Recently more than one of our learned judges from the bench have perhaps
astonished their auditors by impressing them with an old-fashioned
notion of residing more on their estates than the fashionable modes of
life and the _esprit de societe_, now overpowering all other _esprit_,
will ever admit. These opinions excited my attention to a curious
circumstance in the history of our manners--the great anxiety of our
government, from the days of Elizabeth till much later than those of
Charles the Second, to preserve the kingdom from the evils of an
overgrown metropolis. The people themselves indeed participated in the
same alarm at the growth of the city; while, however, they themselves
were perpetuating the grievance which they complained of.
It is amusing to observe, that although the government was frequently
employing even their most forcible acts to restrict the limits of the
metropolis, the suburbs were gradually incorporating with the city, and
Westminster at length united itself to London. Since that happy
marriage, their fertile progenies have so blended together, that little
Londons are no longer distinguishable from the ancient parent; we have
succeeded in spreading the capital into a county, and have verified the
prediction of James the First, "that England will shortly be London, and
London England."
"I think it a great object," said Justice Best, in delivering his
sentiments in favour of the Game Laws, "that gentlemen should have a
temptation _to reside in the country, amongst their neighbours and
tenantry, whose interests must be materially advanced by such a
circumstance_. The links of society are thereby better preserved, and
_the mutual advantages and dependence of the higher and lower classes_
on one another are better maintained. The baneful effects of our present
system we have lately seen in a neighbouring country, and an ingenious
French writer has lately shown the ill consequences of it on the
continent."[238]
These sentiments of a living luminary of the law afford some reason of
policy for the dread which our government long entertained on account of
the perpetual growth of the metropolis; the nation, like a
hypochondriac, was ludicrously terrified that their head was too
monstrous for their body, and that it drew all the moisture of life from
the middle and the extremities. Proclamations warned and exhorted; but
the very interference of a royal prohibition seemed to render the
crowded city more charming. In vain the statute against new buildings
was passed by Elizabeth; in vain during the reigns of James the First
and both the Charleses we find proclamations continually issuing to
forbid new erections.
James was apt to throw out his opinions in these frequent addresses to
the people, who never attended to them: his majesty notices "those
swarms of gentry, who through the instigation of their wives, or to
new-model and fashion their daughters (who if they were unmarried,
marred their reputations, and if married, lost them), did neglect their
country hospitality, and cumber the city, a general nuisance to the
kingdom."--He addressed the Star Chamber to regulate "the exorbitancy of
the new buildings about the city, which were but a shelter for those
who, when they had spent their estates in coaches, lacqueys, and fine
clothes like Frenchmen, lived miserably in their houses like Italians;
but the honour of the English nobility and gentry is to be hospitable
among their tenants." Once conversing on this subject, the monarch threw
out that happy illustration, which has been more than once noticed, that
"Gentlemen resident on their estates were like ships in port; their
value and magnitude were felt and acknowledged; but when at a distance,
as their size seemed insignificant, so their worth and importance were
not duly estimated."[239]
A manuscript writer of the times complains of the breaking up of old
family establishments, all crowding to "upstart London." "Every one
strives to be a Diogenes in his house, and an emperor in the streets;
not caring if they sleep in a tub, so they may be hurried in a coach:
giving that allowance to horses and mares that formerly maintained
houses full of men; pinching many a belly to paint a few backs, and
burying all the treasures of the kingdom into a few citizens' coffers;
their woods into wardrobes, their leases into laces, and their goods and
chattels into guarded coats and gaudy toys." Such is the representation
of an eloquent contemporary; and however contracted might have been his
knowledge of the principles of political economy, and of that prosperity
which a wealthy nation is said to derive from its consumption of
articles of luxury, the moral effects have not altered, nor has the
scene in reality greatly changed.
The government not only frequently forbade new buildings within ten
miles of London, but sometimes ordered them to be pulled down--after
they had been erected for several years. Every six or seven years
proclamations were issued. In Charles the First's reign, offenders were
sharply prosecuted by a combined operation, not only against _houses_,
but against _persons_.[240] Many of the nobility and gentry, in 1632,
were informed against for having resided in the city, contrary to the
late proclamation. And the Attorney-General was then fully occupied in
filing bills of indictment against them, as well as ladies, for staying
in town. The following curious "information" in the Star Chamber will
serve our purpose.
The Attorney-General informs his majesty that both Elizabeth and James,
by several proclamations, had commanded that "persons of livelihood and
means should reside in their counties, and not abide or sojourn in the
city of London, so that counties remain unserved." These proclamations
were renewed by Charles the First, who had observed "a greater number of
nobility and gentry, and abler sort of people, with their families, had
resorted to the cities of London and Westminster, residing there,
contrary to the ancient usage of the English nation"--"by their abiding
in their several counties where their means arise, they would not only
have served his majesty according to their ranks, but by their
_housekeeping in those parts the meaner sort of people formerly were
guided, directed and relieved_." He accuses them of wasting their
estates in the metropolis, which would employ and relieve the common
people in their several counties. The loose and disorderly people that
follow them, living in and about the cities, are so numerous, that they
are not easily governed by the ordinary magistrates: mendicants increase
in great number--the prices of all commodities are highly raised, &c.
The king had formerly proclaimed that all ranks who were not connected
with public offices, at the close of forty days' notice, should resort
to their several counties, and with their families continue their
residence there. And his majesty further warned them "Not to put
themselves to unnecessary charge in providing themselves to return in
winter to the said cities, as it was the king's firm resolution to
withstand such great and growing evil." The information concludes with a
most copious list of offenders, among whom are a great number of
nobility, and ladies and gentlemen, who were accused of having lived in
London for several months after the given warning of forty days. It
appears that most of them, to elude the grasp of the law, had contrived
to make a show of quitting the metropolis, and, after a short absence,
had again returned; "and thus the service of _your majesty_ and _your
people_ in the several counties have been neglected and undone."
Such is the substance of this curious information, which enables us at
least to collect the ostensible motives of this singular prohibition.
Proclamations had hitherto been considered little more than the news of
the morning, and three days afterwards were as much read as the last
week's newspapers. They were now, however, resolved to stretch forth the
strong arm of law, and to terrify by an example. The constables were
commanded to bring in a list of the names of strangers, and the time
they proposed to fix their residence in their parishes. A remarkable
victim on this occasion was a Mr. Palmer, a Sussex gentleman, who was
brought _ore tenus_ into the Star Chamber for disobeying the
proclamation for living in the country. Palmer was a squire of 1000_l._
per annum, then a considerable income. He appears to have been some rich
bachelor; for in his defence he alleged that he had never been married,
never was a housekeeper, and had no house fitting for a man of his birth
to reside in, as his mansion in the country had been burnt down within
two years. These reasons appeared to his judges to aggravate rather than
extenuate his offence; and after a long reprimand for having deserted
his tenants and neighbours, they heavily fined him in one thousand
pounds.[241]
The condemnation of this Sussex gentleman struck a terror through a wide
circle of sojourners in the metropolis. I find accounts, pathetic
enough, of their "packing away on all sides for fear of the worst;" and
gentlemen "grumbling that they should be confined to their houses:" and
this was sometimes backed too by a second proclamation, respecting
"their wives and families, and also widows," which was "_durus sermo_ to
the women. It is nothing pleasing to all," says the letter-writer, "but
least of all to the women." "To encourage gentlemen to live more
willingly in the country," says another letter-writer, "all game-fowl,
as pheasants, partridges, ducks, as also hares, are this day by
proclamation forbidden to be dressed or eaten in any inn." Here we find
realized the argument of Mr. Justice Best in favour of the game-laws.
It is evident that this severe restriction must have produced great
inconvenience to certain persons who found a residence in London
necessary for their pursuits. This appears from the manuscript diary of
an honest antiquary, Sir Symonds D'Ewes; he has preserved an opinion
which, no doubt, was spreading fast, that such prosecutions of the
Attorney-General were a violation of the liberty of the subject. "Most
men wondered at Mr. Noy, the Attorney-General, being accounted a great
lawyer, that so strictly _took away men's liberties at one blow,
confining them to reside at their own houses_, and not permitting them
freedom to live where they pleased within the king's dominions. I was
myself a little startled upon the first coming out of the proclamation;
but having first spoken with the Lord Coventry, Lord Keeper of the
Great Seal, at Islington, when I visited him; and afterwards with Sir
William Jones, one of the King's Justices of the Bench, about my
condition and residence at the said town of Islington, and they both
agreeing that I was not within the letter of the proclamation, nor the
intention of it neither, I rested satisfied, and thought myself secure,
laying in all my provisions for housekeeping for the year ensuing, and
never imagined myself to be in danger, till this unexpected censure of
Mr. Palmer passed in the Star Chamber; so, having advised with my
friends, I resolved for a remove, being much troubled not only with my
separation from Recordes, but with my wife, being great with child,
fearing a winter journey might be dangerous to her."[242] He left
Islington and the records in the Tower to return to his country-seat, to
the great disturbance of his studies.
It is, perhaps, difficult to assign the cause of this marked anxiety of
the government for the severe restriction of the limits of the
metropolis, and the prosecution of the nobility and gentry to compel a
residence on their estates. Whatever were the motives, they were not
peculiar to the existing sovereign, but remained transmitted from
cabinet to cabinet, and were even renewed under Charles the Second. At a
time when the plague often broke out, a close and growing metropolis
might have been considered to be a great evil; a terror expressed by the
manuscript-writer before quoted, complaining of "this deluge of
building, that we shall be all poisoned with breathing in one another's
faces." The police of the metropolis was long imbecile, notwithstanding
their "strong watches and guards" set at times; and bodies of the idle
and the refractory often assumed some mysterious title, and were with
difficulty governed. We may conceive the state of the police, when
"London apprentices," growing in number and insolence, frequently made
attempts on Bridewell, or pulled down houses. One day the citizens, in
proving some ordnance, terrified the whole court of James the First with
a panic that there was "a rising in the city." It is possible that the
government might have been induced to pursue this singular conduct, for
I do not know that it can be paralleled, of pulling down new-built
houses by some principle of political economy which remains to be
explained, or ridiculed, by our modern adepts. It would hardly be
supposed that the present subject may be enlivened by a poem, the
elegance and freedom of which may even now be admired. It is a great
literary curiosity, and its length may be excused for several remarkable
points.