BURGHAL INDEPENDENCE
Just as the Universities and the Judiciary were found to have a common
link in the Order of the Coif, so we find that the Judiciary and the
City were bound each to each by the existence of by-laws, or, as they
were termed in a technical sense, "customs." Although, to avoid
misapprehension, these "customs" may be styled by-laws, and many of them
strictly answer to the description, on the whole they bore a very
different relation to the laws of the land from the by-laws of modern
corporations, the latter being purely subsidiary, while the former
affected the most important issues, and, in the absence of much general
legislation, possessed all the validity of statute law.
CUSTOM IN LAW
As there was considerable variation between the customs of different
towns and different counties, it became the duty of the Justices on Eyre
to investigate what was the custom, with regard to the subject of the
plea, in the particular locality, and they gave their decisions
accordingly.
Some of these cases are sufficiently amusing, as may be gathered from
the following record of a case heard in the Salop Inter of 1292:
"One Adam brought a writ of Entry against B.--B.: 'Sir, we vouch to
warranty, &c, W. de C., who is under age, to be summoned, &c.'--C. came
and prayed his age.--_Spigornel_ (for Adam): 'Sir, according to the
custom of the town, he is of age when he knows how to count up to twelve
pence, and he shall answer in a writ of Right at that age; and inasmuch
as he would answer in a writ of Right at that age, he shall warrant at
that age, or shall counterplead, &c. But now he is nineteen years old,
which is nearly of full age. Judgment if he shall not warrant or
counterplead.' Judgment that he should."
From the same Year-Book we obtain an insight into the working of what
may be termed communal law in the weighty matter of succession. One
Isabel brought the Novel Disseisin against a chaplain named Martin de
Hereford and others for a tenement in Shrewsbury. The defence was that
Martin had entered by the devise of one William Silke, and that the
custom of the town permitted a man on his death-bed to devise tenements
of his own purchase. Isabel's counsel, on the other hand, contended that
William's father held the tenements by the law of England, and that
William merely purchased the freehold, arguing also that the devise was
made in contravention of the statute (7 Ed. I., st. 27), since it was
made in mortmain for the beneficiaries to chant for him and his heirs
for ever. The Judge ruled that alienation contrary to the statute was no
justification for the heir to enter; and he drew attention to the
inconsistency of counsel in pleading that Silke could not devise his
inheritance, and that he could devise if there were no infraction of the
statute. Counsel thereupon elected to abide by his first contention, and
the question of fact was referred to the Assise (or Jury) which found
that part of the tenements were in William's seisin and that William had
purchased his father's estate therein.
We now come to the concluding passages of this highly interesting suit:
"_Berewyke_ [the Judge]: 'For that he could not purchase his own
heritage so that it could be styled his own purchase; and he devised the
tenements; and the custom of the town does not permit a man to devise
his heritage; Therefore this Court adjudges that Sybil (_sic_) do
recover her seisin of the tenements which were not devisable. Now what
say you as to the remainder?'
"The Assise said that the remainder of the tenements were of his own
purchase from several persons in the town, and that in his last illness
he devised them to Martin for the term of his life, and that the
testament was proved at the Guildhall according to the custom of the
town; and that the executors were commanded to deliver seisin to Martin,
and that according to the custom he had the seisin, &c.
"_Berewyke_: 'Since it is found that he entered on the tenements
according to the custom, &c.--although you were seised for four weeks,
yet that ought not to give you a title--this Court adjudges that you do
take nothing by the writ, &c. After Martin's death be well advised.'"
Communal law, however, was not allowed to _override_ the law of
England.[12] This principle was asserted in 1293, when Thomas le
Chamberleyn brought a writ before the Common Bench against a certain W.,
who, he complained, had taken his horse in the highway in the town of
Bernewell. The writ ran--"took in the highway and still keeps
impounded." There was the usual wrangle between counsel, and an attempt
was made to oust or invalidate the writ by asserting that six years and
a half before it (the writ) was purchased the animal had been
surrendered. After this preliminary fencing counsel for the defence
produced his real case, which was that by the King's charter the
burgesses of Cambridge had a franchise to this extent, that when clerks
or other persons were in debt they might seize their horses or other
property within the liberty; and as Thomas was bound in so many
shillings, his horse was seized according to the custom of the town, and
in no other way. The trespass being admitted, the Judge (Gislingham)
proceeded to give judgment on the plea of justification. He said:
"For that it is against the common law and against the statutes to make
such a taking in the highway unless he be the King's bailiff,
notwithstanding any franchise which the King may have granted, therefore
the Court adjudges that Thomas do recover his damages, and that W. be in
mercy for his tortious taking."
This leads to another point. Corporations had their local courts, and
some of them, by virtue of this fact, claimed exemption from the
jurisdiction of the higher courts. Such was the case at Liverpool, and
according to Sir. F. A. Picton there are instances on record in which
they succeeded in establishing their claim. How far these local
authorities were fit to be entrusted with the execution of justice may
be estimated by some lively incidents which took place in the early days
of October, 1565. One Thomas Johnson had been apprehended for picking
purses. Apparently he underwent no regular trial, but was dealt with
summarily, the programme being as follows: First, he was imprisoned
several days and nights, and then he was nailed by the ear to a post at
the flesh-shambles. As the next item, he was turned out naked from the
middle upwards, and many boys, with withy rods, whipped him out of the
town. He was then locked to a clog with an iron chain and horseblock
until the Friday morning following, and finally abjured the town before
the Mayor and Bailiffs, at the same time making restitution of 6_s._
8_d._ to the wife of one Henry Myln. Thus, there was a rude efficacy in
the process, but it might perhaps have been received as sufficient
ground for a writ of certiorari if Johnson had again fallen into the
hands of his tormentors.
It is certain that at times towns had to answer, through their
officers, for alleged acts of illegality in their corporate capacity.
Thus in 1292 one Adam--the reader will observe that the records do not
give the actual names, Adam being chosen as beginning with the first
letter of the alphabet--brought the Replegiare against B., &c., stating
that B., &c., had tortiously taken his chattels in the High Street of
the Town of Gloucester and conveyed them to their toll booth in the same
town. B. and C., the bailiffs, defended the seizure, asserting that by
the custom of the town of Gloucester only freemen might cut cloth
there--strangers might sell cloth by the piece, but not cut it.
Adam was not a freeman of the town, but, in opposition to the custom, he
had come and cut his cloth. As against this Adam produced a charter
witnessing that the King had granted him the right of cutting cloth in
the same way as other freemen, and, by virtue of the charter, he
maintained that he had been seised from time whereof, &c. The bailiffs
repudiated this claim. We do not learn what the judgment was in this
case, but the phrase "other freemen" is suspicious. It suggests that the
charter had been granted in ignorance of the custom of this particular
town, not out of disrespect for it, since the tendency of all the
evidence is to show that local autonomy and local privileges in such
matters were treated with infinite care. It almost appears as if Adam
had taken advantage of an ambiguity. As regards ordinary civil rights
Adam was doubtless a freeman--otherwise he could not have brought this
action--but he was not a freeman in the sense that he paid scot and lot
in the town of Gloucester.
Such persons were often styled "foreigners," and therefore the plaintiff
in this case would have occupied precisely the same position as
"foreign" merchants who transgressed the customs of London. One of these
was that they were not to attend any market or fair at a greater
distance than three miles from the City, nor had Justices or Sheriff
power to give them leave to do so. If a Sheriff caught any "foreign"
merchant beyond those bounds, he was supposed to bring him back, and
the money found on his person having been confiscated was shared between
the Sheriff and the citizens. If, however, the citizens were alone
responsible for the capture, the whole of the money went to them. Other
rules were that merchants repairing to London for the sale of linen,
cloth and wool might do business only on three days of the week
(Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays). They were then, if anything
remained to be sold, to pack up their goods and wait till the following
week; and in no case were they to sell _ad detail_ (retail).
A custom which we meet with at Dover and Reading, and was probably
adopted by other towns, is one described in sundry ordinances _de
stachia_, the latter being barbarous Latin for "stake." This was a
device for recovering possession of a tenement after a specified time,
when the tenant had fallen into arrears of rent, and consisted in the
landlord erecting a stake in front of the house as a notification of his
claim.
CROWN AND TOWN
Despite identity of usage at Dover and Reading on the subject of the
stake, it would be pardonable to conclude that in those times of
difficult communication there existed a great diversity of burghal laws,
entailing considerable inconvenience and hardship, especially in the
case of those engaged in trade. Since the adoption or growth of customs
depended on the interests or sentiments of particular communities,
diversity was, to some extent, inevitable, but the tendency to local
independence--an independence tenaciously maintained and jealously
guarded--was tempered by counter-tendencies. Thus it was not always to
the interest of a town or city to stand in complete isolation from
centres of a similar type, or possibly of a superior organization; and,
in such instances, a smaller, weaker, less perfectly developed community
might seek to improve its status or fortune by modelling its
arrangements on those of a more advanced and more powerful neighbour,
and in addition to and as a corollary of this, enter into a formal or
informal alliance with it, in which the latter would hold the position
of protector or patron.
In the Middle Ages there subsisted between the towns and the feudal
aristocracy an antagonism sometimes silent and slumbering, sometimes
wakened into fierce consciousness and expressing itself not only in
hardy words, but in sanguinary deeds. On the Continent the towns were
the hotbeds of revolution, and the commune, with its mayor as
figure-head, signalized the triumph of the insurrectionary temper. This
state of things was more marked on the Continent than in England, where
the Barons led the assault on tyranny, and where, for his own purposes,
the monarch fostered the prosperity of towns of his own planting. But
Mr. J. H. Round, in his singularly able article on "The Origin of the
Mayoralty of London," contributed to the "Archæological Journal," shows
conclusively that this institution, now the ægis of all that is staid,
stable, and respectable, was the offspring of the spirit of revolt which
spread like a contagion from Italy to France, Germany, and the Low
Countries, and thence to the Thames.
Dr. Gross's valuable contribution to the "Antiquary" (1885), treating of
the affiliation of towns, is of a general character, and illustrated
largely by continental examples; anyone, however, who wishes to grasp
the full significance of mediæval relationships as between town and
town, will be well advised in consulting that succinct account. Here we
must confine ourselves to English experience, in which the same traits
appear, only more faintly. Before proceeding to this inquiry it may not
be amiss to advert briefly to another aspect of the subject. We have
said above that, in England, the monarch inclined to favour certain
towns for his own purposes, and such towns were naturally of the highest
precedence. If we turn to Liverpool, we shall find that in 1206 it
received a visit from King John, who the following year issued letters
patent of which the following is a translation:
"John, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of
Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to all his liegemen who
would desire to have burgages at the town of Liverpool, greeting. Know
ye that we have granted to all who may take burgages at Liverpool that
they may have all the liberties and free customs in the town of
Liverpool which any free borough on the sea has in our land; and
therefore we command that securely, and in our peace, you may come to
receive and occupy our burgages. And in testimony thereof we transmit to
you these our letters patent. Witness, Simon de Pateshill, at
Winchester, the 28th day of August in the ninth year of our reign."
At a later period the people of Liverpool might not have thanked the
Crown for facilitating the settlement of a large body of strangers in
their midst. Everywhere burgesses were strongly opposed to the
colonization of their towns by "upland men," less on sentimental grounds
than from the fact that these "foreigners" frequently did not take steps
to become naturalized and pay scot and lot towards communal expenses.
Clearly this objection did not apply to Liverpool in this instance, and
at that relatively early stage of its history the incorporation of a
number of well-to-do and industrious immigrants might naturally have
been hailed as a gain. It must have been so regarded by the King.
Liverpool was the port of embarkation for troops sailing to Ireland, and
is said to have owed its foundation to this circumstance in the days of
Strongbow. The advantage of a numerous, loyal, and able-bodied
population was seen in 1573, when the Earl of Essex passed through the
place on his way to Ireland. It happened that he left behind him a
detachment of soldiers, and the "motley coats" and "blue coats," having
quarrelled, used their weapons on each other. With admirable
promptitude, the Mayor summoned the trained bands, and the rest of the
story may be told in the vivacious language of a contemporary:
"Mr. Mayor and all the town suddenly, as pleased God Almighty, were
ready upon the heath, every man with their best weapons; so as by good
chance every householder being at home, Sunday morning, eager as lions,
made show almost even like to the number of the captains and all their
soldiers.... After the battle array [which was efficacious in staying
the conflict] Mr. Captain showed all gentleness and courtesy to the
Mayor, and came up to the town in friendship and amity."
Trained bands formed part of the equipment of a well-appointed mediæval
town--a description to which, as we shall show, Liverpool possessed
exceptional claims. But the Crown did not benefit solely in this way.
The burgages erected numbered 168, each of which paid a ground rent of
one shilling per annum into the royal exchequer. The custom dues of the
Duchy of Lancaster were another source of profit, and retainers of the
King were occasionally quartered on them. Thus in 1372 one Rankyn, a
follower of John of Gaunt, was retained on condition that he "in time of
peace shall be at board at court ... and that he shall have and take for
the term of his life, in the whole, twenty-five marks sterling from the
farm of the town of Liverpool."
The object of all towns was to acquire the fullest measure of
self-government, and in this respect, despite probable exactions arising
from the system of fee-farm leases, Liverpool must be reckoned
extraordinarily fortunate. The term "commune" also--word of sinister
import since 1871, but used in mediæval England in the innocuous sense
of "borough"--seems to have special point in reference to the trading
regulations of that ancient port, if compared with the greater
individualism of other places, though commercial transactions were
universally the subject of manifold restrictions designed to protect the
interests of the native against the intrusive and vexatious rivalry of
the foreigner. At Liverpool matters went far beyond that.
The Corporation itself for a long time farmed the custom dues, and also
levied tolls on, all merchandise that passed through the port. Much land
and other property belonged to it, as well as the ecclesiastical
patronage, which included the appointment and dismissal of incumbents,
wardens, and other church officers. The hanse, composed of the entire
body of freemen and burgesses, required that all produce, upon
importation, should be first offered to it, and it was then inspected by
"prizers" or appraisers, who gave an estimate of its value. If the
importers did not care to sell at the price, they had to haggle with the
town respecting the sum to be paid for leave to sell in the open market;
and any merchant or trader who treated with them on his own account was
liable to heavy penalties.[13]
We have previously given a sample of original methods of administering
justice at Liverpool, and much might be written of its curious penal
code, which embraced such offences as eavesdropping. Hence the protest
embodied in the following presentment of the Grand Jury on March 31,
1651, may well express the inner thought of many preceding generations
of culprits:
"Item, wee p'sent William Mee for saying and cursing in the court,
pointing His finger towards Mr. Mayor and the Jurie, 'If such men as
those can give anie judgment, the Divell goe with you and all the acts
you have done.' Amerced in five pounds."
We need not recur to the topic of trained bands, and will only remark
that in this and other respects Liverpool obtained a degree of
self-sufficiency and independence surpassing anything known at the
present time, and, apparently, far beyond the common standard even of
mediæval towns. It might therefore have stood forth as an object not so
much of envy as of imitation. In point of fact, Liverpool--owing, no
doubt, to its comparatively late rise and geographical situation--was
not one of those towns whose customs were widely copied. In Wales the
custom of Hereford held the field, and in the south-west the custom of
Winchester, which, through transmission to Newcastle, prevailed also in
Northumberland and Scotland. The customs of York and the Cinque Ports
attracted smaller groups, while the custom of London was not only mother
of the custom of Oxford, but grandmother of the custom of Bedford, since
the citizens of Oxford were called in by the last-named town to
adjudicate on obscure points, and they themselves repaired to London, as
the fountain-head, in the event of any internal dispute. The court of
appeal, when mother and daughter towns were at variance on the subject
of privileges, was the King and Council.
In England the powers of the mother-town were purely advisory, whereas
on the Continent some towns appear to have exercised coercive
jurisdiction over those whose laws were derived from them. Perhaps this
circumstance, that the process was one of adoption rather than
subjection, was the chief reason why English towns were so careful not
to communicate their privileges, at any rate freely, to boroughs of
_servile_ condition, i.e., those which owed service to some lord. The
case of Hereford is thus stated:
"The King's cittizens of Hereford, who have the custodye of his citty
(in regard that it is the principall citty of all the market townes from
the sea even unto the boundes of the Seaverne) ought of ancient usage to
deliver their lawes and customes to such townes, when need requires, yet
in this case they are in noe wise bound to do it, because they say they
are not of the same condition; for there are some townes which hould of
our Lord the Kinge of England and his heires without any mesne Lord; and
to such we are bound, when and as often as need shall be, to certifie of
our lawes and customes, chiefly because we hold by one and the same
tenure; and nothing shall be taken of them in the name of a reward,
except only by our common towne clerke, for the wryting and his paynes,
as they can agree. But there are other markett townes which hold of
diverse lords of the Kingdome, wherein are both natives and rusticks of
auncient tyme, who paie to their lord corporall services of diverse
kinds, with other services that are not used among us, and who may be
expelled out of those townes by their lords, and may not inhabit in them
or be restored to their former state, but by the common law of England.
And chiefly those and others that hold by such forreine service in such
townes, are not of our condition; neither shall they have our lawes and
customes but by way of purchase, to be performed to our
capitall-bailiff, as they can agree between them, at the pleasure and to
the benefitt of the citty aforesaid."
Towns were extremely jealous of their purity in this respect, a fact
which may be illustrated in another way. Thus no person of servile
condition was allowed to be a freeman of the city of London. If, after
admission, he was ascertained to be of such condition, he forfeited his
rights. During the mayoralty of John Blount, Thomas le Bedelle, Robert
le Bedelle, Alan Undirwoode, and Edmund May, butchers, lost their
franchises, because they acknowledged that they held land in villeinage
of the Bishop of London and dwelt outside the liberty. On July 18, 11
Rich. II., it was ordained that no one should be enrolled as an
apprentice or received into the freedom of the city by way of
apprenticeship unless he first swore that he was a freeman and not a
native, and whoever should be thereafter received into the freedom of
the said city by purchase or any way but by apprenticeship should make
the same oath, and also find six honest men to undertake for him as had
been wont to be done of old.
"And if it happen that such native be admitted by false suggestion
without the knowledge of the Chamberlain, as soon as the circumstance is
notorious to the Mayor and Aldermen, let him lose the freedom of the
city and pay a fine for his deception, at the discretion of the Mayor
and Aldermen.
"Again, if it happen in the future that such native, at the time of
whose birth his father was a native, be elected to a judicial office of
the City such as Alderman, Sheriff, or Mayor, unless he notify to the
Mayor and Aldermen concerning the servile condition before he receive
that office, he shall pay to the Chamberlain for the use of the City one
hundred pounds, and nevertheless shall lose his freedom as aforesaid."
A PARADISE OF POLICE
Thus the fundamental principle of freedom, in all corporate towns, was
independence of the feudal aristocracy, and along with this went a sense
of social superiority relatively to those dependent upon, and subject
to, lords of fees. Burgesses claimed to be masters in their own house
and acted in concert with an eye to the common good. This led to the
growth or institution of customs divisible into two main categories. One
of these was concerned with the correction of refractory or immoral
persons dwelling within the gates; and the other with the regulation of
commerce. These categories were not entirely divorced, since the
infraction of trade ordinances was visited with something more than mere
obloquy. On the other hand, the presence of evil livers, though it had
no immediate bearing on commerce, added nothing to the security,
prosperity, and reputation of the town or city. The customs of London
form too large a subject to receive adequate treatment here, but in what
remains of our space we propose to limit ourselves to them alone.
It would be possible to write at considerable length on the position of
aliens in mediæval London, and, incidentally, on the charming festival
of the Pui, wherewith they consoled themselves for the many hardships
and restrictions inflicted on them by the jealous citizens, examples of
which have been previously given. Reserving this topic for another
occasion, we will glance at certain enactments with which innkeepers and
their congeners found their avocations fenced about. The citizens did
not welcome the appearance of casual strangers, any more than the
presumption of the foreigner who came and settled amongst them. Almost
of necessity the former class resorted for food and shelter to the
public-houses, which were of two kinds--the inns kept by hostelers, and
the lodging-houses kept by herbergeours. These places of resort were
supplemented by cook-shops answering to our modern restaurants.
In the time of Edward I. an ordinance was passed that "No Portuguese or
Germans shall keep hostels, but that persons of those countries shall
lodge with freemen of the city." It has been supposed that by "freemen"
are intended native freemen, but this is doubtful, since cases occur of
strangers and foreigners being admitted to the freedom for the very
purpose of becoming hostelers and herbergeours. Even when this privilege
was granted them, they were not suffered to compete on equal terms with
the Englishman, being required to keep their houses "in the heart of the
City," and rigidly excluded from the more profitable regions on the
banks of the Thames.
The necessity of hostelers and herbergeours being freemen was due
apparently to the survival of the old Saxon law of frank-pledge, which
was still in force at the close of the reign of Edward III. No hosteler
or herbergeour might entertain a stranger longer than a day and a night,
unless he undertook to answer for his guest's behaviour, and he was left
in no uncertainty as to the course of conduct he was expected to pursue
towards the always undesirable alien. In many respects his position
resembled that of a master of a workhouse rather than a speculative
tradesman. Thus, at times when it was forbidden to carry arms in the
City, it became his duty to take possession of his guests' arms and
retain them until the strangers departed. If the latter did not comply
with his demand, they were fined and imprisoned. At other times, when
the regulations were not so severe, he had to tell his guests that they
were not to carry arms after curfew rang, or go wandering about the
streets of the City. Should it happen that urgent business compelled a
guest to be absent from the hostel for a night, the keeper was obliged
to warn him, with the best grace he might, that he must take care to be
back as soon as possible.
Obviously there would have been much unfairness in making hostelers and
herbergeours answer for the misdeeds of persons with whom they had only
transient relations, if there had been no system for preventing the
escape of dishonest and desperate characters who would be especially
susceptible to the attractions of a great city and could not be held in
check by the fatherly admonitions of an anxious host. Nor, again, was it
to be supposed that the native population consisted wholly of highly
moral and virtuous persons, incapable of such low crimes as burglary. To
counteract the designs of these enemies of order, it was enacted temp.
Edward I. that barriers and chains should be placed across the streets
of the City and "more especially towards the water (Fleet River) near
the Friars Preachers." From the same reign also dates an ordinance that
the Aldermen and men of the respective wards should keep watch and ward
on horseback at night, each Alderman keeping three horses for that
object. Moreover, each of the City gates was placed in charge of a
Sergeant-at-arms, who had his quarters over the gateway. It was the duty
of this official to keep guard by night, and he was assisted in this
task by a watchman (wayte), whose wages he had to pay out of his own
salary. The regulations of the City required that each gate should be
kept in the daytime by two men, well armed; and on certain occasions the
Bedel received orders to summon the men of the ward to watch the gate
armed. If they did not attend in person, they had to find substitutes at
their own expense.
One of the grandest spectacles in Old London was that of the Marching
Watch on St. John's Day. Comprised in it were about two thousand men,
some mounted, others on foot. There were "demilances" riding on great
horses; gunners with harquebuses and wheel-locks; archers in white
coats, bearing bent bows and sheafs of arrows; pikemen in bright
corslets; and bill-men with aprons of mail. There was likewise a cresset
train numbering nearly two thousand men. Each cresset--flaming rope,
soaked in pitch, in an iron frame held aloft on a shaft--was carried by
one man and served by another. Very imposing were the Constables of the
Watch, with their glittering armour and gold chains, each preceded by
his minstrel and followed by his henchman, and with his cresset bearer
by his side. Then came the City waits (musicians) and the morris
dancers--Robin Hood, Maid Marian, and the rest; after whom appeared the
Mayor, with his sword bearer, henchmen, footmen, and giants, followed by
the Sheriffs. All the windows facing the street stood open, and there
was no lack of distinguished spectators. To quote Nicols:
Kings, great peers, and many a noble dame,
Whose bright, pearl-glittering robes did mock the flame
Of the night's burning lights, did sit to see
How every senator, in his degree,
Adorn'd with shining gold and purple weeds,
And stately mounted on rich trapped steed,
Their guard attending, through the streets did ride
Before their foot-bands, graced with glittering pride
Of rich gilt arms, whose glory did present
A sunshine to the eye, as if it meant
Amongst the cresset lights shot up on high
To chase dark night for ever from the sky.
By the Setting of the Watch on Midsummer Eve appears to have been meant
the stationing of these armed guards in various parts of the City, which
they were to secure from harm on that night only. In the thirty-first
year of his reign Henry VIII. abolished the Marching Watch, and
substituted for it a permanent watch maintained out of the funds which
had previously gone to support the great annual pageant. For harnessed
constables Londoners now had watchmen equipped with lanthorn and
halberd, whose duty it was to call upon the sleeping citizens to hang
out their lights, as required on dark wintry nights:
Lanthorn and a whole candle light.
Hang out your lights! Hear!
The next thing to be added was a bell. This institution was not popular
with all; and Dekker, satirically expressing the feeling of the
malcontents, defined the bell as "the child of darkness, a common
night-walker, a man that had no man to wait upon him, but only a dog;
one that was a disordered person, and at midnight would beat at men's
doors, bidding them (in mere mockery) to look to their candles, when
they themselves were in their dead sleeps."
Milton, on the other hand, makes grateful mention of the salutation as a
lullaby and prophylactic:
Far from all resort of mirth,
Save the cricket on the hearth
Or the bellman's drowsy charm
To bless the doors from nightly harm.
Having said something of the means employed to prevent crime and arrest
criminals, we must go on to refer to the punishments in vogue in the
event of conviction. And here it may be observed that, among other
interferences with commerce and the liberty of the subject, hostelers
were not allowed to make either bread or beer. The former they were
compelled by public enactment to buy from the baker, and the latter from
the brewer or brewster (female brewer). But the City, if it defended
what was esteemed the legitimate claim of the baker to a proper
livelihood, was equally solicitous for the welfare of his customers, and
woe betide the baker who sold bread deficient in weight or quality! For
the first offence he was drawn on a hurdle from the Guildhall through
the principal streets, which would be thronged with people and foul with
traffic, and hanging from his neck was the guilty loaf. In the
Record-room at the Guildhall is an Assisa Panis containing a
pen-and-ink sketch of the ceremony, from which it appears that the
unhappy tradesman wore neither shoes nor stockings and had his arms
strapped to his sides. It seems also that the hurdle was drawn by two
horses, which suggests that it was rattled along at an inconsiderate
pace. For the second offence the baker was again conveyed on a hurdle
"through the great streets of Chepe," and he further underwent an hour's
exposure in the pillory, probably erected in Cheapside, with what
consequences may be imagined. If he proved so incorrigible as to commit
the offence a third time, the hurdle was again requisitioned, but,
public patience being exhausted, his oven was demolished and he was
forced to abjure his trade of baker in the City for ever. From the reign
of Edward II. the penalty of the hurdle was no longer imposed for the
first offence, the pillory being employed instead.
Exposure in the pillory was a favourite prescription, a kind of judicial
panacea, to which all sorts of the morally infirm were introduced in
turn. Mr. Riley has compiled a list of the sins atoned for by such
involuntary penance, which, if we were guided by that alone, would
testify to a shocking state of depravity in the Metropolis. Culling from
this catalogue, we find that the pillory was considered a fitting reward
for various impostures: pretending to be a holy hermit; pretending to be
the son of the Earl of Ormond; pretending to be a physician; pretending
to be the summoner of the Archbishop of Canterbury and so summoning the
Prioress of Clerkenwell; pretending to be one of the Sheriff's sergeants
and meeting the bakers of Stratford and arresting them with a view to
fradulently extorting a fine, etc., etc. _Scandalum magnatum_ also
merited the pillory--a fact brought home to an idle gossip who occupied
that uneasy elevation for "telling lies" about the famous Mayor, William
Walworth. "Telling lies" of John Tremayne the Recorder was, in the same
way, held to justify a public exhibition of the impudent and imprudent
person. So, too, anti-social forestalling.
There were cases, however, in which this common method of advertising
paltry offences was thought not to involve an adequate degree of
notoriety and reprobation. We have already adduced one instance--that of
the unscrupulous baker--in which it was attempted to evoke superior
indignation. There were others. The natural destiny of impostors was, as
we have seen, the pillory; among the qualifications for this shadow of
crucifixion being "pretending to be a physician."
The civic fathers endeavoured to cope with the "social evil" by
drenching all engaged in immoral traffic with nauseous doses of public
ridicule. Thus, if a man were convicted of keeping a house of ill-fame,
immediately his hair and beard were shaved off, save for a fringe
(_liste_) on his head two inches in breadth. He was then conveyed to the
pillory, accompanied by minstrels, and there he had to abide at the
discretion of the Mayor and Aldermen. If he was found guilty of the
offence a third time, he was compelled to abjure the City.
A woman convicted of being a common night-walker was committed to
prison--probably the Tun, on Cornhill--and thence she was led to Aldgate
with a hood of rayed cloth on her head and a white wand in her hand.
Next she was escorted by musicians to the thewe (pillory)--in Cheap,
probably--and there the character of her offence was proclaimed.
Finally, she was taken through Cheap and Newgate to "Cokkeslane" without
the walls, where she was required to dwell. If guilty a third time, her
hair was cropped close, while she stood in the pillory, and she was
marched to one of the gates and made to abjure the City for the
remainder of her life. A procurer or procuress was also set in the thewe
to the accompaniment of music, with a "distaf with towen"--i.e., a
distaff dressed with flax--in his or her hand; and the transgressor was
made to serve as a public spectacle for such time as the Mayor and
Aldermen deemed fit. A priest detected in the company of a loose female,
if she were single, was conveyed to the Tun, attended by musicians; and
upon a third conviction he was forced to abjure the City for ever, the
woman meanwhile being taken to one of the Sheriff's Counters and thence
to the Tun. If his partner in guilt chanced to be married, both of them
were conducted to one of the Counters, or to Newgate, and after that to
the Guildhall; and in the event of conviction they were removed to
Newgate, where their heads were shaved like those of thieves. This done,
they were led with the inevitable music through Cheap, and lastly
incarcerated in the Tun during the pleasure of the Mayor and Aldermen.
The same procedure was observed if the male offender was a married
layman.
Incidentally in the course of the narrative we have mentioned various
instances of interference with business. We may conclude the chapter by
citing a few more, and, as we have spoken of bakers, illustrations may
be drawn from that trade. Every baker dwelling within the walls was
obliged to have his own seal for impressing the loaves, and these seals
were periodically inspected by the Alderman of the Ward, who kept a
counterpart of the impression. A baker might not sell bread "before his
oven" or in any secret place--only in the King's markets; and to every
baker was assigned his market, to which the bread was carried in baskets
hence called panniers. "Panyers Alley," in Newgate Street, was a famous
stand for bakers' boys. Bread was sold also by female hucksters or
regratresses, who received it from the bakers and delivered it from
house to house. They were allowed to have thirteen batches for twelve,
which is the origin of the phrase "baker's dozen," and the extra batch
represented their legitimate profit; but a practice grew up whereby they
obtained sixpence on Monday mornings as _estrene_, and threepence on
Fridays as "curtasie money." This was disallowed by ordinance on pain of
amercement, and bakers were admonished, in lieu of such payments, to
increase the size of the loaf "to the profit of the public."
URBAN