BY-WAYS OF HISTORY.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20328, 29 August 1931, Page 11

BY-WAYS OF HISTORY.

PdLICE NEWS IN THE XlVTli. CENTUttY. 'SPECIALLy •O'KIXTSS TOR THE J??.ESS.; [By G. M. L. Lesiee.] IF. There is a prevailing impression amongst' those whom curiosity prompts, to wander down the vistas of time to the enchanted ground of the Middle Ages that what we call public hygiene did not in those early days exist. It ;s common knowledge that the habitations, streets, and persons of our ancestors were according to modern standards unclean. It is a I'act, too, that only after a lapse cf more than a thousand years did the English race recover tho habit of personal cleanliness, which was the joyous inheritance of the Early Greeks and Romans. Nevertheless, even ie early as the XlVth century wc find bright souls who not only _ enacted by-laws and regulations dealing with matters of public health, but also strove to enforce them.

Medieval Nuisances. Did not the transgression of Blanche Langbourne, whom I mentioned in my last article, start from the fact that a certain Alderman arrested her foi throwing filth ori the streets? In the records of the Court before which she appeared, we find many cases which show an earnest effort on the part of the City Fathers to deal with matters which were a menace to the public health. In the hot days of June, 1365, William Baldc wyne Tanner was fined 20s for nourish ing pigs within the city, arid lie was given a week to remove bis pigs beyona the city walls. Three years later, anc again in the summer when odours were most odoriferous, a plaint was laid ir the Guildhall by the Bishop, of London the Earls of Warwick and Salisbury, Mary de St. Pol, and the Countess of Pembroke, all dwelling in or near 01(5 Dean's Liine, against the butchers oi the city. The complainants were backed by a writ under the King's Great Seal compelling the Mayor and Aldermen tc go into the matter. The complaint was that certain butchers who used f o slaughter their cattle and leave their offal and refuse outside the city, had taken to slaughtering within the city, and to carrying the oft'al and refuse past the houses of the complainants and even _ past the King's Wardrobe. This offal" they deposited in a small plot besides the Thames, to the grievous corruption of the water, and to the great damage and annoyance of the complainants. Mayor and Aldermen, spurred on by a further letter under the Privy Seal, dealt with the whole matter of the slaughter of beasts, and no doubt among other matters relieved these aristocratic complainants of the nuisance.

, The Master Butchers reported in December, 13G4, that a, pig was found in the shop of John Huntingdon, "corrupt and abominable to tlie human race," and Huntingdon was heavily fined.

The enforcement of by-laws in tha XlYth century, just as it does to-day, seems to havo roused certain persons to a, quite disproportionate degree of fury, Apprentice , iltori was stopped by Constable Wit' Hm Bonet from emptying a hando/i >. of rubbish and filth into the Thaiiv , he fell upon the said constable, beat lihu and knocked him down, Walton was imprisoned, and so for some obscure reason was his masterj Eobert do Potenhale.

lie Medical Experts. The. case of Richard Oheyndut, in 1377, has (juite a modern touch for those who frequent tbe. Courts which deal with compensation for injuries., Richard undertook to cure Walter de Hull of a malady in his left leg. His treatment was,riot a. success; in fact, "owing to his , lack of care and knowledge, the patient was in danger of losing his leg." Three Surgeons, by; order of the Mayor, viewed the leg. Their opinion, except for the fact that it was unanimous, reads singularly like a medical report of to-day. They reported "that it would require great experience, eate and expense if the leg was to be cured without permanent injury." Walter de Hull accordingly wag granted substantial damages.

One of the most curious cases in the records is that of Richard Multonj a cook, who was summoned before the Mayor for selling, a goose in which parsley ihiied with feathers had been put, as was evident w' the stuffing (obstupacio) was exaf led in court. Multon pleaded that d J was done by a boy in his employment. The boy stated that he had done it without the knowledge and consent of his master. Notwithstanding; on the ground that the boy was too young to be punished, the master wks committed to Newgate for eight days. I have no doubt that the boy resigned liis post before his master waS let loose.

Street Archery. In addition to the very real risks to life of those turbulent .times, many citizens complained that went in peril of their lives at the hands .of certain irresponsibles who chose the streeis as a fit place for fancy shooting. In 1376 two servants were summoned before the Mayot for shooting at pigeons with arrows and bolts, one bolt falling on an unknown person, some of the arrows sticking in honsae or falling to the ground, whereby, "but for God 's abundant grace, men, women tod children might -have been killed or wouri&eil." . : s Robert, Duke of Brampton, was still more dangeroiis, for he had ft, habit dt ghooting arfrows by iiight at the inhabitants .of Fleet Street to the terror of the city> fo.r which he was duly brought before ate ,fof Mr G. K. Chesterton, the glory of Fleet street, that his wish to return to the good old; time cannot be granted, for Robert Duke could hardly have missed him evein. at night. Th 6 case of the Bishop, the horse, dhd the hofSfe-daaler (Gorsour) has points of interest The Bishop of St. David's alleged that he bought; a horse of Henry Bosele on condition, if the horse was good in his trials wKfen he was ccid as he was when he was warm," according to Bosele s warranty, he would keep him. The horse did, not fulfil this warranty, and the Bishop claimed refund ol tlu? purchase money. The Bishop gained fiis case, arid justified his shrewdness in demanding this, particular J . o ™ l "J warranty for the horse which (after ii brisk teariVer or two behind the scenes) 1 s ' stepped so gaily into the sale rihj.

Eed Eose I<ease. Bomaiice ; doe§_ Jiot, as . a into the cases which come jjefore the Mayor, though no, doubt, who were from time. ; to time . bound bvlr By his Court, to refrain llg amy with. their neighbours' rfid riot view the prowedingijnitq as proaaScally as t|e pressing Nevertheless may, ,? read „ 'fithine of tenderness and loyalty Intel the bald, which states, ihat Bentley granted * two years

leaSe of a house in the parish of St. Bride to Cristina, widow of William de Bathe, at an annual rent of a red rose, Romance leads almost to tragedy in the case of Joan Gade. Joan Gad 6, under promise of marriage, kept company with William Benett, and bore him a son. Things, however, did not go weil with them, and at length we find Joan charging William before the Mayor with killing their son and threatening her life. William 'a answer to the charge was triumphant and complete, for he produced the boy alive in court. Joan then demanded that he should find two sureties for keeping the peace, which he did forthwith. This, however, was hot the end, for William, in his turn, asked that Joan, too, may be bound over. The Mayor, granting his request, Joan was hard put to it, for she could find no sureties. She was put in prison on April and there remained till April 30th, when two compassionate souls, Nicholas Potyn and Walter Parker, became her sureties and secured her release. Poor passionate Joan paid the penalty, and William went scatheless. Katherine von huckster. wa3 also a passionate woman in another sense. She was committed to prison for drawing blood from the constable of Dowgate Ward, and beating the beadle. Isobel de Chepsted, oh the other hand was beaten, and William Dyne, taverneiv who beat and wounded her, was bailed by 110 less a person than John Chaucer vintner, the father of Geoffrey Chaucer, the poet.

Characters from Froissart. It brings us very near these ancient times to find in the prosaic records oi a Magistrates Court, a case which turns on a question of ransom. A case moreover, in which the parties are the veritable knights and squires who figure in the pages of Froissart. Everyone remembers something of Bertrand du Guesclih, the Bayard of Brittany, whose statue still stands in the little Market Square of Dinau. Here in the Guildhall records appears his veritable brother Oliver. The case took many days to settle and was, froih the point oi view of law, most intricate. These however, are the main facts -of it. Oliver du Gueselin, as is related ir Froissart, was captured by Sir Johr Arundel when he was returning with s small party from a reeonnaisance of the fortifications of Cherbourg. His ransom was fixed at 40,000 gold francs. One-third of this was Uu- to Sir John Arundel, one-third to Aincot du Solle and Johanco Dartaisso, and one-third r o the King of Navarre. Oliver failed to meet the two promised instalments of his ransom at the Feast of the Purification and at Easter, and by agreement the amount was reduced to 25,000 francs. So far there was no dispute. But it was the custom to pay those who actually had charge of the prisoner, a certain sum as well as the cost of his living and maintenance. In this case the sum due was one-fifth of the ransom. Things would have gone their ordinary course if the original custodians had not sold their job to others. It so happened that they handed over the custody of the prisoner to two men who owed Sir John Arundel a large sura of money. Sir John's executors, for he had died meanwhile, lodged a sum of 2000 francs in the hands of Sir John Philpot and placed the matter of its disposal before the , Mayor and Aldermen. The record breaks off before the Mayoral decision is announced, but not before many references had been made in Court to provisions laid down by "the Law of Arms," which in these cases seems to have over-ridden or ?it any rate modified the law of the realm.

The Ransomed Tailors. Another ransom case on a much smaller scale has its interest. Reginald Fuller and John Goldsinore, foiilors, were snapped up in Boulogne by John de Burer and held prisoners. Fuller was allowed to return to England in order that he might raise 20 marks for the ransom of them both. As he failed to do so his captors reduced tho ransom to 8 marks. This sum Beatrix, Fuller's wife, managed to provide. She did not, however, like the idea of Reginald returning to France. Accordingly, we find her before the Recorder and Aldermen, formally handing over 8 marks to William Knotte in order that he may make the journey to Boulogne, pay the ransom, and bring back Fuller's mate. Goldesmore.

Something akin to, the sale of rights in the ransom of Oliver du Guesclin niay be found in the case of Mariotta COriyers. John. Count de Ilarecourt, pledged a gold mouche (.iewel) set wi*b stones, with Mariotta Conyers. She again pledged it with John Lapy of Florence. He in turn sold it outright to Gillemyn de Nerriev ih whose hand" the Count found it. Mariotta was sued for the recovery of the jewel. The Mayor, on Count Harecourt paying into Court the amount for which he orig'nally it, restored to him his property: Gillemyn was granted compensation for the loss of whatever profit he riiay have made on the and Mariotta was put in prison for assigning a pawn to a third person, a proceeding Which in those days was illegal.