Chapter XV: Appendix: , No. III (3)

I can form no better an idea of our first Coaches than that they were heavy and unwieldy, as they continued to be for nearly two centuries afterwards; and I can at best but take the standard from the present State Coaches of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Speaker of the House of Commons[349].

[349] I must here stop a moment to relate an Anecdote of the late
Right Honourable Arthur Onslow, when Speaker of the House of
Commons, whose ideas of travelling did not exceed the expedition of
a pair of horses tugging his own lumbering State Coach. King George
II. died on Saturday morning early, October 25, 1760. The Duke of
Devonshire (then at Chatsworth) was Lord Chamberlain; and the Duke
of Rutland (then at Belvoir Castle) was Lord Steward. Expresses
were dispatched to these great Officers, among others, immediately;
and the Duke of Devonshire arrived in Town on the Monday evening,
though the distance was 150 miles. Tuesday and Wednesday came, but
without the Lord Steward, to the utter astonishment of the Speaker,
who knew that his distance from the Metropolis was not so great
as that of the Duke of Devonshire, who had arrived on the Monday.
"But I am told," cried he, "that his Grace of Devonshire travels
at a prodigious rate; not less than _50 miles a day_!" Such was
the prejudice of ideas, confirmed by long habitude, in a man who
never extended his journeys further than his Seat in Surrey, a few
miles from London; and in Parliament time did little more than
oscillate between his Town House and the House of Commons.--It was
a misconception on the part of the Duke of Rutland, who understood
that the King of Prussia was dead, and not King George II. I mention
the circumstance, only to shew the ignorance of some parts of
mankind, when taken out of their routine.--The Duke of Devonshire at
that time usually ran to or from Chatsworth in about 18 or 20 hours.

It cannot be any matter of surprize, after so luxurious a conveyance had found its way into the Royal Establishment, that it should be adopted by others who could support the expence, when not curbed by sumptuary laws; and we have accordingly seen, that Coaches prevailed much, early in the Reign of King James; but Hackney Coaches, which are professedly the Subject of this Memoir, waited till luxury had made larger strides among us, and till private Coaches came to market at second hand.

HACKNEY COACH.

There having always been an imitative luxury in mankind, whereby the inferior orders might approximate the superior; so those that could not maintain a Coach _de die in diem_ contrived a means of having the use of one _de horâ in horam_. Hence arose our occasional Vehicles called Hackney Coaches.

The French word _Haquenée_[350] implies a common horse for all purposes of riding, whether for private use or for hire; generally an ambler, as distinguished from the horses of superior orders, such as the _palfrey_ and the _great horse_. The former of these are often called _pad-nags_, and were likewise _amblers_; while horses for draught were called _trotting-horses_[351]: so that the _Haquenée_ was in fact, and in his use, distinct from all the rest, and inferior in rank and quality. This term for an ambling-nag occurs in Chaucer[352]. Thus we obtained our _Haquenée_ or _Hackney Horses_ long before we had any Coaches to tack to them; and the term had likewise, at the same time, made its way into metaphor, to express any thing much and promiscuously used. Thus Shakspeare, who never lived to ride in a _Hackney Coach_, applies the word _Hackney_ to a common woman of easy access[353]: and again, in the First Part of Henry IV. (Act iii. Sc. 4), the King says to the Prince of Wales,

[350] See the French Lexicographers.

[351] Northumberland Household Book, p. 127.

[352] The Romaunt of the Rose.

[353] Love's Labour's Lost, Act ii. Sc. 2.

"Had I so lavish of my presence been,
So common-_hackneyed_ in the eyes of men,
So stale and cheap to vulgar company," &c.

Now Shakspeare died in the year 1616; whereas Hackney Coaches were not known, in the Streets at least, till about the year 1625[354].

[354] Mortimer's Pocket Dictionary.

Though the term _Haquenée_ is French, it is not used in France for Coaches of a like kind; yet, after we had adopted the word as applied to horses of the common sort, it was easy to put them in harness, for the service of drawing, and the convenience of the Inhabitants of the Metropolis; whereby the word _Hackney_ became transferred to the whole Equipage, then in want of a differential name; whereof the Coach, being the more striking part, obtained the name by pre-eminence.

Before I return to my subject, give me leave to add a word or two on the French Coaches of a similar nature, which are called _Fiacres_[355]. The term is thus accounted for, though I did not suspect I should have found the meaning in a Martyrology. _Fiacre_ was the name of a Saint, whose Portrait, like those of many other famous men of their times both in Church and State, had the honour to adorn a Sign-Post; and the Inn in Paris, Rue St. Antoine, from which these Coaches were first let out to hire on temporary occasions, had the Sign of _St. Fiacre_, and from thence they took their name. M. Richelet, in his Dictionary[356], tells us, that a _Fiacre_ is "Carosse de loüage, auquel on a donné ce nom à cause de l'Enseigne d'un logis de la Rue St. Antoine de Paris ou l'on a premierement löué ces sortes de Carosse. Ce logis avoit pour Enseigne un _Saint Fiacre_." As to the Saint himself, he was no less a personage than the second Son, and at length Heir, of Eugenius IV. King of Scots, who lived in the Seventh Century. He went into France, took a religious habit, refusing the Crown of Scotland some years afterwards, on his Brother's death; and, when he died, was canonized. There is a Chapel dedicated to him at St. Omer's. His death is commemorated on the 30th of August[357].

[355] About the same period that our Hackney Coaches became in use,
a sort of Carriage arose at Paris under the name of a _Fiacre_. I
mention them to account for the term, which in the common French
Dictionaries is simply rendered a Hackney Coach.

[356] Voc. _Fiacre_. See also Menage, Orig. de la Langue Françoise.

[357] English Martyrology. Moreri's Dictionary. Collyer. St. Fiacre
was the Patron Saint of persons afflicted with the _Piles_. "The
Troops of Henry V. are said to have pillaged the Chapel of the
Highland Saint; who, in revenge, assisted his Countrymen in the
French Service to defeat the English at Bauge; and afterwards
afflicted Henry with the _Piles_, of which he died. This Prince
complained, that he was not only plagued by the living Scots, but
even persecuted by those who were dead." Smollett's Travels, Letter
IV.

N. B. There was a Prelate of the name _Fiachre_ in Ireland, whose
death is remembered there on the 8th of February. He lived about the
same time. [British Piety, in the Supplement]. He was not a Saint.

As to the time when the French _Fiacres_ first came into use, we are led pretty nearly to it by Mr. Menage, who, in his "Origines de la Langue Françoise," published in Quarto, 1650, speaks of them as of a late introduction. His words are, "On appelle ainsi [Fiacre] à Paris _depuis quelques années_ un Carosse de loüage." He then gives the same reason as we find in Richelet: but the words "_depuis quelques Années_" shew, that those Coaches had not then been long in use, and are to be dated either a little before or a little after our own; insomuch that it is probable the one gave the example to the other, allowing Mr. Menage credit for twenty-five years, comprehended in his expression of _quelques Années_[358].

[358] It is a little singular, that neither Cotgrave himself, in his
Dictionary, first published in 1611, nor his Editor, James Howell,
either in his Edition of 1650, or in that of 1673, take any notice
of the word _Fiacre_ in the sense before us.

But to return to our Hackney Coaches, which took birth A. D. 1625 (the first year of King Charles I.); and either began to ply in the Streets, or stood ready at Inns to be called for if wanted: and at that time did not exceed _twenty_ in number[359]. But, as luxury makes large shoots in any branch where it puts forth, so we find that, in no more than ten years, this new-planted scyon had grown so much as to require the pruning-knife; for that the Street Coaches had become in reality a national nuisance in various particulars: and accordingly a Proclamation issued A.D. 1635 in the following words:

"That the great numbers of Hackney Coaches of late time seen
and kept in London, Westminster, and their Suburbs, and the
general and promiscuous use of Coaches there, were not only
_a great disturbance to his_ Majesty, his dearest Consort the
Queen, the Nobility, and others of place and degree, in their
passage through the Streets_; but the Streets themselves were
so pestered, and the pavements so broken up, that the common
passage is thereby hindered and made dangerous; and the prices
of hay and provender, and other provisions of stable, thereby
made exceeding dear: Wherefore we expressly command and forbid,
That, from the Feast of St. John the Baptist next coming,
no Hackney or Hired Coaches be used or suffered in London,
Westminster, or the Suburbs or Liberties thereof, except they be
to travel at least _three_ miles out of London or Westminster,
or the Suburbs thereof. And also, that no person shall go in a
Coach in the said Streets, except the owner of the Coach shall
constantly keep up _Four able Horses for our Service, when
required_[360]. Dated January 19, 1635-6."

[359] Anderson on Commerce, II. 20.

[360] Rymer, tom. XIX. p. 721.

This Proclamation, so long as it was observed, must have put a considerable check to the use of these Carriages; nor can I think it could operate much in the King's favour, as it would hardly be worth a Coach-Master's while to be at so great a contingent charge as the keeping of Four Horses to be furnished at a moment's warning for his Majesty's occasional employment. We are to construe this, then, as amounting to a prohibition, on account of the certain expence which must follow an uncertain occupation. The nature of this penalty, as I may call it, was founded on the Statute of Purveyance, not then repealed.

But there was another co-operating cause that suspended the use of Coaches for a short time, which was the introduction of the _Hackney Chairs_, which took place a very little while before the Proclamation. They arose from the incommodities stated in the Royal Edict, and, no doubt, tended in some measure towards the suppression of the Hackney-Coaches; till by degrees being found incompetent to answer all their seemingly intended purposes, we shall see the Coaches, in about _two_ years time, return into the streets, and resume their functions. But to proceed with the History of the _Chairs_. At the critical time, then, when Government was devising measures to prevent the increase of _Coaches_ as much as possible, for the reasons alleged in the Proclamation, there stepped in a Knight, by name Sir Saunders Duncombe, a Gentleman-Pensioner, and a travelled man, who proposed the introduction of _Chairs_, after the model he had seen abroad[361]. This was in the year 1634; when Sir Saunders obtained an exclusive Patent for the setting them forth for hire, dated the first day of October, for the term of _fourteen_ years. The number is not specified, but left perhaps indefinite, it being impossible to say what would be necessary in a new device of this sort, tending to be beneficial to the introductor, as well as convenient to the Publick. The tenor of the Grant, omitting the words of course, runs thus:

"CHARLES, &c.

[361] He was knighted, together with fourteen other Gentlemen of
the Band, by King James, in Scotland, 1617; as appears from a
Catalogue of Knights, published by J. P. Esq. 1660.

"Whereas the several Streets and Passages within our Cities of
_London_ and _Westminster_, and the Suburbs of the same, are of
late time so much encumbered and pestered with the unnecessary
multitude of Coaches therein used, that many of our good and
loving Subjects are by that means oftentimes exposed to great
danger; and the necessary use of Carts and Carriages for the
necessary Provisions of the said Cities and Suburbs thereby
also much hindered. And whereas, our servant, _Sir Sanders
Duncombe_, Knight, hath lately preferred his humble Petition
unto us; thereby shewing, that in many parts beyond the Seas,
the people there are much carried in the Streets in Chairs that
are covered; by which means very few Coaches are used amongst
them: and thereof he hath humbly besought us to grant unto him
the sole using and putting forth to hire of certain covered
Chairs, which he will procure to be made at his own proper costs
and charges, for carrying such of our loving Subjects as shall
desire to use the same, in and about our said Cities of _London_
and _Westminster_, and the Suburbs thereof.

"Know ye, that we, of our princely care of the good and welfare
of all our loving Subjects, desiring to use all good and
lawful ways and means that may tend to the suppressing of the
excessive and unnecessary number of Coaches now of late used
in and about our said Cities, and the Suburbs thereof; and to
the intent the said _Sir Sanders Duncombe_ may reap some fruit
and benefit of his industry, and may recompense himself of the
costs, charges, and expences, which he shall be at in and about
the directing, making, procuring, and putting in use of the
said covered Chairs, of the purpose aforesaid; and for divers
other good causes and considerations, us hereunto moving, of
our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, have
given and granted, and by these Presents, for Us, our Heirs
and Successors, do give and grant, unto the said _Sir Sanders
Duncombe_, his Executors, Administrators, and Assigns, and
to his and their, and every of their, Deputy and Deputies,
Servants, Workmen, Factors, and Agents, and to all and every
such person and persons as shall have power and authority
from him, them, or any of them, in that behalf, full and free
Licence, Privilege, Power, and Authority, that they only, and
none other, shall or may, from time to time, during the term of
fourteen years hereafter granted, use, put forth, and lett to
hire, within our said Cities of _London_ and _Westminster_, and
the Suburbs and Precincts thereof, or in any part of them, or
any of them, the said covered Chairs, to be carried and borne as
aforesaid.

"Witness Ourself at _Canbury_, the First day of October[362]."

[362] Rymer, tom. XIX. p. 572.

The place principally hinted at in the above Grant, or Patent, seems to have been the City of _Sedan_ in Champagne; where, we are at liberty to suppose, these covered Chairs being most in use, they obtained with us the name of _Sedan Chairs_, like the local names of _Berlin_ and _Landau_[363].

[363] Mr. Reed, the Editor of the Old Plays [2d Edit. 1780], from
the above account, must therefore certainly be in an error, when
he supposes that _Sedan Chairs_ were the introduction of the Duke
of Buckingham, about the year 1619. [See Note to vol. V. p. 475.]
_Sedan_--mentioned by the name only in the Life of Dr. Thomas
Fuller, 1661, 18mo. p. 57.

These new Vehicles, hitherto unseen in our orbit, had, doubtless, patrons among the beaus and fine gentlemen of the age; though, in their general utility, they manifestly could not be so commodious as Coaches, were it for no other reason than that they could carry but one person. They might prevail with persons of a certain rank and description; but the opulent Merchant, and others in a similar line of family life, still were in want of a conveyance of greater capacity; a circumstance which would depress the _Chairs_, and gradually hasten the re-introduction of the _Coaches_, and which, as has been observed, took place accordingly in little more than two years. The following special commission was therefore granted by the King, A. D. 1637, wherein the number of the Coaches seems rather to have enlarged, and the management of them was placed in the department of the Master of the Horse. It runs essentially in the following words:

"That we, finding it very requisite for our Nobility and Gentry,
as well as for Foreign Ambassadors, Strangers, and others,
that there should be a competent number of Hackney Coaches
allowed for such uses, have, by the advice of our Privy Council,
thought fit to allow _Fifty Hackney Coachmen_ in and about
London and Westminster; limiting them not to keep above Twelve
Horses a-piece. We therefore grant to you [the Marquis] during
your Life, the Power and Authority to license _Fifty_ Hackney
Coachmen, who shall keep no more than Twelve good Horses each,
for their, or any of their, Coach and Coaches respectively. You
also hereby have Power to license so many in other Cities and
Towns of England as in your wisdom shall be thought necessary;
with power to restrain and prohibit all others from keeping any
Hackney Coach to let to hire, either in London or elsewhere.
Also to prescribe _Rules_ and _Orders_ concerning the daily
_Prices_ of the said licensed Hackney Coachmen, to be by them,
or any of them, taken for _our own_ particular service, and in
their employment for our Subjects; provided such orders be first
allowed by us, under our Royal Hand."[364]

[364] Rymer, tom. XX. fol. 159.

We may observe that the article of Purveyance is here very gently touched upon, and confined to a sign-manual. Mr. Anderson supposes that there must have been many more than _fifty_ Coaches introduced by the above allowance of _twelve_ horses; but it seems rather to imply that no Coach-Master should engross more than six Coaches to himself. This also might be a tacit mode of preserving a supply of horses to be purveyed for the King when necessary.

One may collect from hence that private Coaches were sparingly kept, by the mention of the Nobility and Gentry.

Hitherto we have found the Hackney Coaches under the regulation of the Crown, or its immediate Officers; but we are now to look for them at a time when the Monarchical Government was suspended, during the Protectorate. Whether the Master of the Horse received any emolument from granting the above Licences, is not apparent; but under the Commonwealth we find that the Coaches became subject to a tax towards the expence of their regulation; for by an Act of Oliver's Parliament, A. D. 1654, the number of such Coaches, within London and Westminster, was enlarged to _two hundred_[365]. The outlying distance was also augmented to _six_ miles _round the late lines of communication_, as the Statute expresses it; by which I conceive that the greatest distance was extended to _nine_ miles, including the _three_ prescribed, or rather enjoined, by the regulating proclamation of King Charles I. in the year 1635. By this Act of Oliver's Parliament, the government of the Hackney Coaches, with respect to their _stands_, _rates_, &c. was placed in the Court of Aldermen of London; and as, of course, this new business would require Clerks, and other officers, to supervise it, the Coach-Masters were made subject to the payment of _twenty shillings_ yearly for every such Coach.

[365] Anderson says _three hundred_, but that must be an error; for
the Docquet of the Act in Scobel says, that "the number of persons
keeping Hackney Coaches shall not at one time exceed _two hundred_."
This must apply to the number of Carriages; and so Sir William
Blackstone understood it. Commentaries, vol. I, 4to.

Here we have brought the Coaches under a Police similar to that of our own time; but it did not long remain in the hands of the Corporation; for in the year after the Restoration, the establishment was new-modelled by an Act of the 13th and 14th of King Charles II. 1661, wherein it is specified that no Coaches were to be used without a Licence,--who may be entitled to such Licences,--that the number shall not exceed 400,--what shall be the rates,--with penalties for exacting more[366].

[366] See the Act in the Statute Book.

Each of these four hundred Coaches so licensed was obliged to pay annually five pounds for the privilege, to be applied towards the keeping in repair certain parts of the streets of London and Westminster[367]; a very rational appropriation of such fund, for who ought so much to contribute to the amendment of the streets, as those who lived by their demolition?

"Nex Lex æquior ulla, quam," &c.

Within a few years after the Revolution (anno 5 Gul. et Mar. ch. xxii.) the number of Coaches arose to seven hundred, each of which paid to the Crown annually four pounds. This, primâ facie, one would suppose was a relief to the Coach-Masters, and that the reduction in the impost accrued from the number; but that was not the case, for every Owner, for each Coach, was constrained to pay down fifty pounds for his first Licence for twenty-one years, or forego his employment; which seeming indulgence was, in fact, paying five pounds _per annum_ for that term; whereas, probably, the Coach-Master would rather have continued at the former five pounds, and have run all risks, than have purchased an exclusive privilege, in the gross, at so high a price.

[367] Anderson, II. 115. Journals of the House of Commons.
Blackstone.

The finances, and even the resources, of Government, must have been very low at this moment, or Ministry could never have stooped to so paltry and oppressive an expedient, to raise so small a sum as would arise from these Licences. By the increase of the number of Coaches from four hundred at five pounds _per annum_, to seven hundred at four pounds _per annum_, the gain to the Treasury was £.800 annually:--and what did the licences at fifty pounds each Coach, for the term of twenty-one years, yield to the State?--£.3,500! Whereas, had such lease of the privilege of driving a Coach been kept at the rack rent of five pounds _per annum_, it had produced in that period £.14,700.

Thus, however the matter rested, till the ninth year of Queen Anne, 1710, when a Statute was made, which brought the business to its present standard, with a few variations, which will be observed in the order of time. By this Act every circumstance was new modelled; for thereby the Crown was impowered to appoint five Commissioners for regulating and licensing both Hackney Coaches and Chairs, from the time the late Statute of the fifth of William and Mary should expire, _viz._ at Midsummer A. D. 1715, authorizing such Commissioners to grant licences to eight hundred Hackney Coaches from that time for the term of thirty-two years, which should be allowed to be driven in the Cities of London and Westminster, and the Suburbs thereof, or any where within the Bills of Mortality; each Coach paying for such privilege the sum of five shillings _per_ week[368]. It was at the same time enacted, that from the 24th of June, 1711, all _horses_ to be used with an Hackney Coach shall be fourteen hands high, according to the standard; and further, that every _Coach_ and _Chair_ shall have a mark of distinction, "by _figure_ or otherwise," as the Commissioners shall think fit; and "the said _mark_ shall be placed on each side of every such Coach and Chair respectively, in the most convenient place to be taken notice of, to the end that they may be known if any complaints shall be made of them[369]."

[368] By Monthly Payments.

[369] The Figures of the Chairs are too small and inconspicuous;
there should be one both on the outside and inside of each.

This was all that could then be done respecting the _Coaches_, forasmuch as the old term of twenty-one years, granted in the fifth year of William and Mary, 1694, was subsisting, whereby seven hundred Coaches were allowed, and for which privilege the Owners had paid fifty pounds each, on whom Government shewed some tenderness. With regard, however, to regulation, &c. there was, no doubt, room sufficient for the exercise of the powers given to the Commissioners. There was, likewise, another object involved in this Statute; _viz._ the _Chairs_, which were not comprehended in the same agreement and contract with the Coaches, but were open immediately to new laws. Therefore under the same commissions was placed the management and licensing of the Hackney Chairs, to commence from the 24th of June in the following year, 1711, for the said term of thirty-two years; which were thereby limited to the number of _two hundred_, each paying for such licence the annual sum of ten shillings[370]. As the number of both Coaches and Chairs was enlarged, whereby many new persons would come forward, perhaps to the ousting of the old Coach-Masters and Chair-Masters, it is required by this Act that the Commissioners shall give a preference to such of the Lessees, as I may call them, whose terms had not then expired, whether the right remained in themselves or their widows, if they applied within a given time[371].

[370] By Quarterly Payments. Thus the Power of the Commissioners
over the Chairs arose before that over the Coaches.

[371] Some Lawsuits having arisen from this Clause, it was explained
by a short Act of the 12th year of the Queen (1713), subjecting such
_Widows_ to the same Rules, Penalties, &c. made, or to be made, as
any acting Chairman. And thus it continues to this day; for the
owner of a _Figure_, as it is called, is answerable for certain
faults of his or her assignee.

By this statute likewise the rates were limited to time and distance, at ten shillings by the Day.--One shilling and six pence for the first Hour, and one shilling for every succeeding Hour.--One shilling for the distance of a mile and a half.--One shilling and six pence for any distance more than a mile and a half, and not exceeding two miles; and so on, in the proportion of six pence for every succeeding half mile.

The Chairs are likewise at the same time rated at two-thirds of the distance prescribed to the Coaches, so that they were allowed to take one shilling for a mile, and six pence for every succeeding half mile.

Though the time of waiting is not specified in the Act with regard to the Chairs, yet it follows, by implication, to be intended the same as the Coaches. These have been altered by a very late Statute, 1785. It is well known that it is left in the option of either Coachmen or Chairmen, whether they will be paid by the distance or the time, which is but a reasonable privilege; but there is another circumstance, not generally known, of which the passengers are not perhaps aware, _viz_. that if the room which a Coach will occupy in turning about should exceed the distance allowed, the Coachman is entitled to a larger fare, that is, as much as if he had gone another half mile. The doctrine is the same respecting Chairs, and the room allowed is eight yards in the case of a Coach, and four yards in the case of a Chair. As the Statute gives all competent allowances to the Coachmen and Chairmen, so it was requisite, on the other hand, to make the contract obligatory, and that each of them should be compellable to perform their parts; and therefore, to do this, and at the same time to prevent extortion, it became necessary to add a severe penal clause, _viz._ "that if any Hackney-Coachman or Chairman shall refuse to go at, or shall exact more for his hire than, the several rates hereby limited, he shall, for every such offence, forfeit the sum of _forty shillings_." These penalties were, by this Act, to have gone in the proportion of _two_-thirds to the Queen, and _one_-third to the Plaintiff. [Since made half to the Crown and half to the Complainant.] The Coachmen and Chairmen are thereby likewise liable to be deprived of their Licences for misbehaviour, or by giving abusive language[372]. On the other hand, that the Coachmen and Chairmen might have a remedy in case of refusal to pay them their just fare, any Justice of the Peace is impowered, upon complaint, to issue a warrant to bring before him the Recusant, and to award reasonable satisfaction to the party aggrieved, or otherwise to bind him over to the next Quarter-Session, where the Bench is empowered to levy the said satisfaction by distress. The Act proceeds to other matters touching the Commissioners themselves, &c.; and then states, that whereas by a Statute of the 29th of Charles II. the use of all Hackney Coaches and Chairs had been prohibited on Sundays, it gives full power both to stand and to ply as on other days.[373]

[372] Turned afterwards into a mulct.

[373] Restrained by a subsequent Act.

This is the substance of the Act before us; but it may here be observed, that in the 10th year of the Queen, 1711, _one hundred more Chairs_ were added by Statute, subject to the same regulations as the rest, being found not only convenient but necessary; as the number of Coaches, consistently with Public Faith, could not be enlarged till the year 1715, when the old term of twenty-one years should have expired.

Before all the provisions in the Act of the year 1710, referred to the future period of 1715, could take place, a demise of the Crown intervened, A. D. 1714, by which all such clauses, which extended to a future time, were of course become a nullity.

By Act 12 George I. chap. 12, the number of Chairs was raised to 400, on account of the increase of Buildings Westward.[374]

* * * * *

[374] The MS here ends abruptly.--On the subject of Chairs, however,
see Acts 3 Geo. I. chap. 7; 16 Geo. II. chap. 26; 20 Geo. II. chap.
10; 30 Geo. II. chap. 22; 33 Geo. II. chap. 25.

THE HAMMER CLOTH.

To shew how trifling, though necessary conveniences, arise to great and expensive luxuries, let us remark the original insignificant appendage of what we call the Hammer Cloth. It was requisite that the Coachman should have a few implements in case of accidents, or a sudden and little repair was wanting to the Coach; for which purpose he carried a hammer with a few pins, nails, &c. with him, and placed them under his seat, made hollow to hold them, and which from thence was called the Coach Box; and, in a little time, in order to conceal this unsightly appearance, a cloth was thrown over the box and its contents, of which a hammer was the chief, and thence took the name of the Hammer-Cloth. This is my idea of the etymon of these two common terms. And here again it can but be observed that this little appendage is now become the most striking and conspicuous ornament of the equipage.

Articles of Dress.

GLOVES.

About the year 790, Charlemagne granted an unlimited right of hunting to the Abbot and Monks of Sithin, for making their _Gloves_ and Girdles of the Skins of the Deer they killed, and Covers for their Books. [Mabillon de Re Diplom. p. 611. Grose.]

Anciently richly adorned and decorated with precious Stones,--as in the Rolls of Parliament, anno 53 Hen. III. A. D. 1267. "Et de 2 Paribus _Chirothecarum_ cum lapidibus." [Warton's History of Poetry, vol. I. p. 182, note. Grose.]

Edward Vere, Earl of Oxford, according to Mr. Walpole's account, on the authority of Stowe,--"having travelled into Italy, is recorded to have been the first that brought into England _embroidered_ GLOVES and Perfumes; and presenting the Queen [Elizabeth] with a Pair of the former, she was so pleased with them, as to be drawn with them in one of her Portraits." [Royal and Noble Authors, vol. i. p. 159. Note to Winter's Tale, edit. Johnson and Steevens, 1778, p. 388.]

"Give _Gloves_ to the Reapers, a Largesse to cry."

[Tusser, _v._ Hist. of Hawsted. 190.]

The Monastery of Bury allowed its Servants two pence apiece for _Glove-Silver_ in Autumn. [Hist. of Hawsted. 190.]

The rural Bridegroom, in Laneham's (or Langham's) Account of the Entertainment of Queen Elizabeth at Kenelworth Castle, 1575, had--a Payr of _Harvest Gloves_ on his Hands, as a sign of good Husbandry. Id. in eod.

When Sir Thomas Pope, the Founder of Trinity College, Oxford, visited it, 1556, "The Bursars offered him a present of embroidered _Gloves_." [Warton's Life of Sir Thomas Pope, p. 119.]

When Sir Thomas Pope had founded the College, the University complimented him with a Letter of Thanks, which was accompanied with a Present of _rich Gloves_, 1556. [Warton's Life, p. 132, note.] The Gloves were sent both to himself and Lady, and cost 6_s._ 8_d._ [Id. in eod.]

After the death of Sir Thomas Pope, his Widow married Sir Hugh Powlett; on which occasion the College presented her, as the Wife of the Founder, with a Pair of very rich Gloves, the charge for which runs--Pro _Pari Chirothecarum_ dat. Dom. Powlett et Domine Fundatrici, xvi s. Idem, p. 185. See also p. 191, ubi sæpe; and p. 411. "Pro Chirothecis Magistri Pope, xxxii s.

An article charged in the Bursar's books of Trinity College, Oxford, is "pro fumigatis _Chirothecis_." [Warton.] These were often given to College-Tenants, and Guests of Distinction; but this fell into disuse soon after the Reign of Charles I. Idem. [Grose.]

George Clifford, Earl of Cumberland, received a _Glove_ from Queen Elizabeth. The Queen had dropped it, when he taking it up to return to her, she presented it to him as a mark of her esteem. He adorned it with Jewels, and wore it in the front of his Hat on days of Tournaments. It is expressed in a print of him by Robert White. [Bray's Tour, p. 319.]

See for Gloves worn in Hats, Old Plays, vol. ii. p. 132, second edition: King Lear, act iii. sc. 4. edit, 1778 by Johnson and Steevens.

N. B. Such Tokens as these were called _Favours_[375], from whence we derive the term for Ribbons given on Weddings. I presume they are supposed to be given by the hand of the Bride.

[375] See Walpole's Royal and Noble Authors, vol. i. p. 131. So
Shakspeare, Richard II. act v. sc. 2.

Dr. Glisson, in his last visit to Queen Elizabeth, received from her a Pair of rich Spanish leather _Gloves_, embossed on the backs and tops with gold embroidery, and fringed round with gold plate. The Queen, as he tells us, pulled them from her own Royal Hands, saying, "Here, Glisson, wear them for my sake." Life of Corinna (or Mrs. Eliz. Thomas), p. xxxi.

Perfumed Gloves[376]; v. supra.

[376] Mistress of the _Sweet_-Coffers, occurs in the Old
Establishments. The present Queen (Charlotte) has her Gloves kept in
a _perfumed_ box.

"These Gloves the Count sent me; they are an excellent _Perfume_."

Much Ado about Nothing, act ii. sc. 4.

Gloves given at Weddings. Old Plays, vol. v. p. 8.

A Glove hung up in a Church, as a public Challenge. Gilpin's Life of Bernard Gilpin, by Mr. Gilpin, p. 179.

Swearing by Gloves, in jocular conversation, very common. "Aye, by these Gloves!" is an expression I have somewhere seen.

Ladies' Sleeves, as well as Gloves, were worn as tokens of Gallantry. Vide Troil. and Cress, act. v. sc. 2. edit. Johnson and Steevens, 1778.

Gifts that admitted of it (especially to Women from Men) were usually worn on the Sleeve.

"I knew her by this Jewel on her _Sleeve_."

Love's Labour Lost, act v. sc. 1.

Fairings, and such Tokens, were of this sort. Hence the Question and Answer.

Q. What have you brought me? (from the Fair, &c.) A. A _new
nothing_, to pin on your _Sleeve_.

Hence also to _pin_ one's _Faith_ upon another's _Sleeve_.

"Wear my Heart upon my Sleeve."

Othello, act i. sc. 1.

* * * * *

F. GROSE, Esq. to S. PEGGE, F. S. A.

September 4, 1784.

Dear Sir,

I have had such a variety of interruptions (agreeable ones),
that I have made no hand of your _Gloves:_ all that has occurred
on that subject, I here send you.

Blood, who attempted to steal the Crown, presented Mr. Edwards,
Keeper of the Jewel Office, with _four_ Pair of White Gloves,
as from his Wife, in gratitude for his civility to her in
a pretended qualm or sickness. The whole transaction is in
Maitland's History of London.

To give one's Glove was considered as a challenge. See
Shakspeare, in Hen. V. It is still considered in that light by
the Highlanders, of which I once saw an instance in Flanders.
Dropping the Gauntlet, at the Coronation, is a kind of challenge.

When the Judge invites the Justices to dine with him at a County
Assize, a Glove is handed about by the Crier or Clerk of the
Court, who delivers the invitation; into this Glove every one
invited puts a shilling.

A Bribe is called a Pair of Gloves.

In a Play, I think called the Twin Rivals, an Alderman presents
his Glove, filled with Broad Pieces, to a Nobleman, as a Bribe
to procure a Commission for his Son.

Item, for three dozen Leder Gloves, 12s. Vide Account of Henry
VII. in Remembrancer's Office.

I set off next week for Christchurch, where I propose staying a
month, or six weeks at farthest. My best wishes attend you and
yours.

Adieu!

F. GROSE.

ERMINE

GENTLEWOMEN'S APPAREL.

What we call _Ermine_ is an erroneous conception, for we give the name to White Fur tufted with Black, whereas it is the Black only that is properly Ermine, of which numberless instances may be produced, and this is one.

_Powderings on her Bonnet._--This may require an explanation to those who are unacquainted with the language of that age. What we call Ermine, is a compound, which will bear a little analysis, for it is formed of the Fur of one animal, and the tip of the Tail of another. The White Ground is, properly speaking, _Minever_, so called from a Russian animal of that name. [v. Philips's Dictionary, in voce.] The Ermine is the Armenian Mouse, the tip of whose Tail is Black, which being placed as a falling tuft upon the Minever, forms what we collectively call Ermine, the value of which is enhanced the more, as one animal can afford but one tuft. [v. Bailey's Dict, in voce.] Every one of these tufts is termed a _Powdering_.

The Heralds make a distinction between the singular _Ermine_, and the Plural, _Ermines_; the latter, in their language, importing Black powdered with White: and they go into still more minute modifications, _Erminois_, &c.

APPAREL FOR THE HEADS OF GENTLEWOMEN.

First, none shall wear an Ermine, or Lettice-Bonnet, unless she be a Gentlewoman born, having Arms.

Item, a _Gentleman_'s Wife, she being a Gentlewoman born, shall wear an Ermine or Lettice Bonnet, having _one_ Powdering in the Top. And if she be of honourable stock, to have _two_ Powderings, one before another, in the Top.

Item, an _Esquire_'s Wife to have _two_ Powderings.

Item, an _Esquire_'s Wife _for the Body_ to wear _five_ Powderings; and if she be of great Blood, _two_ before, which maketh seven.

Item, a _Knight_'s Wife to wear on her Bonnet, _seven_ Powderings, or _eight_ at the most, because of higher Blood, as before.

Item, a _Banneret_'s Wife to wear _ten_ Powderings.

Item, a _Baron_'s Wife _thirteen_.

Item, a _Viscount_'s [Wife] to wear _eighteen_.

Item, a _Countess_ to wear _twenty-four_. And above that Estate the number convenient, at their pleasures.

Ex Bibl. Harl. No. 1776. fol. 31. b.

MOURNING.

The French Queens, before the Reign of Charles VIII. wore _White_ upon the death of the King; and were called "_Reines Blanches_." It was changed to _Black_ on the death of Charles VIII. 1498. [See P. Dan. Hist. iv. 590.]

In a Wardrobe account for half a year, to Lady-day 1684 (a MS. purchased by Mr. Brander at the sale of the Library of Geo. Scot, Esq. of Woolston-Hall, 1781), are the following entries for the King's Mourning.

"A Grey Coat lined with Murrey and White flowered Silk, with Gold Loops, and four Crape Hat-bands."

Again, "A Sad-coloured Silk Coat, lined with Gold-striped Lutestring, with Silver-and-Silk Buttons; and a Purple Crape Hatband."

Again, "A Purple Coat."

The Emperor Leopold, who died 1705, never shaved his Beard during the time of Mourning, which often lasted for a long time. [Bancks's Hist. of Austria, p. 277.]

The Empress-Dowagers never lay aside their Mourning, and even their Apartments are hung with Black till their deaths. [Bancks's Hist. of Austria, p. 400. He says this from Baron Polnitz's Memoirs, vol. iv. p. 46.]

The Bavarian Family never give a Black Livery, or line their Coaches, in the deepest Mourning. [Polnitz, i. letter 22.]

The Pope's Nieces never wear Mourning, not even for their nearest Relations; as the Romans reckon it so great a happiness for a Family to have a Pope in it, that nothing ought to afflict his Holiness's kindred. [Polnitz's Memoirs, ii. letter 33.]

Queen Anne, on the death of Prince George of Denmark, wore Black and White, with a mixture of Purple in some part of her Dress. The precedent was taken from that worn by Mary Queen of Scots for the Earl of Darnley, which was exactly in point. [Secret History of England, ii. 299.]

King Charles I. put the Court into Mourning for one Day on the death of the Earl of Portland (Richard Weston), Lord High Treasurer. [Stafford's Letters, i. 389.]

BEARD, &c.

CHARLES I.[377]--WILLIAM I.

[377] See "The Life of Corinna," or Mrs. Elizabeth Thomas, Jun.
Printed in 1731.

Mrs. Thomas's Great Grand-Father was Mr. Richard _Shute_, a Turkey Merchant, one of the Members for the City of London, and much favoured by King Charles I. who gave him the Name of _Sattin_-Shute, by way of distinction from another Branch of the same Name and Family, and from his usually wearing a _Sattin_ Doublet cut upon White Taffata.

"Without doubt," says Mrs. Thomas (for she was her own Biographer), "he was very nice in the mode of that Age, his Valet being some hours every morning in _starching_ his _Beard_, and _curling_ his _Whiskers_; but," continues she, "during that time a Gentleman, whom he maintained as a Companion, always read to him on some useful subject." He lived in Leaden-Hall Street, the site on which stands the India House, and had a Country-seat at Berking, in Essex. Here he had a very fine Bowling-green, as he delighted much in that exercise. The King, who was fond of the diversion, once told Mr. Shute, he would dine with him some day, and try his skill on his Bowling-green. The King went, and was so pleased with the place, it being very retired, and likewise with Mr. Shute's skill in Bowling (he being accounted one of the best Bowlers of his time), that he frequently visited afterwards Berking-Hall, without any Guards, and with three or four select Gentlemen, his attendants, when, as the King expressed it, he had a mind to _drop State, and enjoy himself as a private man_:--"_Ah, Shute_," said he one day, with a deep sigh, "how much happier than I art thou, in this blessed retirement, free from the cares of a Crown, a factious Ministry, and rebellious Subjects!" They generally played high, and punctually paid their losings; and though Mr. Shute often won, yet the King would, one day, set higher than usual, and, having lost several games, gave over; when Mr. Shute said,--"An please your Majesty, _One thousand pounds rubber more, perhaps Luck may turn_:"--"_No, Shute_," replied the King, laying his hand gently on his shoulder, "_Thou hast won the day, and much good may it do thee, but I must remember I have a Wife and Children_." P. xxi.

This place was afterwards dismantled by Mr. Shute's heir, and in a few years became a ploughed field. The King gave Mr. Shute several places; among which were the Deputy Lieutenancy of the Ordnance, and the Mastership of St. Cross's Hospital, to the amount of four thousand pounds _per annum_. P. xxv.

These he gave up when the Civil War broke out; and retired to Hamburgh, where he died a few years after the death of the King. P. xxvii.

William the Conqueror played _deep_; for, tradition says, that Walter Fitzbourne, a Norman Knight, and great Favourite of the King, playing at Chess on a Summer's evening, on the banks of the _Ouse_, with the King, won all he played for. The King threw down the Board, saying he had nothing more to play for. "Sir," said Sir Walter, "here is land." "There is so," replied the King; "and if thou beatest me this Game also, thine be all the Land on this side the Bourne, or River, which thou canst see as thou sittest." He had the good fortune to _win_; and the King, clapping him on the shoulder, said, "Henceforth thou shalt no more be called _Fitzbourne_, but _Ousebourne_."' Hence it is supposed came the name of _Osborne_. Life of Corinna, p. xxviii.

WESTMINSTER.

Lord Coke, in his 3d Inst. (cap. 51.) speaking of the City of Westminster, says, "It hath its name of 'the Monastery,' which _Minster_ signifieth, and it is called _West_minster, in respect of _East_minster, not far from the Tower of London. This Westminster, Sebert, the first King of the East Saxons that was christened, founded." It is added in a note in the margin, Segbert began his Reign A. D. 603.

Lord Coke, however excellent a Lawyer, I fear was but a bad Antiquary; for the reverse rather seems to be the case, as it will appear that _East_minster was so called in respect of _West_minster. For in Stowe's Survey of London (edit. 1633), p. 497, he gives the following account of the Foundation of the Church of Westminster:--"This Monasterie was founded and builded in the year 605, by Sebert, King of the East Saxons, upon the perswasion of Ethelbert, King of Kent, who, having embraced Christianity, and being baptized by Melitus, Bishop of London, immediately (to shew himself a Christian indede) built a Church to the honor of God and St. Peter, on the West side of the City of London, in a place, which (because it was overgrown with thornes, and environed with water) the Saxons called 'Thornez,' or 'Thorney;' ... whereupon, partly from the situation to the _West_, and partly from the Monasterie or _Minster_, it began to take the name of _Westminster_:" and then he goes on with the history of that Church.

So far of Westminster. Of Eastminster Stowe gives the following account, by which it will appear that the foundation of Eastminster was subsequent to that of Westminster, by at least 700 years. "In the year 1348," says he, "the 23d of Edward the Third, the first great Pestilence in his time began, and increased so sore, that for want of roome in Church-yards to bury the dead of the City and of the Suburbs, one John Corey, Clerke, procured of Nicholas, Prior of the Holy Trinity within Ealdgate, one toft of ground neere unto East Smithfield, for the buriall of them that dyed; with condition, that it might be called the Church-yard of the Holy Trinity: which ground he caused, by the ayd of divers devout Citizens, to be inclosed with a wall of stone; ... and the same was dedicated by Ralfe Stratford, Bishop of London, where innumerable bodies of the dead, were afterwards buried, and a Chapel built in the same place to the honour of God; to the which King Edward setting his eye (having before, in a tempest on the sea, and peril of drowning, made a vow to build a Monastery to the honour of God, and _our Lady of Grace_, if God would give him _grace_ to come safe to land), builded there a Monasterie, causing it to be named _Eastminster_, placing an Abbot and Monks of the Cistercian or White order." P. 117.

In Stowe, p. 751, is a list of all the "Patrones of all the Benefices in London," in which this Foundation seems to be twice mentioned, first as the "Abbey of White Monks," and then as "Mary de Grace, an Abbey of Monkes, by the Towre of London."

MEMORANDA

RELATIVE TO THE

Society of the Temple,

LONDON;

_Written in or about the Year 1760._

The Societies of the Temple have no Charter; but the Fee was granted by a Patent to the Professors and Students of the Law, to them and their Successors for ever.

The King is Visitor of the Temples; and orders have been sent down from him so lately as Charles the Second's time, for the Regulation of them, which were brought in great form by the Lord Chancellor and twelve Judges, and signed by them.

The _Discipline_ of these Societies was formerly, till within these eighty years, very strict. The Students appeared, upon all occasions, and in all places, in their proper habits; and for neglecting to appear in such habit, or for want of decency in it, they were punished by being put two years backward in their standing. This habit was discontinued, because the Templars having been guilty of riots in some parts of the town, being known by their habits to be such, a reproach was thereby reflected on the Society, for want of discipline.

_Commons._--Till there was a relaxation of discipline, the Commons were continued in the Vacation as well as in the Terms; and the Members obliged to attend, upon severe penalties for neglect of it. The Barristers, though they were called to their degree, were not admitted to practise, but by special leave from the Judges, till three years after their call, during which their attendance to Commons, both in Term and Vacation, was not to be compounded for, or dispensed with.

The Law Societies were, at first, under one general regulation and establishment, till they branched out, and divided, as it were, into Colonies. The Societies of each Temple are very zealous in contending for the Antiquity of their Society.

_The Society of the Middle Temple_ must now be very rich; and it consists in money, they having no real estate. I have been assured, that the certain yearly expences of it, exclusive of repairs, amounts to a considerable sum.

The _Benchers_ are generally in number about twenty, though there is no fixed number. They may be called to the Bench at eighteen or twenty years standing. The Bench have power to call whom they think proper of such standing to the Bench; which if they answer not, they pay a Fine of Fifty Pounds.

The Benchers eat at their own expence in this Society, having nothing allowed but their Commons; which few, I believe none, of the Benchers of the other Houses do.

The _Readings_, which generally were upon some Statute, continued about eight days, when there were Treats and Balls at the Reader's expence; and there is an Order of the House, of no very old date, by which the Reader was restrained from having above Eight Servants, which shews, in some measure, the luxury and expence attending them. They have now been discontinued upwards of seventy years (the last Reader being Sir William Whitlocke, 1684); but there is a Reader still appointed every year, and some small Treat, at the expence of the Society, of Venison, &c.; and the Arms of the Reader are put up in a Pannel in the Hall.

Mr. Bohun, the Writer of several excellent Books in different branches of the Law, having, when he was Reader at New Inn, put up a question tending to Blasphemy, (I think it was, whether the Person of our Saviour was God,) was _excommoned_ by the Society; that is, he was denied the privilege of coming into the Hall, and at the same time obliged to pay for full Commons. They judged expulsion too mild a punishment.

The _Old Hall_ stood on the South side of Pump Court, which, upon building a new one, was converted into Sets of Chambers; and which, by Order of Queen Elizabeth, were not to exceed eight in number. This was soon after pulled down, and Chambers built in its stead.

_Library._--Left by Will to the Society, by Astley, a Bencher of it. It contains about Nine Thousand Volumes. Besides this, he left a Set of Chambers, value three hundred pounds, for the maintenance of a Librarian, who at first was a Barrister; but, not being thought worth their acceptance, it is now in the Butler.

_Present Hall._--Built by Plowden, who was seven years in perfecting it. He was three years Treasurer successively; and after he quitted the Treasurership, he still continued the direction of the Building.