Читать книгу Notes and Queries, Number 37, July 13, 1850 - Various - Страница 3

In that curious medley commonly designated, after Hearne, Arnold's Chronicle, and which was probably first printed in 1502 or 1503, we find the following passages. I make "notes" of them, from their peculiar interest at the moment when sanatory bills, having the same objects, are occupying the public attention so strongly; especially in respect to the Smithfield Nuisance and the Clergy Discipline bill.

1. In a paper entitled "The articles dishired bi y'e comonse of the cety of London, for reformacyo of thingis to the same, of the Mayer, Aldirmen, and Comon Counsell, to be enacted," we have the following:—

"Also that in anoyding the corupte savours and lothsom innoyaunc (caused by slaughter of best) w'tin the cyte, wherby moche people is corupte and infecte, it may plese my Lord Mayr, Aldirmen, and Comen Counsaile, to put in execucion a certaine acte of parlement, by whiche it is ordeigned y't no such slaughter of best shuld be vsed or had within this cite, and that suche penaltees be leuyed vpo the contrary doers as in the said acte of parlement ben expressed.

"Also in anoyding of lyke annoyauce. Plese it my Lord Mair, Alderme, and Como Councell, to enact that noo manor pulter or any other persone i this cytee kepe from hinsforth, within his hous, swans, gies, or dowk, upon a peyn therfore to be ordeigned."—pp. 83, 84, 3d. ed.

I believe that one item of "folk-faith" is that "farm-yard odours are healthy." I have often heard it affirmed at least; and, indeed, has not the common councilman, whom the Times has happily designated as the "defender of filth", totally and publicly staked his reputation on the dogma in its most extravagant shape, within the last few months? It is clear that nearly four centuries ago, the citizens of London thought differently; even though "the corupte savours and lothsom innoyaunc" were infinitely less loathsome than in the present Smithfield and the City slaughter-houses.

It would be interesting to know to what act of parliament Arnold's citizens refer, and whether it has ever been repealed. It is curious to notice, too, that the danger from infuriated beasts running wild through the streets is not amongst the evils of the system represented. They go further, however, and forbid even the killing within the city.

Moreover, it would really seem that the swan was not then a mere ornamental bird, either alive or dead, but an ordinary article of citizen-dinners, it being classed with "gies and dowks" in the business of the poulterer. At the same time, no mention being made of swine in any of these ordonnances or petitions, would at first sight seem to show that the flesh of the hog was in abhorrence with the Catholic citizen, as much perhaps as with the Jews themselves; at any rate, that it was not a vendible article of food in those days. When did it become so? This conclusion would, however, be erroneous; for amongst "the articles of the good governaûce of the cite of London" shortly following we have this:—

"Also yf ony persone kepe or norrysh hoggis, oxen, kyen, or mallardis within the ward, in noyoying of ther neyhbours."—p. 91.

The proper or appointed place for keeping hoggis was Hoggistone, now Hoxton; as Houndsditch2 was for the hounds.

There is another among these petitions to the Lord Mayor and corporation, worthy of notice, in connection with sanatory law.

"Also in avoydîg ye abhomynable savours causid by ye kepîg of ye kenell in ye mote and ye diches there, and î especiall by sethig of ye houndes mete wt roten bones, and vnclenly keping of ye hoûdes, wherof moche people is anoyed, soo yt when the wynde is in any poyte of the northe, all the fowle stynke is blowen ouer the citee. Plese it mi Lord Mair, Aldirmen, and Comen Coûcell, to ordeigne that the sayd kenell be amoued and sett in sô other côuenient place where as best shall seme them. And also that the said diches mai be clensed from yere to yere, and so kepte yt thereof folowe non annoyaunce."—p. 87.

Of course "Houndsditch" is here meant; but for what purpose were the hounds kept? And, indeed, what kind of hounds were they, that thus formed a part of the City establishment? Were they bloodhounds for tracking criminals, or hounds kept for the special behoof and pleasure of the "Lord Mair, Aldermen, and Comen Coûsel?" The Houndsditch of that time bore a strong resemblance to the Fleet ditch of times scarcely exceeding the memory of many living men.

I come now to the passages relating to the clergy.

"Also, where as the curatis of the cyte have used often tyme herebefore to selle their offring (at mariag), whereby the pisshês where such sales be made comenly be lettid fro messe or matyns, and otherwhiles from both, by so moch as the frendis of the pties maryed vsen to goo abowte vij. or viij. dayes before, and desiryg men to offryg at such tymes as more conuenyent it were to be at diunyne seruice. Plese it my Lord Mair, Aldirmê, and Comê Coûseile, to puide remedy, so that the sayd custume be fordone and leid aparte."—p. 86.

"Also, to thentent that the ordre of priesthood be had in dew reuerence according to the dignite therof, and that none occasions of incontinence growe bee the famylyarite of seculer people. Plese it my Lord Mayre, Aldirmen, and Comon Counsyll, to enacte that no maner persone beyng free of this citee take, receyue, and kepe from hensforth ony priest in comons, or to borde by the weke, moneth, or yere, or ony other terme more or lesse, vpon peine thervpon to be lymytyd, prouided that this acte extêde not to ony prieste retayned wyth a citezen in famyliar housolde."—p. 89.

"Also, plese it my Lord Mayre, Aldyrmen, and Comon Counseylle, that a communication may be had wyth the curatis of this citee for oblacions whiche they clayme to haue of citezens agaynst the tenour of the bulle purchased att their owne instance, and that it may be determined and an ende taken, whervpon the citezens shall rest."—p. 89.

"Also, yf ther be ony priest in seruice within the warde, which afore tyme hath been sette in the toune in Cornhyll for his dishoneste, and hath forsworne the cyte, alle suche shulde bee presentyd."—p. 92.

Upon these I shall make no remark. They will make different impressions on different readers; according to the extent of prejudice or liberality existing in different minds. They show that even during the most absolute period of ecclesiastical domination, there was one spot in England where attempts to legislate for the priesthood (though perhaps feeble enough) were made. The legislative powers of the corporation were at that time very ample; and the only condition by which they appear to have been limited was, that they should not override an act of parliament or a royal proclamation.

Is there any specific account of the "tonne in Cornhyll" existing? Its purpose, in connection with the conduit, admits of no doubt; the forsworn and dishonest priest had been punished with a "good ducking," and this, no doubt, accompanied with a suitable ceremonial for the special amusement of the "'prentices."3

I have also marked a few passages relative to the police and the fiscal laws of those days, and when time permits, will transcribe them for you, if you deem them worthy of being laid before your readers.

T.S.D.