PREFACE.
When the County of London was constituted by the Local Government Act, 1888, it was arranged by the Authorities of the County
of Middlesex and the new County of London that the former
should retain the Guildhall, Westminster, as its headquarters,
while the Sessions House, Clerkenwell, where the County Records
were then stored, was retained, for Quarter Sessional purposes, by the
County of London.
It was only natural, owing to the upheaval of Local Government
affairs brought about by the Act of 1888, that some time should elapse
before the County Records were transferred from the Sessions House,
Clerkenwell, to the new home of the Middlesex County Authority at
Westminster, and it was not until the early part of the year 1894
that the removal of those records to the Guildhall, Westminster, was
completed. Had it not been for the fact that extensive alterations
were being carried out at the last named place, including the
provision of specially-constructed muniment rooms for the reception
of the records in question, the removal would have been completed
at an earlier date.
About this time a dispute arose as to who was the lawful
custodian of the documents, with the result that, in 1899, the Court
of Queen's Bench decided that the Custos Rotulorum of Middlesex,
and not the Custos Rotulorum of London, was the legal custodian
of the records. (fn. 1)
The County Council of Middlesex had, in 1898, obtained special
Parliamentary powers authorising the expenditure of the county funds
on the work of repairing, binding, calendaring, and publishing the
records; and it is a gratifying fact that, the question of the custody
of the records having been determined, little time was lost in
exercising the powers obtained. A Sub-Committee of the Standing
Joint Committee of County Justices and members of the County
Council (of which Sir Richard Nicholson is the Clerk) was appointed
to deal with the whole question of the county records; and their
repair and binding are being carried on under the able direction of
Mr. Douglas Cockerell. A detailed account of what is being done
by him appeared in the fifth volume of the "Home Counties'
Magazine" at pp. 37–39.
This Sub-Committee above mentioned now consists of:—
Sir Ralph Littler, C.B., K.C., Chairman.
Montagu Sharpe, Esq., D.L.
J. W. Ford, Esq.
Henry Gervis, Esq., M.D.
A. S. Montgomrey, Esq.
Herbert Nield, Esq., and
William Regester, Esq.
Under the same direction I have commenced the work of
calendaring the records on a system somewhat different to that
followed by the late Mr. J. Cordy Jeaffreson, whose work (in four
volumes) was issued a few years ago by the Middlesex County
Record Society, and which has thrown such a valuable side-light on
the history of London and the county generally.
My plan is to deal with one class of records at a time, instead of
making selections, as did Mr. Jeaffreson, from various classes, of the
most interesting items. None of his extracts come down so late as
1690, and so, in commencing my work, 1 decided to begin at that
year. The class of documents I selected to deal with is known as the
Sessions Books. I continued the calendar to these books—noting
every entry, with the exception of lists of names, and I have
indicated the positions of these lists in the different volumes—down
to 1709, and this is the calendar now printed. Since completing it,
and since it was determined to print it, I received directions from
the Committee to continue the calendar back from 1690 to the commencement of the series in 1639, and forwards from 1709 to 1759.
I have done these things, and I have quite recently discovered a
record of the business at Sessions in a class known as Sessions
Registers, which extends from 1607 to 1667, and which fills many
gaps in the Sessions Books, between their commencement and the
latter of the dates just mentioned. I am now dealing with these
registers, and when I have done so we shall have in manuscript a
fairly complete record of the Sessions Orders from 1607 to 1759.
I hope that the sale of the present volume will warrant the
Committee in printing the earlier and later portions of my calendar.
I ought, perhaps, here to explain that in the earlier part of it I
have only very briefly referred to those entries which Mr. Jeaffreson
has already noted at what appeared to me to be sufficient length,
and I have, of course, given in each case a reference to the volume
and page of his calendar.
With regard to the arrangement of the Sessions Books, the
reader, on consulting the calendar, will observe that it is similar in
the case of those which record the proceedings at the Sessions for
Middlesex and in those which record the proceedings at the Sessions
for Westminster. First come the writs, lists of Justices, and the jury
panels; then memoranda as to recognizances and appearances, which,
in the case of the Middlesex books, usually occupy between 20 and
30 pages. In the Westminster books the list is not so long, but it is
more interesting, as it often gives the charge against the person
indicted and his place of residence and occupation. As might be
expected, some notable names occur in the lists, both for Middlesex
and Westminster, as, for instance, that of Titus Oates, who in
January, 1696, is described as of Westminster, and "clerk" (p. 143).
After the lists come the orders, all of which are calendared.
Following them are usually some notes of committals, sentences, and
fines. Then come lists of persons in the New Prison and House of
Correction, and then a list, arranged alphabetically, of persons indicted,
and referring to the Sessions Rolls, and a similar list of persons
entering into recognizances. In some of the later books the names
are given of those who took the oath of allegiance. Quite at the end
are rough memoranda of a very miscellaneous description, but sometimes of much interest; anything of an important nature has been
indicated in the calendar.
At the date at which the present calendar opens the country
as a whole was agitated by rumours of plots against the occupant
of the English throne. The Roman Catholics were regarded with
suspicion, and we find the Middlesex Magistrates enforcing, with
considerable vigour, the Acts against persons of that religion. The
search for fire-arms in the houses of prominent Romanists is referred
to as early as June, 1690; arms, supposed to belong to Captain
Pounds, a Roman Catholic, were seized at the house of Captain
Samuel Ely, but the Magistrates finding themselves in error as to
the owner, directed the return of the weapons (p. 14). Some years
later, in July, 1695, we find the Earl of Cardigan, a reputed papist,
allowed to keep certain fire-arms for the defence of his house (p. 136).
The Magistrates were careful, by means of addresses and the like,
to assure William III and Queen Mary of their zeal in enforcing
every measure which tended to their security on the throne. In the
autumn of 1690 the Court ordered that—owing to the illegal resort
of papists to London and Westminster—all householders, innkeepers,
and keepers of livery stables should, within 24 hours, deliver to some
neighbouring Justice the name and ordinary place of abode of any
lodger or sojourner with them, and of the owner of any horse
remaining in their stables (p. 17). After this it was ordered that a
list should be made of all persons in the county suspected as dangerous
or disaffected to the Government, to the intent that they might be
summoned to take the oath of allegiance (p. 37). A long list of
suspected papists in Westminster, who refused so to do, appears
under the date June, 1692 (pp. 76–79).
Again, in 1696, after the discovery of the Assassination Plot, the
Justices, following the example of the House of Commons, entered into
and signed an "Association" (pp. 146, 147), professing their allegiance
to the King's throne and person; and the leading inhabitants of
the county, on their recommendation, did the same (p. 148). The
Privy Council had directed a return to be made of all French
papists and suspected persons, with information as to whether they
were naturalised or denizised. The Justices instructed the petty
constables and headboroughs to go from house to house and collect
information for this return (pp. 147 and 149). The oaths were to be
tendered to such persons, and on the 30th of April the Privy Council
wrote to the Lord Lieutenant requesting him to ascertain the names
of those who refused, and to distinguish between such as were
papists and such as were protestants (p. 152). In a subsequent letter
the Council gave him directions as to the discharge or detention of
persons in custody in connection with the same Plot, and, a year
later, demanded an account of what had been done in these matters
(p. 170).
In regard to Popish schools in the county the Bench was
particularly watchful, and when, in 1698, it was informed "that a
school for the educating of young women in the Popish religion in
the nature of a nunnery" was kept in the house of Mrs. Beddingfield,
in Hammersmith, "and that divers Popish priests are sheltered in
and near Hammersmith," it was ordered that the high constable of
Kensington Division "do make search in Mrs. Beddingfield's house,
&c., and apprehend all such women as they find, and such persons
as they suspect are Popish priests, and bring them before one of
His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State" (p. 192). At the same
time, upon information being given that "many Popish priests have
lately come into the kingdom and are very busy in exercising their
functions, which may tend to great inconvenience to the public
affairs," the Court directed that on the arrest of any such priest
he was to be sent in the custody of a constable to one of the Secretaries of State for examination (ibid.).
As to protestants who differed from the Established Church,
there is also a great deal in the calendar, and the strength of
nonconformity in and around London, at the close of the seventeenth
century and the beginning of the eighteenth, is illustrated in a
variety of ways—one of them, the frequent licenses granted for
holding conventicles. These were generally held in private houses,
but we have reference, in 1706, to "Charles Nicholetts, a protestant
dissenting minister of the Gospel, who designs to make use of the
market house in Shadwell Market for the public worship of God
in a separate congregation, beginning the then next Lord's Day, he
being qualified thereto as the law directs" (p. 306). For preaching
in an unlicensed conventicle, in 1692, the preacher was convicted
(p. 100).
The erection of buildings especially constructed for the
religious worship of dissenters had apparently not progressed to
any extent, but we have reference to "the Aylesbury Chapel," in
the parish of St. James', Clerkenwell (p. 294), and, in 1707, to a
chapel then lately erected by Mr. William Baguley, in Great Queen's
Street, in the parish of St. Giles'-in-the-Fields. The rector and
churchwardens offered opposition to the erection of this building
(p. 310). There is also a reference to a Quakers' meeting-house at
Tottenham High Cross (p. 43); but, as a rule, the Quakers, like
other nonconformists, appear to have met for religious service in
private houses. Such meeting places are mentioned in Slaughter's
Yard, Wapping; at Edgware, Mill Hill, and at Stoke Newington.
Other nonconformist bodies to which reference is made are, Baptists,
at Whitecross Alley, in St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, and at Edgware;
Anabaptists, at "the Two Blue Balls," in Covent Garden, at
Glasshouse Yard, St. Giles', Cripplegate, and Goodman's Fields,
Whitechapel; Independents, in Baldwin's Gardens; and Presbyterians, at Meeting-house Alley, Wapping, and at Fulham. Bodies
simply described as "Dissenting Protestants" met at "le New Way,"
in the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster, in Little Newport
Street, Westminster, and Crown Court, Shoreditch, and at Hampstead, Enfield, Hackney, Uxbridge, Ealing, Edmonton, Stoke
Newington, Harmondsworth, and Bushey Heath.
A considerable amount of the time of the County Bench was
occupied in matters connected with provision for the poor. County
pensions, of sums varying from £2 to £5 a year, were bestowed on
needy seamen and soldiers who had been wounded in action, and
were also granted to the ordinary poor, unable to relieve themselves
by their own industry. Quite a number of historical events are
brought to mind in the applications made for the former class of
pensions: one applicant had fought on the "Bonadventure," in the
"river of Londonderry," during the memorable siege; another had
been wounded fighting against the French at Martinique; whilst
others had been at the battle of Beachy Head, or in the expeditions
against Dieppe and Brest. One petitioner, who had fought in
many of the wars of Charles II, in the fervour of his claim gets
a little out in his genealogy, and refers to that monarch as
William III's "royal father." Though, as a rule, these pensions
were granted only to ordinary seamen and soldiers, we have two
instances of their being bestowed on naval lieutenants.
The ordinary poor in receipt of pensions seem to have been
entitled to augment their incomes by begging within the bounds of
their own parishes, but it is quite evident that they were not content
with these narrow limits. In 1694 the Court was informed that
great numbers of male and female county pensioners begged in
parishes other than their own; it was therefore ordered by the
Justices that the churchwardens and overseers of the different
parishes should provide for their "pension" poor a distinctive badge,
made of some durable metal, which was to be worn at the end of
the left sleeve of the pensioner's "outmost garment." The pensions
of those refusing to wear these badges were to be forthwith stopped,
and not to be renewed until compliance had been made with the
rule (p. 124). A curious case on this point arose in 1705: the
overseers of St. Andrew's, Holborn, had stopped the pension of
Mary Edwardes, allowed to her for the relief of her impotent child,
because the said Mary did not wear the badge. The Court held that
as the child, for whom the pension was allowed, duly wore the badge,
the pension should be continued (p. 291).
With regard to the education of the poor, there was, of course,
no organised effort on the part of the county. Whatever was done
was the outcome of private charity; yet a curious light on the
question is thrown by some of the entries now calendared. Students
of Mr. Jeaffreson's Calendar will remember that under the Act
13 and 14 Charles II, a body, known as "the Governors of the
Corporation of the Poor," had, in 1663 (Jeaffreson, vol. iii, pp. 331
and 357), erected a workhouse at Clerkenwell for ceitain London
parishes, the theory being that the inmates (all save 100 impotent folk,
who were to be therein housed and fed) should support themselves
by their own labour. The thing proved a failure, and the building
fell into decay before 1675. A portion of it was afterwards let, at a
rental of £30 a year, to Sir Thomas Rowe, to be converted into a
"College" for the education of poor infants (to be sent to it by the
overseers of the different parishes) in the protestant religion (pp. 13
and 296, 297).
Sir Thomas Rowe died in 1696, and the following year we find
that his scholars—or "inventory," as the order terms them—60 in
number, had moved, under the care of one Isaac Adams, into what
was doubtless considered the more salubrious air of the parish of
Hornsey. But the compliment to their parish was not altogether
appreciated by the careful overseers of Hornsey, who appealed to the
Magistrates for some security that the children brought with Adams
should not, in the future, become chargeable to them. The Court
directed that Adams should furnish a list of all the children he had
brought with him, and state the parish from which each child had
come; and that he should, in the future, furnish to the overseers
similar particulars in regard to any fresh arrivals. Adams was
also to give a security to indemnify the parish of Hornsey for the
charge of maintenance or provision. An interesting feature in this
order is that it empowers the parish officers, from time to time, to
inspect Adams' house and its inmates (p. 165).
The insane poor were supported in private houses by a specially
raised rate, or they were confined in "Bedlam," or, in the case of
Westminster, in the House of Correction, in Tothill Fields (pp. 21, 22).
The provision for the impotent poor in parochial almshouses
seems to have been in the mind of the authorities of Ealing, for,
in 1701, they petitioned the Magistrates for liberty to repair and
use a building, situated "on a waste piece of ground belonging
to the parish," that would accommodate eight poor people. They
urged that by so doing they would save the parish £12 a year.
Leave was thereupon given to raise, by rate, the £50 required for
the repair of the building, the original use of which is not stated
(p. 229). Two years later the churchwardens of Twickenham were
authorised to build, on the Lower Common, at the cost of the parish,
a fit and convenient dwelling-house for the use of its "impotent
poor" (p. 265). Almshouses are mentioned in 1696, in the parish of
St. Anne, Westminster, and in 1704 in that of St. Martin's-in-theFields, for widows dependent on parish relief.
A very large proportion of the entries in the calendar deals with
the relieving and "passing" of pauper vagrants, and the question of
actual legal settlement was a matter constantly before the Court in
actions brought by one parish against another. The cost of "passing"
vagrants was, of course, considerable. The vagrancy laws, which
inflicted grievous whippings on the wandering poor of both sexes,
and which, as we have seen by the earlier volumes of the Calendar of
Middlesex Records were so vigorously enforced in the county, seem,
during the period now dealt with, hardly to have been put in execution;
though, as we shall presently notice, the lash was considered a salutary
corrective for men or women who had been convicted of various
offences. Indeed, it can have been no uncommon sight of the
London streets to meet a cart, led solemnly along, behind which
was tied a man or woman "stripped naked from the middle up,"
whose bare back the parish officer belaboured till, in the words of
the sentence, it was "bloody."
The calendar is very full of references to apprentices. Indentures
of apprenticehood were enrolled with the Clerk of the Peace, and a
good many are entered in the Sessions Books. These documents
often provide useful genealogical information, and also furnish quaint
evidence as to what our ancestors considered needful for their children
to learn at the school of apprenticeship. For instance, girls were
apprenticed to learn the art or mystery of "keeping a linen-shop," of
becoming "a child's coat maker," of "washing point and gauze," and
of "housewifery"; and boys "the art of fencing."
Apprentices could not be released from their indentures without
an order of the Court, and we constantly find the Magistrates
occupied in dealing with applications from apprentices to be released
from their masters or mistresses, and, occasionally, masters and
mistresses praying to be freed from their apprentices. In both
instances the complaints were sometimes trivial, but more often real
ground for complaint evidently existed, and in these cases the
Magistrates were not slow to execute judgment and to cancel
the indentures. The charges brought by apprentices against their
masters were chiefly neglect of teaching, neglect of creature comforts,
immoderate correction, or other forms of cruelty, and overwork. We
have the complaint of a boy apprenticed to learn the art of a surgeon
who was compelled by his master to be a "tumbler, rope-dancer,
and jack-pudding" (p. 140). Another, apprenticed to learn the
art of a surgeon, was carried away to sea and made a cabin-boy.
In one instance, indentures were cancelled because the master was a
Jacobite; in another, because it was shown that the master's wife had
several times induced the apprentice to attend mass in the chapel
of the Portuguese Ambassador (p. 300); in another, in 1709, because
the apprentice, who had been brought up as a papist, and was
apprenticed to a master holding the same faith, conformed to the
Anglican Church; he was thenceforward ill-used by his master, who
had been very kind to him previously (p. 347). Some appealed for
release of their indentures on the ground that their masters or
mistresses were dead, or were prisoners for debt, and thus unable to
perform their part of the contract. It was a common occurrence in
the neighbourhood ot Shadwell for the master of a lad, apprenticed to
the sea, to abscond. The liberties of Whitefriars and the Temple
occasionally afforded sanctuary to defaulting masters (pp. 115, 141,
and 230).
The charges brought by masters or mistresses against their
apprentices were mainly of idleness or trivial dishonesty, though there
were occasionally complaints of a more serious nature.
Other grounds on which apprenticeships were declared void were
non-enrolment of the deed, or the fact that the apprentice's indentures
had been entered into without the consent of his father or legal
guardian, or that they were for a period of less than seven years.
The system of apprenticing pauper children, by the parishes to
which they belonged, led to a good many disputes which came before
the Magistrates for decision, and there are several instances of masters
and mistresses refusing to accept such apprentices; sometimes the
objections were allowed, but, oftener, they were dismissed as frivolous,
and the unwilling master or mistress was provided with a parochial
apprentice for seven years.
With regard to the punishments inflicted by the Court for the
various offences which came before it there is not much to be said.
We do not get any instances of the terrible penalty for standing
mute which Mr. Jeaffreson's Calendars show had been inflicted by
the Middlesex Bench so late as the reign of Charles II, but the
pillory and whippings were chastisements inflicted on men and
women with considerable frequency. The time for which persons
were sentenced to stand upon the pillory was generally one hour, and
this hour between 10 in the morning and noon. A paper, stating the
culprit's offence, would be placed over his or her head, or affixed to
his or her breast. Pillories stood at or near the following places:—
The Maypole, in the Strand; Catherine Street, near Eagle Court, in
St. Mary-le-Savoy; the New Exchange, in the Strand; the Fountain
Tavern, in the same thoroughfare; Covent Garden; "Bow Street
end"; Charing Cross; St. James's Street; New Palace Yard;
Stanhope Street, Clare Market; Bloomsbury Market; Fuller's Rents
or Gray's Inn gateway in Holborn ; at "the great gates" of Hick's
Hall; and at Ratcliffe Cross, or the Sun Tavern in Ratcliffe Highway. In the rural parts of the county we have mention of pillories
in New Brentford Market Place and at Twickenham.
Whipping-posts are mentioned in Holborn, where there were also
stocks, and at Kensington, and Cow Cross. But whippings were, as
already mentioned, more often inflicted at the cart's tail from some
given point to another; the locality selected had, no doubt, some
special applicability to the culprit's offence.
A somewhat remarkable punishment was inflicted by the Bench
in 1704 on Elizabeth Staines, the wife of a coachman, who pleaded
guilty of an assault on Mr. John Howard. The Court ordered her
"to make a submissive and public acknowledgment of the said offence
in the open market at Brentford, where she gave the abuse to the
said Mr. Howard, and to ask his pardon there, which Mr. Howard is
willing to accept in regard to the poverty of John Staines, the
husband" (p. 275).
With regard to the condition of the prisons wholly in the
possession of the county, or those to which county prisoners were
committed, we learn a good deal from the present calendar. At
Newgate the state of affairs was abominable, and in 1702 the debtors
set forth, in a petition to the Bench, the miseries and ill-treatment
they suffered (pp. 244 and 245). The report of the Magistrates
appointed to enquire into the matter shows that the petitioners' story
was correct, and a series of regulations were drawn up for the better
government of the prison (pp. 247, 248). Had these been carried
out, the sufferings of the prisoners would have been alleviated, but
they were not. A second appeal was made to the Bench in 1707,
in which it was shown that the previous order of the Court had not
been observed (p. 317). This further petition was referred to certain
Justices for report, and their report, when received, was laid before the
Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Sheriffs of London (p. 320), and this
is the last we hear of the matter in the present volume.
One of the great abuses in Newgate seems to have been the
extortion of "garnish" money, which if prisoners—were they male
or female—could not, or would not, pay, led to stripping, beating,
and confinement in a dungeon known as "Tangier."
The House of Correction at Clerkenwell was a building near the
New Prison, erected at the cost of the county (pp. 2–3). The inmates
of this house complained, in 1698, that, by reason of the small
quantity of food allowed, two of their number had "been starved to
death"; and they also complained of being detained as prisoners,
after the expiry of their terms of imprisonment, for refusing to pay
fees which could not be legally demanded. The matter was referred
to certain Justices, who reported, giving instances of the detention
as to which complaint was made, and stating that "when Captain
Jones was keeper the prisoners had flesh on Mondays and Thursdays,
and about a pennyworth of bread a day, and also meal pottage,
water gruel, or pease pottage every day." This dietary was at first
followed by the then keeper, but he had reduced the allowance of meat to one day a week, though he had lately—probably
on knowledge of the enquiry—returned to the former allowance
(p. 191). But, as at Newgate, so at the House of Correction, things
drifted back when the keeper thought it safe to return to his evil
ways. In 1709 the Justices had before them a complaint from the
inmates of the House of Correction who had suffered greatly "during
the late hard frost," and six of them had nearly died of starvation
(p. 342). Their neighbours in the New Prison also complained, in
the same year, of the exactions of the keeper (p. 345), who had not
allowed prisoners to buy any food except through him, and who had
extorted fees above those authorised by law (p. 347). He was
dismissed and a new keeper appointed.
In 1705 we have reference to the fact that a prisoner in the
Marshalsea had been almost starved to death, and had been so
weakened by his confinement there that he was incapacitated from
thereafter earning his own livelihood (p. 281).
It is probable that much of the evil in the administration of
prisons arose from the fact that the keepers, in effect, "farmed''
these prisons of the county. In 1690 the keeper of the New Prison
complained of the great diminution in his perquisites, and of his
consequent inability to answer his rent, by reason of the numerous
commitments to other prisons in the county, "proper only for the
detention of debtors" (p. 4).
The question of licensing was one which occupied a considerable
amount of the Justices' attention at the period covered by this
volume of the calendar, and the difficulties in regard to it experienced
by the Middlesex Justices at the time of William III and Queen
Anne will doubtless be appreciated by their successors of the present
day. Licenses—we are speaking, of course, of alehouse or tavern
keepers' licenses—were, as a rule, suppressed (in two instances, only
for a limited period) for ill-rule, for allowing "tippling" at unreasonable hours, or for permitting it on "the Lord's Day," during the
hours of Divine service. Various devices were practised by the
owners of such houses to defeat the operation of the law, and it was
no uncommon occurrence for an individual whose license had been
suppressed to obtain surreptitiously, or "by surprize," a renewal of
that license from a Magistrate in some distant part of the county.
Thomas Charlesworth, of Leman Street, Whitechapel, whose license
had been suppressed and renewed under these circumstances, had
the temerity to put over his sign this couplet:—
"Here I doe dwell in my own defence,
Noe rogues nor knaves shall ever drive me hence."
The Justices, as a whole, naturally regarded the expression
"rogues or knaves" as intended to apply to themselves, and ordered
the inscription to be obliterated, and, if not done, the license
was to be recalled (p. 340). This order shows a remarkable
moderation on the part of the Bench, and a further illustration of
the liberal spirit in which that body acted in regard to the suppression
of licenses is furnished by the fact that in those cases where the
Magistrates felt in duty bound to order the suppression of a license,
such suppression was not to take effect till the alehouse-keeper had
had sufficient time to draw off the stock of liquor he had laid in.
Some of the special reasons given for the suppression of licenses
are interesting. Thus, in 1692, those of some dozen persons,
who were the sheriff's bailiffs, were suppressed, when it was found
that their abodes were "common spunging houses," in which they
detained their prisoners several days contrary to law (p. 85). In
1703 the license of the King's Head, in Albemarle Street, was, on
the vote of the majority of the Magistrates, suppressed, on the
charge, primarily, that the owner had refused entertainment to a
soldier billeted on him (p. 260).
The number of alehouses throughout the county was a matter
of evident concern to the Justices, and we find that, in 1695, an application for a new license in Hoxton was refused on account of the great
number of licensed houses already established there. The house in
question had "never before been used as a victualling house, but
always inhabited" by "citizens of good worth, or gentlemen" (p. 132).
We do not know how far the "music house" was equivalent to
the modern music hall, but it was certainly, at the period of the
calendar, combined, as a rule, with the alehouse, and evidently not
regarded with much favour by the Justices. In 1693 the license of a
victualler, who kept a disorderly "ale and music house" near Lamb's
Conduit Fields, was ordered to be suppressed (p. 96). There is a
note, under the date 1701, that the Mitre Music House is to be
indicted (p. 235), and a little earlier in the same year the constables had been directed to be very diligent in the search for
those who kept, and those who haunted, disorderly houses, "particularly music houses, which tend only to the debauching of persons
frequenting them" (p. 226). Lastly, in April, 1702 (p. 241), comes
the drastic order that no music houses be licensed!
The due observance of Sunday was also a subject in which the
Bench took an evident interest. Stimulated by the Queen's letter
on the subject, written in July, 1691, the Magistrates ordered that
there be printed and affixed to the great gates of Hicks Hall, and to
the doors of all churches and "other public places" in every parish,
a special notice against "all prophanation of the Lord's Day, by
people travelling, selling or exposing anything to sale by exercise of
their ordinary callings thereon, or by using any other vain imployments or sports, and especially by tipling thereon, or on any part
thereof, and neglecting the worship and service of God, and also
against the odious and loathsome sin of drunkennesse, and against all
houses of debauchery and evill fame" (p. 49).
Not all that was hoped of it, came of this proclamation—if we
may term it so: "the rash and unadvised actings" of several persons,
"pretending great zeal," had resulted in the issue of the illegal
and irregular convictions of "a multitude of innocent persons" for
exercising their ordinary calling on the Lord's Day, without their
being even summoned, or afforded an opportunity of explanation,
whereby it might have appeared whether what they had done were
"works of charity or necessity." To remedy this, "and to the end so
religious an intention may not miscarry," the Court, in January, 1692,
declared that no conviction should be made before a warrant or
summons from a Justice of the Peace had been served on an accused
person, which summons would be delivered free to any person
requiring the same; and further, for the better encouragement of
parish officers in searching for and observing profanations of the
Lord's Day, the Justices gave notice that, on request from any
such officer to a Justice resident in his parish, such Justice would go
with him "in person" and search the suspected house. Informers
were promised encouragement, and every alehouse-keeper duly
convicted was not only to forfeit 10s., but also to have his license
suppressed for three years (pp. 64, 65). We do not hear again of the
matter till February, 1698, when "victuallers, innholders, coffeesellers, vintners, brandy-sellers, &c.," were directed to forbear
entertaining company on the Lord's Day, "excepting those persons
allowed by law"; and "butchers, poulterers, fruiterers, barbers, and
other persons" were forbidden to expose any of their goods for sale
"on Sunday next or on any Sunday following." The King's
proclamation against swearing and immorality was recited, special
diligence being ordered in the search for offenders against it,
"particularly on the Lord's Day" (p. 181).
In the following February we find a direction for putting into
execution the orders made for the better observance of the Lord's Day
(p. 195); and then, in the next year (1700), attention was drawn to the
general observance of Sunday throughout the county. The Court held
that churchwardens and other parish officers were very remiss in
putting into execution the laws respecting profanation of the Lord's
Day, and ordered all persons concerned to be more diligent in that
respect. Attention was also called to idle persons who "go about
in the footpaths and public streets . . . . with wheelbarrows,
wherein they carry oranges, apples, nuts, and other wares, and
expose them to sale, and carry and use dice to encourage passengers
and others to play for such their goods, and other unlawful games."
Further attention was directed to disorderly persons, both men and
women, who wandered about "singing and publishing obscene ballads
and other licentious books and pamphlets, drawing crowds of people,
and which are the occasion of picking of pockets, affrays, and riots,
disturbing the peace, and corrupting of youth." The summary
arrest of all such persons was enjoined (p. 218).
After the accession of Queen Anne we find a special order for
putting into force the laws "for the observance of the Lord's Day
in accordance with her majesty's proclamation" (pp. 237 and 240).
Pressing for the army and navy was evidently being carried out
with vigour during the years covered by the calendar, the wars
in which both William III and Anne were engaged, necessitating an
active replenishment of the depleted forces. In January, 1705, the
Privy Council requested the Justices to assist in raising recruits
(p. 279), and in the April following a certain number of Justices sat
daily in St. Martin's Vestry to carry out the provisions of the
Recruiting Act (p. 283). Again, at the close of that year, the Council
recommended to the Justices the "vigorous execution" of the Act
for raising recruits for the land forces and marines in order to enable
the Government "early to enter upon action next spring" (p. 293).
A similar application was made by the Council at the close of the
following year (p. 307).
In the spring of 1708 a reward of 20s. was offered by the
Government to any parish officer who should bring a person before
the Magistrates to be enlisted; and the ranks of the army were also
to be filled up by volunteers. Every person who voluntarily entered
the service was to receive a gratuity of £5, and to have his discharge
at the end of three years if he should desire it (p. 324).
In February, 1695, the Court directed the release of a person
who had been forced by Captain Edward Taylor "to take 12 pence for
enlisting as a soldier": it held that the recruit had been "oppressed,"
and that, not being qualified as a seaman, he ought not to be
impressed as a soldier (p. 128). Again, in 1704, the Court prayed
the release of the son of "a gentleman of above £500 a year," who
had apparently been enlisted—partly, perhaps, as a joke—by an
over-zealous lieutenant in the Welsh Fusiliers, with whom he had
been drinking (p. 268).
Another recruiting ground for both services was the debtors'
prison. An insolvent debtor, owing less than £100, might obtain his
release on enlisting (p. 269). If his debt were over that amount his
request to be discharged to the army or navy was refused (p. 277). A
sheriff's officer, who had refused to release from prison a debtor willing
to enter the service, was fined £10, but the fine was remitted on it
being shown that the application had not been made in form (pp. 282
and 284). Not only debtors were allowed to terminate their
imprisonment by enlistment; Robert Dale, who in 1696 was "convicted of a trespass and false imprisonment," was, after being pilloried,
sentenced to a month's imprisonment in the New Prison, unless he
should in the meantime "voluntarily list himself as a soldier" (p. 151).
The vexed question of billeting or quartering occupied a good
deal of the Justices' attention. In January, 1690, they, in accordance
with the Act of Parliament, settled the prices which soldiers should
pay to the owners of inns, livery stables, and alehouses for their diet
and the baiting of their horses; and the chief constables were thereupon ordered to furnish the Magistrates with the names of all those
who were liable to quarter soldiers, with an exact account of the
number, both horse and foot, which each house was capable of
receiving. The Magistrates further ordered that such officers as were
obliged to provide soldiers' quarters should, in the first place, assign
such quarters to the houses most fit for their reception, in proportion
with "other of less receipt, having a consideration of those persons
who keep houses liable by the said Act to quarter soldiers who are
poor and not able to provide beds for their accommodation" (p. 4).
In October, 1697, on the expected return of the Horse Guards
and other troops from Flanders, who were to be accommodated in
and about London, the Magistrates ordered the constables to make
lists of suitable inns and livery stables (p. 175).
The actual charges allowed by the Magistrates to be made by
innkeepers in respect of quarter, were settled in April, 1702, and
were as follows:—For a commissioned officer of horse, under the
degree of captain, for diet and small beer, 2/- a day; for an officer
of dragoons, under the degree of captain, diet, small beer, and hay
and straw for his horse, 1/- a day; for a commissioned officer on
foot, under the degree of captain, for diet and small beer, 1/- a day;
if the officer has a horse or horses, for each horse 6d. a day; for a
light horseman's diet, small beer, and hay and straw for his horse,
1/- a day; for a dragoon's diet, small beer, and hay and straw for his
horse, 9d. a day; for a foot soldier, diet and small beer, 4d. a day
(p. 239).
But despite these arrangements, disputes as to matters connected
with the quartering of soldiers sometimes occurred. A petition from
the innkeepers of Westminster in regard to quartering the Earl of
Oxford's regiment of horse was dismissed as groundless in 1694
(pp. 123, 124). Payment for quarters was, we know, often neglected,
and, in 1694, £119 is mentioned as owing to various persons in
Staines for quartering Captain Fletcher's troop of horse in Colonel
Coy's regiment (p. 112). In 1695 a further claim of the inhabitants
of that place was made for unpaid quarters (p. 127). When, in
the spring of 1703, the foot guards were about to be quartered in
various London parishes, Queen Anne especially directed that the
officers should "take care that the soldiers behave themselves civilly,
and duly pay their landlords." The Magistrates and their officers
were to assist, in all ways, in providing quarters (p. 257).
In the matter of recruiting the needs of the navy were quite as
urgent as those of the army. In 1691 the Court directed that
the constables should make a list "of all mariners and seafaring
men in their respective districts, together with their ages, places of
abode, and whether they are at home or abroad." These lists were
to be sent to the Commissioners of the Customs, for the more speedy
and sufficient supply for the furnishing of their Majesties' fleet with
able and sufficient seamen and mariners (p. 27). It is well known that
the riverside taverns, and other riverside houses, formed hiding-places
for seamen unwilling to serve in the navy, and how the merchants and
traders were ready to lend their aid in sheltering mariners, whom
they so greatly needed for the conduct of their trade with foreign ports.
We are not surprised, therefore, to find that, in 1695, the Court
detected that many beadles and headboroughs who kept alehouses,
sheltered in such houses seamen liable to be pressed for the fleet,
"when His Majesty requires them for his service" (p. 129). A year
later, in February, 1696, the Council directed the Justices to order
the constables "to take up for the fleet all seafaring men who abscond
or cannot give a good account of themselves." As an encouragement, each constable was to receive an allowance of 10/- from the
Navy Board for every absconding sailor placed on board any of the
King's ships or tenders before the 10th of the following April (p. 147).
Similar directions were issued in 1701 (p. 226).
In 1703 the Bench was directed to give orders for the "capture"
of all "straggling seamen" (p. 259); and in 1709, on a complaint
of the Earl of Sunderland, Secretary of State, the Clerk of the
Peace informed the head constables of the county that several seamen
impressed had been sent into the army instead of the other service
(p. 352).
The salutary discipline of the navy was appreciated by the
Justices, who in 1694 delivered a "pilfering boy," aged 14, then in
prison at Clerkenwell, to some officer belonging to one of their
Majesties' ships, "whereby he may be able to get an honest
livelihood" (p. 117).
The value of many of the entries in the calendar, from a topographical point of view, needs, perhaps, a word in the Preface. The
names of signs, and references to streets, new and already existing,
abound. The spread of London, outside the limits of the City,
north of the highway from Temple Bar to Westminster, and west
of the Haymarket, had begun, and we find it illustrated in the
orders to pave newly-made streets, as well as existing thoroughfares
(which had only just ceased to be "country" roads), so far as
buildings extended on either side of the way. The "village" of
Kensington, too, by an eastward expansion, was creeping on to
touch the western extension of London. East of the eastern limits
of the City, building operations had been in progress for more than
a century; but even there the growth of commerce and of the docks
and quays on the Thames was populating the eastern villages and
joining them with the Metropolis itself. As to the care and repair
of London streets, their watch and ward, and their lighting, the
calendar has also much to tell us. In 1691, after the first Act
which dealt with the lighting of the London streets, the Court
ordered that every householder whose house adjoined a road, or
was in close proximity to it, should display a lighted lantern on the
outside of his residence "as it shall grow dark," and keep the same
alight till midnight (p. 27).
A few months later the Court was informed that several householders neglected this duty, and that the "patentees," (fn. 2) who set up
the lamps by agreement with the householders, placed them too far
apart (p. 50). Certain persons evidently refused either to hang out
lights at their own expense or to pay their shares to the "partners"
for keeping up the lights. The Court ordered the payment of
penalties by defaulters, and also declared that all public passages and
thoroughfares in and about the town, comprised within the bills of
mortality, ought to be esteemed streets (p. 111).
We hear of the matter again as late as 1705, where the streets
and lanes of Spitalfields had been lit partly with the convex lights
and partly with other glass lamps. Great confusion had consequently
arisen, and behind that confusion many of the inhabitants had
sheltered themselves and avoided paying their penalties for not
exhibiting lights, "sometimes pretending that they contribute to
one kind and sometimes to the other kind." The matter was referred
to certain Justices resident in the locality, who were to examine and
report how the streets were lighted (p. 281).
With regard to watch and ward of the streets it is, from the
entries in the calendar, rather difficult to decide whether or not the
arrangements were at all adequate; but the perpetration of a robbery
in any particular locality generally led to an order by the Bench for
a stricter guard of the streets in that locality, both by day and night.
A fruitful source of danger—which we find the Court active in
combatting—was the practice of workmen leaving in the streets at
night the ladders on which they had been working during the day.
There are, in the calendar, several interesting entries as to watch
and ward; one goes into much detail in regard to the watchman's
beat in Whitechapel (p. 252); another shows that the care of the
Strand between Temple Bar and Salisbury House was committed to
four "able and sufficient warders," who were to be placed "at
convenient stands" as soon as the "candles" were lit (p. 27); whilst
a third refers to a special guard of the road between Bow and Mile
End for the better security of travellers from the attacks of highwaymen who lurked in and about Bearbinder Lane (p. 96). Watch houses
are mentioned for several localities. These had occasionally been
allowed to fall into decay by parochial neglect, and—as in the
following case, in 1694—the aid of the county Bench was invoked:
"Upon the petition of divers of the inhabitants of the liberty of East
Smithfield, in the parish of St. Botolph Without Aldgate, showing
that they, being destitute of a watch house for the said liberty, have
been forced to make use of a public house, which produces many
inconveniences, the watchmen being often overtaken in drink, and
that the lord of the manor has granted a lease of a piece of ground
at the upper end of the first street of East Smithfield, where a middle
row of houses are rebuilding, near the place where the former watch
house stood; it is ordered that the inhabitants be at liberty to erect a
convenient watch house there" (p. 119).
In the matter of rights of way, the up-keep of bridges, the
deviation of roads, and other matters of what we may term current
importance, because they now often occupy the attention of the
County Council, the calendar has a good deal to say. Of Chertsey
Bridge we hear much; there was an interesting dispute as to the
liability to repair Colnbrook Bridge in 1691 (p. 28), and we find the
Justices, in 1707, so solicitous as to the care of Brentford Bridge that,
during the summer months, they set up posts and chains at either
end, in order that carts and carriages might be forced to use the
ford, the bridge itself being reserved for foot passengers (p. 317).
The attitude of the Bench in regard to fairs is shown by several
entries: "Greengoose" Fair, at Stratford-le-Bow and Bromley,
caused an annoyance in consequence of the booths and sheds erected
along the high road to Romford (p. 342) ; "Rag Fair" is referred to,
in an order made in 1700, as a riotous and unlawful assembly in
Rosemary Lane, Whitechapel. "for the buying and selling of old
goods, wearing apparel, and other things, greatly suspected to be
stolen" (p. 211); Hendon Fair, held at "Burrows Green "in 1697,
brought together "a concourse of disorderly persons" (p. 170); and
May Fair—which Pennant, writing in 1805, could himself remember as
a gathering at which there was "every enticement to low pleasure"
—was certainly productive of a good deal of trouble, though its
theatrical features, on which Pennant dwells, are not particularly
mentioned. If they existed at the period of the calendar we can
well understand the Bench's objection to the fair, for the attitude
of that body towards the drama was certainly hostile. In the case of
Hampstead, whose growing fame as a health resort had led to the
establishment of a theatre, the Middlesex Magistrates took singularly
drastic measures: they directed the petty constables and headboroughs of the town to apprehend the players that they might be
duly punished as rogues, vagabonds, and sturdy beggars—that is to
say, stripped naked from the middle upwards and beaten on their
backs till they were bloody (p. 346).
Lotteries and gaming houses were viewed by the Bench much
in the light of theatres, and we find throughout the calendar a persistent endeavour to check what the Magistrates evidently regarded
as a danger to public morals. Some interesting details are given
of the measures taken, in February, 1698, with regard to "an unlawful
assembly, called the Redoubt, after the Venetian manner, kept at
Exeter Change in the Strand, and carried on by persons unknown,
who, by printed tickets, give notice of games that are not lawful
and tend very much to encourage all manner of vice and debauchery."
Those who frequented it went masked and disguised (p. 181). What
exactly was done in the matter we do not learn, but the Court
ordered the high constables of Westminster and Holborn, "with
all the petty constables," to meet on a certain day at Exeter Change,
to preserve the peace and arrest the managers (ibid.). A note
informs us that the "Redoubt" was duly suppressed, and that its
suppression cost the county 25s., which was expended at the Fountain
Tavern. One item in the account (which, by the way, adds up to
25s. 5d.) is to the "drawer" (p. 182). Was this a "tip" to him who
drew the ale, or was it a wisely-bestowed inducement to an official of
the lottery to supply useful information?
Amongst the entries of a miscellaneous character may be noted
the petition of the Justices, in 1691, that the number of paid members
of the Bench might be increased (p. 37); and a curious request made
by one Peter Joyce, in 1695, for exemption from serving a parochial
office to which he had presumably been recently elected. The entry
reads as follows:—"Petition of Joseph Joyce, esquire, of Stepney
Parish, praying to be discharged from serving as overseer of the poor
of Mile End New Town, for the following reasons:—He has been
employed in the Island of Nevis for ten or twelve years as King's
Counsel and Justice of the Peace, and has held highest rank in
military affairs; he has lived in Mile End Hamlet about three years,
and has now a family of whites and blacks in the said island of one
hundred and ten persons, and that he is here for the despatch of his
affairs in England, and is suddenly returning to Nevis. Order that
the petitioner be discharged" (p. 133).
There are many other points of interest in the calendar to which
I should have liked to draw attention, but I fear making this Preface
of inordinate length. I sincerely hope that—as I said at the outset—
the student of London life and manners in the past will show his
appreciation of the material made available for him by the Standing
Joint Committee of the County Justices and County Council, and
so warrant that body in printing the remainder of the calendar
which I have compiled to the Sessions Books. I trust also that, in
conclusion, I may be permitted to tender my warm thanks to all
members of the Committee—especially to Sir Ralph Littler, C.B., K.C.
(the Chairman), Mr. Montagu Sharpe, D.L., and Mr. E. S. W. Hart,
of the Clerk of the Peace Office—for their constant help and advice.
My thanks are also due to Miss Constance Toulmin for her assistance in classifying the very varied material in the calendar for the
purpose of the Preface; and I am sure all who consult the index
will appreciate the skill and patience exhibited by Miss M. Dorothy
Brakspear in compiling it.
W. J. HARDY.
21, Old Buildings,
Lincoln's Inn, W.C.
December 31st, 1904.