The Customs of Old England

by F. J. Snell

"The King's cittizens of Hereford, who have the custodye of his citty (in regard that it is the principall citty of all the market townes from the sea even unto the boundes of the Seaverne) ought of ancient usage to deliver their lawes and customes to such townes, when need requires, yet in this case they are in noe wise bound to do it, because they say they are not of the same condition; for there are some townes which hould of our Lord the Kinge of England and his heires without any mesne Lord; and to such we are bound, when and as often as need shall be, to certifie of our lawes and customes, chiefly because we hold by one and the same tenure; and nothing shall be taken of them in the name of a reward, except only by our common towne clerke, for the wryting and his paynes, as they can agree. But there are other markett townes which hold of diverse lords of the Kingdome, wherein are both natives and rusticks of auncient tyme, who paie to their lord corporall services of diverse kinds, with other services that are not used among us, and who may be expelled out of those townes by their lords, and may not inhabit in them or be restored to their former state, but by the common law of England. And chiefly those and others that hold by such forreine service in such townes, are not of our condition; neither shall they have our lawes and customes but by way of purchase, to be performed to our capitall-bailiff, as they can agree between them, at the pleasure and to the benefitt of the citty aforesaid."

Towns were extremely jealous of their purity in this respect, a fact which may be illustrated in another way. Thus no person of servile condition was allowed to be a freeman of the city of London. If, after admission, he was ascertained to be of such condition, he forfeited his rights. During the mayoralty of John Blount, Thomas le Bedelle, Robert le Bedelle, Alan Undirwoode, and Edmund May, butchers, lost their franchises, because they acknowledged that they held land in villeinage of the Bishop of London and dwelt outside the liberty. On July 18, 11 Rich. II., it was ordained that no one should be enrolled as an apprentice or received into the freedom of the city by way of apprenticeship unless he first swore that he was a freeman and not a native, and whoever should be thereafter received into the freedom of the said city by purchase or any way but by apprenticeship should make the same oath, and also find six honest men to undertake for him as had been wont to be done of old.

"And if it happen that such native be admitted by false suggestion without the knowledge of the Chamberlain, as soon as the circumstance is notorious to the Mayor and Aldermen, let him lose the freedom of the city and pay a fine for his deception, at the discretion of the Mayor and Aldermen.

"Again, if it happen in the future that such native, at the time of whose birth his father was a native, be elected to a judicial office of the City such as Alderman, Sheriff, or Mayor, unless he notify to the Mayor and Aldermen concerning the servile condition before he receive that office, he shall pay to the Chamberlain for the use of the City one hundred pounds, and nevertheless shall lose his freedom as aforesaid."

A Paradise of Police

Thus the fundamental principle of freedom, in all corporate towns, was independence of the feudal aristocracy, and along with this went a sense of social superiority relatively to those dependent upon, and subject to, lords of fees. Burgesses claimed to be masters in their own house and acted in concert with an eye to the common good. This led to the growth or institution of customs divisible into two main categories. One of these was concerned with the correction of refractory or immoral persons dwelling within the gates; and the other with the regulation of commerce. These categories were not entirely divorced, since the infraction of trade ordinances was visited with something more than mere obloquy. On the other hand, the presence of evil livers, though it had no immediate bearing on commerce, added nothing to the security, prosperity, and reputation of the town or city. The customs of London form too large a subject to receive adequate treatment here, but in what remains of our space we propose to limit ourselves to them alone.

It would be possible to write at considerable length on the position of aliens in mediæval London, and, incidentally, on the charming festival of the Pui, wherewith they consoled themselves for the many hardships and restrictions inflicted on them by the jealous citizens, examples of which have been previously given. Reserving this topic for another occasion, we will glance at certain enactments with which innkeepers and their congeners found their avocations fenced about. The citizens did not welcome the appearance of casual strangers, any more than the presumption of the foreigner who came and settled amongst them. Almost of necessity the former class resorted for food and shelter to the public-houses, which were of two kinds—the inns kept by hostelers, and the lodging-houses kept by herbergeours. These places of resort were supplemented by cook-shops answering to our modern restaurants.

In the time of Edward I. an ordinance was passed that "No Portuguese or Germans shall keep hostels, but that persons of those countries shall lodge with freemen of the city." It has been supposed that by "freemen" are intended native freemen, but this is doubtful, since cases occur of strangers and foreigners being admitted to the freedom for the very purpose of becoming hostelers and herbergeours. Even when this privilege was granted them, they were not suffered to compete on equal terms with the Englishman, being required to keep their houses "in the heart of the City," and rigidly excluded from the more profitable regions on the banks of the Thames.

The necessity of hostelers and herbergeours being freemen was due apparently to the survival of the old Saxon law of frank-pledge, which was still in force at the close of the reign of Edward III. No hosteler or herbergeour might entertain a stranger longer than a day and a night, unless he undertook to answer for his guest's behaviour, and he was left in no uncertainty as to the course of conduct he was expected to pursue towards the always undesirable alien. In many respects his position resembled that of a master of a workhouse rather than a speculative tradesman. Thus, at times when it was forbidden to carry arms in the City, it became his duty to take possession of his guests' arms and retain them until the strangers departed. If the latter did not comply with his demand, they were fined and imprisoned. At other times, when the regulations were not so severe, he had to tell his guests that they were not to carry arms after curfew rang, or go wandering about the streets of the City. Should it happen that urgent business compelled a guest to be absent from the hostel for a night, the keeper was obliged to warn him, with the best grace he might, that he must take care to be back as soon as possible.

Obviously there would have been much unfairness in making hostelers and herbergeours answer for the misdeeds of persons with whom they had only transient relations, if there had been no system for preventing the escape of dishonest and desperate characters who would be especially susceptible to the attractions of a great city and could not be held in check by the fatherly admonitions of an anxious host. Nor, again, was it to be supposed that the native population consisted wholly of highly moral and virtuous persons, incapable of such low crimes as burglary. To counteract the designs of these enemies of order, it was enacted temp. Edward I. that barriers and chains should be placed across the streets of the City and "more especially towards the water (Fleet River) near the Friars Preachers." From the same reign also dates an ordinance that the Aldermen and men of the respective wards should keep watch and ward on horseback at night, each Alderman keeping three horses for that object. Moreover, each of the City gates was placed in charge of a Sergeant-at-arms, who had his quarters over the gateway. It was the duty of this official to keep guard by night, and he was assisted in this task by a watchman (wayte), whose wages he had to pay out of his own salary. The regulations of the City required that each gate should be kept in the daytime by two men, well armed; and on certain occasions the Bedel received orders to summon the men of the ward to watch the gate armed. If they did not attend in person, they had to find substitutes at their own expense.