[207] Mr. Overton, in his "Life in the English Church, 1660-1714," denies the truth of Macaulay's account of the condition of the clergy. He points out that the sons of many noble families were in the Church, and many clergymen of the highest standing were once domestic chaplains. But there was much "contempt of the clergy," as Eachard puts it, in his book published in 1670. Many enjoyed pluralities, which, of course, meant that a larger number than would otherwise have been the case were poor all their lives. Swift wrote: "I never dined with the chaplains till to-day; but my friend Gastrel and the Dean of Rochester had often invited me, and I happened to be disengaged: it is the worst provided table at court. We ate on pewter. Every chaplain, when he is made a dean, gives a piece of plate, and so they have got a little, some of it very old" ("Journal," October 6, 1711). See, too, Swift's "Project for the Advancement of Religion," and "Directions to the Waiting-Maid." Many private chaplains had salaries of £10 to £30 a year, with vales, and were called Mess Johns, trencher chaplains, and young Levites (Lecky's "History of England in the Eighteenth Century," i. 77, 78). Bishop Bramhall replied to Eachard in 1671, in "An Answer to a Letter of Inquiry," &c., and said that some gentlemen, at any rate, treated their chaplains with all proper respect. Edward Chamberlayne, on the other hand, in his "Angliæ Notitia" (1669), said that men thought it a stain to their blood to make their sons clergymen, and that women were ashamed to marry with any of them.
[208] Oldham's "Satire addressed to a Friend that is about to leave the University."
[209] "The last paper having been worked off in different presses, there are some errata in one set of them, which the reader is desired to correct," &c. (folio).
[No. 256. [Addison and Steele.]
From Saturday, Nov. 25, to Tuesday, Nov. 28, 1710.
—Nostrum est tantas componere lites.
Virg., Eclog. iii. 108.[210]
The Proceedings of the Court of Honour, held in Sheer Lane, on Monday, the 20th of November, 1710, before Isaac Bickerstaff, Esq., Censor of Great Britain.[211]
Peter Plumb, of London, merchant, was indicted by the Honourable Mr. Thomas Gules,[212] of Gule Hall, in the county of Salop, for that the said Peter Plumb did in Lombard Street, London, between the hours of two and three in the afternoon, meet the said Mr. Thomas Gules, and after a short salutation, put on his hat, value fivepence, while the Honourable Mr. Gules stood bareheaded for the space of two seconds. It was further urged against the criminal, that during his discourse with the prosecutor, he feloniously stole the wall of him, having clapped his back against it in such a manner that it was impossible for Mr. Gules to recover it again at his taking leave of him. The prosecutor alleged, that he was the cadet of a very ancient family; and that according to the principles of all the younger brothers of the said family, he had never sullied himself with business, but had chosen rather to starve like a man of honour than do anything beneath his quality. He produced several witnesses, that he had never employed himself beyond the twisting of a whip, or the making of a pair of nut-crackers, in which he only worked for his diversion, in order to make a present now and then to his friends. The prisoner being asked what he could say for himself, cast several reflections upon the Honourable Mr. Gules: as, that he was not worth a groat; that nobody in the city would trust him for a halfpenny; that he owed him money, which he had promised to pay him several times, but never kept his word; and in short, that he was an idle, beggarly fellow, and of no use to the public. This sort of language was very severely reprimanded by the Censor, who told the criminal, that he spoke in contempt of the court, and that he should be proceeded against for contumacy if he did not change his style. The prisoner therefore desired to be heard by his counsel, who urged in his defence, that he put on his hat through ignorance, and took the wall by accident. They likewise produced several witnesses, that he made several motions with his hat in his hand, which are generally understood as an invitation to the person we talk with to be covered; and that the gentleman not taking the hint, he was forced to put on his hat, as being troubled with a cold. There was likewise an Irishman who deposed, that he had heard him cough three and twenty times that morning. And as for the wall, it was alleged that he had taken it inadvertently to save himself from a shower of rain which was then falling. The Censor having consulted the men of honour who sat at his right hand on the bench, found they were all of opinion, that the defence made by the prisoner's counsel did rather aggravate than extenuate his crime; that the motions and intimations of the hat were a token of superiority in conversation, and therefore not to be used by the criminal to a man of the prosecutor's quality, who was likewise vested with a double title to the wall at the time of their conversation, both as it was the upper hand, and as it was a shelter from the weather. The evidence being very full and clear, the jury, without going out of court, declared their opinion unanimously by the mouth of their foreman, that the prosecutor was bound in honour to make the sun shine through the criminal, or, as they afterwards explained themselves, to whip him through the lungs.