The Customs of Old England Part 12

"_Berewyke_ [the Judge]: 'For that he could not purchase his own heritage so that it could be styled his own purchase; and he devised the tenements; and the custom of the town does not permit a man to devise his heritage; Therefore this Court adjudges that Sybil (_sic_) do recover her seisin of the tenements which were not devisable. Now what say you as to the remainder?'

"The a.s.sise said that the remainder of the tenements were of his own purchase from several persons in the town, and that in his last illness he devised them to Martin for the term of his life, and that the testament was proved at the Guildhall according to the custom of the town; and that the executors were commanded to deliver seisin to Martin, and that according to the custom he had the seisin, &c.

"_Berewyke_: 'Since it is found that he entered on the tenements according to the custom, &c.--although you were seised for four weeks, yet that ought not to give you a t.i.tle--this Court adjudges that you do take nothing by the writ, &c. After Martin's death be well advised.'"

Communal law, however, was not allowed to _override_ the law of England.[12] This principle was a.s.serted in 1293, when Thomas le Chamberleyn brought a writ before the Common Bench against a certain W., who, he complained, had taken his horse in the highway in the town of Bernewell. The writ ran--"took in the highway and still keeps impounded." There was the usual wrangle between counsel, and an attempt was made to oust or invalidate the writ by a.s.serting that six years and a half before it (the writ) was purchased the animal had been surrendered. After this preliminary fencing counsel for the defence produced his real case, which was that by the King's charter the burgesses of Cambridge had a franchise to this extent, that when clerks or other persons were in debt they might seize their horses or other property within the liberty; and as Thomas was bound in so many shillings, his horse was seized according to the custom of the town, and in no other way. The trespa.s.s being admitted, the Judge (Gislingham) proceeded to give judgment on the plea of justification. He said:

"For that it is against the common law and against the statutes to make such a taking in the highway unless he be the King's bailiff, notwithstanding any franchise which the King may have granted, therefore the Court adjudges that Thomas do recover his damages, and that W. be in mercy for his tortious taking."

This leads to another point. Corporations had their local courts, and some of them, by virtue of this fact, claimed exemption from the jurisdiction of the higher courts. Such was the case at Liverpool, and according to Sir. F. A. Picton there are instances on record in which they succeeded in establishing their claim. How far these local authorities were fit to be entrusted with the execution of justice may be estimated by some lively incidents which took place in the early days of October, 1565. One Thomas Johnson had been apprehended for picking purses. Apparently he underwent no regular trial, but was dealt with summarily, the programme being as follows: First, he was imprisoned several days and nights, and then he was nailed by the ear to a post at the flesh-shambles. As the next item, he was turned out naked from the middle upwards, and many boys, with withy rods, whipped him out of the town. He was then locked to a clog with an iron chain and horseblock until the Friday morning following, and finally abjured the town before the Mayor and Bailiffs, at the same time making rest.i.tution of 6_s._ 8_d._ to the wife of one Henry Myln. Thus, there was a rude efficacy in the process, but it might perhaps have been received as sufficient ground for a writ of certiorari if Johnson had again fallen into the hands of his tormentors.

It is certain that at times towns had to answer, through their officers, for alleged acts of illegality in their corporate capacity.

Thus in 1292 one Adam--the reader will observe that the records do not give the actual names, Adam being chosen as beginning with the first letter of the alphabet--brought the Replegiare against B., &c., stating that B., &c., had tortiously taken his chattels in the High Street of the Town of Gloucester and conveyed them to their toll booth in the same town. B. and C., the bailiffs, defended the seizure, a.s.serting that by the custom of the town of Gloucester only freemen might cut cloth there--strangers might sell cloth by the piece, but not cut it.

Adam was not a freeman of the town, but, in opposition to the custom, he had come and cut his cloth. As against this Adam produced a charter witnessing that the King had granted him the right of cutting cloth in the same way as other freemen, and, by virtue of the charter, he maintained that he had been seised from time whereof, &c. The bailiffs repudiated this claim. We do not learn what the judgment was in this case, but the phrase "other freemen" is suspicious. It suggests that the charter had been granted in ignorance of the custom of this particular town, not out of disrespect for it, since the tendency of all the evidence is to show that local autonomy and local privileges in such matters were treated with infinite care. It almost appears as if Adam had taken advantage of an ambiguity. As regards ordinary civil rights Adam was doubtless a freeman--otherwise he could not have brought this action--but he was not a freeman in the sense that he paid scot and lot in the town of Gloucester.

Such persons were often styled "foreigners," and therefore the plaintiff in this case would have occupied precisely the same position as "foreign" merchants who transgressed the customs of London. One of these was that they were not to attend any market or fair at a greater distance than three miles from the City, nor had Justices or Sheriff power to give them leave to do so. If a Sheriff caught any "foreign"

merchant beyond those bounds, he was supposed to bring him back, and the money found on his person having been confiscated was shared between the Sheriff and the citizens. If, however, the citizens were alone responsible for the capture, the whole of the money went to them. Other rules were that merchants repairing to London for the sale of linen, cloth and wool might do business only on three days of the week (Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays). They were then, if anything remained to be sold, to pack up their goods and wait till the following week; and in no case were they to sell _ad detail_ (retail).

A custom which we meet with at Dover and Reading, and was probably adopted by other towns, is one described in sundry ordinances _de stachia_, the latter being barbarous Latin for "stake." This was a device for recovering possession of a tenement after a specified time, when the tenant had fallen into arrears of rent, and consisted in the landlord erecting a stake in front of the house as a notification of his claim.

CROWN AND TOWN

Despite ident.i.ty of usage at Dover and Reading on the subject of the stake, it would be pardonable to conclude that in those times of difficult communication there existed a great diversity of burghal laws, entailing considerable inconvenience and hardship, especially in the case of those engaged in trade. Since the adoption or growth of customs depended on the interests or sentiments of particular communities, diversity was, to some extent, inevitable, but the tendency to local independence--an independence tenaciously maintained and jealously guarded--was tempered by counter-tendencies. Thus it was not always to the interest of a town or city to stand in complete isolation from centres of a similar type, or possibly of a superior organization; and, in such instances, a smaller, weaker, less perfectly developed community might seek to improve its status or fortune by modelling its arrangements on those of a more advanced and more powerful neighbour, and in addition to and as a corollary of this, enter into a formal or informal alliance with it, in which the latter would hold the position of protector or patron.

In the Middle Ages there subsisted between the towns and the feudal aristocracy an antagonism sometimes silent and slumbering, sometimes wakened into fierce consciousness and expressing itself not only in hardy words, but in sanguinary deeds. On the Continent the towns were the hotbeds of revolution, and the commune, with its mayor as figure-head, signalized the triumph of the insurrectionary temper. This state of things was more marked on the Continent than in England, where the Barons led the a.s.sault on tyranny, and where, for his own purposes, the monarch fostered the prosperity of towns of his own planting. But Mr. J. H. Round, in his singularly able article on "The Origin of the Mayoralty of London," contributed to the "Archaeological Journal," shows conclusively that this inst.i.tution, now the aegis of all that is staid, stable, and respectable, was the offspring of the spirit of revolt which spread like a contagion from Italy to France, Germany, and the Low Countries, and thence to the Thames.

Dr. Gross's valuable contribution to the "Antiquary" (1885), treating of the affiliation of towns, is of a general character, and ill.u.s.trated largely by continental examples; anyone, however, who wishes to grasp the full significance of mediaeval relationships as between town and town, will be well advised in consulting that succinct account. Here we must confine ourselves to English experience, in which the same traits appear, only more faintly. Before proceeding to this inquiry it may not be amiss to advert briefly to another aspect of the subject. We have said above that, in England, the monarch inclined to favour certain towns for his own purposes, and such towns were naturally of the highest precedence. If we turn to Liverpool, we shall find that in 1206 it received a visit from King John, who the following year issued letters patent of which the following is a translation:

"John, by the grace of G.o.d King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to all his liegemen who would desire to have burgages at the town of Liverpool, greeting. Know ye that we have granted to all who may take burgages at Liverpool that they may have all the liberties and free customs in the town of Liverpool which any free borough on the sea has in our land; and therefore we command that securely, and in our peace, you may come to receive and occupy our burgages. And in testimony thereof we transmit to you these our letters patent. Witness, Simon de Pateshill, at Winchester, the 28th day of August in the ninth year of our reign."

At a later period the people of Liverpool might not have thanked the Crown for facilitating the settlement of a large body of strangers in their midst. Everywhere burgesses were strongly opposed to the colonization of their towns by "upland men," less on sentimental grounds than from the fact that these "foreigners" frequently did not take steps to become naturalized and pay scot and lot towards communal expenses.

Clearly this objection did not apply to Liverpool in this instance, and at that relatively early stage of its history the incorporation of a number of well-to-do and industrious immigrants might naturally have been hailed as a gain. It must have been so regarded by the King.

Liverpool was the port of embarkation for troops sailing to Ireland, and is said to have owed its foundation to this circ.u.mstance in the days of Strongbow. The advantage of a numerous, loyal, and able-bodied population was seen in 1573, when the Earl of Ess.e.x pa.s.sed through the place on his way to Ireland. It happened that he left behind him a detachment of soldiers, and the "motley coats" and "blue coats," having quarrelled, used their weapons on each other. With admirable prompt.i.tude, the Mayor summoned the trained bands, and the rest of the story may be told in the vivacious language of a contemporary:

"Mr. Mayor and all the town suddenly, as pleased G.o.d Almighty, were ready upon the heath, every man with their best weapons; so as by good chance every householder being at home, Sunday morning, eager as lions, made show almost even like to the number of the captains and all their soldiers.... After the battle array [which was efficacious in staying the conflict] Mr. Captain showed all gentleness and courtesy to the Mayor, and came up to the town in friendship and amity."

Trained bands formed part of the equipment of a well-appointed mediaeval town--a description to which, as we shall show, Liverpool possessed exceptional claims. But the Crown did not benefit solely in this way.

The burgages erected numbered 168, each of which paid a ground rent of one shilling per annum into the royal exchequer. The custom dues of the Duchy of Lancaster were another source of profit, and retainers of the King were occasionally quartered on them. Thus in 1372 one Rankyn, a follower of John of Gaunt, was retained on condition that he "in time of peace shall be at board at court ... and that he shall have and take for the term of his life, in the whole, twenty-five marks sterling from the farm of the town of Liverpool."

The object of all towns was to acquire the fullest measure of self-government, and in this respect, despite probable exactions arising from the system of fee-farm leases, Liverpool must be reckoned extraordinarily fortunate. The term "commune" also--word of sinister import since 1871, but used in mediaeval England in the innocuous sense of "borough"--seems to have special point in reference to the trading regulations of that ancient port, if compared with the greater individualism of other places, though commercial transactions were universally the subject of manifold restrictions designed to protect the interests of the native against the intrusive and vexatious rivalry of the foreigner. At Liverpool matters went far beyond that.

The Corporation itself for a long time farmed the custom dues, and also levied tolls on, all merchandise that pa.s.sed through the port. Much land and other property belonged to it, as well as the ecclesiastical patronage, which included the appointment and dismissal of inc.u.mbents, wardens, and other church officers. The hanse, composed of the entire body of freemen and burgesses, required that all produce, upon importation, should be first offered to it, and it was then inspected by "prizers" or appraisers, who gave an estimate of its value. If the importers did not care to sell at the price, they had to haggle with the town respecting the sum to be paid for leave to sell in the open market; and any merchant or trader who treated with them on his own account was liable to heavy penalties.[13]

We have previously given a sample of original methods of administering justice at Liverpool, and much might be written of its curious penal code, which embraced such offences as eavesdropping. Hence the protest embodied in the following presentment of the Grand Jury on March 31, 1651, may well express the inner thought of many preceding generations of culprits:

"Item, wee p'sent William Mee for saying and cursing in the court, pointing His finger towards Mr. Mayor and the Jurie, 'If such men as those can give anie judgment, the Divell goe with you and all the acts you have done.' Amerced in five pounds."

We need not recur to the topic of trained bands, and will only remark that in this and other respects Liverpool obtained a degree of self-sufficiency and independence surpa.s.sing anything known at the present time, and, apparently, far beyond the common standard even of mediaeval towns. It might therefore have stood forth as an object not so much of envy as of imitation. In point of fact, Liverpool--owing, no doubt, to its comparatively late rise and geographical situation--was not one of those towns whose customs were widely copied. In Wales the custom of Hereford held the field, and in the south-west the custom of Winchester, which, through transmission to Newcastle, prevailed also in Northumberland and Scotland. The customs of York and the Cinque Ports attracted smaller groups, while the custom of London was not only mother of the custom of Oxford, but grandmother of the custom of Bedford, since the citizens of Oxford were called in by the last-named town to adjudicate on obscure points, and they themselves repaired to London, as the fountain-head, in the event of any internal dispute. The court of appeal, when mother and daughter towns were at variance on the subject of privileges, was the King and Council.

In England the powers of the mother-town were purely advisory, whereas on the Continent some towns appear to have exercised coercive jurisdiction over those whose laws were derived from them. Perhaps this circ.u.mstance, that the process was one of adoption rather than subjection, was the chief reason why English towns were so careful not to communicate their privileges, at any rate freely, to boroughs of _servile_ condition, i.e., those which owed service to some lord. The case of Hereford is thus stated:

"The King's cittizens of Hereford, who have the custodye of his citty (in regard that it is the princ.i.p.all 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 ill.u.s.trated 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 circ.u.mstance 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 inst.i.tution 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 s.p.a.ce we propose to limit ourselves to them alone.

It would be possible to write at considerable length on the position of aliens in mediaeval 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 cla.s.s 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 pa.s.sed 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 a.s.sisted 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 subst.i.tutes at their own expense.

One of the grandest spectacles in Old London was that of the Marching Watch on St. John's Day. Comprised in it were about two thousand men, some mounted, others on foot. There were "demilances" riding on great horses; gunners with harquebuses and wheel-locks; archers in white coats, bearing bent bows and sheafs of arrows; pikemen in bright corslets; and bill-men with ap.r.o.ns of mail. There was likewise a cresset train numbering nearly two thousand men. Each cresset--flaming rope, soaked in pitch, in an iron frame held aloft on a shaft--was carried by one man and served by another. Very imposing were the Constables of the Watch, with their glittering armour and gold chains, each preceded by his minstrel and followed by his henchman, and with his cresset bearer by his side. Then came the City waits (musicians) and the morris dancers--Robin Hood, Maid Marian, and the rest; after whom appeared the Mayor, with his sword bearer, henchmen, footmen, and giants, followed by the Sheriffs. All the windows facing the street stood open, and there was no lack of distinguished spectators. To quote Nicols:

Kings, great peers, and many a n.o.ble dame, Whose bright, pearl-glittering robes did mock the flame Of the night's burning lights, did sit to see How every senator, in his degree, Adorn'd with shining gold and purple weeds, And stately mounted on rich trapped steed, Their guard attending, through the streets did ride Before their foot-bands, graced with glittering pride Of rich gilt arms, whose glory did present A sunshine to the eye, as if it meant Amongst the cresset lights shot up on high To chase dark night for ever from the sky.

By the Setting of the Watch on Midsummer Eve appears to have been meant the stationing of these armed guards in various parts of the City, which they were to secure from harm on that night only. In the thirty-first year of his reign Henry VIII. abolished the Marching Watch, and subst.i.tuted for it a permanent watch maintained out of the funds which had previously gone to support the great annual pageant. For harnessed constables Londoners now had watchmen equipped with lanthorn and halberd, whose duty it was to call upon the sleeping citizens to hang out their lights, as required on dark wintry nights:

Lanthorn and a whole candle light.

Hang out your lights! Hear!

The next thing to be added was a bell. This inst.i.tution was not popular with all; and Dekker, satirically expressing the feeling of the malcontents, defined the bell as "the child of darkness, a common night-walker, a man that had no man to wait upon him, but only a dog; one that was a disordered person, and at midnight would beat at men's doors, bidding them (in mere mockery) to look to their candles, when they themselves were in their dead sleeps."

Milton, on the other hand, makes grateful mention of the salutation as a lullaby and prophylactic:

Far from all resort of mirth, Save the cricket on the hearth Or the bellman's drowsy charm To bless the doors from nightly harm.

Having said something of the means employed to prevent crime and arrest criminals, we must go on to refer to the punishments in vogue in the event of conviction. And here it may be observed that, among other interferences with commerce and the liberty of the subject, hostelers were not allowed to make either bread or beer. The former they were compelled by public enactment to buy from the baker, and the latter from the brewer or brewster (female brewer). But the City, if it defended what was esteemed the legitimate claim of the baker to a proper livelihood, was equally solicitous for the welfare of his customers, and woe betide the baker who sold bread deficient in weight or quality! For the first offence he was drawn on a hurdle from the Guildhall through the princ.i.p.al streets, which would be thronged with people and foul with traffic, and hanging from his neck was the guilty loaf. In the Record-room at the Guildhall is an a.s.sisa Panis containing a pen-and-ink sketch of the ceremony, from which it appears that the unhappy tradesman wore neither shoes nor stockings and had his arms strapped to his sides. It seems also that the hurdle was drawn by two horses, which suggests that it was rattled along at an inconsiderate pace. For the second offence the baker was again conveyed on a hurdle "through the great streets of Chepe," and he further underwent an hour's exposure in the pillory, probably erected in Cheapside, with what consequences may be imagined. If he proved so incorrigible as to commit the offence a third time, the hurdle was again requisitioned, but, public patience being exhausted, his oven was demolished and he was forced to abjure his trade of baker in the City for ever. From the reign of Edward II. the penalty of the hurdle was no longer imposed for the first offence, the pillory being employed instead.

Exposure in the pillory was a favourite prescription, a kind of judicial panacea, to which all sorts of the morally infirm were introduced in turn. Mr. Riley has compiled a list of the sins atoned for by such involuntary penance, which, if we were guided by that alone, would testify to a shocking state of depravity in the Metropolis. Culling from this catalogue, we find that the pillory was considered a fitting reward for various impostures: pretending to be a holy hermit; pretending to be the son of the Earl of Ormond; pretending to be a physician; pretending to be the summoner of the Archbishop of Canterbury and so summoning the Prioress of Clerkenwell; pretending to be one of the Sheriff's sergeants and meeting the bakers of Stratford and arresting them with a view to fradulently extorting a fine, etc., etc. _Scandalum magnatum_ also merited the pillory--a fact brought home to an idle gossip who occupied that uneasy elevation for "telling lies" about the famous Mayor, William Walworth. "Telling lies" of John Tremayne the Recorder was, in the same way, held to justify a public exhibition of the impudent and imprudent person. So, too, anti-social forestalling.

There were cases, however, in which this common method of advertising paltry offences was thought not to involve an adequate degree of notoriety and reprobation. We have already adduced one instance--that of the unscrupulous baker--in which it was attempted to evoke superior indignation. There were others. The natural destiny of impostors was, as we have seen, the pillory; among the qualifications for this shadow of crucifixion being "pretending to be a physician."