Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive.)
OLD CHURCH LORE.
_WORKS BY WILLIAM ANDREWS, F.R.H.S._
Mr. William Andrews has produced several books of singular value in their
historical and archaeological character. He has a genius for digging among
dusty parchments and old books, and for bringing out from among them that
which it is likely the public of to-day will care to read.--_Scotsman._
Old-Time Punishments.
This is an entertaining book ... well-chosen illustrations and a
serviceable index.--_Athenaeum._
A work which will be eagerly read by all who take it up.--_Scotsman._
A vast amount of curious and entertaining matter.--_Sheffield
Independent._
We can honestly recommend a perusal of this book.--_Yorkshire Post._
A very readable history.--_Birmingham Daily Gazette._
Mr. Andrews' book is well worthy of careful study, and is a perfect mine
of wealth on the subject of which it treats.--_Herts Advertiser._
Curiosities of the Church.
A volume both entertaining and instructive, throwing much light on the
manners and customs of bygone generations of Churchmen, and will be read
to-day with much interest.--_Newbery House Magazine._
An extremely interesting volume.--_North British Daily Mail._
A work of lasting interest.--_Hull Examiner._
Full of interest.--_The Globe._
The reader will find much in this book to interest, instruct, and
amuse.--_Home Chimes._
We feel sure that many will feel grateful to Mr. Andrews for having
produced such an interesting book.--_The Antiquary._
Historic Yorkshire.
Cuthbert Bede, the popular author of "Verdant Green," writing to
_Society_, says: "Historic Yorkshire," by William Andrews, will be of
great interest and value to everyone connected with England's largest
county. Mr. Andrews not only writes with due enthusiasm for his subject,
but has arranged and marshalled his facts and figures with great skill,
and produced a thoroughly popular work that will be read eagerly and with
advantage.
Historic Romance.
STRANGE STORIES, CHARACTERS, SCENES, MYSTERIES, AND MEMORABLE EVENTS
IN THE HISTORY OF OLD ENGLAND.
In his present work Mr. Andrews has traversed a wider field than in his
last book, "Historic Yorkshire," but it is marked by the same painstaking
care for accuracy, and also by the pleasant way in which he popularises
strange stories and out-of-the-way scenes in English History. There is
much to amuse in this volume, as well as to instruct, and it is enriched
with a copious index.--_Notes and Queries._
A fascinating work.--_Whitehall Review._
Famous Frosts and Frost Fairs in Great Britain.
CHRONICLED FROM THE EARLIEST TO THE PRESENT TIME.
The work is thoroughly well written, it is careful in its facts, and may
be pronounced exhaustive on the subject. Illustrations are given of
several frost fairs on the Thames, and as a trustworthy record this volume
should be in every good library. The usefulness of the work is much
enhanced by a good index.--_Public Opinion._
A great deal of curious and valuable information is contained in these
pages.... A comely volume.--_Literary World._
Not likely to fail in interest.--_Manchester Guardian._
[Illustration: CLOG ALMANACK.]
Old Church Lore.
BY WILLIAM ANDREWS, F.R.H.S.,
AUTHOR OF "CURIOSITIES OF THE CHURCH," "OLD-TIME
PUNISHMENTS," "HISTORIC YORKSHIRE," ETC.
HULL:
WILLIAM ANDREWS & CO., THE HULL PRESS.
LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, & CO.,
LIMITED.
1891.
Preface.
The welcome reception from the public and the press accorded to my volume
entitled "Curiosities of the Church," has induced me to issue another work
on similar lines. Like that book, this one shows how closely the Church in
bygone times was linked with the national and social life of the people.
An attempt has been made to blend instruction and entertainment, and
present out-of-the-way facts drawn from unpublished documents and other
sources, which do not usually come under the notice of the reader.
WILLIAM ANDREWS.
HULL LITERARY CLUB,
_August 1st, 1891_.
Contents.
PAGE
THE RIGHT OF SANCTUARY 1
THE ROMANCE OF TRIAL 22
A FIGHT BETWEEN THE MAYOR OF HULL AND THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK 37
CHAPELS ON BRIDGES 44
CHARTER HORNS 65
THE OLD ENGLISH SUNDAY 81
THE EASTER SEPULCHRE 111
ST. PAUL'S CROSS 120
CHEAPSIDE CROSS 138
THE BIDDENDEN MAIDS CHARITY 148
PLAGUES AND PESTILENCES 152
A KING CURING AN ABBOT OF INDIGESTION 174
THE SERVICES AND CUSTOMS OF ROYAL OAK DAY 177
MARRYING IN A WHITE SHEET 186
MARRYING UNDER THE GALLOWS 191
KISSING THE BRIDE 195
HOT ALE AT WEDDINGS 199
MARRYING CHILDREN 203
THE PASSING BELL 210
CONCERNING COFFINS 218
THE CURFEW BELL 227
CURIOUS SYMBOLS OF THE SAINTS 240
ACROBATS ON STEEPLES 244
INDEX 253
OLD CHURCH LORE.
The Right of Sanctuary.
A place where criminals and political offenders could find refuge was
called a Sanctuary. It is generally agreed that in this country the
privilege of sanctuary was instituted on the recognition of Christianity.
From an early time down to the days of Henry VIII., fugitives were safe
for certain periods in all the churches and churchyards of the land.
The origin of the usage is extremely remote. Most probably it existed
among the Israelites before Moses gave directions for the establishment of
cities of refuge, when the children of Israel settled in the Promised
Land. The Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and American Indians had their places of
refuge.
In England the laws respecting this subject are both numerous and curious.
A code of laws made in the year 693 by Ina, King of the West Saxons,
contains a recognition of the right of sanctuary. It is therein stated
that, if any one accused of a capital offence takes refuge in a church,
his life shall be spared, but the criminal is directed to make
compensation for his crime. If the guilty one deserved stripes, they were
not to be inflicted. According to Alfred the Great's laws of the year 887,
those guilty of slight offences were allowed to flee to a church, and
there remain for three nights. Thus time was given them to compound for
their misdemeanours, or to make suitable provision for their safety.
Stringent measures were taken to guard against the violation of the
sanctuary. The person who violated the sanctuary and inflicted bonds,
blows, or wounds upon the refugee, had to pay the price set upon his life,
and to the officiating ministers of the church, one hundred and twenty
shillings, which was a large sum in those days. "If a criminal," says the
Rev. J. R. Boyle, F.S.A., in a carefully prepared paper on this theme,
"fled to a church, no one should drag him thence within the space of seven
days, if he could live so long without food, and had not attempted to
force his way out. If the clergy had occasion to hold service in the
church whilst the refugee was there, they might keep him in some house
which had no more doors than the church had."
The law of sanctuary was clearly defined in the year 1070 by William the
Conqueror. The privilege of sanctuary was only temporary, and during the
time of sanctuary, which was within forty days, the refugee might, if
able, come to an agreement with his adversaries. If he failed to compound
for his crime, he had to appear before the coroner, clothed in sackcloth,
confess his crime, and abjure the realm. In an act passed in the year
1529, in the reign of Henry VIII., it is directed that "immediately after
his confession, and before his abjuration, he was to be branded by the
coroner with a hot iron upon the brawn of the thumb of his right hand with
the sign of the letter A, to the intent he might be the better known among
the king's subjects to have abjured." If the offender failed to make a
confession of his crime to the coroner within forty days, and remained in
the sanctuary, any one found furnishing him with food was regarded as
guilty of felony.
Sir William Rastall, who was Chief-Justice of the Court of Common Pleas,
in his "Collection of Statutes now in force," London, 1594, supplies a
copy of the form of confession and abjuration usually employed. It is as
follows:--
"This hear thou, Sir Coroner, that I ............ of ................ am a
....................., and because I have done such evils in this land, I
do abjure the land of our lord the King, and shall haste me towards the
port of [mentioning a port named by the coroner], and that I shall not go
out of the highway, and if I do, I will that I be taken as a robber and a
felon of our lord the King, and that at such place I will diligently seek
for passage, and that I will tarry there but one flood and ebb, if I can
have passage; and unless I can have it in such a place, I will go every
day into the seas up to my knees assaying to pass over, and unless I can
do this within forty days, I will put myself again into the church as a
robber and a felon of our lord the King, so God me help and His holy
judgment."
The constables of the parishes through which the culprit passed conducted
him over their highways to the port from whence he had to embark. We
gather from "England in the Fifteenth Century," by the Rev. W. Denton,
M.A., that sanctuary men sent from London to Dover "frequently broke their
promise to cross the Channel, betook themselves to the forest, and joined
the bands of thieves who made the greenwood of the Weald of Kent their
home."
In the reign of Henry VIII. several acts were passed dealing with this
subject. The reason why one of the acts was passed was the loss of the
strength of the country by persons taking sanctuary and abjuring the
realm, teaching foreigners archery, and also of disclosing the secrets of
the realm. To prevent such loss, "it was enacted that every person
abjuring was to repair to some sanctuary within the realm, which himself
should choose, and there remain during his natural life; and to be sworn
before the coroner upon his abjuration so to do." If a sanctuary man left
his retreat without being granted his discharge by the King's pardon, he
ran the risk of being tried for his original crime, and was prohibited
from the protective power of the sanctuary. It was usual, in bygone times,
for men to wear swords, but when any one took sanctuary he had to give up
his weapons, and only use a knife at meal times to cut his meat. The
governors of the sanctuaries directed the men under protection to wear a
badge or cognisance "openly upon their upper garment, of the compass, in
length and breadth, of ten inches," under pain of forfeiting all the
privileges of sanctuary. If they left their lodgings between sunset and
sunrise it was at the peril of losing all right of protection. In the same
reign, it was decreed that persons guilty of high treason, and pirates,
should be excluded from the right of sanctuary. The most important measure
bearing on this subject, passed in 1540, clearly indicates the adverse
attitude assumed by Henry VIII. towards the privilege of sanctuary. He
took away the rights from all places except parish churches and their
churchyards, cathedrals, hospitals, and the sanctuaries at Wells,
Westminster, Manchester, Northampton, Norwich, York, Derby, and
Launceston. A year later, Chester was substituted for Manchester. It is
stated that the inhabitants of Manchester were much troubled by the influx
of dissolute persons seeking sanctuary. They intimated to Parliament that
the refugees injured their trade, and further, that as they had "no mayor,
sheriff, or bailiff, no walls, and no gaol for the confinement of
offenders," they prayed to have the privilege withdrawn. In the statute of
1540, the privilege of sanctuary was "abolished in cases of wilful murder,
rape, burglary, highway robbery, or wilful burning of a house or barn
containing corn." Not more than twenty persons were to be sheltered in a
sanctuary at one time.
An act passed in 1624, in the reign of James I., nominally abolished all
privileges of sanctuary in England. It did not completely close all
sanctuaries, for in them remained lawless characters, who had long been
there, and whom it would not be deemed prudent to have at large. It is
asserted that the sanctuary regulations were frequently broken, and that
refugees committed robberies and other crimes in the immediate
neighbourhood of their sanctuaries.
In the case of debtors, sanctuaries in a modified form existed down to the
reign of William III., when, in the year 1697, an Act of Parliament
abolished them.
English history furnishes many instances of sanctuary laws being
disregarded. A familiar example is that of four Lancastrian knights flying
from the battlefield of Tewkesbury, in 1471, and taking refuge in a church
not far distant from the place. Edward, sword in hand, was about to
follow them, and violate the sanctuary, but the priest who was celebrating
mass refused to permit him to enter, until he agreed to pardon the
knights. He made the promise, whereupon the refugees left the church.
Subsequently they were made prisoners and executed.
The first time the sanctuary of Westminster Abbey was violated was in the
year 1378. It was not only violated, but murder was committed. The
particulars of the case are as follow. In one of the campaigns of the
Black Prince, two esquires, named Frank de Hawle and John Shakle, made
captive a French or Spanish Count. The prisoner had a friend in John of
Gaunt, and he directed the captors to give up their prize, but they
refused. John of Gaunt, without delay, imprisoned in the Tower the two men
who had disobeyed his injunctions. They made their escape, and fled to
Westminster Abbey, but were closely pursued by Sir Allan Boxhull,
Constable of the Tower, Sir Ralph de Ferrers, and a band of fifty men in
arms. It is believed that the two esquires made their way into the choir
of the Abbey, and at a time when high mass was being celebrated. "The
Deacon," says Dean Stanley, "had just reached the words of the Gospel of
the day, 'If the goodman of the house had known what time the thief would
appear----,' when the clash of arms was heard, and the pursuers,
regardless of time or place, burst upon the service. Shakle escaped, but
Hawle was intercepted. Twice he fled round the choir, with his enemies
hacking at him as he ran; and, pierced with twelve wounds, he sank dead in
front of the Prior's Stall--that is, at the north side of the entrance of
the choir." It is also recorded that his servant and a monk fell at the
same time. Hawle was looked upon as a martyr to the injured rights of the
Abbey. His remains were laid to rest within its walls, a most unusual
honour at that period. The spot where he fell was marked with an
inscription engraved on a stone, and over his grave was a brass effigy and
a long epitaph, which remained till within the last century. The
desecrated Abbey was closed for four months, and the Members of Parliament
suspended their sittings within its precincts for fear of pollution. The
two chief assailants were excommunicated.
In 1232, the sanctuary of the church at Brentwood, Essex, was violated by
orders of the boy king, Henry III. He had allowed himself to be persuaded
that the brave Hubert de Burgh had sold his country for French gold, and
armed men were sent to make the stout knight prisoner. Hubert took refuge
in Brentwood Church. His enemies broke in, dragged him from the very
altar, and a smith was ordered to shackle him. "I will die any death,"
said the smith, "before I put iron on the man who freed England from the
stranger, and saved Dover from France!" so Hubert's feet were tied below
his horse, and he was carried to the King. A remonstrance from the Bishop
of London caused the refugee to be replaced in the sanctuary, but his foes
were still determined to have him. The Sheriff put stakes round the
churchyard watched day and night, until hunger compelled a surrender, when
Hubert was thrown into prison, and there died.
Elizabeth Woodville, Queen of Edward IV., twice found shelter in the
sanctuary of Westminster. Here was born, on April 9th, 1470, Edward V.
Skelton, our earliest Poet-Laureate, remained in this stronghold, in
safety, writing furious invectives against Cardinal Wolsey. If he had not
had the protection of sanctuary, it is believed he would have been doomed
to destruction. "It was impregnable," says Dean Stanley, "even by all the
power of the Cardinal at the height of his grandeur."
[Illustration: ANCIENT KNOCKER, DURHAM CATHEDRAL.]
A curious example of the violation of a sanctuary occurred at Stafford. In
the year 1300, a complaint was laid before the King by the Dean and
Chapter of St. Mary's, Stafford, to the effect that two men imprisoned for
felony in Stafford gaol had escaped, and taken refuge in the church. The
men were followed into the church, captured, and re-imprisoned. The prison
authorities were directed to restore the men to the Dean and Chapter.
It may not be without interest to give some details of two important north
country sanctuaries, Durham and Beverley. On the north door of the
Cathedral of Durham is a ponderous bronze knocker, of which we give a
drawing. It will be noticed that the knocker is in the form of a ring
held between the teeth of a monster's head. The person claiming sanctuary
raised the ring of the knocker, and sounded it to obtain admission to the
church, where, for a time, he felt safe out of the reach of his avengers.
In the sacred building two men were on duty night and day, ever ready to
quickly open the door. A bell was next tolled to make known the fact that
a man had taken sanctuary. When a refugee sought protection an early
intimation was made to the prior, who gave injunctions that he was to keep
within the limits of the churchyard, which formed the bounds of the Durham
sanctuary. In presence of a witness, a detailed account had to be given of
the crime committed, dates, names of persons, places, etc., had to be
given, and they were carefully noted. In cases of murder and manslaughter,
the weapon employed had to be mentioned. A gown of black cloth, having on
its left shoulder a cross, known as "the cross of St. Cuthbert," was given
him to wear. The badge was, we are told, "to the intent that every one
might see that there was such a freelige granted by God unto St.
Cuthbert's shrine, for every such offender to flee for succour and
safeguard of their lives." The refugee at Durham was allowed the right of
sanctuary for thirty-seven days, and provided with food and drink and
bedding at the expense of the convent. If within that time he failed to
make peace with his adversaries, he had to abjure the realm. He lost his
property by this proceeding, but saved his life, or evaded some barbarous
form of punishment which often resulted in mutilation of a most painful
character.
The Surtees Society, on the 7th December, 1836, resolved to print the
Records of the Sanctuaries of Durham and Beverley, and shortly afterwards
the work was issued. The Durham notices are reproduced from the ordinary
Registers of the Cathedral, and extends from 1464 to 1524. The following
shows the number of crimes, and the calling of the men taking refuge:--
Murder and Homicide.--Crimes, 195. Persons implicated, 283. Trades of
fugitives:--Husbandmen, 8; Labourers, 4; Yeomen, 4; Gentlemen, 4;
Ecclesiastics, 3; Merchants, 2; Tailor, 1; Plumber, 1; Carpenter, 1;
Tanner, 1; Baxster, 1; Glover, 1; Sailor, 1; Apprentice, 1; Under-Bailiff,
1; Servant, 1; Knight, 1 (an accessory). The occupations of the remainder
are not mentioned. Debt, 16. Of these--Shermane, 1; Horslibber, 1;
Merchant, 1; Flesher, 1. Horse-stealing, 4. Of these--Yeoman, 1.
Cattle-stealing, 9. Escaping from Prison, 4. Of these--Shoemaker, 1.
Housebreaking, 4. Rape, 1. Theft, 7. Of these--Yeoman, 1; Ecclesiastic, 1;
Goldsmith, 1. Backward in his accounts, 1. For harbouring a thief, 1. For
failing to prosecute, 1.
The list of weapons, etc., employed by the murderers is as under:--
Indefinite, 12; Armicudium, 1; Arrow, 5; Baselard 3; Bastard-sword, 1;
Bill, 3; Carlisle Axe, 3; Club-staff, 11; Crabtree-staff, 1; Dagger, 56;
Dicker, 1; Egelome, 1; Forest-bill, 1; Halbarde, 2; Hanging, 1; Hynger, 3;
Iron-fork Shaft, 1; Kendal-club, 2; Lance, 10; Lance-staff, 4; Lang
Pike-staff, 1; Long Plane-staff, 1; Pike-staff, 12; Plane-staff, 1;
Pychyng-staff, 1; Pugio (a dagger), 1; Scotch Axe, 2; Small-staff, 1;
Spear-staff, 2; Staff, 14; Staff, with a pummel, 1; Stone, 2; Sword, 21;
Trodden to death, 1; Turf-spade, 1; Welsh-bill, 6; Whynyard (a short
dagger), 6; Wood-axe, 3; Wood-knife, 1.
The right of sanctuary was granted to the church of St. John, Beverley, by
Athelstan, and near the altar was placed a Fridstol, or chair of peace,
denoting that here the refugee might find peace. According to Camden and
Leland, the chair once bore a Latin inscription which has been translated
thus: "This stone chair is called the Freed Stool, _i.e._, the Chair of
Peace, to which what criminal soever flies hath full protection." There is
not at the present time any trace of an inscription on it. We only know of
two sanctuary chairs which are still preserved in England, namely, one at
Beverley and the other at Hexham.
[Illustration: BEVERLY SANCTUARY CHAIR.]
The extent of the Beverley sanctuary was a circle round the church having
a radius of about a mile, with the church as a centre, marked by stone
crosses erected on the four principal roads leading to the town. "If a
malefactor," says Oliver, in his "History of Beverley," "flying for refuge
was taken or apprehended within the crosses, the party that took or had
hold of him there, did forfeit two hundreth; if he took him within the
town, then he forfeited four hundreth; if within the walls of the
churchyard, then six hundreth; if within the church, then twelve hundreth;
if within the doors of the quire, then eighteen hundreth, besides penance,
as in case of sacrilege; but if he presumed to take him out of the stone
chair near the altar, called Fridstol, or from among the holy relics
behind the altar, the offence was not redeemable with any sum, but was
then become _sine emendatione, boteles_, and nothing but the utmost
severity of the offended church was to be expected, by a dreadful
excommunication, besides what secular power would impose for the
presumptuous misdemeanor." There is a foot-note in Oliver's book, on the
authority of Richard Prior, of Hagulstad, saying that "the hundreth
contained eight pounds; so that the last penalty was most immense, nearly
as much as the weregild for killing a crowned head in Wales; and, indeed,
every act of violence committed against the right of sanctuary was
esteemed a breach of the churches' peace, a high crime, and a species of
sacrilege."
The particulars of the persons who took sanctuary from about the year 1478
to 1539, published by the Surtees Society, is drawn from a thin folio
volume, preserved among the Harleian MSS. This important manuscript
contains a copy of the oath taken by those who sought sanctuary at
Beverley. The Bailiff of the Archbishop, by whom the oath was
administered, had to enquire of the refugee:--
"What man he killed, and wher with, and both ther names, and than gar him
lay his hand uppon the book, saying on this wyse--
Sir, take hede on your oth--Ye shalbe trew and feythfull to my Lord
Archbisshop of York, Lord off this towne, to the Provest of the same, to
the Chanons of this Chirch, and all other ministers therof.
Also, ye shall bere gude hert to the Baillie and xij governars of this
town, to all burges and comyners of the same.
Also, ye shall bere no poynted wepon, dagger, knyfe, ne non other wapen
ayenst the Kynge's pece.
Also, ye shalbe redy at all your power, if ther be any debate or stryf,
or order so than case of fyre within the towne, to help to surcess it.
Also, ye shalbe redy at the obite of Kyng Adelstan, at the dirige and the
messe, at suche tyme as it is done, at the warnyng of the belman of the
towne, and doe your dewte in ryngyng, and for to offer at the messe on the
morne. So help you God and thies holy Evangelistes. And than gar hym kysse
the book."
The Bailiff's fee on this occasion appears to have been two shillings and
fourpence, that of the Clerk of the Court, for inscribing the name of the
refugee in the register, fourpence.
As we have previously stated, the Beverley register, published by the
Surtees Society, commences about the year 1478, and extends to 1539. A
summary of the crimes and the trades, etc., of refugees is as follows:--
Crimes.--Indefinite, 35. Persons concerned, 35. No trade described, 10;
Labourers, 3; Tylers, 2; Tailors, 2; Masons, 2; Dyers, 2; Yeomen, 2;
Merchant, 1; Husbandman, 1; Smith, 1; Clerk, 1; Butcher, 1; Chapman, 1;
Gentleman, 1; Draper, 1; Skinner, 1; Shoemaker, 1; Haberdasher, 1;
Litster, 1. Murder and Homicide.--Crimes, 173. Persons implicated, 186. No
trade or occupation described, 52; Tailors, 19; Husbandmen, 17; Yeomen,
16; Labourers, 14; Weavers and Websters, 11; Shoemakers, 8; Butchers, 6;
Gentlemen, 6; Mercers, 3; Barbers, 3; Brewers, 3; Servants, 2; Esquires,
2; Surgeons, 2; Millers, 2; Mariners, 2; Smith, 1; Shearman, 1; Spinster,
1; Carpenter, 1; Painter, 1; Chapman, 1; Maltster, 1; Cartwright, 1;
Gentlewoman, 1; Chandler, 1; Minstrell, 1; Cooper, 1; Literate, 1;
Saddler, 1; Shepherd, 1; Carrier, 1; Tanner, 1; Cook, 1; Hatmaker, 1.
Felony.--Crimes, 51. Persons implicated, 54. No trade described, 3;
Labourers, 8; Tailors, 6; Husbandmen, 4; Butchers, 4; Glovers, 3;
Goldsmiths, 3; Cutlers, 3; Tylers, 2; Plumbers, 2; Yeomen, 2; Merchant, 1;
Smith, 1; Clerk, 1; Physician, 1; Spinster, 1; Grocer, 1; Gentleman, 1;
Pinner, 1; Mariner, 1; Shoemaker, 1; Fishmonger, 1; Fuller, 1; Brickmaker,
1. Horse stealing, 1, a Labourer. Treason, 1, a Butcher. Receipt of stolen
goods, 1, a Haberdasher. Coining.--Cases, 6; persons, 7. No trade
described, 1; Yeomen, 2; Fleshers, 2; Tailor, 1; Weaver, 1. Debtors, 208.
No trade described, 36; Butchers, 31; Labourers, 12; Merchants, 9;
Husbandmen, 9; Gentlemen, 9; Mercers, 8; Tailors, 6; Weavers and Websters,
5; Dyers, 5; Yeomen, 5; Glovers, 4; Drapers, 4; Shearmen, 3; Chapmen, 3;
Pewterers, 3; Smiths, 2; Grocers, 2; Fishers, 2; Bakers, 2; Chandlers, 2;
Wheelwrights, 2; Coopers, 2; Pouchmakers, 2; Vintners, 2; Fishmongers, 2;
Bowyers, 2; Tapper, 1; Alderman and Grocer of London, 1; Carpenter, 1; Wax
Chandler, 1; Painter, 1; Goldsmith, 1; Clothier, 1; Waiter, 1; Maltster,
1; Surgeon, 1; Pinner, 1; Skinner, 1; Fustain Shearer, 1; Capper, 1;
Mason, 1; Haberdasher, 1; Salter, 1; Carrier, 1; Tanner, 1; Woolman, 1;
Purser, 1; Singingman, 1; Woodmonger, 1; Cook, 1; Wooldriver, 1; Hatmaker,
1; Bedmaker, 1; Barber, 1.
The weapons employed in cases of murder are seldom named in the Beverley
records.
The right of sanctuary was, perhaps, a blessing in the time it existed.
Hallam, in his "State of Europe in the Middle Ages," says that right of
sanctuary might as often be a shield of innocence as an impunity of crime.
"We can hardly regret, on reflecting on the desolating violence which
prevailed, that there should have been some green spots in the wilderness,
where the feeble and the persecuted could find refuge. How must this right
have enhanced the veneration for religious institutions! How gladly must
the victims of internal warfare have turned their eyes from baronial
castle, the dread and scourge of the neighbourhood, to those venerable
walls, within which not even the clamour of arms could be heard to disturb
the chaunt of holy men and the sacred service of the altar."
The Romance of Trial.
In past ages, trial by ordeal was customary in this country, and at the
present time in several foreign lands, where education has not swept away
superstitious beliefs, it is often used as a means of testing the guilt or
innocence of accused persons. The origin of ordeal may be traced back to a
remote period. In the Anglo-Saxon judicial systems it formed an important
feature, and the first record of it in this country appears in the laws of
King Ina, who reigned over Wessex from the year 688 to 727. The clergy
figured prominently in the trials.
For three days prior to the time appointed for the trial, the accused
passed through a course of severe discipline and austere diet. He declared
on oath that he was innocent of the crime laid to his charge. Twenty-four
of his friends and foes were brought together, and after a religious
service, specially prepared for the occasion, had been performed, the
ordeal was then tried. The ordeals were of various kinds, the nobles and
other great personages being generally tried with the boiling water
ordeal.
A ring or piece of metal, blessed by the priest, was cast into the boiling
water, and on either side of the vessel were ranged the twelve friends and
the twelve foes to witness the due execution of justice. The arm of the
accused was bared, he plunged it into the liquid and brought out the
article deposited in it by the priest. The degree of the crime regulated
the depth of the water; if slight, it only reached to the wrist, but if
serious, the arm was dipped up to the elbow, or even higher. The priest
quickly bound up the arm, and the bandages were not removed for three
days. At the end of that time, if the priest pronounced the arm healed,
the sufferer was regarded as guiltless; if not, it was believed that God
had interposed and convicted him.
Deputies sometimes performed the ordeals. A notable instance of employing
a substitute is that of Theatberge, wife of Lothaire, of France. She
confessed to having been guilty of incest, but subsequently recanting, it
was decided to try her by the ordeal, and a ring was thrown into boiling
water according to custom. The Queen elected a proxy, and it is recorded
of him whom she chose that he "produced the ring without injuring his
hand, in spite of the fire under the caldron being so intense that the
water boiled over."
It is asserted that the familiar saying of going "through fire and water"
for any one is derived from the practice of employing deputies in the
performance of ordeals.
In Mr. James Forbes' "Oriental Memoirs," published 1813-15, are some
details of boiling oil ordeals. One of the cases relates to the coolies of
a village in the northern part of Guzerat, who were charged with seizing
and imprisoning a Bohra, and extorting a bond from him for 450 rupees. The
chief denied the charge, and offered to prove his innocence by trial by
ordeal. We are told that "a large copper pot full of oil was put on a fire
in the market-place, and a pair of blacksmith's bellows applied to blow
the fire until the oil became very hot." A rupee was thrown into the
boiling oil. The chief next declared his innocence, said his prayers,
plunged his hand into the boiling liquid, and brought out the coin. He
next exhibited his hand to the spectators, when no traces of scalding
could be detected; indeed it appeared as if it had been dipped in cold
oil. Himself and his tribe were pronounced not guilty of the charge, and
he was dismissed with the gift of a turban.
The cold water ordeal appears to have been usually employed to try the
humbler classes. The accused went through fasting and discipline similar
to the trial by boiling water. After attending church, the person on trial
was conducted to a deep pool, and then bound hand and foot with cords. The
priest next adjured the water to receive the accused into its bosom if
innocent, but to reject him if he were guilty. He was cast into the water.
If he sank he was deemed innocent, and was at once drawn out by a rope
which had previously been tied round his waist. We gather from Hallam's
"Middle Ages" that a citizen of London, having failed in the ordeal of
cold water, was hanged by the order of Henry II. The man tried to save his
life by offering 500 marks. In cases of murder, if the accused even went
through the ordeal of water, he was banished from the realm.
Some attention is paid to this ordeal by Dr. Charles Mackay, in his
"Popular Delusions." "It was," he says, "a trial of the poor and humble,
and whether they sank or swam was thought of very little consequence. Like
witches of more modern times, the accused were thrown into a pond or
river. If they sank they were drowned, their friends had the consolation
that they were innocent; if they swam they were guilty. In either case
society was rid of them." We believe there is little foundation in fact
for the foregoing statement by Dr. Mackay. After careful investigation we
have not found a record of persons being drowned. The rope fastened to the
body of the accused would prevent any such accident.
Towards the close of the twelfth century the use of this ordeal was very
general. Lea, in his "Superstition and Force," says that "The assizes of
Clarendon, in 1166, confirmed at Northampton in 1176, direct an inquest to
be held in each shire, and all who are indicted for murder, robbery,
harbouring of malefactors, are to be at once, without further trial,
passed through the water ordeal to determine their guilt or innocence."
Mr. Lea thinks that the basis of this ordeal may be traced back to the
primitive Aryans, who believed that the pure element would not receive
into its bosom a person stained with the crime of a false oath.
Many strange stories are related respecting the ordeal of red-hot iron;
and not a few of a tragical character. There were two ways of performing
the red-hot iron ordeal. One was by taking up a piece of red-hot iron,
weighing from one to three pounds, or walking barefoot and blindfolded
over nine red-hot ploughshares placed lengthwise at irregular distances.
If the accused passed through this ordeal without being hurt he was deemed
innocent. There is a popular story that Emma, the mother of Edward the
Confessor, was charged with undue familiarity with Alwyn, Bishop of
Winchester. She proved her innocence by passing unharmed over heated
ploughshares.
Among the many instances of persons tried by this ordeal of hot iron may
be mentioned Remigius, the Bishop of Dorchester, who was accused of
treason against William the Conqueror. One of the bishop's followers
underwent the ordeal, and cleared his lordship of the charge.
It has been suggested by some authorities on this subject that the
apparently hot iron was really cold and painted red. In some instances the
hands and feet were perhaps rubbed with certain compositions which would
enable the persons going through the ordeal to touch the iron without
doing injury to themselves. We know that in our own time, to shew the
power of resisting fire is not by any means a difficult feat, and it often
forms an item on the programmes of popular entertainments.
Shakspeare and other writers refer to the ancient superstition that the
wounds of a murdered person would bleed again if touched by the murderer.
In _Richard III._, the dramatist writes as follows respecting Richard,
Duke of Gloster:--
"O gentlemen, see, see! dear Henry's wounds
Open their congeal'd mouths and bleed afresh!
Blush, blush, thou lump of foul deformity;
For 'tis thy presence that exhales this blood
From cold and empty veins, where no blood dwells;
Thy deed, inhuman and unnatural,
Provokes this deluge most unnatural."
Stow, in his "Annals," records that the king's body "was brought to St.
Paul's in an open coffin, barefaced, where he bled; thence he was carried
to Blackfriars, and there bled."
King James, in his "Daemonologie," thus refers to this superstition: "In a
secret murder," says the King, "if the dead carkasse be at any time
thereafter handled by the murderer, it will gush out of blood, as if the
blood were crying out to heaven for the revenge of the murderer." Dryden
adverts to the theme:--
"If the vile actors of the heinous deed
Near the dead body happily be brought,
Oft hath been proved the breathless corpse will bleed."
This ordeal in bygone times was frequently tried, and it was the means of
bringing not a few murderers to justice. In some instances the details of
the crimes and their detection read more like romance than a statement of
facts.
In the olden days witnessing an execution was a sight not to be missed by
old or young folk; even children wended their way to the fatal tree. Sir
Symonds D'Ewes, the antiquary, in his boyhood days, attended the execution
of a man named Babb, and subsequently wrote an account of the painful
circumstances connected with the case. We gather from his notes that Babb
had formerly lived near to Wambrook, on the southern border of Somerset.
He had sought in vain for the hand in marriage of a widow living near
Taunton. She, however, declined his proposal. Babb, although greatly
disappointed at his failure, resolved to make one more attempt to win the
woman. He hid himself in a brewhouse used by the widow, and when she
appeared he once more pressed his suit. She heard him with disdain, and
almost before he had finished his speech she said, "Have thee, base
rascal? No!" She then struck him on the head with a pewter candlestick.
This made his blood boil, and he inflicted upon her sixteen wounds,
causing her death. Afterwards, he put the knife in her hand, making it
appear as if she had committed suicide, and then quietly stole away from
the place.
The unfortunate widow was buried, but tongues and brains were not set at
rest, for it was the opinion of not a few that she had met her death at
the hands of a murderer. Amongst the active in this matter was a leading
local magistrate, named Mr. Ware, Hestercombe House, near Taunton. Like
other people of this period, he believed in the ordeal by touch. "This
active magistrate," we find stated, "caused the body to be disinterred,
that all the inhabitants living within a circle of three miles might
assemble to touch the body, and go through this powerful ordeal. Babb ran
away to escape this dreadful mode of testing the inhabitants' innocence.
His racking conscience gave him no repose; he returned and yielded himself
up to justice." At the next county assizes for Somerset, held at Chard, in
the year 1613, he was tried, found guilty, and condemned to death. Shortly
afterwards he was hanged near Wambrook.
Charles I. presented to Dr. Wren, the father of the famous Sir Christopher
Wren, the rectory of Great Haseley, near Oxford. During his incumbency,
occurred a sad event, which made a great impression on his mind. He
detailed, in Latin, particulars of the matter, and duly attested the truth
by signing it. Lucy Phillimore, the author of an ably-written work on "Sir
Christopher Wren: his Family and his Times," supplies an English version
of the tragedy. "Among the retainers of Lord Norris," we are told, "was an
old man who had charge of the fish ponds; he had one nephew, who was the
heir of all his uncle's possessions and savings. The nephew enticed the
old man out one night, waited till he fell asleep under an oak tree,
murdered him by a blow on the head, dragged the body to one of the ponds,
tied a great stone to the neck, and threw the corpse in. There it lay
five weeks, during which time Lord Norris and all the neighbours wondered
what had become of the old man. At length, attracted to the spot by the
swarms of flies, the body was found by the men who were about to clean the
pond. They raised the corpse with great difficulty, and recognised it. The
stone tied to the neck was evidence of foul play, though no one could
guess the murderer. Lord Norris, in order to detect the criminal, after
the usual manner, commanded that the corpse, preserved by the water from
the last extremity of decay, should, on the next Sunday, be exposed in the
churchyard, close to the church door, so that every one entering the
church should see and touch it. The wicked nephew shrank from the ordeal,
feigning to be so overwhelmed with grief as to be unable to bear the sight
of his dearest uncle. Lord Norris, suspecting that the old man had been
murdered by the one person whom his death would profit, compelled him to
come, and to touch with his finger, as so many had willingly done, the
hand of the dead. At his touch, however, 'as if opened by the finger of
God, the eyes of the corpse were seen by all to move, and blood to flow
from his nostrils.' At this awful witness, the murderer fell on the ground
and avowed the crime, which he had secretly committed, and the most just
judgment of God had brought to light." The murderer was tried before one
of His Majesty's judges, and the circumstances of the crime fully stated.
He was condemned to death, and the sentence was duly carried out by the
hangman.
Another strange story comes down to us from the days when the first
Charles was king. It relates to Herefordshire. Johan Norkeff was found
dead, and it was believed that she had laid violent hands upon herself.
After she had been buried about a month, circumstances caused it to be
suspected that she had met her death by foul play. The case came under the
consideration of a coroner and jury, and they finally resolved to have the
body exhumed, and cause the four suspected persons to touch it. The result
of the ordeal was narrated at the assizes by an old minister as follows:
"The body being taken out of the grave and laid on the grass, the accused
were required to touch it. On laying on their hands on the brow, which
before was of a livid and carrion colour, it began to have a dew or
gentle sweat upon it, which increased by degrees until the sweat ran down
the face. The brow then turned to a lifelike and flesh colour, and the
dead woman opened one of her eyes and shut it again, and this opening of
the eye was done three times. She likewise thrust out the ring or marriage
finger three times, and the finger dropped blood on the grass." The old
minister swore to the correctness of the foregoing, and, says James Grant,
in "The Mysteries of all Nations," from whom we draw the evidence, another
clergyman corroborated it. Sir Nicholas Hyde, the eminent lawyer, who rose
to be Lord Chief Justice, questioned the correctness of the evidence, but
the members of the jury did not agree with him, finding three of the
prisoners guilty of murder. Two were executed, and the third, a woman, was
reprieved.
On much weaker evidence to the preceding cases, Philip Stanfield was
condemned, in 1688, for the murder of his father, Sir James Stanfield. An
account of the matter will be found in Chambers's "Domestic Annals of
Scotland," vol. 2, pages 491-92. The case may be briefly stated as
follows: The body of Sir James Stanfield, of New Mills, was found in a
stream near Haddington. It appeared that he had met his dead by
strangling. James Muirhead, a surgeon, and another person swore that when
Philip Stanfield was helping to place the body of his father in a coffin,
blood started from the left side of his neck upon his touch, and that he
exclaimed, "Lord have mercy upon me!" On this slight evidence he was, 7th
February, 1688, pronounced guilty of parricide, and was publicly executed
on the 24th of the same month, and his body hung in chains. He protested
his innocence to the last. "The whole case," says Dr. Robert Chambers,
"seems to be a lively illustration of the effect of superstitious feeling
in blinding justice."
On the 14th June, 1641, a commission which sat at Dalkeith, pronounced
Christina Wilson guilty of the death, by sorcery, of her brother,
Alexander Wilson. She had been, prior to the trial, directed by the
minister and others to touch the corpse of her brother. After an earnest
prayer, in which she fervently prayed to God, who had made the sun to
shine on their home, to bring the murderer to justice, she touched the
body. It bled, although it had not done so when touched by others. This
was deemed sufficient proof of her guilt, and on this evidence she
suffered death.
With directing the attention to the survival of touching the dead, we must
draw to a close our study of the romance of trial. In the north of
England, and other parts of the country, it is the practice of persons who
come to see a corpse to touch it, as a token "that they wished no ill to
the departed, and were at peace and amity with them."
A Fight between the Mayor of Hull and the Archbishop of York.
The prelates of the past enjoyed not a few peculiar privileges which are
not inherited by their successors in modern times. In the mediaeval era,
the dignitaries of the church led comparatively exciting lives, and were
by no means strangers to the use of sword and lance, many gaining fame on
the field of battle.
Representatives of the church often possessed rights in respect to the
gallows and its victims. A few facts about a case occurring far back, in
the days of our first Edward, shew how keenly they maintained their
privileges. The Abbot of Peterborough set up a gallows at Collingham,
Nottinghamshire, and had hanged thereon a thief. This proceeding came
under the notice of the Bishop of Lincoln, and he, with considerable
warmth and temper, declared that the Abbot had usurped his rights, since
he held from the king's predecessors the liberty of the Wapentake of
Collingham, and the right of executing criminals. The Abbot declared that
Henry III. had given to him and his successors "Infangthef and Utfangthef
in all his hundreds and demesnes." After investigation it was decided that
the Abbot was in the wrong, and he was directed to take down the gallows
he had erected. One, and perhaps the chief, reason of the prelate being so
particular to retain his privileges was on account of it entitling him to
the chattels of the condemned criminals.
William the Conqueror invested the Abbot of Battle Abbey with authority to
save the life of any malefactor he might find being executed, and whose
life he wished to spare.
Amongst the many privileges enjoyed by the Archbishop of York, was that of
having a mint. As early as the year 1070, we find a mention of the mint,
and particulars of attempts made, without success, to destroy or curtail
His Grace's coining. Archbishop Lee, who died in 1544, is said to have
been the last to exercise the power of issuing money.
In bygone times, the Archbishops of York appear to have enjoyed almost
regal power. The baronies of Beverley, Sherburn, Patrington, Otley, and
Wilton belonged to them. They appointed justices for these important
towns, had prisons, gallows, pillories, and ducking-stools, and did their
utmost to maintain law and order.
It will be gathered from the foregoing that prelates were granted
privileges which enabled them to exercise much power amongst the people.
Some of the rights enjoyed at Hull by the Archbishop of York were
oppressive to the inhabitants of the town, and gave rise to much strife.
It was the practice, exercised according to ancient custom, of the
Archbishop of York to claim prisage from every vessel of twenty tons
burden entering the river Hull. Two casks of wine were demanded, one from
before and the other from behind the mast. The casks, however, might be
redeemed by paying twenty shillings for each cask. The merchants
successfully evaded payment of duty by unloading their ships in the
Humber, and bringing their goods into port in small craft. As may be
readily expected, the Archbishop was much annoyed at the conduct of the
men of Hull, who received the support of the Mayor of the town; indeed,
if we read history aright, we find the local authorities had a desire to
enjoy the privileges claimed by the prelate. A great difficulty had been
experienced for a long time by the officers of the Archbishop in
collecting the dues, and Archbishop Neville saw that unless he made a firm
stand to maintain his privileges, they would be lost. In the year 1378, he
decided to visit Hull, and enforce his rights. The Mayor of Hull, at that
time was Sir Thomas de Waltham, a knight of quick temper, and with no
particular respect for persons with whom he came in contact.