{"collection":"folklore-oral-tradition","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38713/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38713","id":"gutenberg_38713","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38713","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - British","Category: History - Medieval/Middle Ages","Category: History - Religious","Christian antiquities -- Great Britain","Folklore -- Great Britain","Great Britain -- Social life and customs","Manners and customs"],"text":"Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttps://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images\ngenerously made available by The Internet Archive.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOLD CHURCH LORE.\n\n\n\n\n_WORKS BY WILLIAM ANDREWS, F.R.H.S._\n\nMr. William Andrews has produced several books of singular value in their\nhistorical and archaeological character. He has a genius for digging among\ndusty parchments and old books, and for bringing out from among them that\nwhich it is likely the public of to-day will care to read.--_Scotsman._\n\n\nOld-Time Punishments.\n\nThis is an entertaining book ... well-chosen illustrations and a\nserviceable index.--_Athenaeum._\n\nA work which will be eagerly read by all who take it up.--_Scotsman._\n\nA vast amount of curious and entertaining matter.--_Sheffield\nIndependent._\n\nWe can honestly recommend a perusal of this book.--_Yorkshire Post._\n\nA very readable history.--_Birmingham Daily Gazette._\n\nMr. Andrews' book is well worthy of careful study, and is a perfect mine\nof wealth on the subject of which it treats.--_Herts Advertiser._\n\n\nCuriosities of the Church.\n\nA volume both entertaining and instructive, throwing much light on the\nmanners and customs of bygone generations of Churchmen, and will be read\nto-day with much interest.--_Newbery House Magazine._\n\nAn extremely interesting volume.--_North British Daily Mail._\n\nA work of lasting interest.--_Hull Examiner._\n\nFull of interest.--_The Globe._\n\nThe reader will find much in this book to interest, instruct, and\namuse.--_Home Chimes._\n\nWe feel sure that many will feel grateful to Mr. Andrews for having\nproduced such an interesting book.--_The Antiquary._\n\n\nHistoric Yorkshire.\n\nCuthbert Bede, the popular author of \"Verdant Green,\" writing to\n_Society_, says: \"Historic Yorkshire,\" by William Andrews, will be of\ngreat interest and value to everyone connected with England's largest\ncounty. Mr. Andrews not only writes with due enthusiasm for his subject,\nbut has arranged and marshalled his facts and figures with great skill,\nand produced a thoroughly popular work that will be read eagerly and with\nadvantage.\n\n\nHistoric Romance.\n\n    STRANGE STORIES, CHARACTERS, SCENES, MYSTERIES, AND MEMORABLE EVENTS\n    IN THE HISTORY OF OLD ENGLAND.\n\nIn his present work Mr. Andrews has traversed a wider field than in his\nlast book, \"Historic Yorkshire,\" but it is marked by the same painstaking\ncare for accuracy, and also by the pleasant way in which he popularises\nstrange stories and out-of-the-way scenes in English History. There is\nmuch to amuse in this volume, as well as to instruct, and it is enriched\nwith a copious index.--_Notes and Queries._\n\nA fascinating work.--_Whitehall Review._\n\n\nFamous Frosts and Frost Fairs in Great Britain.\n\n    CHRONICLED FROM THE EARLIEST TO THE PRESENT TIME.\n\nThe work is thoroughly well written, it is careful in its facts, and may\nbe pronounced exhaustive on the subject. Illustrations are given of\nseveral frost fairs on the Thames, and as a trustworthy record this volume\nshould be in every good library. The usefulness of the work is much\nenhanced by a good index.--_Public Opinion._\n\nA great deal of curious and valuable information is contained in these\npages.... A comely volume.--_Literary World._\n\nNot likely to fail in interest.--_Manchester Guardian._\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: CLOG ALMANACK.]\n\n\n\n\n  Old Church Lore.\n\n\n  BY WILLIAM ANDREWS, F.R.H.S.,\n\n  AUTHOR OF \"CURIOSITIES OF THE CHURCH,\" \"OLD-TIME\n  PUNISHMENTS,\" \"HISTORIC YORKSHIRE,\" ETC.\n\n\n  HULL:\n  WILLIAM ANDREWS & CO., THE HULL PRESS.\n\n  LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, & CO.,\n  LIMITED.\n\n  1891.\n\n\n\n\nPreface.\n\n\nThe welcome reception from the public and the press accorded to my volume\nentitled \"Curiosities of the Church,\" has induced me to issue another work\non similar lines. Like that book, this one shows how closely the Church in\nbygone times was linked with the national and social life of the people.\n\nAn attempt has been made to blend instruction and entertainment, and\npresent out-of-the-way facts drawn from unpublished documents and other\nsources, which do not usually come under the notice of the reader.\n\nWILLIAM ANDREWS.\n\n  HULL LITERARY CLUB,\n      _August 1st, 1891_.\n\n\n\n\nContents.\n\n\n                                                                  PAGE\n\n  THE RIGHT OF SANCTUARY                                             1\n\n  THE ROMANCE OF TRIAL                                              22\n\n  A FIGHT BETWEEN THE MAYOR OF HULL AND THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK      37\n\n  CHAPELS ON BRIDGES                                                44\n\n  CHARTER HORNS                                                     65\n\n  THE OLD ENGLISH SUNDAY                                            81\n\n  THE EASTER SEPULCHRE                                             111\n\n  ST. PAUL'S CROSS                                                 120\n\n  CHEAPSIDE CROSS                                                  138\n\n  THE BIDDENDEN MAIDS CHARITY                                      148\n\n  PLAGUES AND PESTILENCES                                          152\n\n  A KING CURING AN ABBOT OF INDIGESTION                            174\n\n  THE SERVICES AND CUSTOMS OF ROYAL OAK DAY                        177\n\n  MARRYING IN A WHITE SHEET                                        186\n\n  MARRYING UNDER THE GALLOWS                                       191\n\n  KISSING THE BRIDE                                                195\n\n  HOT ALE AT WEDDINGS                                              199\n\n  MARRYING CHILDREN                                                203\n\n  THE PASSING BELL                                                 210\n\n  CONCERNING COFFINS                                               218\n\n  THE CURFEW BELL                                                  227\n\n  CURIOUS SYMBOLS OF THE SAINTS                                    240\n\n  ACROBATS ON STEEPLES                                             244\n\n  INDEX                                                            253\n\n\n\n\nOLD CHURCH LORE.\n\n\n\n\nThe Right of Sanctuary.\n\n\nA place where criminals and political offenders could find refuge was\ncalled a Sanctuary. It is generally agreed that in this country the\nprivilege of sanctuary was instituted on the recognition of Christianity.\nFrom an early time down to the days of Henry VIII., fugitives were safe\nfor certain periods in all the churches and churchyards of the land.\n\nThe origin of the usage is extremely remote. Most probably it existed\namong the Israelites before Moses gave directions for the establishment of\ncities of refuge, when the children of Israel settled in the Promised\nLand. The Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and American Indians had their places of\nrefuge.\n\nIn England the laws respecting this subject are both numerous and curious.\nA code of laws made in the year 693 by Ina, King of the West Saxons,\ncontains a recognition of the right of sanctuary. It is therein stated\nthat, if any one accused of a capital offence takes refuge in a church,\nhis life shall be spared, but the criminal is directed to make\ncompensation for his crime. If the guilty one deserved stripes, they were\nnot to be inflicted. According to Alfred the Great's laws of the year 887,\nthose guilty of slight offences were allowed to flee to a church, and\nthere remain for three nights. Thus time was given them to compound for\ntheir misdemeanours, or to make suitable provision for their safety.\nStringent measures were taken to guard against the violation of the\nsanctuary. The person who violated the sanctuary and inflicted bonds,\nblows, or wounds upon the refugee, had to pay the price set upon his life,\nand to the officiating ministers of the church, one hundred and twenty\nshillings, which was a large sum in those days. \"If a criminal,\" says the\nRev. J. R. Boyle, F.S.A., in a carefully prepared paper on this theme,\n\"fled to a church, no one should drag him thence within the space of seven\ndays, if he could live so long without food, and had not attempted to\nforce his way out. If the clergy had occasion to hold service in the\nchurch whilst the refugee was there, they might keep him in some house\nwhich had no more doors than the church had.\"\n\nThe law of sanctuary was clearly defined in the year 1070 by William the\nConqueror. The privilege of sanctuary was only temporary, and during the\ntime of sanctuary, which was within forty days, the refugee might, if\nable, come to an agreement with his adversaries. If he failed to compound\nfor his crime, he had to appear before the coroner, clothed in sackcloth,\nconfess his crime, and abjure the realm. In an act passed in the year\n1529, in the reign of Henry VIII., it is directed that \"immediately after\nhis confession, and before his abjuration, he was to be branded by the\ncoroner with a hot iron upon the brawn of the thumb of his right hand with\nthe sign of the letter A, to the intent he might be the better known among\nthe king's subjects to have abjured.\" If the offender failed to make a\nconfession of his crime to the coroner within forty days, and remained in\nthe sanctuary, any one found furnishing him with food was regarded as\nguilty of felony.\n\nSir William Rastall, who was Chief-Justice of the Court of Common Pleas,\nin his \"Collection of Statutes now in force,\" London, 1594, supplies a\ncopy of the form of confession and abjuration usually employed. It is as\nfollows:--\n\n\"This hear thou, Sir Coroner, that I ............ of ................ am a\n....................., and because I have done such evils in this land, I\ndo abjure the land of our lord the King, and shall haste me towards the\nport of [mentioning a port named by the coroner], and that I shall not go\nout of the highway, and if I do, I will that I be taken as a robber and a\nfelon of our lord the King, and that at such place I will diligently seek\nfor passage, and that I will tarry there but one flood and ebb, if I can\nhave passage; and unless I can have it in such a place, I will go every\nday into the seas up to my knees assaying to pass over, and unless I can\ndo this within forty days, I will put myself again into the church as a\nrobber and a felon of our lord the King, so God me help and His holy\njudgment.\"\n\nThe constables of the parishes through which the culprit passed conducted\nhim over their highways to the port from whence he had to embark. We\ngather from \"England in the Fifteenth Century,\" by the Rev. W. Denton,\nM.A., that sanctuary men sent from London to Dover \"frequently broke their\npromise to cross the Channel, betook themselves to the forest, and joined\nthe bands of thieves who made the greenwood of the Weald of Kent their\nhome.\"\n\nIn the reign of Henry VIII. several acts were passed dealing with this\nsubject. The reason why one of the acts was passed was the loss of the\nstrength of the country by persons taking sanctuary and abjuring the\nrealm, teaching foreigners archery, and also of disclosing the secrets of\nthe realm. To prevent such loss, \"it was enacted that every person\nabjuring was to repair to some sanctuary within the realm, which himself\nshould choose, and there remain during his natural life; and to be sworn\nbefore the coroner upon his abjuration so to do.\" If a sanctuary man left\nhis retreat without being granted his discharge by the King's pardon, he\nran the risk of being tried for his original crime, and was prohibited\nfrom the protective power of the sanctuary. It was usual, in bygone times,\nfor men to wear swords, but when any one took sanctuary he had to give up\nhis weapons, and only use a knife at meal times to cut his meat. The\ngovernors of the sanctuaries directed the men under protection to wear a\nbadge or cognisance \"openly upon their upper garment, of the compass, in\nlength and breadth, of ten inches,\" under pain of forfeiting all the\nprivileges of sanctuary. If they left their lodgings between sunset and\nsunrise it was at the peril of losing all right of protection. In the same\nreign, it was decreed that persons guilty of high treason, and pirates,\nshould be excluded from the right of sanctuary. The most important measure\nbearing on this subject, passed in 1540, clearly indicates the adverse\nattitude assumed by Henry VIII. towards the privilege of sanctuary. He\ntook away the rights from all places except parish churches and their\nchurchyards, cathedrals, hospitals, and the sanctuaries at Wells,\nWestminster, Manchester, Northampton, Norwich, York, Derby, and\nLaunceston. A year later, Chester was substituted for Manchester. It is\nstated that the inhabitants of Manchester were much troubled by the influx\nof dissolute persons seeking sanctuary. They intimated to Parliament that\nthe refugees injured their trade, and further, that as they had \"no mayor,\nsheriff, or bailiff, no walls, and no gaol for the confinement of\noffenders,\" they prayed to have the privilege withdrawn. In the statute of\n1540, the privilege of sanctuary was \"abolished in cases of wilful murder,\nrape, burglary, highway robbery, or wilful burning of a house or barn\ncontaining corn.\" Not more than twenty persons were to be sheltered in a\nsanctuary at one time.\n\nAn act passed in 1624, in the reign of James I., nominally abolished all\nprivileges of sanctuary in England. It did not completely close all\nsanctuaries, for in them remained lawless characters, who had long been\nthere, and whom it would not be deemed prudent to have at large. It is\nasserted that the sanctuary regulations were frequently broken, and that\nrefugees committed robberies and other crimes in the immediate\nneighbourhood of their sanctuaries.\n\nIn the case of debtors, sanctuaries in a modified form existed down to the\nreign of William III., when, in the year 1697, an Act of Parliament\nabolished them.\n\nEnglish history furnishes many instances of sanctuary laws being\ndisregarded. A familiar example is that of four Lancastrian knights flying\nfrom the battlefield of Tewkesbury, in 1471, and taking refuge in a church\nnot far distant from the place. Edward, sword in hand, was about to\nfollow them, and violate the sanctuary, but the priest who was celebrating\nmass refused to permit him to enter, until he agreed to pardon the\nknights. He made the promise, whereupon the refugees left the church.\nSubsequently they were made prisoners and executed.\n\nThe first time the sanctuary of Westminster Abbey was violated was in the\nyear 1378. It was not only violated, but murder was committed. The\nparticulars of the case are as follow. In one of the campaigns of the\nBlack Prince, two esquires, named Frank de Hawle and John Shakle, made\ncaptive a French or Spanish Count. The prisoner had a friend in John of\nGaunt, and he directed the captors to give up their prize, but they\nrefused. John of Gaunt, without delay, imprisoned in the Tower the two men\nwho had disobeyed his injunctions. They made their escape, and fled to\nWestminster Abbey, but were closely pursued by Sir Allan Boxhull,\nConstable of the Tower, Sir Ralph de Ferrers, and a band of fifty men in\narms. It is believed that the two esquires made their way into the choir\nof the Abbey, and at a time when high mass was being celebrated. \"The\nDeacon,\" says Dean Stanley, \"had just reached the words of the Gospel of\nthe day, 'If the goodman of the house had known what time the thief would\nappear----,' when the clash of arms was heard, and the pursuers,\nregardless of time or place, burst upon the service. Shakle escaped, but\nHawle was intercepted. Twice he fled round the choir, with his enemies\nhacking at him as he ran; and, pierced with twelve wounds, he sank dead in\nfront of the Prior's Stall--that is, at the north side of the entrance of\nthe choir.\" It is also recorded that his servant and a monk fell at the\nsame time. Hawle was looked upon as a martyr to the injured rights of the\nAbbey. His remains were laid to rest within its walls, a most unusual\nhonour at that period. The spot where he fell was marked with an\ninscription engraved on a stone, and over his grave was a brass effigy and\na long epitaph, which remained till within the last century. The\ndesecrated Abbey was closed for four months, and the Members of Parliament\nsuspended their sittings within its precincts for fear of pollution. The\ntwo chief assailants were excommunicated.\n\nIn 1232, the sanctuary of the church at Brentwood, Essex, was violated by\norders of the boy king, Henry III. He had allowed himself to be persuaded\nthat the brave Hubert de Burgh had sold his country for French gold, and\narmed men were sent to make the stout knight prisoner. Hubert took refuge\nin Brentwood Church. His enemies broke in, dragged him from the very\naltar, and a smith was ordered to shackle him. \"I will die any death,\"\nsaid the smith, \"before I put iron on the man who freed England from the\nstranger, and saved Dover from France!\" so Hubert's feet were tied below\nhis horse, and he was carried to the King. A remonstrance from the Bishop\nof London caused the refugee to be replaced in the sanctuary, but his foes\nwere still determined to have him. The Sheriff put stakes round the\nchurchyard watched day and night, until hunger compelled a surrender, when\nHubert was thrown into prison, and there died.\n\nElizabeth Woodville, Queen of Edward IV., twice found shelter in the\nsanctuary of Westminster. Here was born, on April 9th, 1470, Edward V.\nSkelton, our earliest Poet-Laureate, remained in this stronghold, in\nsafety, writing furious invectives against Cardinal Wolsey. If he had not\nhad the protection of sanctuary, it is believed he would have been doomed\nto destruction. \"It was impregnable,\" says Dean Stanley, \"even by all the\npower of the Cardinal at the height of his grandeur.\"\n\n[Illustration: ANCIENT KNOCKER, DURHAM CATHEDRAL.]\n\nA curious example of the violation of a sanctuary occurred at Stafford. In\nthe year 1300, a complaint was laid before the King by the Dean and\nChapter of St. Mary's, Stafford, to the effect that two men imprisoned for\nfelony in Stafford gaol had escaped, and taken refuge in the church. The\nmen were followed into the church, captured, and re-imprisoned. The prison\nauthorities were directed to restore the men to the Dean and Chapter.\n\nIt may not be without interest to give some details of two important north\ncountry sanctuaries, Durham and Beverley. On the north door of the\nCathedral of Durham is a ponderous bronze knocker, of which we give a\ndrawing. It will be noticed that the knocker is in the form of a ring\nheld between the teeth of a monster's head. The person claiming sanctuary\nraised the ring of the knocker, and sounded it to obtain admission to the\nchurch, where, for a time, he felt safe out of the reach of his avengers.\nIn the sacred building two men were on duty night and day, ever ready to\nquickly open the door. A bell was next tolled to make known the fact that\na man had taken sanctuary. When a refugee sought protection an early\nintimation was made to the prior, who gave injunctions that he was to keep\nwithin the limits of the churchyard, which formed the bounds of the Durham\nsanctuary. In presence of a witness, a detailed account had to be given of\nthe crime committed, dates, names of persons, places, etc., had to be\ngiven, and they were carefully noted. In cases of murder and manslaughter,\nthe weapon employed had to be mentioned. A gown of black cloth, having on\nits left shoulder a cross, known as \"the cross of St. Cuthbert,\" was given\nhim to wear. The badge was, we are told, \"to the intent that every one\nmight see that there was such a freelige granted by God unto St.\nCuthbert's shrine, for every such offender to flee for succour and\nsafeguard of their lives.\" The refugee at Durham was allowed the right of\nsanctuary for thirty-seven days, and provided with food and drink and\nbedding at the expense of the convent. If within that time he failed to\nmake peace with his adversaries, he had to abjure the realm. He lost his\nproperty by this proceeding, but saved his life, or evaded some barbarous\nform of punishment which often resulted in mutilation of a most painful\ncharacter.\n\nThe Surtees Society, on the 7th December, 1836, resolved to print the\nRecords of the Sanctuaries of Durham and Beverley, and shortly afterwards\nthe work was issued. The Durham notices are reproduced from the ordinary\nRegisters of the Cathedral, and extends from 1464 to 1524. The following\nshows the number of crimes, and the calling of the men taking refuge:--\n\nMurder and Homicide.--Crimes, 195. Persons implicated, 283. Trades of\nfugitives:--Husbandmen, 8; Labourers, 4; Yeomen, 4; Gentlemen, 4;\nEcclesiastics, 3; Merchants, 2; Tailor, 1; Plumber, 1; Carpenter, 1;\nTanner, 1; Baxster, 1; Glover, 1; Sailor, 1; Apprentice, 1; Under-Bailiff,\n1; Servant, 1; Knight, 1 (an accessory). The occupations of the remainder\nare not mentioned. Debt, 16. Of these--Shermane, 1; Horslibber, 1;\nMerchant, 1; Flesher, 1. Horse-stealing, 4. Of these--Yeoman, 1.\nCattle-stealing, 9. Escaping from Prison, 4. Of these--Shoemaker, 1.\nHousebreaking, 4. Rape, 1. Theft, 7. Of these--Yeoman, 1; Ecclesiastic, 1;\nGoldsmith, 1. Backward in his accounts, 1. For harbouring a thief, 1. For\nfailing to prosecute, 1.\n\nThe list of weapons, etc., employed by the murderers is as under:--\n\nIndefinite, 12; Armicudium, 1; Arrow, 5; Baselard 3; Bastard-sword, 1;\nBill, 3; Carlisle Axe, 3; Club-staff, 11; Crabtree-staff, 1; Dagger, 56;\nDicker, 1; Egelome, 1; Forest-bill, 1; Halbarde, 2; Hanging, 1; Hynger, 3;\nIron-fork Shaft, 1; Kendal-club, 2; Lance, 10; Lance-staff, 4; Lang\nPike-staff, 1; Long Plane-staff, 1; Pike-staff, 12; Plane-staff, 1;\nPychyng-staff, 1; Pugio (a dagger), 1; Scotch Axe, 2; Small-staff, 1;\nSpear-staff, 2; Staff, 14; Staff, with a pummel, 1; Stone, 2; Sword, 21;\nTrodden to death, 1; Turf-spade, 1; Welsh-bill, 6; Whynyard (a short\ndagger), 6; Wood-axe, 3; Wood-knife, 1.\n\nThe right of sanctuary was granted to the church of St. John, Beverley, by\nAthelstan, and near the altar was placed a Fridstol, or chair of peace,\ndenoting that here the refugee might find peace. According to Camden and\nLeland, the chair once bore a Latin inscription which has been translated\nthus: \"This stone chair is called the Freed Stool, _i.e._, the Chair of\nPeace, to which what criminal soever flies hath full protection.\" There is\nnot at the present time any trace of an inscription on it. We only know of\ntwo sanctuary chairs which are still preserved in England, namely, one at\nBeverley and the other at Hexham.\n\n[Illustration: BEVERLY SANCTUARY CHAIR.]\n\nThe extent of the Beverley sanctuary was a circle round the church having\na radius of about a mile, with the church as a centre, marked by stone\ncrosses erected on the four principal roads leading to the town. \"If a\nmalefactor,\" says Oliver, in his \"History of Beverley,\" \"flying for refuge\nwas taken or apprehended within the crosses, the party that took or had\nhold of him there, did forfeit two hundreth; if he took him within the\ntown, then he forfeited four hundreth; if within the walls of the\nchurchyard, then six hundreth; if within the church, then twelve hundreth;\nif within the doors of the quire, then eighteen hundreth, besides penance,\nas in case of sacrilege; but if he presumed to take him out of the stone\nchair near the altar, called Fridstol, or from among the holy relics\nbehind the altar, the offence was not redeemable with any sum, but was\nthen become _sine emendatione, boteles_, and nothing but the utmost\nseverity of the offended church was to be expected, by a dreadful\nexcommunication, besides what secular power would impose for the\npresumptuous misdemeanor.\" There is a foot-note in Oliver's book, on the\nauthority of Richard Prior, of Hagulstad, saying that \"the hundreth\ncontained eight pounds; so that the last penalty was most immense, nearly\nas much as the weregild for killing a crowned head in Wales; and, indeed,\nevery act of violence committed against the right of sanctuary was\nesteemed a breach of the churches' peace, a high crime, and a species of\nsacrilege.\"\n\nThe particulars of the persons who took sanctuary from about the year 1478\nto 1539, published by the Surtees Society, is drawn from a thin folio\nvolume, preserved among the Harleian MSS. This important manuscript\ncontains a copy of the oath taken by those who sought sanctuary at\nBeverley. The Bailiff of the Archbishop, by whom the oath was\nadministered, had to enquire of the refugee:--\n\n\"What man he killed, and wher with, and both ther names, and than gar him\nlay his hand uppon the book, saying on this wyse--\n\nSir, take hede on your oth--Ye shalbe trew and feythfull to my Lord\nArchbisshop of York, Lord off this towne, to the Provest of the same, to\nthe Chanons of this Chirch, and all other ministers therof.\n\nAlso, ye shall bere gude hert to the Baillie and xij governars of this\ntown, to all burges and comyners of the same.\n\nAlso, ye shall bere no poynted wepon, dagger, knyfe, ne non other wapen\nayenst the Kynge's pece.\n\nAlso, ye shalbe redy at all your power, if ther be any debate or stryf,\nor order so than case of fyre within the towne, to help to surcess it.\n\nAlso, ye shalbe redy at the obite of Kyng Adelstan, at the dirige and the\nmesse, at suche tyme as it is done, at the warnyng of the belman of the\ntowne, and doe your dewte in ryngyng, and for to offer at the messe on the\nmorne. So help you God and thies holy Evangelistes. And than gar hym kysse\nthe book.\"\n\nThe Bailiff's fee on this occasion appears to have been two shillings and\nfourpence, that of the Clerk of the Court, for inscribing the name of the\nrefugee in the register, fourpence.\n\nAs we have previously stated, the Beverley register, published by the\nSurtees Society, commences about the year 1478, and extends to 1539. A\nsummary of the crimes and the trades, etc., of refugees is as follows:--\n\nCrimes.--Indefinite, 35. Persons concerned, 35. No trade described, 10;\nLabourers, 3; Tylers, 2; Tailors, 2; Masons, 2; Dyers, 2; Yeomen, 2;\nMerchant, 1; Husbandman, 1; Smith, 1; Clerk, 1; Butcher, 1; Chapman, 1;\nGentleman, 1; Draper, 1; Skinner, 1; Shoemaker, 1; Haberdasher, 1;\nLitster, 1. Murder and Homicide.--Crimes, 173. Persons implicated, 186. No\ntrade or occupation described, 52; Tailors, 19; Husbandmen, 17; Yeomen,\n16; Labourers, 14; Weavers and Websters, 11; Shoemakers, 8; Butchers, 6;\nGentlemen, 6; Mercers, 3; Barbers, 3; Brewers, 3; Servants, 2; Esquires,\n2; Surgeons, 2; Millers, 2; Mariners, 2; Smith, 1; Shearman, 1; Spinster,\n1; Carpenter, 1; Painter, 1; Chapman, 1; Maltster, 1; Cartwright, 1;\nGentlewoman, 1; Chandler, 1; Minstrell, 1; Cooper, 1; Literate, 1;\nSaddler, 1; Shepherd, 1; Carrier, 1; Tanner, 1; Cook, 1; Hatmaker, 1.\nFelony.--Crimes, 51. Persons implicated, 54. No trade described, 3;\nLabourers, 8; Tailors, 6; Husbandmen, 4; Butchers, 4; Glovers, 3;\nGoldsmiths, 3; Cutlers, 3; Tylers, 2; Plumbers, 2; Yeomen, 2; Merchant, 1;\nSmith, 1; Clerk, 1; Physician, 1; Spinster, 1; Grocer, 1; Gentleman, 1;\nPinner, 1; Mariner, 1; Shoemaker, 1; Fishmonger, 1; Fuller, 1; Brickmaker,\n1. Horse stealing, 1, a Labourer. Treason, 1, a Butcher. Receipt of stolen\ngoods, 1, a Haberdasher. Coining.--Cases, 6; persons, 7. No trade\ndescribed, 1; Yeomen, 2; Fleshers, 2; Tailor, 1; Weaver, 1. Debtors, 208.\nNo trade described, 36; Butchers, 31; Labourers, 12; Merchants, 9;\nHusbandmen, 9; Gentlemen, 9; Mercers, 8; Tailors, 6; Weavers and Websters,\n5; Dyers, 5; Yeomen, 5; Glovers, 4; Drapers, 4; Shearmen, 3; Chapmen, 3;\nPewterers, 3; Smiths, 2; Grocers, 2; Fishers, 2; Bakers, 2; Chandlers, 2;\nWheelwrights, 2; Coopers, 2; Pouchmakers, 2; Vintners, 2; Fishmongers, 2;\nBowyers, 2; Tapper, 1; Alderman and Grocer of London, 1; Carpenter, 1; Wax\nChandler, 1; Painter, 1; Goldsmith, 1; Clothier, 1; Waiter, 1; Maltster,\n1; Surgeon, 1; Pinner, 1; Skinner, 1; Fustain Shearer, 1; Capper, 1;\nMason, 1; Haberdasher, 1; Salter, 1; Carrier, 1; Tanner, 1; Woolman, 1;\nPurser, 1; Singingman, 1; Woodmonger, 1; Cook, 1; Wooldriver, 1; Hatmaker,\n1; Bedmaker, 1; Barber, 1.\n\nThe weapons employed in cases of murder are seldom named in the Beverley\nrecords.\n\nThe right of sanctuary was, perhaps, a blessing in the time it existed.\nHallam, in his \"State of Europe in the Middle Ages,\" says that right of\nsanctuary might as often be a shield of innocence as an impunity of crime.\n\"We can hardly regret, on reflecting on the desolating violence which\nprevailed, that there should have been some green spots in the wilderness,\nwhere the feeble and the persecuted could find refuge. How must this right\nhave enhanced the veneration for religious institutions! How gladly must\nthe victims of internal warfare have turned their eyes from baronial\ncastle, the dread and scourge of the neighbourhood, to those venerable\nwalls, within which not even the clamour of arms could be heard to disturb\nthe chaunt of holy men and the sacred service of the altar.\"\n\n\n\n\nThe Romance of Trial.\n\n\nIn past ages, trial by ordeal was customary in this country, and at the\npresent time in several foreign lands, where education has not swept away\nsuperstitious beliefs, it is often used as a means of testing the guilt or\ninnocence of accused persons. The origin of ordeal may be traced back to a\nremote period. In the Anglo-Saxon judicial systems it formed an important\nfeature, and the first record of it in this country appears in the laws of\nKing Ina, who reigned over Wessex from the year 688 to 727. The clergy\nfigured prominently in the trials.\n\nFor three days prior to the time appointed for the trial, the accused\npassed through a course of severe discipline and austere diet. He declared\non oath that he was innocent of the crime laid to his charge. Twenty-four\nof his friends and foes were brought together, and after a religious\nservice, specially prepared for the occasion, had been performed, the\nordeal was then tried. The ordeals were of various kinds, the nobles and\nother great personages being generally tried with the boiling water\nordeal.\n\nA ring or piece of metal, blessed by the priest, was cast into the boiling\nwater, and on either side of the vessel were ranged the twelve friends and\nthe twelve foes to witness the due execution of justice. The arm of the\naccused was bared, he plunged it into the liquid and brought out the\narticle deposited in it by the priest. The degree of the crime regulated\nthe depth of the water; if slight, it only reached to the wrist, but if\nserious, the arm was dipped up to the elbow, or even higher. The priest\nquickly bound up the arm, and the bandages were not removed for three\ndays. At the end of that time, if the priest pronounced the arm healed,\nthe sufferer was regarded as guiltless; if not, it was believed that God\nhad interposed and convicted him.\n\nDeputies sometimes performed the ordeals. A notable instance of employing\na substitute is that of Theatberge, wife of Lothaire, of France. She\nconfessed to having been guilty of incest, but subsequently recanting, it\nwas decided to try her by the ordeal, and a ring was thrown into boiling\nwater according to custom. The Queen elected a proxy, and it is recorded\nof him whom she chose that he \"produced the ring without injuring his\nhand, in spite of the fire under the caldron being so intense that the\nwater boiled over.\"\n\nIt is asserted that the familiar saying of going \"through fire and water\"\nfor any one is derived from the practice of employing deputies in the\nperformance of ordeals.\n\nIn Mr. James Forbes' \"Oriental Memoirs,\" published 1813-15, are some\ndetails of boiling oil ordeals. One of the cases relates to the coolies of\na village in the northern part of Guzerat, who were charged with seizing\nand imprisoning a Bohra, and extorting a bond from him for 450 rupees. The\nchief denied the charge, and offered to prove his innocence by trial by\nordeal. We are told that \"a large copper pot full of oil was put on a fire\nin the market-place, and a pair of blacksmith's bellows applied to blow\nthe fire until the oil became very hot.\" A rupee was thrown into the\nboiling oil. The chief next declared his innocence, said his prayers,\nplunged his hand into the boiling liquid, and brought out the coin. He\nnext exhibited his hand to the spectators, when no traces of scalding\ncould be detected; indeed it appeared as if it had been dipped in cold\noil. Himself and his tribe were pronounced not guilty of the charge, and\nhe was dismissed with the gift of a turban.\n\nThe cold water ordeal appears to have been usually employed to try the\nhumbler classes. The accused went through fasting and discipline similar\nto the trial by boiling water. After attending church, the person on trial\nwas conducted to a deep pool, and then bound hand and foot with cords. The\npriest next adjured the water to receive the accused into its bosom if\ninnocent, but to reject him if he were guilty. He was cast into the water.\nIf he sank he was deemed innocent, and was at once drawn out by a rope\nwhich had previously been tied round his waist. We gather from Hallam's\n\"Middle Ages\" that a citizen of London, having failed in the ordeal of\ncold water, was hanged by the order of Henry II. The man tried to save his\nlife by offering 500 marks. In cases of murder, if the accused even went\nthrough the ordeal of water, he was banished from the realm.\n\nSome attention is paid to this ordeal by Dr. Charles Mackay, in his\n\"Popular Delusions.\" \"It was,\" he says, \"a trial of the poor and humble,\nand whether they sank or swam was thought of very little consequence. Like\nwitches of more modern times, the accused were thrown into a pond or\nriver. If they sank they were drowned, their friends had the consolation\nthat they were innocent; if they swam they were guilty. In either case\nsociety was rid of them.\" We believe there is little foundation in fact\nfor the foregoing statement by Dr. Mackay. After careful investigation we\nhave not found a record of persons being drowned. The rope fastened to the\nbody of the accused would prevent any such accident.\n\nTowards the close of the twelfth century the use of this ordeal was very\ngeneral. Lea, in his \"Superstition and Force,\" says that \"The assizes of\nClarendon, in 1166, confirmed at Northampton in 1176, direct an inquest to\nbe held in each shire, and all who are indicted for murder, robbery,\nharbouring of malefactors, are to be at once, without further trial,\npassed through the water ordeal to determine their guilt or innocence.\"\nMr. Lea thinks that the basis of this ordeal may be traced back to the\nprimitive Aryans, who believed that the pure element would not receive\ninto its bosom a person stained with the crime of a false oath.\n\nMany strange stories are related respecting the ordeal of red-hot iron;\nand not a few of a tragical character. There were two ways of performing\nthe red-hot iron ordeal. One was by taking up a piece of red-hot iron,\nweighing from one to three pounds, or walking barefoot and blindfolded\nover nine red-hot ploughshares placed lengthwise at irregular distances.\nIf the accused passed through this ordeal without being hurt he was deemed\ninnocent. There is a popular story that Emma, the mother of Edward the\nConfessor, was charged with undue familiarity with Alwyn, Bishop of\nWinchester. She proved her innocence by passing unharmed over heated\nploughshares.\n\nAmong the many instances of persons tried by this ordeal of hot iron may\nbe mentioned Remigius, the Bishop of Dorchester, who was accused of\ntreason against William the Conqueror. One of the bishop's followers\nunderwent the ordeal, and cleared his lordship of the charge.\n\nIt has been suggested by some authorities on this subject that the\napparently hot iron was really cold and painted red. In some instances the\nhands and feet were perhaps rubbed with certain compositions which would\nenable the persons going through the ordeal to touch the iron without\ndoing injury to themselves. We know that in our own time, to shew the\npower of resisting fire is not by any means a difficult feat, and it often\nforms an item on the programmes of popular entertainments.\n\nShakspeare and other writers refer to the ancient superstition that the\nwounds of a murdered person would bleed again if touched by the murderer.\nIn _Richard III._, the dramatist writes as follows respecting Richard,\nDuke of Gloster:--\n\n  \"O gentlemen, see, see! dear Henry's wounds\n  Open their congeal'd mouths and bleed afresh!\n  Blush, blush, thou lump of foul deformity;\n  For 'tis thy presence that exhales this blood\n  From cold and empty veins, where no blood dwells;\n  Thy deed, inhuman and unnatural,\n  Provokes this deluge most unnatural.\"\n\nStow, in his \"Annals,\" records that the king's body \"was brought to St.\nPaul's in an open coffin, barefaced, where he bled; thence he was carried\nto Blackfriars, and there bled.\"\n\nKing James, in his \"Daemonologie,\" thus refers to this superstition: \"In a\nsecret murder,\" says the King, \"if the dead carkasse be at any time\nthereafter handled by the murderer, it will gush out of blood, as if the\nblood were crying out to heaven for the revenge of the murderer.\" Dryden\nadverts to the theme:--\n\n  \"If the vile actors of the heinous deed\n  Near the dead body happily be brought,\n  Oft hath been proved the breathless corpse will bleed.\"\n\nThis ordeal in bygone times was frequently tried, and it was the means of\nbringing not a few murderers to justice. In some instances the details of\nthe crimes and their detection read more like romance than a statement of\nfacts.\n\nIn the olden days witnessing an execution was a sight not to be missed by\nold or young folk; even children wended their way to the fatal tree. Sir\nSymonds D'Ewes, the antiquary, in his boyhood days, attended the execution\nof a man named Babb, and subsequently wrote an account of the painful\ncircumstances connected with the case. We gather from his notes that Babb\nhad formerly lived near to Wambrook, on the southern border of Somerset.\nHe had sought in vain for the hand in marriage of a widow living near\nTaunton. She, however, declined his proposal. Babb, although greatly\ndisappointed at his failure, resolved to make one more attempt to win the\nwoman. He hid himself in a brewhouse used by the widow, and when she\nappeared he once more pressed his suit. She heard him with disdain, and\nalmost before he had finished his speech she said, \"Have thee, base\nrascal? No!\" She then struck him on the head with a pewter candlestick.\nThis made his blood boil, and he inflicted upon her sixteen wounds,\ncausing her death. Afterwards, he put the knife in her hand, making it\nappear as if she had committed suicide, and then quietly stole away from\nthe place.\n\nThe unfortunate widow was buried, but tongues and brains were not set at\nrest, for it was the opinion of not a few that she had met her death at\nthe hands of a murderer. Amongst the active in this matter was a leading\nlocal magistrate, named Mr. Ware, Hestercombe House, near Taunton. Like\nother people of this period, he believed in the ordeal by touch. \"This\nactive magistrate,\" we find stated, \"caused the body to be disinterred,\nthat all the inhabitants living within a circle of three miles might\nassemble to touch the body, and go through this powerful ordeal. Babb ran\naway to escape this dreadful mode of testing the inhabitants' innocence.\nHis racking conscience gave him no repose; he returned and yielded himself\nup to justice.\" At the next county assizes for Somerset, held at Chard, in\nthe year 1613, he was tried, found guilty, and condemned to death. Shortly\nafterwards he was hanged near Wambrook.\n\nCharles I. presented to Dr. Wren, the father of the famous Sir Christopher\nWren, the rectory of Great Haseley, near Oxford. During his incumbency,\noccurred a sad event, which made a great impression on his mind. He\ndetailed, in Latin, particulars of the matter, and duly attested the truth\nby signing it. Lucy Phillimore, the author of an ably-written work on \"Sir\nChristopher Wren: his Family and his Times,\" supplies an English version\nof the tragedy. \"Among the retainers of Lord Norris,\" we are told, \"was an\nold man who had charge of the fish ponds; he had one nephew, who was the\nheir of all his uncle's possessions and savings. The nephew enticed the\nold man out one night, waited till he fell asleep under an oak tree,\nmurdered him by a blow on the head, dragged the body to one of the ponds,\ntied a great stone to the neck, and threw the corpse in. There it lay\nfive weeks, during which time Lord Norris and all the neighbours wondered\nwhat had become of the old man. At length, attracted to the spot by the\nswarms of flies, the body was found by the men who were about to clean the\npond. They raised the corpse with great difficulty, and recognised it. The\nstone tied to the neck was evidence of foul play, though no one could\nguess the murderer. Lord Norris, in order to detect the criminal, after\nthe usual manner, commanded that the corpse, preserved by the water from\nthe last extremity of decay, should, on the next Sunday, be exposed in the\nchurchyard, close to the church door, so that every one entering the\nchurch should see and touch it. The wicked nephew shrank from the ordeal,\nfeigning to be so overwhelmed with grief as to be unable to bear the sight\nof his dearest uncle. Lord Norris, suspecting that the old man had been\nmurdered by the one person whom his death would profit, compelled him to\ncome, and to touch with his finger, as so many had willingly done, the\nhand of the dead. At his touch, however, 'as if opened by the finger of\nGod, the eyes of the corpse were seen by all to move, and blood to flow\nfrom his nostrils.' At this awful witness, the murderer fell on the ground\nand avowed the crime, which he had secretly committed, and the most just\njudgment of God had brought to light.\" The murderer was tried before one\nof His Majesty's judges, and the circumstances of the crime fully stated.\nHe was condemned to death, and the sentence was duly carried out by the\nhangman.\n\nAnother strange story comes down to us from the days when the first\nCharles was king. It relates to Herefordshire. Johan Norkeff was found\ndead, and it was believed that she had laid violent hands upon herself.\nAfter she had been buried about a month, circumstances caused it to be\nsuspected that she had met her death by foul play. The case came under the\nconsideration of a coroner and jury, and they finally resolved to have the\nbody exhumed, and cause the four suspected persons to touch it. The result\nof the ordeal was narrated at the assizes by an old minister as follows:\n\"The body being taken out of the grave and laid on the grass, the accused\nwere required to touch it. On laying on their hands on the brow, which\nbefore was of a livid and carrion colour, it began to have a dew or\ngentle sweat upon it, which increased by degrees until the sweat ran down\nthe face. The brow then turned to a lifelike and flesh colour, and the\ndead woman opened one of her eyes and shut it again, and this opening of\nthe eye was done three times. She likewise thrust out the ring or marriage\nfinger three times, and the finger dropped blood on the grass.\" The old\nminister swore to the correctness of the foregoing, and, says James Grant,\nin \"The Mysteries of all Nations,\" from whom we draw the evidence, another\nclergyman corroborated it. Sir Nicholas Hyde, the eminent lawyer, who rose\nto be Lord Chief Justice, questioned the correctness of the evidence, but\nthe members of the jury did not agree with him, finding three of the\nprisoners guilty of murder. Two were executed, and the third, a woman, was\nreprieved.\n\nOn much weaker evidence to the preceding cases, Philip Stanfield was\ncondemned, in 1688, for the murder of his father, Sir James Stanfield. An\naccount of the matter will be found in Chambers's \"Domestic Annals of\nScotland,\" vol. 2, pages 491-92. The case may be briefly stated as\nfollows: The body of Sir James Stanfield, of New Mills, was found in a\nstream near Haddington. It appeared that he had met his dead by\nstrangling. James Muirhead, a surgeon, and another person swore that when\nPhilip Stanfield was helping to place the body of his father in a coffin,\nblood started from the left side of his neck upon his touch, and that he\nexclaimed, \"Lord have mercy upon me!\" On this slight evidence he was, 7th\nFebruary, 1688, pronounced guilty of parricide, and was publicly executed\non the 24th of the same month, and his body hung in chains. He protested\nhis innocence to the last. \"The whole case,\" says Dr. Robert Chambers,\n\"seems to be a lively illustration of the effect of superstitious feeling\nin blinding justice.\"\n\nOn the 14th June, 1641, a commission which sat at Dalkeith, pronounced\nChristina Wilson guilty of the death, by sorcery, of her brother,\nAlexander Wilson. She had been, prior to the trial, directed by the\nminister and others to touch the corpse of her brother. After an earnest\nprayer, in which she fervently prayed to God, who had made the sun to\nshine on their home, to bring the murderer to justice, she touched the\nbody. It bled, although it had not done so when touched by others. This\nwas deemed sufficient proof of her guilt, and on this evidence she\nsuffered death.\n\nWith directing the attention to the survival of touching the dead, we must\ndraw to a close our study of the romance of trial. In the north of\nEngland, and other parts of the country, it is the practice of persons who\ncome to see a corpse to touch it, as a token \"that they wished no ill to\nthe departed, and were at peace and amity with them.\"\n\n\n\n\nA Fight between the Mayor of Hull and the Archbishop of York.\n\n\nThe prelates of the past enjoyed not a few peculiar privileges which are\nnot inherited by their successors in modern times. In the mediaeval era,\nthe dignitaries of the church led comparatively exciting lives, and were\nby no means strangers to the use of sword and lance, many gaining fame on\nthe field of battle.\n\nRepresentatives of the church often possessed rights in respect to the\ngallows and its victims. A few facts about a case occurring far back, in\nthe days of our first Edward, shew how keenly they maintained their\nprivileges. The Abbot of Peterborough set up a gallows at Collingham,\nNottinghamshire, and had hanged thereon a thief. This proceeding came\nunder the notice of the Bishop of Lincoln, and he, with considerable\nwarmth and temper, declared that the Abbot had usurped his rights, since\nhe held from the king's predecessors the liberty of the Wapentake of\nCollingham, and the right of executing criminals. The Abbot declared that\nHenry III. had given to him and his successors \"Infangthef and Utfangthef\nin all his hundreds and demesnes.\" After investigation it was decided that\nthe Abbot was in the wrong, and he was directed to take down the gallows\nhe had erected. One, and perhaps the chief, reason of the prelate being so\nparticular to retain his privileges was on account of it entitling him to\nthe chattels of the condemned criminals.\n\nWilliam the Conqueror invested the Abbot of Battle Abbey with authority to\nsave the life of any malefactor he might find being executed, and whose\nlife he wished to spare.\n\nAmongst the many privileges enjoyed by the Archbishop of York, was that of\nhaving a mint. As early as the year 1070, we find a mention of the mint,\nand particulars of attempts made, without success, to destroy or curtail\nHis Grace's coining. Archbishop Lee, who died in 1544, is said to have\nbeen the last to exercise the power of issuing money.\n\nIn bygone times, the Archbishops of York appear to have enjoyed almost\nregal power. The baronies of Beverley, Sherburn, Patrington, Otley, and\nWilton belonged to them. They appointed justices for these important\ntowns, had prisons, gallows, pillories, and ducking-stools, and did their\nutmost to maintain law and order.\n\nIt will be gathered from the foregoing that prelates were granted\nprivileges which enabled them to exercise much power amongst the people.\nSome of the rights enjoyed at Hull by the Archbishop of York were\noppressive to the inhabitants of the town, and gave rise to much strife.\nIt was the practice, exercised according to ancient custom, of the\nArchbishop of York to claim prisage from every vessel of twenty tons\nburden entering the river Hull. Two casks of wine were demanded, one from\nbefore and the other from behind the mast. The casks, however, might be\nredeemed by paying twenty shillings for each cask. The merchants\nsuccessfully evaded payment of duty by unloading their ships in the\nHumber, and bringing their goods into port in small craft. As may be\nreadily expected, the Archbishop was much annoyed at the conduct of the\nmen of Hull, who received the support of the Mayor of the town; indeed,\nif we read history aright, we find the local authorities had a desire to\nenjoy the privileges claimed by the prelate. A great difficulty had been\nexperienced for a long time by the officers of the Archbishop in\ncollecting the dues, and Archbishop Neville saw that unless he made a firm\nstand to maintain his privileges, they would be lost. In the year 1378, he\ndecided to visit Hull, and enforce his rights. The Mayor of Hull, at that\ntime was Sir Thomas de Waltham, a knight of quick temper, and with no\nparticular respect for persons with whom he came in contact.\n\nThe Archbishop, with a few attendants, numbering less than a dozen, came\nto the town. The Mayor, accompanied by two bailiffs, named John Arnold and\nThomas Green, and a large company of local supporters, met His Grace. The\nArchbishop complained bitterly to the Mayor, saying, amongst other serious\nfaults, that he had shown himself wanting in that respect for the\nArchbishop which the representative of religion was entitled to receive.\nHis Worship soon waxed warm, declaring that he had only done his duty in\nmaintaining the rights of his fellow-townsmen. The prelate insisted that\nthe Mayor was in the wrong, and that it was his intention to enforce the\npayment of his dues. The Mayor soon shewed signs of his displeasure, and\nseeing one His Grace's men mocking him, he, without ceremony, snatched\nfrom the Archbishop his crosier, and struck the man. This was the\ncommencement of a free fight, in which the prelate and his people suffered\na severe defeat. Blood freely flowed, and the Archbishop, seeing that he\ncould not make, with any degree of success, a stand against so many\nopponents, beat a hasty retreat, followed a considerable distance out of\nthe town by a large number of excited inhabitants of Hull, eager to avenge\nthe wrongs it was believed His Grace had done to the port by collecting,\nor attempting to collect, prisage. The Mayor, it must be recorded, fought\nmanfully with the crosier, which was broken into several pieces.\n\nThe Archbishop, being a Court favourite, brought the matter under the\nnotice of the King. The Mayor was summoned to appear before His Majesty at\nWestminster. This proceeding doubtless caused much trouble in Hull, but\nthe Mayor, feeling that he had right on his side, proceeded to London with\na brave heart, and at the trial pleaded his cause with considerable\neloquence. The case resulted in judgment being left in abeyance, or, in\nother words, His Grace was non-suited.\n\nWe can readily imagine that the Mayor would return home in higher spirits\nthan when he left it to appear in the King's Court, and that he would\nreceive a hearty welcome from his fellow townsmen.\n\nThe place where the fight occurred was regarded by the superstitious as\nsacred, crowds of fanatics repairing to it to shed tears. Not a little\ninconvenience was caused by their conduct, and their proceedings were\nstopped by a permanent guard being appointed to keep folk away from the\nplace.\n\nAfter the death of the Archbishop, it was believed for many years that his\nspirit haunted the spot where the battle was fought.\n\nIn spite of the serious breach between Prelate and Mayor, Hull appears to\nhave been a favourite residence in past times of the Archbishops of York.\nWe know, from the annals of the town, that in the year 1442 the Archbishop\nhad a house in the historic High Street.\n\nDr. Thomson, the late Archbishop of York, was a frequent and welcome\nvisitor to the town. The last time he was in Hull, His Grace was the guest\nof Alderman Sherburn, the Mayor. When we saw the two gentlemen in friendly\nconversation, we could not help contrasting the conditions of 1889 with\nthose of 1378, and noting the great changes which five centuries have\nbrought about, changes better alike for gentle and simple.\n\n\n\n\nChapels on Bridges.\n\n\nThe building of bridges in bygone times was regarded as a religious duty.\nAn order of friars was established on the continent, in the twelfth\ncentury, having for its object the erecting and repairing of bridges. Its\nwork extended into several countries. In France, the friars built the\ncelebrated bridge over the Rhone at Avignon, and a bridge, still in use,\nat Pont St. Esprit, was one of their works. We have not any traces of the\noperations of the order in England, but there were in the country, prior\nto the reign of Richard II., lay-brotherhoods performing a similar good\nwork.\n\nQueen Matilda erected and endowed bridges at Stratford and Bow, which she\nregarded as meritorious. The Church looked upon the work as one deserving\nof encouragement. Richard de Kellawe, Bishop of Durham, from 1311 to\n1316, for example, promised to remit penances for those engaged in\nbridge-building. The Registry of his Episcopal Chancery contains many\nentries similar to the following: \"Memorandum ... his lordship grants\nforty days' indulgence to all who will draw from the treasure that God has\ngiven them, valuable and charitable aid towards the building and repair of\nBotyton bridge.\" We read in another entry: \"Forty days' indulgence is\nallowed to those sincerely contrite and confessed of all their sins, who\nshall help by their charitable gifts, or by their bodily labour, the\nbuilding and maintenance of the causeway between Brotherton and\nFerrybridge, where many people pass by.\" On another occasion, a similar\nindulgence was granted for help towards the highroad and bridge between\nBillingham and Norton.\n\nThe most striking case which has come under our notice, where pious\nmotives have caused the erection of a bridge, is set forth in a contract\nof the thirteenth century. The particulars are given in Jusserand's\n\"English Wayfaring Life in the Middle Ages.\" \"Reginald de Rosels,\" we are\ntold, \"allowed Peter, Abbot of Whitby, to build a permanent bridge on the\nriver Esk, between his own and the convent's lands. He pledges himself in\nthat act to permit to all comers free access to the bridge through his own\nproperty. 'For which concession the aforesaid Abbot and convent have\nabsolved in chapter all the ancestors of the same Reginald of all fault\nand transgression they may have committed against the church of Whiteby,\nand have made them participant of all the good works, alms, and prayers of\nthe church of Whiteby.'\" The original contract is in Latin, and was\nprinted by the Surtees Society (1881).\n\n\"It was very usual,\" says Leland, \"in greater brydges to build chappells\nin which they did pray for the soules of their founders.\" There were other\nreasons for erecting chapels, one being for a place of residence for\npriests to solicit alms from all who passed over the bridge, whether\nwalking or riding, to keep it in repair. Some were built for sheltering\nbenighted travellers, having crypts where rest and refreshment might be\nobtained. In these chapels, the wayfarer could pray for protection on his\njourney, and return thanks for safety after his undertaking had been\ncompleted. Travelling, in mediaeval times, was beset with trial and\nhardship on every side.\n\n[Illustration: OLD LONDON BRIDGE.]\n\nThe history and romance of London Bridge must ever remain amongst the\nsubjects most popular to the people of England. The first and famous\nLondon Bridge was regarded as one of the glories of the Middle Ages. The\nbridge was commenced by Peter Colechurch, in 1176. He worked for\ntwenty-nine years, then death ended his earthly career, and \"he was\nsepultured\" in the chapel on the bridge he had done so much to erect. A\nclever Frenchman, called Isembert, completed the work, in the year 1209.\nThe undertaking had the hearty support of the people, and large sums of\nmoney and extensive endowments of land were given to carry it on. The\nexcitement throughout the land was immense. The nation felt it was one of\nits great undertakings. It was in length nine hundred and twenty-six feet,\nin width forty feet, some sixty feet above the water, and stood upon\nnineteen pointed arches, between massive piers. When first completed, it\nhad only one building upon it, a handsome stone chapel, dedicated to St.\nThomas Becket, which stood on the middle pier. Subsequently, two rows of\nhouses were erected on the bridge, one on each side of the road. A\ndrawbridge was put up as a means of protection. A terrible fire, on July\n10th, 1212, was the cause of the death of upwards of 3,000 persons. Stow,\nin his \"Survey of London,\" supplies some important information on this\nsubject. After adverting to a fire commencing on the Southwark side of the\nbridge, he states that \"an exceeding great multitude of people passing the\nbridge, either to extinguish and quench it, or else to gaze at and behold\nit, suddenly the north part, by blowing of the south wind, was also set on\nfire, and the people, which were even now passing the bridge, perceiving\nthe same, would have returned, but were stopped by fire; and it came to\npass, that as they stayed or protracted time, the other end of the bridge\nalso, namely, the south end, was fired, so that the people, thronging\nthemselves between the two fires, did nothing else but expect present\ndeath; then came there to aid them many ships and vessels, into the which\nthe multitude so unadvisedly rushed that, the ships being drowned, they\nall perished. It was said, that through the fire and shipwreck, there were\ndestroyed about three thousand persons, whose bodies were found in part,\nbesides those that were wholly burnt to ashes, and could not be found.\" A\nfrost, in 1282, destroyed five arches of the bridge. In 1305, when Edward\nI. was king, was commenced the practice of placing the heads of traitors\nover London Bridge gateway. Paul Hentzner, a German traveller, visited\nEngland in 1598, and counted on it no fewer than thirty heads. Several\nhouses on the bridge were destroyed by fires at various times, and all\nwere swept away by the Great Fire, of 1666. A good idea of these buildings\nmay be obtained from the picture we give on page 47.\n\nOn the west side of the Ouse Bridge, at York, was St. William's Chapel, an\ninteresting example of early English architecture. Respecting the origin\nof this chapel, there is a popular story that it was built shortly after\nthe bridge was completed, in 1268, in obedience to royal commands. The\ntale is to the effect that a Scotch nobleman was visiting the city,\nshortly after the erection of the bridge, when some of the citizens\nquarrelled and came to blows with his servants on the bridge. Several of\nthe strangers were slain. The riot was brought under the notice of the\nkings of England and Scotland for settlement, and it was finally agreed\nthat the citizens of York should pay L300, a large amount in those days,\nand erect a chapel on or near the spot where the servants met their\nuntimely deaths, and also that they maintain two priests to pray for the\nsouls of the slain men. After the Reformation, the chapel was converted\ninto an Exchange for the Society of Hamburg Merchants at York, and\nsubsequently put to other secular uses. Finally it was taken down, on the\nerection of a new bridge, in the year 1810.\n\nUnder the year 1505, a note appears in Hollinworth's \"Mancuniensis,\"\nstating that \"Care was taken for the reparation of the chappell standing\non Salford Bridge, built, as it is sayd, by Thomas del Booth, in Edward\nIII.'s time. He certainly gave L30 towards the building of Salford Bridge;\nand it was very usual on greater bridges to build chappells, in which they\ndid pray for the soules of their founders. This chappell is now converted\nto a prison for Manchester and Salford.\" The building was pulled down in\n1778, for the purpose of making the bridge wider.\n\n[Illustration: BRADFORD BRIDGE.]\n\nWe have other instances of bridge prisons besides the one at Salford. A\nfamiliar example is that at Bedford. It has been asserted by several\nauthors that Bunyan was imprisoned in it, but it has been proved beyond\ndoubt that such was not the fact. The bridge prison belonged absolutely to\nthe borough, and Bunyan was a county prisoner, and spent his time in the\ncounty gaol. Much interesting information bearing on this subject will be\nfound in Dr. Brown's book on Bunyan. The records of the town contain some\ncurious particulars respecting the bridge. The following may be given as\nan example: \"Item, yt ye ordered that the great cheyne by every nighte at\nten of the clocke to be locked crosse the great bridge, and so kept untyl\nfyve of the clocke in the morninge, and that he or they that shall dwell\nin the bridge house, to keep the keye of the said locke, and keep the same\nsoe locked, and not suffer aine horse, horseman, or cattell to passe\nwithin that tyme wch he shall not knowe. And of them wch he shall knowe,\nto take a pennie only for letting doune the cheyne and noe more.\" The\nprison was taken down in the year 1765. Here was a chapel or oratory,\ndedicated to St. Thomas the Martyr, built by a Bedford man, early in the\nfourteenth century, and endowed with lands for the support of a warden or\nchaplain, who had to repair the bridge at his own expense.\n\nA small structure on the old bridge at Bradford-on-Avon has also been used\nas a prison. Its original purpose has provoked some discussion. Some say\nthat it was erected for a chapel, but not a few question the statement.\nAubrey of old, and the Rev. J. Charles Cox, LL.D., and Precentor Venables\nof our time, are of opinion that it was a chapel. For many years it was\nused as a lock-up, and later as a powder magazine. It has a dome-like\nroof, of later date than the building. It bears a model of a gudgeon, the\nemblem of St. Nicholas. The Bradford-on-Avon folk are familiarly spoken of\nas Bradford gudgeons. Those who had been imprisoned on the bridge were\nsaid to have been \"under fish and over water.\"\n\n[Illustration: ST. MARY'S BRIDGE-CHAPEL, DERBY.]\n\nA small bridge-chapel at Derby, dedicated to St. Mary of the Brigg, links\nthe past with the present. It most probably dates back to the fourteenth\ncentury. Rev. J. Charles Cox, LL.D., in his \"Churches of Derbyshire,\"\ntraces with care the history of this old-time building. He says: \"St.\nMary's Bridge--by which access was gained from Nottingham and the south\ninto the town of Derby, through whose streets lay one of the most\nimportant thoroughfares from London to the north--must, in mediaeval days,\nhave been of considerable importance. It is pleasant to think of the busy\nburgesses or men-at-arms turning aside into the Chapel of Our Lady for a\nbrief silent prayer, before crossing the Derwent, and plunging into the\nforests that stretched out before them on the other side of the river.\"\nThere would, doubtless, be a gatehouse, built for defence and for levying\ntolls, etc. On the chapel or gatehouse were placed the heads and quarters\nof the priests who were martyred at Derby, on July 25th, 1588, when the\nJesuits were making determined efforts to win England back to Rome. \"Two\nresolute Catholic gentlemen\" stole and buried the remains. Here have\nworshipped the persecuted Presbyterians of Derby. About a century ago it\nwas turned into dwelling-houses, and later was used as a carpenter's shop.\nIn 1873, a Bishop's license was obtained, and once more it was used as a\nhouse of prayer. We give, by the courtesy of Mr. Richard Keene, a view of\nthe chapel, from an interesting book published by him, in 1881, under the\ntitle of \"All about Derby,\" by Edward Bradbury and Richard Keene. The\npicture is from the pencil of the late Llewellynn Jewitt, F.S.A., the\neminent antiquary.\n\nPrior to the Reformation, the Chamberlains of Derby rendered annually to\nthe monks of the Priory of St. James two pounds of wax, for the privilege\nof passing over St. James' Bridge.\n\n[Illustration: OUR LADY'S CHAPEL, ROTHERHAM BRIDGE.]\n\nOn the old bridge at Rotherham, which spans the river Don, is still\nstanding the chapel of \"Our Lady.\"\n\n  \"The sacred taper's light is gone.\"\n\nIt is an interesting monument of bygone times, but it is no longer used as\na house of prayer. Where once the mass was celebrated by devout priests, a\ntrader keeps a small shop. The earliest mention of this chapel which is\nknown, occurs in the will of John Bokying, master of the Grammar School at\nRotherham, and is dated August 24th, 1483. He leaves \"To the fabric of the\nchapel to be built on Rotherham bridge, 3s. 4d.\" The design of the\nbuilding was plain, but, on the whole, its effect must be pronounced\npleasing. The dimensions of the building in the interior are thirty-two\nfeet nine inches in length, by fifteen feet five inches in width. Leland,\nthe antiquary, visited the town in the middle of the sixteenth century,\nand says, \"I enterid into Rotheram by a fair stone bridge of iiij arches,\nand on hit is a chapel of stone, wel wrought.\" In old records relating to\nRotherham, reproduced by John Guest, F.S.A., in his \"Historic Notices of\nRotherham,\" may be read many items of local interest on this chapel. We\nfind statements respecting the bridge and chapel occupying the attention\nof the Justices of Peace at Pontefract Sessions and Doncaster Sessions,\ntowards the close of the seventeenth century. The Feoffees of Rotherham\nsuccessfully maintained that the bridge and chapel belonged to them, but\nthat they had to be kept in repair at the expense of the West Riding. It,\nat this period, was used as an almshouse for poor people. In the Feoffees\nrecords it is stated as follows:\n\n\"1778. June 6th. Ordered that the greaves do employ a proper person to\nexamine ye state of ye almshouse, and to report what expence will be\nnecessary to make the same into a dwelling-house for ye deputy-constable,\nand secure gaols for the receiption of prisoners.\"\n\n\"1779. February 5th. That the greaves do immediately agree with Mr. Platts\nfor altering the almshouse to a prison, and, according to a plan now in\ntheir hands, so that the expense of the alterations do not exceed\nthirty-six pounds.\"\n\n\"1779. June 16th. Ordered that John Watson be permitted to inhabit that\npart of the almshouse designed for the deputy-constable. That the rent of\nthe same shall be five pounds. Only to use the two first rooms and the\npantry on the ground floor, and the two chambers over the same. The other\nparts of the house being designed for other purposes. And that he shall\nnot take out a license to sell ale or spirituous liquors.\"\n\nIn 1825-6, a new court house was built, and then the bridge-chapel was no\nlonger required as a prison. As we have previously stated, the ancient\nbuilding is now devoted to business purposes. Let us hope the day is not\nfar distant when it may once more be used as a house of prayer.\n\n[Illustration: NORTH-WEST VIEW OF WAKEFIELD CHAPEL, PREVIOUS TO\nRE-BUILDING.]\n\nPerhaps the most interesting of chapels on bridges, is the one at\nWakefield, dedicated to St. Mary. Its history has been carefully compiled\nby Norrisson Scatcherd, in 1843, by John W. Walker, F.S.A., in 1890, and\nit has received the consideration of other antiquaries. It has long been a\npopular, but mistaken belief, that the chapel was built by Edward IV.\nthat masses might be said for those slain in the battle of Wakefield, in\n1460, and in which his father, the Duke of York, and his brother, the Duke\nof Rutland were slain. It will be remembered, that in this engagement, the\nLancastrians defeated the Yorkists. It is clear, from Mr. Walkers work,\nthat the beautiful chapel was built by the townsmen of Wakefield, and\nthere is not any trace of the King adding anything to the revenues of the\nchapel. When the first bridge was built over the Calder, is not known,\nbut, in 1342, King Edward III. granted to the bailiffs of the town the\nright of tollage for three years, on all goods for sale and cattle passing\nover the bridge, \"as a help towards repairing and improving the bridge,\"\nwhich is stated to be \"rent and broken.\" In the documents, there is not\nany mention of a chapel, a bridge only is referred to. Mr. Walker is of\nopinion that about this time the suggestion was first made for the\nerection of a chapel in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that it was\nsoon carried into effect. Three townsmen and two priests obtained the\nfirst license, in 1356-7. In a decree, bearing date of November 20th,\n1444, it says the chapel is \"Wholly built of costly stonework by the\ninhabitants and community of Wakefield.\" It has been suggested that, for a\ntime, the black death, which caused such terrible desolation in the\ncountry, in 1349-50, may, for a period, have stopped the building of the\nchapel. It was a noble structure when completed, the carving being\nespecially fine. On the west front, were carvings representing the five\nglorious mysteries of the Rosary. We give a picture of the central\nfigures, illustrating the Resurrection. It will be seen that Christ is\nrising from the tomb, and on either side of him are two angels engaged in\nprayer. In front of the tomb are three soldiers, placed there as guards,\nand they are clad in complete armour of the time of Edward III. An\nimportant feature of the Wakefield bridge-chapel is the crypt. \"This,\"\nsays Scatcherd, \"has undoubtedly been the dwelling of the priests--where\nthey might have lodged strangers, or administered relief.\" There was a\nhigh turret, reached by a little spiral staircase. On this elevated part\nof the building was kindled the cresset-light, which would guide the\nwayfarer, and possibly assist the navigator on the river Calder, when day\nhad given way to night.\n\n[Illustration: SCULPTURE IN THE CENTRAL COMPARTMENT OF THE WEST FRONT.]\n\n[Illustration: NORTH-EAST VIEW OF WAKEFIELD BRIDGE-CHAPEL, 1810.]\n\nThe chapel was for many years used for secular purposes, but, happily,\nopened for public worship on Easter Sunday, April 22nd, 1848. It had been\npreviously rebuilt by Mr. G. G. Scott, and the west front is still to be\nseen at Kettlethorpe Hall, and forms the front of a boathouse. The\nrebuilding, instead of restoring, was a serious mistake. The Bath and Caen\nstone used does not resist the wasting action of the impurities in the\nair. \"It was in an evil hour,\" says Scott, \"that I yielded, and allowed a\nnew front in Caen stone, in place of the weather-beaten old one.... I\nnever repented it but once, that has been ever since.... I think of this\nwith the utmost shame and chagrin.\" We state, on the authority of Mr.\nWalker, that, \"Sir Gilbert Scott, some years before his death, was so\nanxious to have the old front replaced in its original position, that he\noffered to contribute freely towards this object, if he could persuade the\nYorkshire people to help him, but nothing further was done.\"\n\n\n\n\nCharter Horns.\n\n\nIn the Cathedrals of York and Carlisle are preserved interesting charter\nhorns. The horn, in bygone times, often played an important part when land\nwas granted. In some instances ancient drinking horns are the only\ncharters proving the ownership of extensive possessions. The blowing of\nthe horn has formed, and still forms, the prelude of many quaint customs\nfor maintaining certain manorial and other rights. Some of the details of\nthe old services of manors are extremely romantic, and supply not a few\nstrange chapters in local and national history. Romance, in some of the\nrecords, takes the place of dry matter-of-fact statements, and adds not a\nlittle to the pleasure of the study of past ages.\n\n[Illustration: THE HORN OF ULPHUS.]\n\nThe important Horn of Ulphus is preserved in the treasure room of York\nMinster, and, apart from its rich historical associations, it is an\nobject of great beauty. It is made from a portion of a large tusk of an\nelephant. Were this horn totally without a history or a tradition\nconnected with it, its elaborate and peculiar character of ornamentation\nwould render it an object of interest and value. It has two bands, one\nnear the thinner end and the other at about a fifth part of the length\nfrom the thicker end. The space between the latter band and the end is\nadorned with sculptures in low relief, which express much that in European\nmediaeval art did not appear for several hundreds of years later than the\ndate of the horn, and which, it may fairly be supposed, are of Asiatic\norigin. The band of carvings is about four inches in width, and there are\nfour chief figures. One appears to be an unicorn performing the act that,\nin the credulous natural history of long ago, it was so apt to\nindulge--namely, piercing a tree with its one horn, and so fixing itself\nand being at the hunter's mercy. The unicorn is the symbol of chastity. At\nthe other side of the tree is a lion killing and devouring a deer. Next,\nfacing another tree with palmated leaves and grape-like fruit, is a\ngryphon, a creature having the body of a lion and the head and wings of an\neagle. At the other side of this tree, and facing the gryphon, is a\nsimilar monster, which has, however, the head of a dog or wolf. The lion's\ntail is foliated, while those of the winged beasts end in ludicrous dogs'\nor wolves' heads. Three wolves' heads, collared, rise from the\nground-line, and a wolf runs in the upper part, and it is not unlikely\nthat Ulphus (or Ulf, equal to our word wolf) is so hinted at. The form of\nthe animals, especially those which have wings, are Assyrian in feeling\nand treatment, while the treatment of the trees still further adds to the\nopinion that the horn is not a specimen of European carving.\n\nMr. Robert Davies, F.S.A., Town-Clerk of York, who wrote a monograph on\nthis celebrated relic, from which a few of our particulars are drawn,\nconjectures that the horn would be brought to the Baltic shores by Arabic\nmerchants; if so, it will be then more feasible to suppose that the\ncarving would be executed previous to its being brought for sale. Having\nso far considered the form of the horn, let us next look a little into its\nhistory. The tradition, accepted from time immemorial, is simply\nthis--that, a considerable period before the Conquest, the horn was given\nto the see of York by a Dane who had settled in England, as a symbol of\nendowment of the wide lands which he conferred upon the episcopate. This\ntradition comes down to the present day through various channels. First is\na poem in Latin (among the Cotton MSS.), describing the different gifts to\nYork up to about the twelfth century. In this, Ulf is described as an\neminent Yorkshire earl and ruler, his gifts to the church are mentioned,\nand their confirmation by Edward the Confessor, the horn is noted to be\nthe sign of endowment, and its great beauty enlarged upon. In one\nparticular, the description differs from one that might be written at the\npresent day, inasmuch that, whereas the horn is stated in the poem to be\nwhite, its hue now is brown. In Holland's \"Britannia,\" the tradition is\ngiven as historically true, and in the following words: \"Then it was,\nalso, that princes bestowed many great livings and lands upon the church\nof York, especially Ulphus, the son of Torald (I note so much out of an\nold book, that there may plainly appear a custom of our ancestors in\nendowing churches with livings). This Ulphus, aforesaid, ruled the west\npart of Deira, and by reason of the debate that was like to arise between\nhis sons, the younger and the elder, about their lordships and their\nseigniories after his death, forthwith he made them all alike. For,\nwithout delay, he went to York, took the horn with him out of which he was\nwont to drink, filled it with wine, and, before the altar of God, blessed\nSaint Peter, prince of the Apostles, kneeling upon his knees, he drank,\nand thereby enfeoffed them [the church] in all his lands and revenues.\nWhich horn was there kept, as a monument (as I have heard) until our\nfathers' days.\"\n\nIn Domesday Book is mentioned an English thane named Ulf, who, in the\nreign of Edward the Confessor, had held large possessions in Northumbria,\nwhich, at the time of the Domesday Survey, had become the property of the\nsee of York. It is further stated, that large territories which were held\nby the Archbishop of York, at the time of the Conquest, had also been\nowned by this same Ulf. In Kirkby's \"Inquest\" (_temp._ Edward I.), these\nlands are again noted to be the gift of Ulf. Thus far, the tradition is\ncorroborated by history, but the statement that Ulf's sons were\ndisinherited is incorrect, for Ulf had a large extent of property left\nafter making his munificent gift to the Church, which his sons in due time\ninherited. These two sons, Archil and Norman, are included among the\nKing's thanes in Domesday Book. There was also another Ulf, who lived in\nthe time of the King Canute, dying in 1036, but, though confounded with\nthe Ulphus of our story, he was not the same, and had nothing to do with\nthe charter horn of York.\n\n[Illustration: THE PUSEY HORN.]\n\nThe Pusey Horn, preserved at Pusey House, near Farringdon, has a curious\ntraditional history, carrying us back to the days of the warlike Canute,\nand his struggles with the Saxons. It is related, that, on one occasion,\nthe king's soldiers and the Saxons were encamped near each other, in the\nneighbourhood of Pusey. An ancestor of the Pusey family, serving as an\nofficer under the king, discovered an ambuscade, formed by the Saxons, to\nintercept the king's army. He gave Canute a timely intimation of their\nintentions, and thus enabled him to foil their plans. For this important\ninformation, Canute gave to his informant and his heirs the manor of\nPusey, and as a ratification of the grant, a horn was presented. It is the\nhorn of an ox, measuring two feet and half-an-inch in length, and at the\nlarger end is a foot in circumference. The colour of it is dark brown.\nRound the middle is a ring of silver-gilt, and the horn is supported on\ntwo hound's feet. The small end has a screw stopper, also of silver-gilt,\nin the form of a hound's head. It forms with the stopper a drinking horn,\nand without it a hunting horn. The silver ring bears the following\ninscription:\n\n[Illustration: kyng knowde geue wyllyam pewse [thorn]us horne to holde by [thorn]y\nlond]\n\nHickes, writing about 1685, states: \"Both the horn and manor were in his\ntime possessed by Charles Pusey, who had recovered them in Chancery,\nbefore Lord Chancellor Jefferies; the horn itself being produced in court,\nand with universal admiration received, admitted, and proved to be the\nidentical horn by which, as by charter, Canute had conveyed the manor of\nPusey about seven hundred years before.\" On the 25th of October, 1849, at\na festival at Wantage, Berkshire, to celebrate the anniversary of the\nbirthday of King Alfred, a dinner was held, and amongst the guests were\nMr. Pusey, M.P., John Britton, the antiquary, and other notable men. It is\nreported that, \"during the proceedings, a pleasureable interest was\nexcited by the production of the extraordinary piece of antiquity, the\nPusey Horn, presented by King Canute to the ancestor of Mr. Pusey, and\nforming the original tenure of the Pusey property, and inalienable from\nit.\"\n\nAccording to a popular legend, Edward the Confessor presented to a\nhuntsman named Nigel, and his heirs, a hide of land and a wood called\nHulewood, and the rangership of the royal forest of Bernwood,\nBuckinghamshire, as a reward for his courage in slaying a large wild boar\nwhich infested the place. The land was called Derehyde, and on it he built\na house, naming it Borestalle, in memory of the slain animal. The grant\nwas accompanied with a horn, which is preserved by the lords of\nBorestalle, and is known as Nigel's horn. It is described as \"being of a\ndark-brown colour, variegated and veined like tortoise-shell, and fitted\nwith straps of leather to hang about the neck. It is tipped at each end\nwith silver-gilt, and mounted with a plate of brass, having sculptured\nthereon the figure of a horn, and also several plates of silver-gilt\n_fleurs-de-lis_ and an old brass seal ring.\" In addition to the horn, is\nalso preserved, an old folio vellum volume, containing transcripts of\ncharters and evidences relating to the estate. It contains, we read, a\nrude drawing of the site of Borstall House and Manor, and under is the\nrude figure of a man presenting, on his knees, to the king, the head of a\nboar, on the point of a sword, and the king returning to him a\ncoat-of-arms, arg. a fesse, gu. two crescents, and a horn, verde. The\narmorial bearings belong to a much later period than the reign of Edward\nthe Confessor.\n\nBefore the Rhyne Toll was collected in Buckinghamshire, a horn was blown\nwith not a little ceremony. The right of gathering the toll originated as\na reward for a heroic deed performed in the days when the wild boar roamed\nthe forests of England, much to the terror of the people. According to\ntradition, a ferocious boar had its lair in the ancient forest of\nRookwoode. It kept the inhabitants of the district in constant fear of\ntheir lives, and prevented strangers visiting them. A valiant knight, the\nLord of Chetwode, resolved to rid the country of the monster, or die in\nthe attempt. Says an old ballad:\n\n  \"Then he blowed a blast full north, south, east, and west--\n    Wind well thy horn, good hunter;\n  And the wild boar then heard him full in his den,\n    As he was a jovial hunter.\n\n  Then he made the best of his speed unto him--\n    Wind well thy horn, good hunter;\n  Swift flew the boar, with his tusks smeared with gore,\n    To Sir Ryalas, the jovial hunter.\n\n  Then the wild boar, being so stout and so strong--\n    Wind well thy horn, good hunter;\n  Thrashed down the trees as he ramped him along\n    To Sir Ryalas, the jovial hunter.\n\n  Then they fought four hours on a long summer day--\n    Wind well thy horn, good hunter;\n  Till the wild boar would fain have got him away\n    From Sir Ryalas, the jovial hunter.\n\n  Then Sir Ryalas he drawed his broad sword with might--\n    Wind well thy horn, good hunter;\n  And he fairly cut the boar's head off quite,\n    For he was a jovial hunter.\"\n\nThe countryside rang with the knight's praise, and the king heard the\nwelcome news. The sovereign, as a reward for his services, made \"the\njovial hunter,\" we are told, \"the knight tenant _in capite_, and\nconstituted his manor paramount of all the manors within the limits and\nextent of the royal forest of Rookwoode.\" The privilege of levying toll on\nall cattle passing through nine townships was granted to him and his heirs\nfor ever. It was known as the Rhyne Toll, and commenced at midnight on\nOctober 29th, and ended at midnight on November 7th annually. Before the\ncommencement of the collection of the toll, a horn was blown, as we have\npreviously stated, with some ceremony. The toll was collected until 1868,\nwhen it was given up by Sir George Chetwode, the lord of the manor.\n\nIn the Chapter House, at Carlisle, is preserved an interesting relic known\nas the \"Horns of the Altar.\" Mr. Frank Buckland inspected it in 1879, and\nexpressed his astonishment at finding it to be a walrus's skull, without\nthe lower jaw, with tusks about eighteen inches long. The skull itself\nwas marked out with faded colours, so as to somewhat resemble a human\nskull. Canon Prescott supplied Mr. Buckland with some information about\nthis curious charter horn. He said: \"In the year 1290, a claim was made by\nthe King, Edward I., and by others, to the tithes on certain lands lately\nbrought under cultivation in the forest of Inglewood. The Prior of\nCarlisle appeared on behalf of his convent, and urged their right to the\nproperty on the ground that the tithes had been granted to them by a\nformer king, who had enfeoffed them by a certain ivory horn (_quoddam\ncornu eburneum_), which he gave to the Church of Carlisle, and which they\npossessed at that time. The Cathedral of Carlisle has had in its\npossession for a great number of years two fine walrus tusks, with a\nportion of the skull. They appear in ancient inventories of goods of the\ncathedral as 'one horn of the altar, in two parts,' or 'two horns of the\naltar' (1674), together with other articles of the altar furniture. But\nantiquaries come to the conclusion that these were identical with the\n'ivory horn' referred to above. Communications were made to the Society of\nAntiquaries (see _Archaeologia_, Vol. III.) and they were called the\n'Carlisle Charter Horns.' Such charter horns were not uncommon in ancient\ndays. Bishop Lyttleton (1768), in a paper read before the society, said\nthe 'horns' were so called improperly, being 'certainly the teeth of some\nvery large sea fish.' It is probable that they were presented to the\nchurch as an offering, perhaps by some traveller, and used as an ornament\nto the altar. Such ornaments were frequent, both at the smaller altars and\nin the churches.\"\n\nMr. Buckland, adverting to the foregoing, says: \"I cannot quite understand\nhow a walrus's skull and teeth came to be considered so valuable as to be\npromoted to the dignity of a charter horn of a great cathedral like\nCarlisle. I am afraid Bishop Lyttleton, 1768, was not a naturalist, or he\nwould never have called the tusks of a walrus 'the teeth of some very\nlarge fish.'\"\n\nHungerford, a pretty little town at the extreme west end of the royal\ncounty of Berks, has its ancient charter horn, and linked to it are some\ncurious customs. A contributor to a local journal for 1876, states that\n\"the town of Hungerford, Berkshire, enjoys some rare privileges and\nmaintains some quaint customs. The inhabitants have the right of pasturage\nand of shooting over a large tract of downs and marsh land bequeathed to\nthem by John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, subject to the annual observance\nof certain customs at this period of the year. They have also the right of\nfishing for trout in the Kennet, which flows through the borough.\nHockney-day and the usual customs have just been observed in their\nintegrity. The old horn, by which the tenure is held, had been blown from\nthe Town Hall, summoning the commoners to their rights, and the tything\nmen, whose duties are unique, have ably fulfilled them. These gentlemen\ncarry long poles, decorated with flowers and garlands, having to call at\neach house and exact the tribute of a coin from each male, and a kiss from\neach lady. The High Constable or Mayor, whose office combines the duties\nof the coroner, is chosen on this day.\"\n\nBlowing three blasts on a horn formed part of an old custom at Chingford,\nEssex. Blount, in his \"Tenures of Land,\" and the historians of the county,\ndirect attention to the ceremony. The estate of Brindwood's was held under\nthe following conditions: Upon every alteration, the owner of the estate,\nwith his wife, man servant, and maid servant, each single on a horse,\ncome to the parsonage, where the owner does his homage, and pays his\nrelief in the manner following--he blows three blasts with his horn,\ncarries a hawk on his fist, and his servant has a greyhound in a slip,\nboth for the use of the rector for the day; he receives a chicken for his\nhawk, a peck of oats for his horse, and a loaf of bread for his greyhound.\nThey all dine, after which the master blows three blasts with his horn,\nand they all depart. A correspondent to the _Gentleman's Magazine_ for\n1790, gives particulars of this custom being kept up in the days of Queen\nElizabeth.\n\nAt Bainbridge, the chief place of the forest of Wensleydale, Yorkshire,\nstill lingers an old horn-blowing custom. An instrument known as the\nforest horn is blown on the green every night at ten o'clock from the\nfirst of September to Shrovetide. It is a very large one, and made from\nthe horn of an ox. Its sound on the still night air may be heard for a\nconsiderable distance. In bygone ages, horns were blown to enable belated\ntravellers to direct their course over the almost trackless roads to their\ndestinations, and the welcome notes of the horn have saved many a lonely\nwayfarer from perishing in the snow.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: SUNDAY IN THE OLDEN TIME.]\n\nThe Old English Sunday.\n\n\nThe history of Sunday in England is a subject which merits careful\nconsideration. The laws and customs of bygone times are both curious and\ninteresting. The manner of observing Sunday is a subject which is fast\ncoming to the front, and one which we must be prepared to discuss in a\nspirit of fairness.\n\nIn our investigations we shall find that, prior to the period of the\nPuritans coming into power in England, the day did not rank higher than\nother festivals observed by the Church.\n\nOur Sunday laws commence with the Saxons, a rude race, who delighted in a\nwild life, in which war and bloodshed formed prominent features. Gluttony\nand drunkenness prevailed to a considerable extent.\n\nThe laws and canons passed from the days of Ine, who commenced to reign\nin Wessex in the year 688, to the time of Edward the Confessor, who died\nin 1066, clearly show that the Saxon rulers did their utmost to prevent\nSunday labour, and that firm measures were also taken to put a stop to\nmarketing on that day.\n\nIt appears, from the enactments of Ine, that if a lord commanded his slave\nto work on a Sunday, the slave became a freeman, and the lord was also\nfined thirty shillings. If, unknown to his lord, a slave worked, he was\nseverely punished, or, in lieu of corporal punishment, he had to pay a\nfine. If a freeman was found guilty of Sunday labour, he had to forfeit\nhis freedom, or pay a fine of sixty shillings. A priest was doubly liable.\n\nAlfred was King of Wessex from 871 to 901, and we learn from his laws that\nif a thief was caught stealing on Sunday, at Yule, at Easter, on Holy\nThursday, or during Rogation days, the penalty was double the amount of\nfine inflicted during the Lenten fast.\n\nThe laws of Edward, the elder, and Guthrum, made after the peace between\nthe Danes and the English, 901 to 924, include some strict Sunday\nregulations. \"If any one engage in Sunday marketing,\" says the statute,\n\"let him forefit the chattel, and twelve ore (192 pence) among the Danes,\nand thirty shillings among the English.\" King Athelstan, about 924, passed\na similar act to the preceding one, anent Sunday marketing.\n\nSeveral important ecclesiastical laws were made in the reign of Edgar,\nwhich commenced in 959 and ended 975. We find, according to his\nenactments, that Sunday was to be kept from noontide on Saturday until the\ndawn of Monday, on peril of a fine. The following are two of his canons:\n\n\"And we enjoin you, that on feast days, heathen songs and devil's games be\nabstained from.\"\n\n\"And we enjoin, that Sunday and folk-motes be abstained from.\"\n\nWhen Canute, King of Denmark, became King of England, he passed several\nlaws similar to those of Edgar. He also directed that Sunday should\ncommence at noon on Saturday and end at dawn on Monday. He strongly\nforbade marketing and worldly works on Sunday. A condemned man in this\nreign was not put to death on a Sunday, unless he commenced fighting or\nattempted to flee.\n\nBefore leaving this section of our subject, it may be observed that the\nsettlement of the Danes here did not produce any great changes, for the\ncustoms and institutions of their native land were similar to those of\nEngland. The civilization of the Danes, however, was lower in its standard\nthan that of the Saxons. During the whole of the Anglo-Saxon period,\nslaves were sold like cattle in the open market. Many slaves were exported\nto Scotland and Ireland from the English markets.\n\nIt may not be out of place to make a few remarks on slavery. They have not\nany special bearing on the Sunday question, but illustrate the hard life\nof the period when severe laws prevailed. Of circumstances which brought\npersons into slavery, we may mention, in the first place, those obtained\nby right of conquest; next, those sold into slavery by their parents or by\ntheir own free will; another class were those found guilty of stealing,\nwho were made slaves as a punishment for their crimes; many were doomed to\nslavery through not being able to pay the penalties imposed for breaking\nthe laws of the land; and lastly, we find not a few traces of men\nvoluntarily surrendering their liberty for food. Famines, at this time,\noccurred very often, and men were glad to be slaves for their own daily\nbread. A parent might sell his child if it had reached the age of seven\nyears, and at thirteen a child might sell itself into slavery. A slave was\nusually estimated at four times the value of an ox. In the reign of King\nAthelstan, the punishment for theft was most severe; and, on the authority\nof Lingard, it is stated that a law was made respecting the offences\ncommitted by slaves against others than their masters, to the effect that\na man thief was ordered to be stoned to death by twenty of his fellows,\neach of whom was punished with three whippings if he failed thrice to hit\nthe culprit. A woman thief was burnt by eighty women slaves, each of whom\nbrought three billets of wood to the execution. If she failed, she was\nlikewise subjected to the punishment of three whippings. After the death\nof the offender, each slave paid three pennies as a fine to the\nproprietor. As Christianity spread, the condition of the slave became\nhappier than before its truths were known. The slave might still be sold\nat the pleasure of the owner, but with the important restriction that a\nChristian was not permitted to be made over to a Pagan.\n\nA low value was set on human life in Saxon England. Flogging was\ngenerally adopted for punishing persons guilty of offences, whether slight\nor serious. It was not an uncommon practice for mistresses to whip, or\nhave their servants whipped to death.\n\nOn the 14th of October, in the year 1066, was fought the battle of\nHastings. The contending armies were one led by Harold, the last of the\nSaxon kings, and the other by William, Duke of Normandy. Harold was slain,\nhis brave followers defeated, and on the following Christmas Day, in the\nAbbey of Westminster, the Conqueror was crowned William I. On the whole,\nhe made a noble sovereign, and the Normans added nobility of character to\nthe people of the country in which they settled. It may fairly be asserted\nthat, all that is best of old English life is the outcome of the\nsettlement of the Normans in this land. The Sunday laws under the Normans\nwere, to a large extent, an expansion of those in force in the Saxon era.\nSunday trading received much attention, several enactments being passed\nrespecting it. In earlier ages, markets and fairs were held on a Sunday,\nand in many instances in churchyards. At the commencement of the\nfourteenth century, the traders of Cockermouth suffered much from the\nactive business operations at Crosthwaite. A petition was presented to\nParliament, in 1305, by the inhabitants of the former town, stating that,\nowing to the sale of corn, flour, beans, flesh, fish, and other kinds of\nmerchandise at Crosthwaite Church, on Sundays, their market was fast\ndeclining, and that the persons who farmed the tolls from the king were\nunable to pay their rent. An order was made for closing the church market\nat Crosthwaite.\n\nThursday was the chartered market-day at Bradford, Yorkshire, but it was\nchanged to Sunday, and doubtless was held in the churchyard. The toll,\nabout the time of Edward I., it is said, yielded L3 per annum, an amount\nequal to about L45 of money at the present time.\n\nA statute, made in the reign of Edward I., in the year 1285, ordered\n\"that, from henceforth, neither fairs nor markets be held in churchyards,\nfor the honour of the Church.\"\n\nA market was granted to the town of Sedgefield, Durham, by Bishop Kellawe,\nin the year 1312, and it was to be held on a Friday. The people soon\nbrought about a change, and held the market on a Sunday. The rector of\nSedgefield directed the attention of Bishop Bury to the Sunday trading,\nand he confirmed the grant made a few years previously.\n\nJohn Thorsby, Archbishop of York, about the year 1367, delivered to his\nsubordinates a charge respecting Sunday trading. It is stated in the\ndocument as follows: \"Desiring, therefore, to obviate some errors and\nabuses, so far as we can, which we see to grow rife in the church; in the\nfirst place (according to the example of Christ, who would have his own\nchurch called a house, not of merchandise, but of prayer; and not allowing\nfraudulent traffic there to be exercised, cast the buyers and sellers out\nof the temple), we firmly forbid any one to keep a market in the churches,\nthe porches, and cemeteries thereunto belonging, or other holy places of\nour diocese, on the Lord's day or other festivals, or to presume to\ntraffic or hold any secular pleasures therein; and let there be no\nwrestlings, shootings, or plays, which may be the cause of sin,\ndissension, hatred, or fighting, therein performed; but let every Catholic\ncome thither to pray, and to implore pardon for his sin.\" About this time,\na similar charge was made by the Archbishop of Canterbury.\n\nIn the year 1409, a statute of Henry IV. ordered:\n\n\"He that playeth at unlawful games on Sundays and other festival days\nprohibited by the statute, shall be six days imprisoned.\"\n\nAt Hull, in 1428, the local bench of magistrates drew up a code of\nregulations respecting Sunday trading. The chief orders were as follow:\n\n\"That no markets be held upon Sunday, nor any merchandise or goods sold\nthereon, under penalty of 6s. 8d. to the seller and 3s. 4d. to the buyer,\nexcept according to ancient custom, from Lammas to Michaelmas.\"\n\n\"That no butcher sell or expose for sale any meat on Sunday, under the\naforesaid penalty.\"\n\n\"That no cooks nor victuallers dress any meat on Sunday, except for\nstrangers, and that, too, before eleven o'clock.\"\n\n\"That no tradesmen keep their shops open on Sunday, nor sell any goods;\nnor any vintners or ale-sellers deliver or sell ale or wine on Sunday,\nunder the aforesaid penalties.\"\n\n\"Any person who shall inform against transgressors, shall be entitled to\none-eighth over and above half of the sums so forfeited, provided he\nacted out of pure zeal, devoid of self-interest or malice.\"\n\nThe City Records of Worcester contain some quaint items on the observance\nof Sunday. We may infer from a regulation made by the local authorities,\nat the commencement of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, that the laws were\nnot very stringent respecting Sunday trading. It was resolved that the\nshopkeepers were to open \"only one top window on a Sunday.\" \"This was,\" to\nuse the words of a local historian, \"a decided case of huckstership\ndividing its affection between God and Mammon.\"\n\nThe strangest circumstances anent Sunday trading remain to be told, and\nbelong to the days of Charles II. It is stated on reliable authority, that\na meat market was held at Wigton, Cumberland, on a Sunday, and that the\nbutchers suspended carcases of meat at the church door, to attract the\nattention of persons attending divine service. \"It was,\" says the writer\nfrom whom we glean these particulars, \"even no uncommon thing for people\nwho had made their bargains before the service, to hang their joints of\nmeat over the backs of their seats until the ceremony was concluded.\" The\npractice was so distasteful to the priest, that, being unable to prevent\nit, he made a journey to London on foot, with a petition to the king to\nalter the market day to Tuesday, a request which was readily granted.\n\nSunday trading prevailed for a long period. Adam Clarke was appointed to\npreach in the Norfolk circuit in 1783, and he says here \"multitudes, even\nthose called religious people, bought and sold without any remorse.\"\n\nIt was the common practice in country districts, even down to the\ncommencement of the nineteenth century, for the parish clerk, on a Sunday\nmorning, to mount a grave stone, and for the worshippers to gather round\nhim and listen to the announcements of coming auction sales, particulars\nof rewards offered for the conviction of persons who had been guilty of\ntrespassing and committing wilful damage in the district--indeed, all\nkinds of workaday matters were made known. Some of the old parish accounts\ncontain references to payments made to the parish clerks for services\nrendered. It appears from the accounts of Newchurch, Rossendale, that the\nparish clerk stood in his desk in the church, and gave out secular\nnotices, in which the people were supposed to take an interest. There is a\nlegend still lingering in the district, that bull-baitings were amongst\nthe matters proclaimed by the parish clerk of this church. The church\naccounts state under the year 1804:\n\n  \"Parish Clerk in giving Public Notices in the Church      0 2 6.\"\n\nAt Ravenstonedale, when the practice of announcing sales, etc., in the\nchurchyard ceased, the attendance at the ancient parish church diminished.\nThe old parish clerks made many amusing blunders when giving out the\npublic notices, and the following illustration may be given as an example.\nWe are told that he was instructed to make known a change of service, as\nfollows: \"On Sunday next, the service in this church will be held in the\nafternoon, and on the following Sunday, it will be held in the morning,\nand so on alternately until further notice.\" Instead of delivering the\npreceding notice, he said: \"On Sunday next, the morning service in this\nchurch will be held in the afternoon, and on the following Sunday, the\nafternoon service will be held in the morning, and so on to all eternity.\"\n\nIn the days of yore, stage plays were performed on Sunday, not only in the\nchurches, but in the theatres. Old church accounts contain many items\nbearing on plays in parish churches. The books of St. Martin's, Leicester,\nstate:\n\n  \"1560. Pd. to the plears for their paynes      vij.d.\"\n\nThe Bewdley chapel-wardens' accounts for the year 1572, includes a\ndisbursement as follows:\n\n  \"Paid unto the quenes plaiers in the church      6s. 8d.\"\n\nThe Corporation of Lyme, in 1558, paid 4s. 5d. to the Queen's players, who\nperformed in the parish church. \"We may suppose,\" says Mr. George Roberts\nin his \"Social History,\" \"that money was taken at the doors by some\nofficial of the mayor, who ascertained the deficiency to be as above.\" The\nSyston registers state:\n\n  \"1602. Paid to Lord Morden's players, because they should not play in\n         the church      xij.d.\"\n\nPrior to this period, not a few attempts had been made to stop acting in\nchurches. Bonner, Bishop of London, issued, in 1542, a proclamation to the\nclergy in his diocese, prohibiting \"all manner of common plays, games, or\ninterludes to be played, set forth, or declared within their churches or\nchapels.\" The author of a tract, published in 1572, writes strongly\nrespecting the clergy neglecting their duty, and adverts to acting in\nchurches. Speaking of the clergyman conducting the service, the writer\nsays: \"He againe posteth it over as fast as he can gallop; for he either\nhath two places to serve, or else there are some games to be played in the\nafternoon, as lying the whetstone, heathenish dancing of the ring, a beare\nor bull to be bayted, or else jack-an-apes to ryde on horse back, or an\nenterlude to be played; and if no place else can be gotten, it must be\ndone in the church.\"\n\nTwo companies of players, in 1539, visited Knowsley; one was the Queen's\nplayers, and the other the Earl of Essex's players. On the Sunday after\ntheir arrival, the rector of Standish preached in the morning, the Queen's\nplayers acted in the afternoon, and the Earl's players at night. Other\nSunday performances were given in the district by the actors at this time.\n\nBefore 1579, Sunday appears to have been the only day upon which plays\nwere performed, but after that year they were acted on other days as well\nas on Sunday. It was not the fashion for females to visit theatres, but at\nOxford we find that Queen Elizabeth witnessed a Sunday theatrical\nexhibition. James I., at his Court on a Sunday, had plays provided. The\nBishop of Lincoln, on Sunday night, September 27th, 1631, had performed,\nin his London house, the play of \"A Midsummer Night's Dream,\" and for this\nhe was indicted by the Puritans. Masques on a Sunday night at this period\nwere extremely popular.\n\nDuring a visit of James I. to Oxford, in 1621, on a Sunday in August, the\nuniversity men produced a piece called the \"Marriage of Arts.\" It was not\na successful entertainment, the king and his friends failing to appreciate\nthe wit of the undergraduates. Says an epigram of the period:\n\n  \"At Christ Church, 'Marriage' done before the King,\n  Least that some mates should want an offering,\n  The King himself did offer--what, I pray?\n  He offered twice or thrice to go away.\"\n\nIn the town of Hull, the player, about this period, does not appear to\nhave been regarded with much esteem. The earliest notice of theatres in\nHull occurs in the year 1598, and we learn from Mr. Sheahan, the local\nhistorian: \"That the Mayor issued an order, in which 'divers idle, lewd\npersons, players, or setters of plays, tragedies, comedies, and\ninterludes,' who were in the habit of coming to the town, were denounced.\"\nIn this document, it was further set forth that persons patronising their\nperformances would have to forfeit 2s. 6d. for every offence.\n\nFootball was introduced into England by the Romans, and it is our oldest\nsport. In past ages, it was a popular Sunday amusement, and, in not a few\nplaces, it was played until the earlier years of the present century.\nAttempts were made to prevent its being practised during the time of\nDivine service. An entry bearing on this subject appears in the parish\naccounts of Colne, Lancashire. The item is as follows:\n\n  \"1713. My charges with ye men taken playing at football in ye tyme of\n         Divine servis to ye Justice      00 01 00.\"\n\nThe local authorities were equally severe on Sunday idlers. The accounts\nfor the year 1737 include a charge \"for warrant to take up idle persons on\nthe Sabbath-day, L0 2s. 0d.\" An annual football match was formerly played\nat Beverley on the Sunday preceding the races. The game commenced on the\nracecourse, and was attended by a large number of persons from the\nsurrounding villages. The Corporation made several attempts to stop the\ncustom, but without avail until 1825, and then not without a struggle. A\nnumber of constables received special instructions to stop the sport, but\nthey were, however, severely handled, and the match was played. The\naggressors were subsequently tried, and convicted of assault, and\nimprisoned with hard labour for a time. This action prevented any further\nSunday football playing at Beverley.\n\nA good anecdote is related in Dawson's \"History of Skipton,\" respecting\nSunday football playing. It is stated that the Rev. J. Alcock, B.A., of\nBurnsall, was on his way to conduct afternoon service, when he saw a\nnumber of boys playing football. \"With a solemn shake of the head,\" says\nMr. Dawson, \"he rebuked them. 'This is very wrong, you are breaking the\nSabbath!' The remonstrance fell unheeded, and the next moment the ball\nrolled to Mr. Alcock's feet. He gave a tremendous kick, sending it high in\nthe air. 'That's the way to play football!' he said to the ring of\nadmiring athletes, and then, amidst their universal praise, he proceeded\non his way to church.\"\n\nBowling was, in bygone ages, a popular Sunday pastime. Ladies appear to\nhave greatly enjoyed the sport. Charles I. and Archbishop Laud were both\nvery fond of bowling. When Laud was taken to task for playing on Sunday,\nhe defended himself by showing that it was well known to be one of the\nfavourite amusements of the Church of Geneva. When John Knox, the Scottish\nreformer, visited Calvin, he arrived on a Sunday, and found Calvin\nenjoying a game at bowls. It is not stated if Knox joined in the pastime,\nbut we certainly know that he travelled, wrote letters, and even\nentertained Ambassadors and others on this day. On a Sunday, in the year\n1562, Knox attended the marriage of James Stuart (afterwards the Earl of\nMurray), and it is asserted that he countenanced a display which included\na banquet, a marquee, dancing, fireworks, etc. Not a few of the godly\nlifted up their voices in condemnation, not so much, we infer, on account\nof the day, but the extravagances to which the amusements were carried.\nAbout half a century later, was married, on Shrove Sunday, 1613,\nFrederick, the Prince Palatine, and the Princess Elizabeth. The day ended,\nwe are told, according to the custom of such assemblies, with dancing,\nmasking, and revelling. In the works of Shakespeare and other dramatists\nwill be found many allusions to Sunday weddings.\n\nWe gather from numerous Acts of Parliament, and other sources, that, after\nattending church, the people in the old days devoted themselves to \"honest\nrecreation and manly sports.\" Particular attention was paid to the\npractice of archery. Richard II., for example, in the year 1388, directed\nthat his subjects, who were servants of husbandry, and artificers, should\nuse the bow on Sundays and other holidays, and they were enjoined to give\nup \"tennis, football, dice, casting the stone, and other importune games.\"\nThe next king, Henry IV., strictly enforced the statute made by his\npredecessor, and those who infringed it were liable to be imprisoned for\nsix days.\n\nSunday was a great day for bear baiting. It was on the last Sunday of\nApril, 1520, that part of the chancel of St. Mary's Church, Beverley,\nfell, killing fifty-five people, who had assembled for the celebration of\nmass. A bear baiting, held in another part of the town, at the same time,\nhad drawn a much greater crowd together, and hence the origin of the\nYorkshire saying, \"It is better to be at the baiting of a bear, than the\nsinging of a mass.\" At an accident in a London bear-garden, the people did\nnot fare so well, for we learn that on a \"Sunday afternoon, in the year\n1582, the scaffolds being overcharged with spectators, fell during the\nperformance, and a great number of persons were killed or maimed by the\naccident.\"\n\nWe get a good idea of the Sunday amusements in vogue at the time of\nElizabeth, from a license the Queen granted to a poor man, permitting him\nto provide for the public certain Sunday sports. \"To all mayors, sheriffs,\nconstables, and other head officers within the county of Middlesex.--After\nour hearty commendations, whereas we are informed that one John Seconton,\npoulter, dwelling within the parish of St. Clement's Danes, being a poor\nman, having four small children, and fallen into decay, is licensed to\nhave and use some plays and games at or upon several Sundays, for his\nbetter relief, comfort, and sustentation, within the county of Middlesex,\nto commence and begin at and from the 22nd of May next coming, after the\ndate hereof, and not to remain in one place above three several Sundays;\nand we, considering that great resort of people is like to come thereunto,\nwe will and require of you, as well for good order, as also for the\npreservation of the Queen's Majesty's peace, that you take with you four\nor five of the discreet and substantial men within your office or\nliberties where the games shall be put in practice, then and there to\nforesee and do your endeavour to your best in that behalf, during the\ncontinuance of the games or plays, which games are hereafter severally\nmentioned; that is to say, the shooting with the standard, the shooting\nwith the broad arrow, the shooting at twelve score prick, the shooting at\nthe Turk, the leaping for men, the running for men, the wrestling, the\nthrowing of the sledge, and the pitching of the bar, with all such other\ngames as have at any time heretofore or now be licensed, used, or played.\nGiven the 26th day of April, in the eleventh year of the Queen's Majesty's\nreign.\"--[1569.]\n\nThe Puritans were making their power felt early in the seventeenth\ncentury, and doing their utmost to curtail Sunday amusements. The history\nof the north of England supplies not a few facts bearing on this matter.\nOne illustration we may give you as an instance of many which might be\nmentioned. Elias Micklethwaite filled the office of chief magistrate of\nYork, in the year 1615, and during his mayoralty, he attempted to enforce\na strict observance of the Sabbath. During the Sunday, he kept closed the\ncity gates, and thus prevented the inhabitants from going into the\ncountry for pleasure.\n\nSpeaking of city gates, we are reminded of the fact that great precaution\nused to be taken against the Scotch in the North of England. Many were the\nbattles between the men of England and Scotland. A Scotchman was not\nformerly permitted to enter the city of York without a license from the\nLord Mayor, the Warden, or the Constable, on pain of imprisonment. In\n1501, hammers were placed on each of the bars for Scotchmen to knock\nbefore entering.\n\nTo return to Sunday amusements, James I., in the year 1617, coming from\nScotland to London, passed through Lancashire, and was received with every\ntoken of loyalty. He was entertained at Hoghton Tower in a manner\nbefitting a monarch. It is not without interest to state how the king and\nhis suite spent the Sunday at this stronghold on the 17th August, 1617. A\nsermon was first preached by Bishop Morton; next, dinner was served, which\nwas of a substantial character. About four o'clock, a rush-bearing,\npreceded by \"piping,\" was witnessed by the king. After the rustic\nmerriment, the company partook of supper, which was almost as formidable\nas the dinner. After supper, the king repaired to the garden, and a masque\nof noblemen, knights, and gentlemen passed before him. Speeches were made,\nand lastly, the night was concluded by \"dancing the Huckler, Tom Bedlo,\nand the cowp Justice of the Peace.\" It is stated that Bishop Morton\ncondemned the profaneness of the company who had disturbed the service at\nthe church. During the king's visit to the country, it is recorded that a\nlarge number of the tradesmen, peasants, and servants, of the County\nPalatine, presented a petition, praying that they might be permitted to\nhave the old out-door pastimes after the services at the church were over.\nThe king granted their request, and issued a proclamation from his palace,\nat Greenwich, on May 24th, 1618, sanctioning various sports after divine\nservice on Sunday. It was meant only for Lancashire. The recreations named\nare dancing, archery, leaping, vaulting, May games, Witsun-ales,\nmorris-dancers, and setting up of May-poles. The document, known as the\n\"Book of Sports,\" gave considerable offence to the Puritans. Clergymen\nwere directed to read it in their churches.\n\nThe question came forward under the next king, Charles I., and on October\n18th, 1633, he ratified and published his father's declaration. This\naction, in many quarters, was most displeasing, and a number of the clergy\nrefused to read the order. One of the ministers was, in 1637, deprived and\nexcommunicated by the High Commission Court for not acceding to the\nrequest. Six years later, namely, in 1643, the Lords and Commons ordered\nthe \"Book of Sports\" to be burned by the common hangman, at Cheapside and\nother public places.\n\nWe have now brought down our investigations to the days of the\nCommonwealth. King Charles's life closed in a tragic manner, at the hands\nof the headsman, on a scaffold erected before one of the windows of the\nPalace of Whitehall. Old times are changed, and old manners gone; a\nstranger fills the Stuart throne. In our pity for unfortunate Charles, we\nmust not forget that English life under the Stuarts became demoralised,\nthe court setting a baneful example, which the people were not slow to\nfollow. Licentiousness and blasphemy were mistaken for signs of gentility,\nand little regard was paid to virtue. Debauchery was general, and at the\nfestive seasons was carried to an alarming extent. The Puritans, with all\ntheir faults, and it must be admitted that their faults were many, had a\nregard for sound Christian principles; and the prevailing lack of\nreverence for virtue, morality, and piety, was most distasteful to them,\nand caused them to try to put an end to the follies and vices of the age.\n\nVarious Acts of Parliament were passed to check work and amusement on the\nLords Day. We get from the Puritans our present manner of observing\nSunday. The following are a few extracts from the \"Directory of Public\nPrayers, reading of the Holy Scriptures,\" etc., which was adopted by the\nPuritan Parliament in 1644. It is therein stated:\n\n\"The Lord's Day ought to be so remembered beforehand, as that all worldly\nbusiness of our ordinary callings may be so ordered, and so timely and\nseasonably laid aside, as they may not be impediments to the due\nsanctifying of the day when it comes.\n\nThe whole day is to be celebrated as holy to the Lord, both in public and\nin private, as being the Christian Sabbath, to which ends it is requisite\nthat there be a holy cessation or resting all the day, from all\nunnecessary labour, and an abstaining not only from all sports and\npastimes, but also from all worldly words and thoughts.\n\nThat the diet on that day be so ordered as that neither servants be\nunnecessarily detained from the public worship of God, nor any other\npersons hindered from sanctifying that day.\n\nThat there be private preparation of every person and family by prayer for\nthemselves, for God's assistance of the minister, and for a blessing upon\nthe ministry, and by such other holy exercises as may further dispose them\nto a more comfortable communion with God in his public ordinances.\n\nThat all the people meet so timely for public worship that the whole\ncongregation may be present at the beginning, and with one heart solemnly\njoin together in all parts of the public worship, and not depart till\nafter the blessing.\n\nThat what time is vacant, between or after the solemn meetings of the\ncongregation in public, be spent in reading, meditation, repetition of\nservices (especially by calling their families to an account of what they\nhave heard, and catechising of them), holy conferences, prayer for a\nblessing upon the public ordinances, singing of Psalms, visiting the sick,\nrelieving the poor, and such like duties of piety, charity, and mercy,\naccounting the Sabbath a delight.\"\n\nEarnest attempts were made to improve the morals of the people, but the\nzeal of the Puritans was often not tempered with mercy, and frequently\ndisplayed a want of common-sense. In America, the Puritans made some very\ncurious Sunday laws. Walking, riding, cooking, and many other natural\nneeds of life were forbidden. Sports and recreations were punished by a\nfine of forty shillings and a public whipping. In New England, a mother\nmight not kiss her child on a Sunday. An English author, visiting America\nin the year 1699, supplies interesting details anent Sunday laws at that\ntime. Says the traveller: \"If you kiss a woman in public, though offered\nas a courteous salutation, if any information is given to the select\nmembers, both shall be whipped or fined.\" As a slight compensation for the\nseverity of the regulation, he adds that the \"good humoured lasses, to\nmake amends, will kiss the offender in a corner.\" He adverts to the\ncaptain of a ship, who, on his return from a long voyage, met his wife in\nthe street, and kissed her, and for the offence had to pay ten shillings.\nAnother Boston man was fined the same amount for kissing his wife in his\nown garden. The culprit refused to pay the money and had to endure twenty\nlashes.\n\nTobacco, in Virginia, took the place of money as a medium of exchange. A\nperson absenting himself from church was fined one pound of tobacco, and\nfor slandering a clergyman, eight hundred pounds. Ten pounds covered the\ncost of a dinner, and eight pounds a gallon of strong ale, and innkeepers\nwere forbidden to charge more.\n\nAn important Act was passed in the reign of Charles II., in the year 1676,\nfor the better observance of the Lord's day. It prohibited travelling, the\npursuit of business, and all sales, except that of milk. Old church\nrecords and other documents contain numerous references to Sunday\ntravelling, and, as an example, we may state that it appears, from the\nbooks of St. James's Church, Bristol, at a vestry meeting, held in 1679,\nfour persons were found guilty of walking \"on foot to Bath on Lord's day,\"\nand were each fined twenty shillings.\n\nIn past ages, attending church was not a matter of choice, but one of\nobligation. Several Acts of Parliament were made bearing on this subject.\nLaws of Edward VI. and of Elizabeth provided as follows: \"That every\ninhabitant of the realm or dominion shall diligently and faithfully,\nhaving no lawful or reasonable excuse to be absent, endeavour themselves\nto their parish church or chapel accustomed; or, upon reasonable let, to\nsome usual place where common prayer shall be used--on Sundays and holy\ndays--upon penalty of forfeiting, for every non-attendance, twelve pence,\nto be levied by the Churchwardens to the use of the poor.\" The enactments\nregarding holy days were allowed to be disregarded. In the reign of James\nI., the penalty of a shilling for not attending church on Sunday was\nre-enforced. Sunday, only in respect of the attendance at church, is named\nin the statutes of William and Mary and George III., by which exceptions\nin favour of dissenters from the Church of England were made. Not a few\nsuits were commenced against persons for not attending church. An early\ncase is noted in the church book of St. James's, Bristol. On July 6th,\n1598, Henry Anstey, a resident in that parish, had, in answer to a\nsummons, to appear before the vestry for not attending the church. At\nKingston-on-Thames, we gather from the parish accounts that the local\nauthorities, in 1635, \"Received from idle persons, being from the church\non Sabbaths, 3s. 10d.\" Some more recent cases are named by Professor Amos,\nin his Treatise on Sir Matthew Hale's \"History of the Pleas of the Crown.\"\nIn the year 1817, it is stated that, \"at the Spring Assizes of Bedford,\nSir Montague Burgoyne was prosecuted for having been absent from church\nfor several months; when the case was defeated by proof of the defendant\nbeing indisposed. And in the Report of the Prison Inspectors to the House\nof Lords, in 1841, it appeared that, in 1830, ten persons were in prison\nfor recusancy in not attending their parish churches. A mother was\nprosecuted by her own son. It is clear that, in many instances, personal\nand not religious feeling gave rise to the actions.\" The laws respecting\nrecusants were repealed in the year 1844.\n\n\n\n\nThe Easter Sepulchre.\n\n\nSeveral of our old churches contain curious stone structures called Easter\nSepulchres. They are generally on the north side of the chancel, and\nresemble, in design, a tomb. Before the Reformation, it was the practice\non the evening of Good Friday, to place the Crucifix and Host in these\nsepulchres with much ceremony. Numerous candles were lighted, and watchers\nstood by until the dawn of Easter Day. Then, with every sign of devotion,\nthe Crucifix and Host were once more removed to the altar, and the church\nre-echoed with joyous praise.\n\nConcerning this ceremony, Cranmer says that it was done \"In remembrance of\nChrist's sepulture, which was prophesied by Esaias to be glorious, and to\nsignify there was buried the pure and undefiled body of Christ, without\nspot of sin, which was never separated from the Godhead, and, therefore,\nas David expressed it in the fifteenth Psalm, it could not see corruption,\nnor death detain or hold Him, but, He should rise again, to our great hope\nand comfort; and, therefore, the church adorns it with lights to express\nthe great joy they have of that glorious triumph over death, the devil,\nand hell.\"\n\nWe have adverted to Easter Sepulchres of stone remaining at the present\ntime, but they were by no means the only description erected. The Rev.\nMackenzie E. C. Walcott, in his \"Sacred Archaeology,\" names, as follow,\nfive sorts of sepulchres. The first, a chapel, as at Winchester; second, a\nwall recess, usually in the north side of the chancel, as at Bottesford,\nLincolnshire, and Stanton St. John; third, a temporary structure,\nsumptuously enriched, as at St. Mary, Redcliffe, Bristol; fourth, a tomb,\nunder which a founder, by special privilege, was buried; fifth, a vaulted\nenclosure, as at Norwich, which, like a sepulchre at Northwold, has an\naperture for watching the light, without requiring the person so employed\nto enter the choir.\n\nThere was an imposing example at Seville, raised over the tomb of\nColumbus. It was constructed of wood, and was three storeys high, and\nbrilliantly lighted. According to an old poet:\n\n  \"With tapers all the people come, and at the barriars stay,\n  Where downe upon their knees they fall, and night and day they pray,\n  And violets and every kinde of flowers about the grave\n  They straw, and bring all their giftes and presents that they have.\"\n\nWe are told that in many places, the steps of the sepulchre were covered\nwith black cloth. Soldiers in armour, keeping guard, rendered the ceremony\nimpressive. A gentleman named Roger Martin, who lived at the time of the\nReformation, wrote an interesting account of the church of Melford,\nSuffolk. The following particulars are drawn from his manuscript\nrespecting the Easter Sepulchre: \"In the quire, there was a fair painted\nframe of timber, to be set up about Maunday Thursday, with holes for a\nnumber of fair tapers to stand in before the sepulchre, and to be lighted\nin the service time. Sometimes, it was set overthwart the quire, before\nthe high altar, the sepulchre being alwaies placed, and finely garnished,\nat the north end of high altar, between that and Mr. Clopton's little\nchapel there, in a vacant place of the wall, I think upon a tomb of one\nof his ancestors, the said frame with the tapers was set near to the steps\ngoing up to the said altar.\" The tomb referred to is that of John Clopton,\nEsquire, of Kentwell Hall, who filled the office of Sheriff of the county\nof Suffolk in the year 1451, and died in 1497. An inventory of church\ngoods belonging to Melford Church, under date of April 6th, 1541, has a\nstatement to the effect that \"There was given to the church of Melford,\ntwo stained cloths, whereof the one hangeth towards Mr. Martin's ile, and\nthe other to be used about the sepulchre at Easter time.\"\n\nIn a curious work entitled \"The Ancient Rites and Monuments of the\nMonastical and Cathedral Church of Durham,\" collected from out of ancient\nmanuscripts about the time of the suppression, and published by J. D.\n(Davies), of Kidwelly, in 1672, there is an interesting account of a\ncustom enacted at Durham. The following account is supposed to have been\nwritten in 1593, and, perhaps, by one who took part in the ceremonies, at\nall events, the writer was conversant with them. \"Within the Church of\nDurham, upon Good Friday, there was a marvellous solemn service, in which\nservice time, after the Passion was sung, two of the ancient monks took a\ngoodly large crucifix, all of gold, of the picture of our Saviour Christ,\nnayled upon the cross.... The service being ended, the said two monks\ncarried the cross to the sepulchre with great reverence, which sepulchre\nwas set up in the morning on the north side of the quire, nigh the high\naltar, before the service time, and they did lay it within the said\nsepulchre with great devotion, with another picture of our Saviour Christ,\nin whose Breast they did enclose, with great reverence, the most holy and\nblessed Sacrament of the Altar, censing and praying unto it upon their\nknees, a great space; and setting two lighted tapers before it, which did\nburn till Easter Day in the morning, at which time it was taken forth....\nThere was very solemn service betwixt three and four of the clock in the\nmorning, in honour of the Resurrection, where two of the eldest monks in\nthe quire came to the sepulchre, set up upon Good Fryday, after the\nPassion, all covered with red velvet embroider'd with gold, and did then\ncense it, either of the monks with a pair of silver censers, sitting on\ntheir knees before the sepulchre. Then they, both rising, came to the\nsepulchre, out of which, with great reverence, they took a marvellous\nbeautiful image of our Saviour, representing the Resurrection, with a\ncross in his hand, on the breast was enclosed, in most bright chrystal,\nthe holy Sacrament of the Altar, through which chrystal, the Blessed Host\nwas conspicious to the beholders. Then, after the elevation of the said\npicture, carried by the said two monks, upon a fair velvet cushion, all\nembroider'd, singing the anthems of _Christus Resurgens_, they brought it\nto the high altar.\" We gather from the preceding and other accounts, that\nthe sepulchre at Durham was a temporary erection, consisting of a wooden\nframework, having silk hangings.\n\nAs might be expected, much interesting information may be found in old\nchurchwardens' accounts bearing on this theme. The records of St. Mary\nRedcliffe Church, Bristol, contain the following entries:\n\n\"Item--That Maister Canynge hath delivered, this 4th day of July, in the\nyear of Our Lord 1470, to Maister Nicholas Petters, vicar of St. Mary\nRedcliffe, Moses Conterin, Philip Bartholomew, Procurators of St. Mary\nRedcliffe aforesaid, a new sepulchre, well gilt with golde, and a civer\nthereto.\n\nItem--An image of God Almighty rising out of the same sepulchre, with all\nthe ordinance that longeth thereto; that is to say, a lathe made of\ntimber, and the ironwork thereto.\n\nItem--Thereto longeth Heaven, made of timber and stayned clothes.\n\n[Illustration: EASTER SEPULCHRE AT PATRINGTON.]\n\nItem--Hell, made of timber, and the ironwork thereto, with Divels to the\nnumber of 13.\n\nItem--4 Knights, armed, keeping the sepulchre, with their weapons in their\nhands; that is to say, 2 axes and 2 spears, with 2 paves. [A pave was a\nshield.]\n\nItem--4 payr of Angels wings for 4 Angels, made of timber, and well\npainted.\n\nItem--The Fadre [_i.e._, the Father], the Crowne and Visage, the ball with\na cross upon it, well gilt with fine gould.\n\nItem--The Holy Ghost coming out of Heaven into the sepulchre.\n\nItem--Longeth to the 4 Angels 4 Chevelures.\"\n\nWe cull from the accounts of St. Helen's, Abingdon, Berkshire, some quaint\nitems as follows:\n\n  \"1557. To the sexton for watching the sepulter two nights, 8d.\n\n  1559. Payde for making the sepulture, 10s.\n\n        For peynting the same sepulture, 3s.\n\n        For stones and other charges about it, 4s. 6d.\n\n        To the sexten, for meat and drink and watching the sepulture\n          according to custom, 22d.\"\n\nIn this case, of course, the sepulchre was merely a temporary erection. In\nthe churchwardens' accounts of Waltham Abbey Church are the following\nentries:\n\n  \"1542. Payde for watching the sepulchre, 4d.\n\n  1544. Payde for watching the sepulchre, 8d.\"\n\nAmongst the churches of this country where permanent Easter Sepulchres\nstill remain, are the following: Heckington, Navenby, Northwold, Holcombe,\nBurnell, Southpool, Hawton, and Patrington. We give an illustration of the\ninteresting example at Patrington, East Yorkshire. Mr. Bloxham speaks of\nit as probably the work of the earlier years of the fifteenth century. The\ncarvings are of freestone, and represent the watching of three soldiers,\nbeneath three ogee-shaped canopies. On their shields are heraldic designs.\nThe other figures represent our Saviour, emerging from the tomb, and two\nangels are raising the lid of the coffin. This is certainly a very\ninteresting example, but perhaps not so fine as those of Navenby and\nHeckington, Lincolnshire.\n\n\n\n\nSt. Paul's Cross.\n\n\nDeath on the cross was regarded as the most degrading form of capital\npunishment. The Romans executed on it only slaves and the lowest class of\nmalefactors. It was a cruel mode of punishment, as a person might linger\nalive on it for days. It was customary to erect crosses without the gates\nof towns, but in places largely frequented by the people. The name of the\ncriminal, and the nature of his offence, were inscribed on a tablet, for\nthe information of the public. The crucifixion of Christ on the cross, has\ncaused Christians to reverence it, and the sign of the cross to be\nregarded as a holy sign.\n\n[Illustration: EYAM CROSS.]\n\nIn bygone times, crosses of various kinds might be seen in England in\nevery direction. A writer says that they were as common in the olden days\nas milestones are at the present time. The Island of Iona, it is\nasserted, once possessed 360 crosses, but now only one is left, the famous\nrunic cross of St. Martin's. Some interesting examples of runic crosses\nstill remain, and a good specimen may still be seen in the churchyard of\nEyam, Derbyshire. It is generally supposed to have been brought to the\nchurchyard from the adjacent moor. The cross is richly embellished with\nsymbolical devices on the arms, some figures are blowing trumpets, others\nholding crosses, and one holding a book. On one side of the shaft is a\ncarving of the Virgin and Child.\n\nA complete history of the cross cannot be attempted here. We must, in this\nchapter, content ourselves with an account of the Preaching Cross of St.\nPaul's, London. Its history is linked with the religious and political\nlife of England. Preaching crosses were by no means uncommon in bygone\ntimes, and the most famous was the one under notice. It is not known when\na pulpit cross was first erected at St. Paul's, but it has been\nascertained that it was standing in 1241, and that most likely it existed\nlong prior to that period.\n\nThe Mayor, in 1259, was commanded by Henry III., to compel all city youths\nwho had reached the age of fourteen and upwards, to take, at St. Paul's\nCross, an oath of allegiance to him and his heirs.\n\nIn 1382, the cross was thrown down by an earthquake. An effort was soon\nmade by the Bishop of London to rebuild the cross, and indulgences were\ngranted to those who contributed to the work. The Rev. W. Sparrow Simpson,\nD.D., F.S.A., in his \"Chapters in the History of Old St. Paul's,\" gives\nthe following literal translation of the original document, which is\nstill preserved in the Cathedral record-room: \"To the sons of our Holy\nMother, the Church, under whose notice, these present letters shall come,\nWilliam, by Divine permission, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all\nEngland, and Legate of the Apostolic See, wishes eternal health in the\nLord. We esteem it a service pleasant and acceptable to God, whensoever,\nby the alluring gifts of indulgences, we stir up the minds of the faithful\nto a greater readiness in contributing their gifts to such works as\nconcern the honour of the Divine Name. Since then, the High Cross in the\ngreater churchyard of the Church of London (where the Word of God is\nhabitually preached both to the clergy and laity, being a place very\npublic and well known), by strong winds and tempests of the air and\nterrible earthquakes, hath become so frail and injured, that, unless some\nmeans be quickly taken for its repair and restoration, it will fall\nutterly into ruin; therefore, by the mercy of Almighty God, trusting in\nthe merits and prayers of the most Blessed Virgin Mary, His Mother, and of\nthe Blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, and of all the Saints, We, by these\npresents, mercifully grant in the Lord, to all the servants of Christ\nthroughout our province of Canterbury, wheresoever living, truly\nrepenting and confessing their sins, who, for the restoration and repair\nof the aforesaid Cross, shall give, bequeath, or in any manner assign, of\nthe goods committed to them, gifts of charity, Forty Days of Indulgence.\nIn testimony whereof, we have to this present letter affixed our seal.\nGiven in Manor of Fulham, in the diocese of London, on the 18th May, in\nthe year of our Lord one thousand, three hundred, and eighty-seven, and in\nthe sixth year of our translation.\"\n\nThis document was not confined to London and its neighbourhood, the\nBishops of Ely, Bath, Chester, Carlisle, Llandaff, and Bangor approved of\nit, and assisted in its circulation in their dioceses. Bishop Kempe, who\nheld the see of London, appears to have been active in this movement. The\namount realised by means of the indulgences is not known, but sufficient\nwas collected to enable the Bishop of London to rebuild the cross.\n\nPenitents, under ecclesiastical censure, came here to perform public\npenance; and perhaps the most familiar name of those who came is Jane\nShore. It was in the year 1483 that she did public penance. She was one of\nthe mistresses of Edward IV., who died in 1483, and, within two months of\nhis death, she was tried by Richard III. for sorcery and witchcraft, but\nhe failed in proving his charges. He took property from her equal to about\nL20,000 of the present time. His next step was to bring her before the\nEcclesiastical Courts and have her tried for incontinence. It was for this\ncrime that she had to do penance in the streets of London. She proceeded\nfrom the Bishop's Palace, clothed in a white sheet, and carrying in her\nhand a wax taper, and before her was carried a cross. We are told by Rowe:\n\n  \"Submissive, sad, and lowly was her look,\n  A burning taper in her hand she bore,\n  And on her shoulders, carelessly confus'd\n  With loose neglect, her lovely tresses hung,\n  Upon her cheeks a faintish flush was spread,\n  Feeble she seem'd, and sorely smit with pain,\n  While barefoot as she trod the flinty pavement,\n  Her footsteps all along were mark'd with blood.\n  Yet silent still she pass'd, and unrepining,\n  Her streaming eyes bent ever on the earth,\n  Except when, in some bitter pang of sorrow,\n  To Heaven she seem'd in fervent zeal to raise\n  And beg that mercy man denied her here.\"\n\nIt was on June 19th, 1483, that Dr. Ralph Shaw, brother of the Lord Mayor,\npreached a famous sermon at the cross. Richard, Duke of Gloucester,\nintended seizing the crown. Dr. Shaw was directed to make the purpose\nknown in his sermon, and, accordingly, took for his text the fourth\nchapter of the Book of Wisdom: \"Bastard slips shall not take root.\" He\ntried to prove the illegitimacy of Edward V. and his brother, saying that\nwhen Edward IV. married their mother, Elizabeth Woodville, he was already\nthe husband of Lady Eleanor Boteler, of Sudeley. Next, he expressed a\ndoubt if Edward was in reality the son of Richard, Duke of York, and\nentitled to the crown of England. He made a strong point of the fact that\nno likeness existed between him and his reputed father. Continuing his\nsermon, he observed that \"my Lord Protector, that very noble prince, the\npattern of all heroic deeds, represented the very face and mind of the\ngreat Duke, his father; he is the perfect image of his father; his\nfeatures are the same, and the very express likeness of that noble Duke.\"\nSir Thomas More says that it had been arranged that, when the words had\nbeen spoken, the Protector should have come amongst the assembly, \"to the\nend that these words, reciting with his presence, might have been taken by\nthe hearers as though the Holy Ghost had put them in the preacher's\nmouth, and should have moved the people even then to cry, 'King Richard!\nKing Richard!' that it might have been after said that he was specially\nchosen by God, and in a manner by miracle. But the device failed, either\nby the Protector's negligence, or the preacher's overmuch diligence.\"\nThere is not any evidence that the device was contemplated. It is\nsuggested that the sermon is not correctly reported, and it is believed\nthat Richard would not have submitted to any aspersion on the chastity of\nhis mother.\n\nWilliam Tyndale's translation of the Bible was publicly burned in front of\nthe cross in the year 1527. \"Cardinal Wolsey,\" writes W. H. Davenport\nAdams, in his \"Book about London,\" \"sat enthroned in the midst of bishops,\nmitred abbots, and princes, and attended by a large concourse of chaplains\nand spiritual doctors. Opposite, on a platform, knelt six heretics,\nclothed in penitential garb--one holding a lighted taper of five pounds\nweight, the others carrying symbolic faggots, signifying the fate they had\ndeserved, though, this time, mercifully allowed to escape it. After they\nhad made confession of their errors, and begged pardon of God and the\nHoly Catholic Church, Bishop Fisher preached a sermon. The penitents were\nthen conducted to a great fire which had been kindled in front of the\nnorth door of the cathedral, and led round it thrice, casting in their\nfaggots as they went.\" The ceremony concluded by Testaments and tracts\nbeing cast into the blazing fire.\n\nShortly after Mary had occupied the throne, a serious riot occurred at the\ncross. On Sunday, August 13th, 1553, Bourne, the Queen's chaplain,\npreached to a large gathering of refugees and English fanatics. In the\ncourse of his sermon, he prayed for the souls of the departed, praised\nBonner, and spoke in an uncharitable manner of Ridley. He was assailed\nwith cries of \"Papist, Papist! Tear him down!\" A dagger was thrown at him,\nbut, striking one of the side-posts of the cross, massed him. Men drew\ntheir swords, and had not leading Protestants interfered, doubtless Bourne\nwould have lost his life, and those who supported him would have suffered.\nFox, in his \"Acts and Monuments,\" relates how Master Bradford came into\nthe pulpit, and \"spoke so mildly, christianly, and effectously that, with\nfew words, he appeased all; and afterward he and Master Rogers conducted\nthe preacher betwixt them from the pulpit to the grammar school door,\nwhere they left him safe.\" Shortly afterwards, the two men who had\nintervened were cast into prison, and finally suffered death at the fires\nof Smithfield.\n\nDetermined efforts were made to proclaim the doctrines of the Roman\nCatholic Church, and on the following Sunday, Mr. Thomas Watson, an\nearnest preacher, gave a stirring sermon. He was guarded with 200\nsoldiers, \"with their halberdes.\" Amongst those who listened to him, are\nnamed the Marquis of Winchester, the Earl of Bedford, the Earl of\nPembroke, and the Lord Rich. Watson, some time previously, had been set in\nthe stocks at Canterbury, by the orders of Cranmer. The time was near at\nhand when the teachings of the Roman Church were \"heard without protest,\nif not with approval.\" The Catholics took decided measures to close the\nmouths of those who did not agree with them.\n\nMary died. In her stead, Elizabeth occupied the throne, and a change came\nover the scene. The new Queen dearly loved pomp. On one occasion, she went\nto hear one of the Reformers preach at St. Paul's, and in her train were a\nlarge number of lords and ladies, 1000 soldiers, ten great cannons,\nhundreds of drums and trumpets, a party of morris-dancers, and two white\nbears. On Ash Wednesday, 1565, Dean Nowell preached. Queen Elizabeth was\npresent, and a very large number of the inhabitants of London, doubtless\nbeing more anxious to see their Queen than listen to the preacher. The\nDean had not proceeded far with his sermon when he came to the subject of\nimages, which, we are told, \"he handled roughly.\" The Queen cried out:\n\"Leave them alone.\" He did not hear her, and continued his invectives.\nRaising her voice, she said: \"To your text, Mr. Dean! to your text! Leave\nthat, we have heard enough of that! To your subject!\" The Dean stammered a\nfew more incoherent words, and was obliged to give up any further attempts\nto continue his sermon. The Queen left the place in a rage, and the\nProtestant part of the congregation, we are told, were moved to tears.\n\nThe most able preachers of the day, including Latimer, Cranmer, and other\ngreat men, delivered sermons at St. Paul's Cross, and it was recognised as\nthe seat of pulpit eloquence. Sermons were lightly esteemed unless\npreached here. The preachers were lodged at the Shunamite House for two\ndays before and for one day after their sermon, and suitable diet provided\nfor them. Soon after Richard Hooker had taken his degree (1581), he was\ninvited to preach at the cross. He arrived in London wet and weary, and\nill with a severe cold. He was carefully tended and cured by Mrs.\nChurchman, who had charge of the Shunamite House. Her consideration did\nnot end with her nursing. She persuaded Hooker that he was \"a man of\ntender constitution,\" and that it would be his wisest course to have a\nwife who would nurse him. Not only would a wife prolong his life, but\nwould make him more comfortable. Mrs. Churchman suggested her own daughter\nas a desirable wife. Hooker had not courage to refuse the proposal, and in\ndue course they were married. The union was in every respect unsuitable.\nShe is described as being without beauty and portion, and, worse still,\nshe was of a shrewish temper.\n\nThe Dean of St. Paul's, in 1588, gave public notice at the cross of the\ndefeat of the \"Invincible Armada.\" Important local, as well as national,\nevents were made known here. It was here and in similar places, says a\nrecent writer, \"Londoners must have first heard of the triumphs at Cressy\nand Poictiers--of their glorious Black Prince and his captive, King John;\nas in a latter age of the victory at Agincourt.\" Public announcements in\npast ages were very important when few could read.\n\nWe read, in an old record, that on the birthday of Queen Elizabeth, on the\n17th November, 1595, \"the Pulpit Cross, in St. Paul's Church-yard, was new\nrepaired, painted, and partly enclosed with a wall of brick. Doctor\nFletcher, Bishop of London, preached there in praise of the Queen, and\nprayed for her Majesty, before the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens, in\ntheir best liveries. Which sermon being ended, upon the church-leades the\ntrumpets sounded, the cornets winded, and the quiristers sung an antheme.\nOn the steeple many lights were burned, the Tower shot off her ordnance,\nthe bels were rung, bonefires made, etc.\"\n\nThe next event we notice at the cross, is in the reign of the first king\nof the ill-fated house of Stuart. For some years Henry Farley had, with\npen and picture, done much to rouse an interest in St. Paul's Cathedral,\nwhich, for over half a century, had been in a dilapidated condition, the\nchief cause being the result of a fire in 1561. In addition to trying to\nget bills introduced into Parliament, publishing pamphlets, he had, in\n1616, pictures painted. One painting represented a procession of great\npersonages; another, the said personages seated at a sermon at St. Paul's\nCross. We reproduce a picture of his painting of the cross. In the\ngallery, placed against the choir of the church, are seated the King,\nQueen, Prince of Wales, the Lord Mayor, and other notable men and women,\nand a large gathering of citizens is seated in front of the cross. The\ndog-whipper is busy driving away a dog. The outcome of Farley's zeal, was\nthe visit of James I., with his family and court, to hear a sermon here,\non Midlent Sunday, in 1620. The gathering would be similar to the one\nrepresented in the picture drawn four years previously. The preacher was\nDr. John King, called by James \"The King of Preachers.\" He selected for\nhis text, Psalm cii. 13, 14. \"Thou wilt arise, and have mercy upon Zion;\nfor the appointed time is come; for Thy servants delight in the stones\nthereof, and have pity on the dust thereof.\" It will, perhaps, not be\nwithout interest to give a few quotations from Dr. King's sermon, as a\nspecimen of the extravagant figures of speech which prevailed at this\nperiod, and came down to the days of William III. \"I am now,\" said Dr.\nKing, \"to speak unto you of litterall and artificial Zion--a temple\nwithout life, yet of a sicklie and crazie constitution, sicke of age\nitselfe, and with many aches in her joynts, together with a lingering\nconsumption that hath long been in her bowels, the timber in the beames\nwhereof cryeth, 'I perish,' and the stone on the walles answereth no less,\nand part is already moultered away to stone, part to dust, and (that which\nis more), symbolizing with the other Zion, not only when fates and\ncasualties, but in the very retinues and revolutions of these fates. After\nher building (600 years after Christ), salted with fire, sacrificed to the\nanger of God, and being raised, Phoenix, out of the ashes, betwixt 400 and\n500 more (two in a thousand years), touched by an invisible hand, with a\ncoal from the altar of heaven, that was never blowne, which wholly\nconsumed the crest and vertical point, the top and top-gallant, and so\nscorched the rest, that ever since it hath remained valetudinary and\ninfirm, rather peced out with an ordinary kind of physic, than restored to\na sound plight.\" In conclusion, he said, \"Set it as seale upon your\nhearts, that your king has come unto you. Such comings are not often;\nQueen Elizabeth once, and now your sovereign once. Would it be believed,\nthat a king should come from his court to this cross, where princes seldom\nor never come, and that ceremony to be in state, with a kinde of sacred\npompe and procession, accompanied with all the fair flowers of his field,\nand the fairest rose of his garden, to make requests to his subjects, not\nfor his private, but for the public; not for himselfe, but for God; not\nout of reason, state policy, but of religion and piety; no lesse fruit of\nhonour and favour with God and man accruing thereby to his people, than to\nhis sacred Majesty. You see it, value and prize it.\" James I. and others\ngave liberal donations towards the restoration fund, but it was not until\nthe reign of Charles I. that any real progress was made. The king and\nArchbishop Laud were most active in carrying out the much-required work.\n\n[Illustration: THE PREACHING CROSS, ST. PAUL'S.]\n\nThe story of St. Paul's Cross, and the interest that gathers round it,\nmust here close. The Civil War is about to cast a gloom over the land, and\nbring misery to gentle and simple. The exact year the cross was pulled\ndown is a disputed point, but most likely about 1643.\n\nCarlyle, in his \"Letters and Speeches of Cromwell,\" has the following\nstriking passage: \"Paul's Cross was a kind of stone tent, with leaden\nroof, at the N.E. corner of Paul's Cathedral, where sermons were still,\nand had long been, preached in the open air; crowded devout congregations\ngathering there, with forms to sit on, if you came early. Queen Elizabeth\nused to 'tune her pulpits,' she said, when there was any great thing on\nhand; as Governing Persons now strive to tune the Morning Newspapers.\nPaul's Cross, a kind of _Times Newspaper_, but edited partly by Heaven\nitself, was then a most important entity.\"\n\n\n\n\nCheapside Cross.\n\n\nAmong the memorial crosses of Europe, those of Queen Eleanor are the most\nelegant and historically interesting. Edward I. was blessed with a devoted\nwife, who accompanied him in his expeditions and wars. He took part in the\nlast of the Crusades, and was, by an assassin, wounded by a poisoned\ndagger. His wife, it is said, saved his life by sucking the venom from the\nwound. The English people greatly loved her; she was ever ready to comfort\nthose in trouble, and redress wrongs. She was married in 1254, in her\nfifteenth year, and died at Harby or Hardeby, Nottinghamshire, on November\n20th, 1290, when on her way to join the king in Scotland. She appears to\nhave been ill for some time, and, on October 18th, six weeks before her\ndeath, a mark (13s. 4d.) was paid to Henry of Montpellier for syrups and\nother medicines for the queen's use. Leopardo, her own physician, was in\nattendance. The king deeply mourned her loss, and had her remains conveyed\nto Westminster Abbey for interment. An elegant cross was erected at every\nplace where the funeral procession rested. Fifteen of these crosses have\nbeen traced. The details of the queen's death and burial are\nhotly-contested historical problems, and no two historians agree in their\nstatements. Of the crosses erected by Edward, only three remain, those at\nNorthampton, Gedington, and Waltham Cross. A picture of the Northampton\nCross, as it appears to-day, enables us to realise how elegant it must\nhave been when newly erected, and before time's defacing touch and man's\nmischief had robbed it of much of its beauty.\n\nThe idea of the Eleanor Crosses was not a new one, it was, as is stated by\nRimmer, in his \"Ancient Stone Crosses of England,\" \"an extension of the\nlich-gate system, for a corpse always rested under a 'lich.'\" At the\nchurchyard gates in some places, notably in Cornwall, are large\nlich-stones, on which to rest the coffin while the funeral procession is\nwaiting for the officiating minister. At St. Winnow, Cornwall, an example\nmay be seen. In some parts of the country, as at Lustleigh, Devonshire,\nthere are resting stones for the coffin on its way to the burial ground,\nsome distance from the church. The coverings over the lich-gates are\nusually of wood, but sometimes they are of stone, as at Birstal, near\nLeeds. At Barking, Essex, are chambers over the lich-gate, and one was\nformerly known as the Chapel of the Holy Rood. In other parts of the\ncountry are examples of chambers over the lich-gate. A great many of the\nkings of France were buried at the Abbey of St. Denis, and on the road\nleading to it from Paris, crosses were erected at almost every few hundred\nyards. The Revolution swept away the monuments.\n\nThe cross at Cheape was an Eleanor Cross, and erected shortly after the\ndeath of the queen. It is generally believed that this cross was one of\nthe finest of its class, but no reliable description has come down to us.\nMaster Michael, a mason of Canterbury, was its builder.\n\nIn 1441, the rebuilding of this cross, in combination with a drinking\nfountain, was commenced, and was hardly completed in 1486. Timber and lead\nwere largely used in the second erection, which was frequently regilded.\nIt appears to have attained its greatest beauty in the reign of Edward\nVI. At his accession to the throne, it underwent considerable alterations\nand improvements.\n\n[Illustration: NORTHAMPTON CROSS.]\n\nA painting of the period, shewing the procession of Edward VI. to his\nCoronation, gives us a good idea of the cross as it appeared in 1547. It\nmay be briefly described as stately and graceful. There are three\noctangular compartments, and each is supported by eight slender columns.\nIts height is calculated at about thirty-six feet; the first storey being\nabout twenty feet, the second, ten, and the third, six. Amongst the\nstatues which ornamented the structure may be mentioned, in the first\nniche, most likely, a contemporaneous pope, round the base of the second\nwere four apostles, and above them was placed the Virgin, with the infant\nJesus in her arms. Four standing figures filled the top niche, and a\ncross, surmounted with the emblematic dove, completed the ornamentation,\nwhich was extremely rich.\n\nIt long remained a pride of the city, but as time ran its course changes\nof sentiment came about. Towards the close of Elizabeth's reign, it was\ndenounced as a relic of Popish superstition. On the night of the 21st\nJune, 1581, an attack was made by some fanatics on the monument, and much\nof the carving mutilated. \"The Virgin,\" says an old writer, \"was robbed of\nher son, and her arms broken, by which she staid him on her knees; her\nwhole body was haled by ropes, and left ready to fall.\" Although a reward\nwas offered by the queen, the offenders were not discovered. Fourteen\nyears later, the effigy of the Virgin was repaired, and \"a newe sonne,\nmisshapen (as borne out of time), all naked, was laide in her armes, the\nother images continuing broken as before.\"\n\nNext, an attempt was made to remove the woodwork, and in place of the\ncrucifix erect a pyramid. A figure of the goddess Diana replaced the\nVirgin. Diana was represented for the most part naked, \"and water,\nconveyed from the Thames, filtering through her naked breasts, but\noftentimes dryed up.\" Elizabeth expressed her displeasure at the\noperations of the fanatics, and gave directions for a plain gilt cross to\nbe placed on the summit of the monument, saying such a simple symbol of\nthe faith of the country ought not to cause scandal. The Virgin was again\nrestored, but, in less than a fortnight, the figure was mutilated, and the\nchild taken away.\n\nIn 1600, the cross was rebuilt, and the question of restoring the crucifix\ngave rise to considerable discussion. The matter was referred to the\nauthorities of the Universities. All sanctioned it except Dr. Abbot,\nafterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, but there was not to be a dove. In a\nsermon of the period, the following passage occurs: \"Oh! this cross is one\nof the jewels of the harlot of Rome, and is left and kept here as a\nlove-token, and gives them hope that they shall enjoy it and us again.\"\nThe new cross, which was protected by strong iron railings, was much\ninferior to the preceding one. In style, it was half Grecian and half\nGothic. Images of a superstitious character were superseded by those of\napostles, kings, and, prelates, and of the original cross only the\ncrucifix was retained. For many years, it remained without giving rise to\nany contention. The Puritanical zeal increased in course of time, and on\nthe night of January 24th, 1641, it again suffered at the hands of the\nfanatics.\n\n[Illustration: PURITANS DESTROYING CHEAPSIDE CROSS.]\n\nAt this time, commenced a literary warfare, in the form of pamphlets,\nrespecting the cross. These were followed by its destruction. Robert\nHarlow was deputed by Parliament to carry out the work. He went to the\ncross with a troop of horse and two companies of foot soldiers. How\ncompletely he executed his orders may be gathered from the official\naccount. It states: \"On the 2nd of May, 1643, the cross in Cheapside was\npulled down. At the fall of the top cross, drums beat, trumpets blew, and\nmultitudes of caps were thrown in the air, and a great shout of people\nwith joy. The 2nd of May, the almanack says, was the invention of the\ncross, and the same day, at night, were the leaden popes burnt [they were\nnot popes, but eminent English prelates] in the place where it stood,\nwith ringing of bells and a great acclamation, and no hurt at all done in\nthese actions.\"\n\nThe author of \"The Old City\" (London, 1865), a work to which we have been\nindebted for some of the particulars included in this paper, adverts to a\ncurious tract published on the day the cross was destroyed. It bears the\nfollowing title: \"The Downfall of Dagon; or, the taking down of Cheapside\nCrosse; wherein is contained these principalls: 1. The crosse sicke at\nheart. 2. His death and funerall. 3. His will, legacies, inventory, and\nepitaph. 4. Why it was removed. 5. The money it will bring. 6. Noteworthy,\nthat it was cast down on that day when it was first invented and set up.\"\nAn extract or two from this publication can hardly fail to interest the\nreader. \"I am called the 'Citie Idoll,'\" says the tract, \"the Brownists\nspit at me, and throw stones at me; the Famalists hide their eyes with\ntheir fingers; the Anabaptists wish me knockt in pieces, as I am to be\nthis day; the sisters of the fraternity will not come near me, but go by\nWatling Street, and come in again by Soaper Lane, to buy provisions of the\nmarket folks.... I feele the pangs of death, and shall never see the end\nof the merry month of May; my breath stops--my life is gone; I feel myself\na-dying downards.\" The bequests embrace the following: \"I give my iron\nwork to those which make good swords at Hounslow, for I am Spanish iron\nand steele to the backe. I give my body and stones to those masons that\ncannot telle how to frame the like againe, to keep by theme for a\npatterne, for in time there will be more crosses in London than ever there\nwas yet.\" The epitaph is as follows:\n\n  \"I looke for no praise when I am dead,\n  For, going the right way, I never did tread.\n  I was harde as an Alderman's doore,\n  That's shut and stony-hearted to the poore.\n  I never gave almes, nor did anything\n  Was good, nor e'er said, 'God save the King.'\n  I stood like a stock that was made of wood,\n  And yet the people would not say I was good,\n  And, if I tell them plaine, they're like to mee--\n  Like stone to all goodnesse. But now, reader, see\n  Me in the dust; for crosses must not stand,\n  There is too much crosse tricks within the land;\n  And, having so done never any good,\n  I leave my prayse for to be understood;\n  For many women, after this my losse,\n  Will remember me, and still will be crosse--\n  Crosse tricks, crosse ways, and crosse vanities.\n  Believe the crosse speaks truth, for here he lyes.\"\n\n\n\n\nThe Biddenden Maids Charity.\n\n\nFor several centuries, the strange story of the Biddenden Maids, was told\nby sire to son, and, in course of time, was made the subject of a\nbroadside, which has become rare, and is much prized by collectors of\nhistorical curiosities.\n\nThe tale is to the effect that, in the year of our Lord, 1100, at the\nvillage of Biddenden, in the county of Kent, were born Eliza and Mary\nChulkhurst, commonly called \"The Biddenden Maids.\" It is asserted that the\nsisters were joined together by the hips and shoulders.\n\nThere is not a record of any attempt being made to separate the couple,\nand they grew up together. When they had attained the age of thirty-four\nyears, one of the sisters was taken ill, and shortly afterwards died. The\nsurviving one was entreated to submit to a surgical operation being\nperformed, and have her body separated from that of her deceased sister,\nbut she firmly refused. She was prepared to die. \"As we came together,\"\nshe said, \"we will also go together.\" Her life closed about six hours\nafter that of her sister.\n\n[Illustration: BIDDENDEN CAKE.]\n\nThe claims of the poor were not overlooked. The sisters, in their will,\nbequeathed to the churchwardens of the parish of Biddenden, a piece of\nland which is known as \"Bread and Cheese Land.\"\n\nThe rent of it realises a considerable sum of money, which is largely\ndistributed to the poor of the place in bread and cheese.\n\nThe memory of the wonderful women is maintained by the distribution, on\nEaster Sunday, of about a thousand small cakes made of flour and water,\nand having impressed upon them rude representations of the Maids.\n\nHone, in his \"Every Day Book,\" gives a picture of the cake he received in\n1826, which we reproduce. It is the exact size of the one sent to him.\nSince Hone's time a new stamp or mould has been made, and the old style of\nrepresenting the Maids has not been followed in every detail. In the cut\nwe give, it will be noticed no legs appear, now they are represented on\nthe cakes.\n\nIn addition to the small cakes presented to strangers as well as\nvillagers, every resident in the parish is entitled to a threepenny loaf\nand three quarters of a pound of cheese. The charity was formerly\ndelivered at the tower door of the church, but since some alterations have\nbeen made in the building, the distribution takes place at the old\nworkhouse. The congregation, on Easter Sunday afternoon, after which\nservice the cakes are given, is always very large, many persons coming\nfrom the surrounding villages.\n\nHalsted, the historian of Kent, discredits the traditional origin of the\nold custom. A similar story is related of two females, whose figures\nappear on the pavement of Norton St. Philip's Church, Somersetshire.\n\n\n\n\nPlagues and Pestilences.\n\n\nThe graphic pages of Daniel Defoe have made the reader familiar with the\nterrible story of the Great Plague of London, which began in December,\n1664, and carried off 68,596 persons, some say even a larger number. To\ngive a detailed account of that visitation would be to relate an oft-told\ntale. Some important facts, not generally known, respecting old-time\nplagues and pestilences may be gleaned from parish registers and\nchurchwardens' accounts, and it is from such records that we propose\nmainly to draw materials for this chapter.\n\nWhen a town was infected with the plague, business was suspended, and the\ninhabitants isolated from the neighbouring places. If a person desired to\ntravel at large, he made application to the Mayor or Chief Magistrate,\nand obtained a certificate to the effect that he was not suspected of the\nplague.\n\nIn many towns, great wisdom was displayed by erecting huts on breezy moors\nand other places away from the busy haunts of men, for the reception of\nthe plague-stricken persons, and to which they were removed. The inmates\nof a house were not suffered to leave the homes from whence the patients\nhad been removed. An order passed in London, in 1570, states: \"Howses,\nhaving some sicke, though none die, or from whence some sicke have been\nremoved, are infected houses, and such are to be shutt upp for a moneth.\nThe whole family to tarrie xxviii daies.\" Round the houses, watch and ward\nwere constantly kept to prevent egress. Certain boundaries were defined,\nand these could not be passed. The watchers provided the inmates of the\nhouses with food, etc., and took messages to their friends. In the\nchurchwardens' accounts of St. Mary, Woolchurch, Haw, is an entry:--\n\n  \"1607-8. Paid a warder for warding Mr. Clarke's house, being infected,\n           ordered by the Mayor      4 0.\"\n\nOn the door of the infected house was the sign of a cross, in a flaming\nred colour, with the pathetic prayer, \"Lord, have mercy on us.\" In old\nchurchwardens' accounts, many items like the following, drawn from the\naccounts of St. Mary, Woolnoth, London, might be quoted:\n\n  \"1593-4. Item for setting a crosse upon one Allen's doore in the\n           sicknesse time      ijd.\n\n           Item paid for setting two red crosses upon Anthony Sound his\n           dore      iiijd.\"\n\nThese crosses were about a foot in length. More than one student of the\npast has suggested that the practice of marking the doors of infected\nhouses with red crosses arose from the injunction given to Moses at the\ninstitution of the passover. The crosses served the important purpose for\nwhich they were intended, namely, to caution folk against going to\ninfected houses.\n\nQueen Elizabeth, in 1563, commanded that the inmates of a house which had\nbeen visited by the plague should not go to church for a month.\n\nOrders were given that any dogs found in the streets were to be killed. An\norder, bearing on this matter, made in May, 1583, at Winchester, may be\nreproduced: \"That if any house wtn this cytie shall happen to be infected\nwith the Plague, that thene evye persone to keepe within his or her house\nevery his or her dogg, and not to suffer them to goo at large: And if any\ndogg be then founde abroad at large, it shall be lawful for the Beadle or\nany other person to kill the same dogg: and that any Owner of such Dogg\ngoing at large shall lose 6s.\" It was believed that dogs conveyed\ncontagion from infected houses. A passage in Homer's \"Iliad\" has a\nreference to man obtaining infection from an animal. It relates to the\ngreat pestilence that prevailed in the Grecian army:\n\n  \"On mules and beasts the infection first began,\n  At last, its vengeful arrows fix'd in man;\n  Apollo's wrath the dire disorder spread,\n  And heap'd the camp with mountains of the dead.\n  For nine long nights throughout the dusky air,\n  The funeral torches shed a dismal glare.\"\n\nMany remedies were tried to stay the progress of plagues. The ringing of\nchurch bells was among the number. \"Great ringing of bells in populous\ncities,\" says Bacon, in his \"Natural History,\" \"disperseth pestilent air,\nwhich may be from the concussion of the air, and not from the sound.\"\nMusic, in the Middle Ages, was believed to have a healing power. Large\nfires were lighted in houses and streets as preventatives. It is not\nunlikely that the practice may be derived from the fact that, in 1347,\nduring the time of the plague raging at Avignon, Pope Clement VI. caused\ngreat fires to be kept in his palace, day and night, and by this means\nbelieved he had kept the pestilence from his household. In 1563, we learn\nfrom Stow that a commandment came from Queen Elizabeth that \"every man in\nevery street and lane should make a bonefire three times a week, in order\nto the ceasing of the plague, if it so pleased God, and so to continue\nthese fires everywhere, Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.\"\n\nIt is asserted in Rome, in A.D. 195, that for some time, 5,000 persons\ndied daily of a fearful plague. The physicians were unable to check its\ndeadly course. It lasted for three years. The doctors of the day urged\nupon the people to fill their noses and ears with sweet smelling ointments\nto prevent contagion. We learn from Defoe's \"Journal of the Plague Year,\n1665,\" how largely perfumes, aromatics, and essences, were employed to\nescape contagion at that time. Says Defoe, if you went into a church where\nany number of people were present, \"there would be such a mixture of\nsmells at the entrance, that it was much more strong, though, perhaps, not\nso wholesome, than if you were going into an apothecary's or druggist's\nshop. In a word, the whole church was like a smelling bottle; in one\ncorner, it was all perfumes; in another, aromatics, balsamics, and a\nvariety of drugs and herbs; in another, salts and spirits; as every one\nwas furnished for their own preservation.\" He further says: \"The poorer\npeople, who only set open their windows night and day, burnt brimstone,\npitch, and gunpowder, and such things in their rooms, did as well as the\nbest.\"\n\nThe annals of many of the northern English towns contain numerous sad\nreferences to plagues. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for example, suffered much.\nThe churchwardens' accounts of St. Nicholas contain records of payments\nwhich bear on this subject. We find, for instance, the following item:\n\n  \"1699. By cash paid for a tarr barrell to burn in ye church      0 8.\"\n\nFires were made in churches in movable pans. A year later, we read:\n\n  \"1700. For hearbs for rubing ye pewes      1 0.\"\n\nIn courts of justice, might be seen large nosegays, not for ornament, but\nas preservatives against the pest. The Rev. J. R. Boyle, F.S.A., has gone\ncarefully over the churchwardens' accounts of St. Nicholas', now the\nCathedral of the city of Newcastle, and reproduced some curious items in\nhis guide to the building. Here follow a few of the items:\n\n  \"1684. For juniper and erbes for ye vestry      0 10.\n\n  1684. Paid for erbes and fflowers for Mr. Maior's pew 2 times      3 0.\n\n  1686. Erbes for ye church at Easter, Whitsuntyde, and Assizes      6 0.\n\n  1688. Paid for holland [holly] and juniper for ye vestery, and erbs\n        1 11.\n\n  1690. Paid for sweet herbs for strawing in ye pews, etc.      1 0.\"\n\nMr. William Kelly, read before the Royal Historical Society, on July 12th,\n1877, an important paper on \"Visitations of the Plague at Leicester.\" He\ngave particulars of the Mayor addressing a letter to Justice Gawdie, who\nwas about to visit the town in his official capacity. He was informed that\nthe plague had broken out in houses near the castle, and it was concluded\nthat his lordship would not come to preside so near the infected places.\nThe result of the communication may be gathered from the following entry,\ncopied from the chamberlain's accounts:\n\n  \"1594. Item, paid for charges of makinge readye of All Hallowes Churche\n  for the judges to hold the assyses in, because the other parte of the\n  town was then infected with the sicknes      xvs. vjd.\"\n\nWe have previously stated, that persons wishing to leave a plague-stricken\ntown, for the purpose of travelling, were obliged to obtain passes. Mr.\nKelly gives a copy of one of these documents, which we reproduce _in\nextenso_. It reads as follows:\n\n\"Villa Leic. Theise are to certifie all the Queenes Majesties officers and\nlovinge subjects, to whom theise presents shall come, that the bearer,\nAlice Stynton, the wief of John Stynton, of the towne of Leycester, pettye\nchapman, dothe dwell and inhabyte in the parish of St. Nicholas, in the\nsaid town, in a streete called the Sore Laine, neyre unto the West Brigge.\n\nThe which John Stynton hathe not bene in Leycester sythence one fortnytt\nafter St. James Daye last; but travelinge abrode in Northamptonshier\nabout his lawfull affaires in gaytheringe under the Greate Seale of\nEngland, by lycence, for a poore house at Waltam Crosse.\n\nAnd this bearer, his wief, with hym all the said tyme, untill her nowe\ncomyng hom to Leycester, which was aboute a weeke past. The which bearer\nher dwellyng ys not neyre unto places suspected of the plage, but ys\ncleyre and sound from the same, God be thancked, neyther ys there any att\nthis present sicke thereof in the said streete or parish, God be praised.\nDo therefore request you to permytt and suffer her quietlye to travell to\nher husband, and also to permytt and suffer her said husband and her\nquietlye, upon ther honest behavire, to travell aboute ther lawfull\nbusynes withoute any your hyndrance, and you the constables to helpe them\nto lodginges in ther said travell yf such nede shall require. In witnes\nwhereof, we the mayor and alderman of the saide towne of Leycester have\nhereunto subscribed our names, and sette the seale of office of the said\nmayor, this vjth daye of October 1593, A^o 35^o Eliz.\"\n\nThe records of Beverley supply some important notes respecting persons\nleaving the place. We gather from George Oliver's history of Beverley,\nthat the plague raged with great violence in the year 1610, death and\ndesertion were greatly thinning the town; the corporation made an order,\ndirecting that a fine of ten shillings be imposed on every individual\nleaving the town, even to go to fairs and markets, without the mayor's\nspecial permission. If the preceding measure was insufficient to detain\npersons in Beverley, it was resolved to imprison or otherwise punish, at\nthe discretion of the justices, those offending.\n\nThe head of every family had to report periodically, during the time of\nthe plague, to the constable in his ward, the state of the health of his\nhousehold. If the disease attacked any member of his family, or those\nunder his charge, and he neglected, within a specified number of hours, to\nreport the matter, he was liable to a fine of forty shillings, to be\nplaced in the town's chest.\n\nThe town of Derby suffered greatly from a plague in 1592-3. It appears to\nhave been imported in some bales of cloth from the Levant to London, and\nquickly spread into the provinces. In the parish register of St.\nAlkmund's, Derby, under October, 1592, is this statement, \"Hic incipit\npestis prestifera.\" It took twelve months to run its destructive course.\n\nThe register of All Saints', Derby, under October, 1593, says: \"About this\ntime, the plague of pestilence, by the great mercy and goodness of\nAlmighty God, stay'd, past all expectac'on of man, for it rested upon\nassondaye, at what tyme it was dispersed in every corner of this whole\np'she: ther was not two houses together free from ytt, and yet the Lord\nbade his angell staye, as in Davide's tyme: His name be blessed for ytt.\"\n\nThe inhabitants of Derby suffered greatly from a plague in 1665. In the\nArboretum of the town is a memorial of the visitation, in the form of a\nstone, bearing the following inscription:\n\n\"Headless Cross, or _MARKET STONE_.\n\nThis Stone FORMED PART OF AN ANCIENT CROSS AT THE UPPER END OF FRIAR GATE,\nAND WAS USED BY THE INHABITANTS OF DERBY AS A MARKET STONE DURING THE\nVISITATION OF THE PLAGUE, 1665. IT IS THUS DESCRIBED BY HUTTON IN HIS\nHISTORY OF DERBY.\n\n           *       *       *       *       *\n\n'1665. Derby was again visited by the plague at the same time in which\nLondon fell under that severe calamity. The town was forsaken; the farmers\ndeclined the Market-place; and grass grew upon that spot which had\nfurnished the supports of life. To prevent a famine, the inhabitants\nerected at the top of Nuns-green, one or two hundred yards from the\nbuildings, now Friar-gate, what bore the name of _Headless-cross_,\nconsisting of about four quadrangular steps, covered in the centre with\none large stone; the whole near five feet high; I knew it in perfection.\nHither the market-people, having their mouths primed with tobacco as a\npreservative, brought their provisions, stood at a distance from their\nproperty, and at a greater from the townspeople, with whom they were to\ntraffic. The buyer was not suffered to touch any of the articles before\npurchase; but when the agreement was finished, he took the goods, and\ndeposited the money in a vessel filled with vinegar, set for that\npurpose.'\"\n\nTobacco has long been regarded as an efficacious preservative against\ndisease. There is a curious entry in Thomas Hearne's Diary, 1720-21,\nbearing on this matter. He thus writes, under date of January 21st: \"I\nhave been told that in the last great plague in London none that kept\ntobacconists' shops had the plague. It is certain that smoaking was looked\nupon as a most excellent preservative. In so much, that even children were\nobliged to smoak. And I remember that I heard formerly Tom Rogers, who was\nyeoman beadle, say that, when he was that year, when the plague raged, a\nschool-boy at Eaton, all the boys of that school were obliged to smoak in\nthe school every morning, and that he was never whipped so much in his\nlife as he was one morning for not smoaking.\"\n\nCharles Knight, in his \"Old England,\" gives an original drawing of the\nBroad Stone, East Retford, Nottinghamshire. He says, on this stone, money,\npreviously immersed in vinegar, was placed in exchange for goods, during\nthe Great Plague.\n\n[Illustration: THE BROAD STONE, EAST RETFORD.]\n\nIn front of Tothby House, near Alford, Lincolnshire, under a spreading\ntree, is a large stone, which formerly stood on Miles Cross Hill, and,\nwhen the town was plague-stricken, in the year 1630, on this stone, money\nimmersed in vinegar was deposited, in exchange for food brought from\nSpilsby and other places. From July 22nd, 1630, to the end of February,\n1631, 132 burials are recorded in the parish register, and this out of a\npopulation of under 1000 persons, a proportion equal to that of London\nduring the Great Plague. In one homestead, within twelve days, were six\ndeaths. The Rev. Geo. S. Tyack, B.A., who has contributed a\ncarefully-prepared chapter to \"Bygone Lincolnshire\" on this theme, does\nnot state how the scourge was brought to Alford.\n\nThe dead were, as a rule, buried at night, without coffin and ceremony,\nand frequently in a common grave outside the usual graveyards, like, for\nexample, those in the pest pit of London. \"Bring out your dead! Bring out\nyour dead!\" was the dismal cry which was heard in London during the Great\nPlague. The people were dead and buried in a few hours, and it is believed\nthat many were interred alive. A well-known instance occurred at\nStratford-on-Avon. The plague raged at the town in 1564, and swept away\none-seventh of the inhabitants. The council chamber was closed, but the\ncouncillors did not neglect their duties; they met in a garden to discuss\nthe best means of helping the sufferers. The visitation was not confined\nonly to the homes of the poor. The Manor House of Clopton was attacked,\nand one of its fair inmates, a beautiful girl named Charlotte Clopton, was\nsick, and to all appearance died. She was buried without delay in the\nfamily vault, underneath Stratford Church. A week passed, and another was\nborne to the same resting place. When the vault was opened, a terrible\nsight was presented. Charlotte Clopton was seen leaning against the wall\nin her grave clothes. She had been buried alive, and, on recovering from\nthe plague, had attempted to get out of the vault, when death had ended\nher sufferings.\n\nAt Bradley, in the parish of Malpas, Cheshire, an entire family, named\nDawson, consisting of seven members and two servants, died of the plague,\nin the year 1625. One of Dawson's sons had been in London, and returned\nhome sick, died, and infected the whole household. The deaths commenced\ntowards the end of July and ended September 15th. Respecting Richard\nDawson, the following particulars are given in the parish register, after\nstating that he was the brother of the head of the house: \"being sicke of\nthe plague, and perceyving he must die at yt time, arose out of his bed\nand made his grave, and caused his nefew, John Dawson, to cast strawe into\nthe grave, w'ch was not farre from the house, and went and lay'd him down\nin the say'd grave, and caused clothes to be layd uppon, and so dep'ted\nout of this world; this he did, because he was a strong man, and heavier\nthan his said nefew and another wench were able to bury. He died about\nxxivth of August. Thus much I was credibly tould he did.\" The next entry\nin this distressing record bears date of August 29th, and is that of the\nnephew just named, and, on September 15th, Rose Smyth, the servant,\ndoubtless the wench referred to, was buried, \"and the last of yt\nhousehold.\"\n\nAt Braintree, in Essex, in 1665, the plague made great ravages. In that\nyear, 665 persons died of it, being fully one-third of the inhabitants of\nthe place. Business was at a standstill, the town was shunned, and the\ninhabitants had to depend on charity. Long grass grew in the streets, and\nthe whole place was one of desolation. At this time, Dr. Kidder,\nafterwards Bishop of Bath and Wells, was looking after the spiritual\nwelfare of the place. His life contains a painful picture of the\nsufferings of the inhabitants. In his own house, a young gentleman was\nattacked and died. \"My neighbours,\" he writes, \"durst not come near, and\nthe provisions which were procured for us were laid at a distance, upon a\ngreen before my house. No tongue can express the dismal calamity which\nthat part of Essex lay under at that time. As for myself, I was in\nperpetual danger. I conversed daily with those who came from the infected\nhouses, and it was unavoidable. The provisions sent into the neighbouring\ninfected town were left at the village where I was, and near my house.\nThither the Earl of Warwick sent his fat bullocks, which he did every week\ngive to the poor of Braintree. The servants were not willing to carry them\nfurther. This occasioned frequent coming from that infected place to my\nvillage, and, indeed, to my very door. My parish clerk had it when he put\non my surplice, and went from me to his house, and died. Another neighbour\nhad three children, and they all died in three nights immediately\nsucceeding each other, and I was forced to carry them to the churchyard\nand bury them. We were alarmed perpetually with the news of the death of\nour neighbours and acquaintances, and awakened to expect our turns. This\ncontinued a great part of the summer. It pleased God to preserve me and\nmine from this noisome pestilence. Praised be his name.\" The plague at\nColchester, in the same county, in 1665-6, made the death rate higher than\nthat of the neighbouring town or even of London. Its deadly operations\nopened in August, 1665, and closed in December, 1666, and, in that period,\npassed away 4,731 persons. Poverty prevailed, but help poured in from many\nplaces. Weekly collections were made in the churches of London, and by\nthis means the sum of L1,311 10s. was obtained. The oath book of the\nCorporation contains the form of oath administered to men known as\n\"Searchers of the Plague.\" It was the duty of the men to search out and\nview the corpses of all who died, and, in cases of death from the plague,\nto make known the fact to the constables of the parish, and the bearers\nappointed to bury them. The searchers had to live together, and apart from\ntheir families, and not go abroad, except in execution of their duty. They\nwere careful not to go near any one, and they carried in their hands white\nwands, so that people might know them and so avoid them.\n\nCollections in churches were very general for those suffering from the\nplague. The following entry, reproduced from the parish register of the\nsmall town of Cheadle, Staffordshire, may be quoted as a specimen of\nsimilar records:\n\n  \"1666. Collected on the first monthly fast, being second day of\n  August, towards the relief of the persons and places visited by the\n  plague      14s. 7d.\"\n\nThe plague penetrated into most unexpected places. Far away from London,\nin the Peak of Derbyshire, is the delightfully-situated mountain village\nof Eyam, a place swept over by health-giving breezes. It is a locality of\napparent security against infection. In September, 1665, a parcel of\ntailor's patterns was sent from London to Eyam, and with it came the\ndisease. At that time the village had a population of 350 persons, and\nwhen the plague \"was exhausted with excessive slaughter,\" only\nseventy-three were alive. From September 6th, 1665, to October 11th, 1666,\n277 died, the death rate being much higher than that of London. The\nhistory of this visitation is heart-rending, and has been told by several\nwriters, but by none more carefully than by William Wood, in his \"History\nof Eyam,\" published by Richard Keene, of Derby. Two names in this dark\nstory stand out in bright relief, one was the Rev. Thomas Stanley, the\nejected rector of the parish, in 1662, and the Rev. William Mompesson, a\nsuccessor, who was appointed in 1664. With their lives in their hands,\nthese two brave men remained at the post of duty, visited, advised, and\naided the sufferers unto death. Mrs. Mompesson administered daily to her\nhusband's suffering parishioners until death closed her useful life, on\nthe 24th August, 1666. This was a terrible blow to her devoted husband,\nand a heavy loss to the villagers. \"At one time,\" we are told, \"Mrs.\nMompesson's heart failed her, when she thought of her two children in the\nmidst of the plague. She cast herself and her two children at the feet of\nher husband, and begged that they might all depart from the death-stricken\nplace. In the most loving manner, however, he raised her from his feet,\nand pointed out the awful responsibility which would attach to his\ndeserting his post. He then besought his wife to flee to some distant\nspot, where she and her babes might be safe. She refused, however, to\nleave him, but they mutually agreed to send the children to a relative in\nYorkshire.\"\n\nAbout the middle of June, the more wealthy people fled to distant places\nfrom the plague-stricken village, and others built huts on the\nneighbouring hills, and in them took shelter. The entire population\nappeared determined to flee. Mr. Mompesson pointed out the folly of such a\nproceeding, observing that they would carry the disease to other places.\nHis earnest entreaties prevailed.\n\nHe wrote to the Earl of Devonshire for assistance, to enable the\ninhabitants to remain in their own village. The Earl realised the\nimportance of confining the disease within a certain limit. He readily\nmade arrangements for a constant supply of food and clothing for the\nsufferers. A boundary was fixed round the village, marked by stones, and\nthe residents solemnly agreed that not one should go beyond the radius\nindicated. The provisions, etc., were left early in the morning at an\nappointed place, and were fetched away by men selected for the work. If\nmoney was paid, it was placed in water. The men of Eyam faithfully kept\ntheir promise, so that the plague was not carried by them to any other\nplaces.\n\nThe churchyard was closed and funeral rites were not read; graves were\nmade in fields and gardens near the cottages of the departed.\n\nDuring the time the disease was at its height, the church was closed but\nthe faithful rector did not neglect to assemble his flock each succeeding\nSabbath in a quiet spot on the south side of the village, and to proclaim\nto them words of comfort.\n\nShortly after the disease had stopped at Eyam, the rectory of Eaking was\npresented to Mr. Mompesson. The inhabitants of his new parish had such a\nterror of the plague that they dreaded his coming amongst them, and a hut\nwas built for him in Rufford Park, where he remained until their fears had\nsubsided.\n\nThis short study of a serious subject enables us to fully realise the\nforce of the supplication in the Litany: \"From Plague and Pestilence, Good\nLord deliver us.\"\n\n\n\n\nA King Curing an Abbot of Indigestion.\n\n\nMany of the English monarchs have delighted in the pleasures of the chase.\nTheir hunting expeditions have often led them into out-of-the-way places\nwhere they were unknown, and their adventures gave rise to good stories,\nwhich have done much to enliven the dry pages of national history. Bluff\nKing Hal was a jovial huntsman, and was one day enjoying the pastime in\nthe glades of Windsor Forest, when he missed his way, and, to his\nsurprise, found himself near the Abbey at Reading. He keenly felt the\npangs of hunger, and resolved to try and get a meal at the table of the\nAbbey hard by.\n\nAfter disguising himself, he made his way to the house, under the pretence\nof being one of the king's guards. He was invited to partake of a sirloin\nof beef, and he did such justice to it as to surprise not a little the\nworthy abbot. The latter pledged his guest's royal master, adding that if\nhis weak stomach could digest such a meal as his visitor had just eaten he\nwould gladly give a hundred pounds. He lamented that he could only take\nfor his dinner the wing of a chicken, or other equally small dainty. The\nburly stranger pledged him in return, and, after expressing his gratitude,\ndeparted without his identity being discovered.\n\nAfter a few short weeks had passed, another stranger wended his way to the\nAbbey of Reading, armed with a warrant from King Henry VIII. to take the\nabbot a prisoner, and lodge him in the Tower. It was with a heavy heart\nthat the abbot journeyed to London. His prison fare was very plain, and\nconsisted of bread and water, and provided in small quantities, so that he\nnot only suffered in mind, but also from the want of food. He often\nwondered what he had done to displease the king, but could not obtain any\ninformation on the subject. A change at last came over the scene. A fine\nsirloin of beef was placed on his table, and he was bidden to feast to his\nheart's content. He did not need any pressing to do justice to the joint,\nfor he was almost famished, and dined more like a glutton than a man with\na weak stomach. The king watched with amusement, from a secret place, the\nabbot enjoying his dinner, and, when he had nearly completed it, stepped\nforth from his hiding place, and demanded one hundred pounds for curing\nthe poor abbot of his indigestion, and reminded him of their former\nmeeting at the Abbey of Reading. The patient gladly paid his physician the\nstipulated fee, and, with a light purse and a merry heart, bent his steps\nhomeward.\n\n\n\n\nThe Services and Customs of Royal Oak Day.\n\n\nWriting in his diary, on May 29th, 1665, John Evelyn says: \"This was the\nfirst anniversary appointed by Act of Parliament to be observed as a day\nof General Thanksgiving for the miraculous restoration of his Majesty: our\nvicar preaching on Psalm cxviii. 24, requiring us to be thankful and\nrejoice, as indeed we had cause.\" A special form of prayer in\ncommemoration of the Restoration of Charles II. was included in the Book\nof Common Prayer until 1859, when it was removed by Act of Parliament.\n\nOn this day, the Chaplain of the House of Commons used to preach before\nthe House, in St. Margaret's Church, Westminster. The service has been\ndiscontinued since 1858. It attracted little attention, and the\ncongregation usually consisted of the Speaker, the Sergeant-at-arms, the\nclerks and other officers, and about half a dozen members.\n\nIt was, in bygone times, in many parts of England, the practice, on this\nday, to fasten boughs of oak to the pinnacles of church steeples.\n\nThe display of oak is in memory of the king's escape after the Battle of\nWorcester, in 1651, and of his successfully hiding himself in an oak tree\nat Boscobel. Tennyson, in his \"Talking Oak,\" refers to the subject:\n\n    \"Thy famous brother oak,\n  Wherein the younger Charles abode,\n    Till all the paths grew dim,\n  While far below the Roundheads rode,\n    And humm'd a surly hymn.\"\n\nRichard Penderel greatly assisted Charles in his time of trouble, and he\nselected the oak in which safety was found. When Charles \"came to his\nown,\" the claims of Penderel were not overlooked. He was attached to the\nCourt. When he died, he was buried with honours at St. Giles-in-the-Fields.\nIt was customary, for a long period, to decorate his grave in the\nchurchyard with oak branches.\n\nFormerly, in Derbyshire, it was the practice to place over the doors of\nhouses, branches of young oak, and it is still the custom for boys to wear\nsprigs of the same tree in their hats and buttonholes. If the lads neglect\nto wear the oak-leaf they are stung with nettles by their more loyal\ncompanions. At Looe, and other districts of East Cornwall, it was enforced\nby spitting at or \"cobbing\" the offender. In bygone times, the boys of\nNewcastle-on-Tyne had an insulting rhyme, which they used to repeat to\nsuch folk as they met who did not wear oak-leaves:\n\n  \"Royal oak\n  The Whigs to provoke.\"\n\nOn this day, many wore plane tree leaves, and would make a retort to the\nforegoing rhyme:\n\n  \"Plane tree leaves;\n  The Church folk are thieves.\"\n\nMr. John Nicholson, in his \"Folk Lore of East Yorkshire\" (Hull, 1890), has\nan interesting note on this subject. \"During the days of spring,\" says Mr.\nNicholson, \"boys busily 'bird-nest' (seek nests), and lay up a store of\neggs for the 29th of May, Royal Oak Day, or Mobbing Day. These eggs are\nexpended by being thrown at other boys, but all boys who carry a sprig of\nRoyal Oak, not dog oak, either in their cap or coat, are free from\nmolestation. Not only wild birds' eggs, but the eggs of hens and ducks are\nused to 'mob' (pelt) with, and the older and more unsavoury the eggs are,\nthe better are they liked--by the thrower. The children sing:\n\n  'The twenty-ninth of May,\n  Royal Oak Day,\n  If you don't give us a holiday\n  We'll all run away.'\"\n\nAt Castleton, Derbyshire, an old custom still lingers of making a huge\ngarland of flowers on this day, and afterwards suspending it on the top of\nthe principal pinnacle of the church. The late Mr. Alfred Burton saw this\ngarland constructed in 1885, and had a drawing made of it for his volume\nentitled \"Rush-bearing.\" \"The framework,\" says Mr. Burton, \"is of wood,\nthatched with straw. Interior diameter, a little over two feet, outside\n(when covered with flowers), over three feet six inches. In shape it\nsomewhat resembles a bell, completely covered over with wild\nflowers--hyacinths, water-buttercups, buttercups, daisies, forget-me-nots,\nwallflowers, rhododendrons, tulips, and ornamental grasses, in rows, each\ncomposed of the same flower, which have been gathered in the neighbourhood\nthe evening before. The top, called the 'queen,' is formed of garden\nflowers, and fits into a socket at the top of the garland. It weighs over\na hundredweight, requires two men to lift it, and has occupied four men\nfrom noon till five o'clock in the afternoon to make it.\"\n\n[Illustration: CASTLETON GARLAND.]\n\nAt six in the evening, a procession is formed from a village inn, whose\nturn it is to take the lead in the festivities. A band of music heads the\nprocessionists, next comes the garland, which, we are told by Mr. Burton,\nis \"borne on the head and shoulders of a man riding a horse, and wearing\na red jacket. A stout handle inside, which rests on the saddle in front of\nhim, enables him to hold it upright. It completely envelopes him to the\nwaist, and is roomy enough to enable ale to be passed up to his mouth, of\nwhich he takes good care to have a share. His horse is led for him, and he\nis followed by another man on horseback, dressed as a woman, who acts the\nfool. These are followed by the villagers, dancing, even old people who\ncan scarcely walk making a point of attempting to dance on this, the\ngreatest day in the year at Castleton. After parading the village, the\n'queen' is taken off the garland and placed in the church, the garland\nbeing hoisted with ropes to the top of the church tower, where it is\nplaced on one of the pinnacles, and left till it has withered away, when\nthe framework is taken down and kept for another year. The other pinnacles\nhave branches of oak.\"\n\nIn the churchwardens' accounts of Castleton, are entries as follows:\n\n  \"1749. Pd. for an iron rod to hang singers' garland on      0 0 8.\n\n  1750. Pd. ringers on 29th May      0 3 0.\"\n\nPayments for ringing bells on the 29th May occur frequently in\nchurchwardens' accounts, and a few examples may be quoted. The first is\nfrom Wellington, Somerset:\n\n  \"1688. Pd. for ringing, the 29th May      0 5 0.\"\n\nThe accounts of St. Michael's, Bishop Stortford, state:\n\n  \"1703. Pd. ringers 29th May      0 6 8.\"\n\nSt. Mary's, Stamford, contain an item as follows:\n\n  \"1709. Pd. Richard Hambleton for ale for the ringers on ye 29th May\n         00 06 08.\"\n\nNorthampton is loyal to the memory of Charles II. He was a benefactor to\nthe borough, and helped the inhabitants after the great fire of 1675. In\nthe Baptismal Register of All Saints', Northampton, it is recorded, under\nSeptember 1675, as follows: \"In this month, a very lamentable fire\ndestroyed 3 parts of our Towne and Church.\" The Marriage Register says:\n\"While the world lasts, remember September the 20th, a dreadfull fire, it\nconsumed to ashes in a few houres, 3 parts of our Towne and Cheef Church.\"\nThe sum of L25,000 was collected by briefs and private charities towards\nthe heavy loss sustained by the inhabitants. Charles II. gave 1000 tons\nof timber out of Whittlewood forest, and remitted the duty of\nchimney-money in the town for seven years. We gather from Hume, that \"the\nking's debts had become so intolerable, that the commons were constrained\nto vote him an extraordinary supply of L1,200,000, to be levied by\neighteen months' assessment, and, finding upon inquiry that the several\nbranches of the revenue fell much short of the sums they expected, they at\nlast, after much delay, voted a new imposition of 2s. on each hearth, and\nthis tax they settled on the king during his life.\"\n\nMacaulay speaks of this tax as being \"peculiarly odious, for it could only\nbe levied by means of domiciliary visits.... The poorer householders were\nfrequently unable to pay their hearth-money to the day. When this\nhappened, their furniture was distrained without mercy, for the tax was\nfarmed, and a farmer of taxes, is, of all creditors, proverbially, the\nmost rapacious.\" He quotes from some doggerel ballads of the period, and\nthe following is one of the verses reproduced:\n\n  \"The good old dames, whenever they the chimney-man espied,\n  Unto their nooks they haste away, their pots and pipkins hide;\n  There is not one old dame in ten, and search the nation through,\n  But, if you talk of chimney-men, will spare a curse or two.\"\n\nA reference to chimney-money occurs in an epitaph in Folkestone\nchurchyard. Here is a copy:\n\n  \"In Memory of\n  REBECCA ROGERS,\n  who died August 22nd, 1688.\n  Aged 44 years.\n\n  A house she hath; it's made of such good fashion,\n  The tenant ne'er shall pay for reparation,\n  Nor will her landlord ever raise her rent,\n  Or turn her out of doors for non-payment.\n  From chimney-money too this cell is free--\n  To such a house, who would not tenant be?\"\n\nThe inhabitants of Northampton, to show their gratitude to the king for\nhis consideration, displayed oak branches over their house doors. The\nmembers of the corporation, accompanied by the children of the charity\nschools, attend service at All Saints' Church. A statue of the king, in\nfront of the church, is usually enveloped in oak boughs on May 29th.\n\n\n\n\nMarrying in a White Sheet.\n\n\nIt was not an uncommon circumstance in the last, and even in the early\nyears of the present century, for marriages to be performed _en chemise_,\nor in a white sheet. It was an old belief, that a man marrying a woman in\ndebt, if he received her at the hands of the minister clothed only in her\nshift, was not liable to pay the accounts she had contracted before their\nunion. We think it will not be without interest to give a few\nauthenticated instances of this class of marriages.\n\nThe earliest example we have found, is recorded in the parish register of\nChiltern, All Saints', Wilts. It is stated: \"John Bridmore and Anne\nSelwood were married October 17th, 1714. The aforesaid Anne Selwood was\nmarried in her smock, without any clothes or headgier on.\"\n\nOn June 25th, 1738, George Walker, a linen weaver, and Mary Gee, of the\n\"George and Dragon,\" Gorton Green, were made man and wife, at the ancient\nchapel close by. The bride was only attired in her shift.\n\nParticulars of another local case are given in the columns of _Harrop's\nManchester Mercury_, for March 12th, 1771, as follows: \"On Thursday last,\nwas married, at Ashton-under-Lyne, Nathaniel Eller to the widow Hibbert,\nboth upwards of fifty years of age; the widow had only her shift on, with\nher hair tied behind with horse hair, as a means to free them both from\nany obligation of paying her former husband's debts.\"\n\nWe have heard of a case where the vicar declined to marry a couple on\naccount of the woman presenting herself in her under garment. Another\nclergyman, after carefully reading the rubric, and not finding anything\nabout the bride's dress, married a pair, although the woman wore only her\nchemise.\n\nThe following is taken from _Aris's Birmingham Gazette_ for 1797:\n\n\"There is an opinion generally prevalent in Staffordshire that if a woman\nshould marry a man in distressed circumstances, none of his creditors can\ntouch her property if she should be in _puris naturalibus_ while the\nceremony is performed. In consequence of this prejudice, a woman of some\nproperty lately came with her intended husband into the vestry of the\ngreat church of Birmingham, and the moment she understood the priest was\nready at the altar, she threw off a large cloak, and in the exact state of\nEve in Paradise, walked deliberately to the spot, and remained in that\nstate till the ceremony was ended. This circumstance has naturally excited\nmuch noise in the neighbourhood, and various opinions prevail respecting\nthe conduct of the clergyman. Some vehemently condemn him as having given\nsanction to an act of indecency; and others think, as nothing is said\nrelative to dress in the nuptial ceremony, that he had no power to refuse\nthe rite. Our readers may be assured of this extraordinary event, however\nimprobable it may appear in these times of virtue and decorum.\"\n\nWe gather from a periodical called _The Athenian_, that this custom was\npractised in Yorkshire at the beginning of this century: \"May, 1808. At\nOtley, in Yorkshire, Mr. George Rastrick, of Hawkesworth, aged 73, to\nMrs. Nulton, of Burley Woodhead, aged 60. In compliance with the vulgar\nnotion that a wife being married in a state of nudity exonerated her\nhusband from legal obligations to discharge any demands on her purse, the\nbride disrobed herself at the altar, and stood shivering in her chemise\nwhile the marriage ceremony was performed.\"\n\nIn Lincolnshire, at so late a period as between 1838 and 1844, a woman was\nwed enveloped in a sheet.\n\nA slightly different method of marriage is mentioned in Malcolm's\n\"Anecdotes of London.\" It is stated that \"a brewer's servant, in February,\n1723, to prevent his liability to the payment of the debts of a Mrs.\nBrittain, whom he intended to marry, the lady made her appearance at the\ndoor of St. Clement Danes habited in her shift; hence her inamorato\nconveyed the modest fair to a neighbouring apothecary's, where she was\ncompletely equipped with clothing purchased by him; and in these, Mrs.\nBrittain changed her name in church.\"\n\nIn the foregoing, it will have been observed that the marriages have been\nconducted _en chemise_ for the protection of the pocket of the bridegroom.\n\"The Annual Register,\" of 1766, contains an account of a wedding of this\nclass, for the protection of the woman. We read: \"A few days ago, a\nhandsome, well-dressed young woman came to a church in Whitehaven, to be\nmarried to a man, who was attending there with the clergyman. When she had\nadvanced a little into the church, a nymph, her bridesmaid, began to\nundress her, and, by degrees, stript her to her shift; thus she was led,\nblooming and unadorned, to the altar, where the marriage ceremony was\nperformed. It seems this droll wedding was occasioned by an embarrassment\nin the affairs of the intended husband, upon which account the girl was\nadvised to do this, that he might be entitled to no other marriage portion\nthan her smock.\"\n\n\n\n\nMarrying under the Gallows.\n\n\nSome of the old ballads of merry England contain allusions to a law or\nusage of primitive times, to the effect that if a man or woman would\nconsent to marry, under the gallows, a person condemned to death, the\ncriminal would escape hanging. A few criminals, however, preferred the\nhangman's knot to the marriage tie, if we may believe the rude rhymes of\nour ancestors. In one of Pinkerton's works may be read an old poem in\nwhich we are told of a criminal refusing marriage at the foot of the\ngallows. Here are a few lines from the ballad:\n\n  \"There was a victim in a cart,\n    One day for to be hanged,\n  And his reprieve was granted,\n    And the cart made a stand.\n\n  'Come, marry a wife and save your life,'\n    The judge aloud did cry;\n  'Oh, why should I corrupt my life'\n    The victim did reply.\n\n  'For here's a crowd of every sort,\n    And why should I prevent their sport!\n  The bargain's bad in every part,\n    The wife's the worst--drive on the cart?'\"\n\nA poem, published in 1542, entitled the \"Schole House,\" contains an\nallusion:\n\n  \"To hang or wed, both hath one home,\n    And whether it be, I am well sure\n  Hangynge is better of the twayne--\n    Sooner done, and shorter payne.\"\n\nWe read in an old ballad the story of a merchant of Chichester, who was\nsaved execution by a loving maiden.\n\nIn the old Manx \"Temporal Customary Laws,\" A.D. 1577, occurs the\nfollowing: \"If any man take a woman by constraint, or force her against\nher will, if she be a wife he must suffer the law of her. If she be a maid\nor single woman, the deemster shall give her a rope, sword, and a ring,\nand she shall have her choice to hang him with the rope, cut off his head\nwith the sword, or marry him with the ring!\"\n\nIt is stated in a work published in 1680, entitled \"Warning to Servants,\nor, the case of Margaret Clark, lately executed for firing her master's\nhouse in Southwark.\" \"Since the poor maid was executed, there has been a\nfalse and malicious story published concerning her in the _True Domestick\nIntelligence_ of Tuesday, March 30th. There was omitted in the confession\nof Mary Clark (so he falsely calls her), who was executed for firing the\nhouse of M. de la Noy, dyer in Southwark, viz., that, at her execution,\nthere was a fellow who designed to marry her under the gallows (according\nto the antient laudable custome), but she, being in hopes of a reprieve,\nseemed unwilling; but, when the rope was about her neck, she cryed she was\nwilling, and then the fellow's friends dissuaded him from marrying her; so\nshe lost her husband and life together.\" To the foregoing is added, \"We\nknow of no such custome allowed by law, that any man's offering, at a\nplace of execution, to marry a woman condemned shall save her.\"\n\nHere is a curious paragraph bearing on this theme, drawn from _Parker's\nLondon News_, for April 7th, 1725: \"Nine young women dressed in white,\neach with a white wand in her hand, presented a petition to his Majesty\n(George I.) on behalf of a young man condemned at Kingston Assizes of\nburglary, one of them offered to marry him under the gallows in case of a\nreprieve.\"\n\nIn a work entitled \"The interesting narrative of the life of Oulandah\nEquians, or Gustavus Vassa, written by himself,\" and published in 1789, is\nthe following passage: \"While we lay here (New York, 1784) a circumstance\nhappened which I thought extremely singular. One day, a malefactor was to\nbe executed on the gallows, but with the condition that if any woman,\nhaving nothing on but her shift, married a man under the gallows, his life\nwould be saved. This extraordinary privilege was claimed; and a woman\npresented herself, and the marriage ceremony was performed.\"\n\n\n\n\nKissing the Bride.\n\n\nThe parents of a bride in humble circumstances rarely attend the marriage\nceremony at the church. The father's place is usually filled by one of the\nbridegroom's friends. He, in some parts of the North of England, claims\nthe privilege of first kissing the newly-made wife, in right of his\ntemporary paternity. Some of the old-fashioned clergy regarded the\nprerogative as theirs, and were by no means slow in exercising it. As soon\nas the ceremony was completed they never failed to quickly kiss the bride.\nEven a shy and retiring vicar would not neglect the pleasant duty. The\nRev. Thomas Ebdon, vicar of Merrington, who was deemed the most bashful of\nmen, always kissed the women he married.\n\nIt is related of a priest, who was a stranger to the manners and customs\nof the Yorkshire folk, that, after marrying a couple, he was surprised to\nsee the party still standing as if something more was expected. He at last\nasked why they were waiting. \"Please, sir,\" said the bridegroom, \"ye've no\nkissed Molly.\"\n\nMr. William Henderson, in his \"Folk-Lore of the Northern Counties,\" a work\ndrawn upon for these statements, says that he can \"testify that, within\nthe last ten years, a fair lady, from the county of Durham, who was\nmarried in the south of England, so undoubtedly reckoned upon the clerical\nsalute that, after waiting in vain, she boldly took the initiative, and\nbestowed a kiss on the much-amazed south-country vicar.\" Mr. Henderson's\nwork was published in 1879.\n\nAccording to the \"Folk-Lore of the West of Scotland,\" by James Napier,\npublished in 1879, the kissing custom was practised in that country. \"As\nsoon as the ceremony was concluded,\" says Mr. Napier, \"there was a rush on\nthe part of young men to get the first kiss of the newly-made wife. This\nwas frequently taken by the clergyman himself, a survival of an old custom\nsaid to have been practised in the middle ages.\" In an old song, the\nbridegroom thus addresses the minister:\n\n  \"It's no very decent for you to be kissing,\n    It does not look well wi' the black coat ava',\n  'Twould hae set you far better tae gi'en us your blessing,\n    Than thus by such tricks to be breaking the law.\n  Dear Watty, quo' Robin, it's just an auld custom,\n    And the thing that is common should ne'er be ill taen,\n  For where ye are wrong, if ye hadna a wished him,\n    You should have been first. It's yoursel it's to blame.\"\n\nThis custom appears to have been very general in past times, and Mr.\nHenderson suggests that \"it may possibly be a dim memorial of the _osculum\npacis_, or the presentation of the Pax to the newly-married pair.\"\n\nIt was formerly customary in Ireland for the priest to conclude the\nmarriage ceremony by saying, \"kiss your wife.\" Instructions more easily\ngiven than performed, for other members of the party did their utmost to\ngive the first salute.\n\nIn England, a kiss was the established fee for a lady's partner after the\ndance was finished. In a \"Dialouge between Custom and Veirtie concerning\nthe Use and Abuse of Dancing and Minstrelsie,\" the following appears:\n\n  \"But some reply, what foole would daunce,\n    If that when daunce is doone\n  He may not have at ladye's lips\n    That which in daunce he woon?\"\n\nThe following line occurs in the _Tempest_:\n\n  \"Curtsied when you have and kissed.\"\n\nIn _Henry VIII._, says the prince:\n\n  \"I were unmannerly to take you out,\n  And not to kiss you.\"\n\nNumerous other references to kissing are contained in the plays of\nShakespeare. From his works and other sources we find that kissing was\ngeneral in the country in the olden time. It is related of Sir William\nCavendish, the biographer of Cardinal Wolsey, that, when he visited a\nFrench nobleman at his chateau, his hostess, on entering the room with her\ntrain of attendant maidens, for the purpose of welcoming the visitor, thus\naccosted him:\n\n\"Forasmuch as ye be an Englishman, whose custom it is in your country to\nkiss all ladies and gentlemen without offence, it is not so in this realm,\nyet will I be so bold as to kiss you, and so shall all my maidens.\"\n\nIt is further stated how Cavendish was delighted to salute the fair\nhostess and her many merry maidens.\n\n\n\n\nHot Ale at Weddings.\n\n\nIn the year 1891, a paragraph went the rounds of the north-country\nnewspapers respecting the maintaining of an old wedding custom at Whitburn\nparish church, near Sunderland. From the days of old to the present time,\nit has been the practice of sending to the church porch, when a marriage\nis being solemnised, jugs of spiced ale, locally known as \"hot pots.\"\n\nA Whitburn gentleman supplied Mr. Henderson with particulars of his\nwedding, for insertion in \"Folk-Lore of the Northern Counties\" (London,\n1879). \"After the vestry scene,\" says the correspondent, \"the bridal party\nhaving formed a procession for leaving the church, we were stopped at the\nporch by a row of five or six women, ranged to our left hand, each holding\na large mug with a cloth over it. These were in turn presented to me, and\nhanded by me to my wife, who, after taking a sip, returned it to me. It\nwas then passed to the next couple, and so on in the same form to all the\nparty. The composition in these mugs was mostly, I am sorry to say, simply\nhorrible; one or two were very fair, one very good. They are sent to the\nchurch by all classes, and are considered a great compliment. I have never\nheard of this custom elsewhere. Here, it has existed beyond the memory of\nthe oldest inhabitant, and an aged fisherwoman, who has been married some\nsixty-five years, tells me at her wedding there were seventy hot pots.\"\n\nDrinking wine and ale at church weddings is by no means a local custom, as\nsuggested by Mr. Henderson's correspondent. Brand, in his \"Popular\nAntiquities,\" and other writers, refer to the subject. On drinking wine in\nchurch at marriages, says Brand, \"the custom is enjoined in the Hereford\nMissal. By the Sarum Missal it is directed that the sops immersed in this\nwine, as well as the liquor itself, and the cup that contained it, should\nbe blessed by the priest. The beverage used on this occasion was to be\ndrunk by the bride and bridegroom and the rest of the company.\" It appears\nthat pieces of cake or wafers were immersed in the wine, hence the\nallusions to sops.\n\nMany of the older poets refer to the practice. In the works of John\nHeywood, \"newlie imprinted 1576,\" is a passage as follows:\n\n  \"The drinke of my brydecup I should have forborne,\n  Till temperaunce had tempred the taste beforne.\n  I see now, and shall see, while I am alive,\n  Who wedth or he be wise shall die or he thrive.\"\n\nIn the \"Compleat Vintner,\" 1720, it is asked:\n\n  \"What priest can join two lovers' hands,\n  But wine must seal the marriage bands?\n  As if celestial wine was thought\n  Essential to the sacred knot,\n  And that each bridegroom and his bride\n  Believ'd they were not firmly ty'd\n  Till Bacchus, with his bleeding tun,\n  Had finished what the priest begun.\"\n\nOld plays contain allusions to this custom. We read in Dekker's\n\"Satiro-Mastix\": \"And, when we are at church, bring the wine and cakes.\"\nBeaumont and Fletcher, in the \"Scornful Lady,\" say:\n\n                \"If my wedding-smock were on,\n  Were the gloves bought and given, the licence come,\n  Were the rosemary branches dipt, and all\n  The hippocras and cakes eat and drunk off.\"\n\nAt the magnificent marriage of Queen Mary and Philip, in Winchester\nCathedral, in 1554, we are told that, \"The trumpets sounded, and they both\nreturned, hand in hand, to their traverses in the quire, and there\nremained until mass was done, at which time wyne and sopes were hallowed,\nand delivered to them both.\"\n\nNumerous other notes similar to the foregoing might be reproduced from old\nwriters, but sufficient have been cited to show how general was the custom\nin bygone times. The Rev. W. Carr, in his \"Glossary of the Craven\nDialect,\" gives us an illustration of it lingering in another form in the\npresent century. In his definition of Bride-ale, he observes that after\nthe ceremony was concluded at the church, there took place either a foot\nor horse race, the first to arrive at the dwelling of the bride,\n\"requested to be shown to the chamber of the newly-married pair, then,\nafter he had turned down the bed-clothes, he returns, carrying in his hand\na tankard of warm ale, previously prepared, to meet the bride, to whom he\ntriumphantly offers the humble beverage.\" The bride, in return for this,\npresents to him a ribbon as his reward.\n\n\n\n\nMarrying Children.\n\n\nThe marriage of children forms a curious feature in old English life. In\nthe days of yore, to use the words of a well-informed writer on this\ntheme, \"babes were often mated in the cradle, ringed in the nursery, and\nbrought to the church porch with lollipops in their mouths.\" Parents and\nguardians frequently had joined together in matrimony young couples,\nwithout any regard for their feelings. Down to the days of James I., the\ndisposal in marriage of young orphan heiresses was in the hands of the\nreigning monarchs, and they usually arranged to wed them to the sons of\ntheir favourites, by whom unions with wealthy girls were welcomed.\n\nEdward I. favoured early marriages, and his ninth daughter, Eleanor, was\nonly four days old, it is stated on good authority, \"when her father\narranged to espouse her to the son and heir of Otho, late Earl of Burgundy\nand Artois, a child in custody of his mother, the Duchess of Burgundy.\"\nBefore she had reached the age of a year, the little princess was a\nspouse, but, dying in her sixth year, she did not attain the position of\nwife planned for her.\n\nCareful consideration is paid to early marriages in an able work by the\nlate Rev. W. Denton, M.A., entitled \"England in the Fifteenth Century\"\n(London, 1888.) Mr. Denton says that the youthful marriages \"probably\noriginated in the desire of anticipating the Crown in its claim to the\nwardship of minors, and the disposal of them in marriage. As deaths were\nearly in those days, and wardship frequent, a father sought by the early\nmarriage of his son or daughter to dispose of their hands in his lifetime,\ninstead of leaving them to be dealt out to hungry courtiers, who only\nsought to make a large profit, as they could, from the marriage of wards\nthey had bought for the purpose. Fourteen was a usual period for the\nmarriage of the children of those who would save their lands from the\nexactions of the Crown.\" He adverts to marriages at an earlier age, and\neven paternity at fourteen.\n\nIn 1583 was published a work entitled \"The Anatomie of Abuses,\" by Philip\nStubbes, and it supplies a curious account of the amusements and other\nsocial customs of the day. Marriage comes in for attention, and, after\nreferring to it with words of commendation, he adds: \"There is permitted\none great liberty therein--for little maids in swaddling clothes are often\nmarried by their ambitious parents and friends, when they know neither\ngood nor evil, and this is the origin of much wickedness. And, besides\nthis, you shall have a saucy boy often, fourteen, sixteen, or twenty years\nof age, catch up a woman without any fear of God at all.\" The protests of\nStubbes and others had little effect, for children continued to be\nmarried, if not mated.\n\nThe marriage of Robert, Earl of Essex, and Lady Francis Howard, was\ncelebrated in the year 1606. The former was not fourteen, and the latter\nwas thirteen years of age. The union was an unhappy one. The \"Diary and\nCorrespondence of John Evelyn, F.R.S.,\" contains references to early\nmarriages. He wrote, under date of August 1, 1672: \"I was at the marriage\nof Lord Arlington's only daughter (a sweet child if ever there was any) to\nthe Duke of Grafton the king's natural son by the Duchess of Cleveland;\nthe Archbishop of Canterbury officiating, the king and all the grandees\nbeing present.\" The little girl at this time was only five years of age.\nEvelyn concludes his entry by saying, \"I had a favour given to me by my\nlady; but took no great joy at the thing for many reasons.\" Seven years\nlater, the children were re-married, and Evelyn, in his \"Diary,\" on\nNovember 6th, 1679, states that he attended the re-marriage of the Duchess\nGrafton to the Duke, she being now twelve years old. The ceremony was\nperformed by the Bishop of Rochester. The king was at the wedding. \"A\nsudden and unexpected thing,\" writes Evelyn, \"when everybody believed the\nfirst marriage would have come to nothing; but the measure being\ndetermined, I was privately invited by my lady, her mother, to be present.\nI confess I could give her little joy, and so I plainly told her, but she\nsaid the king would have it so, and there was no going back.\" The diarist\nspeaks warmly of the charms and virtues of the young bride; and he\ndeplores that she was sacrificed to a boy that had been rudely bred.\n\nAs might be expected, the facile pen of Samuel Pepys, the most genial of\ngossipers, furnishes a few facts on this subject. His notes occur in a\nletter, dated September 20, 1695, addressed to Mrs. Steward. It appears\nfrom his epistle that two wealthy citizens had recently died and left\ntheir estates, one to a Blue-coat boy and the other to a Blue-coat girl,\nin Christ's Hospital. The circumstance led some of the magistrates to\nbring about a match with the youthful pair. The wedding was a public one,\nand was quite an event in London life. Pepys says, the boy, \"in his habit\nof blue satin, led by two of the girls, and she in blue, with an apron\ngreen, and petticoat yellow, all of sarsnet, led by two of the boys of the\nhouse through Cheapside to Guildhall Chapel, where they were married by\nthe Dean of St. Paul's.\" The Lord Mayor gave away the bride.\n\nThe marriage of Charles, second Duke of Richmond, and Lady Sarah Cadogan,\ndaughter of the first Earl of Cadogan, forms an extremely romantic story.\nIt is said that it was brought about to cancel a gambling debt between\ntheir parents. The youthful bridegroom was a student at college, and the\nbride a girl of thirteen, still in the nursery. The young Lord of March\nprotested against the match, saying \"surely you are not going to marry me\nto that dowdy.\" His protestations were in vain, for the marriage service\nwas gone through, and the twain were made one. They parted after the\nceremony, and the young husband spent three years in foreign travel,\ndoubtless thinking little about his wife. At all events on his return he\ndid not go direct to her, but visited the sights in town. On his first\nattendance at the theatre, a most beautiful lady attracted his attention.\nHe inquired her name, and to his surprise he was told that she was Lady\nMarch. The young lord hastened to claim his wife, and they spent together\na happy life.\n\nIn the reign of William III., George Downing, at the age of fifteen,\nmarried a Mary Forester, a girl of thirteen. As soon as the marriage\nservice had been concluded, the pair parted company, the boy going abroad\nto finish his education, and the girl returning home to resume her\nstudies. After spending some three or four years on the Continent, the\nhusband returned to England, and was entreated to live with his wife. He\ndeclined to even see her, having a great aversion to her. The husband's\nconduct caused his wife to entertain feelings of hatred of him, and both\nwould have been glad to have been freed from a marriage contracted before\neither were master of their own actions, but they sued in vain for a\ndivorce.\n\nThe editor of the \"Annual Register,\" under date of June 8th, 1721,\nchronicles the marriage of Charles Powel, of Carmarthen, aged about eleven\nyears, to a daughter of Sir Thomas Powel, aged about fourteen. Four years\nlater, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, in one of her lively letters, refers to\nthe marriage, in 1725, of the Duke of Bedford, at the age of sixteen\nyears.\n\nThe General Assembly of Scotland, in 1600, ruled that no minister should\nunite in matrimony any male under fourteen and any female under twelve\nyears of age. The regulation was not always obeyed. In 1659, for example,\nMary, Countess of Buccleuch, in her eleventh year, was married to Walter\nScott, of Highchester, and his age was fourteen. As late as the 1st June,\n1859, was married, at 15, St. James' Square, Edinburgh, a girl in her\neleventh year. The official inspector, when he saw the return, suspected\nan error, but, on investigation, found it was correct.\n\nYoung men and maidens may congratulate themselves on living in these later\ntimes, when they may not be united in wedlock before they are old enough\nto think and act for themselves.\n\n\n\n\nThe Passing Bell.\n\n\nThe passing bell, or soul bell, rang whilst persons were _passing_ from\nthis life to that beyond, and it was rung that all who heard it might\naddress prayers to heaven and the saints for the _soul_ then being\nseparated from the mortal body. One of the earliest accounts of the use of\nbells in England is connected with this bell. Bede, in speaking of the\ndeath of the Abbess of St. Hilda, says that a sister in a distant\nmonastery thought that she heard in her sleep the well-known sound of the\npassing bell. She no sooner heard it than she called all the sisters from\ntheir rest into the church, where they prayed and sang a _requiem_. To\nshow how persistently the custom was maintained, we may quote from the\n\"Advertisements for due Order,\" passed in the seventh year of the reign of\nQueen Elizabeth: \"Item, that when anye Christian body is in passing, that\nthe bell be tolled, and that the curate be speciallie called for to\ncomforte the sicke person; and, after the time of his passinge, to ringe\nno more, but one shorte peale, and one before the buriall, and another\nshorte peale after the buriall.\" In ancient days, the bell rang at the\nhour of passing, whether it happened to be night or day. In the\nchurchwardens' accounts for the parish of Wolchurch, 1526, appears the\nfollowing regulation:\n\n  \"Item. The clerke to have for tollynge of the passynge belle for\n         manne, womanne, or childes, if it be in the day      iiijd.\n\n  Item. If it be in the night, for the same      viijd.\"\n\nShakespeare's universal observation led him to make use of the melancholy\nmeaning of the death bell. He says, in the second part of _King Henry\nIV._:\n\n                        \"And his tongue\n  Sounds ever after as a sullen bell\n  Remembered knolling a departing friend.\"\n\nThe passing bell has a place in the story of the death, in the Tower of\nLondon, of Lady Catherine Grey, sister to the unfortunate Lady Jane. The\nconstable of the Tower, Sir Owen Hopton, seeing that the end was\napproaching, said to Mr. Bokeham: \"Were it not best to send to the church,\nthat the bell may be rung?\" and Lady Catherine herself, hearing the\nremark, said to him: \"Good Sir Owen, be it so,\" and died almost at once,\nclosing her eyes with her own hands. This was in 1567.\n\nThe tolling of the passing bell, as such, continued until the time of\nCharles II., and it was one of the subjects of inquiry in all articles of\nvisitation.\n\nThe form of inquiry in the Archdeaconry of Yorke by the churchwardens and\nswornemen, in 163-, was: \"Whether doth your clark or sexton, when any one\nis passing out of this life, neglect to toll a bell, having notice\nthereof, or, the party being dead, doth he suffer any more ringing than\none short peale, and before his burial one, and after the same another?\"\nInquiry was also to be made: \"Whether, at the death of any, there be any\nsuperstitious ringing?\" There is a widespread saying:\n\n  \"When the bell begins to toll,\n  Lord have mercy on the soul.\"\n\nGascoigne, in his \"Workes,\" 1587, mentions the passing bell in the\nprefatory lines to a sonnet, he says:\n\n  \"Alas, loe now I heare the passing bell,\n  Which care appoynteth carefully to knowle,\n  And in my brest I feele my heart now swell\n  To breake the stringes which joynd it to my soule.\"\n\nAnother instance of the poetic use is to be found in the _Rape of\nLucrece_, by Heywood (1630), where Valerius exclaims: \"Nay, if he be\ndying, as I could wish he were, I'le ring out his funerall peale, and this\nit is:\n\n  Come list and harke, the bell doth towle,\n  For some but now departing soule.\n  And was not that some ominous fowle,\n  The batt, the night-crow, or skreech-owle,\n  To these I heare the wild woolfe howle,\n  In this black night that seems to skowle.\n  All these my black booke shall in-rowle;\n  For hark, still, still, the bell doth towle\n  For some but now departing sowle.\"\n\nJust a little earlier, Copley, in his \"Wits, Fits, and Fancies\" (1614),\nbears evidence to the ringing of the bell while persons were yet alive. A\ngentleman who lay upon a severe sick bed, heard a passing bell ring out,\nand thereupon asked his physician: \"Tell me, maister Doctor, is yonder\nmusicke for my dancing?\" Continuing the subject, he gives an anecdote\nconcerning \"The ringing out at the burial.\" It is as follows: A rich\nmiser and a beggar were buried in the same churchyard at the same time,\n\"and the belles rung out amaine\" for the rich man. The son of the former,\nfearing the tolling might be thought to be for the beggar instead of his\nfather, hired a trumpeter to stand \"all the ringing-while\" in the belfry\nand proclaim between every peal, \"Sirres, this next peale is not for R.,\nbut for Maister N.,\" his father. In the superstitions which gathered round\nthe bells of Christianity, the passing bell was considered to ward off the\ninfluence of evil spirits from the departing soul. Grose says: \"The\npassing bell was anciently rung for two purposes: one to bespeak the\nprayers of all good Christians for a soul just departing; the other to\ndrive away the evil spirits who stood at the bed's foot and about the\nhouse, ready to seize their prey, or at least to molest and terrify the\nsoul in its passage; but, by the ringing of the bell (for Durandus informs\nus evil spirits are much afraid of bells), they were kept aloof; and the\nsoul, like a hunted hare, gained the start, or had what is by sportsmen\ncalled law. Hence, perhaps, exclusive of the additional labour, was\noccasioned the high price demanded for tolling the greatest bell of the\nchurch, for, that being louder, the evil spirits must go farther off to be\nclear of its sound, by which the poor soul got so much more the start of\nthem; besides, being heard farther off, it would likewise procure the\ndying man a greater number of prayers.\" This dislike of spirits to bells\nis mentioned in the \"Golden Legend,\" by Wynkyn de Worde.\n\nDouce takes the driving away of the spirits to be the main object in\nringing the passing bell, and draws attention to the woodcuts in the Horae,\nwhich contain the \"Service of Dead,\" where several devils are represented\nas waiting in the chamber of the dying man, while the priest is\nadministering extreme unction. Of course, the interpretation that the\nspirits are waiting to take possession of the soul so soon as disembodied\nis not necessarily the intentional meaning. Douce concludes his remarks by\nan observation which has escaped the notice of most of those who have\ndealt with the subject. He says: \"It is to be hoped that this ridiculous\ncustom will never be revived, which has been most probably the cause of\nsending many a good soul to the other world before its time; nor can the\npractice of tolling bells for the dead be defended upon any principle of\ncommon sense, prayers for the dead being contrary to the articles of our\nreligion.\" When the English first began to see the apparent inconsistency\nof the practice of tolling with their declared religion, the subject gave\nrise to much controversy. The custom had many apologists. Bishop Hall\nsays: \"We call them soul bells, for that they signify the departure of the\nsoul, not for that they help the passage of the soul.\" Wheatly says: \"Our\nChurch, in imitation of the saints in former ages, calls on the minister\nand others who are at hand to assist their brother in his last extremity.\"\nDr. Zouch (1796) says: \"The soul bell was tolled before the departure of a\nperson out of life, as a signal for good men to offer up their prayers for\nthe dying. Hence the abuse commenced of praying for the dead.\" He cites\nDouce's versified letter to Sir Henry Wotton:\n\n  \"And thicken on you now, as prayers ascend\n  To heaven on troops at a good man's passing bell.\"\n\nFuller, long before this, in 1647, expresses some little indignation at\nhearing a bell toll after the person had died, as he was thereby cheated\ninto prayer. He observes: \"What is this but giving a false alarm to men's\ndevotions, to make them ready to arm with their prayers for the\nassistance of such who have already fought the good fight.\" Dekker, in an\nevident reference to the passing bell, calls it \"the great capon-bell.\"\n\nFrom the number of strokes being formerly regulated according to\ncircumstances, the hearers might determine the sex and social condition of\nthe dying or dead person. Thus the bell was tolled twice for a woman and\nthrice for a man. If for a clergyman, as many times as he had orders, and,\nat the conclusion, a peal on all the bells to distinguish the quality of\nthe person for whom the people are to put up their prayers. In the North\nof England, are yet rung nine knells for a man, six for a woman, and three\nfor a child.\n\n\n\n\nConcerning Coffins.\n\n\nThe use of the coffin may be traced back to a remote period. The remains\nof Joseph were conveyed in a coffin from Egypt to Canaan. The Christians\nadopted their use from the heathen.\n\nCoffins have been made of various kinds of material. Cedar was used for\nthe Athenian heroes on account of its aromatic and incorruptible\nqualities. It is said that Alexander was buried in one made of gold.\nMarble and stone were largely used by the Romans, but many lead coffins\nhave been found in the Roman cemeteries at Colchester, York, London, and\nother places. Coffins of baked clay and cists formed of tiles have been\nfound at York and at Adlborough. Glass coffins have been used in England.\nWooden coffins are, in this country, of great antiquity. It is recorded\nthat King Arthur was buried, in 542, in the entire trunk of a tree,\nhollowed. Some of the earlier coffins made of wood are extremely rude in\nshape. Abbot Warin, of St. Alban's, 1183-95, gave directions for the monks\nto be buried in stone coffins. They had previously been buried without\ncoffins, under the green turf. According to an ancient legend, St.\nCuthbert's remains sailed down the Tweed in a stone coffin.\n\nGenerally speaking, the modes of burying the dead in the Middle Ages were\nwithout coffins. The corpses were usually enveloped in linen, but members\nof religious houses were usually buried in the habit of their order.\n\nCoffins, in their universal use in this country, comparatively speaking,\nbelong to modern times. Thomas Hearne, the antiquary, writing in 1742,\nsays that sixty years before that period it was a common custom to bury\nthe dead without coffins. People of rank, however, were usually buried in\ncoffins, unless they left directions to the contrary.\n\nSir Walter Scott has made us familiar with the fact that it was customary\nfor\n\n  \"The lordly line of high Saint Clair\"\n\nto deposit their dead in a vault at Roslin Chapel, attired in the armour\nthey had used in life.\n\nIn Ireland, there was a curious custom of burying the dead without\ncoffins. \"Until about the year 1818,\" says a correspondent of _Notes and\nQueries_, Second Series, vol. i., p. 455, \"certain families, named Tracey,\nDoyle, and Daly, of the townland of Craan, near Enniscorthy, in the barony\nof Scarawalsh, in the county of Wexford, were in the habit of burying\ntheir dead uncoffined, in the graveyard attached to the Augustinian Abbey\nof Saint John. The bodies were brought to the place of sepulture in open\ncoffins, with their faces uncovered. The graves were made six or more feet\ndeep, and lined with bright green turf from the banks of the river Slaney.\nIn these green chambers, were strewn moss, dry grass, and flowers, and a\npillow of the same supported the head of the corpse when it was laid in\nits last earthly bed.\"\n\nIn a \"Table of Dutyes\" of Shoreditch Church, 1664, are references to the\namounts to be paid if coffins are not used at funerals. It is stated, \"for\na burial in ye new churchyard, without a coffin, eight pence; for a burial\nin ye olde churchyard, without a coffin, seaven pence; and for the\ngrave-making and attendance of ye Vicar and Clarke on ye enterment of a\ncorps uncoffined, the churchwardens to pay the ordinary duteys, and no\nmore, of this table.\"\n\n[Illustration: PARISH COFFIN, EASINGWOLD CHURCH.]\n\nThe poor were usually buried in parish coffins, or rather taken from their\nhumble homes to the grave in a coffin, and at the grave removed from it\nand merely interred in their shrouds. At Easingwold Church, in East\nYorkshire, an interesting example of the parish coffin is still preserved.\nIt is strongly and roughly made of oak. We give an illustration of this\nold-time relic from a carefully-made drawing by Mr. J. H. Doe. In Smith's\n\"Old Yorkshire,\" vol. v., pp. 106-110, will be found an informing article\non the Easingwold and other parish coffins, by the late Llewellynn Jewitt,\nF.S.A., who collected much out-of-the-way information on this subject.\nFrom the Rev. Canon Hayman, he received the following important\ncommunication: \"The old historical town of Youghal, in the county of\nCork,\" wrote Canon Hayman, \"has many features of interest for the\nantiquary, chiefest among which is the venerable Collegiate Church of St.\nMary. The cemetery attached to this noble edifice is the _Pere la Chase_\nof Ireland. The ground naturally forms a succession of terraces, here\nswelling into little knolls, there sinking into gentle declivities. A poet\nsaid of the Protestant burial ground of Rome: 'It might make one in love\nwith death to think that one should be buried in so sweet a place,' and\nthe saying may be repeated of the Youghal churchyard. Death is here\ndivested of its horror, and wears the softened aspect of stillness and\nunbroken repose. On its northern and western sides, the cemetery is\noverhung by the old walls of the town, which are yet in good preservation.\nIn a portion of those defences, nearly opposite to the western gable of\nthe church, is a recessed [coffin-shaped] aperture, of which the\naccompanying is an engraving. Here, as the old folk tell us, was kept the\npublic coffin for the poor of Youghal. Whenever needed, it was sent to the\nhouse of the dead; and, so soon as it had discharged its office, it was\nreplaced here. The walls, as may be perceived, are of three thicknesses.\nThe newest piece, in front, is of hammered, well-squared masonry. More\nancient is the furthest drawn, where the materials are less in size, and\nare less carefully finished; but, lying between these twain, is a fragment\nof a very old wall, built of exceeding small stones, and evidently\npreserved from demolition because of its characteristic feature--the\nParish Coffin Recess.\" It will be observed, from the illustration we give,\nthat the recess was coffin-shaped, so that when the parish coffin was not\nin use it might be placed upright in the place specially prepared for it.\n\n[Illustration: RECESS FOR PARISH COFFIN, YOUGHAL CHURCHYARD.]\n\nRespecting the parish coffin of Stockton-on-Tees, there is a note in the\nhistory of the town, by the Rev. John Brewer, and published in 1796. It\nis stated: \"Soon after the Rev. Geo. Walker, vicar [1715], came to reside\nat Stockton-on-Tees, he was called upon to inter a poor person. When they\ncame to the grave, the attendants were preparing to take the body out of\nthe shell or coffin which contained it. He enquired what they were doing,\nand was informed that the same coffin was used for the funerals of the\npoor, and that this was intended to serve again. He insisted on its being\nput into the ground with the body; and, from this time, took care to\nprevent a repetition of such an act of indecency.\"\n\nDuring the visit of the members of the Yorkshire Architectural Society to\nHowden, on August 25th, 1885, an old oak parish coffin was inspected by\nthem. It was much dilapidated, but on it could be traced the date, 1664.\n\nWe have found in old churchwardens' accounts several entries relating to\nparish or church coffins. In the Vestry Book of St. Oswald, Durham, are\nthe following items:\n\n  \"1614-15. Pd. for mendinge the bell wheele, and for makinge the\n            coffins for to bringe the dead corpes to the church in\n            ijs.\n\n            Pd. for bordes for same      xxd.\n\n            Pd. for bread and drinke for workmen att that tyme     iiijd.\"\n\nThe same parish records for 1666-7 contain an entry as follows:\n\n  \"For a church coffin      14s.\"\n\nParish coffins must have been very distasteful to the poor, for the\nhumbler classes of England dearly love a display at a funeral. An epitaph\nin St. Michael's churchyard, Macclesfield, illustrates the weakness in\nthis direction in our character. It reads as follows:\n\n    \"MARY BROOMFIELD,\n    dyd 19 Novr., 1755, aged 80.\n\n    The chief concern of her life for the last 20 years was to order and\n    provide for her funeral. Her greatest pleasure was to think and talk\n    about it. She lived many years on a pension of 9d. a week, and yet\n    saved L5, which, at her own request, was laid out on her funeral.\"\n\nIn the reign of George III., wars prevailed to an alarming extent, and\nextraordinary taxes were levied to obtain money to maintain the army and\nnavy. Among the proposals made to raise further revenue was a tax on\ncoffins, which gave rise to some keen epigrams. Here are a couple of\nexamples. The first is by Mr. Evans, M.P., and dated Derby, July 6, 1791:\n\n  \"Taxed when we're born and when we die,\n  Must coffins now a tax supply?\n  In vain on earth we respite crave,\n  Or seek a shelter in the grave!\"\n\nMr. Evans adverts to the old tax by which persons, not being in the\nreceipt of alms, had to pay two shillings on the birth of a child. The\nnobility and gentry were taxed at a much higher rate, for example, a duke,\nfor his eldest son, had to pay L30. Another epigrammatist addressed the\nking as follows:\n\n  \"Taxed to the bone, thy loving subjects see!\n  But still supposed, when dead from taxes free;\n  Now to complete, Great George, thy glorious reign,\n  Excis'd to death, we're then excis'd again.\"\n\n\n\n\nThe Curfew Bell.\n\n\nFew points of national history have given rise to so much discussion as\nthe facts and inferences connected with what is known as the curfew law.\nThe testimony of the various writers on ancient jurisprudence differs\nwidely as to the period at which the law originated, and yet more widely\nas to the object and intention of those who imposed it upon the people of\nEngland. We will first briefly outline the regulation or custom as we find\nit under the Normans. At eight in the evening, a bell was rung, the sound\nof which was the signal for everyone to put out, or rather cover, their\nfires, extinguish all lights, and go to bed. This was the curfew law,\nwhich it has been the custom to regard as a repressive measure adopted by\nthe tyrant Conqueror to prevent seditious meetings of the turbulent\nSaxons. We \"find the name of curfew law employed as a bye-word denoting\nthe most odious tyranny, and historians, poets, and lawyers, speaking of\nit as the acme of despotism, levelled alone at the vanquished English.\" We\nwill endeavour to show that, on the contrary, the law was in existence and\nforce before the Normans trod the conquered fields of Angle-land, and that\nits intention was to cherish the good of the country by preventing the\nrise of conflagrations.\n\nThroughout the north of Europe, in monasteries and towns, a bell for\ncovering of fires was in common use; a regulation which reason cannot but\napprove, for most dwellings, even those of the higher classes, were built,\nfor the greater part, of timber, the Saxon term for building being an\nexpression meaning to \"make of wood.\" We read that London and other towns\nwere frequently subject to fires. In England, the curfew law is said to\nhave been made an established institution by King Alfred. When that\nmonarch restored the University which had been founded at Oxford by St.\nFrideswide, he ordained, among other thoughtful regulations, that a bell\nshould be rung every night at eight, when all the inhabitants of Oxford\nshould cover up their fires and go to bed. The intention was not that the\nfires should be put out, but merely deadened. As Mr. Lomax observes, \"The\nold fires were made in the centre of a large hearth, and the accumulated\nashes were swept to the back and sides. At the curfew, the large logs were\nremoved, and the cold ashes raked over the fire so as to cover it. A fire\nso covered will often keep smouldering for days, and can be re-lighted by\nadding fuel and admitting air, a most important consideration in the days\nof tinder-boxes. The same custom is still pursued in the backwoods of\nAmerica, in the Australian bush, and in our own 'black country,' where the\ngreat coal fires are 'raked' in the old fashion nightly.\"\n\nThe word _curfew_ is derived from the old French _carre-feu_ or\n_cerre-feu_, which afterwards became _couvre-feu_, and lastly _curfew_.\nEach of these terms, meaning to cover fire, indicates the intention; and\nthere was a utensil known as the _couvre-feu_, a kind of metal cover,\nsomewhat resembling a shield in form, the use of which was to be thrust\nover the fire when the bell rang. This probably would only be found in the\nhouses of the wealthy.\n\n[Illustration: COUVRE-FEU.]\n\nKing Alfred the Great passed away, and all the line of Saxon and Danish\nmonarchs after him; yet probably the curfew, under one or another of its\nancient names, was kept up as a national observance in each of their\nreigns, with more or less laxity. At last the Conqueror came, and after\nthat sanguinary struggle, which had to roughly pave the way for England's\nadvancement, he set himself the task of governing the people he had\novercome. Whether he found the law of the curfew still feebly kept up, or\nwhether it had died out we cannot tell, but we know that two years after\nthe battle of Hastings--in 1068--he ordered fires to be covered at the\nringing of an eight o'clock bell, and the people to retire to rest. He had\nprobably been accustomed to a similar regulation in Normandy; and it is\nevident the enactment, however more severely enforced than the Saxons had\npreviously experienced, could not have been purposed as a suspicious and\ncontemptuous safeguard against them, for the haughty robbers called nobles\nwere as subject to the curfew as the meanest swineherds they owned. There\nseems to have been, from an indefinitely early period, a religious service\nat eight in the evening. When William, after the injuries received by the\nplunging of his horse as it trod upon hot ashes, lay dying, the vesper\nbell of a neighbouring church aroused him from the stupor which had\ngathered round his sinking mind. He asked if he were in England, and if\nthat were the curfew ringing, and on being told he was in \"his own\nNormandy,\" and the bell was for evening prayer, he \"charged them bid the\nmonks pray for his soul, and remained awhile dull and heavy.\"\nPolydore-Vergil tells us that William, to convert the native ferocity of\nthe people to indolence, ordained that the head of each family should\nretire to rest at eight in the evening, \"having raked the ashes over the\nfire; and for this purpose a sign should be made through every village,\nwhich is even now preserved, and called in the Norman, _cover-feu_.\" Mr.\nHutchinson, in his \"History of Durham,\" speaks of the curfew with great\nbitterness: he says that William \"under severe penalties, prohibited the\nuse of fire or candles when the curfew bell should ring, to prevent\nassociations and conspiracies. This bell was heard by the English as the\nknell of their departed liberty, and a repeated testimony of slavery.\"\n\nWe learn from Du Cange, that the ringing of the _couvre-feu_,\n_ignitegium_, or _peritegium_ bell, as it was called in mediaeval low\nLatin, prevailed generally in Europe during the Middle Ages as a\nprecaution against fire; and this fact is alone sufficient to justify\nWilliam in reviving and extending the law in this country.\n\nVoltaire, in his \"Universal History,\" ridicules the notion of the curfew\nbeing a badge of degradation; he observes that \"The law, far from being\ntyrannical, was only an ancient police, established in almost all the\ntowns of the north, and which had been long preserved in the convents.\"\nAnd he adds this reason for it: \"That the houses were all built of wood,\nand the fear of fire was one of the most important objects of general\npolice.\" Throughout the reigns of William I., and his son, William II.,\nthe curfew law was rigidly enforced, and, however good its intentions\nwere, the rigour of its administration rendered it increasingly obnoxious.\nThe politic Henry I., in 1103, wisely repealed the enactment, modifying\nthe law, which, however, though not compulsory, \"settled into a cherished\ncustom.\" Though perhaps no longer as Thomson describes:\n\n  \"The shiv'ring wretches at the curfew sound\n    Dejected sunk into their sordid beds,\n  And, through the mournful gloom of ancient times\n    Mus'd sad, or dreamt of better.\"\n\nYet the weary yeomen would doubtless for a long time welcome the hour that\nheralded rest. Certainly the name lingered as a dividing period of the\nday.\n\nBlackstone says (vol. iv., p. 420) that Henry \"abolished the curfew, for\nthough it is mentioned in our laws a full century afterwards, yet it is\nrather spoken of as a known time of night (so denominated from that\nabrogated usage) than as a still subsisting custom.\"\n\nChaucer speaks of it as a time of day:\n\n  \"The dede sleep, for every besinesse,\n  Fell on this carpenter, right as I gesse,\n  About curfew time, or litel more.\"\n\nIn the _Antiquarian Repertory_, vol. i., p. 4, it is stated upon the\nauthority of Monsieur Pasquier, that the ringing of the curfew bell was a\ncustom long established in particular towns in France, and originated, as\nhe supposes, in times of tumult and sedition. But the earliest instance he\ngives is no farther back than the year 1331, when the city of Laon, which\nhad forfeited its privileges, was reinstated therein by Philip de Valois,\nwho directed that for the future a curfew bell should be rung in a certain\ntower in that city, at the close of the day. Pasquier adds, that under the\nreigns of Charles VI. and VII., it came much into use.\n\nWe will now glance over the records of the curfew, as found in deeds,\nenactments, poetry, and tradition, preserving, as nearly as convenient, a\nsequence of date.\n\nIn the second mayoralty of Sir Henry Colet, knight (father of Dean Colet),\nA.D. 1495, and under his direction, this solemn charge was given to the\nquest of wardmote in every ward, as it stands printed in the _Custumary of\nLondon_: \"Also yf there be anye paryshe clerke that ryngeth curfewe after\nthe curfewe be ronge at Bowe Chyrche, or Saint Brydes Chyrche, or Saint\nGyles without Cripelgat, all suche to be presented.\" Stow may be regarded\nas corroborating the statement of curfew usage at the two latter churches.\n\nIn Stripe's edition of Stow, 1721 (vol. i., b. 3, p. 542), speaking of St.\nMary-le-Bow, it is stated that \"The parish clerk's office, belonging to\nthis church, was to ring the curfew bell; as it was to be rung at three\nother churches in London, at a pretty distance from each other. That, so\nthis notice, all the curfew bells in other parishes might be rung in due\nseason, viz., Barking Church, S. Bride's, and S. Giles's without\nCripplegate.\"\n\nIn the articles agreed upon and settled in 22 Henry VIII. (1531), for the\nguidance of the sexton of Faversham, we read: \"Imprimis, the sexton, or\nhis sufficient deputy, shall lye in the church steeple; and, at eight\no'clock every night, shall ring the curfewe by the space of a quarter of\nan hour, with such bell as of old time hath been accustomed.\"\n\nIn the Middle Ages, so much regard was paid to ringing the _couvre-feu_,\nthat land was occasionally left to pay for it. This feeling appears to\nhave been not altogether extinct, even so late as the close of the\nsixteenth century, for in Bishop Hall's \"Fourth Satire\" occurs the\nfollowing:\n\n  \"Who ever gives a paire of velvet shooes\n  To th' Holy Rood, or liberally allowes\n  But a new rope to ring the _couvre-feu_ bell,\n  But he desires that his great deed may dwell,\n  Or graven in the chancel-window glasse,\n  Or in his lasting tombe of plated brasse.\"\n\nIn the churchwardens' and chamberlains' accounts of Kingston-on-Thames,\noccurs the following item:\n\n  \"1651. For ringing the curfew bell for one year      L1 10.\"\n\nAccording to the Hon. Daines Barrington, curfew is written _curphour_ \"in\nan old Scottish poem, published in 1770, with many others, from the MSS.\nof George Bannatyne, who collected them in the year 1568.\" It is observed\nin the notes which accompany these poems, that, by \"Act 144, Parliament\n13, James I., this bell was to be rung in boroughs at nine in the evening,\nand that the hour was afterwards changed to ten, at the solicitation of\nthe wife of James VI.'s favourite, James Stewart.\" This lends some\ncountenance to what might otherwise seem erroneous in the works of the\npoets and dramatists. Thus, in the old play of the _Merry Devil of\nEdmonton_ (1631), the sexton exclaims:\n\n  \"Well, 'tis nine a clocke, 'tis time to ring curfew.\"\n\nWe fear, however, that Shakespeare cannot be held free from mistake and\nuncertainty in his fixing of the curfew hour. Thus, in _Measure for\nMeasure_, the Duke says:\n\n  \"The best and wholesom'st spirits of the night\n  Invellop you, good Provost! Who call'd here o' late?\n  _Provost_: None since the curfew rang.\"\n\nIn _The Tempest_, Prospero says:\n\n                  \"You whose pastime\n  Is to make midnight mushrooms, that rejoice\n  To hear the solemn curfew.\"\n\nAgain, in _Romeo and Juliet_, he seems to advance the time still further.\nLord Capulet is made to say:\n\n  \"Come stir, stir, stir, the second cock hath crowed,\n  The curphew bell hath rung, 'tis three o'clock.\"\n\nIn _King Lear_, we also find the curfew considered a midnight bell: \"This\nis the foul fiend, Flibbertigibbett: he begins at curfew, and walks to the\nfirst cock.\"\n\nInstances of land being given for the ringing of the bell are at Mapouder,\nDorset, where land was given \"to find a man to ring the morning and\ncurfew bell throughout the year,\" and at Ibberton, in the same county, one\nacre of land was given for the ringing of the eight o'clock bell, and L4.\nfor ringing the morning bell.\n\nMacaulay, in 1791, says: \"The custom of ringing curfew, which is still\nkept up at Claybrook, has probably obtained without intermission since the\ndays of the Norman conqueror.\" In winter, and in flat and dangerous\nlocalities, the ringing of the bell in the evening has often been the\nmeans of safely guiding and sometimes saving the lives of travellers; and\nthere are instances on record of persons so saved leaving a sum of money\nfor ringing this bell. Such is the story told of a bride who, from an\nEnglish village, stole out to hide, like another Ginevra, from her friends\non the wedding day. The place was near a wide moor, and the girl hid\nawhile among the furze. When she sought to return, to laugh merrily at the\nanxious groom and guests, she, alas! took a wrong path, and presently\nfound herself lost on the waste. The shades of night and the shrouding\nsnow fell fast, and the bride had well nigh given herself up to despair,\nwhen, hark! the curfew bell! Yes, it is the well-known curfew bell\nsolemnly, and O, how sweetly, pealing from the grey old tower, that\novershadowed her home. After being guided to that home by the blessed\nsound, she presented a chime of bells to the church, and, upon her death,\nyears after, it was found she had bequeathed money to keep up the ringing\nof the curfew bell for ever.\n\nWe may here state that we are indebted for some of the information given\nin this paper to Mr. H. Syer Cuming. He has also kindly favoured us with\nfacts and suggestions for other chapters included in this volume.\n\nThe curfew bell may now be said to be one of the things of the past. True,\nhere and there a bell may ring in the evening from the powerful force of\nold custom, yet all the associations of the custom itself are lost; the\nbell summons us from home, not commands to retire to sleep; the\n_couvre-feu_ is a rare object of interest in our museums; and now only in\nthe volumes of the poets shall we find that\n\n  \"The curfew tolls the knell of parting day.\"\n\n\n\n\nCurious Symbols of the Saints.\n\n\nSome curious symbols of the saints were carved on ancient clog-almanacks\nwhich were in use before the introduction of printing. Even as late as the\nyear 1686, when Dr. Robert Plot compiled his \"Natural History of\nStaffordshire,\" he tells us that the clog-almanack was \"in use among the\nmeaner sort of people.\" It was largely employed in the northern counties,\nbut Plot failed to trace it further south than the county of Stafford. In\nDenmark, it was in use in bygone times, and it is supposed to have been\nintroduced into this country by the Danish invaders.\n\nThe almanack was usually a square stick made of box or other hard wood,\nabout eight inches in length, and often having a ring at the top for\nsuspending it in a room. It occasionally formed part of a walking stick.\n\nThe days of the year are represented by notches running along the angles\nof the square stick, and in each angle three months are indicated. It will\nbe seen from the picture which forms the frontispiece to this work, that\nSunday is marked with a somewhat broader notch than the other days. Its\nchief interest, however, is on account of representing emblems of the\nsaints, and a few of the more important may be mentioned. On January 13th,\nis the feast of St. Hilary, and there is a cross or badge of a bishop. An\naxe, on January 25th, indicates St. Paul's Day. It was with that implement\nthat St. Paul suffered martyrdom. On St. Valentine's Day, is a true\nlover's knot. For the Patron Saint of Wales, St. David, is a harp. It was\non that instrument that he praised God. On March 2nd, the notch ends with\na bough, and it is the day set apart to the memory of St. Chad. It is a\nsymbol of the hermit's life he led in the woods near Lichfield. A bough\nalso appears on May 1st, the popular day for bringing home May blossom. A\nharvest rake is figured on June 11th, which is St. Barnabas' Day. It\ndenotes the time of hay harvest. A sword on June 24th, marks St. John the\nBaptist's Day. He was beheaded with that weapon. St. Peter's Day falls on\nJune 29th, and there are two keys shewn in allusion to his being\nrecognised as the janitor of Heaven. On St. Laurence's Day, August 10th,\nis a gridiron. He displayed firmness and constancy under great suffering.\nHe was laid on a gridiron and broiled to death over a fire. A wheel, on\nwhich St. Catherine suffered death, represents the day set apart to her\nmemory. A decussated cross, on which St. Andrew was crucified, indicates\nhis day. His death was rendered more lingering by tying him with cords to\nthe cross. He may fairly be regarded as one of the most popular of our\nsaints; some six hundred churches have been dedicated to his memory. This\nsaint is always represented in pictures as an old man with a long flowing\nbeard. On October 25th, is St. Crispin's Day, the Patron Saint of\nshoemakers, and, most appropriately, a pair of shoes marks his day. The\nFeast of St. Clement, November 23rd, is indicated with a pot. The symbol\nis an allusion to the old custom of going about on that night begging\ndrink to make merry with. Christmas Day is marked with a horn, which has\nreference to the custom of the Danes wassailing or drinking healths,\n\"signifying to us, that this is the time we ought to rejoice and make\nmerry.\" We must not omit to add that for the Purification, Annunciation,\nand all other feasts of our Lady, there is always the figure of a heart.\n\nA careful study of the picture of the clog almanack will reveal other\ncurious matters of interest.\n\n\n\n\nAcrobats on Steeples.\n\n\nIn bygone times, the public were often entertained by the performances of\nacrobats on church steeples. We gather, from the brief particulars which\nhave come down to us of the feats enacted, that they were far from\nelevating, and it is surprising that the acting was allowed to take place\non any part of a church.\n\nRope dancing was provided and appreciated. At the coronation of Edward\nVI., a rope was stretched from the battlements of St. Paul's to a window\nat the Dean's gate, and the king was highly entertained by the capering of\na sailor of Arragon on it.\n\nA less successful piece of acting was attempted in 1555, when a Dutchman\nstood on the top of St. Paul's steeple, and waved a streamer. The wind was\nhigh, and the lights could not be kept burning to enable the public to\nsee him. Sixteen pounds was paid for the perilous performance.\n\nAt Salisbury, a similar foolhardy trick was enacted by a man who hoped to\nreceive a gratuity from George III. But the king declined to give\nanything, saying: \"As the father of my people, it is my duty to reward\nthose who save life, and not those who risk human life.\"\n\nAt the reception of King Philip, in 1553, we are told, \"a fellow came\nslipping upon a cord, as an arrow out of a bow, from Paul's steeple to the\nground, and lighted with his head forward on a greate sort of feather\nbed.\" This kind of feat remained popular for a long period. William\nHutton, the historian, saw a man giving a similar entertainment at Derby,\nin 1732. Hutton's account of the affair is full of interest, and we cannot\ndo better than quote a few particulars from it. \"There are characters,\"\nwrote Hutton, \"who had rather amuse the world, at the hazard of their\nlives, for a slender and precarious pittance, than follow an honest\ncalling for an easy subsistence. A small figure of a man, seemingly\ncomposed of spirit and gristle, appeared in October, to entertain the town\nby sliding down a rope. One end of this was to be fixed at the top of All\nSaints' steeple, and the other at the bottom of St. Michael's, an\nhorizontal distance of 150 yards, which formed an inclined plane extremely\nsteep. A breast-plate of wood, with a groove to fit the rope, and his own\nequilibrium were to be his security, while sliding down upon his belly,\nwith his arms and legs extended. He could not be more than six or seven\nseconds in this airy journey, in which he fired a pistol and blew a\ntrumpet. The velocity with which he flew raised a fire by friction, and a\nbold stream of smoke followed him. He performed this wonderful exploit\nthree successive days, in each of which he descended twice, and marched up\nonce; the latter took him more than an hour, in which he exhibited many\nsurprising achievements, as sitting unconcerned with his arms folded,\nlying across the rope upon his back, then his belly, his hams, blowing the\ntrumpet, swinging round, hanging by the chin, the hand, the heels, the\ntoe, etc. The rope being too long for art to tighten, he might be said to\nhave danced upon the slack. Though he succeeded at Derby, yet, in\nexhibiting soon after at Shrewsbury, he fell, and lost his life.\"\n\nHe was buried in the churchyard of St. Mary Friars, Shrewsbury, in 1740,\nand over his remains was placed a tombstone, bearing the following\nepitaph:\n\n  \"Let this small monument record the name\n  Of CADMAN, and to future times proclaim\n  How, by an attempt to fly from this high spire,\n  Across the _Sabrine_ stream, he did acquire\n  His fatal end. 'Twas not for want of skill,\n  Or courage to perform the task, he fell;\n  No, no, a faulty cord being drawn too tight\n  Hurried his soul on high to take her flight,\n  Which bid the body here beneath, good night.\"\n\nHogarth immortalised Cadman in one of his most popular pictures.\n\nTo return to Derby, we find that, in 1734, a second \"flyer\" visited the\ntown. He was much older than the first performer, and less in stature.\n\"His coat,\" we are told, \"was in deshabille: no waistcoat; his shirt and\nhis shoes the worse for wear; his hat, worth three-pence, exclusive of the\nband, which was packthread, bleached white by the weather; and a black\nstring supplied the place of buttons to his waistband. He wisely\nconsidered, if his performances did not exceed the other's, he might as\nwell stay at home, if he had one. His rope, therefore, from the same\nsteeple, extended to the bottom of St. Mary's-gate, more than twice the\nformer length. He was to draw a wheel-barrow after him, in which was a boy\nof thirteen. After this surprising performance, an ass was to fly down,\narmed as before, with a breast-plate, and at each foot a lump of lead\nabout half a hundred. The man, the barrow, and its contents arrived safe\nat the end of their journey. When the vast multitude turned their eyes\ntowards the ass, which had been braying several days at the top of the\nsteeple for food; but, like many a lofty courtier for a place, brayed in\nvain; the slackness of the rope, and the great weight of the animal and\nhis apparatus, made it seem, at setting off, as if he were falling\nperpendicularly. The appearance was tremendous! About twenty yards before\nhe reached the gates of the county-hall, the rope broke. From the velocity\nacquired by the descent, he bore down all before him. A whole multitude\nwas overwhelmed; nothing was heard but dreadful cries; nor seen, but\nconfusion. Legs and arms went to destruction. In this dire calamity, the\nass, which maimed others, was unhurt himself, having a pavement of soft\nbodies to roll over. No lives were lost. As the rope broke near the top,\nit brought down both chimneys and people at the other end of the street.\nThis dreadful catastrophe put a period to the art of flying. It prevented\nthe operator from making the intended collection; and he sneaked out of\nDerby as poor as he sneaked in.\"\n\nThe clergy in Derby, in years agone, appear to have enjoyed popular shows.\nWhen Topham, the celebrated strong man, visited the town, in 1737, he\nperformed, among other feats, the following: \"He took Mr. Chambers, vicar\nof All Saints', who weighed 27 stones, and raised him with one hand. His\nhead being laid on one chair and his feet on another, four people, 14\nstones each, sat upon his body, which he heaved at pleasure. He struck a\nround bar of iron, one inch diameter, against his naked arm, and, at one\nstroke, bent it like a bow. Weakness and feeling seemed fled together.\nBeing a Master of music, he entertained the company with Mad Tom. He sung\na solo to the organ in St. Werburgh's church, then the only one in Derby;\nbut though he might perform with judgment, yet the voice, more terrible\nthan sweet, scarcely seemed human. Though of a pacific temper, and with\nthe appearance of a gentleman, yet he was liable to the insults of the\nrude. The hostler at the Virgin's Inn, where he resided, having given him\ndisgust, he took one of the kitchen spits from the mantel-piece, and bent\nit round his neck like a handkerchief; but as he did not choose to tuck\nthe ends in the hostler's bosom, the cumbrous ornament excited the laugh\nof the company, till he condescended to untie the iron cravat.\"\n\nIn 1600, Banks, and his famous horse, Morocco, ascended to the top of St.\nPaul's. The animal was made to override the vane, much to the astonishment\nof a large gathering of Londoners. It is related in one of the \"Jest\nBooks\" of the period that a servant came to his master, who was walking\nabout the middle aisle of the church, to ask him to go and witness the\nwonderful performance. \"Away with you, fool!\" answered the gentleman,\n\"what need I go so far to see a horse on the top, when I can see so many\nasses at the bottom?\" In France, Banks and his horse attracted much\nattention. At Orleans, we are told, the fame they had obtained brought\nBanks under the imputation of a sorcerer, and he narrowly escaped being\nburnt at the stake. According to Bishop Morton, Banks cleared himself by\ncommanding his horse to \"seek out one in the press of the people who had a\ncrucifix on his hat; which done, he bade him kneel down unto it, and not\nthis only, but also to rise up again, and to kiss it. 'And now,\ngentlemen,' (quoth he), 'I think my horse hath acquitted both me and\nhimself;' and so his adversaries rested satisfied, conceiving (as it might\nseem) that the devil had no power to come near the cross.\" It is stated by\nseveral writers that Banks and his horse were burned to death at Rome, \"as\nsubjects of the Black Power of the World, by the order of the Pope.\" Other\nwriters assert that he was living in the days of King Charles as a jolly\nvintner in Cheapside.\n\nThe most serious results of permitting acrobats to perform on churches\nremain to be recorded. It is related by Raine that, in 1237, Prior\nMelsonby was elected Bishop of Durham, and that his mitre was taken from\nhim for encouraging a rope dancer to perform his feats on a cord stretched\nbetween the towers of the cathedral. The poor fellow fell and broke his\nneck.\n\n\nTHE END\n\n\n\n\nIndex.\n\n\n  Abjuring the realm, 4\n\n  Acrobats on steeples, 244-251\n\n  Ale at weddings, 199\n\n  Alford, plague at, 164\n\n  Armour, buried in, 219\n\n\n  Bainbridge horn, 79\n\n  Banks and his horse Morocco, 250\n\n  Battle Abbey, 38\n\n  Bear-baiting on Sunday, 99\n\n  Bedford bridge, 51;\n    prison, 51;\n    Bunyan, 51;\n    curious regulations, 51;\n    chapel, 51\n\n  Bernwood forest, 72\n\n  Beverley sanctuary; 14,\n    plague at, 160\n\n  Biddenden Maids Charity, 148-151\n\n  Bible burned, 127\n\n  Boar slaying, 74\n\n  Boiling oil, ordeal of, 24\n\n  Boiling water, ordeal of, 23\n\n  \"Book of Sports,\" 103\n\n  Bowling on Sunday, 97\n\n  Bradford-on-Avon bridge, 53\n\n  Bradley, plague at, 166\n\n  Brentwood Church, sanctuary in, 9\n\n  Braintree, plague at, 167\n\n  Broad-stone, East Retford, 164\n\n  Bull-baiting announced in church, 92\n\n  Buried alive, 165\n\n  Burning to death, 85\n\n\n  Cadman killed, 247\n\n  Carlisle horn, 75\n\n  Castleton, curious custom at, 180-182\n\n  Chapels on Bridges, 44-64\n\n  Chairs, sanctuary, 15\n\n  Charter Horns, 65-79\n\n  Cheapside Cross, 138-147\n\n  Chingford horn, 78;\n    singular tenure, 79\n\n  Chimney money, 183-185\n\n  Clog almanack, 240\n\n  Coining by Archbishop of York, 38\n\n  Colchester, plague at, 169\n\n  Cold water ordeal, 25\n\n  Concerning Coffins, 218-226\n\n  Corpse, touching a, 28-36\n\n  Craven custom, 202\n\n  Cuming, H. Syer, 239\n\n  Cross, origin of, 120\n\n  Curfew Bell, 227-239\n\n  Curious Symbols of the Saints, 240-243\n\n\n  Danes, Sunday under, 83\n\n  Derby St. Mary's bridge, 54;\n    chapel, 55;\n    Jesuits, 55;\n    St. James bridge, 56;\n    plague, 161;\n    rope performing, 246;\n    Topham, 249\n\n  Durham sanctuary, 12-14;\n    parish-coffins, 224;\n    fatal accident to a rope-dancer, 251\n\n\n  Easingwold parish coffin, 221\n\n  Easter Sepulchre, 111-119\n\n  Eleanor, Queen, 138;\n    crosses, 138\n\n  Esk, bridge over, 46\n\n  Eyam cross, 121;\n    plague, 170-173\n\n  Executions, 25, 29, 33, 34, 36, 37, 56, 85\n\n\n  Fight between the Mayor of Hull and Archbishop of York, 37-43\n\n  Fined for not attending church, 108-110\n\n  Football on Sunday, 96\n\n  Friars building bridges, 44\n\n\n  Grave, a man making his own, 167\n\n\n  Hanging, 25-37\n\n  Hastings, battle of, 86\n\n  Henry I. abolishes curfew law, 233\n\n  Hoghton Tower, James at, 102\n\n  Hot ale at weddings, 199-202\n\n  Howden parish coffin, 224\n\n  Hull merchants evading prisage claims, 39;\n    Sunday regulations, 89;\n    plague at, 95\n\n  Hungerford horn, 77;\n    curious customs, 78\n\n\n  Indulgences, 45, 122\n\n  Ireland, burials without coffins, 221\n\n  Iron, red-hot ordeal, 27\n\n\n  King curing an Abbot of indigestion, 174-176\n\n  Kissing the Bride, 195-198\n\n  Kissing customs, 78, 107\n\n  Knox and Sunday, 98\n\n\n  Leicester, plague at, 158-160\n\n  Lich-gates, 139-140\n\n  Lincoln, Bishop of, claims right of hanging criminals, 37\n\n  London Bridge, 47-50;\n    chapel on, 48;\n    houses on, 48;\n    terrible fire, 48;\n    heads of traitors on, 49\n\n\n  Macclesfield, curious epitaph, 225\n\n  Manchester sanctuary, 6-7\n\n  Manx laws, 192\n\n  Markets on Sunday, 86-89\n\n  Marriage of a Blue-coat boy, 207\n\n  Marriages on Sunday, 98\n\n  Marrying Children, 203-209\n\n  Marrying under the gallows, 191-194\n\n  Marrying in a white sheet, 186-190\n\n  Masques on Sunday, 95\n\n  Mint belonging to Archbishop of York, 38\n\n  Murder in Westminster Abbey, 8-9\n\n\n  New England, Sunday in, 107-108\n\n  New York, curious marriage custom, 194\n\n  Nigel's horn, 72\n\n  Norfolk, Sunday trading in, 91\n\n  Northampton, fire at, 183;\n    hearth money, 184;\n    cross, 139, 141\n\n\n  Oak leaves, carrying, 179\n\n  Ordeal, origin of, 22\n\n  Oxford, play at, 95\n\n\n  Passing Bell, 210-217\n\n  Penance of Jane Shore, 125\n\n  Penderel's grave, 178\n\n  Plagues and Pestilences, 152-173;\n    business stopped, 152;\n    watch and ward, 153;\n    red crosses on doors, 154;\n    dogs killed, 154;\n    strange remedies, 155;\n    Newcastle, 158;\n    Leicester, 158;\n    Derby, 162;\n    Smoking, 163;\n    Broad-stone, East Retford, 164;\n    Alford 164;\n    burial of dead, 165;\n    buried alive, 165;\n    Stratford-on-Avon, 165;\n    Bradley, 166;\n    Braintree, 167;\n    Colchester, 169;\n      collections, 170;\n    Eyam, 170\n\n  Plays on Sunday, 92-96\n\n  Preaching, extravagant, 133\n\n  Puritans and Sunday, 101, 104-147\n\n  Pusey horn, 70\n\n\n  Reading Abbey, 174\n\n  Red-hot iron ordeal, 27\n\n  Rhyne Toll, 73\n\n  Right of Sanctuary, 1-21\n\n  Ringing on May 29th, 183\n\n  Romance of Trial, 23-26\n\n  Rotherham Bridge, 56;\n    chapel, 56\n\n  Rope dancers, 244-251\n\n\n  St. Paul's Cross, 120-137;\n    oaths taken at, 122;\n    thrown down by an earthquake, 122;\n    indulgences granted for assisting to rebuild it, 122;\n    penance at, 124-125;\n    sermon in favour of the Duke of Gloucester, 126;\n    Bible burned at, 127;\n    riot at, 128;\n    Queen Elizabeth's love of display, 129;\n    Hooker at Shunamite House, 131;\n    rioters at,131;\n    James I. at, 133;\n    pulled down, 136\n\n  Sales, etc., announced by parish clerks, 92\n\n  Salford bridge, 51;\n    chapel on, 51;\n    prison on, 51\n\n  Salisbury, tricks on steeple at, 245;\n    Cadman killed, 247\n\n  Sanctuary, origin of, 1\n\n  Sanctuary, right of, 1-21\n\n  Saxons, Sunday under, 82\n\n  Sorcery at Dalkeith, 35\n\n  Scotchman knocking at York gates, 102\n\n  Scotland, Early marriages in, 209\n\n  Secrets of the realm, disclosing, 5\n\n  Services and customs of Royal Oak Day, 179-185\n\n  Shunamite House, 131\n\n  Skelton in Westminster sanctuary, 10\n\n  Slavery in England, 84\n\n  Sports on Sunday, 100\n\n  Stafford sanctuary, 11\n\n  Stage plays in churches, 92-96\n\n  Stockton-on-Tees parish coffin, 223\n\n  Stoning to death, 85\n\n  Stratford-on-Avon, plague at, 165\n\n  Sunday in the Olden Time, 81-110\n\n  Survival of ordeal, 36\n\n  Swords, wearing, 5\n\n\n  Tax on coffins proposed, 225\n\n  Tewkesbury, battle of, 7\n\n  Thief, hanging a, 37\n\n  Traitors' heads on London bridge, 49\n\n  Travelling in the olden time, 79\n\n  Trial, romance of, 22-36\n\n  Tobacco fines, 108\n\n  Touch, ordeal of, 28-36\n\n\n  Ulphus, horn of, 65\n\n\n  Wakefield Bridge, 59;\n    chapel, 59;\n    battle, 60\n\n  Walking on Sunday forbidden, 107\n\n  Water ordeals, 24-25\n\n  Westminster Sanctuary, 10\n\n  Wigton, meat at church door, 90\n\n  William I. enforces curfew law, 233\n\n  Whipping to death, 86\n\n  Whitton, marriage custom at, 199\n\n  Worcester, Sunday trading at, 90;\n    battle of, 178\n\n\n  York gates closed on Sunday, 101\n\n  York bridge over Ouse, 50;\n    chapel, 50\n\n  Youghal parish coffin, 221\n\n\n\n\nPUBLICATIONS OF WILLIAM ANDREWS & CO., THE HULL PRESS, HULL.\n\n\nIN THE PRESS. SECOND AND CHEAPER EDITION.\n\nCuriosities of the Church:\n\nStudies of Curious Customs, Services, and Records.\n\nBy WILLIAM ANDREWS, F.R.H.S.,\n\nAUTHOR OF \"HISTORIC ROMANCE,\" \"FAMOUS FROSTS AND FROST FAIRS,\" \"HISTORIC\nYORKSHIRE,\" ETC.\n\nCONTENTS:\n\nEarly Religious Plays: being the Story of the English Stage in its Church\nCradle Days--The Caistor Gad-Whip Manorial Service--Strange Serpent\nStories--Church Ales--Rush-Bearing--Fish in Lent--Concerning Doles--Church\nScrambling Charities--Briefs--Bells and Beacons for Travellers by\nNight--Hour Glasses in Churches--Chained Books in Churches--Funeral\nEffigies--Torchlight Burials--Simple Memorials of the Early Dead--The\nRomance of Parish Registers--Dog Whippers and Sluggard Wakers--Odd Items\nfrom Old Accounts--An Index of six closely-printed pages.\n\nILLUSTRATED.\n\nPress Opinions.\n\n    \"A volume both entertaining and instructive, throwing much light on\n    the manners and customs of bygone generations of Churchmen, and will\n    be read to-day with much interest.\"--_Newbery House Magazine._\n\n    \"An extremely interesting volume.\"--_North British Daily Mail._\n\n    \"A work of lasting interest.\"--_Hull Examiner._\n\n    \"Full of interest.\"--_The Globe._\n\n    \"The reader will find much in this book to interest, instruct, and\n    amuse.\"--_Home Chimes._\n\n    \"We feel sure that many will feel grateful to Mr. Andrews for having\n    produced such an interesting book.\"--_The Antiquary._\n\n    \"A volume of great research and striking interest.\"--_The Bookbuyer\n    (New York)._\n\n    \"A valuable book.\"--_Literary World (Boston, U.S.A.)._\n\n    \"Contains, in a popular and readable form, much that is curious and\n    instructive.\"--_Manchester Guardian._\n\n    \"An admirable book.\"--_Sheffield Independent._\n\n    \"An interesting, handsomely got up volume.... Mr. Andrews is always\n    chatty, and expert in making a paper on a dry subject exceedingly\n    readable.\"--_Newcastle Courant._\n\n    \"Mr. William Andrews' new book, 'Curiosities of the Church,' adds\n    another to the series by which he has done so much to popularise\n    antiquarian studies.... The book, it should be added, has some quaint\n    illustrations, and its rich matter is made available for reference by\n    a full and carefully compiled index.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n\n_Elegantly bound in cloth gilt, demy 8vo., price 6s._\n\nOld-Time Punishments.\n\nBy WILLIAM ANDREWS, F.R.H.S.,\n\nAUTHOR OF \"CURIOSITIES OF THE CHURCH,\" \"HISTORIC ROMANCE,\" \"FAMOUS FROSTS\nAND FROST FAIRS,\" \"HISTORIC YORKSHIRE,\" ETC.\n\nCONTENTS.\n\nCarefully prepared papers, profusely illustrated, appear on the following\nsubjects:--\n\n_The Ducking Stool--The Brank, or Scold's Bridle--The Pillory--Punishing\nAuthors and burning books--Finger-Pillory--The Jougs--The Stocks--The\nDrunkard's Cloak--Whipping--Public Penance in White Sheets--The\nRepentance--Stool-Riding the Stang--Gibbet Lore--Drowning--Burning to\nDeath--Boiling to Death--Beheading--Hanging, Drawing, and\nQuartering--Pressing to Death--Hanging--Hanging in Chains--The Halifax\nGibbet--The Scottish Maiden, etc.--An Index of five closely-printed\npages._\n\nMANY CURIOUS ILLUSTRATIONS.\n\nPRESS OPINIONS.\n\n    \"This is an entertaining book ... well-chosen illustrations and a\n    serviceable index.\"--_Athenaeum._\n\n    \"A hearty reception may be bespoken for it.\"--_Globe._\n\n    \"A work which will be eagerly read by all who take it\n    up.\"--_Scotsman._\n\n    \"It is entertaining.\"--_Manchester Guardian._\n\n    \"A vast amount of curious and entertaining matter.\"--_Sheffield\n    Independent._\n\n    \"We can honestly recommend a perusal of this book.\"--_Yorkshire Post._\n\n    \"Interesting, and handsomely printed.\"--_Newcastle Chronicle._\n\n    \"A very readable history.\"--_Birmingham Daily Gazette._\n\n    \"Mr. Andrews' book is well worthy of careful study, and is a perfect\n    mine of wealth on the subject of which it treats.\"--_Herts\n    Advertiser._\n\n    \"It is sure of a warm welcome on both sides of the\n    Atlantic.\"--_Christian Leader._\n\n\n_Elegantly bound in cloth gilt, crown 8vo., price 4s._\n\nYORKSHIRE IN OLDEN TIMES.\n\nEdited by WILLIAM ANDREWS, F.R.H.S.\n\nThis work consists of a series of carefully written papers, reprinted from\nthe _Wakefield Free Press_ and other Journals.\n\nCONTENTS:\n\nAn Outline History of Yorkshire. By THOMAS FROST.\n\nThe Cow-Devil: A Legend of Craven. By WILLIAM BROCKIE.\n\nThe First Anglo-Saxon Poet. By JOHN H. LEGGOTT, F.R.H.S.\n\nThe Battle of Brunanburgh. By FREDERICK ROSS, F.R.H.S.\n\nOld Customs at York. By GEORGE BENSON.\n\nElizabethan Gleanings. By AARON WATSON.\n\nThe Fight for the Hornsea Fishery. By T. TINDALL WILDRIDGE.\n\nFolk Assemblies. By JOHN NICHOLSON.\n\nQuaint Gleanings from the Parish Register-Chest of Kirkby Wharfe. By the\nRev. RICHARD WILTON, M.A.\n\nThe Wakefield Mysteries. By WILLIAM HENRY HUDSON.\n\nA Biographical Romance. By WILLIAM ANDREWS, F.R.H.S.\n\nSome Scraps and Shreds of Yorkshire Superstitions. By W. SYDNEY, F.R.S.L.\n\nThe Salvation of Holderness. By FREDERICK ROSS, F.R.H.S.\n\nYorkshire Fairs and Festivals. By THOMAS FROST.\n\nJames Nayler, the Mad Quaker who claimed to be the Messiah. By WILLIAM\nANDREWS, F.R.H.S.\n\nDuke Richard's Doom: A Legend of Sandal Castle. By EDWARD LAMPLOUGH.\n\nObsolete Industries of the East Riding. By JOHN NICHOLSON.\n\nBolton Abbey: Its History and Legends. By ALFRED CHAMBERLAIN, B.A.\n\nTo Bolton Abbey. By the Rev. E. G. CHARLESWORTH.\n\nA CAREFULLY COMPILED INDEX.\n\nOpinions of the Press.\n\n_The following are extracted from a number of favourable reviews of_\n\"YORKSHIRE IN THE OLDEN TIMES.\"\n\n    The _Bury Free Press_ says: \"The volume is one of wide and varied\n    interest, which will secure for it readers in all parts of the\n    country.\"\n\n    The _Shields Daily Gazette_ states: \"The work consists of a series of\n    articles contributed by various authors, and it thus has the merit of\n    bringing together much special knowledge from a great number of\n    sources. It is an entertaining volume, full of interest for the\n    general reader, as well as for the learned and curious.\"\n\n    The _Hornsea Gazette_ concludes its notice by saying: \"The work is one\n    which cannot fail to instruct and entertain the reader.\"\n\n    It is pronounced by the _Hull Examiner_ \"a most readable and\n    well-bound volume.\"\n\n    Says the _Malton Gazette_: \"Unlike many books akin to it, this work\n    contains nothing not of permanent and exclusive worth, and Mr.\n    Andrews' latest book is one which the future historian of the shire of\n    many acres will be glad to avail himself of.\"\n\n    The _Christian Leader_ finishes a long and favourable review as\n    follows: \"The volume is one of diversified interest, likely to find\n    readers in other parts of the country as well as in the great province\n    to which it has particular reference.\"\n\n_The Edition is limited to 400 copies, and only a few remain on sale._\n\n_An early application for copies necessary._\n\n\nAN IMPORTANT BOOK FOR REFERENCE.\n\nFcap 4to. Bevelled boards, gilt tops. Price 4s.\n\nFAMOUS FROSTS AND FROST FAIRS\n\nIN GREAT BRITAIN.\n\nChronicled from the Earliest to the Present Time.\n\nBy WILLIAM ANDREWS, F.R.H.S.,\n\nAUTHOR OF \"CURIOSITIES OF THE CHURCH,\" \"OLD-TIME PUNISHMENTS,\" ETC.\n\nOnly 400 copies printed, each copy numbered, and only 50 remain on sale.\nThree curious full-page illustrations.\n\nThis work furnishes a carefully prepared account of all the great Frosts\noccurring in this country from A.D. 134 to 1887. The numerous Frost Fairs\non the Thames are fully described, and illustrated with quaint woodcuts,\nand several old ballads relating to the subject are reproduced. It is\ntastefully printed and elegantly bound.\n\n_The following are a few of the many favourable reviews of \"Famous Frosts\nand Frost Fairs.\"_\n\n    \"The work is thoroughly well written, it is careful in its facts, and\n    may be pronounced exhaustive on the subject. Illustrations are given\n    of several frost fairs on the Thames, and as a trustworthy record this\n    volume should be in every good library. The usefulness of the work is\n    much enhanced by a good index.\"--_Public Opinion._\n\n    \"The book is beautifully got up.\"--_Barnsley Independent._\n\n    \"A very interesting volume.\"--_Northern Daily Telegraph._\n\n    \"A great deal of curious and valuable information is contained in\n    these pages.... A comely volume.\"--_Literary World._\n\n    \"The work from first to last is a most attractive one, and the arts\n    alike of printer and binder have been brought into one to give it a\n    pleasing form.\"--_Wakefield Free Press._\n\n    \"An interesting and valuable work.\"--_West Middlesex Times._\n\n    \"Not likely to fail in interest.\"--_Manchester Guardian_.\n\n    \"This chronology has been a task demanding extensive research and\n    considerable labour and patience, and Mr. Andrews is to be heartily\n    congratulated on the result.\"--_Derby Daily Gazette._\n\n    \"A volume of much interest and great importance.\"--_Rotherham\n    Advertiser._\n\n\n_ELEGANTLY BOUND IN CLOTH GILT, DEMY 8vo., 6s._\n\nYORKSHIRE FAMILY ROMANCE\n\nBy FREDERICK ROSS, F.R.H.S.,\n\nAUTHOR OF \"THE RUINED ABBEYS OF ENGLAND,\" \"CELEBRITIES OF YORKSHIRE\nWOLDS,\" \"BIOGRAPHIA EBORACENSIS,\" \"THE PROGRESS OF CIVILISATION,\" ETC.\n\nAmongst Yorkshire Authors Mr. FREDERICK ROSS occupies a leading place. For\nover sixty years he has been a close student of the history of his native\ncounty, and perhaps no author has written so much and well respecting it.\nHis residence in London has enabled him to take advantage of the important\nstores of unpublished information contained in the British Museum, the\nPublic Record Office, and in other places. He has also frequently visited\nYorkshire to collect materials for his works. His new book is one of the\nmost readable and instructive he has written. It will be observed from the\nfollowing list of subjects that the work is of wide and varied interest,\nand makes a permanent contribution to Yorkshire literature.\n\nCONTENTS:\n\n  The Synod of Streoneshalh.\n  The Doomed Heir of Osmotherley.\n  St. Eadwine, the Royal Martyr.\n  The Viceroy Siward.\n  Phases in the Life of a Political Martyr.\n  The Murderer's Bride.\n  The Earldom of Wiltes.\n  Blackfaced Clifford.\n  The Shepherd Lord.\n  The Felons of Ilkley.\n  The Ingilby Boar's Head.\n  The Eland Tragedy.\n  The Plumpton Marriage.\n  The Topcliffe Insurrection.\n  Burning of Cottingham Castle.\n  The Alum Workers.\n  The Maiden of Marblehead.\n  Rise of the House of Phipps.\n  The Traitor Governor of Hull.\n\nIMPORTANT NOTICE.--The Edition is limited to 500 copies, and the greater\npart are sold. The book will advance in price in course of time.\n\n\n_Elegantly bound in cloth gilt, demy 8vo., price 6s._\n\nYorkshire Battles.\n\nBy EDWARD LAMPLOUGH.\n\nCONTENTS:\n\nThis work contains carefully-written accounts of the following Yorkshire\nBattles, which cannot fail to interest and instruct the reader. It is a\nbook of more than local interest:--\n\n_Winwidfield, etc.--Battle of Stamford Bridge--After Stamford\nBridge--Battle of the Standard--After the Battle of the Standard--Battle\nof Myton Meadows--Battle of Boroughbridge--Battle of Byland Abbey--In the\nDays of Edward III. and Richard II.--Battle of Bramham Moor--Battle of\nSandal--Battle of Towton--Yorkshire under the Tudors--Battle of\nTadcaster--Battle of Leeds--Battle of Wakefield--Battle of Adwalton\nMoor--Battle of Hull--Battle of Selby--Battle of Marston Moor--Battle of\nBrunnanburgh--Fight off Flamborough Head--Index._\n\nOpinions of the Press.\n\n    \"A remarkably handsome volume, typographically equal to the best\n    productions of any European capital.\"--_North British Daily Mail._\n\n    \"A handsome book. It is extremely interesting, and is a work which\n    cannot fail to find a permanent place amongst the best books devoted\n    to the history of the county. The military history of Yorkshire is\n    very closely investigated in this work. Although the book is written\n    in a clear and picturesque style, great care and attention have been\n    given to the researches of antiquaries and historians, and many\n    authorities have been consulted, in consequence of which, several\n    long-established errors have been corrected, and some oft-repeated but\n    superficial conclusions confuted. Special attention has been given to\n    the military history of the county during the great rebellion--a\n    subject which has yet to be fairly and intelligently treated by the\n    general historian. So far as the limits of the work permit, the\n    general history of the county, from epoch to epoch has been sketched,\n    maintaining the continuity of the work, and increasing its interest\n    and value both to the general reader and the specialist. The printers\n    of the book are Messrs. Wm. Andrews and Co., Hull, and it must be\n    regarded as a good specimen of local typography.\"--_Wakefield Free\n    Press._\n\n    \"An important work.\"--_Beverley Independent._\n\n    \"Does great credit to the new firm of book publishers.\"--_Yorkshire\n    County Magazine._\n\n    \"A beautifully printed volume.\"--_Halifax Courier._\n\n    \"Mr. Lamplough's book is thoroughly readable, and is written in a\n    manly as well as a discriminating spirit.\"--_Yorkshire Post._\n\n\n  _LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, & CO.\n  HULL: WILLIAM ANDREWS & CO., THE HULL PRESS._","title":"Old Church Lore","tradition":"folklore-oral-tradition","translated_text":null,"word_count":49404}