronet, became security to thearresting creditor, and the body was then consigned to the grave.”

Much reliable information on old-time subjects has been carefullychronicled by Mr. I. W. Dickinson,B.A., the author of “Yorkshire Life andCharacter.” He tells us that in the earlier years of the present centuryit was generally believed that a corpse could be detained for debt, and itwas, in[Pg 121] several instances in the West Riding, successfully carried out,the friends subscribing on the spot in order to be enabled to pay theirlast respects to the dead. Mr. Dickinson also tells me of another WestRiding belief, that a doctor, summoned to a sick bed, could legally takethe nearest way, even through corn fields and private grounds, or whateverelse intervened, without rendering himself liable for damages.

We gather fromNotes and Queries of March 28th, 1896, that the fact wasestablished in 1841, that the body of a debtor, dying in custody, cannotbe detained in prison after death. It appears that Scott, gaoler ofHalifax, acting for Mr. Lane Fox, the Lord of the Manor, detained the bodyof one of the debtors who died in prison. It was subsequently buried inthe gaol in unconsecrated ground, on the refusal of the debtor’s executorsto pay the claims that were demanded of them. Action was taken against thegaoler, and at a trial at York Assizes he was convicted of breaking thelaws of his country.

A Nobleman’s Household in Tudor Times

The Earls of Northumberland, members of the Percy family, for a longperiod were a power in the north of England. Their pedigree has beentraced back to Mainfred, a Danish chieftain who rendered great service toRollo in the Conquest of Normandy. William de Perci, of Perci, nearVilledieu, landed on the English shore with Duke William, and for valourat the battle of Hastings he was rewarded with extensive grants of land inYorkshire.

In their northern strongholds this noble family lived in stately style,and frequently figured on the battle-field, and took their share in eventswhich make up the history of the country. The story of their lives, withits lights and shades, reads like a romance; but it is outside the purposeof our paper to linger over its romantic episodes. It may be stated thatthe fourth Earl was Lord Lieutenant of Yorkshire, and by direction of KingHenry VII., he had to make[Pg 123] known to the inhabitants of his county thereasons for a most objectionable tax for the purpose of engaging in a warwith Bretagne. This gave rise to a bitter feeling against him, the peopleerroneously believing that the tax was levied at his instigation. In 1489,a mob broke into his house at Cockledge, near Thirsk, murdering him andseveral of his servants. The Earl had been a generous man, and was muchbeloved, and his untimely death was deeply deplored. He was buried inBeverley Minster, and 14,000 people attended his funeral, which wasconducted in a magnificent manner, at a cost of £1,037 6s. 8d., equallingsome £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 year1457, was a man of æsthetic tastes, and a patron of learning. He isdescribed as being “vain and excessively fond of pomp and display.” Whenthe Princess[Pg 124] Margaret journeyed to Scotland to marry the King, the Earlescorted her through Yorkshire. According to an old account, he was “wellhorst, upon a fayre courser, with a cloth to the ground of cramsynvelvett, all borded of orfavery, his armes very riche in many places upponhis saddle and harnys, and his sterrops gilt. With him was many nobleKnights, all arrayed in his sayd Livery of Velvett with some goldsmith’swork, great chaynes, and war wel mounted; a Herault, bearing his cotte andother gentylmen in such wayes array’d of his said Livery, sum in Velvett,others in Damask, Chamlett, etc., well mounted to the number of 300Horsys.” The Princess made her public entry into Edinburgh riding on apillion behind the King.

The Earl had three castles, and lived at them alternately, and, as he hadonly sufficient furniture for one, it was removed from one house to theother when he changed residences. Seventeen carts and one waggon wereemployed to convey it.

This Percy’s taste for poetry prompted him to have painted on the wallsand ceilings of his castles moral lessons in verse. The following may bequoted as a specimen:—

[Pg 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 BritishMuseum, in the form of a beautiful manuscript engrossed on vellum, richlyemblazoned, and superbly illuminated. It includes specimens of the bestpoetry then produced, and a metrical account of the Percy family, by oneof the Earl’s chaplains, named Peares. This interesting work was preparedunder his directions.

In the year 1512, he commenced the compilation of what we now call the“Northumberland Household Book,” and it contains regulations and otherdetails respecting his castles at Wressel and Leckonfield. From thiscurious work we obtain an interesting picture of the home life of anobleman in Tudor times. We find that the Earl lived in state andsplendour little inferior to that of the King. The household wasconducted[Pg 126] on the same plan as that of the reigning monarch, and thewarrants were made out in the same form and style. “As the King had hisPrivy Council and great council of Parliament to assist him in enactingstatutes and regulations for the public weal,” says a writer who has madea study of this subject, “so the Earl of Northumberland had his council,composed of his principal officers, by whose advice and assistance heestablished this code of economic laws; as the King had his lords andgrooms of the bed-chamber, who waited in their respective turns, so theEarl of Northumberland was attended by the constables and bailiffs of hisseveral castles, who entered into waiting in regular succession.” Wefurther find that all the leading officers of his household were men ofgentle birth, and consisted of “controller, clerk of the kitchen,chamberlain, treasurer, secretary, clerk of the signet, survisor, heralds,ushers, almoner, a schoolmaster for teaching grammar, minstrels, elevenpriests, presided over by a doctor of divinity or dean of the chapel, anda band of choristers, composed of eleven singing men and six singingboys.” The head officials sat at a table called the Knight’s Board. Everyday were expected to sit down to[Pg 127] dinner 166 officers and domesticservants and fifty-seven visitors. The amount annually spent inhouse-keeping was £1,118 17s. 8d., representing in our money about£10,000.

The number of daily meals was four, and consisted of breakfast taken atseven, dinner at ten, supper at four o’clock, and livery served in thebedroom between eight and nine, before retiring to rest. The lord sat atthe head of the table in state. The oaken table, long and clumsy, stood inthe great hall, and the guests were ranged according to their station onlong, hard, and comfortless benches. The massive family silver salt cellarwas 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 ofpewter dishes and wooden cups, and plenty of food and liquor was on thetable. But elegance did not prevail: forks had not been introduced, andfingers were used to convey food to the mouth.

The allowances at the meals were most liberal. One perceives there wasmuch wine and beer consumed in those days. Take, for example, that atbreakfast. On flesh days it included “for my lord and lady a loaf of breadon trenchers, two[Pg 128] manchets (loaves of fine meal), a quart of wine, half achine of mutton, or a chine of beef boiled.” The fare of the two elderchildren, “my Lord Percy, and Mr. Thomas Percy,” consisted of “half a loafof household bread, a manchet, one pottle of beer (two quarts!), achicken, or else three mutton bones boiled.” It will be noticed that winewas not served to the two young noblemen. The fare of the two littlechildren is thus described: “Breakfasts for the nurcery, for my ladyMargaret and Mr. Yngram Percy, a manchet, one quart of beer, three muttonbones boiled.” My ladies’ gentlewomen were served with “a pottle of beer,three mutton bones boiled, or else a piece of beef boiled.” The breakfaston fish days was as follows:—“For my lord and my lady, a loaf of bread ontrenchers, two manchets, a quart of beer, a quart of wine, two pieces ofsalt-fish, six baked herrings, or a dish of sprats; for the two eldersons, half a loaf of household bread, a manchet, a pottle of beer, a dishof 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 whiteherrings; and for my lady’s gentlewomen, a loaf[Pg 129] of bread, a pottle ofbeer, a piece of salt-fish, or three white herrings.” It will be observedthat the family dined two to a plate or mess, this being the usualpractice in the Middle Ages. The other meals were quite, if not moresubstantial than that of breakfast. The liveries, as we have previouslystated, were consumed in the bed-chamber just before retiring to rest, andthe Earl and Countess had placed on their table, “two manchets, a loaf ofhousehold bread, a gallon of beer, and a quart of wine.” The wine waswarmed and mixed with spices. After reading the preceding bills of fare,we are not surprised to learn that at this period the English people wereregarded as the greatest eaters in Europe.

In the “Northumberland Household Book” is a long and interesting list ofarticles and their prices, which were expected to last a year. It will notbe without interest to reproduce a few of the more important items, asfollow:—Wheat 236½ quarters at 6s. 8d. The market price today is verydifferent. Malt, as might be expected from the quantity of beer brewed, isa rather large total, being 249 quarters, I bushel, and the price 4s. perquarter; hops, 656 lbs., at 13s. 4d. per 120 lbs.; fat oxen, 109, at 13s.4d. each;[Pg 130] lean oxen, 24, at 8s. each; to be fed in his lordship’spastures; 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, ofwhich 10, at 1s. each, to serve from Christmas to Shrovetide, and 50, at10d. each, to serve from Easter to Midsummer. The list of fish is large,and includes 160 stock-fish at 2½d. each for the Lent season;salt-fish, 1,122, at 4d. each; white herrings, 9 barrels, at 10s. thebarrel; red herrings, 10 cades (each cade containing 500), at 6s. 8d. thecade; sprats, 5 cades (each cade containing 1,000), at 2s. the cade; saltsalmon, 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 11½d. pergallon, were provided for frying the fish. Salt is entered twice—baysalt, 10 quarters, at 4s. the quarter; and white salt, 6½ quarters, at4s. the quarter; vinegar, 40 gallons, at 4d. the gallon. The quantity ofmustard, ready-made, is large, being 180 gallons, at 2¼d. per gallon.In old Christmas carols there are frequent allusions to mustard. Duringthe Commonwealth, it was threatened to stop Christmastide festivals by Actof Parliament, and this caused the tallow-chandlers to loudly complain,[Pg 131]for they could not sell their mustard on account of the diminishedconsumption of brawn. In the familiar old carol, sung annually at Queen’sCollege, Oxford, is a line:—

In a carol sung before Prince Henry, at St. John’s College, Oxford, in1607, is a couplet:—

Under the heading of spices are enumerated:—Pepper, 50 lbs., raisons ofcurrants, 200 lbs., prunes, 151½ lbs., ginger, 21½ lbs., mace, 6lbs., cloves, 3½ lbs., sugar, 200¼ lbs., cinnamon, 17 lbs., 3½quarters almonds, 152 lbs., dates, 30 lbs., nutmegs, 1¼ lbs., grains ofParadise, 7 lbs., turnfole, 10½ lbs., saunders, 10 lbs., powder ofannes, 3¼ lbs., rice, 19 lbs., comfits, 19½ lbs., galagals, ½ lb.,long pepper, ½ lb., blanch powder, 2 lbs. The amount of the foregoing is£25 19s. 7d. The list of wine embraces—Gascony wine, 10 tuns, 2hogsheads, at £4 14s. 4d. per tun, viz., red, 3 tuns, claret, 5 tuns, andwhite, 2 tuns, 2 hogsheads. There was also provided 90 gallons ofverjuice, at 3d. per gallon; this was a sour juice of unripe grapes,apples, or crabs. A barrel and a half of[Pg 132] honey was provided at a cost of33s. The foregoing are the chief items of food and drink for the annualconsumption in a Tudor household.

The fuel consisted of sea coal, 80 chaldrons, charcoal, 20 quarters, and4,140 faggots for brewing and baking. Sixty-four loads of wood had also tobe provided, for the coal could not be burnt without it. The coal musthave been poor.

The expenses provide for the players at Christmas, and they appear to haveacted 20 plays at 1s. 8d. per play. We find a bearward attended atChristmas for making sport with his beasts, and in the “Household Book” heis referred to amongst those receiving payments as follows:—

At this period, bear-baiting was a popular amusement. Sunday was a greatday for the pastime. It was on the last Sunday of April, 1520, that partof the chancel of St. Mary’s[Pg 133] Church, Beverley, fell, killing a number ofpeople. According to a popular tradition, a bear was being baited, andmass was being sung at the same time, but at the latter only fifty-fiveattended and all were killed, whereas at the former about a thousand werepresent. Hence the origin of the Yorkshire saying, “It is better to be atthe baiting of a bear than the singing of a mass.” An expert horseman wasalso employed in connection with the household. He had not to be afraid ofa fence, and it was his duty to attend my Lord when hunting.

Bread and Baking in Bygone Days.

The earliest form of bread consisted of grain soaked in water, thenpressed, and afterwards dried by means of the sun or fire. Another earlykind of bread took the form of porridge or pudding, consisting of flourmixed with water and boiled. Next came the method of kneading dough, andthe result was tough and unleavened bread.

In Saxon times women made bread, and the modern title “lady” is softenedfrom the Saxonhlaf-dige, meaning the distributor of bread. We learnfrom contemporary pictures that Anglo-Saxon bread consisted of roundcakes, not unlike the Roman loaves of which we get representations in thepictures at Pompeii, and not unlike our Good-Friday cross-buns, which weare told come down to us from our Saxon forefathers.

In connection with monasteries were bake-houses, and the work here wouldbe done by the conversi or lay brothers. The holy bread in the mass wasbaked in the convents and churches[Pg 135] by the priests or monks with muchceremony. Ovens were sometimes connected with old churches.

Some of the monks in Saxon times do not appear to have fared well. We findit recorded that in the eighth century those at the Abbey of St. Edmundhad to partake of barley bread because the income of the house was notsufficent to provide wheaten-bread twice or thrice daily.

Towards the close of the thirteenth century the chief bakers who suppliedLondon with bread lived at Stratford-le-Bow, Essex, doubtless on accountof being near Epping Forest, where they could obtain cheap firewood. At alater period some were located at Bromley-by-Bow. The bread was brought toLondon in carts, and exposed for sale in Bread Street. The bakers attendeddaily excepting on Sundays and great festivals. It was no uncommoncircumstance to seize the bread on its way to town for being of lightweight, or made of unsound materials. It was not until the year 1302 thatLondon bakers were permitted to sell bread in shops.

A Royal Charter was granted in 1307 to the London Bakers’ Company. Thecharter, we are[Pg 136] told, “empowered the company to correct offencesconcerning the trade, to make laws and ordinances, to levy fines andpenalties for non-observance thereof; and within the city and suburbs, andtwelve miles round, to view, search, prove, and weigh all bread sold; andin case of finding it unwholesome, or not of due assize, to distribute itto the poor of the parish where it was found, and to impose fines, andlevy the same by distress and sale of offenders’ goods.” When reformbecame 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. Theearliest dates back to the days of Henry II. Another belongs to the reignof Henry III.; it regulated the price of bread according to the value ofcorn. A baker breaking the law was fined, and if his offence was serioushe was placed in the pillory. These statutes were extended under EdwardVI., Charles II., and Queen Anne.

In 1266 bakers were commanded not to impress their bread with the sign ofthe cross,Agnus Dei, or the name of Jesus Christ.

The lot of the baker in bygone times was a very hard one. He could notsell where he liked,[Pg 137] and the price of his bread was regulated by those inauthority. Pike, in his “History of Crime in England,” says, “Turn wherehe might, the traveller in London in 1348 could hardly fail to light uponsome group, which would tell him the character of the people he had tosee. Here, perhaps, a baker with a loaf hung round his neck, was beingjeered, and pelted in the pillory, because he had given short weight, orbecause, 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 inmediæval times performed much of the rougher kind of labour. Mr. Piketells a tragic tale to illustrate the heartless character of bakehousewomen in bygone times:—“At Middleton, in Derbyshire, there lived a manwhose wife bore a name well known to readers of mediæval romances, Isoldaor Isoult. As he lay one night asleep in his bed, this female Othello tookhim by the neck and strangled him. As soon as he was dead, she carried thebody to an oven which adjourned their chamber, and piled up a fire todestroy the traces of her guilt. But, though she had so far shown theenergy and power of a man, her[Pg 138] courage seems to have failed her at thelast moment. She took to flight, and her crime was discovered.”

In the olden time, it was the practice of females to deliver bread fromhouse to house in London. The bakers gave them thirteen articles fortwelve, and the odd article appears to have been the legitimate profitwhich they were entitled to receive in return for their work. From thisold custom we obtain the baker’s dozen of thirteen. Bakers were notpermitted to give credit to women retailers if they were known to be indebt to others. It was also against the law to receive back unsold breadif cold. The latter regulation would make the saleswomen energetic intheir labours.

In many places the ducking-stool was employed to punish offending bakers.The old records of Beverley contain references to this subject. “Duringthe Middle Ages,” it is stated on good authority, “scarcely any spectaclewas so pleasing to the people of Central Europe as that of the publicpunishment of the cheating baker. The penalties inflicted on swindlingbakers included confiscation of property, deprivation of civil and otherrights, banishment from the town for certain[Pg 139] periods, bodily punishment,the pillory, and the gibbet. If a baker was found guilty of an offenceagainst the law, he was arrested and kept in safe custody till the gibbetwas ready for him. It was erected as nearly as possible in the middle ofthe town, the beam projecting over a stagnant pool; at the end of the beamwas a pulley, over which ran a rope fastened to a basket large enough tohold a man. The baker was forced into the basket, which was drawn up tothe beam; there he hung over the muddy pool, the butt of the jeers andmissiles of a jubilant crowd. The only way to escape was to jump into thedirty water and run through the crowd to his home, and if he did not takethe jump willingly, he was sometimes helped out of the basket by means ofa 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 anddrawn up again several times until the town authorities thought he had hadenough.” In some parts of Turkey it was, until recently, the rule topunish a baker who did not give full weight by nailing his ear to thedoorpost. If he were out when the officers of justice arrived his son orhis servant was punished in his stead, as the authorities were very[Pg 140] muchaverse from making their men do the journey twice.

The Court Leet records of many of our old English towns include items ofinterest bearing on this subject. At Manchester, at the Court Leet heldOctober 1, 1561, it was resolved that no person or persons be permitted tomake for sale any kind of bread in which butter is mixed, under a fine of10s. Later, the use of suet was forbidden. In 1595, we are told that “theCourt Leet Jury of Manchester ordered that no person was to be allowed touse butter or suet in cakes or bread; fine, 20s. No baker or other personto be allowed to bake said cakes, &c.; fine, 20s. No person to be allowedto sell the same; fine, 20s.” Next year, on September 30, we gather fromthe records that “eight officers were appointed to see that no flesh meatwas eaten on Fridays and Saturdays, and twelve for the overseeing of themthat put butter, cream, or suet in their cakes.” We learn from the historyof Worcester that an order was made in 1641 that the bakers were not tomake spice bread or short cakes, “inasmuch as it enhaunced the price ofbutter.”

A rather curious regulation in bygone times was the one which enforced thebaker of white[Pg 141] bread not to make brown, and the baker of brown bread notto make white.

Very heavy fines used to be inflicted on persons selling short weight ofbread. “A baker was convicted yesterday,” says theTimes of July 8th,1795, “at the Public Office, Whitechapel, of making bread to the amount of307 ounces deficient in weight, and fined a penalty of £64 7s.” In thesame journal, three days later, we read, “A baker was yesterday convictedin 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 anincreased price of grain, and by the middle of the year the matter hadbecome serious. The members of the Privy Council gave the subject carefulconsideration, and strongly recommended that families should refrain fromhaving puddings, pies, and other articles made of flour. With thefollowing paragraph from theTimes of July 22nd, 1795, we close ournotes on bread in bygone days:—“His Majesty has given orders for thebread used in his household to be made of meal and rye mixed. No othersort is to be permitted to be baked, and the Royal Family eat bread of thesame quality as their servants do.”

Arise, Mistress, Arise!

In the olden time in many places in the provinces it was the practice onChristmas-day morning to permit the servants and apprentices to remain inbed, 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 hisbell and saying, “Good-morning, masters, mistresses, and all, I wish you amerry 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 aman of note. An old couplet says:

[Pg 143]In Lancashire was heard the following, proclaimed in the towns andvillages:

“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 5a.m. to make known the time for commencing, and at 8 p.m. the hour forgiving up work. His blast was heard daily except on Sundays. OnChristmas-day morning he blew his horn and sang:

“Dames arise and bake your pies,
And let your maids lie still;
For they have risen all the year,
Sore against their will.”

The Turnspit.

One of the most menial positions in an ancient feudal household was thatof turnspit. A person too old or too young for more important dutiesusually performed the work. John Lydgate, the monk of Bury, who was bornin 1375, and died in 1460, gives us a picture of the turnspit asfollows:—

“His mouth wel wet, his sleeves right thredbare,
A turnbroche, a boy for hagge of ware,
With louring face noddynge and slumberyng.”

In the reign of Edward III., the manor of Finchingfield was held by SirJohn Compes, by the service of turning the spit at His Majesty’scoronation. This certainly appears a humble position for a knight to fillin “the gallant days of chivalry.”

The spits or “broches” were often made of silver, and were usually carriedto the table with the fish, fowl, or joint roasted upon them.

[Pg 145]The humble turnspit was not overlooked by the guests in the days of old,when largess was bestowed. We gather from “Howard’s Household Book” thatLord Howard gave four old turnspits a penny each. When Mary Tudor dined atHavering, she rewarded the turnbroches with sixteen-pence.

Dogs as well as men performed the task of turning the spit from an earlyperiod, and old-time literature includes many references to the subject.Doctor Caius, the founder of the college at Cambridge bearing his name, isthe earliest English writer on the dog. “There is,” wrote Caius,“comprehended under the curs of the coarsest kind, a certain dog inkitchen service excellent. For when any meat is to be roasted they go intoa wheel, where they, turning about with the weight of their bodies, sodiligently look to their business, that no drudge nor scullion can do thefeat more cunningly, whom the popular sort hereupon term turnspits.”

We have seen several pictures of dogs turning the spit, and an interestingexample appears in a work entitled “Remarks on a Tour in North and SouthWales,” published in 1800. The dog is engaged in his by no means pleasantwork.[Pg 146] “Newcastle, near Carmarthen,” says the author, “is a pleasantvillage. At a decent inn here a dog is employed as turnspit. Great care istaken that this animal does not observe the cook approach the larder; ifhe does, he immediately hides himself for the remainder of the day, andthe guest must be contented with more humble fare than intended.”

Mr. Jesse, a popular writer on rural subjects, was a keen observer ofold-time customs and institutions, and the best account of the turnspitthat 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 aturnspit 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 worstedstockings, and large plaited buckles in his shoes. As he had severalboarders as well as day scholars, his two turnspits had plenty to do. Theywere long-bodied, crook-legged, and ugly dogs, with a suspicious, unhappylook about them, as if they were weary of the task they had to do, andexpected every moment to be seized upon to do it. Cooks in those days, asthey are said to be at present, were very cross, and if the[Pg 147] poor animal,wearied with having a larger joint than usual to turn, stopped for amoment, the voice of the cook might be heard rating him in no very gentleterms. When we consider that a large, solid piece of beef would take atleast three hours before it was properly roasted, we may form some idea ofthe task a dog had to perform in turning a wheel during that time. Apointer has pleasure in finding game, the terrior worries rats witheagerness and delight, and the bull-dog even attacks bulls with thegreatest energy, while the poor turnspit performs his task withcompulsion, like a culprit on a treadmill, subject to scolding or beatingif he stops a moment to rest his weary limbs, and is then kicked about thekitchen when the task is over.”

The mode of teaching the dog its duties is described in a book ofanecdotes published at Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1809. It was more summary thanhumane. The dog was put in the wheel, and a burning coal with him; hecould not stop without burning his legs, and so was kept upon the fullgallop. These dogs were by no means fond of their profession. It wasindeed hard work to run in a wheel for two or three hours, turning a pieceof meat twice their own weight.

[Pg 148]In the same work two more anecdotes bearing on this theme also find aplace, and are worth reproducing. “Some years ago,” we are told, “a partyof young men, at Bath, hired the chairmen on a Saturday night to steal allthe turnspits in the town, and lock them up till the following evening.Accordingly, on Sunday, when everybody has roast meat for dinner, all thecooks were to be seen in the streets, ‘Pray have you seen our Chloe?’ asksone. ‘Why,’ replies the other, ‘I was coming to ask if you had seen ourPompey.’ Up came a third, while they were talking, to inquire for herToby. And there was no roast meat in Bath that day. It is told of thesedogs in this city, that one Sunday, when they had as usual followed theirmistresses to church, the lesson for the day happened to be that chapterin Ezekiel, wherein the self-moving chariots are described. When first theword wheel was pronounced, all the curs pricked up their ears in alarm; atthe second wheel they set up a doleful howl. When the dreadful word wasuttered a third time, every one of them scampered out of church, as fastas he could, with his tail between his legs.”

Allusions to this subject may be found in some[Pg 149] of the poets of the oldentime, more especially in those of a political character. Pitt, in hisArtof Preaching, has the following on a man who speaks much, but to littlepurpose:—

“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.”

A Gossip about the Goose.

The goose figures largely in the history, the legends, and the proverbiallore of our own and other lands. In ancient Egypt it was an object ofadoration in the temple and an article of diet on the table. The Egyptiansmainly took beef and goose flesh as their animal food, and it has beensuggested that they expected to obtain physical power from the beef andmental vigour from the goose. To support this theory, it has been shownthat other nations have eaten the flesh of wolves and drunk the blood oflions, hoping thereby to become fierce and courageous. Some other nationshave refused to partake of the hare and the deer on account of thetimidity of these animals, fearing lest by eating their flesh they shouldalso partake of their characteristic fearfulness and timidity.

Pliny thought very highly of the goose, saying “that one might almost betempted to think these creatures have an appreciation of wisdom, for it issaid that one of them was a constant companion[Pg 151] of the peripateticphilosopher Lacydes, and would never leave him, either in public or whenat the bath, by night or by day.”

The cackling of the goose saved Rome. According to a very old story, theguards of the city were asleep, and the enemy taking advantage of this,were making their way through a weak part of the fortifications, expectingto take the city by surprise. The wakeful geese hearing them, at oncecommenced cackling, and their noise awoke the Romans, who soon made shortwork of their foes. This circumstance greatly increased the gratitude ofthe Roman citizens for the goose.

We gather from the quaint words of an old chronicler a probable solutionof the familiar phrase, “To cook one’s goose.” “The kyng of Swedland”—soruns the ancient record—“coming to a towne of his enemyes with verylittle company, his enemyes, to slyghte his forces, did hang out a goosefor him to shoote; but perceiving before nyghte that these fewe soldiershad invaded and sette their chief houlds on fire, they demanded of himwhat his intent was, to whom he replyed, ‘To cook your goose’.”

In the days when the bow and arrow were the chief weapons of warfare, itwas customary[Pg 152] for the sheriffs of the counties where geese were reared togather sufficient quantities of feathers to wing the arrows of the Englisharmy. Some of the old ballads contain references to winging the arrow withgoose 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
In the presence of the king’.”

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 tohave 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 themouth,” we are told, “was a little hole just large enough to admit thehead of a pin; water was poured in by a hole in the back, which wasafterwards stopped up.” The figure was[Pg 153] then set on the fire; and duringthe time it was blowing off steam, the lord of the manor of Essington wasobliged to bring a goose to Hilton and drive it three times round thehall-fire. He next delivered the goose to the cook; and when dressed, hecarried it to the table and received in return a dish of meat for his ownmess.

In bygone times, Lincolnshire was a great place for breeding geese; andits extensive bogs, marshes, and swamps were well adopted for the purpose.The drainage and cultivation of the land have done away with the hauntssuitable for the goose; but in a great measure Lincolnshire has lost itsreputation for its geese. Frequently in the time when geese were largelybred, one farmer would have a thousand breeding-geese, and they wouldmultiply some sevenfold every year, so that he would have under his careannually, some eight thousand geese. He had to be careful that they didnot wander from the particular district where they had a right to allowthem to feed, for they were regarded as trespassers, and the owner couldnot get stray geese back unless he paid a fine of twopence for eachoffender.

Within the last fifty years it was a common[Pg 154] occurrence to see on sale inthe market-place at Nottingham at the Goose Fair from fifteen to twentythousand geese, which had been brought from the fens of Lincolnshire. Astreet on the Lincolnshire side of the town is called Goosegate.

The origin of the custom of eating a goose at Michaelmas is lost in theshadows of the dim historic past. According to one legend, Saint Martinwas tormented with a goose, which he killed and ate. He died after eatingit; and ever since, Christians have, as a matter of duty, on the saint’sday sacrificed the goose. We have seen from the preceding quotation fromGascoigne that the goose formed a popular Michaelmas dish from an earlyperiod.

It is a common saying, “The older the goose the harder to pluck,” when oldmen are unwilling to part with their money. The barbarous practice ofplucking 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 penswere much in request before the introduction of steel pens. One Londonhouse, it is stated, sold annually six million quill pens. A professionalpen-cutter could turn out about twelve hundred daily.

[Pg 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 mournedfor it as for a friend. William Hutton wrote the history of his familywith 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 celebratedtranslator, wrote one of his books with a single pen, and recorded inrhyme 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.”

Bells as Time-Tellers.

The ringing of the bell in bygone times was general as a signal tocommence and to close the daily round of labour. In some of the moreremote towns and villages of old England the custom lingers at theingathering 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 morningto arouse the labourers from their slumbers, and at seven in the eveningthe welcome sound of the bell intimates the time for closing work for theday.

References to this subject may sometimes be found in parish accounts andother old church documents. In the parish chest of Barrow-on-Humber,Lincolnshire, is preserved a copy of the “Office and Duty of the ParishClerk,” bearing date of 1713, stating:—

[Pg 157]We learn from an old survey of the parish, still retained amongst thechurch papers, the reward given to the clerk for ringing the harvest bell.Says the document:—

Barrow-on-Humber became famous for its bells, beer, and singers. An oldrhyme 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 localreputation for its strong, home-brewed ale.

We have traces of the custom of ringing the harvest bell in various partsof the Midlands. At Moreton and at Walgrave, in Northamptonshire, theharvest bell was rung at four o’clock in the morning. At Spratton,Wellingborough, and other places in the county, the custom is stillremembered, but not kept up.

It was customary in many places, when the last load of grain was broughthome, to deck it with the boughs of the oak and ash, and a merry peal ofthe church bells made known the news[Pg 158] that the farmer had ended hisharvest, 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 isrung as a signal to commence gleaning. By this means, to use the words ofMr. 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 fromwomen and big children, as a recompense for his trouble. The parish clerkat 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 rungat Louth when the harvest on the “Gatherums” was ripe. “A piece of groundso called,” writes Mr. North, “was in former times cultivated for thebenefit of the poor. When the ‘pescods’ were ripe, the church bell wasrung, which gave warning to the poor that the time had arrived when theymight gather[Pg 159] them; hence (it is said)gather ’em orgatherum.” Fromthe church accounts is drawn the following:

The bells of Bow are amongst the best known in England, and figure in thelegendary lore as well as in the business life of London. Every reader isfamiliar with the story of Dick Whittington leaving the city in despair,resting on Highgate Hill, and hearing the famous bells, which seemed tosay in their merry peals—

In 1469, an order was given by the Court of the Common Council for Bowbell to be rung every night at nine o’clock. Nine was the recognised[Pg 160] timefor tradesmen to close their shops. The clerk, whose duty it was to ringthe bell, was irregular in his habits, and the late performance of hisduties 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.”

“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 ingeneral use in this country. The parentage of the present clock cannot betraced with any degree of certainty. We learn that as early as 996,Gerbert, a distinguished Benedictine monk (subsequently Pope SylvesterII.), constructed for Magdeburg a clock, with a weight as a motive power.Clocks with weights were used in monasteries in Europe in the eleventhcentury. It is supposed that they had not dials to indicate the time, butat certain intervals struck a bell to make known the time for prayers.

[Pg 161]From the fact that a clock-keeper was employed at St. Paul’s, London, in1286, it is presumed that there must have been a clock, but we have notbeen able to discover any details respecting it. There was a clock atWestminster in 1290, and two years later £30 was paid for a large clockput up at Canterbury Cathedral. Thirty pounds represented a large sum ofmoney in the year 1292. About 1326 an astronomical clock was erected atSt. Albans. It was the work of Richard de Wallingford, a blacksmith’s sonof the town, who rose to the position of Abbot there. In the earlier halfof the fourteenth century are traces of numerous other clocks in England.According to Haydn’s “Dictionary of Dates,” in the year 1530 the firstportable clock was made. This statement does not agree with a writer in“Chambers’s Encyclopædia” (edition 1890). “The date,” we are told in thatwork, “when portable clocks were first made, cannot be determined. Theyare mentioned in the beginning of the fourteenth century. The motive powermust have been a mainspring instead of a weight. The Society ofAntiquaries of England possess one, with the inscription in Bohemian thatit was made at Prague, by Jacob Zech, in 1525. It has[Pg 162] a spring for motivepower, with fusee, and is one of the oldest portable clocks in a perfectstate in England.”

It is asserted that no clock in this country went accurately before theone was erected at Hampton Court, in 1540. Shakespeare, in hisLove’sLabour’s Lost, gives us an idea of the unsatisfactory manner clocks kepttime 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 thedifficulty of ascertaining the time in the country in the earlier years ofthe last century.

[Pg 165]Norrisson Scatcherd, the historian of Morley, near Leeds, gives in hishistory, published in 1830, an amusing sketch of a local worthy named JohnJackson, better known as “Old Trash,” poet, schoolmaster, mechanic,stonecutter, land-measurer, etc., who was buried at Woodkirk on May 19th,1764. “He constructed a clock, and in order to make it useful to theclothiers who attended Leeds market from Earls and Hanging Heaton,Dewsbury, Chickenley, etc., he kept a lamp suspended near the face ofit, and burning through the winter nights, and he would have no shuttersnor curtains to his window, so that the clothiers had only to stop andlook through it to know the time. Now, in our age of luxury andrefinement, the accomodation thus presented by ‘Old Trash’ may seeminsignificant and foolish, but I can assure the reader that it was not.The clothiers in the early part of the eighteenth century were obliged tobe upon the bridge at Leeds, where the market was held, by about sixo’clock in the summer, and seven in the winter; and hither they wereconvened by a bell anciently pertaining to a Chantry Chapel, which oncewas 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 avaluable. They did not dine on fish, flesh, and fowl, with wine, etc., assome do now. No! no! The careful housewife wrapped up a bit of oatcake andcheese in a little checked handkerchief, and charged her husband to mindand not get above a pint of ale at ‘The Rodney.’ Would Jackson’s clockthen be of no use to men who had few such in their villages? Who seldomsaw a watch, but[Pg 166] took much of their intelligence from the note of thecuckoo.”

For an extended period, the curfew bell has been a most importanttime-teller. The sounds are no longer heard as the signal for putting outfires, as they were in the days of the Norman kings. It is generallyasserted that William the Conqueror introduced the curfew custom intoEngland, but it is highly probable that he only enforced a law which hadlong been in existence in the kingdom, and which prevailed in France,Italy, Spain, and other countries on the Continent. Houses at this periodwere usually built of wood, and fires were frequent and often fatal, andon the whole it was a wise policy to put out household fires at night. Thefire as a rule was made in a hole in the middle of the floor, and thesmoke escaped through the roof. In an account of the manners and customsof the English people, drawn up in 1678, the writer states that before theReformation, “Ordinary men’s houses, as copyholders and the like, had nochimneys, but flues like louver holes; some of them were in being when Iwas a boy.” In the year 1103, Henry I. modified the curfew custom. In“Liber Albus,” we find a curious picture of London life under[Pg 167] some of thePlantagenet kings, commencing with Edward I. It was against the cityregulations for armed persons to wander about the city after the ringingof the curfew bell.

We may infer from a circumstance in the closing days of William I., thatfrom a remote period there was a religious service at eight o’clock atnight. It will be remembered that the king died from the injuries receivedby the plunging of his horse, caused by the animal treading on some hotashes. Shortly before his death he was roused from the stupor whichclouded his mind, by the ringing of the vesper bell of a neighbouringchurch. He asked if it were in England and if it were the curfew bell thathe heard. On being told that he was in his “own Normandy,” and the bellwas 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 oneplace to another unless they had a light in their hands, under pain ofimprisonment.” For a long period it was the signal for closingpublic-houses.

The Age of Snuffing.

In this country old customs linger long, and although the age of snuffinghas passed away, in some quarters the piquant pinch still finds favour.Our ancient municipal corporations have been reformed, but old usages arestill maintained and revived. In 1896 we saw an account in the newspapersof an amusing episode which occurred during a meeting of the PontefractTown Council. One of the aldermen, noticing that the councillors had “togo borrowing” snuff, suggested the re-introduction of the old Corporationsnuff-box. The official box, in the shape of an antler, was unearthed fromunderneath the aldermanic bench amidst much amusement, and the Mayorpromised ere another sitting the article in question should be dulycleaned and replenished with the stimulating powder. Sir Albert K. Rollit,the learned and genial member of Parliament for South Islington, whenMayor of his native town of Hull a few years ago, presented to his brothermembers of the Corporation[Pg 169] a massive and valuable snuff-box. The gift wasmuch appreciated. In a compilation recently published under the title of“The Corporation Plate and Insignia of Office, &c., of the Cities andTowns of England and Wales,” will be found particulars of snuff-boxesbelonging to some of the older municipal bodies. In bygone times takingsnuff was extremely popular, its palmy days in England being during theeighteenth century. Snuff was praised in poetry and prose. Peer andpeasant, rich and poor, the lady in her drawing-room and the humblehousewife alike enjoyed the pungent pinch. The snuff-box was to be seeneverywhere.

The earliest allusion we have to snuffing occurs in the narrative of thesecond voyage of Columbus in 1494. It is there related by Roman Pane, thefriar, who accompanied the expedition, that the aborigines of Americareduced 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. Healso stated that it purged them very much.

Snuff and other forms of tobacco on their introduction had many bitteropponents. After the Great Plague the popularity of tobacco and[Pg 170] snuffincreased, for during the time of the terrible visitation both had beenlargely used as disinfectants. There is a curious entry in Thomas Hearne’sDiary, 1720-21, bearing on this theme. He writes as follows under date ofJanuary 21:—“I have been told that in the last great plague in Londonnone that kept tobacconists’ shops had the plague. It is certain thatsmoaking was looked upon as a most excellent preservative. In so much thateven children were obliged to smoak. And I remember that I heard formerlyTom Rogers, who was yeoman beadle, say that when he was that year when theplague raged a schoolboy at Eton, all the boys in the school were obligedto smoak in the school every morning, and that he was never whipped somuch in his life as he was one morning for not smoaking.” Pepys says inhis 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 threehouses marked with a red cross upon the doors, and ‘Lord have mercy uponus!’ writ there; which was a sad sight to me, being the first of the kindthat to my remembrance I ever saw. It put me into ill-conception of myselfand my smell, so that I was forced to[Pg 171] buy some roll tobacco to smell andchew, which took apprehension.” Another impetus to the habit ofsnuff-taking was given in 1702. Our Fleet was under the command of SirGeorge Rooke, and it is recorded that at Port Saint Mary, near Cadiz,several thousand barrels of choice Spanish snuff were captured. At Vigo onthe homeward voyage more native snuff was obtained, and found its way toEngland, instead of the Spanish market, as it was originally intended. Thesnuff was sold at the chief English ports for the benefit of the officersand men. In not a few instances waggon-loads were disposed of at fourpenceper pound. It was named Vigo snuff, and the popularity of the ware, itscheapness, and novelty were the means of its coming into general use. Inno part of the world did it become and remain more popular than in NorthBritain. A volume published in London in 1702, entitled “A Short Accountof Scotland,” without the author’s name, but apparently by a militaryofficer, contains some interesting information on the social life of thepeople. We gather from this work that the chief stimulant of the Scotch atthis period was snuff. “They are fond of tobacco,” it is stated, “but[Pg 172]more from the sneesh-box [snuff-box] than the pipe. And they made it sonecessary that I have heard some of them say that, should their bread comein competition with it, they would rather fast than their sneesh should betaken away. Yet mostly it consists of the coarsest tobacco, dried by thefire, and pounded in a little engine after the form of a tap, which theycarry in their pockets, and is both a mill to grind and a box to keep itin.” At social gatherings the snuff-mull was constantly passed round, andwe are told that each guest left traces of its use on the table, on hisknees, the folds of his dress, and on the floor. The preacher’s voice wasimpaired with excessive indulgence in snuff.

Long before the English visitor had written his book on Scotland, attemptshad been made to prohibit snuff-taking in church. At the Kirk Session ofSt. Cuthbert’s, held on June 18, 1640, it was decided that everysnuff-taker in church be amerced in “twenty shillings for everie falt.”Under date of April 11, 1641, it is stated in the Kirk Session records ofSoulton 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[Pg 173] confession of his fault.” At Dunfermline, theKirk Session had this matter under consideration, and the bellman wasdirected “to tak notice of those who tak the sneising tobacco in tyme ofDivine Service, and to inform concerning them.” A writer in a popularperiodical, in a chapter on “The Divine Weed,” makes a mistake, we think,presuming people smoked in church in bygone days. “At one period in thehistory of tobacco,” says the contributor, “smoking was so common that itwas actually practised in church.” Previous to the visit of James theFirst to the University of Cambridge, in 1615, the Vice-Chancellor issueda notice to the students, which enjoined that “Noe graduate, scholler, orstudent of this Universitie presume to take tobacco in Saint Marie’sChurch, uppon payne of finall expellinge the Universitie.” The taking oftobacco doubtless means using it in the form of snuff and not smoking itin a pipe.

Later, and perhaps at the period under notice, a strong feeling prevailedagainst smoking in the public streets. In the records of the MethwoldManor, Norfolk, is an entry in the court books dated October 4, 1659, asfollows:—“Wee agree that any person that is taken smookeing tobacco[Pg 174] inthe street, forfeit one shilling for every time so taken, and it shall beput to the uses aforesaid (that is to the use of the towne). We presentNicholas Barber for smoking in the street, and do amerce him oneshilling.” At a parish meeting held at Winteringham, on January 6, 1685,it was resolved:—“None shall smoke tobacco in the streets upon paine oftwo shillings for every default.” Schoolmasters were forbidden to smoke.In the rules of Chigwell School, founded in 1629, only fourteen yearsafter the visit of James to Cambridge, it is stated:—“The master must bea 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 ifpersons were not permitted to smoke in the street, it is quite certainthey would not be allowed to do so in the house of prayer.

Preachers of all sections of the religious world delighted in a pinch ofsnuff. Sneezing was heard in the highest and humblest churches, and iteven made St. Peter’s at Rome echo. The practice so excited the ire ofPope Innocent the[Pg 175] Twelfth that he made an effort in 1690 to stop it inhis churches, and “solemnly excommunicated all who should dare to takesnuff.” Tyerman, in his “Life of Wesley,” tells us the great trouble thefamous preacher had with his early converts. “Many of them were absolutelyenslaved to snuff; some drank drams, &c., to remedy such evils, thepreachers were enjoined on no account to take snuff, or to drink dramsthemselves; and were to speak to any one they saw snuffing in sermon time,and to answer the pretence that drams cured the colic and helpeddigestion.” Mr. Wesley cautioned a preacher going to Ireland againstsnuff, unless by order of a physician, declaring that no people were insuch blind bondage to the silly, nasty, dirty custom as were the Irish. Itis stated so far did Irishmen carry their love of snuffing, that it wascustomary, when a wake was on, to put a plate full of snuff upon the deadman’s, or woman’s stomach, from which each guest was expected to take apinch upon being introduced to the corpse.

In the earlier days of snuff-taking, people generally ground their ownsnuff by rubbing roll tobacco across a small grater, usually fixed insidethe snuff-box. We find in old-time writings[Pg 176] many allusions to makingsnuff from roll tobacco. In course of time snuff was flavoured with richessences, and scented snuffs found favour with the ladies. The man ofrefinement prided himself on his taste for perfumed powder. We find itstated in Fairholt’s book on “Tobacco,” that in the reign of William III.the beaux carried canes with hollow heads, that they might the moreconveniently inhale a few grains through the perforations, as theysauntered in the fashionable promenades. Women quickly followed the leadof men in snuffing, in spite of satire in theSpectator and other papersof the period. The list of famous snuff-takers of the olden time is a longone, and only a few can be noticed here. Queen Charlotte heads the roll.She was persistent in the practice, and her unfilial and rude sons calledher “Old Snuff.” Captain Gronow, when a boy at Eton, saw the Queen incompany with the King taking an airing on the Terrace at Windsor, andrelates “that her royal nose was covered with snuff both within andwithout.” Mrs. Siddons, “the queen of tragedy,” largely indulged in theuse of snuff, both on and off the stage, even while taking her moreimportant characters. Mrs. Jordan, another “stage star,”[Pg 177] a representativeof the comic muse, obtained animation from frequent use of snuff. Mrs.Unwin, the friend of Cowper, was extremely fond of it, and so was thepoet, 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-boxesalways handy, and the fair Belinda found hers particularly useful in thebattle 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 Moorecelebrated the gift[Pg 178] 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 ofRobert 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.”

[Pg 181]She was much addicted to the use of snuff, more especially towards theclosing years of her life, and to the last she was famous for her singularsprightliness in conversation. Dr. Deering wrote, about the end of thefirst half of the eighteenth century, a history of Nottingham, and in ithe relates how ladies, enjoying their tea, between each dish regaled theirnostrils with a pinch or two of snuff. The snuff-boxes carried by themwere usually costly, and generally elegant in form. David Garrick gave hiswife a gold snuff-box. George Barrington, the celebrated pickpocket andauthor, stole from Prince Orloff a snuff-box, set with brilliants, valuedat £30,000. Barrington was transported to Botany Bay, and at the openingof Sydney Theatre, January 16, 1796, Young’s tragedy,The Revenge, wasperformed by convicts, and a prologue from Barrington’s pen contained thispassage:—

“From distant climes, o’er widespread seas, we come,
Though not with muchéclat, 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 anAmbassador on his return home a gold snuff-box, and only in late years hasthis practice been discontinued. George IV. made a fraudulent display ofsnuff-taking; he carried an empty box, and pretended to draw from itpinches and apply them to his nose. The great Napoleon could not enduresmoking, but filled his waistcoat pocket with snuff, and partook ofprodigious quantities. Nelson enjoyed his snuff, and his snuff-box finds aplace among his relics at Greenwich. Literary[Pg 182] men and dramatists figurein imposing numbers amongst snuff-takers. Dryden enjoyed snuff, and didnot object to share the luxury with others. A favourite haunt of his wasWill’s Coffee-house in Bow Street, Covent Garden, where he was met by thechief wits of the time. In the “London Spy,” by Ned Wright, it is relatedthat a parcel of raw, second-rate beaux and wits were conceited if theyhad 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 hisfriend 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.”

[Pg 183]The following lines are by Robert Leighton, a modern Scotch poet ofrecognised 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, Lundyfitt, Prince’s Mixture, and Taddy,
[Pg 184]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 useassisted them in their literary labours. Here is a picture drawn by Maryof the pair as they were penning their “Tales from Shakespeare,” sittingtogether at the same table. “Like a literary Darby and Joan,” she says, “Itaking snuff, and he groaning all the while, and saying he can makenothing of it, till he has finished, when he finds he has made somethingof it.” Sterne was a snuff-taker, and when his wife was about to join himin Paris in 1762, he wrote a letter in which he said:—“You will find goodtea upon the road from York to Dover; only bring a little to carry youfrom Calais to Paris. Give the custom-house officer what I told you. AtCalais give more, if you have much Scotch snuff; but as tobacco is goodhere, you had best bring a Scotch mull and make it yourself; that is,order your valet to manufacture it, ’twill keep him out of mischief.” Inanother letter he says:—“You must be cautious about Scotch snuff; takehalf a pound in your pocket, and make Lyd do the same.” Sir Joshua[Pg 185]Reynolds is described as taking snuff profusely. It is related that hepowdered his waistcoat, let it fall in heaps upon the carpet, and evenupon his palette, and it thus became mixed with his pigments andtransferred to his pictures. Gibbon was a confirmed snuff-taker. In one ofhis 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 usualattitude 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 theGreat, for example, disliked others to take snuff from his box. He waslying in the adjoining room to one where he had left his box, and his pagehelped 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 amasquerade helped himself to a pinch, the King in great anger threw awaythe box.

State Lotteries.

For more than two-and-a-half centuries state lotteries were popular inthis country. They were imported into England from the continent; prior tobeing known here they were established in Italy, and most probably theycame to us from that country.

An announcement of the first English lottery was made in 1566, and itstated that it would consist of forty-thousand lots or shares at tenshillings each. The prizes, many and valuable, included money, plate, andcertain sorts of merchandise. The winner of the greatest and mostexcellent prize was entitled to receive “the value of five thousandpoundes sterling, that is to say, three thousande poundes in ready money,seven hundred poundes in plate, gilte and white, and the reste in goodtapisserie meete of hangings and other covertures, and certain sortes ofgood linen cloth.” Tapisserie and good linen cloth figure in several ofthe prizes, or to give the spelling of the announcement, prices. A large[Pg 187]number of small money prizes were offered, including ten thousand atfifteen shillings each, and nine thousand four hundred and eighteen atfourteen shillings each.

The object of the lottery was to raise money to repair the harbours and tocarry out other useful works. Although the undertaking was for anexcellent purpose, and the prizes tempting, the sale of the tickets wasslow, and special inducements were made by Queen Elizabeth to personstaking shares. Persons who “adventured money in this lottery” might visitseveral of the more important towns in “the Realme of Englande, and Dublynand Waterforde in the Realm of Irelande,” and there remain for seven dayswithout any molestation or arrest of them for any manner of offence savingtreason, murder, pyracie, or any other felonie, or for breach of herMajesties peace during the time of her coming abiding or returne.Doubtless these conditions would induce many to take shares. Public bodiesas well as private persons invested money in lottery tickets. Not so muchas a matter of choice as to comply with the urgent wishes of the queen andher advisers. The public had little taste for the lottery, but the leadingpeople in the[Pg 188] land were almost compelled to take shares, and the same maybe said of chief cities and towns. In the city records of Winchester forexample, under the year 1566, it is stated:—“Taken out of the Coffer thesum 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 Coffersof the cytie and be put into the lottery, and so muche money as shall makeup evyn lotts with those that are contrybuting of the cytie, so that itpassed not 10s.”

The eventful day arrived after long waiting for commencing the drawing ofthe lottery. The place selected for the purpose was at the west door ofSt. Paul’s Cathedral, London. Operations were commenced in 1569, onJanuary 11th, and continued day and night until May 6th.

Some years passed before another state lottery took place. It is believedthat one noticed by Stow in his “Annales,” occurring in 1585, was thesecond. “A lotterie,” chronicles Stow, “for marvellous, rich, andbeautiful armour was begunne to be drawne at London in S. PaulesChurchyard, at the great West gate (a house of timber and board beingthere erected for that purpose) on S. Peter’s Day in the morning,[Pg 189] whichlotteries continued in drawing day and night, for the space of two orthree dayes.”

Our first two Stuart kings do not appear to have employed the lottery as ameans of raising money. James I. granted a lotterie in favour of thecolony of Virginia. The prizes consisted of pieces of plate. It was drawnin a house built for the purpose near the West end of St. Paul’s. Thedrawing 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 thousandCrownes in fayre plate,” and that it was conveyed to his humble home in astately style. The lottery gave general satisfaction, it was plainly andhonestly conducted, and knights, esquires and leading citizens werepresent 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 obtainingmoney by means of the lottery. During the Commonwealth it was resorted tofor getting rid of forfeited Irish estates.

At the restoration the real gaming spirit commenced and caused much miseryand ruin.[Pg 190] The lottery sheet was set up in many public places, and theCrown received a large revenue from this source. The financial arrangementof a lottery was simple, the state offered a certain sum of money to berepaid by a larger. We learn from Chambers’s “Book of Days,” that “Thegovernment gave £10 in prizes for every share taken, on an average. Agreat many blanks, or of prizes under £10 left of course, a surplus forthe creation of a few magnificent prizes wherewith to attract the unwarypublic.” It was customary for city firms known as lottery-office-keepersto contract for the lottery, and they always paid more than £10 per share,usually £16 was paid, which left the government a handsome profit. Thecontractors disposed of the tickets to the public for £20 to £22 each. Theshares were frequently divided by the contractors into halves, quarters,eights, and sixteenths, and this was done at advanced prices. It was outof the clients for aliquot parts that the lottery-office-keepers reaped aheavy harvest. They were men who understood the art of advertising, andused pictures, poetry, and prose in a most effective manner. Our owncollections of lottery puffs is curious and interesting. Some very goodexamples are reproduced in “A History of English Lotteries,” by JohnAshton, and published by the Leadenhall Press, London, in 1893.

[Pg 193]It is related that one firm of lottery ticket contractors gave an oldwoman fifty pounds a year to join them as a nominal partner on account ofher name being Goodluck.

We have stated that at the commencement of lotteries they were drawn nearSt. Paul’s, subsequently the City Guildhall was the place, and laterCooper’s Hall, Basinghall Street, was used for this purpose. Before theday appointed for the drawing of a lottery, public preparations had beenmade for it at Somerset House. Each lottery ticket had a counterpart and acounterfoil, and when the issue of the tickets was complete, anannouncement was made, and a day fixed for the counterparts of the ticketsto be sealed up in a box, and any ticket-holder might attend and see thathis ticket was included with others in a box, and it was placed in astrong box and locked up with seven keys, then sealed with seven seals.Two other boxes, locked and sealed as the one with tickets, contained theprize tickets and blanks. These were removed with ceremony to the place ofdrawing. Four prancing horses[Pg 194] would draw, on their own sledges, thewheels of fortune, each of which were about six feet in diameter. By theirside galloped a detachment of Horse Guards. Arrived at their destination,the great wheels were placed at each end of a long table, where themanagers of the lottery took their seats. With care the tickets wereemptied into the wheels, and finally they were set in motion. Near eachwheel stood a boy, usually from the Blue-Coat School. Simultaneously thelads put into the wheels their hands, each drawing a paper out. These theyhold up, and an officer, called the proclaimer, calls out in a loud voicethe number, say sixty! another responds a prize or blank, as the case maybe, and the drawing thus proceeds until it is finished, often a long andtedious piece of work. If even a blank is first drawn, the owner of theticket received a prize of a thousand pounds, and a similar sum was won bythe owner of the last ticket drawn. The boys were well rewarded for theirtrouble, and on the whole the lotteries appear to have been fairlyconducted.

[Pg 197]We give a picture of a pageant-like machine, used in London to advertisethe last state lottery. The artist by whom it was drawn wrote anentertaining letter respecting it. “As I was walking up Holborn on the9th 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 thirtyfeet high, of an octagon shape, covered all over with lottery papers ofvarious colours. It had a broad brass band round the bottom, and moved ona pivot; it had a very imposing effect. The driver and the horse seemed asdull as though they were attending a solemn funeral, whilst the differentshopkeepers came to the doors and laughed; some of the people passing andrepassing read the bills that were pasted on it, as if they had never readone before, others stationed themselves to look at it as long as it was insight. It entered Monmouth Street, that den of filth and rags, where sogreat a number of young urchins gathered together in a few minutes as tobe astonishing. There being an empty chair behind, one of them seatedhimself in it, and rode backwards; another said, ‘let’s have a stonethrough it,’ and a third cried ‘let’s sludge it.’ This was no soonerproposed than they threw stones, oyster shells, and dirt, and burstseveral of the sheets; this attack brought the driver from his seat, andhe[Pg 198] was obliged to walk by the side of his machine up the foul streetwhich his show canvassed, halting now and then to threaten the boys whostill followed and threw. I made a sketch, and left the scene.”

Powerful protests were made in parliament against the immorality of thelottery. It took a long time to bring those in office to a sense of theirduty. The immense profits they yielded were extremely useful for statepurposes. Mr. Parnell hit hard the men in power, and it was he whosuggested that the following epitaph be inscribed on the tomb of aChancellor of the Exchequer:—

On Wednesday, 18th October, 1826, the last state lottery was drawn inEngland, and it will not be without interest to reproduce from a Londonnewspaper a report of the closing proceedings. “Yesterday afternoon,” itis recorded,[Pg 199] “at about half past six o’clock, that old servant of theState, the Lottery, breathed its last, having for a long period of years,ever since the days of Queen Anne, contributed largely towards the publicrevenue of the country. This event took place at Cooper’s Hall, BasinghallStreet; and, such was the anxiety on the part of the public to witness thelast drawing of the lottery, that great numbers of persons were attractedto the spot, independently of those who had an interest in theproceedings. The gallery of the Cooper’s Hall was crowded to excess longbefore the period fixed for the drawing (five o’clock), and the utmostanxiety was felt by those who had shares in the lottery, for the arrivalof the appointed hour. The annihilation of lotteries, it will berecollected 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 legislature is hailed, by thegreatest portion of the public, with joy, as it will put an end to asystem which many believe to have fostered and encouraged the latespeculations, the effects of[Pg 200] which have been and are still severely felt.A deficiency in the public revenue, to the extent of £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 astop to lotteries, to provide for the deficiency.

Although that which ended yesterday was the last, if we are informedcorrectly, the lottery-office keepers have been left with a great numberof tickets remaining on their hands—a pretty strong proof that thepublic, in general, have now no relish for these schemes.”

The drawing of the lottery commenced shortly after five o’clock, and endedat twenty minutes past six, so it did not take long to complete the laststate lottery in England.

Those most interested in lotteries did not let them die without trying toprove their value to the public and the state. Bish, who conducted anextensive business in tickets, issued an address as follows:—

“At the present moment, when so many of the comforts of the poorer classesare more or less liable to taxation, it may surely be a question whetherthe abolition of lotteries, by which the[Pg 201] State was a gainer of nearlyhalf a million per annum, be, or be not, a wise measure!

’Tis true that, as they were formerly conducted, the system was fraughtwith some evil. Insurances were allowed upon the fate of numbers throughprotracted drawings; and, as the insurances could be effected for verysmall sums, those who could ill afford loss, imbibed a spirit of gambling,which the legislature, very wisely, most effectually prevented, byadopting, in the year 1809, the present improved mode of deciding thewhole lottery in one day.

As the present conducted, the lottery is a voluntary tax, contributed toonly by those who can afford it, and collected without trouble or expense;one by which many branches of the revenue are considerably aided, and bymeans 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 ofthe unemployed, may, as I have observed in a former address, surely bequestioned.

Mr. Pitt, whose ability on matters of financial arrangements few willquestion, and whose morality was proverbial, would not, I am bold to say,have yielded to the outcry against a tax, the[Pg 202] continuing of which wouldhave enabled him to let the labourer drink his humble beverage at areduced price, or the industrious artisan to pursue his occupation by acheaper light. But we live in other times—in the age of improvement! Tostake patrimonal estates at hazard orécarté, in the purlieus of St.James’s, is merely amusement, but to purchase a ticket in the lottery, bywhich 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 andsenators, 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, orthat I take a partial view of the case. It is, however, my honest opinion,abstracted from personal considerations, that the measure of abolishinglotteries is an unwise one, and, as such, I give it to that public, ofwhich I have been, for many years, the highly favoured servant, and forwhose patronage, though lotteries cease, my gratitude will ever continue.”

We will close our studies on this subject with a copy of an epitaphwritten in remembrance of these old-time institutions. It is asfollows:—

Bear-Baiting.

Few sports in England have been more popular than bear-baiting. Otherforms of amusement waned before its attractions. The Sovereign, in thedays of old, had as a member of his Court a Bearward, as well as aChancellor. In and about London the sport was largely patronised, but itwas by no means confined to the Metropolis; in all parts of the countrybear-baitings were held. Fitzstephen, a monk of Canterbury, who lived inthe reign of Henry II., in his description of London, relates that in theforenoon of every holy day during the winter season, the youthfulLondoners were amused with the baiting of bears and other animals. He saysthe bears were full grown.

Edward III., in his proclamation, includes bear-baiting amongst“dishonest, trivial, and useless games.” The proclamation does not appearto have had any lasting effect on the public as regards bear-baiting. Thediversion increased in popularity.

[Pg 206]Southwark was a popular place for baiting animals, and Sunday the usualday for the amusement. Stow has several notes bearing on this theme. Inrespect to charges to witness the sport, he tells us “those who go to theParis Garden, the Belle Sauvage, the Theatre, to behold bear-baiting,interludes, or fence-play, must not account (i.e., reckon on) anypleasant spectacle unless they first pay one penny at the gate, another atthe entrie of the scaffold, and a third for quiet standing.” We learn fromStow that at Southwark were two bear-gardens, the old and the new; placeswherein were kept bears, bulls, and other beasts to be baited; as alsomastiffs in their several kennels were there nourished to bait them. Thesebears and other beasts were baited in plots of ground scaffolded round forthe beholders to stand safe. Stow condemns the foulness of these rudesights, and says the money idly thrown away upon them might have beengiven to the poor.

In the reign of Henry VIII., Erasmus visited England, and he relates thatmany herds of bears were maintained at the Court for the purpose of beingbaited. We are further told by him that the rich nobles had theirbearwards, and the[Pg 207] Royal establishment its Master of the King’s Bears.

Men were not wanting to raise their voices against this brutal sport evenat the time kings favoured it. Towards the close of the reign of HenryVIII., Crowley wrote some lines, which 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.
[Pg 208]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 meritsof his poetry.

When Princess Elizabeth was confined at Hatfield House, she was visited byher sister, Queen Mary. On the morning after her arrival, after mass wasover, a grand entertainment of bear-baiting took place, much to theirenjoyment.

Elizabeth, as a princess, took a delight in this sport, and when sheoccupied the throne she gave it her support. When the theatre, in thepalmy days of Shakespeare and Burbage, was attracting a larger share ofpublic patronage than the bear garden, she waxed indignant, and in 1591 anorder was issued from the Privy Council, forbidding “plays to be performedon Thursdays because bear-baiting and such pastimes had usually beenpractised.” The Lord Mayor followed the order with an injunction in whichit was stated “that in divers places the players are not to recitetheir plays to the great hurt and destruction of the game of bear-baitingand suchlike pastimes, which are maintained for Her Majesty’s pleasure.”

[Pg 211]During the famous visit in 1575, of Queen Elizabeth to the Earl ofLeicester, at Kenilworth Castle, baiting thirteen bears by ban dogs (asmall kind of mastiff), was one of the entertainments provided for theroyal guest.

History furnishes several instances of the Queen having animals baited forthe diversion of Ambassadors. On May 25, 1559, the French Ambassadorsdined with the Queen, and after dinner bulls and bears were baited byEnglish dogs. She and her guests stood looking at the pastime until sixo’clock. Next day the visitors went by water to the Paris Garden, wheresimilar sports were held. In 1586, the Danish Ambassadors were received atGreenwich by Her Majesty, and bull and bear baiting were part of theamusements provided. Towards the close of her reign, the Queen entertainedanother set of Ambassadors with a bear-bait at the Cockpit near St.James’s. Baiting animals appears to have been the chief form of amusementprovided by the Queen for foreign visitors.

[Pg 212]Edmund Alleyn, founder of Dulwich College, was for a long time part ownerof the bear gardens at Southwark. Mr. Edward Walford thinks that he wasobliged to become a proprietor to make good his position as a player, andto carry out his theatrical designs. He had to purchase the patent officeof “Beare ward,” or “Master of the King’s Beares.” Alleyn is reputed tohave had a well stocked garden. On one occasion, when Queen Elizabethwanted a grand display of bear-baiting, Sir John Dorrington, the chiefmaster of Her Majesty’s “Games of Bulls and Bears,” applied and obtainedanimals from Alleyn.

The following advertisement written in a large hand was found amongst theAlleyn papers, and is supposed to be the original placard exhibited at theentrance of the bear-garden. It is believed to date back to the days ofJames I.:—

The public had to be protected from the dogs[Pg 213] employed in this sport.From the “Archives of Winchester,” published 1856, a work compiled fromthe city records, we find it stated.—“By an Ordinance of the 4th ofAugust, in the twenty-eighth year of the reign of Elizabeth, bull-dogswere prohibited roving throughout the city unmuzzled. Itm.—That noeperson within this citie shall suffer or permit any of theire MastifeDoggs to goe unmusselled, uppon paine of everie defalte herein of 3s. 4d.to be levied by distresse, to the use of the Poore people of the citie.”

[Pg 215]James I. was a lover of hunting and other sports, and gave his patronageto bear-baiting. We learn from Nichols’ “Progresses and Processions,” thatthe King commanded that a bear which had killed a child which hadnegligently been left in the bear-house of the Tower, be baited to deathupon a stage. The order was carried out in presence of a large gatheringof spectators.

In a letter written on July 12th, 1623, by Mr. Chamberlain to Sir DudleyCarleton, the following passage occurs:—“The Spanish Ambassador is muchdelighted in bear-baiting. He was last week at Paris Garden, where theyshowed him[Pg 216] all the pleasure they could both with bull, bear, and horse,besides jackanapes, and then turned a white bear into the Thames, wherethe dogs baited him swimming, which was the best sport of all.”

Mr. William Kelly, in his work entitled “Notices Illustrative of the Dramaand other Popular Amusements, Chiefly in the Sixteenth and SeventeenthCenturies,” has some very curious information relating to bear-baiting.The Leicester town accounts contain entries of many payments given to thebear-wards of Edward VI., Queen Elizabeth, and members of the nobility.Leicester had its bear-garden, but we learn from Mr. Kelly that the localauthorities were not content to see the sport there, “as it was introducedat the Mayor’s feast, at the Town Hall, which was attended by many of thenobility and gentry of the neighbourhood.” We may suppose that, taking theplace usually occupied by the “interlude,” the bear was baited in the Hallin the interval between the feast and the “banquet” or dessert, and thecompany, like the Spanish Ambassador, no doubt witnessed the exhibition“with great delight.” Much might be said relating to Leicester, but wemust be[Pg 217] content with drawing upon Mr. Kelly for one more item. “In thesummer of 1589 (probably at the invitation of the Mayor), the HighSheriff, Mr. Skeffington, and ‘divers other gentlemen with him,’ werepresent at ‘a great beare-beating’ in the town, and were entertained, atthe public expense, with wine and sugar, and a present of ‘ten shillingsin gold’ was also made.”

A couplet concerning Congleton Church Bible being sold to purchase a bearto bait at the annual feast, has made the town known in all parts of thecountry. The popular rhyme says:—

The scandal has been related in prose and poetry by many pens. Natives ofthe ancient borough are known as “Congleton Bears”—by no means a pleasantepithet. The inhabitants make the best of the story, and tell how justbefore the wakes their only bear died, and it was feared that they wouldbe unable to obtain another to enjoy their popular sport. The bear-wardwas most diligent in collecting money to buy another animal, but after allhis exertions he failed to obtain the required amount. He at[Pg 218] last madeapplication to the local authorities, and as they had a small sum in the“towne’s boxe” put aside for the purchase of a Bible for the chapel, itwas lent, and it is presumed that the sum of 16s. was duly returned, andthe scriptures were obtained.

Egerton Leigh, in his “Cheshire Ballads,” has an amusing poem bearing onthis subject, and he concludes it as follows:—

“The townsmen, ’tis true, would explain it away,
In those days when Bibles were so dear they say,
That they th’ old Bible swopped at the wakes for a bear,
Having first bought a new book.
Thus shrink they the sneer,
And taunts ’gainst their town thus endeavour to clear.”

The town accounts show how popular must have been the sport at Congleton.The following are a few items:—

Such are a few examples of the many entries which appear in the Congletontown accounts relating to bear-baiting.

Congleton is not the only place reproached for selling the church Biblefor enabling the inhabitants to enjoy the pastime of bear-baiting. Twomiles distant from Rugby is the village of Clifton, and, says a couplet,

“Clifton-upon-Dunsmore, in Warwickshire,
Sold the church Bible to buy a bear.”

[Pg 220]“The People of Clifton-super-Dunsmore
Sold ye Church Byble to buy a bayre.”

There is a tradition that in the days of old the Bible was removed fromthe Parish Church of Ecclesfield and pawned by the churchwardens toprovide the means of a bear-baiting. Some accounts state this occurred atBradfield, and not at Ecclesfield. The “bull-and-bear stake” at the latterYorkshire village was near the churchyard.

Under the Commonwealth this pastime was not permitted, but when theStuarts were once more on the throne bear-baiting and other sports becamepopular.

Hockley-in-the-Hole, near Clerkenwell, in the days of Addison, was afavourite place for the amusement. There is a reference to the subject intheSpectator of August 11th, 1731, wherein it is suggested that thosewho go to the theatres for a laugh should “seek their diversion at thebear garden, where reason and good manners have no right to disturb them.”

“Experienced men inured to city ways
Need not the calendar to count their days,
When through the town, with slow and solemn air,
[Pg 221]Led by the nostril walks the muzzled bear;
Behind him moves, majestically dull,
The pride of Hockley Hole, the surly bull,
Learn hence the periods of the week to name—
Mondays and Thursdays are the days of game.”

Towards the close of the last century the pastime, once the pleasure ofking’s and queens and the highest nobles in the land, was mainly upheld bythe working classes. A bill, in 1802, was introduced into the House ofCommons to abolish baiting animals. The measure received the support ofCourtenay, Sheridan, and Wilberforce, men of power in Parliament, but Mr.Windham, who led the opposition, won the day. He pronounced it “as thefirst result of a conspiracy of the Jacobins and Methodists to render thepeople grave and serious, preparatory to obtaining their assistance in thefurtherance of other anti-national schemes.” The bill was lost by thirteenvotes. In 1835, baiting animals was finally stopped by Act of Parliament.

Morris-Dancers.

Says Dr. Johnson: “the Morris-Dance, in which bells are jingled, or stavesor swords clashed, was learned by the Moors, and was probably a kind ofPyrrhic, or military dance. “Morisco,” says Blount (Span.), a Moor; also adance, so called, wherein there were usually five men, and a boy dressedin a girl’s habit, whom they called the Maid Marrion, or perhaps Morian,from the Italian Morione, a head-piece, because her head was wont to begaily trimmed up. Common people called it a Morris-Dance.” Such are thestatements made at the commencement of a chapter on this subject in“Brand’s Popular Antiquities.”

It is generally agreed that the Morris-Dance was introduced into thiscountry in the sixteenth century. In the earlier English allusions it iscalledMorisco, a Moor, and this indicates its origin from Spain. It waspopular in France before it was appreciated amongst our countrymen; someantiquaries assert that it came to England from our Gallic neighbours, oreven from the[Pg 223] Flemings, while others state that when John of Gauntreturned from Spain he was the means of making it known here, but we thinkthere is little truth in the statement.

Our countrymen soon united the Morris-Dance with the favourite pageantdance of Robin-hood. We discover many traces of the two dances in sacredas well as profane places. In old churchwarden’s accounts we sometimesfind items bearing on this theme. The following entries are drawn from the“Churchwardens’ and Chamberlains’ Books of Kingston-upon-Thames:”—

[Pg 224]It is stated that in 1536-37, amongst other clothes belonging to the playof Robin Hood, left in the keeping of the churchwardens, were “a fryer’scoat of russet, with a kyrtle of worsted welted with red cloth, a mowren’scote of buckram, and 4 Morres daunsars cote of white fustain spangelyed,and two gryne saten cotes, and a dysardd’s cote of cotton, and 6 payre ofgarters with bells.”

Some curious payments appear in the churchwardens’ accounts of St. Mary’sparish, Reading, and are quoted by Coates, the historian of the town.Under the year 1557, items as follow appear:—

The following is a curious note drawn from the original accounts of St.Giles’, Cripplegate, London:—

[Pg 227]We learn from the churchwardens’ accounts of Great Marlow that dresses forthe Morris-dance were lent out to the neighbouring parishes down to 1629.Some interesting pictures illustrating the usages of bygone ages includethe Morris-dance, and gives us a good idea of the costumes of those takingpart in it. A painted window at Betley, Staffordshire, has frequentlyformed the subject of an illustration, and we give one of it.

Here is shown in a spirited style a set of Morris-dancers. It is describedin Steven’s “Shakespeare” (Henry IV., Part I.) There are eleven picturesand a Maypole. The characters are as follow:—1, Robin Hood; 2, MaidMarion; 3, Friar Tuck; 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11, Morris-dancers; 5, thehobby-horse; 8, the Maypole; 9, the piper; and 12, the fool. Figures 10and 11 have long streamers to the sleeves, and all the dancers have bells,either at the ankles, wrists, or knees. Tollett, the owner of the window,believed it dated back to the time of Henry VIII.,c. 1535. Douce thinksit belongs to the reign of Edward IV., and other authorities share hisopinion. It is thought that the figures of the English friar, Maypole, andhobby-horse have been added at a later period.

[Pg 228]Towards the close of the reign of James I., Vickenboom painted a picture,Richmond Palace, and in it a company of Morris-dancers form an attractivefeature. The original painting includes seven figures, consisting of afool, hobby-horse, piper, Maid Marion, and three dancers. We give anillustration of the first four characters and one of the dancers, from adrawing by Douce, produced from a tracing made by Grose. The bells on thedancer and the fool are clearly shown.

We also present a picture of a Whitsun Morris-dance. In the olden time, atWhitsuntide, this diversion was extremely popular.

Many allusions to the Morris-dancers occur in the writings of Elizabethanauthors. Shakespeare, for example, in Henry V., refers to it thus:—

“And let us doit with no show of fear;
No! with no more than if we heard that England
Were busied with a Whitsun Morris-dance.”

InAll’s Well that Ends Well, he speaks of the fitness of a“Morris-dance for May-day.” We might cull many quotations from the poets,but we will only make one more and it is from Herrick’s “Hesperides,”describing the blessings of the country:—

“ThyWakes, thy Quintals, here thou hast
Thy maypoles, too, with garlands grac’d
ThyMorris-dance, thy Whitsun-ale;
Thy shearing flat, which never fail.”

[Pg 231]As might be expected, the Puritans strongly condemned this form ofpleasure. Richard Baxter, in his “Divine Appointment of the Lord’s Day,”gives us a vivid picture of Sunday in a pleasure-loving time. “I havelived in my youth,” says Baxter, “in many places where sometimes shows ofuncouth spectacles have been their sports at certain seasons of the year,and sometimesmorrice-dancings, and sometimes stage plays and sometimeswakes and revels.... And when the people by the book [of Sports] wereallowed to play and dance out of public service-time, they could hardlybreak off their sports that many a time the reader was fain to stay tillthe piper and players would give over; and sometimes themorrice-dancerswould come into the church in all their linen, and scarfs, and anticdresses, with morrice-bells jingling at their legs. And as soon as commonprayer was read did haste out presently to their play again.” Stubbes, inhis “Anatomie of Abuses” (1585), writes in a similar strain.

[Pg 233]The pleasure-loving Stuarts encouraged Sunday sports, and James I., in hisDeclaration of May 24th 1618, directed that the people should not bedebarred from having May-games, Whitsun-ales, and Morris-dances, and thesetting up of May poles.

During the Commonwealth, dancing round the Maypole and many other popularamusements were stopped, but no sooner had Charles II. come to the throneof the country than the old sports were revived. For a fuller account ofthis subject the reader would do well to consult Brand’s “PopularAntiquities,” and the late Alfred Burton’s book on “Rush-Bearing,” fromboth works we have derived information for this chapter.

The Folk-Lore of Midsummer Eve.

The old superstitions and customs of Midsummer Eve form a curious chapterin English folk-lore. Formerly this was a period when the imagination ranriot. On Midsummer Day the Church holds its festival in commemoration ofthe birth of St. John the Baptist, and some of the old customs relate tothis saint.

On the eve of Midsummer Day it was a common practice to light bonfires.This custom, which is a remnant of the old Pagan fire-worship, prevailedin various parts of the country, but perhaps lingered the longest inCornwall. We gather from Borlase’s “Antiquities of Cornwall,” published in1754, that at the Midsummer bonfires, the Cornish people attended withlighted torches, tarred and pitched at the end, and made theirperambulations round the fires, afterwards going from village to villagecarrying their torches before them. He regarded the usage as a survival ofDruidical superstitions. In the same county it was a practice on St.Stephen’s[Pg 235] Down, near Launceston, to erect a tall pole with a bush fixedat the top of it, and round the pole to heap fuel. After the fire was lit,parties of wrestlers contested for prizes specially provided for thefestival. According to an old tradition, an evil spirit once appeared inthe form of a black dog, and since that time the wrestlers have never beenable to meet on Midsummer Eve without being seriously injured in thesport.

About Penzance, not only did the fisher-folk and their friends dance aboutthe blazing fire, but sang songs composed for the joyous time. We give acouple of verses from one of these songs:—

“As I walked out to yonder green
One evening so fair,
All where the fair maids may be seen,
Playing at the bonfire.

Where larks and linnets sing so sweet,
To cheer each lively swain,
Let each prove true unto her lover,
And so farewell the plain.”

Mr. William Bottrell, one of the most painstaking writers on Cornishfolk-lore, in an article written in 1873, asserts that not a few oldpeople living in remote and primitive districts, “believe that dancing ina ring over the embers, around a bonfire, or leaping (singly) through itsflames, is[Pg 236] calculated to insure good luck to the performers, and serve asa protection from witchcraft and other malign influences during theensuing year.” Mr. Bottrell laments the decay of these pleasing oldMidsummer observances. He tells us that within “the memory of many whowould not like to be called old, or even aged, on a Midsummer’s eve, longbefore sunset, groups of girls—both gentle and simple—of from ten totwenty years of age, neatly dressed and decked with garlands, wreaths, orchaplets of flowers, would be seen dancing in the streets.”

Some of the ancient Midsummer rites are still observed in Ireland. We havefrom an eyewitness some interesting items on the subject. People assembleand dance round fires, the children jump through the flames, and in formertimes coals were carried into corn fields to prevent blight. The peasantsare not, of course, aware that the ceremony is a remnant of the worship ofBaal. It is the opinion of not a few that the famous round towers ofIreland were intended for signal fires in connection with this worship.

In the pleasant pages of T. Crofton Croker’s “Researches in the South ofIreland,” are[Pg 237] particulars of a custom, observed on the eve of St. John’sDay, of dressing up a broomstick as a figure, and carrying it about in thetwilight from one cabin to the other, and suddenly pushing it in at thedoor, a proceeding which causes both surprise and merriment. The figure isknown as Bredogue.

The superstitious inhabitants of the Isle of Man formerly, on MidsummerEve, lighted fires to the windward side of fields, so that the smoke mightpass over the corn. The cattle were folded, and around the animals wascarried blazing grass or furze, as a preventative against the influence ofwitches. Many other strange practices and beliefs prevailed.

In Wales, in the earlier years of the present century, it was customary tofix sprigs of the plant called St. John’s wort over the doors of thecottages, and sometimes over the windows, in order to purify the housesand drive away all fiends and evil spirits. It was the common custom inEngland in the olden time for people to repair to the woods, breakbranches from the trees, and carry them to their homes with much delight,and place them over their doors. The ceremony, it is said, was to makegood the[Pg 238] Scripture prophecy respecting the Baptist, that many shouldrejoice at his birth.

Midsummer Eve has ever been famous as a time suitable for lovedivinations, and surely a few notes on love-lore cannot fail to findfavour with our fair readers. In a popular story issued at thecommencement of this century, from the polished pen of Hannah More, theheroine of the tale says that she would never go to bed on this nightwithout first sticking up in her room the common plant called “Orpine,”or, more generally, “Midsummer Men,” as the bending of the leaves to theright or the left indicate to her if her lover was true or false. Thefollowing charming lines refer to the ceremony, and are translated fromthe German poet, and given in Chambers’s “Book of Days,” so we may inferthat the same superstition prevails in that country:—

“The young maid stole through the cottage door,
And blushed as she sought the plant of power:
‘Thou silver glow-worm, oh, lend me thy light,
I must gather the mystic St. John’s wort to-night—
The wonderful herb, whose leaf will decide
If the coming year shall make me a bride.’
And the glow-worm came
With its silvery flame,
And sparkled and shone
Through the night of St. John.
[Pg 239]
“And soon as the young maid her love-knot tied,
With noiseless tread,
To her chamber she sped,
Where the sceptral moon her white beams shed:
‘Bloom here, bloom here, thou plant of power,
To deck the young bride in her bridal hour!’
But it droop’d its head, that plant of power,
And died the mute death of the voiceless flower;
And a wither’d wreath on the ground it lay,
More meet for a burial than a bridal day.
And when a year was passed away,
All pale on her bier the young maid lay;
And the glow-worm came
With its silvery flame,
And sparkled and shone
Through the night of St. John,
And they closed the cold grave o’er the maid’s cold clay.”

We gather from Thorpe’s “Northern Mythology,” that in Sweden it was thepractice to place under the head of a youth or maiden nine kinds offlowers, with a full belief that they would dream of their sweethearts.

In England, in past times, the moss-rose was plucked with considerableceremony on this eve for love divinations. Says the writer of a poementitled “The Cottage Girl”:—

“The moss-rose that, at fall of dew,
Ere eve its duskier curtain drew,
Was freshly gathered from its stem,
[Pg 240]She values as the ruby gem;
And, guarded from the piercing air,
With all an anxious lover’s care,
She bids it, for her shepherd’s sake,
Await the New Year’s frolic wake:
When faded in its altered hue,
She reads—the rustic is untrue!
But if its leaves the crimson paint,
Her sick’ning hopes no longer faint;
The rose upon her bosom worn,
She meets him at the peep of morn,
And lo! her lips with kisses prest,
He plucks it from her panting breast.”

“On the continent,” says Dyer, in his “Folk-Lore of Plants,” “the rose isstill thought to possess mystic virtues in love matters, as in Thuringia,where the girls foretell their future by means of rose leaves.” It appearsfrom a contributor to Chambers’s “Book of Days,” that there was broughtsome time ago under the notice of the Society of Antiquarians a curiouslittle ring, which had been found in a ploughed field near Cawood,Yorkshire. It was inferred from its style and inscription to belong to thefifteenth century. The device consisted of two orpine plants joined by atrue-love knot, with this motto above:Ma fiancée velt,i.e., “Mysweetheart is willing or desirous.” We are told that the stalks of theplants were bent to each[Pg 241] other, in token that the parties represented bythem were to come together in marriage. The motto under the ring wasJoyel’amour feu. It is supposed that it was originally made for some lover togive to his mistress on Midsummer Eve, as the orpine plant is connectedwith that time. The dumb cake is another item of Midsummer folk-lore:—

a third put it under their pillows, and this was all done without a wordbeing spoken. If this was faithfully carried out it was believed that thediviners would dream of the men they loved.

Sowing hempseed on this eve was once a general custom. We have notedparticulars of the ceremony as carried out at Ashbourne, Derbyshire. Atthis village, when a young maiden wished to discover who would be herfuture husband, she repaired to the churchyard, and as the clock struckthe witching hour of midnight, she commenced running round the church,continually repeating the following lines:—

“I sow hempseed, hempseed I sow;
He that loves me best
Come after me and mow.”

[Pg 242]After going round the church a dozen times without stopping, her lover wassaid to appear and follow her. The closing scene of this spell is welldescribed in a poem by W. T. Moncrieff:—

“Ah! a step. Some one follows. Oh, dare I look back?
Should the omen be adverse, how would my heart writhe.
Love, brace up my sinews! Who treads on my track?
’Tis he, ’tis the loved one; he comes with the scythe,
He mows what I’ve sown; bound, my heart, and be blithe.
On Midsummer Eve the glad omen is won,
Then hail to thy mystical virgil, St. John.”

From the charms of love let us briefly turn to a superstition relating todeath. At one time it was believed, and in some country districts thesuperstition may yet linger, that anyone fasting during the evening, andthen sitting at midnight in the church porch, would see the spirits ofthose destined to die that year come and knock at the church door. Theghosts were supposed to come in the same succession as the persons weredoomed to pass away.

A pleasing old custom long survived in Craven, Yorkshire, and other partsof the North of England, of new settlers in the town or village, on thefirst Midsummer Eve after their arrival, to set out before their doors aplentiful repast of cold beef, bread, cheese, and ale. We are told[Pg 243] thatneighbours who wished to cultivate their acquaintance sat down and partookof their hospitality, and thus “eat and drunk themselves into intimacy.”Hone’s “Every Day Book” has a note of this custom being observed at Ripon.“It was a popular superstition,” wrote Grose, “that if any unmarried womanfasted on Midsummer Eve, and at midnight laid a clean cloth with bread,cheese, and ale, and then sat down as if going to eat, the street doorbeing left open, the person whom she was afterwards to marry would comeinto the room and drink to her, bowing; and after filling a glass wouldleave the table, and, making another bow, retire.”

Harvest Home.

Among the old-world customs connected with the times and seasons, that ofcelebrating the ingathering of the harvest with a rustic festival hassurvived many which have either passed away, and almost out of memory, orhave come to have only a partial and precarious hold upon the minds of thepresent generation. The rush-cart maintains a feeble struggle forexistence in a few northern localities, but each year shows diminishedvigour; the May-day festival of the chimney-sweepers has become obsolete,and the dance round the May-pole an open-air ballet; and many oldobservances connected with the Christmas season which were formerly commonto all England are now kept up only in these northern counties, where theflavour of antiquity seems to be much more highly appreciated than in thesouth. But the harvest home festival holds its ground with equalpersistency in both portions of the kingdom, and has of late years beeninvested with additional glories, sometimes with a superabundance of themwhich[Pg 245] threatens a reaction. There were some features of the oldercelebrations of the ingathering of the fruits of the earth, however,which, from various causes, have fallen into disuse, and which many of uswould gladly, if it were possible, see restored.

We could welcome, for instance, the songs into which the joyous feelingsof the harvesters broke forth in the old times as the last load of grainwas carried off the field, and when the lads and lasses, with the olderrustics, had partaken of a good supper in the farmer’s kitchen, andafterwards danced to the music of the fiddle or pipes in the barn. Thereare many references to the feasting and singing and dancing customs ofthis season in the poetry of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.Tusser tells us that:—

“In harvest time, harvest folk, servants and all,
Should make all together, good cheer in the hall,
And fill the black bowl, so blithe to their song,
And let them be merry, all harvest time long.”

“Lo, here we come a-reaping, a-reaping,
To reap our harvest fruit;
And thus we pass the year so long,
And never be we mute.”

[Pg 246]Stevenson, in his “Twelve Months,” says, “In August the furmety potwelcomes home the harvest cart, and the garland of flowers crowns thecaptain of the reapers. The battle of the field is now stoutly fought. Thepipe and the tabor are now busily set a-work, and the lad and the lasswill have no lead in their heels. Oh, ’tis a merry time, wherein honestneighbours make good cheer, and God is glorified in his blessings on theearth.” Tusser’s verse reminds us of another feature of these oldcelebrations of which little trace remains at the present day, that is,the temporary suspension of all social inequality between employer andemployed. There would be less reason to regret this change, however, if,in place of the temporary obliviousness of class distinctions, we couldsee more genial intercourse all through the year.

The clergy seem to have been less in evidence at the harvest rejoicings ofthose days than at present. There was a tithe question even two centuriesago, for Dryden, in hisKing Arthur, makes his festive rustics sing:—

“We’ve cheated the parson, we’ll cheat him again,
For why should the blockhead have one in ten?
One in ten! one in ten!
For staying while dinner is cold and hot,
[Pg 247]And pudding and dumpling are burnt to the pot!
Burnt to pot! burnt to pot!
We’ll drink off our liquor while we can stand.
And hey for the honour of England!
Old England! Old England!”

There is some comfort for the loss of the singing and dancing customs ofthe old times in that the fact the heavy drinking of the period has alsobecome a thing of the past, and perhaps also in the reflections arisingfrom the misuse of music of which some curious illustrations have beenpreserved by Mr. Surtees. The historian mentions, in his “History ofDurham,” having read a report of the trial of one Spearman, for havingmade a forcible entry into a field at Birtley, and mowed and carried awaythe crop, a piper playing on the top of the loaded waggon for the purposeof making the predatory harvesters work the faster, so as to get awaybefore their roguish industry could be interrupted. It may be noted inpassing that a similar use of music is shown in the following entry in theparish accounts of Gateshead, under the date of 1633:—“To workmen formaking the streets even at the King’s coming, 18s. 4d.: and paid to thepiper for playing to the menders of the highway, five several days, 3s.4d.”

Many local variations exist in the customs[Pg 248] associated with the harvesthome festivities observed in different parts of the country, especially inthe north, where all old customs and observances, like the provincialdialects, have lingered longest, and still linger when they have died outand been forgotten in the south. In Cleveland, it is, or used to be, thecustom, on forking the last sheaf on the wagon, for the harvesters toshout in chorus:—

“Weel bun and better shorn,
Is Master ——’s corn;
We hev her, we hev her,
As fast as a feather.
Hip, hip, hurrah!”

A similar custom exists in Northumberland, where it is called “shouting akirn.” It consists in a simultaneous shout from the whole of the peoplepresent. In some localities the shout is preceded by a rhyme suitable tothe occasion, recited by the clearest-voiced persons among thoseassembled. Mr. James Hardy gives the following as a specimen:—

“Blessed be the day our Saviour was born,
For Master ——’s corn’s all well shorn;
And we will have a good supper to-night,
And a drinking of ale, and a kirn! a kirn!”

All unite in a simultaneous shout at the close,[Pg 249] and he who does notparticipate in the ringing cheer is liable to have his ears pulled. InGlendale, an abbreviated version of the rhyme is used, with a variation,as follows:—

“The master’s corn is ripe and shorn,
We bless the day that he was born,
Shouting a kirn! a kirn!”

Are these customs observed at the present day? This is an age of change.We have used the present tense in the foregoing references, but it is inthe past tense that we read in Chambers’s “Book of Days,” that, “In theNorth of England, the reapers were accustomed to leave a good handful ofgrain uncut; they laid it down flat, and covered it over; when the fieldwas done, the bonniest lass was entrusted with the pleasing duty ofcutting the final handful, which was presently dressed up with varioussewings, tyings, and trimmings like a doll, and hailed as a Corn Baby orKirn Dolly. It was carried home in triumph with music of fiddles andbagpipes, set up conspicuously at night during supper, and usuallypreserved in the farmer’s parlour for the remainder of the year. The fairmaiden who cut this handful of grain was called the Har’st Queen.” Asimilar custom prevailed, with local[Pg 250] variations, in Shropshire,Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire, Devonshire, and other parts of England. InLincolnshire, and some other counties, handbells were rung by those ridingon the last load, and the following rhyme sung:—

“The boughs do shake and the bells do ring,
So merrily comes in our harvest in,
Our harvest in, our harvest in!
Hurrah!”

Writers on local customs formerly observed in different parts of thecountry, have preserved the memory of a curious one connected with thelast handful of wheat. In some parts the reapers threw their sickles atthe reserved handful, and he who succeeded in cutting it down shouted, “Ihave her!” “What have you?” the others cried out. “A mare!” he replied.“What will you do with her?” was then asked. “Send her to ——,” namingsome neighbouring farmer whose harvest work was not completed. This rusticpleasantry was called “crying the mare.” The rejoicings attendant on thebringing in of the last load of corn are thus described in the “Book ofDays”:—“The waggon containing it was called the hock cart; it wassurmounted by a figure formed out of a sheaf, with gay dressings,[Pg 251]intended to represent the goddess Ceres. In front men played merry tuneson the pipe and tabor, and the reapers tripped around in a hand-in-handring, singing appropriate songs, or simply by shouts and cries giving ventto the excitement of the day. In some districts they sang or shouted asfollows:—

“Harvest home, harvest home!
We ploughed, we have sowed,
We have reaped, we have moved,
We have brought home every load.
Hip, hip, hip, harvest home!”

In some parts the figure on the waggon, instead of an effigy, was theprettiest of the girl-reapers, decked with summer flowers, and hailed asthe Harvest Queen. Bloomfield, in one of his Suffolk ballads, thuspreserves the memory of this custom:—

“Home came the jovial Hockey load,
Last of the whole year’s crop;
And Grace among the green boughs rode,
Right plump upon the top.”

These and many other harvest-home customs undoubtedly had their origin inheathen times, in common with those associated with the New Year, theEpiphany, May Day, and many other festivals.

[Pg 252]Not the least important part of the harvest home observances was thesupper which closed them, and which took place in the kitchen of thefarmhouse or in the barn, the master and mistress presiding. The fare onthese occasions was substantial and plentiful, and good home-brewed alewas poured out abundantly—we are afraid too much so. The harvest homesupper of the sixteenth century, as graphically portrayed by Herrick,included:—

“Foundation of your feast, fat beef,
With upper stories, mutton, veal,
And bacon, which makes full the meal;
With several dishes standing by,
As here a custard, there a pie,
And here all-tempting frumentie.
And for to make the merry cheer,
If smirking wine be wanting here,
There’s that which drowns all care, stout beer.”

Instead of a formal vote of thanks to the givers of the feast, theprevailing feeling was expressed in a song, one version of which runs asfollows:—

“Here’s health to our master,
The load of the feast;
God bless his endeavours,
And send him increase.
May prosper his crops, boys,
[Pg 253]And we reap next year;
Here’s our master’s good health, boys,
Come, drink off your beer!

Now harvest is ended,
And supper is past;
Here’s to our mistress’s health, boys,
Come, drink a full glass.
For she’s a good woman,
Provides us good cheer;
Here’s our mistress’s good health, boys.
Come, drink off your beer!”

Over the greater part of England a harvest-thanksgivings service has, atthe present day, taken the place of the festive observances of formertimes. It would be useless to regret the passing away of the old customs,even if there was much more reason for such a feeling; for change is aninevitable condition of existence, and we can no more recall the oldthings which have passed away than we can replace last year’s snow on thewolds. Even the harvest-thanksgiving service, with its accompanying cerealand horticultural decorations of church and chapel, seems destined to achange. The decorations are too often overdone. We have seen in somechurches piles of fruit and vegetables that would furnish a shop, inaddition to sheaves of corn and stacks of quartern loaves. In someinstances, a more deplorable display has been made in the shape of a[Pg 254]model of a farmyard, thus turning the place of worship into a show.Sometimes, too, the sermon has no reference to the harvest. Sometimes,again, the service is held before the harvest has been gathered in; orthanks are offered for an abundant harvest when it has notoriously beendeficient. Perhaps the need of a collection at this particular time mayaccount for these discrepancies. Such mistakes are easily avoided,however, and no fault can reasonably be found with these celebrations whenreligious zeal is kept within the bounds of discretion.

Curious Charities.

We obtain some interesting side-lights on the condition of the people inthe past from old-time charities. Several of the prison charities foundedin bygone times are extremely quaint and full of historic interest. OneFrances Thornhill appears to have had a desire to make the prison bedscomfortable. She left the sum of £30 for the Corporation of the city ofYork to provide straw for the beds of the prisoners confined in YorkCastle. The local authorities in these later years appear to have receivedthe interest on the capital without carrying out the conditions of thecharity.

Bequests of fuel suggest to the mind the time when persons not onlysuffered from imprisonment but also from cold. At Bury St. Edmund’s, £10was left by Margaret Odiam for a minister to say mass to the inmates ofthe jail, and for providing faggots to warm the long ward in which thepoor prisoners were lodged. In 1787, Elizabeth Dean, of Reading, left £15617s.[Pg 256] 5d., the interest of which she directed to be spent in buyingfirewood for the county jail.

At Norwich, a worthy man named John Norris left Consols to the value of£300 for buying beef and books for the felons confined in the jail. Theprison food is now regulated by law and the charity beef is banished, butwe believe the interest is spent in supplying the prisoners withliterature. Even as late as 1821, John Hall left Consols to the value of£127 16s. for providing a Christmas dinner of the good old English fare ofroast beef and plum pudding for the criminals in the Northampton countyprison. In 1556, Thomas Cattell left a rent charge of £35 a year forbuying beef and oatmeal for the poor prisoners of Newgate and other Londonprisons.

A singular bequest was made in the year 1556, by Griffith Ameridith, ofExeter, and it amounted to £524 4s. 11d. in Consols, “for providingshrouds for prisoners executed at Kingswell, and for the maintenance of awall round the burial ground.” “But,” says a writer on this theme,“probably for want of subjects for shrouds, the income is now, without anyauthority, applied to a distribution of serge petticoats to old women.”One advantage of the change is that the new[Pg 257] recipients can at leastexpress their gratitude. In the olden time it was by no means an uncommonpractice for criminals about to be executed to proceed to the gallows inshrouds. On July 30th, 1766, two men were hanged at Nottingham forrobbery. “On the morning of their execution,” says a local record, “theywere taken to St. Mary’s Church, where they heard ‘the condemned sermon,’and then to their graves, in which they were permitted to lie down to seeif they would fit. They walked to the place of execution in theirshrouds.” At an execution in the same town in 1784, we read in a localnewspaper report that the unfortunate men were attired in their shrouds.To add to the impressiveness of the condemned sermon, the coffins in whichthe condemned criminals were to be buried, were exhibited during theservice.

Charities and collections in churches were formerly very common in thiscountry for freeing British subjects from slavery in foreign lands. In1655, Alicia, Duchess of Dudley, by a deed poll, directed £100 per annumto be drawn from the rents of certain lands situated in the parish ofBidford, Warwickshire, for redeeming poor English Christian slaves orcaptives from the[Pg 258] Turks. Thomas Betson, of Hoxton Square, London, by willdated 15th February, 1723, left a considerable fortune for the redemptionof British slaves in Turkey and Barbary. He died in 1725, and five yearslater the property was estimated to be worth about £22,000, and theinterest on half the amount was to be devoted to ransoming his countrymenfrom slavery. In the year 1734, it is stated that 135 men were freed bythis charity. Between the years 1734 and 1826, the large sum of £21,0888s. 2½d. was expended in the admirable cause of freeing the captive.Many of the old church books contain entries respecting collections forthis object. In the books of Holy Cross, Westgate, Canterbury, is a longlist of the names of persons in the parish in March, 1670, contributing£02 07s. 04d., for “Redeeming the Captives in Turkye.”

Sir John Gayer, was in his time a leading London merchant, an Alderman forthe ward of Aldgate, and a popular Lord Mayor. He lived in the reigns ofJames I. and Charles I., and was a man of great enterprise, ready toencounter perils in foreign lands to forward his commercial projects. Onone memorable occasion he was travelling with a caravan of merchantsacross the desert of Arabia,[Pg 259] and by some accidental means managed toseparate himself from his friends, and at night-fall was alone. Hisposition was one of great peril: he heard the roaring of wild animals, butfailed to find any place of refuge. We gather from the story of his lifethat:—“He knelt down and prayed fervently, and devoutly promised, that ifGod would rescue him from his impending danger the whole produce of hismerchandise should be given as an offering in benefactions to the poor, onhis return to his native country. At this extremity a lion of an unusuallylarge size was approaching him. Death appeared inevitable, but the prayerof the good man had ascended to heaven, and he was delivered. The lioncame up close to him. After prowling round him, smelling him, bristlinghis shaggy hair, and eyeing him fiercely, he stopped short, turned round,and trotted quietly away, without doing the slightest injury. It is saidthat Sir John Gayer remained in the same suppliant posture till themorning dawned, when he pursued his journey, and happily came up with hisfriends, who had given up all hope of again seeing him.” The journey wasconcluded without further misadventure, a ready market found for thegoods, and old England reached in safety[Pg 260] with increased wealth. Sir Johndid not forget his vow, and many were the deeds of charity he performed,more especially to the poor of his own parish of St. Katharine Cree. Oneof bequests amounting to £200 was left to the needy of that parish oncondition that a “sermon should be occasionally preached in the church tocommemorate his deliverance from the jaws of the lion.” The sermon isknown as the “Lion Sermon.”

In the church of St. Katharine Cree within the altar rails is a carvedhead of Gayer. On the right hand side is a text, as follows:—“The eyes ofthe Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto theirprayers—Ps. 34, v. 15;” on the left hand side this text appears:—“Theeffectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much—James V.,xvi.;” and under the figure this motto:—“Super Astra Spero.” There is abrass bearing the following inscription:—

There are a number of ancient bequests for ringing bells and lightingbeacons to guide travellers by night. These were very useful charities,for in the days of old, lands were generally unenclosed, and the roadspoorly constructed. It was difficult for the wayfarer to find his way whenthe nights were dark. At the ancient village of Hessle, near Hull, a bellis still rung every night except Sunday, at 7 o’clock.[Pg 262] Long, long ago, soruns the local story, a lady was lost on a dark night near the place, andwas in sore distress, fearing that she would have to wander about in thecold until daylight. Happily, the ringing of the Hessle bells enabled herto direct her course to the village in safety, although she had to wendher weary steps over a trackless country. In gratitude for her deliveryshe left a piece of land to the parish clerk, on condition that he rangevery evening one of the church bells.

A similar story is related respecting a Barton-on-Humber bell ringingcustom. Richard Palmer left in 1664 a bequest to the sexton of Workingham,Berkshire, for ringing a bell every evening at eight, and every morning atfour o’clock. One reason for ringing this, was “that strangers and otherswho should happen, on winter nights, within hearing of the ringing of thesaid bell, to lose their way in the country, might be informed of the timeof the night, and receive some guidance into the right way.”

John Wardall, in his will dated 29th August, 1656, provided for a paymentof £4 per annum being made to the Churchwardens of St. Botolph’s,Billingsgate, London, “to provide a good and[Pg 263] sufficient iron and glasslanthorn, with a candle, for the direction of passengers to go with moresecurity to and from the water-side, all night long, to be fixed at thenorth-east corner of the parish church, from the feast-day of St.Bartholomew to Lady-Day; out of which sum £1 was to be paid to the sextonfor taking care of the lanthorn.” In 1662 a man named John Cooke made asimilar bequest for providing a lamp at the corner of St. Michael’s Lane,next Thames Street.

In past ages churches were frequently unpaved and the floor usuallycovered with rushes. Not a few persons have left money and land forproviding rushes for churches. In these latter days rushes are no longerstrewn on the floor for keeping the feet warm in cold weather, but at anumber of places old rights are maintained by the carrying out of thecustom. At Clee, Lincolnshire, for example, the parish officials possessthe right of cutting rushes from a certain piece of land for strewing thefloor of the church every Trinity Sunday. The churchwardens preserve theirrights by cutting a small quantity of grass annually and strewing it onthe church floor. At Old Weston, Huntingdonshire, a similar custom[Pg 264] stilllingers. “A piece of land,” says Edwards in his “Remarkable Charities,”“belongs, by custom, to the parish clerk for the time being, subject tothe condition of the land being mown immediately before Weston feast,which occurs in July, and the cutting thereof strewed on the church floor,previous to divine service on the feast Sunday, and continuing thereduring divine service.” At Pavenham, Bedfordshire, the church is annuallystrewn with grass cut from a certain field, on the first Sunday after the11th July. “Until recently,” says a well-informed correspondent, “thecustom was for the churchwardens to claim the right of removing from thefield in question as much grass as they could ‘cut and cart away fromsunrise to sunset.’ A few years ago this arrangement was altered into ayearly payment on the part of the tenant of the field of one guinea.” Themoney is spent in purchasing grass for spreading on the church floor. Theparishioners have always taken a deep interest in this old custom. On thebenefaction table of Deptford Church is recorded that “a person unknowngave half-a-quarter of wheat, to be given in bread on Good Friday, andhalf a load of rushes at Whitsuntide, and a load of pea-straw at[Pg 265]Christmas yearly, for the use of the church.” In 1721, an offer of 21s.per annum was accepted in lieu of the straw and rushes, and in 1744, thesum of 10s. yearly in place of the half-quarter of wheat.

John Rudge, by his will dated 17th April, 1725, left a pound a year to apoor man to go round the parish church of Trysull, Staffordshire, duringthe delivery of the sermon, to keep people awake and drive out of thechurch any dogs which might come in. Richard Brooke left 5s. a year for aperson to keep quiet during divine service the boys in the Wolverhamptonchurch and churchyard.

At Stockton-in-the-Forest, Yorkshire, is a piece of land called “PetticoatHole,” and it is held on the condition of providing a poor woman of theplace every year with a new petticoat.

We will close this chapter with particulars of a novel mode ofdistributing a charity. At Bulkeley, Cheshire, a charity of 19s. 2d. wasgiven to the poor as follows. The overseer obtained the amount in coppers,placed them in a peck measure, and invited each of the poor folks to helphimself or herself to a handful.

An Old-Time Chronicler.

We have frequently referred to the writings of John Stow in this work, andwe think a short account of his life and labours will prove interesting toour readers.

From the ranks of tailors have sprung many famous men. Not one moreworthy, perhaps, than honest John Stow, the painstaking compiler of workswhich have found a lasting place in historic literature.

Stow was a Londoner of Londoners, born in 1525, in the parish of St.Michael, Cornhill. His father and grandfather were citizens, and appear tohave been most worthy men. John Stow was trained under his father to thetrade of a tailor. At an early age he took an interest in the study ofhistory and antiquities, and, as years ran their course, his love ofresearch increased. We have had handed down to us from the pen of EdmundHowes, his literary executor, a well-drawn word-portrait of Stow. We learnthat he was tall in stature, and, as befits the ideal student,[Pg 267] lean inbody and face. His eyes were small and clear, and his sight excellent. Asmight be expected, through long and active use, his memory was very good.He was sober, mild, and corteous, and ever ready to impart information tothose that sought it.

He lived in an historically attractive age. It was a period when some ofour greatest countrymen worked and talked amongst men. Gifted authors madethe time glorious in our literary annals. Stow’s fame mainly rests onbeing an exact and picturesque describer of the London of Queen Elizabeth.HisSurvey is not a mere topographical account of the city, but apleasantly penned picture, full of life and character, of the socialcondition, manners, customs, sports, and pastimes of the people.

John Stow was most minute as a writer, and his attention to slightcircumstances has caused some critics to make merry over his productions.Fuller, for example, spoke of him “as such a smell-feast that he cannotpass by the Guildhall but his pen must taste the good cheer therein.” Itis his consideration of minor matters that renders his book so valuable tothe student of bygone times. We may quote, to illustrate this,[Pg 268] a fewlines from hisSurvey of London. After a description of the Abbey of St.Clare, he writes: “Near adjoining to this Abbey, on the south sidethereof, was sometime a farm belonging to the said nunnery, at which farmI myself, in my youth, have fetched many a halfpennyworth of milk, andnever had less than three ale pints for a halfpenny in the summer, norless than one ale quart for a halfpenny in the winter, always hot from thekine, as the same was milked and strained. One Trolop, afterwards Goodman,was farmer there, and had thirty or forty kine to the pail. Goodman’s son,being heir to his father’s purchase, let out the ground first for thegrazing of horses, and then for garden plots, and lived like a gentlemanthereby.”

In about his fortieth year, Stow gave up his business as a tailor anddevoted his entire life to antiquarian pursuits. Fame he won, but notfortune. In place of being wealthy in his old age, he, as we shallpresently see, suffered from poverty. His principal works include hisSummary of English Chronicles, first issued in 1561. In 1580, hisAnnals; or, a General Chronicle of England was published. His mostimportant work was given to the world in 1598, under the title of aSurvey of London and Westminster. Besides writing the foregoing originalbooks, he assisted on the continuation of Holinshed’sChronicle andSpeght’s edition of Chaucer, and he was employed on other undertakings.

[Pg 271]Many a long journey Stow made in search of information. He could not ride,and had to travel on foot. In the midst of great trials it is recordedthat his good humour never forsook him. In his old age he was troubledwith pains in his feet, and quietly remarked that his “afflictions lay inthe parts he had formerly made so much use of.”

We might well suppose that Stow’s blameless life would render him freefrom suspicion, and that his grateful countrymen would regard with respecthis great work in writing the history of England. Such was not the case.It was thought that his researches would injure the reformed religion, andon this miserable plea he was cast into prison, and his humble home wassearched. We obtain from the report of the searchers an interestingaccount of the contents of Stow’s library. It consisted, we are told, of“great collections of his own, of his English chronicles, also a greatsort of old books, some[Pg 272] fabulous, asSir Gregory Triamour, and a greatparcel of old manuscript chronicles in parchment and paper; besidesmiscellaneous tracts touching physic, surgery, herbs, and medicalreceipts, and also fantastical popish books printed in old time, andothers written in old English on parchment.”

John Stow failed to make much money, but on the whole, he lived a peacefullife, enjoying the many pleasures that fall to the lot of the student.Happily for him, to use Howes’ words, “He was careless of the scoffers,backbiters, and detractors.”

It is Howes who also tells that Stow always protested never to havewritten anything either of malice, fear, or favour, nor to seek his ownparticular gain or vain-glory, and that his only pains and care was towrite the truth.

At the age of four score years, his labours received State acknowledgment.It was indeed a poor acknowledgment, for, in answer to a petition, JamesI. granted him a licence to beg. Stow sought help, to use his own words,as “a recompense for his labour and travel of forty-five years, in settingforth theChronicles of England, and eight years taken up in theSurveyof the Cities of London and Westminster, towards his relief in his oldage, having left his former means of living,[Pg 273] and also employing himselffor the service and good of his country.”

The humble request was granted, and the document says:—“Whereas ourloving subject, John Stow (a very aged and worthy member of our city ofLondon), this five-and-forty years hath, to his great charge, and withneglect of his ordinary means of maintenance (for the general good, aswell of posterity as of the present age), compiled and published diversnecessary books and chronicles; and therefore we, in recompense of thesehis painful labours, and for encouragement of the like, have, in our Royalinclination, been pleased to grant our Letters Patent, under our GreatSeal of England, thereby authorising him, the said John Stow, to collectamong our loving subjects their voluntary contributions and kindgratuities.”

The foregoing authority to beg was granted for twelve months, but, as theresponse was so small, it pleased the King to extend the privilege foranother year. From one parish in the City of London he only received sevenshillings and sixpence—a poor reward, to use Stow’s words, “of many aweary day’s travel, and cold winter night’s study.”

[Pg 274]His end now was drawing near, and mundane trials were almost over. On the5th of April, 1605, his well-spent life closed, and his mortal remainswere laid to rest in his parish church of St. Andrew, Undershaft. Here maystill be seen the curious and interesting monument which his loving widowerected. It is pleasant to leave the busy streets of the great metropolisand repair to the quiet sanctuary where rests the old chronicler, and lookupon his quaint monument, and reflect on ages long passed. When the GreatFire of 1666 destroyed the London Stow had so truthfully described, hismonument escaped destruction.

Abingdon, customs at,56

Advertisement, novel,194-197

Age of Snuffing,168-185

Alleyn, Edward, founder of Dulwich College,212

Altrincham, Mayor of,60-61

Ambassadors, at bear-baitings,211,215-216

America, Muffs in,45-46;
Cold places of worship,46-47

Anglo-Saxon bread,134

An Old-Time Chronicler,266-274

Arise, Mistress, Arise!,142-143

Armstrong, Sir Thomas,84-87

Arrows,152

Ashbourne, custom at,241

Baker’s dozen,138

Baiting animals stopped by Act of Parliament,221

Banbury, customs at,58

Banks, Mrs. G. L., on hair-dressing,38

Bankside, plan of,213

Barber’s shop,21

Barley bread,135

Baxter, Richard, on Sunday pleasure,231

Barbers fined,32

Barrington, G., poet and pickpocket,180-181

Barrister’s wig,18,19

Barrow bells,157

Bear-baiting,132-133,205-221

Bells as Time-Tellers,156-167

Bell ringing bequests,261-262

Beverley, funeral at,123;
bear-baiting at,133

Bewdley, custom at,142

Bish, Mr., on Lotteries,200-202

Blue-Coat boys, draw at lotteries,194

Boar’s-head with mustard,131

Bonfires,234,235

Bow bells,159

Boroughbridge, Battle of,77

Brandeston, removing a dead body to the church for protection,117

Bread and Baking in Bygone Days,134-141

Bread Street,135

Bribes for the Palate,63-73

British slaves, freeing,257-258

Briscoe, J. P., on Nottingham customs,61-62

Bromley-by-Bow, bakers at,135

Burial at Cross Roads,105-114

Burying the mace,53

Butter and suet, prohibiting the use of in making bread,140

Byng, Admiral, shot,45

Cade, Jack,81

Caius, Dr., on dogs,145

Cambridge, regulations relating to tobacco,173

Candles for lighting the streets,52

Canterbury, curious customs at,52-53

Capture of snuff,171

Carlisle, Earl of, beheaded,78-79

Carlisle, heads spiked at,92-95

Charles II. and wigs,7

Charlotte, Queen, gives up using hair-powder,36;
taking snuff,176

Christmas rhymes,142

Chronicler, an Old-Time,266-274

Churches, snuff taking in,172-175

Clarinda, Burns on,178

Clee, custom at,263

Clergy and the wig,15-17

Clifton rhyme,219-220

Clocks, introduction of,160

Clothiers in eighteenth century,165

Closing shops, time for,160

Cobham, Eleanor, trial of,80
[Pg 276]
Cockledge, murder at,123

Combing the wig,10

Concerning Corporation Customs,48-62

Congleton, bear-baiting at,217-218

Conspiracy to assassinate William III.,87

Cooper’s Hall, Lotteries at,193

Cornish Insurrection,81;
folk-lore,234-236

Corporation snuff-boxes,168-169

Craven cartoon,242

Crop Clubs,34

Curious Charities,255-265

Curious window at Betley,225-227

Curfew bell,166-167

Dagger Money,57

Death, Superstitions relating to,242

Death of William I.,167

Deering on snuff-taking,178

Detaining the Dead for Debt,115-121

Derby, suicide, burial of a,106

Discarding wigs in court,19

Doctors’ muffs,42

Dogs, earliest writer on,145;
in muffs,44

Droylsden, suicide, burial of,108-109

Druidical superstitions,234

Dryden, Haunt of,182

Ducking Stool,138

Duels,106

Earle, Mrs. A. M., on American Muffs,46

Early closing of public-houses,167

Eating custom,242-243

Ecclesfield, tradition at,220

Edward III., proclamation of, against bear-baiting,205

Egypt, goose in,150

Egyptians, invent wigs,1

Eldon, Lord, objects to the wig,18

Elizabeth, enjoys baiting animals,208

Epitaphs,109,116,197,203-204,260-261

Erasmus in England,206

Exeter, salmon given at,70

False hair,20,22

Famous snuff takers,176

Fathers of the Church denounce wigs,3

Felo-de-se, Acts relating to,112-114

Female follies,30

Fined for arresting the dead,118-119,121

Fined for being deficient in elegance,52

First English lottery,186-188

Fish, presentation of,70

Fisher, Bishop, beheaded,81-82

Fishtoft, burial of a suicide at,107

Fitstephen on bear-baiting,205

Fletcher, Captain,88-89

Folk-Lore of Midsummer Eve,234-243

France, Mania for Wigs in,6-7

Funeral, stately,123

Garrick, Mrs.,178

George II., a selfish snuff-taker,185

Glayer, Sir John,258-261

Globe Theatre,209

Gold-dust used for hair-powder,28

Gossip about the Goose,150-155

Great Plague, tobacco and snuff used during,169-171

Guinea-pigs,35

Harvest bell,156,157-158

Harvest Home,244-254

Hair, cut off with a bread-knife,44

Hale, Sir Matthew,63-64

Hamlet, Grave scene in,105

Hampton Court Palace, clock at,162-163

Hannibal and his wigs,5-6

Hartlepool, strange enactment at,62

Hawarden attacked,74

Heart-breakers,20

Hempseed, sowing,241

Henzner, Paul,84

Herrick on harvest customs,252-253
[Pg 277]
Hilton, Jack of,152

Hockley-in-the-Hole,220

Holy bread,134

Hope theatre,207

Horse Guards, protect the lottery wheel,193

Howard’s Household Book,145

Hull, curious ordinances at,51-53;
Sheriff to provide his wife with a scarlet gown,52;
Andrew Marvell and Hull ale,71-73;
head spiked at,95;
ducking-stool at,96;
Mayor slain,98;
snuff-box at,168-169

Incorporation of towns,48

Inscription on bells,159

Ireland, St. John’s eve in,236-237

Irish folk-lore,175

Jackson, John, and his clock,162-166

Jacobites, defeat of,102

James I. and tobacco,173;
orders a bear to be baited to death,215

Johnson, Dr. Samuel, and his snuff,182

Judge’s wig,18

Keeping people awake,255

Kenilworth, bears baited at,211

King eating meal and rye bread,141

Kingston-upon-Thames, Morris Dancers at,223

Knocking feet in meeting houses,47

Lady, origin of,134

Lamb, Charles and Mary,184

Lanthorns, bequests for providing,262-263

Last Lottery in England,198-200

Layer, Councillor,87-88

Leconfield castle,123

Leeds bridge, market on,165

Leicester, mace lowering at,51;
bear-baiting at,216-217

Leighton, Robert, poem by,183-184

Letters from the dead to the living,11

Licence to beg,272-273

Lincolnshire geese,153

Lion Sermon,258-261

London Bakers’ Company,135-136

London Bridge,75-84

London, burials of suicides,110-111

Love divinations,238-240

Louth, ringing custom at,158

Lowering the mace,51

Ludlow, customs at,59

Lycians, heads shaven and wigs worn,5

Mace, as a weapon and as an ensign of authority,49

Manchester, curious baking regulations,140

Manorial service, curious,144,152

Margarett, Princess,49,123-124

Mar, Rising of,87

Marvell, Andrew, and Hull ale,71-73

Mary, Queen of Scots,102

May-pole,233

Meals in the olden time,127-129

Medical men and the wig,17-18

Men wearing Muffs,40-47

Michaelmas goose,154

Micklegate Bar, York,98-99;
heads stolen from,103

Milk, price of, in the olden time,268

More, Sir Thomas, beheaded,83

Morley, custom at,143

Morris-Dancers,222-233

Municipal Reform Act,48

Murder, strange story of a,137

Napoleon taking snuff,181;
snuff-box,177-178

Newcastle-on-Tyne, assize custom at,56-58;
presents of wine and sugar loaves,64-66;
brank at,66,67;
burial of a suicide,111

Nobleman’s Household in Tudor Times,122-133

North Wingfield, dead body stopped at,115-116

Northumberland Household Book,125-133
[Pg 278]
Norwich, burial of a suicide,107

Nottingham, burying the mace at,53-55;
ale and bread custom,61-62;
town’s presents,69;
Goose Fair,154

Novel mode of distributing a charity,265

Over, Mayor of,60-61

O’Connell, D., and his wig,22-23

Parading a head,79

Parliament sitting at Shrewsbury,75

Palm-Sunday, battle on,101

Penzance, customs at,235

Pepys and his wigs,7-9;
muffs,41;
on the Plague,170

Percy family,122-133

Peter the Great obtaining the loan of a wig,23

Petticoat charity,265

Pig-tail,12,14

Pillory, bakers in the,137

Pipes and tobacco for judges,58

Piper playing to workmen,247-248

Pliny on the goose,150

Poets’ Corner, Johnson and Goldsmith in,91-92

Porpoise regarded as a delicacy,69

Pope on Belinda,177

Potatoes, preservation of,70-71

Powdering the Hair,28-39

Pontefract Castle, head spiked at,77

Prison charities,255-256

Punishing bakers,138-140,141

Puritans and lotteries,189

Quill pens,155

Ramillie Wig,13

Reading, Morris Dancers at,224

Rebel Heads on City Gates,74-104

Revolt against Henry IV.,79

Reynolds, Sir Joshua,184-185

Riot, Wig,25-27

Rollit, Sir Albert K.,168

Rome saved by the cackling of the goose,151

Roper, Margaret,83,85

Rushes for church floors,263-265

Rye, authority of Mayor,62

Rye House Plot,84-87

Saxons colouring their hair,28

Scarlet gowns for the Mayoress,52

Scotland, wigs in,36-37;
muff in,42;
body arrested in,120;
snuff taking in,171-173

Scott, Sir Walter, on wigs,37

School-boys obliged to smoke,170

Schoolmasters forbidden to smoke,174

Scrope, Richard, beheaded,96-97

Selkirk, Making a sutor of,59

Selling the Church Bible to pay for a Bear,217-220

Sheridan, curious report respecting,120

Shrewsbury, Parliament sitting at,75

Shrouds for prisoners,256-257

Shouting a kirn,248-250

Slaves, freeing christian,257-258

Smoking forbidden in the streets,173-174

Snuffing, earliest allusion to,169

Southampton, Mayoress of,50

South Shields, suicide, burial of,109-110

Sowing hempseed,241

Sparsholt, dead body detained at,115

Speaker’s wig,18

Spice bread, making prohibited,140

St. Albans, clock at,161

St. Paul’s Lotteries drawn at the doors of,188

State Lotteries,186-204

Stealing wigs,24-25

Sterne, a snuff taker,184

Stow, John,266-274

Stratford-le-Bow, bakers at,135

Sugar-loaves, presentation of,62-69

Tamworth, curious bye-law at,167

Taxing hair-powder,31,33;
repealing tax,39

Taylor, John, on Hull ale,72-73

Tea and snuff,178

Temple Bar,84-92

Test Act,48
[Pg 279]
Thewes at Hull,96

Towneley, Colonel,88-92

Towton-field, battle of,101

Turnspit, The,144-149

Twyford, suicide, burial of,113-114

Unwin, Mrs., fond of snuff,177

Valuable snuff-boxes,181

Vesper bell,167

Wakefield, battle of,97-98

Wales, subjugation of,74

Wallace, Sir William,75

Watches not usually carried,165

Welsh rebels beheaded,74

Wesley, Rev. John, and snuff-taking,175

West Hallam, burial at four lane ends,107

West Riding lore,120-121

When Wigs were Worn,1-27

Whittington, Dick,159

Whitsun morris dance,228

Wigs,1-27;
Riots,25-27

Wildridge, T. Tindall, on Hull,95

Winchester, presents of sugar loaves at,66-69;
curious regulations,215

Women wearing wigs,9,22

Worcester, curious baking regulation,140

Wressel Castle,125

Wycombe, customs at,55-56

York, Duke of, slain,98;
head spiked,98

York, Lord Mayor of,49

York, walls and gates of,96-104

SOME RECENT BOOKS
PUBLISHED BY
WILLIAM ANDREWS & CO.,
5, FARRINGDON AVENUE, LONDON, E.C.

Antiquities and Curiosities of the Church.

Edited by William Andrews,F.R.H.S.

Demy 8vo., 7s. 6d. Numerous Illustrations.

Contents:—Church History and Historians—Supernatural Interference inChurch Building—Ecclesiastical Symbolism in Architecture—AcousticJars—Crypts—Heathen Customs at Christian Feasts—Fish andFasting—Shrove-tide and Lenten Customs—Wearing Hats in Church—The Stoolof Repentance—Cursing by Bell, Book, and Candle—Pulpits—ChurchWindows—Alms-Boxes and Alms-Dishes—Old CollectingBoxes—Gargoyles—Curious Vanes—People and SteepleRhymes—Sun-Dials—Lack of the Clock-House—Games in Churchyards—CircularChurchyards—Church and Churchyard Charms and Cures—Yew Trees inChurchyards.

“A very entertaining work.”—Leeds Mercury.

“A well-printed, handsome, and profusely illustrated work.”—NorfolkChronicle.

“There is much curious and interesting reading in this popular volume,which moreover has a useful index.”—Glasgow Herald.

“The contents of the volume is exceptionally good reading, and crowdedwith out-of-the-way, useful, and well selected information on asubject which has an undying interest.”—Birmingham Mercury.

“In concluding this notice it is only the merest justice to add thatevery page of it abounds with rare and often amusing information,drawn from the most accredited sources. It also abounds withillustrations of our old English authors, and it is likely to provewelcome not only to the Churchman, but to the student of folk-lore andof poetical literature.”—Morning Post.

“We can recommend this volume to all who are interested in the notableand curious things that relate to churches and public worship in thisand other countries.”—Newcastle Daily Journal.

“It is very handsomely got up and admirably printed, the letterpressbeing beautifully clear.”—Lincoln Mercury.

“The book is well indexed.”—Daily Chronicle.

“By delegating certain topics to those most capable of treating them,the editor has the satisfaction of presenting the best availableinformation in a very attractive manner.”—Dundee Advertiser.

“It must not be supposed that the book is of interest only toChurchmen, although primarily so, for it treats in such a skilful andinstructive manner with ancient manners and customs as to make it aninvaluable book of reference to all who are concerned in the seductivestudy of antiquarian subjects.”—Chester Courant.

The Cross, in Ritual, Architecture, and Art.

By the REV. GEO. S. TYACK,B.A.

Crown 8vo., 3s. 6d. Numerous Illustrations.

The author of this Volume has brought together much valuable andout-of-the-way information which cannot fail to interest and instruct thereader. The work is the result of careful study, and its merits entitle itto a permanent place in public and private libraries. Many beautifulillustrations add to the value of the Volume.

“This book is reverent, learned, and interesting, and will be readwith a great deal of profit by anyone who wishes to study the historyof the sign of our Redemption.”—Church Times.

“A book of equal interest to artists, archæologists, architects, andthe clergy has been written by the Rev. G. S. Tyack, upon ‘The Crossin Ritual, Architecture, and Art.’ Although Mr. Tyack has restrictedhimself to this country, this work is sufficiently complete for itspurpose, which is to show the manifold uses to which the Cross, thesymbol of the Christian Faith, has been put in Christian lands. Ittreats of the Cross in ritual, in Church ornament, as a memorial ofthe dead, and in secular mason work; of preaching crosses, wayside andboundary crosses, well crosses, market crosses, and the Cross inheraldry. Mr. Tyack has had the assistance of Mr. William Andrews, towhom he records his indebtedness for the use of his collection ofworks, notes, and pictures; but it is evident that this book has costmany years of research on his own part. It is copiously and wellillustrated, lucidly ordered and written, and deserves to be widelyknown.”—Yorkshire Post.

“This is an exhaustive treatise on a most interesting subject, and Mr.Tyack has proved himself to be richly informed and fully qualified todeal with it. All lovers of ecclesiastical lore will find the volumeinstructive and suggestive, while the ordinary reader will besurprised to find that the Cross in the churchyard or by the roadsidehas so many meanings and significances. Mr. Tyack divides his workinto eight sections, beginning with the pre-Christian cross, and thentracing its development, its adaptations, its special uses, andapplications, and at all times bringing out clearly its symbolicpurposes. We have the history of the Cross in the Church, of its useas an ornament, and of its use as a public and secular instrument;then we get a chapter on ‘Memorial Crosses,’ and another on ‘Waysideand Boundary Crosses.’ The volume teems with facts, and it is evidentthat Mr. Tyack has made his study a labour of love, and spared noresearch in order, within the prescribed limits, to make his workcomplete. He has given us a valuable work of reference, and a veryinstructive and entertaining volume.”—Birmingham Daily Gazette.

“An engrossing and instructive narrative.”—Dundee Advertiser.

“As a popular account of the Cross in history, we do not know that abetter book can be named.”—Glasgow Herald.

Old Church Lore.

By WILLIAM ANDREWS,F.R.H.S.

Demy 8vo., 7s. 6d.

Contents—The Right of Sanctuary—The Romance of Trial—A Fight betweenthe Mayor of Hull and the Archbishop of York—Chapels on Bridges—CharterHorns—The Old English Sunday—The Easter Sepulchre—St. Paul’sCross—Cheapside Cross—The Biddenden Maids Charity—Plagues andPestilences—A King Curing an Abbot of Indigestion—The Services andCustoms of Royal Oak Day—Marrying in a White Sheet—Marrying under theGallows—Kissing the Bride—Hot Ale at Weddings—Marrying Children—ThePassing Bell—Concerning Coffins—The Curfew Bell—Curious Symbols of theSaints—Acrobats on Steeples—A carefully prepared Index—Illustrated.

“An interesting volume.”—The Scotsman.

“A worthy work on a deeply interesting subject.... We commend thisbook strongly.”—European Mail.

“The book is eminently readable, and may be taken up at any momentwith the certainty that something suggestive or entertaining willpresent itself.”—Glasgow Citizen.

“Mr. Andrews’ book does not contain a dull page.... Deserves to meetwith a very warm welcome.”—Yorkshire Post.

A Lawyer’s Secrets.

By HERBERT LLOYD.

Author of “The Children of Chance,” etc.

Price One Shilling.

“Mr. Herbert Lloyd gives us a succession of stories which may reasonablybe taken to have their origin in the experience of a lawyer practicing atlarge in the criminal courts. It is natural that they should be of aromantic nature; but romance is not foreign to a lawyer’s consulting room,so that this fact need not be charged against this lawyer’s veracity....The stories, seven in all, cover the ground of fraud and murder, inspiredby the prevailing causes of crime—greed and jealousy. Our lawyer is happyin having the majority of his clients the innocent victims of falsecharges inspired and fostered in a great measure by their own folly; butthis is a natural phase of professional experience, and we are onlyconcerned with the fact that he generally manages it as effectively in theinterests of his clients as his editor does in presenting them to hisaudience.”—Literary World.

“A volume of entertaining stories.... The book has much the same interestas a volume of detective stories, except that putting the cases in alawyer’s mouth gives them a certain freshness. It is well written, andmakes a capital volume for a railway journey.”—The Scotsman.

“A very entertaining volume.”—Birmingham Daily Gazette.

Legal Lore: Curiosities of Law and Lawyers.

Edited by WILLIAM ANDREWS,F.R.H.S.

Demy 8vo., Cloth extra, 7s. 6d.

Contents:—Bible Law—Sanctuaries—Trials in Superstitious Ages—OnSymbols—Law Under the Feudal System—The Manor and Manor Law—AncientTenures—Laws of the Forest—Trial by Jury in Old Times—BarbarousPunishments—Trials of Animals—Devices of the Sixteenth CenturyDebtors—Laws Relating to the Gipsies—Commonwealth Law andLawyers—Cock-Fighting in Scotland—Cockieleerie Law—FatalLinks—Post-Mortem Trials—Island Laws—The Little Inns of Court—Obiter.

“There are some very amusing and curious facts concerning law andlawyers. We have read with much interest the articles on Sanctuaries,Trials in Superstitious Ages, Ancient Tenures, Trials by Jury in OldTimes, Barbarous Punishments, and Trials of Animals, and can heartilyrecommend the volume to those who wish for a few hours’ profitablediversion in the study of what may be called the light literature ofthe law.”—Daily Mail.

“Most amusing and instructive reading.”—The Scotsman.

“The contents of the volume are extremely entertaining, and convey nota little information on ancient ideas and habits of life. Whilemembers of the legal profession will turn to the work for incidentswith which to illustrate an argument or point a joke, laymen willenjoy its vivid descriptions of old fashioned proceedings and oftensemi-barbaric ideas to obligation and rectitude.”—DundeeAdvertiser.

“The subjects chosen are extremely interesting, and contain a quantityof out-of-the-way and not easily accessible information.... Verytastefully printed and bound.”—Birmingham Daily Gazette.

“The book is handsomely got up; the style throughout is popular andclear, and the variety of its contents, and the individuality of thewriters gave an added charm to the work.”—Daily Free Press.

“The book is interesting both to the general reader and thestudent.”—Cheshire Notes and Queries.

“Those who care only to be amused will find plenty of entertainment inthis volume, while those who regard it as a work of reference willrejoice at the variety of material, and appreciate the carefulindexing.”—Dundee Courier.

“Very interesting subjects, lucidly and charmingly written. Theversatility of the work assures for it a wide popularity.”—NorthernGazette.

“A happy and useful addition to current literature.”—NorfolkChronicle.

“The book is a very fascinating one, and it is specially interestingto students of history as showing the vast changes which, by gradualcourse of development have been brought about both in the principlesand practice of the law.”—The Evening Gazette.

In The Temple

By a BARRISTER-AT-LAW.

Price One Shilling.

This book opens with a chapter on the history of the Temple. Next followsan account of the Knight Templars. The story of the Devil’s Own is givenin a graphic manner. A Sketch of Christmas in the Temple is included. Inan entertaining manner the reader is informed how to become a Templar, themanner of keeping terms is described, and lastly, the work concludes witha chapter on call parties.

“Amusing and interesting sketches.”—Law Times.

“Pleasing gossip about the barristers’ quarters.”—The Gentlewoman.

“A pleasant little volume.”—The Globe.

The Red, Red Wine.

By THE REV. J. JACKSON WRAY.

Crown 8vo., 330 pp. A portrait of the Author and other illustrations.

Price 3s. 6d.

“This, as its name implies, is a temperance story, and is told in thelamented author’s most graphic style. We have never read anything sopowerful since ‘Danesbury House,’ and this book in stern and patheticearnestness even excels that widely-known book. It is worthy a place inevery Sunday School and village library; and, as the latest utterance ofone whose writings are so deservedly popular, it is sure of a welcome. Itshould give decision to some whose views about Local Option arehazy.”—Joyful News.

“The story is one of remarkable power.”—The Temperance Record.

“An excellent and interesting story.”—The Temperance Chronicle.

Faces on the Queen’s Highway.

By FLO. JACKSON.

Elegantly Bound, Crown 8vo., price 2s. 6d.

Though oftenest to be found in a pensive mood, the writer of this verydainty volume of sketches is always very sweet and winning. She hasevidently a true artist’s love of nature, and in a few lines can limn anautumn landscape full of colour, and the life which is on the down slope.And she can tell a very taking story, as witness the sketch “At the Inn,”and “The Master of White Hags,” and all her characters are real, liveflesh-and-blood people, who do things naturally, and give very greatpleasure to the reader accordingly. Miss Jackson’s gifts are of a veryhigh order.—Aberdeen Free Press.

The Doomed Ship; or, The Wreck in the Arctic Regions.

By WILLIAM HURTON.

Crown 8vo., Elegantly Bound, Gilt extra, 3s. 6d.

“There is no lack of adventures, and the writer has a matter-of-fact wayof telling them.”—Spectator.

“‘The Doomed Ship,’ by William Hurton, is a spirited tale of adventures inthe old style of sea-stories. Mr. Hurton seems to enter fully into themanliness of sea life.”—Idler.

Chronologies and Calendars.

By JAMES C. MACDONALD,F.S.A. Scot.

Crown 8vo., price 7s. 6d.

“It is unlike most books on its subject in being brief and readable to anunlearned student. But its chief interest and its unquestionable value isfor those who consider dates more curiously than most men need do in anage in which incorporated societies endeavour to persuade a man to insurehis life by presenting him with an illuminated table of days. Those whoare engaged in original historical researches will find it invaluable bothfor study and for reference.”—The Scotsman.

“A large amount of carefully prepared information.”—Aberdeen FreePress.

The Quaker Poets of Great Britain and Ireland.

By EVELYN NOBLE ARMITAGE.

Demy 8vo., cloth extra, 7s. 6d.

The volume opens with a brief sketch of the Rise of the Society ofFriends, and Characteristics of its Poetry. Biographical Notices andExamples of the best Poems of the Chief Quaker Poets of Great Britain andIreland.

“The book throughout is a good example of scholarly and appreciativeediting.”—The Times.

“The book is well worth reading, and evinces signs of carefulselection and treatment of themes.”—Liverpool Daily Post.

“Mrs. Armitage’s book was worth compiling, and has claims on othersthan members of the Society of Friends.”—Newcastle Daily Leader.

“The volume is well worth careful study.”—Manchester Guardian.

“This is a charming and even captivating book.”—Friends’ QuarterlyExaminer.

Stepping Stones to Socialism.

By DAVID MAXWELL,C.E.

Crown 8vo., 140 pp.; fancy cover, 1s.; cloth bound, 2s.

Contents:—In a reasonable and able manner Mr. Maxwell deals with thefollowing topics:—The Popular meaning of the Word Socialism—LordSalisbury on Socialism—Why There is in Many Minds an Antipathy toSocialism—On Some Socialistic Views of Marriage—The Question of PrivateProperty—The Old Political Economy is not the Way of Salvation—Who is MyNeighbour?—Progress, and the Condition of the Labourer—Good and BadTrade: Precarious Employment—All Popular Movements are Helping onSocialism—Modern Literature in Relation to Social Progress—Pruning theOld Theological Tree—The Churches: Their Socialistic Tendencies—TheFuture of the Earth in Relation to Human Life—Socialism is Based onNatural Laws of Life—Humanity in the Future—Preludes toSocialism—Forecasts of the Ultimate Form of Society—A Pisgah-top View ofthe Promised Land.

“A temperate and reverent study of a great question.”—LondonQuarterly Review.

“Mr. David Maxwell’s book is the timely expression of arichly-furnished mind on the current problems of home politics andsocial ethics.”—Eastern Morning News.

“Quite up-to-date.”—Hull Daily Mail.

The Studies of a Socialist Parson.

By the Rev. W. H. ABRAHAM,M.A. (London).

Crown 8vo., Price One Shilling.

The volume consists of sermons and addresses, given mostly at the St.Augustine’s Church, Hull. The author in his preface says, “It is the dutyof the clergyman to try and understand what Socialism is, and to lead menfrom the false Socialism to the true.”

Contents:—The Working-man, Past and Present: A Historical Review—Whitherare we going?—National Righteousness—The True Value of Life—ChristianSocialism—Jesus Christ, the True Socialist—Socialism, through Christ orwithout Him?—The Great Bread Puzzle—Labour Day, May 1, 1892—The People,the Rulers, and the Priests—Friendly Societies—Trades’ Unions—ThePeople’s Church—On some Social Questions—The Greatest Help to the trueSocial Life—The Great I Am—God as a present force—Signs of the Times.

“The volume is deserving of all praise.”—Glasgow Herald.

“An admirable contribution to the solution of difficult problems. Mr.Abraham has much that is valuable to say, and says itwell.”—Spectator.

“The book is as a whole sensitive and suggestive. The timely words on‘Decency in Journalism and Conversation’ deserve to be widelyread.”—London Quarterly Review.

Yorkshire Family Romance.

By FREDERICK ROSS,F.R.H.S.

Elegantly bound in cloth gilt, Demy 8vo., 6s.

Contents:—The Synod of Streoneshalh—The Doomed Heir of Osmotherley—St.Eadwine, the Royal Martyr—The Viceroy Siward—Phases in the Life of aPolitical Martyr—The Murderer’s Bride—The Earldom of Wiltes—BlackfacedClifford—The Shepherd Lord—The Felons of Ilkley—The Ingilby Boar’sHead—The Eland Tragedy—The Plumpton Marriage—The TopcliffeInsurrection—Burning of Cottingham Castle—The Alum Workers—The Maidenof Marblehead—Rise of the House of Phipps—The Traitor Governor of Hull.

“The grasp and thoroughness of the writer is evident in every page,and the book forms a valuable addition to the literature of the NorthCountry.”—Gentlewoman.

“Many will welcome this work.”—Yorkshire Post.

Legendary Yorkshire.

By FREDERICK ROSS,F.R.H.S.

Elegantly bound in cloth gilt, Demy 8vo., 6s.

Contents:—The Enchanted Cave—The Doomed City—The Worm ofNunnington—The Devil’s Arrows—The Giant Road Maker of Mulgrave—TheVirgin’s Head of Halifax—The Dead Arm of St. Oswald the King—TheTranslation of St. Hilda—A Miracle of St. John—The BeatifiedSisters—The Dragon of Wantley—The Miracles and Ghost of Watton—TheMurdered Hermit of Eskdale—The Calverley Ghost—The Bewitched Houseof Wakefield.

“It is a work of lasting interest, and cannot fail to delight thereader.”—Beverley Recorder.

“The history and the literature of our county are now receiving markedattention, and Mr. Andrews merits the support of the public for theproduction of this and other interesting volumes he has issued. Wecannot speak too highly of this volume, the printing, the paper, andthe binding being faultless.”—Driffield Observer.

In Folly Land.

By CAP and BELLS.

Crown 8vo., One Shilling.

“‘Folly Land’ is the title of a neatly-produced shilling volume ofhumorous verse by a writer who—if we are not misinformed—veils awell-known name under the nom de guerre of ‘Cap and Bells.’ Some of thecomic poems, ‘A Wicked Story’ and ‘Just my Luck,’ for instance, are funny.A humorous and unhackneyed recitation is always a welcome addition to thenot varied repertoire of the professional or amateur reciter, and some ofthe contents of ‘Folly Land’ are likely to become popular.”—The Star.

Biblical and Shakespearian Characters Compared.

By the Rev. JAMES BELL.

Crown 8vo., 3s. 6d.

Between the Hebrew Bible and Shakespeare there exists some interesting andinstructive points of resemblance, especially in respect of their ways oflife and character. No doubt certain inevitable differences also existbetween them, but these do not hide the resemblance; rather they serve toset it, so to speak, in bolder relief.

The author in this volume treats or this striking resemblance, undercertain phases, between Hebrew Prophecy and Shakespearian Drama.

The following are the chief “Studies” which find a place in thework:—Hebrew Prophecy and Shakespeare: a Comparison—Eli and Hamlet—Sauland Macbeth—Jonathan and Horatio—David and Henry V.—Epilogue.

“One of the most suggestive volumes we have met with for a longtime.”—Birmingham Daily Gazette.

“A deeply interesting book.”—The Methodist Times.

“A highly interesting and ingenious work.”—British Weekly.

The New Fairy Book.

Edited by WILLIAM ANDREWS,F.R.H.S.

Price 4s. 6d. Demy 8vo.

This volume contains Fifteen New Fairy Stories by Popular Authors. Manycharming original illustrations are included.

It is beautifully printed in bold clear type, and bound in a mostattractive style.

“A very delightful volume, and eminently qualified for a gift book....The stories are bright and interesting.”—Glasgow Herald.

“We hope the book will get into many children’s hands.”—Review ofReviews.

“We can recommend the stories for their originality, and the volumefor its elegant and tasteful appearance.”—Westminster Gazette.

Famous Frosts and Frost Fairs in Great Britain.

Chronicled from the Earliest to the Present Time.

By WILLIAM ANDREWS,F.R.H.S.

Fcap. 4to. Bevelled boards, gilt tops. Price 4s.

This work furnishes a carefully prepared account of all the great Frostsoccurring in this country fromA.D. 134 to 1887. The numerous Frost Fairson the Thames are fully described, and illustrated with quaint woodcuts,and several old ballads relating to the subject are reproduced. It istastefully printed and elegantly bound.

“A very interesting volume.”—Northern Daily Telegraph.

“A great deal of curious and valuable information is contained inthese pages.... A comely volume.”—Literary World.

“An interesting and valuable work.”—West Middlesex Times.

“A volume of much interest and great importance.”—RotherhamAdvertiser.

Andrews’s Library of Masterpieces of Choice Literature.

This series of works consists of reprints carefully edited, with notes,etc., of a number of works which have long been out of print, but whichare of undoubted merit, and volumes that cultured book-lovers will prize.Only the very best works in our literature are included in the series, andare carefully printed on good paper, and suitably bound. In all caseslimited editions are printed.

The first three volumes of the series are as follow:—

Crown 8vo., bound in Cloth, 2s. each.

The Months: Descriptive of the Successive Beauties of the Year.

By LEIGH HUNT.

With Biographical Introduction by William Andrews,F.R.H.S.

A Song to David

By CHRISTOPHER SMART.

Edited, with Notes, by J. R. Tutin.

Carmen Deo Nostro,Te Decet Hymnus: Sacred Poems.

By RICHARD CRASHAW.

Edited by J. R. Tutin.

London:
William Andrews & Co., 5, Farringdon Avenue.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ENGLAND IN THE DAYS OF OLD ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions willbe renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyrightlaw means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the UnitedStates without permission and without paying copyrightroyalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use partof this license, apply to copying and distributing ProjectGutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by followingthe terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for useof the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything forcopies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is veryeasy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creationof derivative works, reports, performances and research. ProjectGutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you maydo practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protectedby U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademarklicense, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the freedistribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “ProjectGutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the FullProject Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online atwww.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree toand accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by allthe terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return ordestroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in yourpossession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to aProject Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be boundby the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the personor entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only beused on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people whoagree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a fewthings that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic workseven without complying with the full terms of this agreement. Seeparagraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with ProjectGutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of thisagreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“theFoundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collectionof Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individualworks in the collection are in the public domain in the UnitedStates. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in theUnited States and you are located in the United States, we do notclaim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long asall references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hopethat you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promotingfree access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping theProject Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easilycomply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in thesame format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License whenyou share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also governwhat you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries arein a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of thisagreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or anyother Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes norepresentations concerning the copyright status of any work in anycountry other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or otherimmediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appearprominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any workon which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which thephrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work isderived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does notcontain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of thecopyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone inthe United States without paying any fees or charges. If you areredistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “ProjectGutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must complyeither with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 orobtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is postedwith the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distributionmust comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and anyadditional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional termswill be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all worksposted with the permission of the copyright holder found at thebeginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of thiswork or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute thiselectronic work, or any part of this electronic work, withoutprominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 withactive links or immediate access to the full terms of the ProjectGutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, includingany word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide accessto or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a formatother than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the officialversion posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expenseto the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a meansof obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “PlainVanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include thefull Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ worksunless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providingaccess to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic worksprovided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a ProjectGutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms thanare set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writingfrom the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager ofthe Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as setforth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerableeffort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofreadworks not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the ProjectGutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, maycontain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurateor corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or otherintellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk orother medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage orcannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Rightof Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the ProjectGutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the ProjectGutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a ProjectGutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim allliability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legalfees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICTLIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSEPROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THETRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BELIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE ORINCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCHDAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover adefect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you canreceive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending awritten explanation to the person you received the work from. If youreceived the work on a physical medium, you must return the mediumwith your written explanation. The person or entity that provided youwith the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy inlieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the personor entity providing it to you may choose to give you a secondopportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. Ifthe second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writingwithout further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forthin paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NOOTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOTLIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain impliedwarranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types ofdamages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreementviolates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, theagreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer orlimitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity orunenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void theremaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, thetrademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyoneproviding copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works inaccordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with theproduction, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any ofthe following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of thisor any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, oradditions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) anyDefect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution ofelectronic works in formats readable by the widest variety ofcomputers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. Itexists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donationsfrom people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with theassistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’sgoals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection willremain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the ProjectGutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secureand permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and futuregenerations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg LiteraryArchive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, seeSections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of thestate of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the InternalRevenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identificationnumber is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg LiteraryArchive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted byU.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and upto date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s websiteand official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project GutenbergLiterary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespreadpublic support and donations to carry out its mission ofincreasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can befreely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widestarray of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exemptstatus with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulatingcharities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the UnitedStates. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes aconsiderable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep upwith these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locationswhere we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SENDDONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular statevisitwww.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where wehave not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibitionagainst accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states whoapproach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot makeany statements concerning tax treatment of donations received fromoutside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donationmethods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of otherways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. Todonate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the ProjectGutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could befreely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced anddistributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network ofvolunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printededitions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright inthe U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do notnecessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paperedition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG searchfacility:www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg LiteraryArchive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how tosubscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

“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		12s. 4d.”

“Sept. 1594.—Paide for four sugar loaves weide 27¾ lbs.		41s. 8d.
5 gallons and a pottle of claret,		11s.
4 gallons secke		10s. 8d.
Soma		63s. 4d.”

“Oct. 1594.—Paide for 3 sugar loves weide 30¼ lb. 18d. per lb.		£2 5s. 10d.
For clarid wine and secke		£2 9s. 0d.”

“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.”

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 countenance in this world to drown or hang themselves more than their even Christian (that is, their equal fellow Christian).

Movatterモバイル変換

The Project Gutenberg eBook ofEngland in the Days of Old

E-text prepared by the Online Distributed Proofreading Team
(http://www.pgdp.net)
from page images generously made available by
Internet Archive
(http://www.archive.org)

ENGLAND IN THE DAYS OF OLD.

Preface.

When Wigs were Worn.

Powdering the Hair.

Men wearing Muffs.

Concerning Corporation Customs.

Bribes for the Palate.

Rebel Heads on City Gates.

Burial at Cross Roads.

Detaining the Dead for Debt.

A Nobleman’s Household 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.

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

	PAGE
When Wigs were Worn	1
Powdering the Hair	28
Men Wearing Muffs	40
Concerning Corporation Customs	48
Bribes for the Palate	63
Rebel Heads on City Gates	74
Burial at Cross Roads	105
Detaining the Dead for Debt	115
A Nobleman’s Household in Tudor Times	122
Bread and Baking in Bygone Days	134
Arise, Mistress, Arise!	142
The Turnspit	144
A Gossip about the Goose	150
Bells as Time-Tellers	156
The Age of Snuffing	168
State Lotteries	186
Bear-Baiting	205
Morris Dancers	222
The Folk-Lore of Midsummer Eve	234
Harvest Home	244
Curious Charities	255
An Old-Time Chronicler	266
Index	275

1589.	Imprimis to Mr. Trafforde, his man, the bearewarde	4	4
	That was given Sir John Hollecrofts bearewarde	2	0
1591.	Payd yt was given Shelmerdyne ye bearewarde at wakes	2	0
1597.	Payd that was given to Mr. Haughton, of Haughton, towards his man that had beares here	5	0
1610.	Kelsall bearward	5	0
[Pg 219]	To the players and bearewarde at the wakes	15	0
1611.	Bullward and bearward at wakes	15	0
1612.	William Hardern to fetch Shelmadene again with his bears at Whitsuntide	1	3
	He refused to come, and Bramt, the bearward, came and was paid	6	8
	Fetching the bears at the wakes	3	6
	Fetching two more bears 1s., bearward 15s.	16	0
1613.	Item payd to Willm. Statborne for fetching the bearewarde (from Knutsford) at the wakes	1	0
1621.	Given Raufe Shelmerdyne for sport made by him with his beares at Congleton Wakes	10	0
	Item paide to Brocke, the bearewarde, at Whitsuntide	5	8

“1508.	For paynting of theMores garments for sarten gret leveres	2	4
"	For plyts and ¼ of laun for theMores garments	2	11
"	For Orseden for the same	0	10
"	For bellys for the daunsars	0	12
1509-10.	For silver paper for theMores-dawnsars	0	7
1519-20.	Shoes for theMores-daunsars, the frere, and Mayde Maryan, at 7d. a peyre	5	4
1521-22.	Eight yerds of fustyan for theMores-daunsars’ coats	16	0
"	A dosyn of gold skynnes for the Morres	0	10
1536-37.	Five hats and 4 porses for the daunsars	0	4½.”

“Item, payed to the Morrys-Daunsars and the Mynstrelles, mete and drink at Whitsontide	3	4
Payed to them the Sonday after May Day	0	20
Pd. to the Painter for painting of their cotes	2	8
Pd. to the Painter for 2 doz. of Lyvereys	0	20.”

Movatterモバイル変換

The Project Gutenberg eBook ofEngland in the Days of Old

E-text prepared by the Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made available by Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org)

ENGLAND IN THE DAYS OF OLD.

Preface.

When Wigs were Worn.

Powdering the Hair.

Men wearing Muffs.

Concerning Corporation Customs.

Bribes for the Palate.

Rebel Heads on City Gates.

Burial at Cross Roads.

Detaining the Dead for Debt.

A Nobleman’s Household 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.

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

E-text prepared by the Online Distributed Proofreading Team
(http://www.pgdp.net)
from page images generously made available by
Internet Archive
(http://www.archive.org)